Search results

That thing with the lock DC didn't really happen.

That might be a good start.

I'm okay with pointy hats as long as all the wizards aren't old white men with beards.

I'm not defending my edition. I'm noting my displeasure with their expressed design philosophy for D&D Next. There's a difference. I think you forgot that you rather snarkily wrote this:

Agreed. Tying each class that strongly to a role was bad, but the idea of formal roles is itself not bad at all. The original implementation in 4e of roles was flawed, but they were on their way to getting better. A true "4.5" would probably have solved these problems nicely.

How is it "edition warring" to note that their current design philosophy is based on rejecting anything that remotely smells like 4e? That's not edition warring, that's simply recognizing what's going on here. BTW, the grid isn't from 4e, it's from 3e. 4e's only contribution was the...

I suppose I could say, "In my game, it works like this..." in every post.

Are you trolling here or have you missed all the previous threads about this topic? Cuz, like, you've somehow managed to hit on pretty much all the inflammatory things people tend to say about art choices in D&D. Just curious.

Woops, wrong forum. Crap.

In AD&D, when you were multiclass, you declared it at the beginning of your career, at the same time that single classed characters chose their single class. I'd like to see that be the default in D&D Next, and I'd also like to see a limit of 2 on the number of classes you can have. So when...

This rule-of-three was a whole lot of "look, we don't really know yet, but what we DO know is that we won't be doing it like 4e!"

Gosh, I hope so!

Yeah, if the example was instead "a level 7 monk" then we'd see more problems.

I'm not just trying to score points here for rhetoric, mind you -- I think that "battlefield titan" is indeed an expression of a desire for characters to fit a given role. (In 4e terms, we'd probably call it a striker. In WoW terms, we'd call it DPS.) Your players DO have an expectation of...

Isn't "battlefield titan" just a role, though?

Me too. I've particularly liked 4e's focus on not just making up a character, but making up a character who fits into a group in a specific way. But not everyone seems to want that. Which is a shame, but seems to be true -- they want to consider their characters as solo heroes rather than part...

Yeah, the rate of fire for bows in earlier editions never made much sense, even when you try to take into account the one-minute combat round.

Why would you call this the "Vancian anchor" if it's not how spells worked in Vance's books anyway? (Then again, calling anything in D&D "Vancian" is absurd for the same reason. *) * Except, like, ioun stones which were directly ripped off.

No.

I'm thinking maybe they want "not having to think about roles" especially when it comes to considering party composition -- rather than "not having roles." If you don't have to consider your combat role while making a character, you may feel subjectively more free to "make whatever you want" --...