Search results

So it seems if you like old-school Wizards, you just play the class out of the box. If you want something more like 4e, pick those feats/options. I honestly can't see how anyone could argue against that. Prove me wrong, Internet!

I hate Vancian/daily spells, but this sounds like a reasonable approach. Nice. edit: Oh yeah, feats are in.

I like the idea of using the fighter as the baseline. ps. Good to hear some love for the (4e) Warlock and Assassin. Fingers crossed.

What is this 'chaotic good' you speak of?

Well, I wasn't planning on getting much work done today anyway :(

I love class-based RPGs. I love skill-based RPGs. But I really don't like them mixed together. Should D&Dnext provide Basic rules with skills as an option I would be in geek heaven.

The standard Rust monster destroys any metal item with two attack rolls: If you hit it with a metal weapon or are bitten in heavy armor, your item gains the rusted condition (-1 effectiveness, cumulative, until end of encounter) It can then use the Devour Metal attack, destroying any rusting...

Oh God I think I finally understand how those people complaining about tieflings and warforged in 5e feel. ;)

Nah, I'm good.

Actually, I think this akin to the Essentials/Core paradigm: an E-class (simple, limited options) can play at the same table with a PHB-class (complex, many options). But to Monte's point, I started my current game using Essentials (bringing in 2 newbies to the hobby, thankyouverymuch). By 5th...

I am enthusiastic because I love D&D. I've played every edition and I love aspects of each. I am enthusiastic because I believe Wizards when they say they want to bring back the Old-School without throwing out the last 30 years of RPG design. I have a long list of things I would love to see in...

Well, there goes *my* productivity tomorrow at work.

Back in my AD&D games, I loathed the monk and never allowed one in my campaign. Still a damned fun game and I didn't mind the wasted page or two.

Excellent point, and I apologize if I came off as dismissive. From what I understand, you could slot devil-men and alchemy-robots into Dave Arneson's campaign without missing a beat. I was (poorly) expressing my desire for open-mindedness when it came to the concept of 'core'.

And it's the teleportation that fans love.

Minis not necessary? *fingers crossed*

Which is *precisely* why I would prefer D&D have only the most rudimentary of skill systems---if one at all.

Thank you! Been playing D&D since the Cambrian Age and I've seen more warforged (3) or tieflings (2) at my table than I've seen gnomes (1) and halflings (1). I'm all for unity, but let's not assume the world stopped in 1977.

ITT: stuff I don't like shouldn't be in the core rules.

Much as I'd *love* to see them go away forever (so utterly boring), they're as iconic to D&D as hit points, armor class, and attacking the darkness. (But honetly, in a game where attack roll determines whether a sword penetrates armor or not, I can't think of a better way of expressing 'this...