Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fede" data-source="post: 5856415" data-attributes="member: 81219">I disliked this rule of 3:Considering all we have seen so far, I do not think that fighter's and rogue's manouvers will be enough to "fill the gap" in difference of available options between martial and arcane classes. Admittedly, we do not know much so this is only my impression, nothing concrete.For alignment, they talk about giving mechanical weight to it. One of the things that I really liked about 4E was the removal of (almost) all mechanical effects of alignment, and I see this as another step back in a direction that I do not like. Again, they are saying that there are options to remove it if the DM wants to, so we'll have to see.What really worries me is the discussion about minions, because the solution proposed totally misses the point. It's not only about having monsters that die on one hit. That's only a part of it. The real core of the minion's concept is having monsters that are at the lowest complexity possible, so that the DM can use them to have encounters with a great number of enemies without slowing down the game.That's why minions have fixed damage and abilities designed with their minion status in mind.It's not enough to have a monster die in one hit because of the way damage scales  to have a minion, you have to design it from the start.</blockquote>