Search results

Are you kidding? A goblin in 1E had less chance to affect a 10th level fighter because, if the fighter's AC was low enough, the goblin couldn't hit him even on a natural 20. Now, if there were ten goblins or so, the screwy overbearing rules might come into play, but just one? Even less of a...

My experience with 3E is that it's already almost impossible to flee from a battle without using some sort of magic. Even if you and your enemy have the same speed, your only options are to withdraw, in which case he just charges you in the next round (or double moves if he can't charge), or to...

No. At-will resources are fundamentally different from per-encounter resources (unless your encounters always last only one round). With an at-will resource, the only thing you have to decide is whether it's better to use that resource or do something else in any given round. With a resource...

I think most rule systems out there do recognize that. I just don't like seeing "difficult" and "fun" used interchangeably. Sometimes they're the same, sometimes not. Can you give me an example of an encounter-level resource in the core 3.X rules? I know that Bo9S has them, but I'm having...

First, "challenging" and "fun" are not necessarily synonymous. I've had easy fights that were great fun, and I've had difficult fights that were extremely frustrating. I agree that in general difficult fights tend to be more fun, but that's not true 100% of the time. And second, the reason...

Oh, and one other thing. Even looking at it solely from the standpoint of how many resources are expended, a hypothetical 4E fight that only uses per-encounter resources isn't comparable to a "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" scenario, because that scenario uses no resources at all. Which...

Oh, I agree that difficult encounters tend to be more fun than easy ones (though that definitely depends on why an encounter is difficult - my experiences as a DM have told me that there's often a fine line between "difficult" and "frustrating"). I'm just saying that, in all my years of gaming...

This assumes that the only reason to have a battle is to consume resources. But there's another, much simpler reason to have battles - because they're fun. And I don't think most gaming groups judge how much fun a battle was by how many per-day resources it consumed. I've been gaming for a long...

I disagree. Even if significant (however you define the term) abilities are "per-day" abilities, the PCs won't have to rest once they're used up, so long as they also have significant abilities that are "per-encounter." They'll be able to continue on, and if the DM provides them an in-game...

And in fact, Monte Cook has said that they wanted to do this for 3E, but they ran out of time in development.

Huh? "Wins?" "Punished?" No offense, but I think you're taking this way too personally.

There is no 4E Monster Manual, there is only a list of creatures which Chuck Norris allows to live.

This has been discussed already. If "per-encounter" abilities work the same way they do in SWSE (which many people suspect they will, since the 4E designers have said that SWSE is a significant preview for 4E), then these abilities will require one minute of uninterrupted rest/recovery before...

Okay, I can see this is pointless. Catch you later.

Well, at that point, the books would be coming out shortly (plus many more detailed previews would be available) and we could all decide for ourselves whether or not we liked them.

According to David Noonan, they're also going to include a clause preventing people from even admitting that they are playtesters. I believe that this was done in previous playtests as well.

Just finished replays of Planescape: Torment and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Both great games. There's nothing new grabbing me right now, though.

Publishing commentaries that identify who the playtesters are kind of defeats the purpose of the NDAs mandating that people keep the fact that they're playtesting secret, doesn't it?

This couldn't happen, because if this naysayer became a playtester, he or she would be under an NDA and couldn't talk about their experience at all. In fact, it's been said that the NDA will prevent people from so much as saying that they are playtesters.

Why is this funny?