Search results

Dude, people have been talking about the fundamental problems with 3.5 for years now. Find a new riff.

Chainmail FTW!

The "change for the sake of change" argument doesn't apply here, since Perkins gave the reason for the change right there in his post. You even quoted it:

Well, if the goal is to make them usable places for PCs to have adventures, they need some change. Especially Earth. "You're embedded in solid rock. Have fun!"

I would consider the imbalance between casters and fighters (things are too heavily tilted toward the fighters at low levels, and too heavily tilted toward the casters at high levels), the high power levels of clerics and druids compared to most other classes, and the fact that high level...

I've never had a series suck me in the way the Wheel of Time did when I first read it. Back in 1993 or 1994, a friend loaned me the first five or six books in the series (all that had been written up to that point), and I got hooked right away. It only took me about two months to get through...

And the other problem with stacking bonuses is that it leads to situations where focused characters become so much better at what they do than non-focused characters that it really throws balance off, because the more bonuses you have available, the bigger the difference between the character...

Boy, I really don't like those discipline names. They sound way too kung-fu/Exalted-ish for my tastes.

It was done back in 2000 with Deus Ex. :D

Maybe they'll go back to 1E, where Druids needed mistletoe to cast all their spells.

You must really hate 3E, then. It has more +X items than any edition so far.

You're forgetting two things: 1. Wizards can still cast spells without using the items, they'll just be slightly less effective. 2. Sorcerors will probably work very differently from wizards, and my guess is that they won't use items for their spellcasting. I like this change from a flavor...

The problem is, then you have the players casting divination spells before they go anywhere or touch anything in the dungeon, and the adventure slows down to a crawl. Hardly an ideal solution.

And what I'm saying is that running into a situation where I was about to be killed by something I had no chance to avoid would break my immersion in the game. All I'd be thinking about at that point was how badly designed the adventure was. Again, YMMV.

See, I would call that an extremely badly designed adventure. Open a door and you have an 80% chance of dying on the spot? Most people I've played D&D with over the years would react extremely badly to something like that. I know I would if I was playing in that game. I wouldn't feel scared, I'd...

But the fact that the "extraordinary" is even possible is only because D&D models heroic fantasy and not real life. In real life, no one could dodge a dozen crossbow bolts (it might theoretically be possible, but it would be a truly freakish occurrence). Yet PCs do it as a matter of course. If...

D&D isn't intended to model real life. It's intended to model heroic fantasy. There's a big difference.

Aren't Wii games selling for $50 right now? (I thought I'd seen them at that price point - am I wrong about this?) Anyway, even $50 for a game is pushing it IMO. A game would have to be pretty fantastic before I'd plunk down that much money for it. You can get most new PC games for $40-45...

Like I said, I answered the question already. I'm not going to do it again.

I answered that already. You snipped it. Risk is built into the D&D system from the beginning. It's a part of nearly everything the players do. Claiming that a large number of people want to play D&D with no risk (to their characters, of course) is like claiming that a large number of people...