+ Log in or register to post
Results 191 to 200 of 261
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 02:18 PM #191
Novice (Lvl 1)
M&M with it this way; now granted M&M doesn't have the iterative attacks either. I have used in it Conan though, replacing the static 10 in defense with a d20 and it worked out ok. But again while there are iterative attacks going on, there is a lot less things happening in combat due to lack of magic items and all the D&D spells.
That all being said I'm not necessarily sure its a good thing to have for the base D&D experience, but as an option, especially if you are doing a magic light campaign it would be nice to have.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 02:31 PM #192
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Making no score special may have some potential, with balance, as it was mentioned that the class would supplement those abilities that were required: a fighter gets a bonus to Str therefore, hopefully, avoid debilitated characters.
I am running PF and the skills seem to work, but I spend most of the time (as GM) winging the outcomes of skill use. I think it has to do with the how the results of skill uses are handled. Most adventures pivot on combat encounters and skills fill in the space between. Making skills and their use have more effect on the game would be a step in the right direction for me. I will admit that I do try and make skill use more critical (a failed roll can result in something similar to a failed saving throw, as far as story progression goes) but the rules don't seem to lend themselves inherently to this type of application.
If skills and saving throws are going to tied to ability scores as hinted in the seminar then this is OK for me.
Currently running Pathfinder and really enjoying it.
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 03:14 PM #193
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Race and ability scores
I won't mind if there is a negative stat, but I would like two positive for the one negative. It also seems like there will be a stat boost for class slection as well, so +4 is probably way overkill. I think -2, +2, +2 for the race would be overkill, because it would stack with a +2 for class. Of course every player would have a 22 in their prime stat through this. Using -1, +1, +1 and +1 for class seems a little measly.
I like the feel -2, +1, +2 for race, and another +1 for class.
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 04:34 PM #194
Hydra (Lvl 25)
You can achieve the same effect by lowering the baseline, and handing out more positive modifers - just some races don't get them for some abilities. Same mathematical result, but now a bunch of folks are happy because they're not getting a negative modifier.
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 06:29 PM #195
Gallant (Lvl 3)
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 06:33 PM #196
Guide (Lvl 11)
Exactly. The manageability issue is a big one, too. In the 3E at high levels, a player might have bonues from items, spell effects, feat, class abilities and how knows what else. 4E just had tons of statuses and niggling effects.Originally Posted by Mallus
I just don't want the game to come to a screeching halt every time someone has to figure out their situational skill value ("Well, normally my jump is 10', but I have the Marshallow Climber skill and it's Winter, so I'm at +8' until Lunchtime!")
"I'd say it's more appropriate to say that videogames are RPG-ish, wouldn't you?"
Have you read our current Zad/Wizardru's New Story Hour (Updated 9/8)
or our older WizarDru's Story Hour? You Should.
I ain't linking to Piratecat's story hour...no sir, I just won't do it. He can just get the next half-million reads on his own.
Did I mention that I have a Livejournal? It's possible that I have.
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 07:34 PM #197
skill (less) system...
It seems that they haven't decided 100% yet what the skill system will be.
In today's rule of three: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article...
They want to make a skill-less system but i am not sure if it will gonna make it to the end.What does this mean going forward? It means we're still working on it. Skills are clearly important to many players as a customization element. The questions remaining in my mind are, "How can we create a system that provides the customization players get out of skills, while still making it easier for DMs—and players who don't want to use a skills system—to adjudicate actions at the table.
Regarding skills, imho, the thing of greatest important is character customization. I don't know how classes/races/themes work on the skills but in such system i am afraid the homogeneity of the characters. Every elf fighter with noble theme would have exactly the same skills? This is something i wouldn't like happening. The difference between a human noble and and dwarf noble would be only on the racial skill modifiers? This sounds awful too.
Now on the other hand a character may have choices: The elf race has 10 racial skill bonuses (that would be a +2 to perception, +2 nature, +2 arcana, etc etc) and you must choose 4. The noble theme has 6 theme skill bonuses and you can take 2. The fighter class has 12 class skill bonuses and you can take 6. This kind of treatment of a skilless system is something that i would like more.
And after that what about advancing? If i would like to learn a new skill? It would be a feat? I hope not. I think noone took feats for skills.
