Search results

I'll vote for the "dragonmage" for the Never-Before-Seen-In-D&D-Class. The Never-Before-Seen-In-Next-Class? No idea. Ranger or paladin I think. -YRUSirius

Give orcs and goblins light sensitivity. Like Kobolds. And like Tolkien orcs and goblins. :) -YRUSirius

Yay for yards! Yay for paces! -YRUSirius

A taunt should give an enemy a bonus to hit the taunting character. Imagine the taunting rogue swashbuckler who is so sure that his taunts wouldn't backfire, that he gets hit by an attack flat-footed. :-) A taunt would be something like lowering your guard with an insult and a smirk on your face...

There are people out there that dont want to play a boardgame for more than 1 hour. This 1 hour shortplay is for those people and not for hardcore rpg nerds. People who would play settlers of catan instead. -YRUSirius

What weapon dice rate would you give fighters? The first additional WD at level 3, so a fighter can cleave at that level? The next additional at level 6, and so on...? Any balancing thoughts on this? -YRUSirius

So they used Next's skill system like the task resolution system of 3E and 4E because those were the last editions they played before Next. But they do understand the task resolution system is relying on attributes now, right? So the term "skill" shouldn't be a problem for them NOW, correct...

Yeah, I understand this. But to me the term "skill" seems more elegant and it's used almost everywhere (other rpgs, pc rpgs, etc.). A "new" term like "proficiencies" can prevent the cognitive dissonance and get the point across better to confused players - but it seems more unelegant and...

I think the term "skill" is fine. It's still correct. -YRUSirius

Loss? Skills are still in the game. -YRUSirius

Yeah, just because a hardcore nerd (no insult) is bored of Tolkien, doesn't mean the mainstream audience is bored of Tolkien. Quite the contrary, right now. The mainstream WANTS plain old vanilla Tolkien, right now. Read up on the "Blue Ocean" marketing strategy; Apple and Nintendo used it...

Yeah, that's why I put Basic into " ". The first product will just be called Dungeons & Dragons, just like Mearls stated. -YRUSirius

I think there will be the "Basic" Dungeons & Dragons Game in the form of a 150/200 page book in a box with dice and sheets. This could range from level 1 to 20 with the basic classes and races (the big four classes and big four races) and basic monsters for the DM. This box or game will be THE...

I think I would go the whole way: Remove spell preparation and let the spellcasters use their spell slots on ALL the spells they know. For this to work I would have to limit the spells known or lower the available spell slots per day, correct? Or even keep the spell slots as is right now in the...

I think it should be a normal part of the fighter progression, but no one else (MAYBE rangers or paladins, but then only 1 additional attack). -YRUSirius

Guys, there is always a middleground between two extremes... -YRUSirius

In an ideal world the advantages a magic weapon has, which the character isn't specialized in, would balance out with the disadvantage the character would get if he isn't specialized in the weapon. Say a longsword +2 balances out with losing a +2 axe specialization bonus an axe fighter would...

*Burn* -YRUSirius

Time to put down "7 inch" somewhere on the sheet. :P -YRUSirius