Recent content by MuhVerisimilitude

True. I think Paizo has done a good job with PF2, understanding that there's limited utility in abilities being spammable and so allowing them to be more powerful.

In my opinion, the absolutely fundamental design problem in D&D (3.5, 3.0, 5.0) is that the designers put so much value on abilities having no restrictions on their use. I've illustrated this in another thread by pointing out how the rogue has no limit to the number of locks they can pick, but...

True true.

Problem with starting at level 10 instead of attempting to readjust class features is that some classes really get overpowered at higher levels. You'd have to do something to nerf casters, because it's around levels 5-10 that casters seriously overtake martials and playing beyond that point is...

No no no. Your complaint might as well exist in the current system too. You can run into a GM who says that since some particular skill does not have any concrete rules about what it can do, it can't do anything. I'd rather have a defined base line of things each skill can do rather than some...

I have no idea I'm just quoting your assertion where you said 30%. I am not defending anything or arguing anything only pointing out that the 30% estimate is wrong given the numbers in the post that you replied to.

Want to add my disclaimer that I'm not the one who made the barb or fighter so I don't know if those numbers are correct or not, I just wanted to show that the 30% comment made by someone else above is wrong given the numbers in the post they're replying to.

Assuming the fighter hits for 6.5 on average and the barbarian hits for 14, the fighter is on average at about 50% of the damage dealt by the barbarian, not counting accuracy. Taking accuracy into account we get roughly 0.55 * 6.5 = apprx 3.25 as average damage for the fighter and 0.88 * 14 =...

It's interesting how that's the standard approach in some systems. I think it would be fairly adaptable even to D&D though it would take some adjustments. For example, in Lancer (I keep bringing that system up, but it's so appropriate for this thread) you normally have three different results...

I think systems with stronger narrativist intent tend to have rules to support it that type of play. A system isn't more narrativist just because it has less rules. Lancer, for example, has rules for interacting with the narrative in ways that are completely alien to D&D, and looking at how...

It's a system where you buy abilities with power points. It doesn't have classes at all. Obviously the mind control guy uses magic and thus anyone with immunity to magic is immune. Anyone with any power that can interact specifically with the magic descriptor can interact with it. On the other...

You could have something like the kineticist from PF2, or the psychic from PF2. They both rely on a small set of powers and feel like casters.

Nah. In most other systems magic tends to be much more restricted. Either there's a real cost involved, there's some risk involved, or it's in some way much more difficult to use liberally like magic is in D&D. Try Call of Cthulhu, Dragonbane, Mörk Borg, etc etc I admit I haven't played any...

Nah it's a real problem, and we know it's a real problem because 1: Not only is it a recurring subject in every D&D-related forum I've ever been to, but... 2: It's also interestingly not a recurring subject in several discussion forums where D&D isn't the main system being discussed, and...

A reference pear.