Search results

Some alignment restrictions make sense. Classes are based on archetypes and some archetypes are tied to specific alignments. For example... Monks get their powers from years of rigorous training and self-discipline. Lawful-only makes sense. Barbarians get their power from their rage...

I think it's strange that those covers say "Dungeons & Dragons" and not "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons".

Of course they count. I have no problems with unusual races and classes in the game. Back in my old 1e group we'd play all sorts of weird races out of the monster manuals that weren't in the PHB. I've also played in games that are human-only. Leave it up to the DM, though, to decide what he...

I didn't say exclude. I said make them optional. There's a very big difference. If players and DMs desire them, they are there for them to use. Why do people insist on loading down the core rules with umpteen classes and races?

Why should things like dwarven mages or elven paladins need to be in the core? Why not just make them optional? I think it's much better for the game as a whole for the player to have to ask the DM to say "yes" than for the DM to have to tell the player "no".

The term "core" implies that it's a central part of the game. If it's so easy to take out, then why put it in the core rules? Saying "no" is easy, I do it all the time. But saying "no" to something that's optional creates less strife than saying "no" to something that's core. Putting...

Terrible idea. It takes a lot more work to take stuff out of the core rules than to put stuff in the core rules.

Actually, characters having a random chance of psionic ability goes all the way back to Original D&D Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry.

I've been pretty open-minded too, but I have the exact opposite deal-breaker. I want D&D to be D&D... not Generic Fantasy RPG #543 with the D&D name plastered on it. If you don't like D&D, there are lots of other fantasy RPGs out there. The D&D game has a 35+ year history. Things that have...

I think it's important to differentiate between the core rules and the core rulebook. I think that the core rules should be the absolute minimum set of rules necessary to run a D&D game. Everything outside the core rules should be considered optional. This includes things like non-human...

I don't have a problem if an epic level fighter is as strong as a giant due to magic (using belt of giant strength or something like that). However, having human characters of any level be naturally as strong as a giant bends common sense too far for me. Same goes for humans being faster than...

I remember a quote from one of the creators of the show that the original concept was that the kids would be acting out adventures on a drama stage when they got pulled into the realm - kind of like a LARP (but before LARP was even coined as a term). It was later thankfully changed to a roller...

Of the options you presented, I think it will be most like 6. More specifically, I think that the core rules of 5e will be the small set of rules from every edition 0e-4e which overlap, but interpreted through a unified d20 mechanic.

1. Races - New races can be added in new rules modules. 2. Classes - New classes can be added in new rules modules. 3. Feats - They aren't really "turned off", they're just pre-picked for you if you don't want to deal with character building. If you look at 1e, most classes have special...

The old 1981 B/X sets were 128 pages total and contained the entire game. The Rules Cyclopedia was 304 pages and contained the entire 1983 BECM game, including quite a few optional rules, kingdom management and warfare, and the Mystara game setting. There's no need for a core D&D ruleset to be...

In that quote, Vic Wertz is saying that Paizo makes most of its money from their adventure paths, not the rulebooks. So from their business perspective, having an introductory set that pushes players towards the full rules makes sense since what they're really trying to sell is the adventure...

The picture of a fighter spooling out a thread to mark his path and a troll following him winding it back up.

I think the core magic system will be Vancian, since 0e - 3.5e were all Vancian (yes, 3e had the Sorcerer and such, but they were more of an exception rather than the baseline). I think we'll also get at least one non-Vancian optional magic system on release day.

I'd like to see 8-12 classes available at launch, however, I only think 4 of them (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) should be "core". The other 4-8 should be contained in the optional rules.

I think this idea originated in Castles & Crusades. In that system, you roll Ability Score Mod + Level for all of your saving throws and the types of throws are the six ability scores (Str Save, Int Save, etc.)