Search results

I see that as feature, not bug. Humans are simply better; that's why they win. That's why human cultures are the dominant cultures by default. In most campaigns dwarves and elves are in decline, halflings and gnomes are ancilary, and humans are the presumed inheritors of the world. Showing...

With all character classes having the same weapon proficiency bonus, and the war domain making the cleric a fighter, CoDzilla is a real threat. Re: the druid and shape changing, I think the designers simply recognized that shapechange was the druid's one unique thing. It's what differentiates...

I admire your fluency with the language of design, and thoughtfulness in purpose. Again: nice work!

I agree. As this discussion shows, 3e style multiclassing leads to the game being designed with multiclassing as the primary design consideration, and single-class being suboptimal. Consider two melee builds, one multiclassed and the other single classed. First up is a half-orc Str 18 Con 14...

Thanks for working on this. The community needs a good character sheet. What I appreciate the most is the openness of your design. The lines (instead of boxes) give it an airy, unconstrained feel. While the big horizontal divisions give a comforting sense of order. I also like how spellcasting...

I'd prefer AC (or rather, "how hard it is to hit you with a melee weapon") to be based on the target's skill at fighting. A Dex 10, first level fighter in chain mail should be easier to hit than a Dex 10, twentieth level fighter in chain mail. Shields should give Cover. Armor should protect from...

I guess I'm in the minority, or at least the minority of people sharing an opinion on the subject: I like the blanket +1 for humans. They don't have any fancy powers or extra abilities, but they're generally the most capable. This jibes with the default, Tolkienesque fantasy world where humans...

Good point about the packet being focused primarily on mechanics, and that significant rounds of layout and editing are in store. those rounds may resolve my complaint. Also, it just occurred to me that they can preserve the "rulings, not rules" vibe by simply stating the ranger's bonus to...

I think they mentioned that a "Spellsword" path will be available to either Fighter or Mage. Or you can get there with multiclassing, or feats, or race choice (all high elves are arcane casters who are good with swords). Point being: Bard isn't trying to be "arcane caster with sword." It's not...

Sure, that's reasonable, and an intuitive resolution path for an experienced roleplayer. I don't think a novice would do that, though. Also, if Joe's Cleric character takes this method to track, it makes Bob's Ranger character's first level ability obsolete. Bob's Ranger gets Tracking as his...

I think that was the intent as well. My beef is that tracking is a pretty common activity in games. Right now, if a character wants to track, the only rules that cover that activity are in the Classes pdf, as a class feature for a single class. Since the word "tracking" is not mentioned...

Terrific! ? Passive aggressive? You're projecting. There's no need to be aggressive, passive or otherwise. This is a thread about the latest playtest packet. I put forth the opinion that I didn't like that fighters aren't the best at fighting. You responded to me, and said that if you take...

Fair enough. I appreciate the discussion. I clarified that a previous post. By better at fighting, I meant attack bonus/hitting something with a weapon. Even more specific: the d20 attack roll with a melee weapon. So a first level fighter attacking with a mace at +2 proficiency is better at...

Curious how y'all handle attempts to track by characters that lack the ranger's "tracking" feature. Or attempts to trip by creatures without the fighter's "trip" feature. My concern is that DMs, particularly novice DMs, will not allow those activities if the character lacks those specific class...

They do, but if you factor in those features then you have to so for the other classes as well, and Fighters don't stack up well against paladins or casters. In any event, that boils down to "fighters are no better at hitting things than any other class, but..." I contend that the question "is...

I was limiting my comment to "to hit" alone. A wizard, bard, fighter all fight with the exact same skill. That's what the rules say. Well, with the exception of ranged weapons: the fighter has an option to choose a class feature that makes him hit 5% more often than a wizard. Sure, add 4 levels...

Instead of creating a new skill, seems like it'd be easier to just allow athletics proficiency to be added to grapple and knockdown checks. If you're an athlete you're better at tackling. Makes sense to me.

I really, really dislike the universal proficiency for weapons. A 5th level fighter, 5th level bard, and 5th level Mage all wield a dagger with the exact same skill? Silly. Nonsensical. Simply put, fighters should be better at fighting. The fact that they're not, in this revision, makes me...

One of the issues I had hoped Next would address is how D&D represents shields mechanically. Unfortunately, the current ruleset maintains the status quo. There are two shields in the game. One gives +2 to AC, the other gives +1 (and is given the name "buckler"). I have two issues with this...