Legends and Lore for 2/13

[Daven]

You'd have to cite scientific evidence to prove the latter as well. I don't think we need Wizards to have to provide efficacy data for why men can have any ability scores, but women can only get a 17 str.

I think that male vs female records in almost every sport in which strenght is involved can work as scientific evidence.
So said, I think that in a game where a fighter can fall for 20 feets and then clean his/her shirt, we can also have women with the same great strength of men.
To not speak about the many political problems it could have doing otherwise.

 

[Hassassin]

All of them below 10% support... I can't believe 91% want to get rid of crits. Am I reading it wrong?

 

[Connorsrpg]

The poll is the best so far, but it could have at least asked what you want as core vs an add-on module.

Ie: Weapons vs Armor table. I really liked that chart for making weapon choice important, but I wouldn't see it being core. It is one of the add on combat options I would love to see though.

Yeah and those %'s are just confusing? Does it mean of all the votes cast, 10% of them are for crits. I think straight stats would have been a better option.

 

[tecnowraith]

So who voted for THACO to comeback?

 

[Hassassin]

All of them below 10% support... I can't believe 91% want to get rid of crits. Am I reading it wrong?

The percentages must be from all votes cast. Otherwise 89-93% want neither Vancian nor non-Vancian...

 

[FireLance]

The percentages must be from all votes cast. Otherwise 89-93% want neither Vancian nor non-Vancian...

It looks like the only thing Internet polls tell you is that they aren't really useful.

 

[Mark CMG]

Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version of the game was absolutely golden.

Not much choice there for the designers.

(. . .) get involved in the open playtest when it starts and let us know. If you would like to see things like that be a part of the core rules set, or if you would use rules like that as optional modules, that's the kind of information we are looking for in order to make this a game you want to play.

I doubt this is going to happen much in regard to strictly-early edition players and thus will likely not see as much of 5E catering to that style of play and therefore will probably not recapture many lapsed D&D players. A sort of self-fulfilling circle, but we will see.

We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in the past. Faster, better, smarter.

Can't argue with the logic of that, IMO.

 

[Kynn]

The percentages must be from all votes cast. Otherwise 89-93% want neither Vancian nor non-Vancian...

I checked both those boxes, because I want some Vancian classes and some non-Vancian. Now I'm wondering if I did that the right way or not!

Such a vague poll. Again, I wonder what they're hoping to learn from it.

(Did some marketing exec tell them, "to make sure you're crowdsourcing this, you've gotta include Interactivity in each post and let people answer polls"?)

 

[Bedrockgames]

This poll seemed pretty straight forward to me.

 

[Minigiant]

The percentages must be from all votes cast. Otherwise 89-93% want neither Vancian nor non-Vancian...

They should have made a poll for each one.
I want both Vancian (wizard) and non-Vancian (warlock).