Search results

First of all this thread has little to do with damage dealing. Secondly, if you are arguing the hypothetical that it is fine for casters to be better at damage dealing than fighters, then what is the purpose of fighters in the first place?

@KentHusker Don't smiley spam like a coward. If you want to laugh at me, do it in a post. No I'm sure it'll actually help. If you have a non-dungeon campaign you can have a sequence of events like this: Players arrive at Waterdeep They fight bandits in an alley Next day they track down a...

I think there are etiquette rules here against using the laughing smiley on posts that are not intended to be funny, yes? If you do that, stop. I think it should be obvious what I mean with low influence. I mean a class that has less influence over the game compared to other classes. I have...

Just want to point out that there are two different sides to my criticism of the abysmal martial design. 1: There are enormous areas of mechanics which they are completely unable to interact with, or where they are strongly deficient 2: They lack out of combat utility These two are not always...

I'm not saying that we need those martials to have exactly spells like blindness or whatever. I'm saying that the whole system is full of stuff that simply isn't available to martials at all. I'm not even saying that everyone needs access to everything. That's jut a strawman... But I'll throw...

I am talking about explicit mechanical influence. Martials are less influential because there is an incredible array of mechanical ways of interacting with the game that are completely or nearly completely off-limits to non-casters. These are more obvious: Inflicting blind Inflicting fear...

I think the problem here is that there is an untapped group of players who are not being reached by D&D. Right now you have a situation where a player who wants to play a martial has to play a low-influence class. For these people thus they have to make a choice. What is, to them, most...

Bumping this! My group has now played two sessions of this and we are quite happy with how it works in practice. The separation between narrative and combat mode is an excellent move, since it means that no combat moves can be "abused" outside of combat for narrative purposes. That is: It...

This is excellent. I've been thinking along the same lines myself. I believe intelligence and charisma and wisdom are all bad to have as character scores the way they are because they restrict roleplaying. What if I want to play a stupid wizard?

Bill: I'm kinda curious what you think about systems like Blades in the Dark. They have a system where you only roll if there is a consequence for failure, otherwise you just accept that they succeed.

That's a great outline. The bolded part is the GM equivalent of a player not being able to think outside of his character sheet.

I brought up FKR because someone else in the thread referenced it earlier. It's an approach to GM-ing where the players have extremely little agency, the system is designed for the players not to know the rules, there being barely any rules in the first place, and for the GM to have the ultimate...

Pathfinder 1e. Bad decision from me, bad luck and bad tactics from another player. I was playing a rogue/vivisectionist with a really crappy will save, and another player was playing a strength focused magus. We were hit by a confusion effect and both failed the saves. The fight until this...

Ultimately it makes martial characters even more incompetent than they already are. Spells being a limited resource is irrelevant, because even limited supremacy beats unlimited incompetence. I am happy you are happy with what you are doing, but I am also very happy that I am not actually...

Yeah it might be just a misunderstanding. I'll elaborate. When a player interacts with the world he can do it through describing things he wants to do. The GM can then decide whether or not it works, and if it can even be attempted. Spells mostly bypass this procedure, so, for example, the...

I still think this really clashes with D&D, though. I mean, it's actively hostile to anything that isn't a spell. I hope for the sake of at least some sense of balance that you also don't permit spells to solve out-of-combat problems, else non-casters suck even worse than they do in vanilla 5e.

I see what you're getting at, but frankly I think combat has to be important given the focus it gets in the rulebook. There's a class called the Fighter, right? You wouldn't have a fighter as a class in a system that wasn't designed around combat? Combat has more pages in the rulebook than...

Many of your points are more reasonable than I expected when seeing your thread title. In fact, though I do not gm for D&D right now, I use a system without checks for many of the things you propose. There are no perception checks, or find-secret-door checks. It works pretty well and would...

Since combat is the main point of D&D, anything non-combat is the special case. This is pretty obvious given how absolutely underbaked everything in the system is except for combat. No thought has been spared on how skills should work. But I agree that everything should be redesigned such that...

It certainly makes the concept of intimidate itself something that is reliable and, well, something that you can act upon within the system, and it would function well even if you kept the original skill. You don't actually need to remove the skills even though you probably should (since they...