Search results

What does "meaningful" mean to you?

+6 to hit for the Ogre (let alone the loose math).

1) +6 to hit, 2d8 + 4 damage. 2) Anti-something else more like-it. See my note above. ~ KM

1) ...but, it is. 2) Oh, I'm acknowledging, the fact of you and your cohorts anti pre-4th Ed agenda, so obvious. Lets address the substance of the post and not any hypothetical "agenda" anyone may have, please. ~ KM

One of the aspects of being much better is that 4th Ed E-classes do not all bleed into each other as O-4th Ed classes/roles do, with features you slap on and powers that suit, the 4th Ed AEDU system is as close as we've got to class-less D&D (which is great for those who want it).

I see a cleaned up 1st Ed (thank god, let's address what 2nd Ed did not address, and how 3rd and 4th went in the wrong direction), with some of the good stuff from other editions. I do like that 5th Ed seems most compatible with 1st Ed (easy to drop in 1st Ed stuff, like the monk, into 5th Ed...

Total, excellent post, 4th Ed might as well have 4 classes/roles (Controller, Defender, Leader and striker) and after that you choose what features you want, and what powers suit those features. 4th Ed is the closest to class-less D&D (which is fine, as a D&D variant, just not for me).

So why did you have to throw out your 5th level fighter quip...oh, wait, never mind, of course, the agenda... Anyway, what I said holds true, a monster with +6 to hit and 2d8 + 4 damage is still a threat to a 10th level character in 5th Ed.

We are not talking about a 5th level fighter. So, back to the ogre, yes, an extra +2 to hit, like in the original playtest packet (another thing it got right), would definitely make it a threat (still pops for good damage, and the armour piercing trait), the highest non-magical AC is 20 (so far...

Was fully on board with the 1st Playtest Packet, but the 2nd has me apprehensive. My favourite is bounded accuracy, if they don't stick with it, I will; at this point, with all my Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Ed stuff, I'm sure I can come up with something to keep me satisfied until the...

Hopefully they will revert to pre-4th Ed Tieflings - not pigeonholed into Devilish blood (horns and tail), one of the major antagonists in the campaign I'm running is a Tiefling of Yugoloth descent. So, Planetouched is the way to go.

On the flip-side an ogre or a gang of drow will still be a threat to a 10th level party.

Okay, I can kind of get on board with that, I just think the AEDU and spell point caster could be their own classes, but I am all for shared spell pools (many learned a lesson from 4th Ed's powers bloat), just no so much casting methods.

I would prefer magic classes (artificer, binder, incarnate, psion, sorcerer, truenamer, warlock, etc) to have their own, distinctive styles, not several generic casting/magic methods that can be slapped on whatever magic class you're playing, waters it down, takes away class identity.

I would prefer magic classes (artificer, binder, incarnate, psion, sorcerer, truenamer, warlock, etc) to have their own, distinctive styles, not several generic casting/magic methods that can be slapped on whatever magic class you're playing, waters it down, takes away class identity.

3rd Ed rules?

Nice, did they ever stat Venger out?

For me it's the 1st Ed Monster Manual (one of the greatest D&D books of all time), each one drips with vibe.

I like some of that, like ogres and trolls worship the deity Vaprak the Destroyer. I love that they have brought back racial gods (Maglubiyet, Hruggek, etc).

I would prefer no default setting, like pre-3rd Ed; 3rd Ed's default Greyhawk was half-ass, IMO, rather do a setting justice. But of course, if any setting is default, it should be Greyhawk (and Planescape, to a degree), so much of the built in lore relates.