Search results

There's a fundamental flaw in your premise.

I don't. If you need such a sidebar, then either the designers failed or the players' memories of their favorite game edition failed.

I'm not buying it.* I'm also not buying it.* *Plans subject to change due to availability.

If this was addressed to me, my response would be to re-read the OP. In some ways, RIFTS wasn't as balanced or unbalanced as D&D.

Some people want to be disappointed. http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/317174-there-going-lot-people-disappointed.html

"I don't want to play a game that requires slide-rules to tweak Class X..." I disagree. :)

I'ts always why I said right after that, "So yes, I hate balance. Or rather, the endless gnashing of teeth agonizing over it - things are unbalanced, things are too balanced."

Y'know, for me, I've come to detest balance in D&D. Please hear me out. Let's take 1&2e - Class balance was uneven, but it was felt that having XP charts unique to each class was a way to balance things, but IMO, they didn't. Racial balance was handled via level limits, which every group that...

Got it, thanks. So as a way of translation, if you got the Magic Missile or Swing Wildly power at level 1, later on you'd lose them?

Could one of you 4e players explain what this means to someone like me who never played 4e? I gather that powers are like spells and combat maneuvers? Please help me follow this along. Thanks.

Why do you think WotC only sees a divide between 4e players and Pathfinder players, to the exclusion of 3e players, even granting your supposition that 4e & Pathfinder are responsible for the majority of fantasy gamers? In other words, what evidence is there to suggest that WotC is ignoring or...

A DM with a straight-razor solves this problem.

Why does a campaign have to include him? Beyond that, in 3e there was a divide between a soldier and a leader. Same with 4e. Indeed, the only thing that marked a leader-type fighter in 1e was the automatic followers at what, 9th level. But then, that was true of most classes, as I recall.

This is my hope too. We're currently running a Pathfinder E8 campaign and that was something we noticed - Level 1-3 monsters are still going to be relevant, although the numbers or other factors may need to increase. Which is how it should be, IMO. On the other hand, I can see there being...

And more to the point, who gets to decide that the elements that players liked in a given edition are inferior because they were introduced in that edition? I'll be right up front and say that I don't like healing surges as they were introduced in 4e. I didn't like uneven XP leveling charts in...

Doesn't seem pretty clear to me at all. In fact, it seems the opposite. Mind laying out exactly what points lead you to such a conclusion? A bulleted list would be great.

The inclusion of races, classes, weapons, etc. is dependent upon the DM, with input from the players. There's no such thing as a race, class, weapon, etc. being mandatory because it is written in the core.

Let me tell you my perspective on this. In my current campaign, I've tossed out half-elves and half-orcs. I've ditched most attacks of opportunity and the feats that relate to them. Somewhere in a wizard's workshop there's a warforged tooling around. Psionics are overwhelmingly found in a...

Honestly, I'd say you are part of the target audience, although with the realization that while WotC would like 100% of that target audience adopting 5e, it won't happen. As long as you have realistic expectations, know what you want and don't want, but have realistic expectations about what...

I'm afraid that if you believe that the inclusion of easily removed items (and ones popular with other players) will be a deal breaker for you in terms of adopting 5e, you may wish to consider opting out now and saving yourself grief and heartache down the road. Truthfully, that advice is valid...