Search results

Which is fine, but not if the feat and skill section is for 7 out of 11 classes. No, they didn't, 3rd Ed Fighters contribute just fine, IME.

The dual-wielding thing was originally a drow trait (1st Ed Fiend Folio).

That comes across as such a cheap and snide thing to say because "they" are not absolutely going in the direction you want, though I of course could be wrong.

Please, save it, it's embarrassing for all of us.

The Green to me has always been the sinister, Fey-related, sneaky guy (enemies with unicorns). Big part of my Planescape (Outlands/Tir-Na-Nog) campaign.

And therefore...?

Total, every combat being Kenner's Star Wars Jabba set is not D&D to me. 3-D is the way to go with 4th Ed (I am thinking about it, terrain, etc).

Depends on the type of simulation you're after.

And therefore...?

One of the things I am most enjoying is battles not being Chutes/Snakes & Ladders as 4th Ed (and 3rd to a lesser agree) is. D&D Miniatures is a great game, but separate from D&D the RPG.

Though I prefer that doesn't happen in 5th Ed (no one class should dominate the PHB).

Morals are a thing you hang on a wall, and scruples are Russian money.

I think WotC is being very clever, why would you want to embrace a D&D Miniatures game variant Heinsoo & Co. came up with a few years ago that fractured the D&D community like nothing before (and is being beaten by their own "game")?

Exactly, and one thing I do when running 4th Ed is to remove the cancerous sore that is that 1/2 level malarkey to attacks, defences and skills.

I am a bit disappointed that they released the Sorcerer and Warlock before the Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin and Ranger, but not surprised, they had to pump out some non-Vancian deals before the hysteria got too much, but the Sorcerer (synonym for wizard) has been around since 2000, and the Warlock...

I have an on-and-off-again solo (one player) campaign I've been DMing since 1987; so, I guess it just depends on commitment.

I am a bit disappointed that they released the Sorcerer and Warlock before the Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin and Ranger, but not surprised, they had to pump out some non-Vancian deals before the hysteria got too much, but the Sorcerer (synonym for wizard) has been around since 2000, and the Warlock...

Usually comes off as the opposite to me, if you so much as say "Boo" to 4th Ed a crap-storm comes down on you.

Except prerequisites for Feats and Paragon Paths. But I am happy to see the ass-end of them, and "Roles".

I don't agree, the Wizard has been Vancian for over 30 years (not some D&D Miniatures variant Heinsoo & Co. came up with 4 years ago), even in 4th Ed, as all classes are, so what's the problem? Mod note: Edition warring, again? This is a fast way to exit a thread, folks. Don't follow this...