Search results

3e was the first edition to have skills in the core of the game. A lot of people think that skills were detrimental to the RP parts of the game, not vice versa (I'm not making that point myself, but it's not an uncommon claim).

a) As many as are needed to flesh out the themes. I assume that some themes are going to partly use some of the same feats. b) I'm more excited about themes than I ever was about feats.

Yup. I've gone through that cycle at least twice and am probably going through it again now.

Yeah, I do that. I always adapt to the "core" edition I'm playing, though, and I do it mostly on the DM's side. I don't really mix player material much.

Does anyone have any idea how much Ed Greenwood's vision of FR is different from TSR/WotC's?

I want the well oiled machine of 4e, without it's limits; the character customization of 3e, without it being mandatory; the polished variety of 2e, without it killing the publisher; the module quality of 1e; the feel of BECMI; and finally, the system modularity of GURPS. So yeah. Ain't gonna...

While I wouldn't mind some kind of seperation between Attack and Utility spells in their presentation (or rather, not have it be one long list of hundreds of spells, however they divide it), I don't really like the A&U slot seperation in 4e that much. Not for Wizards, anyway.

Yeah, I must confess that while I used to go to great lengths to justify such things, today I tend to just pummel players with the Club of "This is annoying!".

We abandoned that in our 4e game. Rolling for Detect Magic in every room became unsufferable. It's still an action, but one that does not require a roll and only requires you to be trained in Arcana (or Religion/Nature, depending on the power source).

It's not necessarily a question of thinking you know better than the designers (not for me, anyway; I trust the designers to create a good, playable game), as much as it is getting exactly the play experience you want out of a system. All in all, I'm much less likely to houserule the micro than...

That is highly dependant on the rate of which the combatants are losing HP. If it's turn-after-turn of multiple "You hit; roll damage. He hits; rolling damage." then only the heavy and important hits are going to receive in-depth narration after a few rounds. If only to keep things going...

I was having a similar thought, only reversed. But that seems like a good point for moving on.

Depends. If there are no high-strength characters in the party, I see no reason why they should be able to break open a door without breaking a sweat, high levels or not. Probably not gonna stop them longer than a turn or two, but with the Armies of Hell hot on their heels, those can be...

Like arguing on the internet.

Well, according to what has been said, the planned seeding of the next batch is in 2-4 weeks (last I heard). If they keep to that release schedule (new batch every 4-6 weeks) and that it's probably going to be a few batches before we get any substantial character generation, then I think that...

I voted Complete, but it depends on a number of factors, including how malleable a system is. I won't hesitate to do sweeping changes to get exactly the experience I want out of a system, but whether I bother to do so depends on how receptive the mechanics are to such changes and how much of a...

Yeah, or switch checks to d20 + Ability Scores; the fulfillment of PCs' true potential.

Yup, I had the exact same reaction. At first I shook my head in frustration, but then I noticed that most of the spells had standardized durations. So, if they keep them standardized, I'm happy.

Take a club and up it's damage die by one.

I like this for the back cover.