Search results

Please, no iconics. Instead show a variety of adventurers from a wide and diverse background of gender, race, ethnicity, etc etc. Ideally, drawn by a variety of different artists.

I can't say how much it would please me if they followed through with this. Lots, with a side of hell yes at least. We'll see how it gets implemented.

Damage types aren't really necessary or wanted as a function of core game design. Certainly not where damage is generally defined as non-injury. But I'd be opposed even if that weren't the case. That level of granularity should be optional.

I see a lot of talk here and elsewhere about people 'switching' to the new edition of D&D, like some bizarre form of serial monogamy. Granted, not everyone plays more than just D&D but I have difficulty wrapping my head around what appears to be fidelity to only one incarnation of D&D at a time...

Why all this talk of switching? I'm not going to give up my games of Swords & Wizardry or AD&D just because I'm also playing 5e. I mean, I don't give up Traveller because I'm playing such and such version of D&D, why is this any different? Likely as not, if the remainder of the game develops...

Ah - blocky, unattractive, and useless. It must be the official sheet.

Hey, super useful! Is this a link to your work or just a link? Either way thanks a bunch!

Nah, not that interested in system optimization. Much more to the point, pre-plotting my character's development takes all the fun out of the game.

Hopefully this adds up to fewer people complaining about overpowered wizards. :) In any case, I will never ever miss AoOs. Good riddance.

Generally I dig it. Until I actually playtest the thing I can't say, but from what I'm reading, there's very little I actually dislike about it. (the two d20 for advantage/disad thing is kind of clunky, and I suspect with some players, they'll default to adding modifiers to both rolls for...

I dig the immunity. It's distinctive. And if this means more (any) dwarf rogues, then more power to it. Somehow I just don't think this is going to mean no one will be playing non-dwarf rogues from now on.

They first appeared in 1983's Monster Manual II for AD&D 1e. Given that this was while D&D was still under Gygax's aegis, it can be presumed that they were indeed in Greyhawk in some capacity.

I gotta say I don't really see the Aasimar or the Tieflings are setting specific, nor have I for some time. If you're asking 'should these things be in the game?' then yes, on most counts, if only in the monster manual (though some of those I'd wait til later on - not very useful as monsters...

Indeed. *bump*

Um, okay guy. Meanwhile the rest of the thread seems to be about the irrationalities of some people regarding what should be in the players handbook. But please, carry on if it'll make you feel better.

That's just it though. For a lot of people, exotic means not elves, dwarves, or halflings. I don't get it either, but there it is.

Maybe for you. For some of us, another bloody showing of elves and dwarves are bloaty as the day is long. Though I'll give you that one on Goliaths. Which, really, only serves to prove the point that the point of bloat is not defined by your and only your preferences and wants. Do many...

I love your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Seriously, you had me at 'sick of the same Tolkien retreads.'

I like options. Moreover, dragonborn - in all their illogical glory - are still less onerous to me than the inexplicably tree huggy elves that D&D has always featured. I prefer my elves aloof and eldritch rather than econauts. I note that as of right now, it's evenly tied. Wouldn't have...

I don't know. I can't think of many things less interesting or attention holding to me than watching strangers play a semi-unfamiliar rpg on youtube. But then, I don't get the appeal of the 'unboxing' videos either.