A more organic skill advancement would be a guideness: "After you lvl up discuss with your dm what skill your character would like to take/raise (or what is appropriate - story based) and put a +2 on that skill. If it is not on your race/class/theme then put a +1. A solution like this is more of my liking.
In any case i would suggest to make one or two good skill modules more since as i see everyone wants a different skill system :P
Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 11:15 PM #198
Okay, there's a lot of great stuff in here but I'm going to try to respond to just a few things that I might be able to clear up. Here's my obligatory bit about how we're still playtesting and designing and any of this stuff could change.
Another thing that goes into making these stats important but not "OMG I NEED 18S IN EVERYTHING!!11!!" goes along with that ability score ceiling. By shrinking the distance of ability score growth, they can condense the scale of challenges as well. So a +1 or a +2 to a specific stat or skill check really makes a difference.
I'm hopeful that we'll see through playtesting that while stats are still important, people won't feel left behind or that they need to max a stat to feel useful or to have fun.
And for NPCs not following the same rules as PCs, the idea is that those NPCs don't have to follow the same rules - not that you couldn't build an npc or monster that did. Maybe I don't understand the underlying issue with that one but I think uncoupling NPC or monster creation from the same rules that PCs might use when creating their characters makes things easier for the DM. I haven't had any difficulty running these monsters or seeing how they work, even with this idea behind it.
That said, I can definitely envision a base skill system like the one they've mentioned working in our final version - perhaps with a more robust, optional skill module in the initial release as well, one that reflects the specific skills and ranks like the most recent D&D editions. Time will tell though.
Wednesday, 1st February, 2012, 02:10 AM #199
Superhero (Lvl 15)
Trevor your point makes a lot of sense. I think another avenue I would like WOTC to consider in the point buy realm is to return to 3e point buy scores. I felt that one reason 4e was more min/maxed was because raising a 13 to a 14 (getting the +2) costs 2 points instead of 1. That meant if you were raising a stat you might as well push it hard.
In 3e, you could get a 14 fairly cheap in point buy terms, so having a character with a lot of "average" stats wasn't a bad way to go.
Is your game having issues with Grind? Check out Stalker0's Guide to Anti-Grind
Do you want a skill challenge system that is less mechanical and encourages more roleplaying? Try my Obsidian Skill Challenge System
Like the core 4e system, but prefer a more balanced system with additional options? Try my Alternate Core Skill Challenge System
Wednesday, 1st February, 2012, 04:01 AM #200
Lama (Lvl 13)
For an example contrasting "negatives" against "lower baseline, positive only," try this one using Third Ed.'s "tough" 28 Point Buy (starting from scores of 8):
METHOD 1 - "WITH NEGATIVE ADJUSTMENTS":
Elves get +2 DEX and -2 CON. Make a high-CON elf using the "tougher" 28 total Third Edition points, getting these scores before applying racial adjustments:
# STR 10 # DEX 16 # CON 15 # INT 10 # WIS 12 # CHA 10 #
(Those unaugmented scores of 10-16-15-10-12-10 would cost 2+10+8+2+4+2, which add up to the specified 28 points by 3E rules.)
After racial adjustments, the FINAL SCORES for that Level 1 PC would be:
# STR 10 # DEX 18 (=16+2) # CON 13 (=15-2) # INT 10 # WIS 12 # CHA 10 #
METHOD 2 -- "LOWER BASELINE, POSITIVE ADJUSTMENTS ONLY":
Give Elves +2 DEX & +2 WIS, but lower the point-buy by 4 to 24 instead of 28, because we're giving out 2 bonuses of 2 for a net gain of 4, instead of leaving it balanced at 0 with a +2 canceling out a -2.
To get those SAME FINAL SCORES, SUBTRACT both bonuses to get point-buy scores of:
# STR 10 # DEX 16 (=18-2) # CON 13 # INT 10 # WIS 10 (=12-2) # CHA 10 #
For that, the point-buy in 3E terms would be 2+10+5+2+2+2 = 23, not the 24 that we would expect by subtracting 4 from 28.
Where did the extra point go? It's that 15 we started with: it cost 2 buy points to raise from 14, but took only 1 adjustment point to drop it back down to 14 when we were converting from "negatives" to "lower baseline, positive only."
Original Member of the Rouseketeers! -- Be of good cheer
evanescent detergency -- (proudly hosted by Glum )