Search results

No more buying magic items. More 'name-level' stuff like towers, keeps, armies, and lands.

Okay, so, there's a choice between having gold be spendable to improve your character in substantial ways (buy magic items) and not. If you can't, then gold becomes uninteresting to players who only want to optimize their characters. I'm going to submit this isn't a problem, because that just...

Well, I think the crowd was mostly peasants. So, they probably could have picked each other out by being A) Armed and B) Not covered in livestock byproduct.

This is probably what I was going to do in my home campaign, regardless of what the books say. Just because it's kind of awesome.

I want to read playtest reports from ballsier players. Not these guys who wander stunned and anemic through the GM's plot, killing any monsters that pop up and reading NPCs' expressions. I want to know what onus is placed on the system and the GM when the party Paladin marches up, knocks the...

Unless they're, y'know, paying people to produce the content. In which case, they do have a marginal cost curve regardless of whether it's on paper or not.

I don't mind. It's sort of neat to see the hobby through a completely different perspective. I don't have any trouble reading her prose style - it's non-linear, but pretty entertaining.

Western swordfighters have names for their moves, but they tend to be less metaphorical. This kind of stuff (to my limited understanding) actually comes from the various animal styles of kung fu specifically, rather than just asian martial arts in general. They were a sort of metaphor/mnemonic...

I like 'wallop' better.

Sounds kinda comic-book-ey. Don't get me wrong, I like comics. But this is just...well, it's like one of DC's Crises, except with Elminster and Drizz't instead of Superman & Batman.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. I just imagine less clockwork-spikes & flamethrowers and more concealed pits & logs swung on a rope.

These sound pretty cool, so long as they don't break suspension of disbelief. They would, in most circumstances. At least in my campaigns. And, y'know, I would like for there to still be a place in the system for the classic 'hole covered in leaves' or a tripwire tied to a crossbow. I mean...

This is a good thought. Also, as an incidental, I spent a lot of time this past weekend playing SAGA. We had zero problems with the skill rules as written. I found I was rather fond of them, just for how quick they were, and found them entirely serviceable. The proof is in the pudding, for...

Or, for the Kult/4E crossover that I'm thinking about running...Your entire life, everything you love, and the whole world. That's the trap. Seriously though, 30th level traps should be weird and scary, not simply huge with higher DCs. I mean, a sword popping out of the wall..that's cool, for...

What bothers me is that, to my mind, Warlord == High Level Fighter.

I've been pretty enthused up till now, but... Aw, Hell No. I don't even *like* FR and that pisses me off.

THe statement that you don't NEED rules for roleplaying is technically true. However, you don't NEED rules for much of anything, if you extend the reasoning. I think the rules should minimally leave room for roleplaying, and ideally support it. So. You don't need rules FOR roleplaying, but...

I'm afraid all the old-school weird :):):):) wizards could do is out the window. I've got the sense the spellcasters are more damage-dealers, less Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion and Glassteel.

Man, I don't know what Drakar & Demoner is, but I sure as hell wish I could read Swedish now. That pic is sweet. It is more of the style I"d like to see in 4E, and know that I won't.

I am against them. I am entirely capable of making the PC's lives into a meatgrinder of horror and misery without arbitrary death being handed out. I can always throw in a save-or-die, but they'll probably be warned of it ahead of time. I prefer if the monsters don't come pre-loaded with...