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?

Not really. You and I are apples and oranges. But what I was trying to illustrate was the contrast between the two companies in their general approach. These last particular tweets just happen to coincide within the same week. Paizo seems pretty upfront when it comes to any upcoming product, while Wizards has made a habit of putting up clues and easter eggs. You're comparing the publisher showing off an early copy of their book with teasing for a yet unreleased book. That is very, very, very different. As I said earlier, if you go through the social media of WotC staff, you'll see pictures similar to Bulhman's of "look what just arrived in the office". WotC does the exact same thing. And it's not like Paizo doesn't tease or hint. If you follow people like Jason Bulhman or James Jacobs on the Paizo forums or listen to their GenCon and PaizoCon panels, they'll also occasionally drop teasing hints of future projects. It's not even that WotC included seeds and Easter eggs for future storylines ...

Hmm... I should elaborate. It's hard for me to say that I am not drawing distinctions between the two companies, or that I am not biased towards Paizo and this new playtest. I am absolutely in the Paizo camp as WotC has fallen out of favor with me. Obviously, it's neither a big loss or gain for either company. I'm just one customer. What I found interesting is how their recent tweets for their respective upcoming products reveal such a stark contrast. And it brings to light (for me, anyway) how the two companies appeal to their audiences (i.e. customers) differently. One picture reveals small clues and red herrings on a page of doodles, and a mysterious book cover partially concealed. A game or "guess what it is" ensues, usually for months until they finally announce it. Big reveal. The other picture is more straightforward, and presents a more refined, if not sophisticated, display. The books are here. We can't wait for you to see them. I'm having a drink. How are you going to celebrate...

An important aspect of this game that I learned recently was how it influenced the SW expanded universe. Well, I'll try not to hold that against it! :)

You are posting on these boards and criticizing something about 5e. You, sir, are dancing in a minefield. The best possible outcome is to get through the song unscathed. ;) Well I asked questions I hope in a constructive way. I wish people would just accept my tastes as mine and go from there. If I'm understanding correctly (and my memory still serves me), hit dice are rolled during a short rest and the character recovers that many hit points? So, hit points regained are generated randomly, not fixed?? Now I understand. That IS a terrible mechanic. I don't even like the idea of rolling for hit points when you level up. You know they fixed that in 4e? And healing surges were fixed. You spend one, you gain X hps back. You knew exactly what you needed to spend to get where you wanted to be. Maybe that's the solution, or, as you suggested, a fixed pool of hit points to draw from. Seems easy enough to house rule. The whole healing thing is another area of contention. My answer was in th...

Since Inspiration is largely a metagaming mechanic--DMs often use this as a reward for the player, not the character--it's going to feel metagamey. There's no way around it. How about some XP instead?Classic D&D XP is super metagamey. XP for "good roleplaying" even moreso. I don't know what system for awarding XP Emerikol uses.

I find this topic very interesting. Even though my experience with 5e was short, I recognize the mechanics pointed out. I have some thoughts. If it can stay civil, it can be interesting. Not sure my desired outcome though will be achieved. :-) Resilience? Spirit? Endurance? Maybe an abstract combination not unlike how we try and define what hit points represent. I think it's just utilizing existing resources and recycling it into another mechanic. Good designs are like that. But if you're looking for higher fidelity, think of it as stamina. Body, mind, and spirit can only recover so many times from continual beatings before it reaches a breaking point. Being able to fully rest used to be the only method of recovery before the short rest became a thing. The hit dice just acts as a built in counter, as opposed to introducing something else, like healing surges. But how and why do I choose to use HD as a player? It seems more logical to me to say you keep using HD until you are heale...

It definitely favors classes dependent on Charisma, as well as races (ancestries) with inherent bonuses in that characteristic. Well, in the sense that a character with a high Charisma will have 2-3 more resonance points per day than everyone else, I guess. But since you're adding the level of the character to the bonus, it seems like it would mostly be a problem at low levels and wash out once you hit mid levels unless you have a lot of magic items in your games (though the fact that healing potions cost resonance to use means that you might hit that limit even if you don't have a Christmas Tree of magic items that cost resonance on you, if your table is used to chugging healing potions to keep your adventuring day going). I'm still not quite sure on what problem Resonance is trying to solve though. The four bullet points on the Resonance blog don't really make much of a case for something this complex - it doesn't really seem to simplify things all that much (especially with the new a...

Mechanically, the characters were entirely different (sorry @Jester David). They entirely went away from the AEDU framework where each character was designed the same with the same number of powers. AEDU stands for At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility. There's nothing about the AEDU system that necessitates each character to have the same number of each type of power at the same levels, that's just how 4e classes happened to be designed up until the PHB 3. So, while Essentials variants of previously existing classes were structured entirely differently than their pre-essentials counterparts, AEDU was not the thing that changed. You're going to get a lot of answers about redefining class power structures, different approach to design for each class, and better math balance. But what you really need to understand is that Essentials was a mistake. It was the company back peddling from its original design goals trying to appease and regain a section of the playerbase that wasn't subscribing to their...

You're going to get a lot of answers about redefining class power structures, different approach to design for each class, and better math balance. But what you really need to understand is that Essentials was a mistake. It was the company back peddling from its original design goals trying to appease and regain a section of the playerbase that wasn't subscribing to their new approach. But by introducing this radical change in direction, they only managed to confuse, frustrate, and divide the small following that they had. That is not to say that Essentials wasn't good or had any merit, but like everything else at the time, they just expected us to accept it and cram it into the existing game. It was the beginning of the end, or maybe the "hail mary" pass at the end. That said, I would definitely use Essentials exclusively as a "Basic" version of the game today for friends and family who are more casual players, and reserve 4e Core for the more hardcore table. Either way, still my edition of ch...

