Search results

Good point. I like the ideas for background instead of skills, but I don't like that it's stuck in the back. What do you call an expanded background when it develops in the present? Instead of just skills perhaps you could gain something else... I dunno... aspects? That word obviously is a...

Also, to try and get this thread back on track. What would good design guidelines be for a non-combat feat? I think it's been touched on that just a skill bonus is a little weak-sauce.

Thing is, I don't know that they should be on the same schedule, if by schedule you mean you get to choose one trait, and one feat at the same time. To get two choices to add at the same time creates bloat on the character sheet and perhaps too many choices at once. Perhaps you could get them...

4th editions Nentir Vale, with its whole Bael Turath/ Arkhosia history is pretty arguably a new settinig. Especially if you add things like the Conquest of Nerath board game.

I want no default setting, but it's not going to bother me if they put in the actual names of different gods or whatnot. One of my first D&D memories is flipping through the AD&D Dieties and Demigods book. Was that setting specific? I didn't see it as such; it was just a bunch of cool gods...

I hate to quote myself, but... Agreed, there should be more non-combat support. That's the idea of an extra "pillar" for non-combat feats. That pillar would give you non-combat options by the default. Then you leave a few exceptions that proves the rule -to opt into a different pillar- and...

We're just talking in circles now. As has been discussed before, the idea with all this "siloing" (a term I'm frankly getting sick of at this point) is that the default would be that you pick your "feat" at certain intervals, and those would primarily be combat based. HOWEVER, we could also...

The question for me is what extra abilities has the fighter with jack of all trades gained and is it comparable to what another feat might give? It's arguably not an even trade off. But you know what? I've been convinced. Let there be non-optimal feat choices. It doesn't really hurt anything...

This is exactly what I thought was being said. "Talents" would potentially be a part of "backgrounds" as "feats" would be to "specialty." For a base system, balance is a welcome feature, and "siloing" things out makes this easier to implement. You've already described your group of...

If specialties are the "how" you do something, then they should do what they're supposed to and say how you interact with your environment. If you want your choices to reflect that you're bad in a fight the feat should be specific enough to say exactly how you're bad in it. An extra bookworm...

Again this runs into the "play the game you want" problem. All this saying "combat needs to be de-emphasized" in the core, just butts heads with folks who like an emphasis on combat. Why is it not better to design a core where combat can either be emphasized or de-emphasized, according to the...

I'd agree, but I'd also hope the rules emphasize that by picking individual feats you're creating your own specialty which you should be able to name and justify the choices for. It's kind of a nit-picky distinction, but it does force you to think about the story for your character. Also, the...

True, but how much of each approach should a DM use? That's flexible, and choosing different modules to use makes that easier to tweak. Saying the system should force DMs into more roleplaying than past editions have emphasized kind of runs smack into the "play the game you want" mandate. Yes...

Personally, I'd also like to see a focus on more role-playing than combat, but I'd say it'd be easier to do that by creating different systems to give non-combat options. It's not always the player that decides what kind of game is run, but the DM (or the three overpowering personalities at a...

Then how do you feel about the feats in the playtest already that are combat focused? I don't think the simplest solution to insist they muddle up the system with different types of feats, or say to change ALL the feats to not affect combat, but just do what has been claimed is a totally...

Except invocations are encounter abilities, able to be regained after a short or long rest. Notice however that we have "lesser" and "minor" invocations, arguably paving the way for "greater" invocations that are daily powers.

Bam. Simplest solution. Easy to implement. If you want to make it a little less cut and dry, make it where using dispell magic in that manner results in a contest between the two casters to see if the spell is dispelled or not. No additional rules or mechanics needed. EDIT (one addition)...

The essentials hate I think says some interesting things about some of the die hard 4e loyalists, and how they might take to different systems. As someone who came back to the game in 4e I was wary of essentials at first for the same "lack of options" reasons, but as someone who likes playing...

Assassins could coat a weapon with sleeping poisons, anyone could use a sleeping potion, wizard could cast sleep, and a psion could put someone to sleep with his mind. What's the problem? Oh, and a bard could "soothe the savage beast" to sleep. Some overlap is ok. The trick is not to make...

Not "running away", but figuring out how to avoid fighting an active ecology of 30 hobgoblins in a cave... I'd say that's been there longer than ten years. "Sometimes" or "all the time" jumping into combat is the DMs call ultimately, but I don't see anything in the article making a case for...