Search results

I'd be okay with a rules module that broke the combat round down into one or two second segments to allow for that kind of granularity, but as a core system I just don't think it would fit what we know of the next D&D edition. As an aside, in general when I want that kind of granularity, I play...

Sounds quite interesting, and a bit of a break from bog standard fantasy or space opera for that matter. I'll be keeping an ear out for this one.

Balance? Not really a priority here - BECMI and early 1e had the only kind of balance that I really feel is necessary.

Not sure which rules system you're running but per what's actually been stated to be the circle of eight's abilities (a couple of archmages, and some lesser casters) .... none of them could do enough damage to an asteroid to affect it much (besides, what are they going to do - fly into low...

I think they're just about right - I don't really want traits to have a larger mechanical footprint. Of course, I say that about pretty much everything. Obviously, someone who wants a more mechanics oriented game (or not) may have different wants.

I have versions of D&D I'm happy with - if the next edition isn't to my liking, I'll probably not be investing my time or money on it. OTOH, if it's a good game that have those qualities that make me want to play it, then I'm there, full stop.

Is WotC responsible for bringing people into the hobby? Of course not. But in the long term, it's good business.

More than a little, yes. Though given that I'm fond of that particular mechanic in DCC, this (so far at least) I'm placing in the Good column. It could IMO stand to be a little MORE like Mighty Deeds of Arms for my taste actually.

Yes, but - crappy movies possibly aside - Conan wasn't a berserker.

I disagree on almost every point, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. In the meantime, I'll keep hoping for a barbarian theme/background and probably make a ranger...or a cleric, or a druid, or whatever, from that background.

So...why not just call it a berserker? We don't call Wizards "Scholars." Though I suppose overall it's just another fine example of wizards taking a word that means one thing and using it for a completely different thing (fortitude for example, though that was repurposed by white wolf first).

You'll note that I am not advocating for it to be a class. :) In 1e the barbarian was a super overpowered wilderness warrior type (better at doing wildernessy stuff by FAR than the ranger) that had a VAST passel of wilderness related skills (that the rangers, I might point out, did not have) got...

Websters defines barbarian as : However I think their list of synonyms tells the real story - In a more specific context, barbarian to me is a culture somewhere shy of "civilized" (meaning cities, guilds, and all that medieval rot) that still lives off the land, may or may not be nomadic...

Not in any way interested in a barbarian class that has rage as a primary or core feature. And not interested in 'helping people nova' either, as pointlessly blowing your resources in a single setting is, to me, a sign of poor play. HOWEVER, the notion of stamina points for the barbarian (or...

The problem is that D&D does generic fantasy pretty badly. It does 'D&D style fantasy' (which at this point I think qualifies as it's own genre) to the exclusion of all else - and a lot of those things get in the way of generic fantasy. Unlike some people, I think that's a pretty good thing...

As many and as varied as possible, with some using new mechanics (and likely being their own classes) and others being add-on options. Variety is good. New is better.

Nope. Per the 1e Players Handbook: Offensive use of the plane shift spell is one of my favorite high level cleric tricks. :)

It's my understanding that, despite the name, the Midgard setting is pretty heavily influenced by Slavic (as opposed to Russian) mythology.

Something that surprised me was how few of those spells (for either clerics or mage types) I really voted for. Very few of the spells listed seemed 'iconic' to me. Only twice did I hit the max. number of spells I could vote for, with most levels seeing only 2-4 votes (and twice voting 'none of...

Nope, but then it's never shown up in any D&D game I've played, be it 3.0, Pathfinder, 2e or older either.