Search results

Being able to pick some features would be kinda cool. I'd just hate to deal with the way it used to be. I got lucky once and rolled a teifling who was immune to non-magical weapons..kinda broken at first level. So, I'm cool with it so long as the anatomical features, if rolled, aren't tied...

Still. Even those evil PCs were generally only typically evil. I mean, there's a spectrum there. You can be a pretty terrible person and still find the Drow society to be an unspeakable mass of alien horror.

I think there should probably be some point at which increasing your personal net worth no longer equates to a gain of XP. Even if we do have a GP to XP mechanic. But running a gold mine *would* be kind of cool.

I suppose it depends. If you have to blow the money on mechanically useless things to get the XP out of it, then...well, people have the choice of getting magic items or getting XP. That would seem...odd, at best. If you just have to haul the coins and gems back to the surface to get XP for...

The first makes no sense, the last I have never, ever seen. If hoarding up all your money to spend on the next best magic item in order to stay competitive was a good story, I'd have read fantasy novels that featured it. The second, I simply disregard as neutral. I don't see what it 'takes...

You have not yet explained how having a character uninterested in wealth is hurting that character. I'm starting to wonder if you can.

In order of paragraphs. 1. A player being uninterested in some potential aspect of the game or campaign does not amount to impairment. This is a loaded word you are using inaccurately. 2. Then he's sure got something else to spend money on, so it's cool that he accounts that above 'bling.'...

You should maybe have a chat with your player, and tell him to just send you an email between games rather than eat up session time with it. I think that you're overstating the case if you say it 'crams a certain playstile down everyone's throats.' It is much, much easier for an individual DM...

So...they don't care about the gold and gems. Devise other motivations, it shouldn't be that hard. I've played plenty of characters like that. What's the problem?

I'm not sure I care a whole lot. If the grognard types, possibly including myself, want an alignment? Just write it down. We all know what it means, and nobody's going to glare at you for putting LG on your paladin's sheet. I never made a great deal of use of alignment, with a few rare...

Here's another one...And this might be fixed just on the grounds that it's now much easier to have encounters with numerous low-level bad guys. In the older editions, your character started to feel like kind of a badass when you hit higher levels. For some reason, in 3.x, I never got that...

Yeah, one roll against everyone is how SAGA does it, and so long as there's a way to mitigate crits (they might have said action points do this?) it really speeds things up and gets the game firing on all cylinders.

Yeah, Vampires aren't even evil. Football players are.

A few things have occurred to me, as I've contemplated static defenses. 1. It makes success/failure more obviously dependent on skill. Say the fighter and the rogue are standing next to each other. I presume the rogue will have a better reflex defence. You could fireball them a hundred...

Oh! And Solo Play as a more viable option. That was kinda tough to do in 3E, or at least tougher than it was in previous editions.

Not just for 4E, though. For every game ever.

I'd like to see Morale come back, too, but I can't see it happening.

You don't have to be super-high-level to do epic things. Lolth had less than 70 hit points. A party that could kill Lolth would still have to be careful around, say, a pack of giants. You never stopped having to think your way through.

I really, really like this idea, but I would be shocked as hell to see it in 4E.

Jesus. That'd make a handful of gold quite a bit bigger deal, and no mistake.