Search results

Ok well, 5E won't be 4E. If you want to play 4E, you have 4E. 5E will be a step in a different direction because that's the entire point. It's not "how can I make this new edition into the edition I'd rather it be". So maybe a 4E player wouldn't want to take feat taxes. I didn't want to have...

I find it kind of odd people are complaining about feat taxes because they want to make the game into 4E...

This is still based on gut feeling. It's just they're getting the gut feeling out of the way before hand. Those values and what level spells show up at and such are all just gut feelings. You can't convert charm person into damage, at all. That gives you no concept of 'balance'. The balance...

They will find you and kill you. Abilities last? BLASPHEMER. Would be nifty though.

I think BAB as it exists in 3E can be modified. More the core being feats, skill ranks, saves and BAB in some form. Because I can agree to that to some degree. I do think there are problems there, but those are things that can be adjusted. To me the actual values aren't the foundation.

I believe it will most closely resemble 3E at the base level because I think at the very bottom level, 3E did basically everything right. It's after that foundation that things get messy. I think they will use that structural foundation and build on top of it differently than they did with 3E...

I don't quite get it either but I think it's more for people who have no baseline coming into the game. Obviously how common a certain class is is dependent on your campaign or adventure setting. Not what the rules say. I think common uncommon and rare are bad terms. More like core...

No. I would much rather see HP healing through resting (8 hours) sped up slightly than healing surges return.

Almost everything I would be disappointed about has been cleared up. A deal breaker though, can't much think of one. I guess total satisfaction with my current system and no money to spend on new books. That'd be it.

I'm not 100% sure you're being serious here. If you are, yes I agree. I think the reason they would want to lean towards powers is they fit with the modular nature they're aiming for. However I really want to see them reinforce the concept of ability scores and skills. I don't want things to...

I would like to see something extreme. There are enough kitchen sink settings that are plenty fleshed out. We definitely do not need more. It's hard for me to really think outside what has already been done. I'd like to see something with a more focused environment like Dark Sun and a more...

This discussion got pretty wild with the introduction of Gandalf. Just because Gandalf and Merlin represent the human archetype of a magic using character doesn't mean they represent anything like the wizard in dungeons and dragons. Those characters are examples of the modern foundation, not...

Well it makes sense since many feats were similar to powers. They gave you an alternate way to attack or gave you special bonuses and such when using some alternate. So will there still be other style feats then? power feats will just be sort of a sub category? soooo happy to see magic items...

I grew up playing 3E and todd lockwood's halflings are what I have always pictured (for D&D). However, there's nothing wrong with this. Just as there is a portly halfling there can be a sly and lithe halfling. No problem. As for the illustrations being modular. I think he meant the tone and...

Yeah I definitely agree about the XP comment. Having a flat xp amount is both simpler and to me makes a bit more sense though my only experience is 3.X/PF and 4E. I also believe magic items belong in the DMG. Or at least NOT in the phb. I think it makes magic items a bit too assumed and a bit...

If it doesn't bother you, why post? The guy didn't enjoy his experience with 4E. Instead of saying, "Ah, that's a shame, but don't you think it did some things nicely?" people simply need to find issue. We're talking about the future of the game, not what 4E is. So, to keep on topic: OP what...

Just because it's called a warlord doesn't mean it plays anything like a 4E warlord. Except in concept. That he's a sort of social fighter type. Like a tactician. Warlord was neat anyway.

I worked with a guy in college on a system that used this same principal. The initial reason was to make it so even 1st level characters had a chance against say 10th level characters. So a low level character is somewhat undifferentiated from the baseline for his class where as a high level...

Yep. This is how my players have always approached it. They usually look over the classes just to be inspired and then come up with some kind of concept they like. Then I suggest some stuff that would make that work and they take a look at the options. Add in Pathfinder's archetypes and really...

Your last statements leave no room to argue. SHAME! ;) Really though I see what you mean. I guess the difference is which is the focus of the character first and foremost. Being a fighter, or being a diplomat? The idea being both should be achievable to some extent from each direction. A...