Search results

If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time? Sure, people can learn from experience. It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the...

I don't remember any SKR rants. I can still use my 1e and 2e books to provide background and adventure seeds in v3.5. I don't think I'll even be able to use my v3.5 books in this capacity for 4e. That much is changing. The nature of the races and the classes and magic and the gods is...

I know this. I was just pointing out the reason why some people might have this impression. In any case, it is ambiguous and misleading terminology. Why use the word "core" in 4e to mean something different than what was established in the past with 3e?

According to the Unofficial D&D 4e News Page here, there is a podcast that states: "The meaning of "Core": will include expansions and D&D Insider materials, not just the first three books, when referred to by WotC." *shrugs* Make of that what you will. Of course not. But if someone says...

Heh heh heh. :p

I think part of the problem with the impressions about DDI being necessary for play is because WotC is referring to that information as Core (even if it isn't REALLY core). In any case, I've also gotten an impression, not completely reasonable, that WotC is trying to imply that D&D is not fun...

Mourn! What a pleasant surprise! It's a small world. What in the world are you doing HERE, though? I thought you were switching to D&D 4e.... It would probably be more effective if you flashed your badge before giving an order like that. That way people will jump right to it. :D

Ha!

Thank you for your participation.

I'm all for encounters with dragons being tough and memorable, but this one seems like overkill. I'm sure it will be memorable, though. After all, I always remember when my character is slaughtered. :p

Sorry for being unclear, but my rant really wasn't directed at this particular issue, but rather at a trend I've seen lately of people responding to 4e criticism by saying something like, "Well, well, you v3.5 grognard, your precious edition of the game also had a similar rule, so nyah nyah."...

Your players are just preparing themselves for the change the world will undergo when Cthulhu rises from his watery slumber. :p

Which is what I said.

Ahh, democracy in action! 80% people are all for something, and the minority can take a hike. :)

It doesn't matter if the rule existed already in v3.5. It seems like a bad rule to me. I really hope something like this rule doesn't get ported over into the full 4e game. It already seems much too ...ambivalent....to me. (And, to rant a bit, I wish people would stop bring up v3.5 to defend...

Whoah! That sucks, man! I am so sorry to hear about that. :( *hugs*

I like it here. And I love Wormwood. :o

I tend to agree with this sentiment, although I won't go so far as to call the poster irrational and inconsiderate. That's fairly harsh. It does seem pretty hasty to me to decide months in advance of even seeing the rules that the whole game is going to switch over to the new edition and that...

A system that expects fighters to wear heavy armor?

It seems to me that house rules are now built into the system, as odd as that may sound.... :uhoh: