Search results

And Mr. Gygax also moved away from the high lethality of his games by starting his players at 3rd level. I don't know from experience, but my understanding that what Mr. Gygax played at his table was considerably different-- and much higher-powered-- than what he wrote in his rulebooks. It seems...

So you're saying that the people who play D&D, and who are the people expected to buy D&D, should not have any influence over what D&D is? I understand the perils of design by committee as well as any man, but if the people making D&D don't listen to what the people buying D&D want, they run a...

That's because they don't mean anything, in simulationist terms-- they do not represent any realistic facet of the in-game universe. They're a metagame resource.

They only have to be balanced relative to the human. I think +2 to two fixed abilities balances acceptably with +1 to all six. I am still holding out for Humans having actual racial features.

I hate that so much. I really hope they do away with it, and just give non-humans flexible racial options, like the flex-stats in 4e and the alternate racial features in Pathfinder. (Obviously, using different alternate racial features.)

I really like the Human +1 to all ability scores, and kinda like the +1 to one ability score of their choice, but not when compared to non-humans getting only +1 to one ability score. If non-humans got +2 to two ability scores, and the Human couldn't add his extra +1 to his highest ability...

You would make him roll an attack for that? As far as I'm concerned, that's a Survival check. If he fails the Survival check, he can't find something to shoot, and if he can find something to shoot it's an automatic kill. Because deer have what, four hit dice? Peasants would starve if you had...

Stupid or not, it's also happened at least two times that I remember within my own lifetime and probably countless times in history. The only real advantages a pistol has over a knife are range and ease of use, and pistols are effective self-defense weapons against bears. That would make me...

It's more detailed, but I think the elegance of consolidating these things was one of the best features of 3.X-- and one of the biggest elements of 3.X I want to keep.

I like the idea that non-humans get +2 to two scores and humans get +1 to six scores and some sort of preference in level-based ability boosts. So yeah, each race is a little bit better at some classes and a little bit worse at others. What are the humans best at? Multiclassing. Not only do...

I read through Dragonsfoot's 5e playtest thread and was amazed at the negativity-- Next was so much more of what I considered 'old-school D&D', and what I want from 'old-school D&D' that the sheer level of vitriol directed at things like cantrips and 1st level hit points took me by surprise. Of...

Add to the Reaper feat the phrase 'of the same type as the original attack would deal.' Thus if the original attack would not deal damage... And then, amend Crusader's Strike to say that it only grants bonus damage on a hit. Spiritual Hammer should deal Reaper damage, in my opinion. Reaper...

Thing is, a skilled swordsman can 'whiff' a swing or two, but there's no way a skilled swordsman deliberately trying to kill a corporeal creature-- except perhaps a Quickling-- goes six whole seconds without hitting something. And if he's hitting armor, hitting shield, even hitting his enemy's...

Of course not. I'm not saying full Dex. I'm saying half Dex. I'm not saying a Knight with 18 DEX should be as agile as a Ninja with 18 DEX-- I'm saying he should be more agile than a Knight with 10 DEX. Using half Dex, a Knight with 18 DEX is as agile as a Knight with 14 DEX. And that sounds...

I don't want anything quite like that. It's cool stuff in 3.X and 4, but Next looks like it's got a different vibe entirely. But I'd like a thing where a Fighter can have a Reckless Stance (gains advantage to melee attacks, grants advantage to enemies) or a Guarded Stance (takes disadvantage on...

See, and this is what is killing me in this converation, because that's not what classic D&D was like at all. Third Edition is not 'classic'. In AD&D, the mid-level Fighter could always beat the mid-level Wizard in a fight, and the high-level Fighter stood a chance against a high-level Wizard...

If you're carrying enough heavy stuff that you can't defend yourself adequately, you should grant advantage to attackers. Armor does not prevent you from defending yourself. If it did, warriors would have never worn the stuff.

I'm not saying it should be a hard mechanical restriction, like a prerequisite. I'm just saying that I have a hard time with the idea that an epic world-shattering archmage isn't superhumanly intelligent. He should be smarter than he was as an apprentice.

Yeah, it's kinda backwards... but Monks (and later, Rogues) are iconic for their ability to dodge attacks that couldn't logically be dodged. In an epic enough game where the enemy casts a spell that causes the moon to fall out of orbit, the Barbarian shrugs it off and has to dig his way out from...

No, this is the point. This is the point entirely. This is a public playtest and we've had the rules for two weeks and we've played with them-- hopefully, this being a playtest, we've all been playing them straight so our feedback is based on what we are actually supposed to be testing. But the...