Search results

I also doubt that he has 500 monsters in that PDF. ;)

I'm not intending this as sarcasm, but if you like the previous editions of the game -- and in particular, dislike 4e so much -- why on Earth don't you play them? The publication of 4e isn't preventing you from playing 1e any more than the existence of 1e is preventing me from playing 4e. It's a...

I don't see why "it's a computer game" is necessarily perjorative. Does having interesting things you can do in combat, rather than, "I hit, I miss, I hit, I miss," and inevitably being outclassed and outshone by the spellcasters, when you're any class but a spellcaster, mean that the game is...

Massawyrm's latest review, the third one, contains quite a few complaints. Overall, he likes 4e, but he hardly describes it as perfect. Does he still count as an "extreme data point" in your book because he feels that 4e is overall positive, even though he acknowledges problems and even devotes...

Odd that purely negative reviews are "fair and impartial," while positive reviews are "unfair and partial."

Thank God for that. There's nothing to make a genre seem completely unheroic like having 20th level commoners (you think you're a hero, Mr. Level 15 Fighter? That guy serving you booze at the inn is level 18) and 20th level experts (this lawyer is the best in the land, he has the hit points of a...

Why is that positive reviews are extremist, and negative ones are in the middle and thus trustworthy? A more accurate way of judging it would be to look at the positive and negative reviews, see where they differed and where they corresponded, and try to formulate an opinion based on the...

Wow, that's great! Thank you! :D Should this be at least temporarily stickied? :cool:

The problem is, that Rodrigo actually liked a lot of stuff in the game. It's just that, for some reason, he forgot to mention it in his review ;) , and added it in a reply to his original post, where it's very easy to miss. Secondly, I doubt that they will redo the entire edition because of...

Having the archers afraid of close combat makes sense to me. But I agree that the slingers should also have the same. The idea of every creature having some unique feature seems like a good idea to me, though -- it'll make them seem less like playing pieces, IMO.

I dislike the terminology but mostly like the system that we've seen so far. I guess I'm just an odd fellow. ;)

Which is exactly the same as 1e, 2e, and 3e. In all those editions, a fighter with 1 hit point left out of 100 is precisely the same in fighting terms as one with 100 hit points left out of 100. Nothing has changed -- except that now you get "bloodied," which I presume is the point where your...

Hm .... I guess all the metric users I've known have been atypical, then. They really have no idea how far away things are. And visualizing the height difference between 170 and 177 centimeters, instantly and easily? Is that possible even for you? I'm genuinely curious.

Human? Yes. Arbitrary? In my opinion, Imperial measurements aren't arbitrary, but metric ones are, which is why they're hard to visualize. One inch is the width of a thumb. A yard is the length of a stride. One foot is a third of a yard -- the starting 'foot', the ending 'foot,' and the 'foot'...

Not to mention, that spikes make excellent weapon traps, causing the enemy's weapon to expend its force against your armor, rather than glancing off. ;)

Huzzah!!!! :D It's about time they got rid of those spikes and multiple straps and buckles.

Do you mean to say that it's more "believable" in some way that hit points become larger as you rise in level because someone can eventually take the physical damage of 10 or more killing blows with a longsword and not die? And then you wait overnight, rather than 6 hours, so that your priest...

Well, if rules for wilderness means -- -- overland travel speeds and tables showing random combat encounters; If rules for ships means -- -- a list of gold piece costs and some sort of tactical wargame rules for them ramming each other; And if rules for castles means -- -- how many cubic...

I agree. In fact, this happens in real-life melees, on a larger scale, where one side thrusts back the other, sometimes to the extreme disadvantage of those being pushed back -- for example, see "The Leap of the Mullet" in Hawaiin history, where King Kamehameha's spearmen backed an enemy tribe...

I concur. Logically, poor combat rules =/= good roleplaying, nor do good combat rules = bad roleplaying. And there's little objective evidence that 1st edition was anything but a tactical wargame with a lot of horrendously mismatched rules. Heck, it was a long time before 1st edition AD&D even...