Search results

I also quote a two-page post, and rather than add an agreement such as "QFT", I say "this" or "this is the post". Thus I demonstrate that I have spotted the One True Post which trumps all arguments that have been made and can be made, and I alone had the insight and intelligence to spot it.

Thanks! I wouldn't play an RPG without a combat system. I love the fights, and without them there's no way I would have become hooked on D&D as a 10-year-old. I'm also an ex-wargamer, so I was chuffed that 3E supported a miniature-based combat system. Yes, D&D has always been combat heavy...

As someone mentioned above, reducing interactions to a series of rolls and numerical mechanics just makes it a form of combat. That's contemptuous because it assumes that the player only wants to stack bonuses and roll through boring story details. Don't miss my point. I like simple modifiers...

I'm happy to discuss it, Mallus, but I won't respond to line-by-line rebuttals. Can you put it into some paragraphs?

I agree entirely with that sentiment, which is why Basic D&D was such a playground for imagination. But what we have in 4E is a highly developed combat system and an entire game structure focussed on combat. The message is "detailed rules are important, but only for combat, because that's the...

I've never had a big problem with HP. To me they're just a convenient abstract. I can see them representing fatigue, skill, near misses, opponent fumbles, blows diminished by armour, blood loss and so on and so forth. But a ranger shooting 8 people with a crossbow in 10 ten seconds cannot be...

In which direction?

3.5 didn't do too badly in the realism stakes. The PCs tended toward superheroism, but nothing that couldn't be toned down by the DM. How are you finding 4E in that regard? I haven't absorbed all the rules yet, but I was particularly taken aback by a power (can't remember which) that allows...

I agree with that, but my fear is that with 4E, D&D is modernising itself out of relevance. If a 12-year-old picks up 4E today , he or she will know the game and its RPG tradition as a complicated, rules-heavy miniature wargame which his/her PC can run without all the finicky sheets of paper...

I arrived late, so I'll add this (although it's probably been canvassed fairly thoroughly). Actually, I disliked the excessive a-rule-for-everything-ness of 3.5, and would have preferred a more flexible, DM-oriented system. My gripe with 4E is that there are extensive, finely detailed rules -...

I have a motorbike. I put a label on the seat which reads "cockpit", another on the fuel tank which reads "rotor". Elsewhere I stick labels saying "tail", "skids" and "stabilising rotor". Hooray! I now own a helicopter!

Roll on, 4.5E

I think it's a fair contribution to the "why 4E shouldn't be allowed to call itself D&D" debate. Whatever WotC has created, it's not Dungeons and Dragons, and should be called something which reflects its status as a defacto miniatures combat system with optional storytelling and roleplaying.

Only the outback. The cities look like Bartertown. Except for Canberra, which is like a post-apocalyptic zombie capital.

My thoughts, too.

Danny Alcatraz summed up what I think of Rifts. Take the setting and play it with D20 Apocalypse. Swoit, mate, swoit.

Are there rules for ratling PCs? Hobbits in SPAAAACE!

I would have liked to see the end of complex skills, too. Stealth and acrobatics works, I just wish that others had been combined as well. Otherwise, I really like the barbarian options.

After such a long absence from the game, I strongly recommend you avoid 3.5. It's complicated and assumes a lot of previous knowledge about RPG systems. Based on current information, 4E will likely be a bit friendlier, but still quite complex. My recommendation is Basic Fantasy RPG...

Actually, I quite like considerations like that. I enjoy planning and resource management as part of the game, although it requires a DM who won't do you over with an attack every night.