Search results

Almost all of the problems :) XP in Next serve two purposes: tracking progress towards level-up AND estimating the difficulty of an encounter. "You level when you level" fixes the first problem, but leaves us needing a fix for the second one. Monster level is an okay number to use for this...

I'd take it, as long as they added a few more categories. The gap between minion (dies in one hit -- or less, with cleave!) and standard (takes 3-4 hits to go down) was too wide. There needs to be a 2-3 hit guy in between there. And, of course, "solo" isn't the right designation with eight...

Not the biggest problem, but still. I don't like having an XP budget to fill from various monsters, who are each also listed with a level. It's mostly because I can't easily do the math in my head -- there's no quick "5 players of level 7 means 350 points worth of monster" equivalence I can do...

Oh man. Even better idea, make the spellbook into a feature. For real. Actual, real, class feature. So every character has "spells memorized", that's pretty straightforward; pick your level +1 spells from those you have access to; no changes from the current rules. In order to change the spells...

Or redesign the races to pace out their handouts. This is kind of like the multiclassing problem, where level one needs to give enough to be worthwhile, while the later levels don't. Say we balance the humans by giving them enough backgrounds that you feel like it's even. There must be one...

Even if we say that the clerics have limited spells known, they needn't have a literal spellbook. It may help to have slightly different phraseology. Clerics don't cast "spells", they invoke "miracles". A cleric knows the same number of miracles that a wizard would. They learn new miracles...

I've posted a thread on this, but I still think it makes the most sense to have specialties, backgrounds, and races each be a little closer to each other in terms of mechanical impact. Then make "human" mean that rather than selecting a race, you selected a second specialty (or background)...

I dunno -- do you really think there's no space for feats there? Because to me, the space between feats and class features is minimal. But you're right, I really blew the poll options. Planning is fundamental!

Ah! So, "anything not skills-as-they're-building-them" based. I strongly agree, but it looks like we're in the minority, based on my cunningly-worded poll. C'est la vie!

I feel like I agree with everything you've said up until the conclusion, when I suddenly disagree :-) I mean, it sounds like you favor a version which is pretty similar to 3e or 4e, in that it's opposed checks. Fine! If you want to let characters specialize at all (I do! I do!), which sort...

I personally would put that in the two skill bucket -- I see why one might quibble that three and two are a little different, but what's one to do? I don't feel that merely by being the current setting, we should specially privilege anything. If you like skills for this, you have to pick either...

I like the shape of it! I'm curious about specifics -- what is "1/2 of their daily resources"? In other words: Myrta the Magnificent: 5d4 hit dice 3x 1st level spells 2x 2nd level spells 1x 3rd level spells (numbers chosen somewhat at random, I don't remember what she'd actually get) If Myrta...

Sorry to fork threads, kerleth! I was reading the Stealth, Spot, and Listen thread and realized that it's a bit echo-chambery, because everyone has a strongly held opinion of how this should work, but it's kind of hard to keep all the different designs straight. At least for me. So: poll! No...

Yeah. Sorry for the rambling OP but I'm with you here too: I like the number and rough variety of choices, I just would like to see the slots organized differently. Diluting my own thread, but one of the early design goals was to make every stat matter to every character. I'd really like to see...

Depends whether we're following the AD&D line or the more general D&D line. I mean: every new edition changes the organization of character options to one degree or another, and that's basically all I'm discussing here. Still, I can appreciate where you're coming from -- thanks for the feedback!

I hear that's a pretty popular game. Some tabletop games have lots and lots of rules widgets you get to select for your character: GURPS, high level characters in any D&D, HERO. Others have merely lots of rules widgets: 4e characters. Others have very few: BECMI characters, FATE characters. Am...

Dungeons and Dragons has always had a character building -- maybe even character optimization -- minigame. I hate it, and always have. So there's my agenda: I will gladly sacrifice free choice at chargen time for fast, meaningful and simple choices. What Next has done to simplify chargen is...

Just to make sure you're aware: You can download it more than once, and you can sign up on their site to get email alerts when they update the pdf -- so you should only wait to preorder if you're trying to space out big expenditures or something. Since I didn't get the nifty preview certain...

Bestiality. Hear me out. Orcs are vaguely related to goblinoids (which are themselves fey-ish and more importantly fecund IMC); the goblins kidnap livestock and then some time later there's a true-breeding army of angry, strong, stupid pig-faced (or sheep-faced, or cow-faced) orcs coming down...

Voted "some other fantasy rpg" (see my .sig), but I play 4e, too. I just don't DM it. :)