Search results

Small modifiers mean small target numbers (otherwise chances of success are too small), and, when using the d20, create a feeling that the character's effect on the outcome isn't adequately reflected in the game mechanic. Would you be happy with those implications?

The reason I subtracted M over to the other side of the inequality is because as far as the probability of success goes, what's important is not M but TN-M. However, a +2 still feels small even if the TN is easily reached. This is the problem with feeling like a commoner that I mentioned above...

The d20 mechanic boils down to: 1d20+M >= TN, where TN = target number (e.g., AC, save DC) and M = total modifier relevant to the task. Equivalently, 1d20 >= TN-M. Note that TN-M < 1 is the condition for auto-success, while TN-M > 20 is the condition for auto-fail; in other words, if the...

Let me second this nomination as strongly as I possibly can.

I think Black Flag put it rather succinctly: Gimme, gimme, gimme I need some more; Gimme, gimme, gimme Don't ask what for.

Yeah, someone is going to have to explain: "Charm person = 105." If not, this could get out of hand real quick and turn into an edition war-ism.

I've always equated Vancian casting with prepared casters, so I mean the ol' dudes with intermittent Alzheimer's.

What happens if 5E fails to unite the base? I'm guessing the entire WotC staff will do the honorable thing and commit seppuku. Note: I didn't read the entire thread, and apologize if someone already suggested this.

It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. Wizards? OK, I get it -- memorization fades and must be renewed daily. But if a cleric calls upon his/her god to intercede RIGHT NOW, it should be spontaneous rather than a daily prayer: "Dear god, please grant me two...no, make...

Thank god I have no idea what you're talking about. That would be a deal-breaker fo' sho'.

The simplest solution would be to have the caster's BAB be equal to half the caster level for purposes of any spell that requires an attack roll. So, effectively, nothing changes on the spell-casting side, no new subsystems are required, etc., as desired.

I expect folks that had a problem with THAC0 (i.e., subtracting negative numbers) will likely balk at adding three-digits numbers.

Have you considered 3m20? The idea is simple: roll 3d20 and take the middle result. The range stays the same, the average stays the same, but you have a nice little bell curve, but not too narrow.

Obviously the rules weren't written in the clearest manner, thus DMs had to interpret and do their best. If you are looking for a definitive answer, then you'll wait a long time. Now, please, stop littering MerricB's thread about his AD&D campaign. Please, start a thread on AD&D...

Indeed, that's the point in the clip at which I stopped watching. Also, don't move your head around so much -- with all the editing, you looked like Max Headroom. Finally, press "pause" on Guitar Hero while you are talking (maybe that was added after the fact). Other than that, good job!

Usually the minimum caster level needed to cast the spell (cheapest), though could be higher (e.g., for more damage dice).

How 'bout a riddle or two? White Plume Mountain-style, something fairly simple so they can feel clever?

5e will have to have crappy grapple rules.

Hey man, calm down. In fact, you cannot put sharp objects into a bag of holding without ruining the bag. It's been that way since AD&D, look it up. However, in 3.xx (maybe before, I don't remember) there is a quiver you can get that will hold weapons. So your point stands -- it is possible to...