Search results

It's been years since I played 3.5, so my details are a bit fuzzy (5 a.m. scotch is not helping, btw): 20 minute adventuring days? Yep. The group had perfectly legal methods allowing them to pop into an extradimensional space for a day or so to recharge their spells. I simply got tired of...

Solid system, but I'd be happiest with no "half-X" races at all. There are so many more interesting races that deserve to be core more than "kind of an Elf" and "unfortunate implications Orc"

True enough. While I personally love the idea (and its on my 'house rules I want to try' list) it shouldn't be core if we want to bring D&D back to its roots.

You mean you could have healing magic without being Van Helsing in chain-mail? You could have nature magic without 30 years of ersatz-druidic baggage? This idea is far too elegant to ever succeed among D&D fans. ;) (but I'm serious---this is the system i'm using for my next retro-clone session)

TVTropes can handle this in a single paragraph: And now we have the rest of the chapter freed up for potion miscibility tables and generating women of ill-repute.

After a (very) lengthy discussion with a couple of my players, we vote for At-Will/Encounter Powers only. Barring that, we'd be willing to see a spell-point system that refreshes at the Encounter level. In any event, the word "Day" should be purged from D&D terminology post effing haste.

In 30 years I've played with 4 players / 1 DM more than any other configuration. My current group is five players, and I admit that I enjoy it a bit more than four players (six becomes unwieldy, three is a bit lacking)

I use a similar system when I run retroclones (essentially the way I did back in 1980): Player describes what they want to do, I set a target number (depending upon difficulty, player creativity, and character background and class), and then the player rolls d20 + relevant stat mod. I refer to...

I'm currently running a homebrew world (post-arthurian fantasy Britain), but even then I would appreciate an implied setting in the core rules---if only for bits to cut/paste into my campaign. A few pages devoted to generating villages/cities would be helpful, of course, but I don;t need much...

I honestly believe the next version will simply be called Dungeons & Dragons (as were the last two editions, IIRC).

May I suggest a name for your first 5e character? :)

"Thayk-zero" would be more accurate, I think.

Sounds like you're halfway there. ;)

[citation needed] For that premise to make sense, 5e would not only have to be *radically* different from 4e, but it would have to be different in a way almost calculated to offend 4e fans. Because that's the only scenario that I can see resulting in 4e players abandoning a game they...

If feats simply add to something a character already does (+ to hit, damage or defense), I honestly don't understand why we need them at all.

I respectfully disagree. At my table, a 1st-level Rogue is every bit as interesting as its 1st-level Sorcerer counterpart. And they maintain parity to 20th level and beyond. But if the rules allow one character to overshadow another, then the rules are broken.

I loved both 4e's assumed 'soft' setting and the 1e DMG's "name dropping" approach. Give me legends, hints and artifacts. I'll fill in the rest.

My next 4e game is going to be Grey Box only. That's my vote.

I love 4e, but out of turn actions are the sargasso sea of smooth gameplay. Allow defenders some sort of aura to block actions and I'd be fine.

My (second) 4e campaign just reached 9th level, and once again I gave the party authority over a castle (Tintagel in this case, Overlook in the previous game). 10th-level or so has *always* seemed to be a natural place for hand over real estate.