Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5991552" data-attributes="member: 55966">I don't mind the many lores problem, because it gives me an excuse for characters to go find Sages.  I mean I can't just throw obscure lore at them in exchange for a skill check, but I can tell them to trace glyphs with charcoal and parchment for later.  The physical skills are probably considered redundant because of physical ability scores.  In other words, you are good at running if you have high con, good at jumping and lifting with high strength, etc.   In other words, you don't need to train to do purely physical stuff that everyone does, or rather you've already trained by increasing your ability scores.  I don't think I agree with that, since a high Con could mean you are healthy but fat if you don't take the running skill.I don't it is quite that bad.   It definitely has a bit of 4e in it by having one or two modular powers, and more tactical modular powers could be added by a 4e-centric DM fairly easily.   This is a marked improvement over the last playtest, where the monsters were just sacks of hp.I think 4e monsters were the most mechanically interesting of the 4 editions myself, and the easiest to run, but they made "theatre of the mind" play difficult and their defenses and hp were too high.   These monsters fix both these problems.One other thing this Bestiary learned from 4e is that any spells that monsters cast have the spell description right in the monster text.  Huzzah!  No looking up spells in the PHB when you want to run a monster.I like meeting my characters rather than creating builds myself, so this doesn't bother me.   For people who build characters through, I imagine it will make it in as a dice rolling option eventually.  But I can understand why they would want to encourage rolling now, since you can't really test the flat math without random ability scores.As long as mechanical effects involving alignment don't creep back into the core game, I don't care.  Some people like it as part of fleshing out their character's personality, and if it helps them, that's all to the good.   However, if the paladin starts detecting at-will evil again, I'll see red.Eh, to be fair, a cleric was a leader by being a healbot and buffbot in 4e.  Both 2e and 3e had more flavourful priest variations than 4e did.Can't agree here.  I am going to resist any attempt to make the rogue the archetype of the ninja or assassin (I want those to be their own classes).  There has got to be a way to make a skill-based rogue class viable without making them all Artemis Entreri.  We just have to figure it out.Agreed.  They should just do some research as to what things cost in the particular medieval time period/place they are trying to emulate with the core game, and price the equipment accordingly.   If the flatter math system works, it shouldn't matter that a good sword costs 7 oxen, or that a good warhorse costs the equivelant of a sports car in today's money.  Stop breaking immersion by trying to introduce balance through cost.Agreed.  But I've been making a shield worth +4 since 2e, so I guess it is just going to be another edition where I do it again.I want the weapon qualities from 4e (Brutal, Versatile, High-Crit etc.) back.  I am glad to see bludgeoning, slashing and piercing back though.  Bring back the golf club bag of weapons I say.  Real Medieval knights and warriors carried several weapons, so why shouldn't D&D fighters?Dwarf, Elf and Halfing look pretty much the same as in 4e, up to including having all the same abilities.   Sure, High Elves have a free spell instead of blink teleport, but I like that better anyway.   (I wonder if short range teleport will be a cantrip).I'm not sure if Humans have too much stats.  In 3e or 4e this would be killer, but with flatter math it might end up being a non-issue because you might not get as rewarded for higher stats.  Good.Can you elaborate on that?   My concern for save or suck is that it is back down in lower levels.  4e taught me just how important spells are that deny actions, and I used that knowledge to absolutely dominate my 3e games until I just couldn't play spellcasters anymore.  I would play this over 4e if I had a group that was more into exploration and plotline than combat.  4e combat is fun, but it is very hard to get through a complete adventure in a session or two.     I would play this over 2e, for while 2e is my favourite, this cleans up 2e and adds more options.   I'd DM this over 3e because it would simply be quicker and easier prep, but otherwise many of the same problems/benefits are much the same between this and 3e, except it feels a little more like 2e or Rules Cyclopedia D&D.</blockquote>

Verification