Search results

Gonna disagree on this. I will gladly agree 2e psionics were fairly unique since there is only two levels of power (science and devotion) and it has a lot of mechanics not seen in 2e spells (power score, crit failure, psionic combat). Even the 3.0e psion felt far more different than 3e casters...

You still aren't addressing how a DM determines strength relative to size. I'm making a dungeon for third level PCs. Can I put an ogre in room one without a TPK? How about two? What about a troll? What about a troll and six goblins? What about a mummy? A drider? A shambling mound? Id rather...

Of course, then you are giving the DM absolutely NO guidance on how to build encounters. How many orcs are appropriate for a low-level party? 10? 100? What about bugbears or gnolls? What about giants? I guess the DM could "figure it out" via the Guess and TPK method. Then again, if you think...

Wouldn't read too much into it. UltraPro used to make playmats with every module and sourcebook key art on it. They also did wall scrolls, character folios and even card sleeves.

As have I in 2e. Which is why I can't help but roll my eyes when people talk about about OS Lethality. It's lethal for maybe four levels and then PCs build up enough clout that not every fight is a fail state. By 10+ level, they only fear archfiends and Gods.

I find it just the opposite. Bring up the notion that encounters should be balanced here and people will look at you like you asked for the children's menu and crayons.

True, but if that was the whole problem, then we solved for it 30+ years ago with BECMI.

Players like buttons to press. I don't think the genie's going back into the bottle. I can't imagine D&D returning to a world where the fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, and rogue have nothing more interesting to do than attack each turn.

The difference is narrative vs location-based play. A dungeon is location-based play: you're goal it to explore the dungeon and achieve some goal (loot all the treasure, find all the kidnapped villagers, disrupt the cultists, slay the dragon, etc). Generally, encounters are structured by rooms...

..." Too the same extent" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting there. It was harder to nova because classes outside the wizard (and lesser extent cleric) couldn't. There was no action surge, divine smites, no bardic inspiration, no rage. The closest thing to a nova was dropping your highest level...

They key here is that classes can pick and choose freely enough that once the PC picks Crusader, he isn't locked of picking priest or invoker abilities. At least some of them.

I think part of the problem is D&D's resource management is locked to "dungeon" style of play. The PCs are far away from home, in hostile territory, facing multiple hostile encounters in a short period. Resource management breaks down when the PCs aren't in hostile territory (such as urban...

The problem with "not designing for a role" is that you can design a class that has no role. Or fills roles it's not intended to. Personally, I think it would be more interesting to have fewer classes, but they can fill ANY role. For example, the Warrior class is good at martial skills but...

I want to hone in on this element for a moment. I think part of the tragic element of ADEU was the fact that essentially, each power (other than at wills) was Vancian. You knew X abilities and you can use them each exactly 1 time before recharge. Fire and forget. Star Wars Saga did the same...

Completely random gear works great in video games because of a technique we call farming. As in "keep fighting the same mobs or bosses until they drop what your looking for." Now how many DMs are going to let PCs wander in a small area farming respawning orcs/trolls/whatever to keep getting...

Sauce?

So? Potential is there. And wizards can do a lot of things prior that is on par with a Superman type character. Balance is achievable. Which is why I'm not saying change the fighter. I'm saying present a warrior who can do things unbound by the need to be "within the boundaries of what's...

Spellcasters get wish. I'm sure we can find a balance. We have 20 levels to work with. There is a demand for martials who aren't strictly inferior to casters and a demand for more classes that don't use the spell system. I don't see an issue. Do you think you monk is too complex? Do you feel...

I'm not looking for a gish. I want a supernatural warrior without relying on spells. Since D&D won't allow the fighter to be supernatural, let's make something that can be. I want a class that can emulate something like Hercules (supernaturally strong enough to divert rivers), Superman (who...

Yes. Heaven forbid we try to expand that. "Sorry guys, we made a supernatural warrior class already and we can't make another ever again. What do you mean there are 'six full caster classes in the game'?"