Search results

I actually agree that D&D already has too many options. There's too many feats, too many spells, too many PrCs, too many books, too much stuff in general. I just find it funny that the Hasbro designers are the ones who keep "chanting" empty slogans like "options, not restrictions" over and over...

Now you're just being silly.

I'd prefer not to go into the lurid details. Let's just say that my intro to D&D deviated slightly from the norm.

I think the reason D&D has no mainstream appeal is due to the lack of controversy.When D&D was perceived as "dangerous" that made it cool, and made new people curious about the game. The controversy that people often blame for the game's declining sales is the very thing that gave it mainstream...

1. Late Twenties. 2. Teens. 3. Gang Initiation.

Agreed. I thought new age D&D was supposed to be about "options, not restrictions."At least, that's a common soundbyte that I keep hearing from the Hasbro staff.

Hm. Not sure I like that idea. Just seems like more rules to have to remember. Again, not sure how that's supposed to "streamline" the game.

Mike Mignola.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that. I'm concerned that that turning every class into a "spellcaster" mechanically is going to make NPCs a nightmare to run, especially in groups.I'm not sure how this is an example of "streamlining "the game. Spellcasters take the most work to run as NPCs, not...

I mostly DM. The spellcasters I control rarely last for more than one encounter anyway before my players beat them to the curb and violate them. So if NPCs only stick around for one fight, I'm wondering if there's gonna be any real difference from my perspective. But for those occasions when...

Yeah, but that goes both ways. I've seen some stuff that seems like it will make the game better ( no flatfooted AC for example) and some stuff that seems like it'll make the game less fun (fighters and rogues being able to "cast spells" seems more like Final Fantasy than D&D) But like someone...

I don't necessarily see the OP as intentionally insulting either. It just seems symptomatic of the casual mockery of other opinions ever since 4E was announced. Taking the time to mock a segment of the community only seems worth the effort if you're trying to alienate people that disagree with...

1. True Enough. 2. Whether you're of the "It's a videogame" crowd, or of the "You don't know what a videogame is" crowd, you can debate or argue without turning into an insulting creep-fest. You're especially good at this Rechan. I haven't agreed with a single opinion of yours since I joined...

On a totally related note, with all the snarkiness, insults, and lack of respect for other peoples opinions, ENworld has seemed a lot more like the WOTC message boards since 4E was announced.

Personally, I'd rather have a Monster Manual that has monsters I'D expect to use, instead of monsters someone else expected me to use. I'd also appreciate it if Hasbro sold me a complete game in 3 books, rather than intentionally splitting the content that they know I expect into 9 or more...

Still undecided, but leaning towards thumbs down. I don't like how they're eliminating first level play especially. Action points just seem like cheating to me. I like at least having the option of save or die spells. And I definitely don't like the idea of giving spells to fighters and...

I'd sooner pay for the privelege of eating glass.

I gots 10 WOTC hardcovers, and a 2 foot high stack of Paizo mags and modules. i'll get 4E if it looks like an improvement and if my players want it.

Truer words were never spoken on the subject of RPGs. Some social skills add to the game .Bluff/Sense Motive for example can be fun. But social skills that let dice make decisions instead of players & DMs , like diplomacy & intimidate ,are the death of fun. I've never seen diplomacy checks do...

Neat. That's the first change I've seen so far that I'd actually classify as an improvement.