|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:26AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2007
|
More Info On ModulesDon't know about you guys, but I'm tentatively interested in seeing where the rabbit hole leads. A 3.5 Wizard sharing space with a 4e character? Interesting... ...Especially if it ends up as was discussed in the other thread, and we get Fighters cutting mountains when Wizards reshape reality. Certainly sounds potentially workable, at least. What does the rest of CharOp think? Getting preemptively ready to remake Pun-Pun?
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:28AM
#2
|
|
|
Assuming they can pull it off, there's one line here that kind of puts a damper on that idea:
" yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced."
I would presume that 'relatively balanced' means no Pun-Pun.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:29AM
#3
|
|
|
"At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. "
BLASPHEMY
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:37AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2007
|
Assuming they can pull it off, there's one line here that kind of puts a damper on that idea:
" yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced."
I would presume that 'relatively balanced' means no Pun-Pun.
You would, but since when has that stopped us? 
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:51AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2010
|
What they have described so far has basically just been the O4e/Essentials split. If you want a "complex" character, play a Weaponmaster. If you want a "simple" character, play a Knight. They've hinted at bringing the same kind of options to the DM side, but there still aren't any actual details about how that works.
(If I'm playing a Wizard, and I have a lot of powers that refer to slides of specified length or the construction of walls, but my DM opts not to use the "tactical combat" module that uses a battle grid... what happens?)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:51AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2005
|
Honestly, this sounds like a pile of BS that's entirely unlikely to work in practice.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 10:57AM
#7
|
|
|
It's going to be important to have in a party an even mix of characters who use THAC0 and those who use the new system, just to ensure that someone can hit the monsters!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:03AM
#8
|
|
|
What Rokku said.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:04AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2003
|
It's going to be important to have in a party an even mix of characters who use THAC0 and those who use the new system, just to ensure that someone can hit the monsters!
lol
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 11:14AM
#10
|
|
|
Where do people get that they're merging characters from different editions into one game? It is very clear what they're attempting to do, in my opinion. I think they're going to fail miserably (when you try to please everyone, you usually please none)... but their intent is clear.
You won't be bringing in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition characters to the same table. They will all be 5th edition (or whatever they end up calling the next iteration of D&D). They will just vary in complexity, which they believe will satisfy die-hard players of each previous edition.
|
|
|
