Search results

That's a pretty great idea!

Thanks Benjamin. I agree that the passives are not too worrisome compared to the actives. I think we will just make the actives refresh on a long rest until we get a better sense of the power balance of the class.

Yes, I have talked to the player and let him know that I am ok with him playing a Rune Knight so long as he accepts some tweaks to its powers and abilities, due to the balance concerns I have.

Yes, but he also killed my campaign, so I would prefer not to repeat the mistake of using UA material in an ongoing campaign without toning down some of its most overtly troublesome powers.

Not when I have an ongoing game that can be wrecked. I learned that lesson with the Mystic.

I have a player who wants to play the Rune Knight subclass of Fighter from the Unearthed Arcana article. I have not had anyone play one yet, but looked through the class and on some websites, and it looks rather overpowered to me. The RK sure gets a lot of goodies up-front (at level 3), with...

Beavers tribal, eh?

The only sense in which I would describe Dragonlance as 'gritty' is this one:

I know it won't be Dark Sun... but I'm really hoping for Dark Sun.

I like that! Nice idea.

There is a new edition (RMU or 'Rolemaster Unified') that is coming out soon (they are aiming for later this year). You can download the beta rules for free by signing in to their website and agreeing to the NDA... or at least you could, but their website is down right now. It has been down for...

Thanks for all the stats -- very helpful! I find it interesting that Rolemaster is doing better on Roll20 than Fantasy Grounds during the pandemic, given that support for Rolemaster is considerably better on Fantasy Grounds (which has a character sheet and tables) than on Roll20 (which IIRC...

I like the way you put that, Cosmic Kid. Also, for the record, I wasn't arguing alignment has to be rooted to mechanics. I was just saying I would like more guidance on what alignment means than 'you follow your whims'. Alignment should tell me what sorts of whims I have. Are my basic whims...

I should have used italics for the rule part of rulebook instead. Quotes i use for words that other posters used.

I get what you're saying Oofta. And i didnt mean to imply that there were no problems with the 3.5 approach, or that defining alignment is easy. I was just reacting primarily to the article's claim that the 5e text shows the designers' 'command' of the system. I dont see any 'system' there at all.

Yes, but concrete guidance is what I buy rulebooks for. That's why I call them 'rule'books. I'm not trying to sound snarky; I agree with you that this was probably the design team's intent. And if the 5e idea works for you, then I am genuinely glad for you. But to me, a rulebook that provides...

Indeed. 5e strips it down so much that I can't imagine a new player really getting it from just the text in the PHB. For example, the description of CG is: 'Creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.' Ok, uh... thanks? What does my conscience direct...

+1! And that's why the 4e Ranger is my favorite version of the class: no spells, just martial badass-ness.

Yes, the Latin quote wasn't from Robin Hood; it was just a test. I had been challenged to 'read a book, mate'. So I wanted to show I had, indeed, read a book. I also wanted to choose something in the language in which the earliest references to Robin Hood appear. I thought a nice little proverb...