Search results

So, speculation on this board was leaning in the right direction. And we know why the Warden was removed from the playtest. I wonder about other Paladin Oaths then.

The main reason blasting was considered ineffective in 3.x was the power of buffs. But buffs have been nerfed hard. You can only concentrate on one. Also note that casters have an advantage in Next: You don't need to use a prepared spell. In 3.x, if a situation came up, where a prepared spell...

If you had this discussion, you already played the game wrong. Your job as a Watcher is to play the NPCs. It's players job to play the character. If player says that Distinction X works, Distinction X will work. It's not Mother-may-I, it's Mother-I-will-and-you-better-believe-it. This also...

As a GM I do not need to know the special abilities of PCs. The player will probably tell me, when it becomes relevant. That's a great advantage of a class based system, assuming it works: Make an adventure for third level characters and you do not have to worry what characters will appear...

Indeed. In this case you can't have the cake and eat it too. Either we assume that players make their choices for story or for mechanical reasons. You prefer mechanical choices. I prefer the other. Both is alright, but they won't work at the same time.

We've had several small choices in former playtests. They have one disadvantage, they reduce meaning. You criticize that all Knights are the same. But that's exactly the idea. There is a coherent and meaningful picture of Knight.

The problems in 3.x can be summarized as Fighters Multiclass Good, Casters Multiclass Bad. To address the latter, it might help to consider all spell slots the same. So a caster with more than one casting class, can use their slots all their spells. That way casters multiclass well with other...

No class needs to be a class. Games don't even have to have classes. Classes are classes because the designer wants them to be.

I guess, it won't change. It's the only thing that hasn't changed through any iteration of the playtests. (Apart from Advantage, I guess.) Human stats not about simulation. They are about game play. As there are sub classes that do not require much effort (like Warrior for Fighter), there is...

I consider myself an "advanced" gamer. I still like the idea. I would have liked Skill Challenges, too, if they had worked.

Yes, that sounds like a fine idea. See upthread, pp. 5,6.

The idea is originally from Primetime Adventures. OSH expanded upon it, requiring a certain amount of Awesome on every party member to level up.

It might be possible through Background Traits. They mentioned that proficiencies are Background options, and that PCs can expand upon their Backgrounds during play. That way it wouldn't even require anyhting but time and maybe money.

Should we tell them, that fungi are more closely related to animals than plants? ;D Other than that, loving the mycos, liking the frankenstein mound and indifferent to the treants. I guess, too Tolkien for my taste.

Indeed. Although I'd answer with Wick #0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQmkS1mJ5Xw

Even simpler is Fanmail: Put a number of chips on the table. Whenever any participant finds a contribution delightful, he or she can hand out a token. That way it's not only the GM's job.

I like the Aranea thing.

I'd love that.

If they go through with their plan to make feats a function of class, I think the only thing beside class levels a next character can give up is ability scores. It's even reasonable. Either be an exceptional member of a normal race or a normal member of an exceptional race.

[/LIST] I suppose you have picture and stat block for these information. Otherwise your list only provides that they can eat a lot at the same time and that they do not care about treasure. The latter is in fact pretty interesting. The pixie angle on the other hand provides a motivation for...