Search results

This whole post is a great description of exactly what I want. I don't like classes being pigeonholed into one specific role, and the huge proliferation of weird niche classes that that creates. I would XP ya but I can't. :-S EDIT: I should add that I was also very much agreeing with the whole...

I love the idea that making your PC is a part of the game. I just ran a 4e game for four totally new players last week, so I made pregens for them, thinking they'd be super bored by rolling up characters (and also preferring to teach by doing, so I just tossed them into combat). At the end of...

I never played the original. This sounds pretty awesome. But I have to mooch around hoping for a Mac version, as a non-Windows, non-console owning human person.

I like this as the distinction between younger and older dragons, younger dragons being the sort that lower-level parties, without flying and all that support stuff, would fight.

A good point, and I really hope that 5e addresses this by removing forced roles and toning down the benefits for weapon specialization. I certainly think there should be a distinction between an archer fighter and a sword-and-board fighter, but as it stands it's very possible to have a melee...

I totally agree with the first part. I've been using "weak" and "strong" core here, but I don't intend "weak" to mean that it's crappy or so simple as to be unplayable (although one or two posters have supported the idea that the core is unplayable without any modules and is just connective...

I voted yes, because they're cool and weird and I miss them, but then I actually read this thread and there were so many excellent arguments against them that I started to feel bad. So my altered vote is now to stick 'em in a Dragon article, or even better, in an article that gives guidance on...

True enough, but I'm really talking about mechanical distinctions. For example, the question of how many HP a first-level character should get has a large effect on how the game plays and feels. I see your point-- that the mechanics aren't all that important, that the heart of the game is...

Hm, I think we might be thinking of this in two different ways. To me, the idea of a totally neutral core with lots of modules seems like it would be a system more likely to let you mimic a system you already own. To get away from that, 5e would have to have elements that are new-- some posters...

You make a good point, and I certainly agree that from a design standpoint it makes sense to have an extremely simple base to which anything can be added, but I'm not sure WotC is thinking of it the same way. My guess (with all the caveats that implies) is that they're looking for a core version...

So lots of modules, no core game?

Hopefully you haven't adopted any of Forrest's other, er, "leanings."

Don't forget that there is a bard subclass in 4e called the skald, who (while not quite at the level of heavy armor and heavy damage called for in the OP) is a melee combatant. And I do really like this class. That being said, my totally subjective personal preference is actually against this...

So in a version of 5e you would end up supporting, are you envisioning a game with a stripped-down core to which you can add only the things you like, or a game with a fuller core that supports your particular playstyle?

I have to jump in to support dragons casting like they have class levels. I don't think it should be their main ability, and it CERTAINLY shouldn't be their only ability, but I adore the flavor of having the PCs go up against a dragon, fearing its breath and its claws and all that, and then...

So. There have been many illuminating and entertaining arguments going down on this fine website recently about what sorts of rules we want/don't want/love/hate/etc. Everybody has a different matrix of opinions about what is best in life, and the promise of 5e is of course that we will be able...

I think there's a dedicated group of people who will pretty much always play a paladin or something like it. I think the venn diagram would include this circle overlapping with the dudes who are really into knowing setting histories circle and the rules lawyers circle, but that may just be my...

I like this idea quite a lot, since I dream of a campaign that walks the tightrope between gaining levels and loot (which makes me feel all tingly) and staying gritty and lethal (which is my preferred aesthetic and playstyle). I would even expand it to say that there would be multiple tier...

I try to play a little of everything, though some stuff just doesn't appeal at all (magical naturey classes like druids, for example). I tend away from the complex caster classes like the classic spellbook wizard and towards spontaneous casters (I loved the favored soul and warmage in 3e). But...

This kinda relates to a point that came up in the thread about "What is a Rogue?" I loved rogues and always played them in 2e, but stopped dead with 3e and 4e. This isn't nearly as true for 3e, but I found that it started a trend of focusing more on the rogue's combat abilities (probably as...