Search results

Just going off the stripped down descriptions of races in the write-up, I'm not 100% certain they are going with Forgotten Realms as the core setting in One D&D, and frankly, I'd be glad if they didn't. So much of what went wrong with WotC's stewardship of the setting can be traced back to WotC...

There's no more reason that the heads themselves need to have mechanics attached to them than there is for a dwarf's beard. They aren't a beast race. And what I'm suggesting is that there should be a difference between aasimar and ardling flavor-wise. Pretty much the entire point of my post...

I could see it being something of a taxonomy thing, where enough concrete differences are observed in celestial-born planetouched that people start using different names for them. Kind of like how you have tieflings, fey'ri and tanarukks (though those are divided along the mundane parent race)...

I registered a free account. I've mostly been avoiding D&DB because I don't agree with the payment model, but as long as the playtest is downloadable and not behind a paywall, I don't have a problem just registering to the site.

I'd be for that even beyond the first level. Just depreciate ASIs as a primary power gain altogether, and focus on more interesting ways of building your character.

Yeah, it's funny how the writers go out of their way to make sure that fire spells don't lead to the natural conclusion of introducing fire to things that burn when that's pretty much the only reason anyone would dedicate years of study to mastering the art of magical fire in the first place.

Ooh, can you do younger? These forums have been around for a couple of decades, so if you could go back and post your opinion... let's say 12 years ago, that'd be fantastic. When you're done, lend me your time machine so I can go revise my investment strategy. Not gonna lie: I'm definitely...

If I cared enough to evaluate squares partially enveloped by the sphere differently than those fully so - which I do not - I'd probably either go with "no damage on a save" if it was a "take half on a save" type of spell or just go a die step down on the damage for those squares. But honestly...

This is pretty much where this discussion seems to break down. I can't recall a single person asking for mechanical complexity for the sake of mechanical complexity (in fact, many of the suggestions and asks in this thread are objectively less complex mechanically than magic as it exists in...

One way you could mitigate the issue of vulnerabilities making things too easy would be to only have them do extra damage on a critical.

Honestly? That's what session zero is for. The existence of bad stuff in the world isn't, in my opinion, justification to avoid any heavy topics or content in game writing. It just means every group should have an open and honest discussion as to what topics and content they are comfortable...

I think the difference here is that - for most people - mind control isn't a real fear one has to keep in mind when going about one's life, and rape very much is for a significant portion of the populace. There are, of course, exceptions where behavior modification really does happen: cults...

IMO this is one of the worst abuses of IP law. Say what you want about copyright term expansions and lazy patent filing; at least they're still serving their intended purposes. Trademark was never meant to be a super copyright, but rather just a way to reserve a distinctive mark or design that...

My problem isn't expanding on a setting: it's "expanding" it by forcing in elements from the core just because it's core. Especially when they do the same thing with every setting. It's not creative to fit the feywild into the setting when that's what you're also doing with Dragonlance and...

Fair enough on it getting support. I forgot about that since I mostly skipped out on 4E altogether. But looking at the changes listed in Wikipedia for the edition, I'll disagree with it being good. It looks like they did the same kind of homogenization they've been doing with everything lately.

100% agreed. As much as I dislike it, I get making drastic changes and retcons to a continually published line like The Forgotten Realms because it's WotC making changes that they perceive, correctly or not, to be in keeping with the changing tastes of their expanding audience of a product said...

I reject this because Planescape had a flavor all its own, completely separate from any of the settings it was supposedly just connective tissue for. I think that I'm comfortable claiming that any setting that gets 6 box sets, 12 other source books and 12 setting specific adventures is too...

Y'all are missing the context of my comment. I didn't say anything about guns, and neither did the post that prompted it. It was specifically a denial that gunpowder in general had anything to do with the fighter vs wizard debate because in order for it to do so, it would have to invalidate...

The Three Musketeers doesn't have the fighter vs wizard problem though. My point is that any solution to the power discrepancy of magic vs martial that gunpowder can provide will ultimately be disappointing to the people who have a problem with the discrepancy of magic vs martial.

Well if what people like about fighters is the swording, then making them more effective by giving them something that makes swords irrelevant isn't exactly the fix they're looking for.