Search results

Couldn't you just drop the wizard and use the sorcerer and warlock for instance? You know, provided they don't build enough alternatives into the "Vancian" classes in the first place to make it a moot point.

Yeah, but how would you accommodate both in the same rules set, since some people do like it and this is supposed to be the edition for everyone. That was the challenge of the thread after all.

There are likely to be a fair number of optional rules in the book(s), how would you like to see them organized? Would you like them to be in the same sections of the book as the base rules or as near as possible. I.E. Saving Throws options should be near the saving throw section, tactical...

I seem to vaguely recall an offhand comment that hinted at that in one of the many reports from DDXP I read.

That's kind of interesting, I wonder if organized play in particular actually contributes in a meaningful way to the business, or if the fact that they have organized play is inconsequential beyond that they are actually having events and promoting themselves and engaging their customers.

Guess you'll just have to not be interested until the Beta comes out and proves it's fake, then you can resume being interested. :) Though given your seeming reliance on evidence I'm not sure why you would take the word of some random guy on the internet without one shred of it. And really...

I voted not at all, but to clarify my position I don't want to see the base rules putting strictures on things or being more regimented in an effort to support organized play. I wouldn't have a problem with rules modules meant to support that style of play though I'm not sure that I'd want them...

A post in a another thread spurred me to post this question. How much, if at all, should organized play influence the next iteration of D&D? By way of example take retraining rules, they're much more important in an organized play environment where characters move from group to group, but...

I said important, but not vital, because one person's out of the box is another person's fixer-upper. A big company should have a high degree of polish on their products and the end result should work well, but the idea that it should work exactly perfectly for everyone straight out of the box...

So if a player came to you and said that they liked their character from a story and personality standpoint but that mechanically it just wasn't working out like they hoped and it was affecting their enjoyment of the game, what would you do?

I am not personally keen on the idea of unlearning things, which is what retraining feels a bit like to me. I don't think it really addresses the underlying issue, that being sometimes players make choices that they're not happy with and that can have long term effects on the quality of their...

They're okay. Not super insightful, nor utterly useless. But if the results create any food for thought or hint at areas that might deserve a little more attention or investigation that seems worthwhile.

Honestly what I would really like to see isn't so much built in weirdness so much as have the book flat out say that if you want a game with robots and lasers and people from the real world and horseless carriages and whatever other silliness you can imagine then you can do it, you should do it...

Just for the record I like some weird. My next campaign will likely have guns, robots, and goblins descended from crash-landed little green men, and I'm sure assorted other weirdness.

How weird should the default presentation of D&D be? Should it entice players to traditional fantasy or beyond it? It seems like something the game originally embraced at its inception with OD&D's robots, Temple of the Frog, and the suggestion that players could play pretty much anything...

Well ideally I'd like everything to be quick and easy to resolve and then the players can focus on doing what they want, and if they aren't all interested in the same parts of gameplay then it can be dealt with quickly enough to keep a sense that everyone at the table is involved in the game as...

I read better, faster, smarter to mean quicker resolution, more intuitive mechanics, and replicating the feel of previous editions with less oddities and rules chafe. Assuming I'm reading that correctly, then yes I want better, faster, smarter.

For me personally, as long as combat is quick and doesn't dominate play time it makes balancing between different areas of play seem feasible, and it no longer requires that everyone be equally good at any one area, just that they have enough baseline competence to contribute in a meaningful way...

I've been thinking about this one and I think with a little tweak you could make this into a really interesting mechanic, that while different from previous iterations of D&D could bring some nice tension to the table. Let's say that most SoD spells and effects have a grace period (you could...

I wasn't really sure what to vote in the poll. I don't have a problem with firearm rules if they are well done and simple, but definitely don't see the need for a gunslinger class. Basic firearms rules I'm a little ambivalent about though, if they can include them it's great as it allows for a...