Search results

Results seem pretty split/inconclusive.

Good thing WotC went away from downloadable tools to online tools. That way, when 4e ends, subscribers won't have to be bothered with obsolete tools anymore. I fear that 4e will be remembered as "D&D: Internet Edition", which failed.

I don't like the idea that you have to "give monsters proficiencies or skills" so that it has the numbers you want. Just give the monster the numbers you want and be done with it.

What bothers me is that most D&D settings have a pseudo-medieval Europe world, despite the existence of fairly common magic. It is jarring to me. When a setting explicitly takes the magic into account, such as Eberron, many folks don't like how commonplace magic is. If you want magic to have...

The first time I saw durations expressed based on story was Toon--some things lasted for "a scene". Storyteller does this often, too. I was happy to see D&D adopt story-based durations (for the most part). It's not about bookkeeping for me--it's about how I like magic to work. Though some...

I don't think it's something that needs to be fixed. It is a play style that some groups adopt and others don't. Why didn't this seem to be as much of a problem in older editions? Module/adventure design typically had wandering monsters, no safe rest zones, or a time limit.

In 2013, I bet they will release a preview game, as when they introduced 4th edition. Don't expect a full release until 2014.

Just sad, but not surprising. *heaviest sigh I've had in ages*

I like the approach they are working on. I really like it.

What I thought was weird is that, in the anecdote, she says she hated a mid-week fourth of July because she had to get up for school the next day. Huh? Where is this?

I would just like the advantage/disadvantage stack, then compare--if equal, no effect, if more advantage, then you get advantage; if more disadvantage, then you have disadvantage.

Since moving the threads about articles exclusively to the News page, there is very little discussion about news articles. That wasn't the goal, was it?

By the way, DDO does this: fewer levels, but there are "levels within levels". Meaning, before you gain a level, you get some more skills, feats, etc. within the current level. Big class features still depend on your level.

Counterspelling has to be either more likely to succeed or use less "actions or resources" than simply damaging the caster. That's why there was no focus on counterspelling in 1e. You simply had to hit the other caster with magic missile or something.

No--the beholder has no hit dice, so the DMG wasn't helpful in determining attack rolls (which were based on hit dice). That was also an issue in determining if a beholder was affected by a hit die limited effect, like death spell.

Nice! Love that picture of the beholder. That monster, more than any other, got me into D&D. I got the MM when I was 9, back in 1980, before I was actually playing. Still, the mechanics for beholders (hit points, no hit dice--what was their THAC0), percentages of hp to each body part, rules for...

If the game isn't going to have an expected wealth-by-level, then DMs will be free to give the amount of gold that makes sense in their individual campaigns. Please let DDN work that way.

The easiest way to handle this is simply to have less treasure. That is how my homebrew game works.

Each of these excerpts has contained bits of the "gotcha", adversarial DM style that I now dislike. Also, the writing, though pretty, is really unclear.

I don't like the #2 answer, either. If you have advantage for two different reasons, and disadvantage for one reason, you might still have advantage. Heck, maybe you should actually have disadvantage.