Search results

That’s enough edition war strawmaning. Roles (all be it loosely defined) have been part of D&D from the start. Everyone knows a cleric is for healing (even though they can do lots of other stuff). I can’t say what was wrong, if anything, with the way 4e dealt with roles because I didn’t...

And the thing about superhero games is the player decides all the lore with regards to their character’s powers.

Pretty sure Geralt cast spells in the Witcher games.

I’m pretty sure that when the majority of the adventure has one encounter per day, and one chapter has about eight, it averages out at about two per day.

Err, no? I can’t think of any that fit that. Not even ToA, which has a lot of 1 encounter per day hexcrawling. Most don’t have 20 rounds of combat in the whole adventure/chapter. The last one I ran had about 10, and that was only because I added extra, and there was nothing to prevent the PCs...

New? The only reason I know Shazam is he was my dad’s favourite superhero! I shouldn’t need to point out that D&D is not a superhero game, but if you look at actual superhero games they typically give the same powers to superheroes with very different origins. Is it magic? Is it tech? Doesn’t...

Seems to have been popular enough in Skyrim!

As the man said “who?” The only one of those I know is Shazam, and he is identical to Superman apart from being Magic Origin rather than Natural Origin (CoH forever!).

I’m not going to respond to the whole thread, but my takeaway is this admission: “We were probably off by a factor of 5.” I.e it’s not the player’s fault for ignoring the encounter guidance DMG, it was the designers’ fault for supposing such a large number of encounters was reasonable. Even...

All the accounts I have heard of the Bloodhunter in actual play is that it is too fiddly and just not fun. But, edgelordness aside, Geralt can’t do anything that can’t be covered by a ranger, fighter/MU or EK. Spells can always be fluffed as homebrew potions.

Was always an issue with 1st edition as well. There was maybe 10% of the Monster Manual dedicated to psionic powers and creatures which where irrelevant unless one of the PCs was psionic.

Why can’t your “gish” use weapons? I really don’t understand this, or why rangers and paladins unacountably fail to qualify. What fantasy hero is it supposed to emulate? The Witcher? Ranger works fine. Elric? The hexblade warlock was based on him, but fighter/MU with a magic weapon is a better...

It’s not a case of a particular number of classes. It’s the case that more mechanics makes the game objectively worse. Here is a case in point: the pathfinder kineticist is a pretty exact fit for the “spellless psion” you are so keen on. It has magical abilities that are not spells, and if it...

The alchemist is a crap subclass. As I said, most of the artificer is in the subclass, and all the other choices are far better than alchemist.

Pretty much the whole of the artificer is in the subclass, considering them without is disingenuous. And spells are a secondary class feature. Their magic gear, with may be focused on offence, defence or support, is their main thing.

But in practical terms, the distinction is meaningless. They both go round attacking stuff with magically enhanced weapons.

Not really how it plays. It’s an expert in the same way that a ranger is an expert.

Yes.

More like people don’t know what to do with them. It’s like “omg this class is so underpowered, but omg repeating crossbows with infinite ammo are too overpowered and I’m not going to allow them”.

Humans get two, or species (e.g. githzeri) subclass, core class for warlocks. Not free, but relatively cheap. And not having to make a con save. And I’ve seen plenty of casters dieing from “just damage”. Smart enemies focus fire on them.