Search results

Well... If nothing else it was HONEST game design. It didn't try to trick you into thinking that you could do everything with one class. It told you from the get go what you were getting into so if you didn't like that you'd knew right away. And D&D is supposed to be a group activity, a team...

Roles were a good thing actually and made for better designed class. It also meant that no class was designed to play in isolation and that teamwork was rewarded all the time. But really it's that last part that was the big rub wasn't it? That the GAME treated it's rulles like the rules of a...

I thought I was clear I was just expressing my opinion on Skill Challenge? In my experience you're right, running it too formally just feels like another combat encounter, that's why I suggested not drawing too much attention to the structure. For what it's worth, my PC actually enjoyed...

That's a fair difference. But also, I don't think that it would have changed much if Encounter powers had been called 'Short Rest Powers', but might have shifted the perspective.

Why would that happen? Not every failiure has the same effect. Again, they're not supposed to realize you're counting up successes and failures. They're just trying to accomplish a thing as a team and you track their success and failures to help you know what the consequences would be. I'd ask...

In both. The 4e Short Rest is 5 minutes, the 5e short rest is one hour. Both games have the same round length. No ambiguity. 4e calls them 'Encounter Power' but it's the same damn thing as a Short Rest power because they recharge on a Short Rest, only that a 4e Short Rest is ACTUALLY short. An...

Yes it does, don't kid yourself. It doesn't actually. There is no world, just the DM's imagination. You can get immersed in that world all you want, it doesn't change the reality you are essentially directing a play and the freedom that entails. Yeah and all of these can happen off screen and...

There is no way a level is not a game concept. And if something scares the PLAYER then isn't that a dissociated mechanic? It should scare the characters first. Again, why does draining vitality have to be represented specifically by lowering your level? Why not just say 'You can't recover Hit...

That’s a good point. The Fighter isn’t allowed to excel or have anything that really stand out in battle. They should have kept the Fighter ‘sticky’. The part of the Sentinel feat where you reduce the speed of someone you it with an OA should be a basic part of the Fighter, it would at least be...

That feels like a pretty meta way to look at it. Seems to me the appeal isn't the condition itself, but rather it's duration. 4e had the disease track, which could be used for curses and long lasting injury and I think that mechanic REALLY should be brought back. I have my 4e books at home

That's a very good point. I voted for Fighter but it also doesn't mean I ACTUALLY want it remove, mind you. Maybe these base class with strong subclass flavour would work better if they got subclass earlier? If the Wizard, Fighter, Rogue and Cleric all got their subclass at first level...

Be my guest! :D

And Intimidate was ALWAYS the WORST skill to use...

What's this fascination with level drain (and ability drain for that matter) anyway? You're not the only person I see lamenting the lack of this mechanic. What's so great about it? It feels like such a gamist concept to me because a level is just a game mechanic. What even IS a 'Level Drain' in...

I tried to make a Rogue-is Trickery Cleric, more than once, and failed everytime. Trickery is like the worst domain and Clerics really only have two flavours (Laser and Melee), the domains are basically garnish. Same here. I'm playing a class-based game because I like classes and I'd rather...

What, exactly, is SOOOO exotic about the current Fighter class that it doesn't fit as a generic feature???

Doesn't mean the Wizard has an identity. it just has better mechanics. 4e had fantastic lore around the Primal Spirits, you should read the fluff in Primal Power.

Sorcerer bloodlines were introduced in 4e, but otherwise I agree.

The Wizard's whole identity is only mechanical: Spell book class feature, lots of spells in their progression, and the splitting of spells into 8 arbitrary grouping that don't always make sense at all. The Wizard has no other identity beyond that.

The Rogue framework served me well through multiple incarnations. My last one could have gone through another iteration or more for sure. I liked that the subclass framework was just meaty enough to add lots of flavour to my various subclass ideas. And we could always use another class with...