Search results

No, it's more like someone doesn't want dog poop on the one pizza at the table and you insist on having it on there anyway. It's not a case of something that doesn't affect them if you use it. It breaks immersion and affects everyone at the table.

No. In short, damage on a miss means everything has armor, fighter's attacks can never be dodged, parried etc, fighter's have infinite accuracy and always make contact regardless of things like obscurement, invisibility. incorporealness or the target not even being in the square you swung at...

One single rule, especially one that breaks immersion is enough to ruin the game for some. Damage on a miss is not a balance issue. I can live with balance issues, but immersion breaking issues I cannot. That's one of the main reasons I avoided 4e.

If we're playing baseball, and you get to use a rule that says you can go to first base after striking out, if affects my enjoyment of the game, even if that rule doesn't apply to me, so yes, I won't play if certain rules are in place. In fact, the inclusion of such a rule poisons the game more...

In 1E, upon engaging in melee, the longer weapon strikes first, and weapon speed only comes into play when initiative is tied, or when opposed by spellcasting.

I foresee initial high sales based on the D&D logo, then tapering off to nothing within two years. A hodgepodge of mechanics from various editions will satisfy very few.

Not everyone thinks it's fun to play a wizard that can perform magic all day long. A reskinned crossbow is still a crossbow. At will attack cantrips make the magic decidedly UNmagical. It's no longer mysterious, it becomes reliable like technology. Boring.

That's my feeling. 4e was so far from what D&D had been that it pissed me off. 5e invokes a different emotion, or lack of emotion, apathy.

That's because it doesn't DO damage on a miss. It's an aoe effect with a 5 foot radius. Anyone within 5 feet IS hit.

Love the books. Hate the modules.

I voted on this poll, but I missed. Does my vote still count?

Yes. It's no secret Enworld ties itself - or has so far - to the most current edition. My point exactly.

There's a significant amount of people who seem to detest damage on a miss. Some people like it, and many just don't care either way. I don't think many of those who like the mechanic really feel that strongly about it. The inverse is not true. That's a good reason to ditch the mechanic. On...

Neither is 12 people liking something a good reason to include it.

1999 is not what I'd call Old School. It felt like 3.75 "lite" to me.

Simpler than 3e/4e, maybe, but I don't get an AD&D vibe at all. I see Next as a lower powered version of 3e. Nothing Old School about it.

I'll stand corrected on the first. The second is only opinion if you prefer a square wheel to a round one.

Double post.

Close enough, as 1E is mostly OD&D plus the first 3 supplements in one book with a few tweaks, as least as far as classes are concerned.

As far as D&D is concerned, the druid DID originate with 1E and was neither overpowered or lame. 2E made it lame and 3e made it overpowered.