Search results

Ignoring the ongoing discussion, which I don't have the context for, and just looking at the original question, a hit has to indicate some injury or at least physical contact, doesn't it? Think of how, for example, poisonous snakes work - if you take 10 hits from them, you need to make 10 saves...

Wouldn't it be funnier if it accurately described the debate? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks hit points are entirely physical unless they mean something by "physical" that is, as Ahnehnois says, itself quite abstract. No-one thinks it's literally the case that a high-level fighter can soak...

This is a fairly pointless thread starter without some information on WHAT you're considering not allowing and more importantly, WHY. (As others have pointed out, how you feel this is different from past editions wouldn't hurt either.) That could be the foundation for a very useful discussion...

Um... no. I haven't gotten into the substance of the review yet, it could be great for all I currently know. However, essentially proclaiming wholesale ignorance of the entire OSR, which significantly predates the 5E announcement and has numerous websites, blogs, heck even small-press companies...

Would it be too much trouble to put the images in an SBLOCK and/or reduce the default size they display at? They're forcing a horizontal scroll bar on my monitor at 1440 x 900 - hardly an obsolete resolution. This is especially annoying on the front page.

I like what I've seen so far and would strongly consider this system for future games. However, I picked the special snowflake answer because I've had such uniformly bad experiences with attempting major shifts of rules system in mid-campaign that I would not even CONSIDER switching either of my...

I'd allow it if one of the standard five died and someone was looking for a little more choice in creating a replacement PC. Set up the standard ability score array however you like, pick any combination of the four and a half races, four and a half classes, five themes and five backgrounds...

Er... have you actually read it? This specific version does exactly what you're asking why it doesn't do in the first sentence, and the original version does, in effect, exactly what you say it should be doing in the second (hint: it's even in the title).

As demonstrated by such paragons of flexibility as 3E's Bard and Factotum, or by the might of 4E feats like Linguist... Flexibility may be power, but you know what else is power? Power, in as focused a form as possible. And at least in the context of D&D, time and again, the latter has shown...

For those that at least partially agree with BT (more people seem to agree on the fighter than on the wizard), would you mind saying why this is a flaw? So far, I don't see that anyone in this thread has done that. It certainly isn't self-evident, at least to me - I'm fine with both of these on...

Your conclusion is correct, but it doesn't follow from your premise. For all Gygax says, it could just as easily be that some hits affect one and some affect the other. The reasons your conclusion is correct are found in things like how poison works - any hit from a giant centipede involves a...

Had WHAT at 50/50? And more importantly, how does the abstraction Gygax describes differ from the abstraction Mearls et al describe by enough for one to be okay and the other to be objectionable? They look pretty much the same to me.

It took me three tries yesterday but I got it. I imagine things will have calmed down considerably by now, but at least by early evening (in North America), it was already tolerable. Today it's ENWorld that seems to be getting slammed! Not surprising under the circumstances. Nothing here has...

If you're serious enough about D&D to be on here, you owe it to yourself to have a copy of the 1E DMG, no matter when you were born, and even if it's the only pre-3E D&D book you own. (Though it shouldn't be - some of the classic adventures fall into this category too.)

I think the exact words were closer to "a couple of changes", said so offhandedly as to imply they were quite minor. Certainly they didn't include whatever rework of Turning Undead is currently underway, for example! I got the impression they were minor changes along the lines of (this is...

Actually, in response to the Turn Undead question, Mearls explicitly says (around 29:10 of the video) that as far as he knows it WAS the same version. Now, admittedly I didn't know that at the time I wrote the post you're quoting - I was indeed taking Piratecat's word for it - but it's...

Well, that's a whole different debate - how exactly you define the seasons, that is. It's not like there's some central authority that has the power to define that. But if there's one thing everyone could agree on, I would hope it would be that whatever the correct definitions are, or would be...

Perhaps, but at some point not releasing it is going to have exactly the same result. And what really mystifies me, if it was as far from ready as it apparently was why the heck did they announce it in the first place? Then there's the fact that according to Morrus they've been working on this...

Yes, normally. However, they quite specifically said this one wouldn't. Three months later there's no sign of that being true, and the event at which it was more or less expected that would change has instead produced only an annoucement that they still have no idea when if that will change...

The latest example of WotC's tendency to say "We want to do X. And in order to do that, we're going to do not-X". "We're going to do a huge, open, public playtest. And in order to do that, we're going to play our cards even closer to our chest than we did in developing the last two editions." :erm: