Search results

As DM I switched as soon as 4e came out. I made at least 10 people buy the players handbook. I subscribed to DDI for more than a year, we finished the first "adventure path". We werent grognards. We were begging for innovation in D&D, the game can always be made better. See combat and...

Good point. And the uncertainty of the definition of the most played class in D&D, is a problem. We have many many players who loved playing fighters because they were simple, descisions were simple, they could forget about mechanics, roleplay their dwarf, and ask the DM to do the levelling...

The answer to your question is yes, of course it will hurt innovation. But it will also do another thing, preserve the D&D brand. When I invite my friends over to play risk, they know what they are getting into even if I dont say what version of risk we are playing. Thats because all the...

Sounds like a great idea for a class that isnt the fighter. Fighter already has a definition in D&D and its no where close to this one being proposed. Honestly sometimes I just think the internet is filled with people who dont like D&D and just need to redefine it

And while were at it lets get rid of classes and just have one power that players can use over and over, and they can refluff that 2w + effect power so it appears that its a different class. Oh wait... we already tried that!

I like tieflings, and warforged, but I don't thinkthey should be in the core. Not because I dont like them but because D&D is a tolkienesque fantasy style game. This edition shouldnt be about moving away from the D&D brand, it should be about embracing it. Make a kick but traditional fantasy...

The warlock in 3.5, was also a simple magic user. I think it would be neat if in the core rules they could have a: simple fighter - 3.5 fighter - lets call him fighter complicated fighter - 4e fighter - lets call him ritual warrior or tactician or something simple mage - 3.5 warlock or...

Fluffing is fine for players who want to do it. From a DMs perspective I like to have a core rulebook I dont have to keep ammending to run a basic game of D&D. Dragonborn and tieflings dont make it into my basic game of D&D by a longshot.

Personally I think fighters having multiple attacks is awesome. Great way to make the fighter powerful, and not have to lower spellcasters. I think the fighter should have feats and abilities to get more or less (e.g. only attack once but boost your to hit, or attack twice as much but lower...

zero roles. or optionally infinite roles Ill be happy with either :)

what i consider to be D&D is incompatible with the idea of 5 people who barely know eachother and don't trust the DM at all, meeting every weekend with maxed out optimized chaters in order to be better then the other 4 players, every weekend at the local game shop. Its not that I don't support...

For me to be able to create the characters that I want to play, I require the ability to sacrifice a bit of power in one pillar for a bit of power in the other. Pre 4e D&D has always allowed for characters that are useful in a variety of situations depending on player choice. I want to be...

Completely agree. But illusions, divinations and charms are harder quantify. Im in favor of designers doing some tweaking to spells and trying to make judgement calls to balance the schools. Im am firmly opposed to them throwing out whole schools if they don't fit or transforming them to fit...

It can effect my game as designers often throw out a lot to achieve parity (see the illinusionist and necromancer in 4e) Incidentally I think banning schools and or spells worked well enough in previous editions. Pathfinder also takes a good crack at it.

I think the more the game focuses on interesting archetypes, engaging ideas mystery, secrecy, imagination, depth and legend the more it will be appealing. In my experience D&D is often whispered about and people are interested to find out exactly what it is because it is so hard to define. On...

Who cares? Why does every single choice in the game have to be equal in combat? I played hundreds of ad&d and 3e games as well as DM'd and I rarely ever saw specialists, (except for less powerful flavor wizards e.g. charmers, illusionists etc).

Dungeon was targetted at DMs only. Dragon didn't make a whole lot of sense for players because it was lots of interest reading and classes and things your DM may not even accept. Its not fair to compare that to the online versions because DDI is a huge draw over the pdfs, and they are...

I like minions better. And I dont even like 4e :P

Can't we let save DCs handle this somehow? It seems to me that in an at level encounter, the wizard should be able to cast sleep at a high chance of success on the weaklings, and a 50-50 chance of success on the average enemy underling and at a looow chance of success (1 in 20) on the big bad...

Couple people mentioned this so I'll elaborate. I guess the confusion is I prefaced the beginning of my "rant" with describing my players as "not into roleplaying". Perhaps that might have been better written as "not predispoded to roleplay" they don't have arts degrees if you know what I...