Jacob Lewis
Member

Jacob Lewis That would be another idea, but i still like my solution more, unless you would rule that inferior Magic weapons would not have to make two dice rolls. It has to be analysed statistically though. With a 2xd20 someone has found out a number which would reflect disad quite well it was -2 or so if i remember, so i guess 2 die rolls for weapon damage would result in about a -1 which would be desirable. Has to be analysed though.

Jacob Lewis Do you do weddings as well?

Yet I wonder why nobody ever clamors about WotC not converting their adventure modules (they're Not "ADVENTURE PATHS") to Pathfinder? Because (a) 5e sells vastly more and (b) there is already a lot of Pathfinder adventures. 5e's strength/attraction is in the system, Pathfinder's strength/attraction is in the adventures, so naturally given the same genre and similar systems it's natural to combine the two, like the 5e Runelords game I restarted on Saturday. :)

What exactly are you trying to address about it? That players shouldn't do it? That it doesn't work too well? Or that it works too good? Or that there aren't enough hoops to jump through? I think you need to be more specific about what it is you are trying to fix before you start fixing anything. That goes for any edition, any system, any problem. He asked a question about whether class features should be able to internally call out multiclassing and behave differently when it is done. The basic premise is that some features can be fine for a single classed character but be too strong for a multiclassed character. I don't think there's any way to argue with this premise. So is the way to address this issue with text that such a feature behaves differently when multiclassed? I think that's a fine solution. What do you think? First, terrible name. How about Armor Expertise? So why would a Fighter with a higher Dex bonus take this? They wouldn't. At least not until their Proficiency Bonus...

It is the actual overall popularity of various games played using Fantasy Grounds. Nothing more. Nothing less. I understand that. But what percentage of the total frpg market uses Fantasy Grounds? That's not even slightly true. Plenty are managing just fine. That's reassuring. Thanks for that. So success on Fantasy Grounds is not necessary for a(n) frpg to be successful?

R_Chance You are all-knowing and all-wise, sir! I shall engrave your words into my psyche where I can grow it into a shrine, lest it become a beacon to guide me in my days of misery and despair for knowing that He Who Hath One Fan can depend on you to remind me that I don't need to read articles anymore! Oh, I think my mood is improving. ;) Whatever makes you happy is fine with me. But the shrine would be a bit much :)

If this article is "Old School", can we expect the other parts won't be published because this failure caused by TPK? Typical Pulsipher Knowledge kills everything good in this hobby and my mood. *sigh* So, don't read his articles. I know a lot of people rail about his articles and / or opinions. I wouldn't read them if they upset me that much. I avoid articles by several authors. I read his not because I'll agree (or disagree) with everything he says but because they spawn interesting discussions about more than the minutia of mechanics (although I read some of these as well...). Life is too short to do things that will kill your mood.

The Neverwinter Campaign Setting from 4th Edition D&D is one of the best things to come out of that edition, and I say this as a fan of 4e. I own several things by two of those authors, Erik Scott de Bie and Ari Marmell, and recommend works by them. They make good stuff! P.S. Based on this book, I would say Matt Sernett produces good stuff, too. :D Mouseferatu

I don't think it's unreasonable for new players to think that D&D is just like the example they've seen, but I would think that viewpoint would diminish after a few games. I think it's quite foolish to think that D&D is just like on TV/YouTube, it's also foolish to think that playing sports yourself is at the same level as what you see on TV/YouTube. What about reality/dating shows, is it not foolish to think that those portray real life? The type of player who has irked me the most when I DM is the one who thinks it is my job to entertain them. Isn't it? It's your job as the DM to entertain the players, just like it's the players job to entertain the DM and the other players. On a show like Matt Mercer runs, the object is to entertain the audience... Maybe grow thicker skin, and be open to improving. You learn by doing it yourself and not being forced to ape someone else. I've certainly learned from other DMs and have acknowledged my betters in that regard, but Matt Mercer and his trou...

Overly annoyed, maybe. Tired of seeing so much over reaction for every little thing. And then every annoyed reaction gets more attention than the first over reactions... oh, hey! Remember how Matt Mercer did something neat to respond to somebody's concerns and then people started complaining that he should add disclaimers for the show in the first place for these poor people who over react? Yeah, I should go chill somewhere else today. This is just going to implode no matter what. I need to find real people to talk with again. I think you’re blowing the reaction out of proportion. The vibe I’m getting from this thread is more mild annoyance than indignant nerdrage. I’m certainly not upset over the way Critical Role is run, or over the fact that players who got into the game through Critical Role are looking for a Critical Role-like experience. I do find it a little annoying, however, when their Handbooker Helper series does a video on character creation that presents rolling stats as the default...

