Search results

D&D next is clearly designed to make old(er) school players Wotc customers again. Including Caves of Chaos is an obvious marketing move towards those players, regardless of the quality of the module. As can be seen from this thread, Caves of Chaos has a hallowed status among old school gamers...

I hadn't seen that part. You are right, that rule should go. If you are <1 you should need magic to get back on your feet or at least a long stay in a comfy bed with a pretty/handsome nurse.

We must be reading different playtest reports.

I agree that the impact of MMI-rules depend on the group. Especially in groups that have played together for a long time, there is an understanding between players and DM that often allows players to predict how the DM will rule and moreover there is a sufficient level of trust that rulings will...

Advantage/Disadvantage reads well, but in play I think it is a horrible rule. The effect of advantage/disadvantage is way too big; for most game situations, it amounts to a +5 modifier. In practice difficult combats will only be about getting advantage. The only classes that have the best...

To me it's one of the few things they got right. If you are sufficiently uninjured that you can climb a mountain/armwrestle a giant/swim through a lake/perform acrobatic stunts without penalty then healing should not take more than one good night's rest.

cut

Thanks for your ideas. Below are some replies to your suggestions: The goal of doubling all damage is not to make the fight more difficult (on average) but to make it less predictable and thus potentially more exciting. Not allowing short rests is certainly a way to make things tougher as...

It seems to be pretty well accepted that 4ed rules allow for gripping and balanced fights at the price of extending combat length. I consider this a fair trade for major battles that have a serious chance of killing the group or that significantly advance the parties goals. However, this does...

Square fireballs is one that I check regularly. Mostly rules-wonkery but very nicely written and carefully considered posts. squarefireballs.blogspot.com/

Have you noticed that in the entire history of the human race, nobody was ever convinced of the error of their ways by having their argument called "idiotic"? I know nerves are a little raw because of the ongoing edition war, but it may make more sense to try and convince others you are right...

I would argue that for every choice 4ed removed for a caster, it added a choice for a martial class. But that is often overlooked. Really all I can hear you say is roles are bad because they are in 4ed. I'm afraid we're not getting any further with this.

Fair enough. On the other hand, each being its own class allows designers to fine-tune your design toward the need of each playstyle. But I take your point about the perception of flexibility.

I also find it interesting that the main examples being trotted out are always full spell casters, who in 3ed can switch from one set of spells to the next within 24 hours. Hence, they can typically decide from day to day, which role they want to fill out. Non-spell casters on the other hand...

Agreed. 4ed, even more than 3ed, made sure that every character could contribute in combat without being overpowering. I still don't understand what that has to do with roles.

I'm not sure I can follow your logic. The 4ed PHB supported a lot of character concepts from day one, some of those were not in previous PHBs even though they were obvious archetypes (e.g. Warlords, Charisma-based rogues, Ranged Clerics). On the other hand, the PHB did not support some character...

And why would that be fundamentally different to having 5 classes, each with one role?

Huh? Illusionists are about the most classical definition of a controller wizard and they are in 4ed (In multiple versions I think). Summoner-druids are in 4ed as well, though as late-comers. And aspects of the Druid class vanished/were distributed over multiple classes for reasons that had...

Roles are restrictive the same way classes are restrictive. Nobody is concerned if I say "the rogue can't stand there all day and take a pounding because he is a rogue". Why does it get worse if i say "the rogue can't stand there all day and take a pounding because he is a striker"? I also...

But some don't like to see the L-word, they associate it with a restriction on their ability to role-play. So if avoiding the name removes a perceived restriction, why keep it?