Search results

The thing that is most important to me, is that I will have a choice in determining how easy or hard it is to restore HP. I can see the terminology that is used really influences how we receive something, so let's forget all terminology we've thought up for a minute here, and I'll try to...

I think the most important thing this Meat/Fate (or Body/Fatigue as Lanefan put it) brings to the table is a possible sollution to the problem of 'healing overnight', in that one part (Fate/Fatigue) is fully restored after a night's rest (and hence, the way it works right now in the playtest -...

In my opinion, if I have to take a class that is not the Wizard and restyle it into a Wizard to get a different-than-Vancian spellcasting system for that character, they did something wrong with the class design, since there apparently wasn't anything there for those two classes to make them...

That might be so, but with what you said, it does seem like you'd rather close the door on this idea because of your personal preference, instead of leaving it open for people that might like it. Hence why I said it would probably not be made available in the initial release. Like AlioTheFool...

And I can see a case being made for giving the option to remove all per day or per encounter abilities, or to have things be at will and having encounter or daily limited ways to boost these. I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way (it's not just directed at you, I've seen this sort of...

Actually, I hope they don't just stop there. Give these sort of interesting abilities for more of those 'plain-jane bonuses to hit and damage', I'd say! ^^

Indeed. Also, saying "this is how it should be because that's how it's always been" is a pointless arguement, since it doesn't have to be. Some people might want it, but that's not the point (and they'll get what they want anyway, their way will be supported). The point is that there are plenty...

Actually, regardless what they decide to do, I would think that you are still free to take the 'base four' and add the given themes to them to create a semblance of the other classes (like the Playtest Dwarf Cleric looks like a Paladin), and just ban the actual classes from your table if that is...

I wonder if we really need the Fighter if there is nothing that makes the Fighter 'the Fighter'. If the entire class is based on something *every* class can do, which in this case is basic attack with improv. to keep things somewhat interesting, there really isn't that much going on. I'm not...

I can't really say with any certainty, but I would guess it has to do with that people would prefer the barbarian to be a background (you come from a barbaric origin) and theme (you have berserker rage abilities). One problem with this is that it leaves the people that don't want to use...

The way the group I've played with since 2e does it, is a little bit of a combination of the two. We simply roll initiative each round. Might be a bit more roling, but it keeps people from being stuck in a specific spot on the turn order. With the 3e+ way, being first only matters at the very...

But wouldn't it be easier to make it clear which actions you'd have to take (or not take) when creating a Fighter to make it simple or complex, than wasting space on two seperate classes that are effectively the same thing? What if other Fighter options, or a seperate degree of complexity, were...

Who said anything about these manouvers being "part of the core design"? The whole point is that by what the OP said, he doesn't want them in D&D Next at all. That's just not going to fly.

I would like to have it so that you'd have copper pieces as the 'cent' type coin, with silver being the standard, and gold being the 'big bucks', maybe with platinum as the 'really big bucks'. Otherwise, just make it so there's a single type of money, not copper, silver, gold, etc.. Kind of...

Wouldn't it be better if I didn't have to? Also, who's to say that the sorcerer won't come into its own in such a manner that it's not so simple? Yes, this is what I'm hoping for, at least.

Hmm.. Perhaps. I'm not sure this would pan out that well, though, since being a warlock actually means something.. If classes didn't have any built in flavour at all, the way classes are presented would have to change as well. Instead of flavorful names that gives you an idea of what they are...

There is nothing wrong with liking the Fighter to be simple (and the Wizard etc to be complex), but there is also nothing wrong with wanting the ability to play a Fighter that is complex (or a Wizard etc that is simple). What I really have a problem with, though, is this point of view that if...

What if I want to play a learned book-ish spellcaster that doesn't use the Vancian system?

It will not happen, because people that will not be using Themes might want to have access to those classes as well. I definately see room for these as well. Armored melee casters have a very different focus compared to non-armored ranged casters, and their spells and abilities should reflect...

I'd like "Barbarian" to be a background. I voted for it to be a class, though. I want them to pull a "Thief" and change its name into something more accurate. Battlerager, berzerker, whatever.. Just not Barbarian (since a barbarian can be many things, not just a berzerker).