Search results

Indeed. But then again the Bow in the equipment list has nothing to do with real world bows and the STR score has nothing to do with anything usually related to people's bodies.

In fact, I still consider DDN rather light in rules. Not only is it much simpler than 4e or 3.x (at least up to now), but also much more free than certain kinds of storygames (Polaris, Capes, My Life with Master).

This, I can get behind. It would be quite simple to do. Put bonus languages on odd Int, bonus AC on odd Dex, item attunement on odd Cha, calculate HP in a way that cares about the full score, and something for Wisdom. Other than that: Prerequisites for Multiclassing. They do not harm players...

No. It only mentions for Vengeance Paladins they are "typically lawful" in alignment. The Devoted are only compared to holy warriors and no mention to alignment is made. Really, though, if that was the thing bothering you, you could just as well ignore any such restriction.

That's a matter of presentation. D&D has for a long time done a bad job of making people actually read stuff. It's not so hard though. Have a chapter "Starting a campaign". In the PHB, not the DMG. Explain that you need to settle on a game world, that you need to settle on a theme for the...

Rules to play monsters. (Hopefully better than those in 3.x)

There should not be a core world.

Feats are great as they are.

Spells trump Feats. That one I find interesting. Insightful article overall.

Basic Game is a game where you do not choose subclasses (like Fighters are always Warriors) and do not choose Feats. It's not about taking something away.

It does. For their favorite type of weapon.

You ask the wrong question. As we have seen time and again on this board there is no answer as to what should be a separate class. That is because there never was a criterion for classiness.

True. And one might argue: The more we embrace this idea that rules show the narrative function of the character, the better.

Interesting. When I hear "exploration", I understand "seeing" things. Not "solving" them. What the article describes is really a thing I do not engage in, even though I would have radically agreed, if I were asked: "Do you consider exploration a central part of gaming?"

The question is not whether they think their story "is valid". I'm not sure how stories can be valid. (The medusa story is great, though.) The question is whether they think that more people will buy the book, if the put in stories.

Subclass is better than kit. Even if I don't know the game, I would no that a subclass is a part of a class. One wouldn't know what a kit or a prestige class is. I suppose the reason that build was used in 4e was that there are example builds with each class although the word build is not meant...

It appears that things won't take much longer for higher level characters. I just tried to recreate my current 3.5 character. It took me about 40 minutes. Became Wizard 9, Rogue 2, Avenging Paladin 3.

Would it help, if I proclaimed that I won't buy the game, if my fighter can't strike reapingly? :hmm: Anyway, with this rule for crits - and I endorse this rule - the Assassin's first feature needs to be rewritten.

Not much I like here. My kobolds are oviparous fanatic specieists and certainly not funny. And my goblins travel with worgs, a somewhat symbiotic relationship.

I hadn't noticed the new Arcane Recovery before I had a look at the new Natural Recovery. Looks much more versatile than before. As for Wildshape, I would use spell slots for it.