Search results

Wildshape can easily stay in the game, as long as wildshape's power is defined by stats, not "any animal in the book". That is how wildshape worked in late 3.5's PHB2: "the shape looks like whatever you like, but here is the best abilities you can get". Fourth edition did something similar...

I think it's just too campaign specific. In my campaigns, I would like to see wizards more rare than rangers or barbarians. In a campaign based on Earthsea, it would be the opposite. I don't think the concept will make it into the core rules.

I like something like giving humans two backgrounds (to represent varied ability, adaptability) and +2 to a stat of their choice.

I found 1e AD&D to be incredibly detailed, possibly needlessly so. Definitely, it was as least as detailed and comprehensive as 3e, but not streamlined at all. I know it may have seemed otherwise, but I believe that is because many people simply ignored or didn't understand a lot of those...

I am glad to see turn undead go this way. Just as some clerics would never memorise bestow curse or flame strike, some would never bother turning undead.

My players would shrug. It would be same as if that opportunity never presented itself. Meanwhile, as a DM, I have to provide adventure hooks and respond to player actions . . . or there is no game. Eventually, I just fast-forwarded through training time.

Funny, when I tried to do the "missed adventuring time due to training" back in AD&D, the players would say that their PCs would wait for the others to finish.

My favorite lore regarding warlocks was from the original 3.5 presentation, plus the idea of Fey and Star warlocks from 4e. This new take . . . meh.

By the way, it doesn't have to be reroll: It can be roll two dice and take the appropriate result. Saves a bit of time.

I really hope monsters-as-characters is a well thought out, but separate, module.

If you were non-human, you could pick a combo of two or three classes, determined by your race, at first level only. Then you divided your xp between/among your classes, tracking leveling separately. If one class hit max level, you kept dividing hps. Generally, you got all the benefits of each...

I like the mechanic for the reasons that Nagol states. *helps with flat math *makes autofailures a bit rarer, and makes critical success a little more common In my games, however, I will allow adv/dis to stack in a limited way: if an action has both advantage and disadvantage, the final...

I thought it was one pech, two pech. Kinda like fish or deer. :)

In DDN, and in each edition since 1.5 (when weapon specialization was added), a fighter has been able to increase the damage of longsword through skill alone. Getting to add +2 or +3 damage due to skill is similar, mechanically, to increasing the damage die 2 or 3 places. So a skilled...

For me, this line of reasoning makes it unreasonable for a human fighter to face down a 30' long dragon with a longsword.

Multiclassing as an optional rule could be presented from day one in the DMG, for instance. Still, if multiclassing gives all the same features of a full classed member of a class . . . game balance doesn't work out so well.

My great hopes in this regard: 1. There are enough classes and specialties to cover the most common multiclass characters. For instance, make a base fighter/wizard class. 2. Multiclassing is presented as an optional rule. It doesn't have to be in a "module", but I hope it isn't the default.

AD&D style made for powerful low level characters, very powerful mid-level characters, low-powered high level characters, and, if you remove level limits, ultra-powerful characters at high level. No thanks.

"The Tough Guy" is one of my preferred character types, an archetype, I would say. That Survivor specialty fits it to a T.

This is a fantasy rpg race. They aren't small humans, or children. They do whatever they need to for the purposes of the game. Verisimilitude is needed, but not realism.