Search results

Convenience.

What's this DCC people keep referring to and how does the The Mighty Deeds mechanic work, exactly?

I think this depends way more on the individual than you seem to think. We switched from using static damage modifiers to bonus dice a while ago. I wanted to see if it sped up combat and it did. For us, of course; I know this is counter-intuitive to a lot of people. I can see how choosing where...

Huh. That's actually how we use Action Points (or Action Dice, as we call them). An action die (d10) can be spent any which way an action point can, but you can also roll it for a bonus (to anything). So yeah, I think I like it.

Dunno. That's an ever moving target.

The healing system sticks out in my mind. My players hated the surprise rules. There were others, but it's a bit fuzzy at the moment.

I answered the survey, but now I regret it. We had only done one playtest session at that time. Now, a few sessions later, I think some of my answers might have been different.

I'm glad to hear that the tactical module is more of a package of pick-and-choose submodules, rather than a concrete "if you don't use all the rules, it falls apart" whole. The way they were talking about it was starting to make me scared. I don't want anything more complicated than 4e.

Not surprising. Nobody seems to like it. I liked the HD mechanic when I read it, but in play it was just annoying.

I really like the surprise rules (simple and straightforward; me likey), but my players found them lacking. They felt they should get advantage on surprise. But then, it's quickly become apparent that they feel that everything should give them advantage.

Like Morrus, I've never listened to any of the Audio Plays (except for the Richard E. Grant retconned 9th Doctor), despite being a massive Doctor Who fan. The Paul McGann ones seem like fan favorites.

While my young teenage self *did* blame it all on "AD&D has awful and archaic mechanics but reads so cool", my gripe wasn't with bits like THAC0. It was that the flavor text was hard to reproduce with the mechanics given. So 2e became my source of fluff for other systems that we found to do it...

From what I gather, it's less about 2e mechanics as such, and more about the changing trends in gaming at the time. My problems with 2e were that the mechanics did not fit the narrative, though I did not really understand that at the time. The crunch and the fluff didn't sync up. This resulted...

From what I can google, it's cyclative, but you draw cards instead of rolling dice.

I missed this update at the time, but I'm now wondering if this held up.

Sure and their inclusion won't make me hate a game (or even make me forbid anyone from playing a "Soulknife" or whatever), they just feel like they defeat the point of a class system, which for me is all about the archetypes. But I think it's why I like the 4e subclasses so much: Cleric...

I agree and that's why I dislike having too many classes. A class is something I should get a very clear idea what it is by it's name, concept-wise. So I don't mind a fair amount of niche classes like Sorcerors, Warlocks, Assassins, etc. But what is a Runepriest? Or a Soulknife? Or the other...

No crits, no fumbles; damage adjusted on the fly. I realise this is not optimized for the playtest with it's swingy AC, but It's what I do for such occasions in 4e where the to-hit ratio can be expected to be around 50%, so I just used that.

I prefer fewer (and broader) classes in general.

I roll four d20s with each d20 representing a quarter of the group.