Search results

I saw something to this effect after my last post. That's good to hear. "The fighter is way better at doing the things that anybody can do" is exactly the what I'm looking for. If that's the way it works out, I'm on board...or more on board. The build thing was an aside about how, for...

It depends a lot on what the maneuvers consist of...really "special" abilities, like a barbarian's rage, or more tendentiously, a rogue's sneak attack, or weapon specialization (or that damage on a miss thing that great weapon fighters get that has everybody upset), or as you note, the lazy...

I'm sure there are examples of previous editions giving classes specific abilities that closed off options for everyone else, but those aren't them. Both multiple attacks, and for that matter, weapon specialization, are essentially "the same as everybody else gets, only better". The cleric can...

"Lost" more in the sense that it appears to me the majority of players prefer that even general classes like the fighter have unique "things" that only they can do, and they want their fighter characters to be doing things in combat that no one else can do. This is something you and I are in...

I don't care for it myself. I prefer the combat maneuvers to be in the combat chapter, available to anyone (a la 3rd edition, but without the need for feat investment to make them work semi-reliably), and then have the fighter, probably through the advantage of having the highest attack bonus...

Way back in the 80's Dragon magazine had an ecology about the male counterpart to the medusa; the maedar. Maedar had large, bald, muscular humanoids, who had the ability to turn stone to flesh by touch. The medusa would turn someone to stone, then the maedar would pound the statue into pieces...

Can we at least be clear about the fact that 99% of what came out for 4e was not errata at all, but rules updates? Very little of 4e actually needed errata. I'd say on a proofreading level, it was miles ahead of most other games, including other versions of D&D. But a game that focused on...

You're conflating AD&D with OD&D (or Classic, or Basic/Expert). OD&D didn't have those kinds of restrictions. And AD&D didn't have "3d6 six times, straight down in order".

It seems to me, if one isn't going to use English, one can call them anything you want. Perhaps Easterlings? (one particularly good series calls them that...or was it Easterners?) Or Southrons, if they come from the South? Or, if people who look like homo sapiens come from the Empire of...

"take a punt" isn't American? It's a completely transparent expression to anyone who's ever watched an American football game!

The problem, to such an extent that it was a problem, with the original playtest sorcerer was that it felt very specific. There was little room for interpretation in characterization. I thought it had great flavor, but unless I wanted to play it pretty much exactly as it was presented, it was...

I would personally prefer something like a bolt of "pure magic" for the base attack cantrip, and have the elemental type stuff with side effects be leveled spells. But that's just me, wanting magic to be more like Dr. Strange.

I run B/X, and, aside from needing to fill in a few blanks in interpretation, it runs very, very well indeed. Among its many advantages, it does not run away with the Tyranny of Large Numbers. While it does not have a "universal mechanic", that supposed lack also keeps you from falling into...

Quick aside, Tovec, as someone with access to the alpha and beta to Pathfinder, I heard that the playtests were quite a bit more radical in their changes than the final product wound up being (disappointingly in my case). In your experience, was that the case? I never saw the alphas or beta...

I haven't been super happy with the rogue. It's not bad, but it could be better. For one thing, I don't like his combat function to revolve around sneak attack. I want to be able to play the rogue more as a fencer, or lone duellist. As I told their survey, if I can't model a reasonable...

You know...every edition of D&D has had something that I found glaringly stupid. B/X had race as class (I like it now, but boy I hated it then). AD&D had differing weapon damage depending on the size of the creature hit. 2e basically broke magic resistance, and nerfed damaging spells. 3rd...

Having ruined more than a few campaigns as a teenager with my own pet characters, I prefer to avoid using them if at all possible. On occasion I've been forced to run a support character for small groups, but I make a point of not making one that could outshine anyone in the party, or that I...

Just as a commentary on "liking it before you play it" or the reverse... 5e plays pretty much like any other D&D style game. It's faster than some, and simpler, so it doesn't reward the non table "play" (ie, hours poring over rulebooks looking up comboes) that some people find rewarding and...

I will almost certainly buy the new books, and hopefully will even find a group to play it with.

Thinking about it a little more... Trying to hurt someone with a sword (or an axe, or a knife, etc) involves staying in contact with that person, who is probably trying to hurt you back. The likelihood of hitting someone or something that isn't defending themselves is basically 100%. You...