Search results

About the whole Combat thing. I prefer the Savage Worlds route. You can have a character who has no fighting skills, but still contribute in a meaningful way via tests of will or tricks. The problem with applying this to something like 4e, is that the support options suck for the most part...

Slightly inspired by Morrus' thread about names for humans, I have been rattling around a setting for a while now and the question I keep coming back to is should I include humans as an option? For the most part, I see the inclusion of humans in games to be the base where we can then as players...

I am curious, what class would any of you put Frodo into?

I prefer the option to buy a cheaper PDF first, I have a hard drive full of PDFs that I have purchased on a whim, sight unseen, but exactly 0 books done so in the same manner. I am vastly more open to buying a $5-$20 PDF of a book that is $20-$50 to try out a game. But when I am sold on a...

I voted for use of both together, but as a secondary I would say that using iconic characters as specific examples would be just as good.

On the other hand, with so much material with the classic 4e options. For me at least, it was a breath of fresh air to have a different structure. I was more apt to use essentials classes for new players or for high level one shots.

Not a real good analogy, if someone passes go they have succeeded. Anyways, there is room in the design space for more than 0% on a miss. Failure doesn't mean nothing at all is accomplished. Failure can mean that the end goal is not accomplished but progress can still be made.

Could you define failure though? If you accomplish 99% of something you can still fail. It doesn't mean you did 0% of your goal.

Which is completely possible, except for the people who seem to not be able to share a table with different styles. You don't like damage on a miss, so don't play it. But we can play at the same table with different options like this as long as they are balanced against each other. And...

And see, I have no problem with unifying the complete opposite way like 4e did. Rather that drag everyone down, raise everyone up.

I don't see anything that makes each fighter live in a different reality. Do you think that fighters with different feats live in different realities? When two of the same class choose two different features and neither can ever have access to the other, are they different realities? No, the...

I feel the same way, magic users seem to be playing their own game that is not what the more mundane characters play.

My take on "fail forward" was to not dead end the game with failure. Failure is a setback so the game doesn't come to a grinding halt. Not that they cannot fail, but rather that failure presents another goal or conflict to resolve.

It is something that can be ignored though. you just need to wait until a module comes out to give you what you want. The concept isn't too hard to grasp. We either include multiple options for every element, or we just have a few options and more will come later.

How is this not a light buffet already? If someone doesn't like GWF, they ignore it. This isn't some kind of entrenched mechanic that has permeated the core game. It's an optional mechanic that can be ignored.

For a game that is supposedly going to be modular, I guess the question is: Should the core game be some kind of sanitized vegetarian meal? Or should the core rather be a little stew? Personally I think the core should be a little bit of a stew. Otherwise you are basically saying that one...

Well if they took that stance on alignment and the rest of 5e still interested me, I would houserule it. For your dinner table analogy, unless there are serious allergies, I won't stop serving something just because someone doesn't like it. I may dislike yams, but I don't ask they be removed...

I still don't understand why each and every element of the game needs to have options for everyone. You either play the game as a whole, remove elements you do not like or houserule them to be acceptable. Why does every single element need to have some kind of clean element for each playstyle?

I like it because I do. I played with it a whole lot in 4e and several of it's variants like ultramodern and amethyst. For me, I like that for larger attacks a miss is never just nothing. (or in the case of some martial abilities with reliable are not expended instead.) For the most part...

I am totally fine with some kind of evasion ability. We need a Rock to this Scissors.