You have already done a lot of work just writing up this treatment, and 4 times no less! Creating more work shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone willing to put in this much effort if it makes an improvement. If I had the time, I would rewrite the system from the ground up and tailor it specifically for this setting. And it would play much better for it. I have recycled as much as I can. Rewriting races isn't to hard but 4 archetypes is a lot. It's why I tied some of the PHB domains to the elemental planes.

Would you say it is more common than using a great axe, for example? Statistically speaking, it seems like a superior choice for obtaining maximum benefit over a thematic choice. I'd fault game design for that paricular problem and proceed with changing it to a single d12. House rules. Problem solved. Or you could apply a simple -1/-1 or whatever the number is and not have to rewrite anything yes? WHy crate more work for yourself if I had the inclination I would rewrite all the PHB races and make 4 new domains. Only 1 person lol.

I did have an epiphany of sorts, shortly after coming up with the idea. Just now have some time to write and share it with whomever is interested. Inferior and Superior: These qualities can be used for both armor and weapons. They describe the relative durability and strength of materials used to construct a weapon or armor. They can also apply to natural weapons and armor to represent tougher hide, thick scales, and sharp claws (superior), or soft membrane, brittle bones, and weak appendages (inferior). When an inferior weapon targets a superior armor, the damage dice have disadvantage. Roll 1 extra damage die and discard the highest die rolled. Conversely, when a superior weapon targets inferior armor, then the damage dice have advantage. Roll 1 extra damage die and discard the lowest die rolled. Inferior items are not affected by other inferior items. Likewise, superior items are not affected by other superior items. Average weapons and armors have neither trait, and are unaffected agains...

Alright, I can see that. But that is an extreme case. Remind me again, how many weapons are 2d6 damage? And how many people take that particular feat? Even if it's more than average, I do have a suggestion or two for that. 1) Instead of doubling the number of damage dice rolled, just add one more and discard the lowest. It works for any weapon regardless of how many dice rolled, and doesn't nerf the expected average too bad. Also, take the results after rerolling 1s if you're keeping that feat in play. 2) Change the damage die to d12. You're going this far with changes, why not make changes that work better for all other changes? That's why I would do, but your game and your group. (Kudos for letting your players vote, btw.) Anyway, we can go back and forth all day with examples and fixes on which way to go. My version of Dark Sun is much different than what most would expect, which is essentially D&D dressed up for the apocalypse. I prefer a version that gets away from the standard D&D t...

You keep saying that as if it were true. Grab an extra die. Same type as your regular damage die; you don't even need to think about which die to use. Roll them together and compare. No adding, no subtraction, no modifications. Which is lower? Use that one. No one thinks the same mechanic used for advantage and disadvantage is slowing things down. In fact, it is probably one of the best (not that there are many) innovations of 5e. And I have never played at a table where dice were in small supply, or designated the responsibility of a single person who thought one of each would be sufficient for the whole table. By comparison, your method--which is reminscent of older and outdated ideas--requires more mental conversion and math. It may be simple and minor, but that kind of thinking is what adds up in the bigger picture. Which die is a step down from the normal? Don't forget -1 on your roll, and three other modifiers already in play! All the little things add up. It was just a suggestion. It's no...

Inferior weapon: roll 2 damage dice and discard highest roll. Like disadvantage, right? Yes but it uses a lot of dice, a simple downsize or -1/-1 is easier/quicker to use. I have thought about disadvantage and advantage on damage rolls mechanics on other stuff just not for inferior weapons.

I don't think we're playing the same game. The one with all the dice with the funky symbols that half the time end up cancelling out so you don't achieve anything?

Incidentally, the Star Wars Roleplaying Game (FFG) is a narrative-based game. I wouldn't go that far. It has strong narrative elements, but it is pretty crunchy compared to what I would call a narrative game. It is pretty complex combat wise, at least as much so as say D&D.

Question for you math geniuses. What is the probability of rolling doubles on 3d6? And what is the probability of rolling doubles within a specific set? (i.e. double 6s, double 5s or 6s, etc)Considering the Fantasy Age system? :confused:

If WotC were to support these non-Core settings properly... emphasis, properly... it should require more than one book with great concern for how it will appeal to people who aren't even interested in the setting to begin with. Does that even make sense? If you're going to give any attention to one of these settings, which do not fall under the traditional themes and expectations of the core game, then you should not be worried about making it fit better unless you want to change what makes it so different. If Spelljammer, for example, is merely a means to travel through space to get from one game world to another, then you only need to write a few paragraphs about how to get your FR characters to Mystara, Krynn, and back in time for the next DDAL storyline because you're not really interested in Spelljammer as a viable setting. More like Yellow Cab for D&D. Likewise, you can treat Planescape like D&D's version of Disney World(s). You can get there, but you're only just a tourist. I don't believe ...

Question for you math geniuses. What is the probability of rolling doubles on 3d6? And what is the probability of rolling doubles within a specific set? (i.e. double 6s, double 5s or 6s, etc) The way to calculate it is actually pretty easy. The chance of rolling a given number on a d6 is obviously 1 in 6 (yeah, duh, I know). So, if you already rolled the first die and got a number (any number, doesn't matter), the chance of the second die coming up the same number is 1 in 6. The chance of the 3rd die coming up the same number is also 1 in 6. So you have 2 chances in 6 of the first number coming up on one or both of the next 2 dice, less the one in 6 of that being a triple. You ALSO have a 1 in 6 chance of BOTH of those 2 dice coming up with the same number, so your chances are now 3 in 6, if you don't need to discount triples. If triples don't count, then you have to remove that probability, which is 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/216. I didn't add this up, but the 96/216 that TwoSix quotes is probably ri...