Search results

I'd have to disagree. Unless you were making characters for a module or other prepared adventure, all characters started at 1st level. As I said earlier, this wasn't a punishment either. It was just an accepted fact, and it was presumed you would enjoy playing a new character.

Listen to Mr. Gygax then, and me the others who have said it then, that the classes are the roles. And 4th Edition shows that in at least one board game, there is shared fiction that affects the framing of challenges and the resolution of action declarations.

Much of the problem is the degree of performance demanded. I would be happy playing a character with day-to-day abilities. I would prefer the emphasis be put on individuality and the narrative, rather than the mechanics.

First, you make two assumptions when you say "...giving them better tools to do 'the things they've always tried to do' while having flexibility to do other things...". The first assumption is these things they've always tried to do are in fact their focus. The entire question is whether such...

Mostly pre-3e, and interestingly my one campaign experience with 3e went up to 6th level before it ended in a TPK. But I have read that fighters were sensational in 3e, even at maximum level. It varies table to table. 4th Edition is like a board game. The characters are all re-configured for...

Very restrictive, especially if you create abilities to focus on these artificial priorities.

Are you serious?

fighter or barbarian, great weapon or sharpshooter.

Another excellent post.

This is an excellent post. You really give a good treatment of the subjects. I'd like to say I never felt any class was a fifth wheel.

It doesn't matter anymore. I shall always play AD&D and BECMI, and think of them.

It was at the very beginning, when they announced they were making 5th Edition. They said we'd be able to play a character from any edition at the same table where other players have characters from different editions. This was discussed at wizards.com, and we concluded that Wizards of the...

The best light armor gives +2 AC, and if you take ability score increases into account all characters can easily manage the strength requirements for heavy armor.

It doesn't give them the same AC. Light armor is good for 1 or 2 AC points plus dexterity bonus, so with a 15 at best you're talking 13 or 14 AC compared to bigger numbers for heavy armor.

It would be a question of flexibility, not just the weight. D&D also doesn't really provide a detailed fatigue system, so I take some liberties in assigning limits. Armor is already weakened in 5th Edition, though, so it would touchy to apply this. It's an area with a lot of room for improvement.

Strength shouldn't let you move at full speed.

So it is a give away.

To say "this system is terrible" would be a world different from saying "they didn't do a very good job of it". You seem to think any expression of the latter, or in fact any serious criticism, is the same as the former. Perhaps compared to the latest editions and Pathfinder, 5th Edition does...

Your speed (movement rate in 5th Edition) is not reduced by medium or heavy armor that I can tell, though. If you use the variant encumbrance rules, you could easily get a reduced speed if you don't have a high strength, but a common strength score will work fine provided you don't carry a lot...

It needs a lot of attention. The 5th Edition is trying to reunite the community, and I am lending a little help. The designers of Wizards of the Coast have put their heart and soul into this edition. You have no idea how much. I want to see an end to "edition wars", and "TSR-era D&D vs...