Search results

Gotta spread the XP around, but yeah... I agree with all that. Essentials and the Psionic classes proved the AEDU could be balanced with different models. And Iron Heroes proved you could have a great game with only a bunch of really interesting martial classes without daily powers.

Tricky question. I ended up voting for what I think would be best for the business of uniting the various D&D crowds. I think taking a broad brush and bringing out support in the form of an adventure for 5 different settings in the first year or so is important. Forget the setting book for...

I think our definition of "pretty low scores" is different. Statistically if you had an 18 in one stat, you should probably be balancing that out by having a 3 (given 3d6 origins of the game... 4d6 might allow you to balance it with a 5, but I don't know the math). And I've done plenty of...

My ideal world: 1. option for rolling 3d6 2. point buy that would generate approximately the same stats as rolling 3d6 3. option for rolling 4d6 4. different point buy system that would generate approximately the same stats as rolling 4d6 In other words, I could have characters roll 4d6 and...

My vote (although I'm not really expecting it) would be for: * Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue (the classics) * then add in Druid and Psion to cover primal / psionic style powers (and they should work differently) * and have really good multi-class rules. Then later decide on whether a: *...

I was thinking the other day about how I liked how some of the new E-classes in 4th edition were listed with multiple power sources, and thought I'd fill in the grid. Since I'm not a fan of tying classes too tightly to roles, I figured this could be a better way to differentiate classes in the...

I was already prepping to end it in 2012 at level 10 after 4 years of play (once a month weeknight campaigns don't move very quickly). But since the dominant campaign theme is nightmares & dreams, they'll end it in the dream world trying an Inception-style assault on Zehir. And I'll find a way...

Tricky question. I definitely think it must have d20 mechanics. And I really don't want to lose some of the brilliant 4e innovations. And I have very fond memories of AD&D. But my biggest hope is that it's as accessible, easy to pick up and start playing, and whimsical as BECMI. So I voted...

There are lots of things I consider part of D&D, but epic level falls low on the list of what I want in the initial core rulebook. To make it accessible, the page count needs to be kept under control, so I'd be very willing to postpone epic level support from day 1 in favour of: *...

Positive. I play 4e, but although it fixed certain things for me, I have fond memories of other things in older editions. And even with the missteps that 4e made, I think they were important steps to take. So I think they are setting their targets in the right direction and taking appropriate...

My big hope for the fighter is that I can have a player say they want to play either of the following and both be happy: * a tough guy with a sword * a tough guy with a sword, who was raised on the mean streets of Calimport and incorporates improvised weapons and martial arts into his attacks...

Although the number of powers/choices per action definitely is a primary factor in lengthening the combat, I really think the number of actions compounds this. Especially when they're interchangeable (e.g. 3 minors). So it's not cognitively just 1 fewer action to think about when going from 3...

I want to be an effective melee fighter without being the strongest human to ever have lived.

Ok, I'll concede that historically each weapon has their environments in which they're the better weapon. And to be honest I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the game model that somehow (optionally that is... weapon vs armour types of 2e, or crit ranges in 3e). But I think that's a bit of a...

I don't think having two players that want to play fighters (one with a rapier and the other with a greatsword), and have them be equally effective, qualifies as silliness.

I think I need the 6 ability scores for it to feel like D&D. But I totally support divorcing the potential to cause damage from a single high stat. I can easily make an argument that hitting and causing damage in combat depends on my strength, agility, endurance, knowledge of tactics...

7 of 9. Heh, and there's something geeky about that score too. (Now I just need to add Neuromancer and Godel, Escher, Bach to my Christmas wishlist)

Agreed on the increased abstraction. I'd personally go further and say that it doesn't affect your binary defence at all ("am I hit or missed") but affects the damage caused through things like reduce to 1/2 damage 1/enc, crit->normal hit 1/enc, or even give the actual shield a benefit similar...

Multiple Tiny Bonuses: I don't want to deal with a bunch of +1 bonuses. e.g. the dragonborn ranger (hunter) that gets +1 if I'm bloodied, +1 if the enemy is alone, +1 if an ally is adjacent to the enemy, +1 if I'm the closest to the enemy, +2 if I have Combat Advantage, -2 if it's dim light...

Opportunity Attacks: 1. should my wizard even get them? It's not like I'm likely to hit anyway. Even if I do it won't be for much damage. Even my cleric and thief aren't likely to hit. 2. Many monsters are built with just one melee attack, so if you draw an OA you'll be hit by the full...