Recent content by Hassassin

Do you think that's any different from what might happen inside Blizzard between developers/designers and managers (maybe from financial or marketing departments)?

I agree. Giving the same xp for any way to solve the problem is simpler, scales better and doesn't favor a specific party make up (all fighters vs. all rogues). However, persuading the orges to join or help, rather than just avoiding the fight, is a different result and as such may warrant a...

If you look it like that - the reward is in being able to face more significant ingame challenges - what's the point of having magic items in the game? You would get the same reward just from level growth due to XP.

Tying difficulty to outcome is, IMO, the primary reason the 4e chart on page 42 is annoyingly fiction breaking. Just because the player wants his character to attempt something that you feel is difficult (so you choose a higher DC), the attempt shouldn't deal more damage. Now if it is possible...

... And then there is Duke Nukem Forever.

I don't see what the problem is. Bull rush has an opportunity cost (just try to deal damage) and benefits that might be just setting up a +2 flanking bonus*, but can also include pushing past a line of enemies defending a spellcaster (overrun might be a better choice), pushing an enemy back from...

CR and level are just names. Pathfinder uses the term CR, but has XP budgeting that works more or less exactly like in 4e. Given how overused the word "level" is in D&D, I think CR is the better term, but that's the only difference.

3, 5, 5, 3 I can imagine playing without any way to balance monsters or with no random encounters or treasure. However, DM freedom and player choice of risk vs. reward are both essential.

Apparently, by now we are. However, the side-thread started from whether the nine alignments require a tenth - unaligned - to describe the range of typical individuals.

Are you assuming all LN characters are perfectly lawful and all CN characters are perfectly chaotic? Of course all characters are neutral in that case. However, the usual definitions allow a character to be only somewhat lawful and still LN.

My experience with 1 hour adventures: our previous session was only 1½ hours, due to life interfering with gaming. :eek: 1 quest/adventure 2 combat encounters 3 exploration encounters (chase, tracking challenge and trap) + general exploration 2 interaction encounters (one avoided third combat)...

I still disagree that the out-of-context quote implies there is no progression.

Ok, you've convinced me they can make almost all low level spells quite low use for high level characters, but is that a better solution than reducing low level slots? Especially considering they are also trying to flatten the power curve, which works against making low level combat spells less...

Ok, how about invisibility, fly, detect X, water breathing... Not every spell is opposed by a monster or variable DC.

Sure, it might work for 5e in combination with other changes. However, there are other reasons to want a lower number of slots at high levels, like reduced bookkeeping.