Search results

I like star pact better, and it has nothing to do with game mechanics. It's the closest thing D&D has, flavor-wise, to what I think magic in a fantasy world ought to be like. It's certainly not perfect, but I like the concept they loosely based the pact on.

I would love to have seen 4e be a much more simplified (yet complete) D&D game, upon which individual DMs and players could add on anything they wanted, and then an "Advanced D&D" book or series of books that were optional rules expansions and add-ons, completely compatible with the core game...

What is the point of this? Seriously.

I only bought the DM screen. I don't feel that I need any other products... in fact, I kind of feel like adding new rules, new "stuff" will ruin it, since I don't trust the additional material to not be broken, and don't like WotC's idea of what constitutes fantasy to begin with. I'm fine with...

I don't mind spending the time if it's worth it, but I did vote for the simple method. It's just easier and more conducive to actually getting a game going. The detailing can (and should, imo) come as you play and gain experience anyhow. No need to front-load a character who might die in the...

You're kidding, right?

I prefer as much random generation as possible (because it's fun to interpret the results and build off that with my imagination), but it's best if the designers understand what they are doing and have crafted good tables. I'm quite often "stuck" when faced with games that have no random...

I had considered giving a lone PC some hireling/henchman style minions to try and increase survivability. Anyone have experience using this method? I agree, it seems like it should work fine, but...

I guess railroading could be seen as forcing players down a particular path even though they don't want to do it. So if your group is enjoying what they're doing I don't think it counts. However, I think if you're depriving players of succeeding or failing on their own merits then you are...

I've used some, and also put them on new bases. I have only been using ones that seemed close enough to D&D monsters, but you're right... it would be cool to stat up some of the more unusual ones as new critters as well.

I think she's in the right, too. As long as she's not making a character that is actually unplayable, it's fine that she will have a serious flaw. Flaws make characters interesting, especially when the player is willing to accept it and use it in play. If her character's weakness affects the...

I like the preview of the sheet by Mezzer (listed on the first page), but the link to download it is now broken. Does anyone still have a copy? Please PM me if you do and would share it, thanks. Auronite, those are pretty cool sheets, especially for being done in Word. Good job.

Based on the first page image, I really like this sheet! Does anyone happen to still have a copy saved? I notice that Mezzer hasn't been around in a while, so I don't have much hope the broken link will be fixed. Please PM me if you'd be willing to share a copy, thanks.

Actually, your ruling makes more sense than the alternative, and therefore adds richness and believability to the fantasy world. What? Is it cool nowadays to let players succeed at absolutely every idea they want to try? That would get boring fast.

Some people seem to enjoy the simulation factor of crafting their own things. I suppose it could be fun in a way, having the possibility of failure. I do think such things should be optional, however, especially in D&D. It's a waste of time for a lot of players, otherwise.

Given the limited space in the 4E books, I really wish the initial offering had set up play for levels 1-10 only, saving the later tiers for later books (kind of like the old BECMI setup back in the day). I never have played D&D with characters over level 10 except once when we started them...

Nope. Nothing there so far has been worth paying for, in my opinion. Nothing promised interests me either.

What a strange and silly thread! The druid is not a druid and needs a name change??? Well the 4E barbarian WotC just previewed is a berzerker, not a barbarian. 4E's paladin is actually a generic religious warrior, not a paladin according to the meaning of that title. The 4E dryads are...

I think Necro made the best 3E products, period, so would be quite interested in whatever Clark is cooking up. I'm confident that even if the "feel" of 1E is subjective, it would be more to my liking that whatever feel 4E is supposed to have (I play it and still don't know... it just lacks any...

What's so cheesy about this creature?