Search results

One thing I would do is get rid of generalist wizards altogether. Take all the wizard specializations and approach each individually without the assumption that they would follow the same basic build that WotC takes with full casters. Necromancers, enchanters, diviners, et al. should all play...

Of course the real "I won the lottery" result for 3d6 rolled in order wasn't the 18 strength, but simply meeting the prereqs to play a paladin at all. 12 strength, 9 constitution, 13 wisdom and 17 charisma made sure paladins were super rare under Method I.

I'm hoping mostly for the opposite. I don't need another full caster class, especially not one that already has functional overlap with the wizard's spell list as is.

Star Wars is on the far soft sci-fi end of space opera. It doesn't define the genre, so no, saying that it's space opera doesn't settle the question. I'd say that the fact that OP asked the question already knowing what genre they were going with proves that it isn't a settled matter. All...

I think it is a severe overreaction to what some refer to as "rulings not rules" and others call "DM May I." A simpler way of putting it would be "A character built to succeed at a specific activity should, assuming a lack of mitigating circumstances, succeed at that activity." You don't even...

Yeah, that was a pretty big reason I dipped out of online D&D discussion for a while. The sentiment still lives on in discussions, too. I don't resent the existence of CharOp boards, but I definitely think they should be segregated into subforums and not allowed to steer D&D discussion as a...

I think that one could work out using modern digital tools to automate the initiative tracking, but in its time? Yeah, a little too cumbersome at the table.

I would see that last point as a feature, not a bug in a lot of cases. There may be cases where a specific ruleset better realizes a setting's lore than others, but I can imagine very few where a setting wouldn't be workable without a specific ruleset, and I think in most cases, a group's...

Some pre-AD&D edition box set (I didn't own it, and I don't really remember the details because I was 9 years old): 1989-1990 AD&D 2E: 1990-2001 (never touched the Player's Option material) 3E: 2001 ~ 2012 4E: 1 session about 4 years ago. 5E: Haven't had a group to play with, so not at all...

Lore heavy for sure. Of course it depends on what the book's focus is: player option books need crunch, monster resources and adventures need stat blocks. But for anything dealing with setting, rules only give books an expiration date (or give the DM a headache if you want to convert to a new...

The way I see it, you only really need 3 types of elves: the uppity elves, the uppity in the trees elves, and the uppity but also downity in the groundity elves.

Rule Zero for sure. How can I insist that other people are playing the game wrong if they're allowed to change the rules any time they like?

I don't think anyone is arguing against psionics in general. It's just that there are two vocally dominant opinions on implementation that are in direct conflict with each other. On the one side, you have people saying that the concept of psionics is close enough to the concept of magic that...

That's not entirely true. Legend of the Five Rings did with considerably less resources than WotC could leverage if they so chose. Granted, a lot of the advancement was kind of wonky because it partially hinged on the results of a card game tournament, but they did it, and it wouldn't be that...

Only if you design the class as a caster. Which isn't a given. But largely, those people don't want martials to be casters, so it kind of is. They aren't by any other definition than the one you're giving them. Which isn't a given.

Very much disagree. Not even the concept is that close. More like a monk with a few save-or-die powers added. You're still working on the assumption of spell lists. I'm not working with that assumption, so it's potentially apples to oranges. Yeah, and that's why every class is a caster...

Hewing to D&Disms isn't limited to spellcasters. Also, that's the same kind of logic that keeps the warlord class from getting a 5E release. Honestly, that's even worse an argument than "because the wizard already exists" to me. By that argument, there's no need to ever create new classes or...

Psylocke is a psion. Not very magey to me. Also, the toolbox of pretty much every fictional psion in sci-fi I can think of is incredibly limited compared to even D&D half casters. Even Paul Atreides is outrageously powerful more in scale than in scope. It just isn't a good fit, in my opinion.

The "same as every caster class" is a point I will directly challenge. Why must psions be casters in the first place? The D&D monk is as close a fantasy analogue to some fictional users of psychic powers as any of the caster classes. The assumption here seems to be that a psion will...

And the point several of us making is not that. The point is that designing a class that doesn't take the fictional conceits of the concept it is built around into account is unlikely to produce a satisfying result. Taking a chassis designed for an entirely different type of fiction and filing...