Search results

I am with the let the OGL die camp. I went recently over my RPG library and while there was rubbish from all periods the concentration of rubbish was highest during the early d20-OGL times. What OGL did was encourage hyper-production while at the same time stifling creativity. While in the...

Frankly I think you are trying to put a square peg into a very round hole. I understand your play style and sometimes even share it. Daily abilities that do not draw on any universal resources (fatigue, focus etc...) are about as bad a mechanic for a strict simulationist game as any I can think...

Don't take it from me. I just scavenge the forums for what little info there is. This just seems to be the way things are going, but I may very well be wrong (except for the heroic tier deaths being final - that came straight out of the Mouth of Mearls). I kinda like the idea of distinct tiers...

Traps - we have been told - are now much more of a multi-person use-your-skills-wisely kind of experience. As for your other questions, I believe that the idea of DnD4 is to give multiple ways of solving any given problem. So warlock may not be sneaky but may be able to summon imps or floating...

We must have bone with different aspects of DnD3 then. To me, pushing magical flight and invisibility well into the paragon tier (from very low in DnD3) is just a thing to improve the verisimilitude. Likewise for the new philosophy around Raise Dead. I have hope that charm and other mind-control...

Trying to wrap even remotely believable medievalesque world around DnD3 rules was what killed my desire to play that edition ever again. Between immortal merchants/kings, invisible flying wizards, instant communications, travel that is either instant or incredibly safe (rope trick), scrying...

I spent more time then was good for me playing WoW. Principal reason why WoW and DnD4 will play significantly different are the ways one pays for abilities in WoW. Rage system does not exist in DnD and that alone is such a huge difference that it is impossible to reproduce anything *like* WoW...

What worries me is just how "single class" these names sound. I really do not see Ranger ever taking "Battle Commander" or "Iron Vanguard" or really any other combination other then the one they have listed (except maybe fighter going into warlord's PP and vice versa) Now if this is so and each...

First of all I have to say I find it really odd how people (in this thread for example) are attempting to convince intelligent articulate man who has clearly decided he does not like something that *in fact* he likes it after all :P Let it go folks - fact that you think you will like DnD4 (and I...

Best of luck to Iquander and co. I don't care at all for 3.5 ruleset, but you guys should buy Greyhawk from WotC :D

Me and my group are those very players Wulf. We tried 3ed, played it for about two years, decided it sucks and thought we are through with DnD for good. Everything we have seen about 4th ed says it is worth coming back to DnD for it. I don't think we are such a lonely example.

I agree in principle that clearer rules are better, but one should not let that healthy attitude degenerate into obsessive picking of nits. Rules of football do not clearly state that I can't go around digging little holes in the pitch for the opposing team to break their ankles in, and yet...

I totally agree with you. Player who is bad tactician can muck up Warlord royally. It makes me want that class in that much more. It will be fun *challenging* class to play. It is DMs job to make sure that his players can work with their classes. As a DM I would never let a DnD novice roll a...

Actually I do think that classes which are designated "leader" are the ones that are most logical *IN CHARACTER* party leaders. If there is an adventuring priest in the party whose interaction with their God keeps the party alive on daily basis then that party is to a significant extent...

Yes, and if I don't want a spiritual leader I have to put up with a cleric despite myself or tell players that they can not play a core class. Luckily in 4th edition both you and me can still make viable parties, not so much in previous editions.

Damn those rule designers for not leaving silly loopholes for people to nitpick about... I am sure some others will be found soon.

I honestly don't think you are serious in trying to push this mandatory movement as a real rule that people will play under. If you are - then equally silly (and equally valid) solution is to take my example from the other thread to the same logical absurd. Oh, I have to move because I am that...

Why do those kind of suggestions have to be OOC ? It is perfectly possible - even preferable - that the player who is a tactics fiend plays a character who is also a tactics fiend. What Warlord class does is give them nice IC opportunity to do it. I see your beef when the back-and-forth...

Yeah, I think this is perfectly valid. I don't think it is a situation that will come up very often unless warlord is deliberately trying to be a jerk (in which case they will not last in the party very long) but yes, I would say the moment Warlord starts being anti-social they cease providing...

Item 1: I totally agree with Cadfan here - he puts it perfectly why I like the dnd4 monster mechanism. Item2: I am not sure since when has simulationist style of GMing (traditionally the most hard-ass of all the styles) become synonymous to pandering to the players. Here I am with my...