Search results

And switch to defenses which spells attack, rather than saving throws that targets must roll. Not only is it simpler and easier to teach, it makes creating support effects for others' abilities significantly easier, AND makes spell design easier to balance. We already have the notion of Death...

He's correct about the end result (Legendary Resistance is a cheap trick shoved in to deal with design faults), and the initial impetus which produced this (slavish adherence to tradition >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else), but his reasoning for why that is the problem is flawed, which negatively...

Absolutely. New take on Sorcerers that makes them ACTUALLY completely distinct from Wizards? That gives the origin of their magic a central, leading role? NOPE, screw that noise, absolutely the hell not, give us the blandest possible crap instead. New take on Warlocks that puts their...

Yeah. Frankly, the fact that DDI + RPG sales were collectively over $7M when they hadn't published a single page of 4e content for over a year and had been ramping up the replacement for nearly two? That's goddamned impressive. But of course, trawling for any data that can be spindled, folded...

Okay. I can only go by the rulebooks I read. The ones that repeatedly say things of the form "You can do X. Or you can not do X. You decide!" Or the absolutely hilarious, legitimately "you can't make this stuff up" level of anti-advice, when the game literally tells you to figure out how much...

That's the issue though. It was never "leaving room for different people to evaluate things differently". It was often described that way, I freely admit. But it has always been "if the rules don't work as written, the GM will figure it out". That's one of the reasons I generally dislike the...

Given the loosey-goosey, "you're the GM, you figure it out" design of 5e, I doubt this will be even remotely an issue. 5e is never going to be a game where the rules just inherently work out of the box. That was, quite literally, one of the design intents, leaving a portion of the design for...

And? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? For goodness' sake. Does this reply, in any way, address anything about the argument made?

I mean, the bigger reason to glance back and forth is that Pathfinder 1st edition is simply a copied version of D&D. You haven't "left the D&D fold". You've just jumped to a different creator making the exact same product under a slightly different name. It's not even like switching from Coke...

If it had been radically different from 5e, that would have been nothing but an improvement, so yeah, I'd have at least given it a shot with the hope that maybe it would stop actively crapping on my preferences as a gamer and player, with the hope that maybe this time the big tent would actually...

I've had two groups in my Arabian Nights-flavored Dungeon World game, Jewel of the Desert, that I've intentionally given blue-and-orange morality vibes. One, the Shi (arabicized of the Gaelic pronunciation of sidhe), view the world purely in terms of aesthetics. If something is beautiful, then...

This gets toward the "dark vs bright" and "grim vs noble" dichotomies folks talk about online. No idea if those have any relation whatsoever to proper criticism, but they're widely discussed online. Almost everyone has their own individual definition, but mine would be... Grim: Society is what...

I mean, there are plenty of dichotomies you can use, as long as you recognize that these things are always a spectrum, and there will always be works that simply don't have a spot on the scale because it doesn't apply to them. Consider Apollonian vs Dionysian, or "hard" vs "soft" sci-fi, or...

At least for me, much of my exposure to (as you put it) "Wellsian" worlds is that it has to be a world where real change is genuinely impossible....unless it's bad. Bad change is fine. Good change isn't--and anyone who says otherwise is either idiotic, crazy, or lying. Anything good in the world...

At least for my part, I see psionic and primal as equally distinct things--and I do see primal as quite distinct from the self, because of many of the symbols and rituals involved with it. Primal magic involves a kind of transcendental understanding, it's just not the kind of understanding that...

Ah, see, I was understanding your suggestion as "The Barbarian is perfectly adequate to fulfill this concept", as opposed to what it sounds like here, which is "The Barbarian could be used as one expression of this concept". The former I vehemently disagree with, the latter I think is perfectly...

I absolutely would not consider that a requirement, and would argue that expecting that simply means you think "hope setting" means "really poorly-done black-and-white thinking". Pretty reductive. I run what I would very much consider a hope setting. There isn't a "good kingdom" nor a "bad...

I can see that being one specific specialization of it, sure. I don't see the Barbarian working as the baseline for all of it, is the problem. Like this feels like saying that the Barbarian works for, say, Paladin, because you could view Rage as being a transcendental state of communion with...

I could see others interpeting it so, but I would not do so myself. The primary reason being that the Barbarian--even in 5e--is portrayed as something unthinking. Even if it has moved quite far away from the "wild-eyed madness" type origin, no longer looking quite like Cú Chulainn's...

So when I used "Certainly." above, you then instantly interpret everything else I've ever said as inherently uncertain? When I use "Hopefully", you assume that everything else I've said must have been in the pit of despair? This is--frankly--ridiculous.