Tired of seeing so much over reaction for every little thing. Well at least it wasn't on Twitter :p

Really, people? Matt Mercer is making DMs look and feel bad because players expect the same experience from something they saw on the internet? But everything would be better if Matt looks into the camera mid-show to explain that the show is NOT an instructional video on how to play the game, but for entertainment purposes only (and maybe inspiration)? If that's all it takes to make somebody feel better about it, I don't think it's as big as problem as people like to think it is. Just something else to complain and whine about. But let's not overlook the statement Mercer JUST made in direct response to the reddit. There's your disclaimer. Kudos for him. We should all be so lucky to find more people in the gaming community who cares more about strangers in an online community than his own ego. Suck it up already. Pass it on. This post seems overly defensive

Really, people? Matt Mercer is making DMs look and feel bad because players expect the same experience from something they saw on the internet? But everything would be better if Matt looks into the camera mid-show to explain that the show is NOT an instructional video on how to play the game, but for entertainment purposes only (and maybe inspiration)? If that's all it takes to make somebody feel better about it, I don't think it's as big as problem as people like to think it is. Just something else to complain and whine about. But let's not overlook the statement Mercer JUST made in direct response to the reddit. There's your disclaimer. Kudos for him. We should all be so lucky to find more people in the gaming community who cares more about strangers in an online community than his own ego. Suck it up already. Pass it on. I agree. Having disclaimer and official countermeasures would be weird. If people have a problem with how people react to CR, they should address it personally at their t...

Being that this is a "subjective" exercise with little or no room for discussion - just a series of "subjective" ideas being offered and rebuked? - I had a thought for anyone else reading this thread and looking for different ideas. No offense to anyone else who is showing a lot more work and effort on their part. Personally ("subjectively"?), I like to simplify when I can. Instead of defining each race with a preset of abilities, quirks, etc., which summarily categorize and profile every single individual of a non-human culture (think about it, you know it's true!), let the players pick their features first and then just name their race. Do we really need to limit our options because of someone else's preconceived notions of how an entire race is portrayed? Or wait for someone to house rule and customize new options to fit an idea? So, for example, you can rule that every character gains a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice, and a +1 bonus to a different ability score of their ch...

Instead of defining each race with a preset of abilities, quirks, etc., which summarily categorize and profile every single individual of a non-human culture (think about it, you know it's true!), let the players pick their features first and then just name their race. Do we really need to limit our options because of someone else's preconceived notions of how an entire race is portrayed? Or wait for someone to house rule and customize new options to fit an idea? It is funny you brought this up as I was thinking of trying it. It was going to be something like this: ASI +2 ASI +1, different ability Pick three features from a minor list. Pick two features from a moderate list. Pick one feature from a prime list. Taking all the options available from the books and putting them into one of the three lists, you could tailor make your race pretty much. But for a simple example: ELF: Dex +2, Chr +1 Three minor features: Fleet of Foot, Keen Senses, Trance Two moderate: Darkvision, Fey A...

Now you're all caught up without having to waste any effort reading or considering anyone else's input. Oh, wait, was that sarcasm? EDIT: Ok, so now that I've read/skimmed through all 5 pages, I think you grossly misunderstood my point. Because I didn't find a single reference to that point on any of the 5 pages, let alone all of them. I was trying to suggest that you don't need to get hired by WotC to design and play your own version of D&D. So the bigger, philosophical question of "are you able to do this", not just laundry lists (of which mine is an example) of what you'd redesign if you got around to it (which honestly isn't really addressing "if you were able" even by your definition. It's more answering "how would you?"). That's the great thing about tabletop RPGs, right? They're not like video games where all you can do is wish for features/changes. You can rewrite the rules, and then play with your rules. So there's no hypothetical about it. You CAN design your own version, and ...

