i'd prefer they do away with monks completely. I think it's silly that they are equal to fighters in attack, damage and defense potential. Then each level they get powers that mimic rare or higher magic items. THEN they can get magic items that stack with their stuffs...
Really don't know what to say.... It looks like advertising plus saying to a part of the fan-base: "You don't know what you want, but you're lucky as we do!". Anyway I may be biased....
View full commentReally don't know what to say....
It looks like advertising plus saying to a part of the fan-base: "You don't know what you want, but you're lucky as we do!".
Anyway I may be biased....
Spells need to be vast and fun. So do magic items. Spell Books should vary. Save or dies. Having combat take long or short, who cares. I sometimes want a whole session to be about combat and others not. Why the focus? The over complicated side of things often make it more fun so long as the players and the DM know what they are doing. 3.5 was a great system. Fine tuning it and adapting some of 4 e, is the call. Variety, imagination, freedom, and give the human some love. The nerf...
View full commentSpells need to be vast and fun. So do magic items. Spell Books should vary. Save or dies. Having combat take long or short, who cares. I sometimes want a whole session to be about combat and others not. Why the focus? The over complicated side of things often make it more fun so long as the players and the DM know what they are doing. 3.5 was a great system. Fine tuning it and adapting some of 4 e, is the call. Variety, imagination, freedom, and give the human some love. The nerf they made to him, makes him unplayable. +2 should be back in the cards. More feats for everyone. More skills. There just isn't enough variety... How about a point buy for skills and feats? That can also work. More on character building, to allow for uniqueness. And another thing, PCs and monsters should be balanced in terms of damage out put and hit points. As a DM I want to through NPCs at the PCs... That should always be allowed... Late night rant, so my apologies if on several tangents. But 3.5 had a lot of great things. They need to model this system primarily on it over all other systems. This is from a gamer who played every edition. Not that should matter but it was the most advanced and challenging in that regard. You could really get into character building and getting a unique and fun character was half the game... The rest is up to role-playing, dice and having fun... No more dumbing it up...
Uhg. Nuts! In the future I will endeavor to READ the published rules a little bit better before putting up posts. Sorry. The bit with the hobgoblins getting a +2 to AC rather than pcs attacking with disadvantage is right there in the "cover" section for half cover. Seems like I made the same call the developers would, but it creates a new, perhaps tougher, question. 5th ed still uses a form of the +/- system, not A/D exclusively. So what will the difference be between gaining a +/- to a...
View full commentUhg. Nuts! In the future I will endeavor to READ the published rules a little bit better before putting up posts. Sorry.
The bit with the hobgoblins getting a +2 to AC rather than pcs attacking with disadvantage is right there in the "cover" section for half cover. Seems like I made the same call the developers would, but it creates a new, perhaps tougher, question. 5th ed still uses a form of the +/- system, not A/D exclusively. So what will the difference be between gaining a +/- to a roll vs gaining A/D? Is it a more extreme situation than a +/-4 or 5? Or simply something more random than a straight +/- suggests? Example: Cover 1/2=+2AC, 3/4=+5AC, invisible=A/D. There is much back and forth between when one or the other is used. I can see where that could lead to confusion among the players/dm.
IDK guys. The more I read about and playtest with A/D system the more skeptical I become. I like the concept, but it was easier for me to just slap a +/-2 (or 4 or whatever) on the roll and go with it.
This is such a tease! Talking about 5th level and backgrounds you didn't put in the playtest. I love the background/trait combination. It's been fun to test, and I can't wait till I have more to work with. The flexibility it will give is fantastic.
I like the concept of Themes giving the ability to go off Class with abilities. But, one element with 4th Ed. that most of players didn't like was the All-In approach with Themes, Paragon Classes and Epic Destinies. Almost always, one or two of the powers or traits would be perfect, but the rest would just be wrong. As a result, most of the players in my 4th Ed games have customized themes and paragon paths. It seems that this is the going to be the case with Backgrounds and Themes. It seems...
View full commentI like the concept of Themes giving the ability to go off Class with abilities. But, one element with 4th Ed. that most of players didn't like was the All-In approach with Themes, Paragon Classes and Epic Destinies. Almost always, one or two of the powers or traits would be perfect, but the rest would just be wrong. As a result, most of the players in my 4th Ed games have customized themes and paragon paths. It seems that this is the going to be the case with Backgrounds and Themes. It seems very restrictive to state Exactly what skills a character has. (I have let characters in my playtests chose skills and it has worked quite well). One definition of what a theme's path is not much of a choice are ALL Magic Users the same. Can a character change a Theme and keep previous feats? Offering multible choices of skills or feats would at least leasten the sting. Or as is the philosphy of these forums, the DM just makes up whatever he wants.
I like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break...
View full commentI like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break games. I give my players my own unique and personal parts of the game - often custom tailored for specific characters. I am not opposed to having guidelines, especially for newer DMs, but leave them at that, and drop the expectations for characters to upgrade their weapons like they do in console RPGs. It ruins the magic. No pun intended. Honestly.
It is a very smart idea to be able to incorperate both styles of play (TotM/grid) into one game system. Not only do you find both types of encounters (2 guards/big final battle) and both types of players' tastes. But it would create a great amount of flexibility in the game itself. That is what our imagination can do, now D&D might do it as well. I love the fact that a DM or module would have the freedom to say "You know, they would probably post a pair of guards." and be able to run it quickly...
View full commentIt is a very smart idea to be able to incorperate both styles of play (TotM/grid) into one game system. Not only do you find both types of encounters (2 guards/big final battle) and both types of players' tastes. But it would create a great amount of flexibility in the game itself. That is what our imagination can do, now D&D might do it as well. I love the fact that a DM or module would have the freedom to say "You know, they would probably post a pair of guards." and be able to run it quickly and effectively. Many a time my old groups tried to take out the guards quietly and flubbed the delicate proceedure. He he... Adding to other, often unforseen, complications. The designers want the system to be able to run with anything that could happen. Sweet!
This is intriguing, and I have to admit, I haven't really given much thought as to whether or not a particular encounter warrants grid and minis (I'm a bit of a grognard). This will be interesting to see. I'm actually going to start trying more TotM style combats in my games for the smaller encounters.