Recent content by Neonchameleon

The ease of character creation (by D&D standards) and that the subclass system makes it easy for newbies to create a broad range of characters. The only D&D in the same league at onboarding newbies is the old school red box and that has nothing like the range or flexibility of archetypes.

That I have no idea about. The BBC had the UK license to Buffy at one point and a Buffy section on the website. And what I've linked is basically the quickstart rules plus an interview with someone from Eden. I think it was basically "give the quickstart for free - and someone gets to do some...

And the BBC even made the rules freely available online.

So what you are saying is that the problem is that the Slayer and the Elementalist Sorcerer weren't in the PHB? This isn't a problem with the approach just the implementation.

As a 4e DM part of the point is that I don't have to keep up with this. I can leave it all under the control of the player. And "along with likely 4+ other abilities ... all for a beginning character." How is this any different from a starting wizard? A starting wizard in 5e knows three cantrips...

Tasha's was not even the same order of magnitude to the 3.0 -> 3.5 change. It didn't, for example, change the number of skills in the game and rewrite half the spells (including changing an entire school of magic). If we're comparing it to 3.5 it was about a PHB2 level change, or possibly a...

Well played WotC/WizKids. Nice mini, and this change will do far more viral advertising than they could have bought with a reasonable amount of money (and watching the outrage may be fun). Glad Elmore pulled back his initial reaction.

Of course the reason for the existence of the sorcerer was literally to give an excuse to include more wizard spells in the PHB. The fact that over 4e and 5e the sorcerer has developed into a much more interesting class than the class it was supposed to be the servant of (to the point you'd lose...

The Marvel and DC universes. In the Marvel universe most of the X-men (starting with Prof X, Jean Grey, Storm, and the Scarlet Witch) would be on the inherent side of the fence while Dr Strange would be a wizard.

And I can report that there's a reason I bring up the 4e Elementalist (generally a Pyromancer) on a regular basis. It was a caster with a simple "I burn it" approach and about the complexity of a 5e fighter. And with at least two of my players it was exactly what they had been looking for...

The thing here is that I've played warlocks and sorcerers that were very distinct from other warlocks and sorcerers. With wizards by swapping just one piece of equipment (their spellbook) they almost entirely blur together.

And the way I see them, especially re: the sorcerer and the wizard is that the subclasses need to be cool in their own right. And this is where to me the wizard fails spectacularly. An evocation specialist is just someone who studies books and spends more time studying evocation spells. The...

Accessibility isn't just "handholding content". You need T1 to be easy, T2 (i.e. the vast majority of the game) to be accessible. And a lot of people already struggle with the number of spells the average seventh level cleric has to juggle.

The wizard is a sorcerer with a cool twist, that of the spellbook. Meanwhile different sorcerers have different twists; a Divine Soul sorcerer is a different twist to spellbook, as is the Shadow Sorcerer. And the bard is not a flavoured wizard in the slightest; the wizard's twists beyond being...

Why? The sorcerer and warlock are distinct in both mechanics and fiction. If we're cleaning out the redundant spellcasters then the wizard should be a sorcerer subclass. It doesn't really have distinctive mechanics other than its spell book (which is a fine foundation for a sorcerer subclass)...