Thanks to a post on Wizards, David Guyll over at Points of Light has written about fighters and multiple attacks. He has a lot of requests to improve fighters, which include no penalties for multiple attacks, no feat taxes and a bunch of other ideas. I have to admit, I never liked the 3E fighter, because it seemed like you had to play the feat game and plan out exactly what your character was going to get at ever level, which seemed to make the actual adventuring mean less.
Over at Syntax Error, Sage Latorra has a lot to say about the latest poll from wizards. Not so much about the choices, like keeping THAC0 and gender penalties, but rather how the open design approach might backfire. There is a idea called the Parkinson’s Triviality Principle, which states that the smaller a project something is, the more input you’ll get. Since almost everyone who has ever played with a tabletop game has likely tried tinkering with the rules, even the most trivial of rules will get a lot of input from the public. So, Sage is worried that the game that WOTC is designing might very well get derailed by all the input by the public. We shall definitely see as the process moves forward.
Haven’t seen as much commentary out there these days. My guess is that many of the people who might be commenting are under NDAs. Anyone see anything interesting? If you’ve seen some insightful forum posts, I’d like those too. I find myself reading fewing and fewer forums these days, partially because of time, and partially because every discussion seems to become a edition war.
Take care and happy gaming!