Search results

And those feats were absolutely terrible, and Paizo remains a subpar developer. Videogames have nothing to offer tabletop RPGs.

D&D is not "going backward," since the majority of rules changes were not actual progress. There were changes, but few things I would consider objectively better.

There are so many presuppositions in this post that I don't know where to begin except by listing them. 1. It presupposes high level wizard/cleric spells will work like they did in 3e. 2. It presupposes that the only way to deal with "dwarven locks" is by having a high skill modifier. 3...

Perhaps the intent of zombies is that they're easy one-on-one (what with being slow and all) but more dangerous in swarms. EDIT: Welp, guess they're not.

KO'd is not dead, bro. Cynical, but true.

The new fighter looks pretty good to me.

Just reskin a wizard as a fighter.

I bet if you just played a session or two with 5e, you'd be happier with it. You can't judge the game just by reading the rules, especially when we haven't even seen the complete set.

This looks a lot more like D&D than the last playtest did. It's also a lot more polished. I'm liking it so far, especially the backgrounds. Is this what hope feels like? :angel:

I agree with everything in the OP, but I also feel that fighters need some mechanical differentiation. Playing a shield fighter should "feel" different from playing a two-handed fighter in the same way that playing an enchanter should "feel" different from playing an evoker. Why? Personal...

Wow, I'm not liking the attitudes in this thread. In the system you've proposed, there is a huge amount of female privilege on display, and I'm not comfortable with the wider implications of this blatant sexism in the gaming community. As a male gamer, I'm feeling marginalized, othered, and...

Any idea why this is? I'd say it's probably because it was published by WotC and Magic was much bigger back then, so you had customers playing CCGs who were introduced to D&D.

Because you totally weren't hoping for that in the first place.

[asperger's] Your math is wrong. If we assume that there is a collective of D&D fans and 10% are with each edition, then the composition of editions would look like this: 1e: 10% (90% move to 2e). 2e: 9% (81% move to 3e). 3e: 8.1% (72.9% move to 4e). 4e: 7.29% (65.61% move to 5e)...

Kickstarter says that it's going to focus on story rather than mechanics, which tells me (a) it's going to have junk mechanics, and (b) it's going to incorporate storygame elements. Not interested.

Link to an excerpt from Reclaiming the Blade. I want to see things like the murder-stroke, parries, ripostes, etc. One can only hope.

Generally, the idea is not to take damage in the first place. If you do, you have a cleric and potions and rest.

If there's two things I can't stand, it's IP law and e-lawyers. The better question at hand is: does Rush Limbaugh play D&D, and, if so, what are his thoughts on 5e?

1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 2d6, 2d8, 3d6, 3d8, 3d10, 3d12.

I think calling not wanting a rule "Orwellian" is a bit excessive.