Search results

I like the 4E system in regards to each class having the capability to have different attacks whether that was AC, fortitude, willpower or reflexes. And the classes also mixed it up where different builds focused on different attributes. You could also substitute in different skills for attacks...

A DM that does not want to put any effort into a campaign, or makes up rules ad hoc on the fly. Adding house rules to a game without any thought on how it impacts classes or player choices. And finally, a DM the forces the table to play how he or she envisions the characters should act or story...

A lot of re-used easter eggs from the earliest editions forward, so I am not be convinced that they are new from a 5E perspective.

A martial handbook to make classes like the fighter or rogue interesting using maneuvers, in addition to offering alternatives like a ranger without magic.

I think it is part of their overall strategy when acting as the elder brain, and let other entities perform the legwork. Whether that is cons, adventures, supplements, forums, etc. Probably a component of that is budget. They have been trimming the fat ever since 5E was released.

The idea of dice determining the power of the class works better with the wild sorcerer, since that class can fall back on standard spells. There is not much for the champion, even if you crit more often. But it is simple. But I do not like how the simplicity of a champion holds back classes...

I have not bought any of the 5E AP style adventures, since they are just re-hashing old stuff. The latest mention does not change that trend. I have not played in any of the Paizo APs, so if they were converted then I would be playing something new. I want new and original APs.

They wake up and were part of the psionic matrix.

I do not think it would be too hard to come up with a martial maneuvers system that uses variable damage dice for weapon that scale (just like spells scale with level). That would include weapon properties and things like stances to totally rewrite the martial side of things. At the same time...

There is the length of play testing to consider for any class in regards to how well it meshes with others. The other thing to consider with 5E is designing a class to be different just for the sake of being different. Just like the fighter was developed just for the sake of being simple. What...

In a fantasy game traps don't have to make sense, but from a realism standpoint puzzles and locks are deterrents and traps are for warfare, defense, or capture.

I never found a RPG that had a good representation of abilities via attributes, but I think the larger problem with 5E is the majority of classes use magic and there is little flexibility for martial classes via maneuvers; if you compare that against casters with spells. It is not a good model...

I would compare Gandalf to the paladin class without armor.

And lovers are going to love? The rest is up to whatever secret formula is in place to satisfy those that want story, crunch, or both. There is also the benefit of pent up demand, i.e. just release enough material to keep them wanting more. So the thirsty are going to thirst.

Since 5E starts casters off with more choices as first level versus martial classes, the sweet spot for me is 5-9 is for martial classes, where casters would start earlier like 3-7 to maintain parity.

From a literary perspective, I find 5E does not go far enough to grant martial classes flexibility to emulate different heroes represented in books without going heavy into multi-classing and casters have too many choices available except for high fantasy (magic is common) stories. So you end up...

I wish Thule did more to flesh out martial classes with maneuvers, versus just "kits" that fit over any class. I will take a look, but will probably wait for a campaign or setting that brings martial classes into the same playing field as casters with spells.

Pray, roll the dice, petition, etc. for an OGL equivalent to allow third parties to add content, including new ways to present classes.

The more options that are present in the game will present more options to change fluff. So if you compare a fighter versus a wizard, then the wizard has more opportunities to re-use abilities (change fluff) for different purposes. That is true even if you grant feats. The capability to change...

Sure. Any statements always benefit from context. I do not think everything is balanced even if you avoid "optimization" but then we will get into arguments on balance. So ultimately it boils down to what you want in a game and regardless of the statements others make the OP will have to play...