Umm, in my last session my level one party encountered a band of orcs. I went through both my magic missile spells, one of them empowered to do maximum damage, and I only killed one Orc. Granted, my first casting was split my missile between three different orcs (as they all were already damaged by a fire trap) but didn't kill a single one despite the fact that they were each already hurt. My second cast used my daily feat to empower them and two missiles hit one Orc and killed him, and one...
View full commentUmm, in my last session my level one party encountered a band of orcs. I went through both my magic missile spells, one of them empowered to do maximum damage, and I only killed one Orc. Granted, my first casting was split my missile between three different orcs (as they all were already damaged by a fire trap) but didn't kill a single one despite the fact that they were each already hurt. My second cast used my daily feat to empower them and two missiles hit one Orc and killed him, and one missile hit another Orc, and he still survived. After a short rest, I have one first level spell back, the fighter and rogue in the party have not lost any ability to do anything. This was just a random encounter on our way to a town (it was one Orc per party member) and it was our first encounter for the adventuring day. So I don't want to hear any nonsense about the uber power of magic missiles over other classes. Thank you.
Also, not a complaint, I am having fun playing my wizard, at least so far.
Maybe what they should do is have "classic" advancement, which is more of what we are used to and then "official advancement" for use in dnd encounters and living campaigns, as i suspect that's what is behind this move any way. Then people can chose. That could work but it involves not singling out the fast track approach as the default or "right" way to play. I know this for sure, it will fail miserable in its goal of attracting old school players back into the fold if they read that the...
View full commentMaybe what they should do is have "classic" advancement, which is more of what we are used to and then "official advancement" for use in dnd encounters and living campaigns, as i suspect that's what is behind this move any way. Then people can chose. That could work but it involves not singling out the fast track approach as the default or "right" way to play.
I know this for sure, it will fail miserable in its goal of attracting old school players back into the fold if they read that the default game is level every other session as it suggests the game was designed to again he something comlpleatly foreign to what they grew up with. As I said, I myself have been in games that house ruled quicker leveling tracks, and they were fun. But to define DnD as that kind of play won't go over well in winning people back.
...halflings should return to their origins -hobbits- if we want that the power-of-the-genre-archetypes concept which D&D is based upon since it came to life spread its magic; it seems they do so and I'm very happy!
The generic environment rules are a neat point, actually. I'm always a fan of wider applicability. Maybe have some pre-composed weather, though (like heavy rain = wet + obscuring), as examples if nothing else.
For weather, I agree with you for the most part, but every once and again, throwing out a rainstorm and keeping the PCs from moving, or even making it affect the campaign in some way can be fun. There was a DM who used a hurricane to affect the game, wiped out a village and spawned strange ocean creatures in the local lake, kinda cool. The other point about the rules? I do like it, yet I think some players will think that EVERYTHING needs to be written down.
View full commentFor weather, I agree with you for the most part, but every once and again, throwing out a rainstorm and keeping the PCs from moving, or even making it affect the campaign in some way can be fun. There was a DM who used a hurricane to affect the game, wiped out a village and spawned strange ocean creatures in the local lake, kinda cool.
The other point about the rules? I do like it, yet I think some players will think that EVERYTHING needs to be written down.
I don't like Alignment restriction for dragons or Genies... it's up DM what use or Aligment he wants his Dragon or Genie have.... been always against Aligment Restriction for those creatures.... and why is Shadow Dragon always Chaotic evil???? it like copy paste some kinde of Black Dragon again.... but if we said that Shadow dragon usually are of neutrall aligment then we will have a very interesting Dragon race.... after all the plane of Shadow are a neutrall plane... it's mortal denizens...
View full commentI don't like Alignment restriction for dragons or Genies... it's up DM what use or Aligment he wants his Dragon or Genie have.... been always against Aligment Restriction for those creatures....
and why is Shadow Dragon always Chaotic evil???? it like copy paste some kinde of Black Dragon again.... but if we said that Shadow dragon usually are of neutrall aligment then we will have a very interesting Dragon race.... after all the plane of Shadow are a neutrall plane... it's mortal denizens are most of the time of neutral aligment... only creature that have been tainted by the of pocket energi of the negative energi plane are evil (mostly undeads and some living tainted creature like Nightcrawlers)...
and were are the most interesting dragons of all time The Gem Dragons???? they are core dragon who have been neglected in 4 edition... Big Mistake i must say...
Move Shadow Dragon to Gem Dragon Family and call it Onyx dragon or something
and use mercuri dragon and steel dragon as metall dragon.. plus take back purple and brown ( brown was called yellow dragon in 2nd edition AD&D) and grey to chromatic dragon family...
I agree. Alignment has been part of the rules for a long time and should continue to be in the rules. And DMs have always ignored any rule that they didn't like so if some DM doesn't like alignment they don't have to use it, but the rest of us want it in the game.
For me Goblins should be like the ones depicted as in the Magic the Gathering universe. For the little ones, The Goblin Marauder, Goblin War Strike or Goblin Psychopath by Pete Venters, maybe like The Goblin Brawler by Heather Hudson or The Goblin Warchief by Tim Hildebrandt, One of my favorites is the painting art for the "Goblin Elite Infantry" by Robert Bliss. They look mean and badass! Long pointy ears with long and sharp nose; guess this model would fill the Hobgoblin, just add...
View full commentFor me Goblins should be like the ones depicted as in the Magic the Gathering universe.
For the little ones, The Goblin Marauder, Goblin War Strike or Goblin Psychopath by Pete Venters, maybe like The Goblin Brawler by Heather Hudson or The Goblin Warchief by Tim Hildebrandt,
One of my favorites is the painting art for the "Goblin Elite Infantry" by Robert Bliss. They look mean and badass! Long pointy ears with long and sharp nose; guess this model would fill the Hobgoblin, just add a light tan brown skin, some scalemail and helmets ;)
In my opinion, Bugbears should look, hulky and more bear-ly, not so fit... Bugbear Footpath or Bugbear Gang Leader from the D&D minis for example.
I've waffled a bit... ultimately I'm leaning towards the classic greek minotaur (bull head, human body) but I'm honestly somewhat neutral about the feet, I don't feel to strongly about the legs and hips. (but if the hips are human, no tail - while the inverse is not necessarily true - furry hips and no tail is fine with me) But, by the time you get to udders you've gone from minotaur, to cow humanoid. Also, I'm sure people have pointed out that there are reasonable arguments for why a...
View full commentI've waffled a bit... ultimately I'm leaning towards the classic greek minotaur (bull head, human body) but I'm honestly somewhat neutral about the feet, I don't feel to strongly about the legs and hips. (but if the hips are human, no tail - while the inverse is not necessarily true - furry hips and no tail is fine with me)
But, by the time you get to udders you've gone from minotaur, to cow humanoid. Also, I'm sure people have pointed out that there are reasonable arguments for why a humanoid mammal would have breasts.
This does not equate to the issue of dragonborn and lizard people with boobs - the issue there is that they are lizards. Two legs, four legs, no legs... lizards don't have tits. Birds also. But this is a mammal, and mammals have mammary glands.
View full comment
I know this for sure, it will fail miserable in its goal of attracting old school players back into the fold if they read that the...
View full comment