Search results

Let me add my voice to the chorus of disinterest based on the subject matter (drow + forgotten realms = not even remote interest) but the idea of an 'editionless' book is a really good one. So if there was an editionless book about the Savage Coast, or the City of Brass, or the Shadow Marshes...

This should shed more light on the subject - THE LAND OF NOD: blood and treasure

I like a lot of his other work but I'm not terribly interested in 3.0 inspired anything, even though I liked 3.0 a heck of a lot more than 3.5 overall. I think I've seen enough in his blog to decide this particular project isn't for me.

Why does a ranger need a 'fighting style' again? That was pretty much something 3.0 tacked on to make a ranger take TWF or Archery. Don't need it. More to the point, if rangers get a 'fighting style,' why wouldn't fighters (and possibly other martially inclined classes) get something like that?

I can't give you any more experience for a bit, but this is precisely what I was talking about.

I dig the mechanic, but it doesn't really sing "Ranger!" to me. (Then again, I tend to shift around how favored enemy works depending on the campaign setting.) It doesn't speak of any other class either though (well, save maybe assassin). Perhaps a variation on this could work in which it...

Ach. Double post.

Yeah, absolutely no interest here, but if you want it, great.

Multiple actions per round for PCs? Yes. Multiple attacks per round for PCs? Only for fighters, honestly. None of this should apply to monsters who don't need to be built in a manner consistent with PC chargen.

Personally? I think D&D (the hobby) does not need D&D (the product). Increasingly, I do think the hobby would be healthier (for some value of 'healthier' - here meaning 'more playing and enjoying' v. 'less bitching about nomenclature and preferred rules'), at least to some degree. Would the...

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. At this point I think the only compromise that's going to please more than 50% of anyone concerned is to put forth both classes and themes for paladins, assassins, etc etc. Sure it's redundant, and sure it's far from elegant, but I'll take useful over elegant...

I don't object - or necessarily support this, as this is a nomenclature and organizational issue more than a mechanical issue, at least IMHO. I am not sure what you mean by this though. Could you expand on this a bit?

You mean the question I wasn't asking? In any case, the present set up re: background and theme suggests that classes are customizable to at least a limited degree. Fine. But, and I am not the first person to point this out, if assassin (or bard, or paladin, or whatever) is reduced to a...

It may be lazy design, but it's what they're doing. (And just what is lazy design anyway?) How you are getting "reset the game to 1e" out of my remarks I'm not sure. The other extreme of course is making everything other than Fighter/Mage/Thief/Godperson a theme, which could work but would...

Class. Both because they have stated they'll include every class in each PH and because of established granularity - both the combat cleric and the paladin are going to be their own class, even though both are holy warriors that cast spells, turn undead, and wear full armor in combat. The...

Fighting style nonsense. Yawn. Not sure how I feel about the protector of nature being core to the class. Sure that's always been implied (to varrying degrees, edition dependent) but making it something all rangers have in common doesn't appeal to me at all. However, the notion that...

I don't think it will be all that different from the 3.x era...or the 2e era, or the dawn of gaming really. Such fragmentation will, hopefully, be more a feature than a bug.

As you describe it here? Lovely idea. Especially the part I quoted. I don't think such a game would have to have the same page count as the two GURPS core books however. (I mean, it could, but as I envision it, such a book would be a bloated mess.) I don't think that's likely what WotC is...

Um, what? Prof. Tolkien did not create elves and dwarves. In any case, not all of us play games based on the Lord of the Rings.

I agree. Nonetheless, the popular argument is going to be giving every race something or other 'because every option has to be equal /'good'. (Or something that looks very much like that.) I understand why that argument exists, I just don't agree with it.