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?

I find Star Wars RPGs get better the further it gets from d20 systems. FFG's narrative dice system is far superior for cinematic play that isn't bogged by power levels and character builds, which I find often detracts from storytelling. I'd also give the old WEG system consideration before another dressed-up D&D system. Let D&D do what it does best: D&D. 104824 I have a respectable D6 collection don't worry. Didn't get the ffg version as I have 2 I won't have time for 3.

104785 I have those dice! And for the OP - I’d say you disqualified yourself from being a grognard by NOT using theater of the mind. Oh, we had minis. But battlemats? Grids? Bah! That didn’t start until 2.5e. If a measurement needs to be made it’s with string or a tape. But really the minis were to look cool, not to turn D&D combat into a board game. Theater of the mind is the real old school way (and I’m happy it’s made a comeback).

104785 It's funny because it's true.... :) I fished them out the other day just so I could see if it was true, and indeed, I have three dice left still from my Moldvay Basic box and my first edition Gamma World boxes... and most of the people I work with currently were born after 1985...

104739 I see you were playing games made by "They Sue Regularly".

You may be honest about not reading the main posts. But it really makes me wonder why bother responding at all, thinking you might have something I need to read when you cannot be bothered to read what I have written. :erm:I was being honest, but don't worry - I won't bother with reading your posts or respondoing further in this thread. Sorry to have wasted your time.

@AbdulAlhazred Thanks for the feedback! I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by this: If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting that the situation should change, or at least "evolve in a narrative sense", each time a PC achieves an individual success. Is that correct? Could you elaborate? How would you change the situation at least seven times before winning the challenge? Well, yes, though I understand it can seem difficult to have changing elements '7 times'. As I suggested in the same post that might be indicative of a pretty narrow 'framing' of the SC, it only covers one particular situation. One answer might be to use a complexity 1 or 2, which obviously relieves you of some of that burden. However, I think you could incorporate some 'state change' within the SC. Maybe one situation leads to the starting of a fire, and the PCs have to sort that out, or can use it in some fashion. Maybe they take up a position in a certain location, and a failure means they get outflanked a...

If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting that the situation should change, or at least "evolve in a narrative sense", each time a PC achieves an individual success. Is that correct? Could you elaborate? How would you change the situation at least seven times before winning the challenge? I haven't read the main posts yet, sorry, but saw this. In terms of rules/guidelines, that advice - that each check should change the situation - is found in the 4e DMG2. In practical terms, LostSoul was probably the earliest proponent of it on these boards and (like at least some of us) was influenced, I think, by experience with other systems that use similar "closed scene" resolution methods. Managing the fiction so that it can evolve with checks but neither success nor failure is foreclosed until the end is (in my experience, at least) one of the big demands in GMing a skill challenge. Here's a link to one of the ones that I think I did OK with.

Not surprising, but this hardly seems unique for any particular edition. It requires much more effort and commitment (and maybe some luck) to reach those tier 3/4 levels from scratch. I've always considered how seldom I ever used high level options in actual play and how much space could be salvaged in the core books to focus more on those tiers that are most often used. I would like to see core books that only go to level 10 for the majority of players, and then supplement books (i.e. PHB 2, MM2, DMG2) expand play for more dedicated players into tiers 3-4. Call those "Advanced" or "Expert", if you like. It might curb an implied idea that level 20 is the endgame achievement for all campaigns. Just a thought, but one I've held for a long time. JL - I would give you XP for this but can't for some reason. I agree that would be much better. Focus on level 1-10, slow down the leveling in make those levels with more features that are more "heroic" than "mythic," and move everything else out to suppl...

Not surprising, but this hardly seems unique for any particular edition. yes, but none before 5e explicitly addressed the issue in terms of game design. bounded accuracy should address this in 5e, and according to the data it seems not to be able to.

Mind if I share this pic and your quote? Adults dressing up in costumes? Check! Debates/arguments over rules and plays? Check! Constructing fantasy teams and turning it into a competitive/social activity? Check! Yeah, we're all geeks in our own way. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/NFL_Superfans.jpg

It was hiding in the words. I was searchnig for it under the complexity heading, as it was given this way in the core rules (DMG p72)... So it is 3 failures for any Skill Challenge. Okay? Is it better than what was stated in the core rules?

Honestly, can we just stick with original theme of the thread now? This was supposed to be a celebration of good 4e experiences and bringing that joy to new players who may have missed out. And eventually, I may get around to more interesting skill challenges I did with my games. Cheers! :)I'll be happy to move on now. No need to continue beating that dead horse. But, one of the original questions of this thread was, why can't you roleplay in 4E? And that's a very specific question, to which I had a very specific answer. Moving on, the good things about 4E: Fighters had interesting things to do, the classes were balanced while remaining differentiated within their niches, and players were empowered to actually interact with the magic item creation system without slowing the game to a crawl. Also, the original version of multi-classing in 4E (via feats) allowed for some very interesting combinations, and it never felt like you were shooting yourself in the foot, unlike so many multi-class combin...

Can we address the problem of too many people being too eager to find problems where there isn't an actual problem? :erm: If we are going to go down that path I'd much rather address the problem of too many acting like 5e has no problems when almost all of us have at least a few things we would change about it if we could.

Damn you autocorrect! Vancian was the word I was trying to use. Unless I'm not remembering correctly, a stance was a daily that lasted until the end of an encounter unless you ended it earlier. It's been a looooooong time since I played 4E *goes and reads up* yeah you got it. Lasts the encounter unless you end it or switch out. It certainly can happen in Pathfinder or 5E! It just involves the minion-esque guard being a level one creature with bad Con. If a monk (or brawler) with a decent damage bonus can get behind the guard and deal lethal damage with their first unarmed strike, then I have no problem with that being narrated as a neck snap. A minion in all but name and a good damage roll? Eh. I don't see "It's basically a minion, but not really." as any different than "It's a minion." End result? A mook with low HP that will 99.9% of the time die in one hit. "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." BTWs: prior to 4E, unarmed strikes were always non-lethal. 4E baked in th...

Split into two, perfectly-sized groups of 4 or 5.Yeah, that's a good thought, and you're right that we have many good DMs at this point. I think we haven't because we enjoy the socialization part of gaming so much, and we'd hate to miss out on half the fun. But it's a good suggestion. And, for that, you might want to consider soemthign of the form of the West Marches Experiment - in which the groups can mix it up.... http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/Oh right I remember that old thread! Yeah that is a good idea for how to implement something like that! Thanks! Eldritch Horror will support up to 8 players. It is a Cthulu-themed co-op board game, a simpler version of the Arkham Horror game that came before it.Ah, thanks for that description - I had dismissed that game out of hand because we tried Arkham Horror years ago and I think I still have PTSD from the insane (cthulu-esque?) complexity and poor rules explanations from that game. Knowing it's ...

Did anyone speculate on the most obvious nautical theme yet? D&D: Gilligan's Island! Who's your "Little buddy"? ;) Is that when a three-hour session turns into a three-year campaign (with a follow up animated series, three TV movies – one featuring the Harlem Globetrotters – and another animated series set IN SPAAAACE!) ?

Well this is a clear indication that we are finally getting a Spelljammer setting this year! Take that, Crawford!! Where do you read that? This is PLANESCAPE art. DiTerlizzi had nothing to do with Spelljammer. And crawford and cohort have clearly specified that there will be no Spelljammer this year?

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?