Search results

Seeing the argument that "10% Hear Noise" equates to "10% chance to hear anything" reinforces my belief that 3e ruined D&D, most of all with its skill system. Instead of relying on common sense, everything was reduced to a skill check. Want to hear if orcs are behind the door? Roll a Listen...

No, no, no, 5e is the come crawling back edition.

Rolling for treasure was one of the best parts of D&D. There was something really satisfying and fun about beating up the bad guys and the DM telling you to roll on his mysterious set of charts for loot.

What if the design goal is "fighter is stronger at low levels and wizard is stronger at high levels"?

Maybe he should stop. These mechanics are awful.

Presumably, though I have seen no D&D system that has done such a thing. Of course, one could argue for having an attack bonus that varies depending on the type of armor worn by an enemy and the weapon used, but that level of detail is too much for me. If I were to push for a simple fighter...

I haven't read the whole thread thus far--too many posts and too much back-and-forth--but I'm merely going to comment on what I've seen so far. Regarding the debate about simple fighters and simple wizards: the wizard will always be more complicated than the fighter, all other things presumed...

I'd do this nice and simple-like. Two-handed weapons: +1 on attack rolls. Sword-and-board: +2-3 to AC, depending on your shield type. Two-weapon fighting: +1 on attack rolls, +1 to AC.

This is a big one. A lot of the old-school gamers say, "Well, you can just improvies these neat maneuvers!" While that's true, it's also less than ideal. The problem that DMs face with such a system is ruling consistently and fairly, and ruling with respect to game balance. Each one of these...

Why?

And then?

Cool strawman, bro. No, I just can't do math.

Something that plagues low-level D&D is the swinginess of combat due to the d20 attack roll. A handful of exceptionally poor rolls can easily turn an encounter from a cakewalk to a slaughterhouse (or vice-versa). I'm fine with some degree of swinginess--it helps build tension, after all--but I...

The swinginess of attack rolls. Wrong thread entirely.

I hate BONS, so any argument that is based on its awesomeitude is sort of a non-starter for me.

My point is that if 4e mechanics written in such a manner that applied a metaphorical body over the chassis, people would be more willing to go with it, even if those mechanics remained the same (a few powers notwithstanding).

Yes, it should. As role-playing games take place primarily in the imagination, the writing of the books should inspire the imagination. The best way I can explain it is that the rules are like this: These are the rules with associated mechanics and a layer of prose to support them:

Because D&D is the dominant RPG. It's the one that everyone knows about. It's popular. Everyone plays it. People know the rules. I can go into a random gaming club and say, "I'm running a D&D game," and people will know exactly what I'm talking about. If I do the same and say, "I'm running...

It's not actually that precise. Is a day 24 hours? Or is the end of the "day" a figurative timeframe that relies on a period of rest? Is it when the clock hits midnight? What happens if I use one daily power at 1:00 PM and another at 11:00 PM? Do I regain one power at 1:00 PM and the other at...

Fairly self-explanatory, I think. Describe your preferred method of powers/combat maneuvers for martial characters. Some examples might be: • AEDU, 4e-style. • At-will combat maneuvers. Characters rely on a basic attack but can try other maneuvers in place of it (trip, disarm, etc.). • At-will...