Search results

I'm generally on board with Mike's idea. It basically means that Save or Dies aren't completely bypassing the HP system, and are really just conditional damage; i.e., this does X additional damage if that would kill the target. An idea for a mechanism that might scale nicely: Save or dies are...

I didn't feel very strongly about any of them, but I went with Paladin, because I dislike mechanically relevant alignment, and that class is pretty much the embodiment of that. I don't have a problem with the 4E version, since it's alignment neutral.

My general philosophy is that the more important something is, to the story and focus of the campaign, the more concrete the mechanics should be. And that if something doesn't have concrete mechanics, it shouldn't be important. I don't think XP is important, and so I'd rather just leave it to...

In my 4E campaign, I just have them level every few sessions, which is basically once per adventure. I don't feel like XP is a real, in-character reward. If it's not something that characters can really be aware of, and make a choice to pursue instead of other goals, I don't think it's a true...

I essentially agree with this, even if I'd rather get rid of that "wrong", period, no matter how "classic" it is. I'm hoping that Vancian casting will be limited to Wizards, and that the rest of the system will not be strongly "per day" based. That way, I can just pretend Wizards don't exist...

Yeah, I agree. I'd rather 5E have an assumption that if you attack, you will hit, unless some sort of special ability (an Encounter or Daily) is used by the defender to avoid it. The big variable would be how much damage gets dealt. But I doubt it's likely to happen given their nostalgia bent.

It's a giant's Bastard Sword. She uses it as a large two-hander.

Yeah, I really dislike Daily resources. I think most long-term resources should be Adventure resources, and that's essentially what I did in my 4E campaign. I extended the time needed for an Extended rest to the point where it was infeasible to do it in the middle of an adventure. The problem...

I think the more important question is how many attacks he can take. If we assume a 50% hit chance against him, that would be twice the number of "hits". But 50% isn't always typical, at least not for a Fighter. So, if the Fighter is designed to be fulfill a Defender niche, it should be...

I don't think there was much resemblance. Essentials was just a bunch of splatbooks with a fancy bannerhead. It didn't create the same opportunity for WotC to reprint the same stuff, with slight modifications, that 3.5 did. Essentials has largely genuinely new mechanics, that are compatible...

Ouch. I can't stand this kind of rules-gotcha-ism when the there's an actual rule in play. But when it's not even a rule? Yeah, I definitely wouldn't go back. Might not even want to finish the night... The line of logic of the DM is absurd. The rules are a description of how the world...

I strongly dislike randomized character creation, so a return to Wizards needing to roll to see what spells they can cast doesn't appeal to me. I also don't like magic items being much more than incremental boosts. I prefer that the big, major character abilities be choices of the player...

The more rules support an activity has, and the less it relies on DM fiat, the more comfortable I am with it being "important", as DM and as player. The big problem I have with "creative and non-violent" solutions in DnD is they tend to make the really weak non-combat rules more important than...

The big "if" is exactly what I don't like. My concern is that they'll think that it's enough to create a bunch of rules modules, to cater to everyone, but fail at the tremendous task they're creating for themselves of balancing the rules. Those modules mean that they could effectively be...

Ronald D. Moore is a time-traveling Wizard! I knew it!

Rattling off stats is immersion breaking. I think being able to intuit the sort of reasonable guesses about their enemies that the skilled combatants they are playing could be expected to make, encourages immersion. A system where defenses are highly unpredictable discourages that. I'm not...

I view that as a feature, not a bug. If the players can make reasonable predictions about the world and the challenges they're facing, it means it's a coherent world that they understand.

The rules should be exhaustive for whatever is important and consequential to the campaign. Want a game where tactical combats are important? There should be well defined rules for tactical combat. Want a game where exploration is emphasized, and avoiding combat is important? There should be...

Players do not require proof that the world is being run fairly. Secret DM information is part and parcel of most (almost all?) campaigns. Without secret information the "exploration" part of roleplaying does not exist. It is sufficient that their window into the world presents them a picture...

"DM Empowerment" really means "DM fiat". And to me, "DM fiat" can easily become an immersion breaker if it blatantly violates the mechanics (the physics of the world), or if it produces outcomes that trivialize the actual mechanics. If a game has well-structured combat, but loose, "DM...