Search results

. . . that would work reasonably well in my game world. I currently run a 4E game which allows all the races mechanically, but presents many of them in the game world as members of 7 different "tribes". I have taken pains to make the tribes distinct but generally more human-like in apperance...

I'm a big fan of RQ, and liked how generic the starting character cultures were - could be fit into any game world. I'm not seeing a great fit for this kind of "human culture" as either a sub-race or Background in D&D next. I think the end result is race-specific "cultures" will split between...

Except when the orc is suffering disadvantage anyway, in which case it should rage as there is no further penalty. Taken like that, it's actually quite a nice design feature of orcs as a monster. PCs might think twice about trying to corner/restrict/attack whilst invisible etc versus an orc due...

Sorry to be a math geek, but that's 10.5 . . . not that it changes your argument any.

I agree. At least about the unwritten assumption. It should be explicit in the rules, and I would like to have non-super shop-keepers, peasants etc in the game. How that is achieved in practice is less of an issue for me - for instance I'd be happy with separate monster-style stats for human...

Generally good. I like the "gain disadvantage and drop a die type" mechanic. Problem with Reach weapons: The ruling on attacking "inside" your reach combines somewhat unfairly with the disengagement rules, meaning once someone has closed with you, you will suffer an attack of opportunity for...

I'm going to say what I will then . . . ;) Yes, it is hard to have warrior characters who don't use magic, in a high-fantasy setting, to not fall behind spell casters. However, I think it is worthwhile for a game to attempt, for the people who want to play a warrior style of character. Not...

That's a comparison that caught me by surprise. Having played a lot of 4E and a fair amount of Feng Shui, I would say the focus on cinematic action (very deliberately in FS with many direct nods to cinema tropes in the rulebooks) and player-controlled narration of that action are two main...

I think most martially-focused adventurers in D&D are going to qualify as the "show-offs" in the OP terminology. However, I would like to see more depth to the weapons, and more mechanical differences for those of us that care (I include myself in the general sense). Where there is thematic...

We could probably calculate an "expected XP / number of encounters before losing 50% health" for a fighter build that kept getting into fights without an extended rest. I'd pick 50% health, as that's a safe margin, and a realistic resource drain level where a group can be allowed to take a rest...

Generalisations about classes in the fluff makes classes more real in the game world. Players will ask on an NPC, is he/she a "Wizard", are they a "Paladin"? I could personally do with them being less real, and more just about how PCs are built. As for "Wizards hate Sorcerers", cultural...

That's how it has worked in AD&D and 3E. This allowed the spellcaster to throw in more spell resource to the fight, which can be good and bad (good = being allowed to play the resource game, bad = driver toward 15-min-workday). Whether or not it works in 5E depends on how you interpret the word...

I like this one - it gives the players a chance to recover an otherwise lost spell. It prevents the need for the magic user to have to wait, they can throw down a combat-ending effect on the off-chance, and the rest of the team makes a difference to it succeeding or not.

One thing not been mentioned so far is electronic tools. A decent character generation porgram could present *either* Specialities, or the underlying Feats, depending on user preference. It could then summarise choices made into a simplified "what you can do and what the numbers are" front- or...

From the DM's seat I dislike the meta-gaming I will have to avoid (or use to throw the spellcaster some feel-good). When I prepare a session, I will already know which creatures the PC spellcaster can affect with which spells. This will mean I have a lot of control over the effectiveness of the...

Doesn't have to, but it being possible (via a sourcebook like Savage Species) is a nice addition. Pretty much anything sentient that you can imagine would make a nice fantasy game character to somebody, provided the rules don't creak too much.

It worked in 3E because monsters and PCs were built using the same units. In 5E it will need to be similar to 4E - someone will need to convert the monster to it can work in a separate PC race/class system. As a player I really liked the lego-brick "you can build anything" approach of 3E...

From what I've read the mechanic is supposed to work well when forgotten and then remembered and applied afterwards. Simply roll the D20 again, you don't have to reverse and add all the bits up again (which you may have to do if you forgot the old combat advantage or flanking bonus). The odd...

Personally I'd nerf the wizard high-level abilities rather than have super-heroics pop up in the game before level 10 (or at least some number high enough that I can fit my game to it). Don't see that happening though, so I agree and I'd hope to see some nice options for non-spellcasters for...

Yes, the hyperbole of high level D&D is one thing that caused me to wander to RuneQuest for many a year. That, and the matching short stories in White Dwarf gave RQ a kind of "street" feel that I completely fell for. Edit: The story that made leave D&D for RQ was Lucky Eddi, White Dwarf 29, 1982