Search results

Why are assassins necessarily evil, though? Killing a person in D&D is not an evil act, as long as you are not doing it only for personal gain (or pleasure). As long as you assassinate people in the name of the greater good or because your superiors order you to do it, you're perfectly fine...

Just to chime in, the resurrection survival was a sort of a "death spiral" implanted to insure that your character couldn't be resurrected ad infinitum. Every time you got resurrected, you lost a point of Con, which in turn reduced your resurrection survival chance.

That's still quite a bit more than in 4E, IIRC. It bears mentioning that I'm in favor of Vancian casting even though I do not use it in its pure form in my own games. IMC, mages prepare their spell lists for the day, and can then cast any spell from their list freely. Sort of like 3E sorcerers...

With the heralded return of Vancian casting, it's a given that the larger number of daily slots will be returning.

Yes. This is one thing that 4e handled beautifully, getting rid of time-keeping for spell effects. So I'd like to see the following: Sustain: Minor, Move, or Standard Duration: Encounter (which I would rename Scene) or Day (though I would actually make all spells that last all day into rituals)

Both names should be included. The non-latin name should be noted as the name under which commoners of the region refer to the beast, and the latin name should be its "sage" name.

Actually, the road to Hell is paved with frozen insurance salesmen. Young devils sometimes go ice-skating on them. A cookie for the person who gets the reference... As for the healing surges, it should be a DM's option. I certainly won't be using them (if I end up running 5e), but it'd be nice...

Merric also had a letter published in Dragon, IIRC.

Every time you drop a lower level power and replace it with a higher level one, a baby sloth dies. :.-( Little baby sloth will make you smile! - YouTube

IMO, the class list is way too long as is. I am in favor of fewer classes and more specialized builds, but this is obviously not how they are approaching it. Still, I think we'll see the following: Dwarf Elf Halfling Assassin Barbarian Bard Cleric Druid Fighter Mage (wizard specializations...

Don't forget the specifically called-out Priest class, which will be different than the Cleric. Priests were present in 2nd edition.

And Mike hates them, so that balances out. Hopefully.

Extrapolating from the seminar and previous information (still all IMO): Common classes (easy to build, easy to run, probably a greater % of the classed population): Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, (probably) Rogue Uncommon classes (slightly more difficult to build and run): Bard, Priest Rare...

Well, if I was able to make it work in my own system revision, I'm sure Monte and Mike won't have much trouble. It's all just a question of setting the design goals and priorities in the right order.

Assassins are rare. :p

I got the impression that the simple fighter will be "simpler" to run than the simple wizard.

The good stuff: Different levels of complexity for different classes No more power sources No more roles, either (not specifically spelled out but implied from context) Magic items decoupled from character advancement (no more Christmas tree effect! yay!) Return of Vancian casting Different...

Because a player who is not charismatic in real life should not be allowed to play a charismatic character, right?

Sorry, I have a strict policy of not arguing with rules lawyers on ENWorld. Except Hypersmurf, but he is always right anyway, so getting into an argument with him is pointless. Moreover, you do realize (as kitcik noted) that you are using SRD to argue against my house rule? To be fair, it is...

I have 11 years of playtest experience in a number of campaigns as evidence. Caster level is unrelated to the spell progression. Wizards still get 3rd level spells at level 5, but their CL is 2 at that time.