Search results

One of the annoying aspects of Attacks of Opportunity in 3E and Opportunity Attacks in 4E has always been that they fundamentally exist as a check designed to discourage characters from taking certain actions, so PCs and monsters rarely take those actions. The net result is that AoO rarely...

I think most of the campaigns I have played in have had four to six players plus the DM, usually leaning on the upper end of that range. I have tried a one-on-one campaign a couple times, though.

No need to strictly limit ourselves to what has come before in terms of exact mechanics. There are a lot more options that jut those three. I understand why Vancian spell-casting is so popular for D&D. To a certain a level, it is much easier to track than point-based systems, since you just...

I could get behind the idea of level-0 characters, particularly if they are not fully members of any one class yet. It would be much better suited to the "farmboy who is just setting out" archetype than being level 1. Let a character optionally start out at level 0, then after a few sessions go...

The only really good feats were ones that opened up multiclassing options, or let players do radically new things with existent class abilities. These included the feats that let Tome of Battle classes get use out of power points, or let clerics use their Turn Undead channeling attempts for new...

Because that would fundamentally limit the scope of how much change and variation would be possible, and would dilute the four "core" classes into being more or less meaningless. Let's look at the bard as a example. You could possibly make a bard by combining the rogue and the wizard and taking...

The Paladin is more that a multiclass Cleric/Fighter, it is a holy knight with unique Smite Evil and Lay on Hands mechanics. The Druid isn't just a Cleric, it's one that can turn into a bear, a hawk, or a snake. A Ranger is at home in the wilderness in a way that rogue or fighter aren't, and...

The problem though with resigning yourself to a compromise that doesn't fully satisfy everyone is that it quickly becomes too easy to justify not even trying to satisfy broad ranges of fans. Trying to not turn anyone off of the game can quickly result in cutting out options that are critically...

I would like to see Clerics and Wizards using different spell systems, whether it is Vancian or not. There is some basis in history for it, at least, since Clerics and Paladins have always used other subsystems than Vancian magic for their unique abilites: Turn Undead and Smite Evil.

Uniformity is not at all necessary for game balance. You don't need to give up balance in order to avoid uniformity. All balance requires is that the game designers understand the relative power of different mechanics and abilities, and adjust accordingly (far easier said that done, I know). As...

I don't think this is a matter of two opposing sides. I for one think that balance is essential to a fun RPG experience, but I also think 4E did go way too far unnecessarily in the name of balance. When various people call out for balance, they are not asking for constrained uniform design...

Not really, no. It's just reminding me about my issues and complaints about various editions. It has reinvigorated my general desire to play D&D though. I have been without a game for a while now, after a Pathfinder game didn't work out, but I might take a crack at starting my own 4E game (4E...

I strongly disagree about class bloat accusation, but I guess this isn't the place for that. Anyways, as a convert from 3E to 4E, for me the most fundamental problem of 4E, and likely the source of many of the complaints against it, is the overly constrained design of the class/power system...

I was going to post pretty much this. While the biggest problem of 4E was the overly constrained design of the power system, the idea that every class should have powers is definitely its strongest idea.

I for one like the hard cap on levels at the end of the Epic tier that 4E had. It prevented the crazy power level creep that perpetually kept the most powerful foes outside of actual fightable range. 3E Eberron for example fell into game design trap where the major setting big bads were all...

I think that this was going to have to be the case. I for one strongly dislike some of the fundamental concepts of 3E's mechanics, which is why I could never get into Pathfinder. At the same time, there are quite a few people who have a deep-seated dislike for Fourth Edition's basic tenets, some...

The next edition will probably be its own thing at its core, with a whole new central rule system not based directly on any one edition. From there it will probably draw strong inspiration from 3e and 4e, with a few nods to older editions. It will definitely also have some wholly new ideas in...

My idea of what would be a good 5E is an edition of D&D that is grounded in the wide variety of quality classes, races, freedom, and varied game mechanics of late 3.5 edition D&D combined with some of the more refined core game mechanics of 4th edition. Late 3.5E stuff like the Expanded Psionics...

For me, one of the most valuable aspects of the 4E Ritual system is that it let non-wizards have access to magic. Many spells are too generally useful and important to the game(such as teleportation) to only be used by one class. That makes that one class too mandatory.

I don't think breaking the game into different self-contained product lines with their own supplements is a good idea. It will draw battle-lines and foster disunity and conflict within the fanbase. When a product for D&D Legends is announced, D&D Core and Tactics fans will go: "Hey! Where's our...