|
Lothire posted:I understand the reasons behind the system, but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow. More than just the damage die (although that's just as much a point as any other), but now a plate wearing fighter can't dual wield longswords, or a barbarian dwarf his battleaxes. Such builds are almost iconic to D&D in recent years, yet we will be lacking them here. I can't tell if this post is a joke.
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
treeboy posted:I think the initial negative reaction most people have is to the rather inelegant and awkward way the subject is just kinda thrown out there out of the blue like some giant non sequitur. Much like the rest of the packet they don't take much effort to approach the subject and just kind of vomit words. treeboy posted:The offense isn't the subject as much as it is the approach. It's good to know that, even though you personally aren't offended by this blatant PC pandering, you're looking out for WotC on this one. Look out, Wizards! Don't you see that you might be offending people (not me, obviously!!!!!). Please think of the bigots! You are a very good poster and I think you should definitely keep posting about this subject. Don't hold back! Just let it allllll out. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:From same twitter confimed that Wizards do not get damage on a miss with cantrips. So that class feature, as printed, does... nothing, then?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Because they couldn't just say your HP is [whatever you roll each level]+[level*CON mod] Yeah, that block of text could easily be about, ah, four times shorter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Added this to the OP Covok posted:
Seamless.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
fidgit posted:Reading through some of the comments, the only thing that is confusing me is the "switched to DW" method as a better system. I love Dungeon World. It's actually my favorite game, but if you're concerned about not enough fiddly bits or things not being spelled out, DW seems counter intuitive. It's an entire game of players and DM just making stuff up as you go along. I've seen DW referenced when people mention liking 5E's faster combat & reduced tactical fiddliness. It would indeed be pretty silly to recommend it for people who wanted a game more like 4E! Winson_Paine posted:That is a stand alone comment not intended as an edition warring comment. Besides, it is an image. Who gives a poo poo about an image? Pretty much no one will give a poo poo about an image. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Every spell description, of every class and level, is in one big alphabetical list That's how it was in all previous versions of D&D, by which I mean, third edition
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:By my understanding, "X heartbreaker" means "Game I made because I'm frustrated by X, that does what I like about X in a better way". Wealllll. The original meaning was somewhat different: Ron Edwards posted:The basic notion is that nearly all of the listed games have one great idea buried in them somewhere. It's perhaps the central point of this essay - that yes, these games are not "only" AD&D knockoffs and hodgepodges of house rules. They are indeed the products of actual play, love for the medium, and determined creativity. That's why they break my heart, because the nuggets are so buried and bemired within all the painful material I listed above... People in this forum (and elsewhere?) have since taken the term to mean something closer to how you're using it. But, as I understood it, they were also offering a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the likely outcome of their labours - a mediocre D&D knockoff, made with love.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Yep, I think so Why not ask @mikemearls? I hear he's quick to respond to rules questions!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Honestly, the spell list is so huge and elaborate that the best way to do wild magic is just, like "roll to pick a random spell, it casts itself at a random target in sight". If you're feeling saucy you could also roll some dice to choose what level spell slot fuels it, if the surge of power additionally revitalizes or burns you, etc.  Vancian Roulette
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I guess the picture would be clearer with the text that accompanies it. Basically: If you are non-diagonally adjacent to a piece of Low Cover, it provides cover in a half-plane. If you are diagonally adjacent, it gives you cover in a quarter-plane. If you are adjacent to multiple blocks, you get cover from all of them. The weird thing for me is that the section that's in cover from yellow, green, & red is just marked with yellow/red. Not sure how you'd visually clarify that without it being a mess, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
honestly I'd say "diagonal cover isn't a thing" is pretty reasonable, straightforward, and easy to remember. also makes it much easier to keep track of the angles involved. (this is completely off-topic but, well, pretty much no one will give a poo poo)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:So again what's your alternative. The official game of Traditional Games: Exalted 3E.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 02:36
|
|