Search results

Tuesdays: Pathfinder second edition. Good system, but also quite heavy. We're into our second campaign, Stolen Fate, having finished Abomination Vaults. Thursdays: Lancer. Great mech-rpg. It should appeal to people who like mechs and who feel D&D is too mechanically bloated and not tactical...

I think his point is that the entire system is absolutely inconsistent already and the reason people don't complain about it is that they have learned to not see it, but anything that is inconsistent and new is something else entirely.

The more I think about this the more it seems that monsters should maybe be designed like how they work in Lancer. Because I think that might satisfy more people than what we currently have. You have a number of basic classes all of which are roughly equal. In addition you have a number of...

Very dismissive. The bolded part is patently false and in fact the opposite is true. Casters are not limited to spells. Spells are not a limitation, and they can always use skills too anyway. Casters have more things they can do than non-casters because casters have spells and non-casters...

He obviously means martials in general. I'm just bringing up champion as an example of a possible baseline to start from. This is what they said: "There should be a basic standard that all Martials should start with. Then the option to stay basic, go advance, or jump to expert." Pick something...

You are overcomplicating this thing something fierce. We already have a standard for basic. The champion. We can use that as a starting point.

That's a bit dismissive. I'm not going to be able to convince you or anyone, but let's just say that my experience of the phenomenon was first hand. Once I had experienced it, though, I could begin to think back on a number of separate occasions where other people shared my sentiments as well...

The bolded bit was effing excellent. You could play a non-caster who could actually have an effect on the battlefield. You didn't have to just hit things with standard attacks. The system definitely had issues, though. Not a fan of what they did to all the lore. 13th Age does indeed look like...

Since you claim you haven't even seen the LFQW issue I have to ask if you played 3.0 or 3.5? (or even PF1) Because in those editions it's basically impossible not to see it, if you're playing with people who knows how to build. I'm not even talking power gamers here, really.

I disagree, as I really think that's an unimportant aspect of the design, but I gotta say it's definitely an interesting perspective. I've never thought about that part of the design in that way before. You actually gave me an idea. What if every monster had a play stat block and a build...

But this is a design problem imo. The design requires the GM to run adventures in a non-natural way in order to prevent one class type from dominating, simply because the attrition model is weak. In a better designed system the pacing of encounters should be something that impacts every player...

There's practically only one way to make sure that the players cannot long rest after each combat, and that is to make sure every combat is chained into every other combat, and you need to have time pressure. It's known that the best way to run D&D is to make it very dungeon focused and to have...

Of course but you're missing why this is a relevant point in the first place. In Lancer, which is much better designed than D&D, it wouldn't affect the inter party balance much if I changed up how many combats they have between each rest, because no classes are more rest reliant than others...

The problem isn't the number of long rests per day, rather the problem is that unless there is explicit time pressure the players can always stall until they can rest if they need to.

Some people have said that, but there are large swathes of adventure types that are very very difficult to run the way the system currently works, and its' the kind of adventures that people are most likely to want to play. Journeys, for example, are difficult, because unless you put a...

It's quite likely that, since there is no actual edition called 6e, that he's referring to some edition that has been called or referred to as being 6e without actually being name so officially. It's obviously D&D 2024.

The problem as I see it is that what you are arguing is a balancing element is in fact the source of the imbalance in the first place. The thing with D&D is that you can measure a class by how much burst they have, and how consistent they are. Martials tend to be able to fight longer. Wizards...

Something that in 5E is particularly impotent. If a fighter deals worse damage than a wizard, but tanks hits harder, that means all they are is a minor obstacle, since there are no mechanically supported ways to actively play control as a fighter.

That is also outside the scope of the hypothetical, because the hypothetical assumes that the fighter deals less damage than the wizard. That's the point of it being a hypothetical. It does not need to be true.

This is not an answer to what I was asking. I was asking about what the purpose is with a fighter in the context I gave above. That is: The hypothetical scenario that the fighter is worse at dealing damage than a wizard. In my opinion the hypothecal is a hypothetical because I think fighters...