Search results

Exalted is a dice pool system right? I've not played it, but got the impression it was more freeform than the rigid mechanics of D&D. I don't know anything about FATE, but wikipedia suggests there isn't much dice rolling. I guess the rules could still be fairly rigid though. d20 was hugely...

Well, to be honest, no, it's a mess, but I think Mike's proposal will result in a mess anyway.

It does move away from traditional D&D, yes, but I feel it continues the line from 1E through to 2E to 3E - each edition streamlined and formalised a few more rules. 3E never went far enough with spellcasting though, leaving it special and thus more powerful. 4E took a step back towards...

I thought about this at some length also. It would definitely work, but you have to be careful how you structure the skill system. I came up with the following: Skills cover everything, including magic. They are divided into several categories: Arms and Armour, Arcana, Divinity, Trickery and...

If feats shouldn't provide boring bonuses, but should open up new abilities, or make existing abilities work differently, then do you really need them to be effective in combat? Let's compare a Fighter who has chosen a speciality such as Archer, or Survivor, to a Fighter who hasn't (or a...

I can't believe you're arguing about the size of a cow :D <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wpmzS9mjz_I?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think that previous swarm rules have always worked quite well. Only some kinds of attacks will work against a mass of many individuals. Perhaps they are a little too deadly on the offensive side - they could have a built in death spiral so that their damage output was based on their remaining...

Well, I think they have a tough job on their hands. My personal preference for a default system would be something completely new, that moves away from spell levels and caster level and makes magic more modular, like combat abilities have always really been. However, in reality, I would say...

I disagree. Many people are calling for more tactical combat options, such as a grid, and a return to standard/move/minor actions. I'm sure some people would like to see the return of weapon damage type vs. armour type mechanics. There are probably some people that find attack vs. AC too...

I certainly don't want to *have to* gain some new combat ability at fixed levels, it's nice to develop a character in other directions, but I understand the desire to avoid trap choices. Allowing any character to specialise too heavily in one area is usually bad for the game and the DM's sanity...

A) Looks like an orc or half-orc. Nothing very Cloud Giant about it to me. Surely if they enjoy the finer things in life, they'd wear shoes? Clubs are hardly the snazziest weapon either. B) I sort of see it, but it looks more like a confused old man. C) Sure, looking close, the lack of...

Natural selection! They're always deliberately fighting magic-users, and only the resistant ones survive to reproduce. Generally I like giants. I'd like to know a bit more about their societies though.

If you read what I wrote carefully, I said that if 90% of the survey respondents prefer a particular edition, you shouldn't assume that 90% of the opinion of the market you are aiming at think as they do, that is, if you are aiming at a market that is 50% that group and 50% other...

I meant that the effects of a spell were determined both by the spell level and the caster's level. This extended the usefulness of low-level spells, adding power in a third way (on top of more spells and higher level spells). DCs didn't help much, there were plenty of spells without saves, and...

Oh, I do, because there were too many problems with spellcasters in previous editions. I'm not balance-crazy, but Wizards just kept getting more spells, and low-level spell slots were always still useful, and then in 3rd edition they all became caster-level based, so we had a cubic growth in...

Right, so, why are they making a new edition? They may as well make 4.5 right, if there's no hope of attracting back 3.5 and Pathfinder fans?

Right now, on the WotC boards especially, there is a huge pro-4E confirmation bias. So I really don't know what you're talking about.

So, er, don't make them all the highest level? In this system you might still have 1x9, 2x8, 3x7 but nothing lower. Your 9th could be a magic missile battery or something more traditional like wail of the banshee.

Would you accept a system in which traditional 'low-level' spells could be prepared in higher level slots, and thus became more powerful, and in which spell slots migrated to higher levels rather than continually increased?

That would sort of defeat the point of spell levels no? If low-level spells were as useul as high-level spells at high level. I'd be happy with that, sign me up.