Search results

And yet my daughters favorite game for the ipad is Tetris. The fact that times evolve doesnt mean that good game design gets old. Now, there is a truth in your statement. There are alot of things from the old games I distinctly do not want to see the return of (Variable XP by class, Level...

I was a 4e junky for a while. By the time we finished playing I was tired of AEDU. It wasnt too bad for the wizard (to be honest, I thought the Mage from essentials was pretty good) or the cleric, but for martial classes? Oh please no never again.

Before drawing that conclussion, go and read some of the FATE variants out there. They actually place fate points as central to the entire design, and its a rather brilliant idea. The FATE system is really cool. I wont say action points are required all the time, but saying they indicate a...

Dont get me wrong, I actually like the idea in my own way and voted yes as a module. Many evolutions have spawned out of RPG's in the past 30 years, some good, some bad. By saying "come on, its 2012!" sort of implies that the "action point" idea is an evolution that is a fore-gone conclusion as...

Thas was my exact same thought with MM. Not a huge amount of damage, but fair with auto hit at a huge range and you can split it. Truely worthy of being a first level spell.

Thanks for pointing out the links, it appears I had my terminology wrong. Doesnt actually change the point of my post, but its good to know.

I love the idea of sacrificing higher level slots to cast spells with more oomph. Its just an awesome idea. You made CAN toss a 10d6 fireball, but he gives up a 9th level slot for it (plucking numbers out of the air there, please dont respond on "your numbers are bad" basis). It make it...

Im pretty much at the point where I think they are justified (read the threads, assimilated the arguments, and voted from rangers as classes. Tick). But Im having trouble understanding how sub-classes are a separate concept from themes.

I dont object to the concept, in fact I liked that there is variation. But dont themes occupy this design space?

This idea of spells not scaling really puts a smile on my face. It not only limits the quadratic growth of focused casters, it also lends feasibility to tinkerers. I hated in 3e adding a mage level onto my fighter and thinking "woohoo, fighter/mage, awesome" only to discover spells had a 1...

Honestly, my hope is that they have something REAL simple for equipment. I hate wasting time counting coppers to ensure everyone has a rope, or the thief has thief tools e.t.c. (Lets face it...when dont they?) Im really hoping for a option for greatly simplified equipment. Like a climbers pack...

Is that assuming that they are going to be in the same form as 4e had them? Then yes, they would screw game balance. But if you read the OP's post he did actually comment on implementation or frequency of gain. He simply put forward that suggestion of an external resource player could use to...

Aside from fighters surge (which is sorta like that) I do like them, but not the way they have been done. I dont like them as some "once every X(days?)" resource. I like them as a number of uses every time you sit down. So for instance, per play session. Sounds weird right? I like players to...

You call it junk, I dont. On some levels, I actually like the approach. Im after narrative style play (which I think you call "anti-simulationist") and absoultes work well for that : easy decisions keep play fast and let the story roll forward. It isnt as well suited to the "Diablo" style...

I dont think anyone is trying to do that. Why would we? We all love the game and the wizard is an integral part of it. Give your fellow posters some credit.

I found the slayer to be the best piece of design to come out of 4e. Simple, potent, distinct, playable. I know alot of people disagree on this, but the slayer was bang on for what I was looking for in a fighter. If the finally composed fighter (including themes and background) reached this...

Im for background + Bezerker theme. That said, I just got through accepting that people really want ranger and paladin as a class. I dont necessarily agree, but I accept the concensus. Now, if I accept that paladin and ranger are classes, how can I not accept the same for the barbarian?

Over 1 small detail? These "do it my way or I wont buy your product" posts are great for other forums, there not-contributory here.

Yea, martial characters are like a hamburger to me. Always reliably tasty, but not fancy. I like simple and potent. My players want the martial characters playable without having to study nuance. That said, the option to trade in some expanded options sounds really intriguing. Im interested...

To the OP, the only thing in your post that really sang to me was the line "I may be overreacting". Im not sure if it was your use of language (Using F.F.S. doesnt endear people) or the Mike Mearls takedown, but it was a hard post to take seriously. By the end of reading it I just rolled my...