Search results

I do know that at GenCon, it was stated that you could still add classes to monsters, though they're generated differently. So it's evidence they're thinking about it. I expect them to have considered the Monster Level and XP implications of classing up a monster.

I don't want sword-and-board to be the optimal choice at any level. I want it to be an interesting and effective choice, but to make it objectively better than two-handing would be to fall into the same sort of trap as 3e did.

Good riddance; Regional feats from FR seemed to fall into two groups; insignificant skill bumps, or quote unquote 'region limited' munchkinnable must-haves.

I dislike the name Bulette. Why does that fluff get pushed into my game? I wish they'd just call them Landsharks, like I want. </unfunny humor-ish-ness> EDIT: This sounded more witty in my mind, and when I only saw two responses in the thread. I apologize for it being even less funny than...

I came to WoD late, so I was quite put off by the decade of metaplot and backstory I was behind and could never catch up on, stuff that was required to understand the current rulebooks, and yet was out of print and had disappeared into the ether 5 years before I'd ever heard of roleplaying...

See, in my mind, that old yarn's been completely played out. Boring to the max. (Tubular! Radical!) But I think I've read from R&C spoilers that tiefling+human=tiefling baby, so it could still work out for you if you wanted it.

Go read the Design & Development about Magic Items. If you thought that +X weapons were going away, you were kidding yourself. They're too iconic (even outside of gamers) to be removed. The best we can hope for is that they're accounted for in the math, and they're not required for game balance.

The points systems above remind me of the 'secret'/derived 3e weapon creation system.

I'm not opposed to bringing Sunder back as GM trick for narrative effect (just like Wish). But I can understand Mearls' concerns re: Sunder as mundane attack option.

I feel I should clarify. No, I don't think everyone has the same problems with FR I do. Obviously tastes differ, and gaming groups differ, and the GM's presentation of FR's movers and shakers differs, otherwise no one would be playing in FR. But I do have those problems, and I know I'm not...

I prefer a setting where the PCs are heroes, not goblin-chasers and thief-hounders. Where darkness is falling on the world and only the PCs can stop it. A world where Mr. Disinterested 35th level wizard-next-door doesn't exist, and there aren't two dozen epic characters in a hundred mile...

And we know for sure that the eladrin can teleport every round, and that no one else will have anything cool. Right.

That feat makes the game unfun for the the rest of the group. Your DM should ban it from his game already.

8 years seems fine between editions to me. And 3.5 is a vastly better ruleset than 3.0. I honestly don't get the hate. But maybe I'm not 'in' the game enough to get why putting out splatbooks or making the rules work better is some sort of violation against nature.

I've always hated the percentile die - it just always seemed vestigial, an ugly artifact of a dead edition. But apparently it's still in the game somehow, as it's mentioned in the 4e Dice Set blurb. Blech.

We've already seen a sketch of a short, stocky troglodyte. Looks fine.

Eh; I've found that I don't really remember info in a podcast that's on in the background, unless I actually stop and make it my sole focus, making them pretty useless for their intended purpose as a multitasking aid.

My only hope is that Kobolds can still be Chaotic Hungry.

I'm sorry, Mr. Gygax. I don't know anything about you. But there are a lot of people who have made D&D great over the years, not just Mr. Gygax. Let's not forget them, either.

Yeah, this sentiment is why I never played a game below 3rd level. I want to play an RPG where my beginning character struggles against evil yet triumphs, not one where the first three levels are spent running away in terror from housecats.