Search results

i like it

I'd like to see half orcs replaced w/ orcs.

So what is this condition track thing anyway? I think i get the idea, but can someone explain how it works?

Uhhh.... yeah, put me down for disagree. (And yes, I understand PCs and their opponents have different purposes and in-game functions. I get it, i get it, already...) If there's a strong/simple/unified system underneath, it should be able to generate monsters, PCs, and NPCs w/o much trouble...

That's assuming the racial tricks are better than the standard ones. He has less choice, but his limited choices might be just as good. He'll have the same number of feats/talents to spend no matter what he spends them on, so he should be comparable. He could still be an axe specialist who...

The length of a fight isn't really the trouble, it's the pace. When it takes four hours for two rounds of combat, that's lame. If it takes just as long, but a lot of stuff happens, no problem.

I love gnomes and I play 'em all the time, yet I don't care if they're in the PHB or not. They'll still be around (somewhere) for the fans and still be ignored by people who hate them

Sounds good to me. players always end up making a bajillion spot and listen checks a game, and I wouldn't mind cutting it out. You could always flip it back when a player says he stops to listen or look around. Actively spotting.

I've never seen encumbrance rules used except for low str wizards.

I'm all for the SAGA system (from what I understand of it) modified a bit for D&D. I actually see this development as very D&Dish-- a class/level based system and not a point a buy. It gives you options, but also forces you to advance in a certain way at a certain rate. You don't pick which...

Isn't that the case now? maybe not w/rogues, but wizards an fighters? I'll bet if we compared a lot of PCs, they would be remarkably similar.

I think they're trying to cover different types of battles: hordes, groups, and single boss monsters. From the example fight w/the dragon, I like what I saw for boss monsters, giving them more attacks and enough HP to survive more than a round or two. I'm hopeful about the emphasis on...

I mean, they just have more HPs right? BAB, skills, saves, and such are all the same. Don't most of us use Max HP at first level anyway? This seems more of a fluff than a crunch issue.

You forget the fun of going back to slaughter the monsters that used to give you nightmares. Once it took your whole party to take down a troll, and now you can take one down in one hit.

Maybe. The flip too that is with stricter rules, a designer can follow the formula and get a set number, but in actual play, the monster comes out to a different CR or level or whatever. Rules can make people lazy about the eyeballing, which should always be part of the process. So the...

I don't think they're going to change in-combat healing or the cleric's role as medic that much. I think they'll make a few more options for clerics -- like healing an ally on a crit or as an immediate action (heal of opportunity?) -- so that the cleric can heal and still get in a few punches...

"Questioning the boot is a bootable offense."

I thought that too. It doesn't sound any simpler or faster; just different. That probably won't be so bad, since feats/maneuvers will never be as numerous as spells. What I'm worried about is that every class could have abilities to buff allies. Then it wouldn't just be the cleric's spells...

Obviously, a D&D movie would have to start with a bunch of high school kids getting on a magic, interdimensional roller-coaster. Form there, the movie pretty much writes itself.

I'm surprised how many play WoW