Search results

Perhaps 4e could have at least used the capitalization convention ("The Warlord is a Martial Leader") and use lower case when referring to in-game archetypes. Also, Bloodied, Encounter, Surge, etc. That's the worst case scenario anyway, if they couldn't find terminology that shied away from...

Did Legends & Lore ever publish the vote results of the 'Nod to realism' poll?

Don't get me started on bards insulting skeletons to death :) No, I mean, seriously, don't, that subthread went on for pages and pages

IMO, only enough to fulfill WoTC's stated goal of unifying players from ALL editions. Which I hope means no warlords in the core. If 5E produces a martial expansion pack with Warlords and Come and Get It, that's fine -- I'll know not to join the group that plays with that tactical martial...

Well that's clearly not indicative of concerns beyond your personal sphere. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat and using a sling, then I don't see much point in complaining because if you don't like his character concept you don't have to play...

Anybody use ranks in alignment, in which ranks measure your dedication (or apathy)? Law - Chaos - Good - Evil Unaligned = 0 ranks in each Good = 1 rank in Good Lawful Good = 1 rank in Law, 1 rank in Good Paragon Good = 2 ranks in Good Paragon Lawful, Good = 2 ranks in Law, 1 rank in Good etc...

There's an interesting question that I haven't thought about before, so bear with me: is the result the same thing for both (ie., standing in the middle of the road)? And is alignment the measure of that result or the reason for that result?

So in that presentation, you could get something a little more modular: Lawful - Unaligned - Chaotic Good - Unaligned - Evil [optional slots for other alignments] It's really no different than what @Nivenus suggested, except to decouple the alignments for more modularity. Groups could pick the...

Edit: never mind

Not as hard as KamikazeMidget's 90-95% :) The rule is if 80% of players can agree on a rule... I think "agree" is the same as your "accept". It's an important distinction, I think. The difference between "want" and "accept" was the difference between playing 4E or not. It will be the difference...

I think the fanbase is in a sad state if they couldn't even agree on any of the possible choices being offered in playtests, and can't even agree what should or should not be optional in an ultra-light core. As I see it, it means that 5E's goal for unity is already dead in the water. All that...

If NPC rules are not in the core, then it's essentially stating "D&D is not defined by how you build NPCs". The reason being that no baseline could be found. The reason no baseline was determined is because WoTC did their very best to find a solution but 80% (or according to KM, 90% to 95%)...

G) Here is how you can build monsters, you decide if NPCs are "monsters" or PC builds H) No monster and/or NPC rules mentioned in an ultra-light core I think one of the above, after proper honest explanation and playtesting, will make the 80% As per upthread, the 80% is pulled from however WoTC...

Wow. Are you Ron Edwards in disguise? :)

Oh, I wouldn't ever condone blindly throwing it out, and I hoped I had articulated as much in the last several posts of mine. I'm only suggesting that they do it right. Once something goes into the core, it's there for the next 8 to 10 years or whatever the lifespan of this edition (if it is an...

OK, so let's say its the 90/100 or 95/100 rule. Can we get consensus on levelling, alignment, ability scores, classes, races, etc. and all the interactions between them?

Then IMO, it's not in the DNA. The core DNA of D&D may say fundamentally "blue eyes" or "green eyes" or "we won't decide if you have blue or green eyes, that's up to you" or "if you want blue eyes only, buy the Blue Eyes campaign setting, or the Green Eyes campaign setting for green eyes only"...

I don't know in what context Mearls was talking about, but 90 to 95% is asking for a lot. At that point, I think the core rules would be 'You are an adventurer in a fantasy world' and that's it :) I'm being cheeky, but 80% sounded better than 51% majority but not as improbably as 95% majority.

The Cant.

At that time, though, I never thought 4e was stupid or that there wasn't a good reason. I assumed there was a reason, it just didn't make much difference. Oh, I just thought of some exceptions, like minions -- hated them at first, then grew to accept them, but I got that by reading posts from...