I see what you're saying. That is one way to look at it. From my own perspective, I would amend that statement: The game has a stronger emphasis on combat, but the DMs can influence the play for their games. So without DM guidance or influence, a player looking just at the rules might assume that combat has the lion's share of the attention, and he would not be wrong. Rules are just rules. But the beauty of RPGs is the rules are just tools to be used as needed. Thus a campaign with heavy social interactions would make less use of the combat rules, which make up the majority of the game. That doesn't make it greater or better. It's just the way it is. DMs should inform their players what to expect as many will just assume combat will be in the cards regularly.The thing is this and I think Maxperson is inclined to agree with this... In play are there "solutions" and paths to achieve the goals and objectives (whether these problems or goals/objectives come from GM quests or PCs preferences - no matt...

I see what you're saying. That is one way to look at it. From my own perspective, I would amend that statement: The game has a stronger emphasis on combat, but the DMs can influence the play for their games. So without DM guidance or influence, a player looking just at the rules might assume that combat has the lion's share of the attention, and he would not be wrong. Rules are just rules. But the beauty of RPGs is the rules are just tools to be used as needed. Thus a campaign with heavy social interactions would make less use of the combat rules, which make up the majority of the game. That doesn't make it greater or better. It's just the way it is. DMs should inform their players what to expect as many will just assume combat will be in the cards regularly. I definitely agree that no way is greater or better than another. As long as the group is having fun, that's really the only thing that matters. This is what I am seeing. Let me try to explain it in more detail. When it comes to begi...

@Maxperson You seem to come to a lot of wrong conclusions and assumptions from everything I write, so I'm not sure it is worth my time and effort continuously trying to correct you. I am not advocating one play style over another. I don't believe I would enjoy a purely combat-centric campaign. I much prefer roleplaying with like-minded players, but also enjoy some hack-n-slash fun with friends who enjoy that more. What I am advocating in this thread is for players to have their choice and not be criticized or shamed because the bulk of unthinking people who think the majority must be right. D&D has always been more focused on the combat and encounters, this edition is no exception. To its credit, it has increased some emphasis on the other pillars, which have always existed in every edition. But those areas have largely been left to individual groups to handle themselves. So if I, or anyone else, feels that combat options are more interesting or combat has more representations in a campaign...

Doubtful, but you're free to believe whatever you like. Just don't try passing off your speculation as evidence, at least not to me. Are you seriously arguing that a social encounter with the king gone badly cannot result in "Off with their heads!"? Then why is anyone (like the OP) ever need to get upset if someone optimizes their character build a certain way? Let them. The game will solve any problems because it is designed that way. It's friggin' magical! Because like you, some people have blinders on and don't see that the game functions just fine with or without optimizing. I'm always amused by those who optimize for combat in my games. It usually means that they are gimping themselves during most of the game, since combat should only be about a third of the game. But you are mistaken if you think anything I said implies the game "should" anything. It simply does. Combat is the cornerstone of the mechanics, but not the entirety of it. Nor would I say the pillars are equally re...

No. It's all pointed at the d20. You can't do much with it. Roll a single die and compare it to a predetermined value. That`s it. It's not a good mechanic; it just happens to be a convenient one that everyone is familiar with. Even though it has the greatest potential for undermining player choices by rolling too low. It reduces actions to a simple game of chance.There's a lot that you can do with a d20. For example, you could calculate the distance between the pre-determined value and the actual value, giving specific degree of success or failure based on how far above or below you ended up rolling. Of course, doing so would mean sacrificing the greatest strength of the system, which is that it is fast and easy to determine a result. The part about undermining player choices is tangential to the dice mechanics. As far as 5E goes, I would blame that more on Bounded Accuracy than on the d20 system. It would be trivial to build a d20 system where the strength of your choice completely overpowered...

I think this conversation is headed off the rails, but maybe it will circle back to the topic soon. As far as 3d6 vs d20, there have been a lot of discussions over this. I have personally applied this to a 4e campaign I ran online for two years, so I can offer some additional perspective based on actual experience as opposed to speculation and theory. First, I only made the most minimal changes to the system. The math wasn't tweaked, so characters and monsters used the same bonuses, defenses and DCs were largely untouched except where I adjusted for regular DM fiat. (i.e. increasing or decreasing the challenge). Another factor I considered was only to apply this rule for the characters, not the monsters. I'll explain this soon. Aside from that, the only other change was how to determine critical hits and this is where things began to deviate from the norm. I decided that rolling doubles was too frequent, but doubles of a certain value or higher was acceptable and flexible. Most attacks required...