Search results

Movement was always the part that didn't fit into one minute rounds in my AD&D games. Since we have turn-based combat, a creature could get a full minute of movement after an enemy attacked. If that creature won initiative the next round, it got another full minute of movement. In other...

For a start, the name "Monk" is too specific. That's unfortunate. If the class were martial artist, or unarmed warrior, or something else . . . more archetypes could be easily accommodated.

I agree that options and grid make for much longer combats. I stand by my point, as well.

Seems like this thread has entirely turned into something other than the OP's point.

Just once, please just once, have alchemical items that aren't pointless. Just about every version of these (acid, fire, smokesticks, etc) has been such a cost-heavy, sub-optimal choice, with the exception of 3e tanglefoot bags.

Anytime there are fewer die rolls, the game is faster. Anytime fewer people are making decisions or making rolls, the game is faster.

I would like a game where a glowing sword--no bonus to hit or damage, but one that simply glows on and off on command--is a significant magic item for low or mid-level heroes.

I would like to point out that detailing one town doesn't necessarily describe a whole setting. Likewise, though AD&D rule books used lots of names for magic items, spells, and artifacts, they were vague, evocative names. They were references to a setting, but that's all. That's what I would...

I don't think an average new or casual gamer wants to spend a lot of time "mastering" the rules of a game, especially when new to the game. The new and casual gamers I see at the club at school are interested in D&D, and want to sit, listen to a brief explanation, and begin playing.

I actually prefer the free-form skill idea from the 1st playtest packet. No matter what happens, I am treating skills that way for the 2nd and 3rd playtests. I love the idea of skills being tied to training and experience, but not necessarily an ability score. For instance, a character might...

I run a D&D-RPG club at my high school. The veteran players loved 4e, but the new players didn't. In the years since 4e came out, the club had more players who always had to be helped out during rounds than in 3e. Also, combats dragged on terribly with a group of newer players. The at-will...

The thing is, picking any setting will be a turnoff to some group of gamers. Having no default settings, and making some minor references to the various settings out there, won't alienate anyone. They will still have their old materials for setting, or be able to make there own settings without...

I hate the Realms. Sad that there is so much content for it, but I can't stand it and the gaming subculture surrounding it. Some others feel the same about Points of Light, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and so on. By not having a default setting, DDN can avoid this sort of thing.

I made a number of your changes, Uller, in my most recent 4e campaign. Fights did go faster . . . but paragon level characters typically had so many options, and there were so many conditions, and so many out-of-turn and extra turn actions. I was working on making a simpler version of 4e, for...

Many folks won't like it, because it is straight from 4e.

I like no default setting, instead having the rule books make passing references to many settings.

No, no it doesn't. DDN is not currently backwards compatible with any edition. I don't think they plan to make it that way, either.

The "half-class" idea has been done: 4e hybrids.

For warlocks, these names aren't a 4e-motif. The original warlock invocations had plenty of flavorful names, too.

Hah! I liked the earlier Ral Partha stuff, probably because that was when I started collecting (about 1979), and they were WAY better than what Grenadier made back then. Grenadier did get much better through the 80s. I had the entire dragon collection, including Tiamat.