Search results

I've always loved playing a bard - largely for the mixed combat/magic functionality, skill-mastery, and social dynamism. However the implementation often felt like there was a severe lack of a attention to detail paid to making the bard fun and flexible to play in combat. Sticking a mandolin in...

Obviously the Power Pattern based balance of 4E isn't coming forward. With that off the table, there are still a lot of good things from 4E that can convert forward: Healing Surges -> Hit Dice Encounter Powers -> Short Rest Recovery / 5 Minute Limits Rituals -> Ritual Casting Options At-Will...

Warrior, Magic-User, Priest, and Rogue as class categories with things like this: Warrior: (Best Weapons, AC, and Combat Maneuvers; Large HD) - Fighter (Combat Superiority) - Marshall [Warlord] (Leadership) - Barbarian [Berserk] (Rage) Priest: (Divine Magic, Customized By Deity, Medium HD) -...

The ratio shift is around 5:2, not 7:1. Having run Orcs and whatnot in 4-5 sessions of play-testing now I'd say the book-keeping isn't a big issue. I sub-group them on initiative, few of them hit per turn, and they die in 1 or 2 hits each. That said, we were just using a graph-paper map and...

They dropped the XP values of monsters a lot. Now you get 2 or 3 of something to fill threat value [A] where you used to only get 1. Yes, the +2 to hit Orc is frustratingly incompetent at hitting the Mountain Dwarf. Now there are a lot more Orcs in an encounter so it comes out in the wash...

I'm very glad to see an expansion of skills and its a great improvement for them to separate skills from ability scores again. I hope we see Athletics and Endurance make a come back on the skill list too. Finally seeing some love for Super-Classes / Class Categories makes me smile. - Marty Lund

I'm very happy to see that. The concept of the Super-Class / Class Category wasn't getting enough love. I'd like to see 4 spheres: Magic-User, Warrior, Expert, and Vicar. Some classes (Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock, Fighter/Berserker/Marshall, Rogue, Cleric/Druid) would be firmly within one sphere or...

More specific and narrow in their niche - what they do and how they operate - is fine. More specific and narrow in their origin options? That's completely unnecessary. Yes. That's what you do now. You could have an origin where you didn't sign on that dotted line until the moment you joined...

That's way too setting-specific - presuming geographical and cultural features that are completely unnecessary and obviously linked to Backgrounds (where you came from) that don't need to be married to classes (what you do now). That's way too narrow and obviously violates the separation of...

Eh, that'll be an issue of how serious they are about killing sacred cows and avoiding repeating mistakes just because they are traditional, I suppose. Much like a Berserker is someone who has gained the ability to tap into a powerful rage to fight. Meanwhile a Barbarian is someone of any...

If you mean Druid/Rogue/Psion in the sense that he had no druid spells, no wild shape, no back-stab, no open locks/disable devices/pick pockets, no psionic powers, horrifying MAD stat requirements to enter, and was completely functional in a setting without any psionics then, yeah, sure -...

It's a good article. It shows attention to the idea of divorcing Class and Background - that the players, not the game designers, will be fitting these things together. Classes that tried to marry the two in prior editions (non-lawful, superstitious, illiterate Barbarians; always-lawful...

Marrying Background to a Class is definitely one of the things D&DNext seeks to do away with (as seen here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/330395-d-d-next-q-11oct.html) so count on seeing various aspects of the AD&D / 3E Monk carved out. I certainly hope that, as...

They said they ideally wanted every class that was in the PHB be represented in the Core for Next. Nobody ever promised you a stand-alone class with the same name and your favorite pile of features from your edition of choice. There very well could be no Class named "Barbarian," "Monk,"...

These are an excellent grouping - clearly the same family while being distinct races. Other than the over-sized sword I'm really feeling the style of the Hobgoblins. The Bugbear and regular Goblin have just the right amount of distinctive traits to flesh them out. - Marty Lund

Hm, I think I'd be happy with the scimitar being placed with the saber, an entry for a longsaber replacing the katana, and "special" being added to the longsword entry. Under long-sword it would read that a longsword, when wielded in two hands, may use Strength modifier or Dexterity Modifier for...

Frankly, I don't see mixing the Wizard and Fighter in multi-class having the correct effect of a Mystic Warrior. Just opening up the spell list appropriate to the Wizard is not sufficient. Frankly, it opens up a lot of stuff that's inappropriate. I'd also rather not hand every feature for arcane...

I'd definitely favor using the spot for a Warrior-Mystic style character - something that covers the swordsman with a lightning blade or the martial-artist who mastered the way of the flaming tiger death-punch. ;) I'd be looking for a character much more in line with a 4E Sword-mage, 3E...

I have to spread around the XP, but this. This is the stone-cold truth. You have to pay for gimmicks somewhere. It either comes from your background and specialties or it comes out of the viability of your class. If you give one class a huge pile of gimmicks like define the monk he's not going...

1.) Not necessary as a class feature, much more a background feature 2.) Not a prominent feature in fighting monks or martial-artists of any stripe - it's a left-over from occidental stereotypes of oriental mysticism and maybe one too many re-runs of the "Kung Fu" television series. 1.) It was...