Search results

Are we talking about the same thing? Don't make me force you to do a Take 20 with three people involved!!! Either they both roll...or they both Take 400. I think it is a separate question on whether you can Aid Another with a +2 bonus. That doesn't require a Take 20 on anyone's part, does...

Got to go with Greenfield on this one. The take 20 convention is permissible specifically because of the math. So live by the sword, die by the sword. If both characters need a 20, then you have to take the requisite time to assume that at some point, both players simultaneously did the best...

If you have to multi-class to make a feat or style viable, then you're railroading players. At the very least it feats and intended play-styles should work for the core classes straight up. When new classes come along, its the responsibility of those authors to make sure those classes can't...

It would be irresponsible for me to suggest changes. My knowledge of all the related or affected feats/builds is paltry compared to some. I'm just trying to get you to think about the problem on a wholistic level (problems that this may introduces) rather than a very localized one (how does...

And this is the problem when you start changing feats and costs and penalties. Suddenly you have a combo that goes from optional to no-brainer. You don't want something to be so good that a player perceives it as a penalty for not doing it (thought I know D&D has tons of things like this)...

First, there is no such thing as absolute balance. The most one could do is determine average effectiveness i.e. given all the possible combat scenarios, which style is most robust? The problem with D&D is that you absolutely have to determine the extremes. You have to consider what a player...

TWF has problems that are multiple when compared to S&B or THF. If you want to address the problem, you have to answer a couple of questions: 1) How many feats should be required to make it equal to THF in damage? 2) How many feats should be required to make it equal to S&B at defense? 3)...

Lol. I wasn't asking for help :). I was asking what people did in their own campaigns. And last time he and I talked about it, I think some of what i said is going to get him to reconsider...especially with regards to spell casters (buying scrolls), because that's really the only place it...

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your suggestion. He would agree that people can perceive the difference in ability. But his argument is that no one conceptualizes it as a quantized difference...or that abilities are quantized to begin with. Again, using his football disanalogy, you...

The evidence and the game rulese say otherwise. I'm sure you've read Jack Simth's post about Detect Magic. But your response says you're ignoring the underlying implication: If something can be done, it will be done. If casters could devise a means of categorizing and classifyting and...

Right. The question is whether anyone would know their specific class level and conceptualize it as such. It isn't a question of people perceiving a difference in power ability. The problem with football is that it is not analogus to being a Fighter. The difference between Michael Vick and...

I believe such a bit of fiction would be counterproductive to your intended purpose. The other DM would argue that this is exactly what must occur for people to gauge each other's comparitive strength as opposed to referring to one's level. His believe is that no one conceptualizes it as...

Hey Bob, how did the swim encounter go with the party?

So you guys don't require any downtime or training for leveling up? Somebody goes to XXXXX +1 experience points and after that battle they immediately gain a hit die, choose powers, assign skills, etc?

I have to agree with a lot of this. While some feats are for flavor, some feats maybe just to enable other non-PC things in the game using the paradigm of feats. I also don't get the constant need to boost everything because it seems weak from some perspective. Consider that maybe Toughness...

Right, I got that. Magic is a black box to the player, but not the character. It was clear from the original post. I was quibbling over the fact that they do know "how" but not "why." Based on your response, I think we agree. The other point to make here, or that I thought I was implying...

Which is my thought exactly. Clerics, Druids, Monks, Wizards, would all naturally adopt and be aware of their transitions and progressions in power/ability. Commoners, on the other hand, aren't going really benefit from knowing their level or attempting to deduce it. 1e made it seem like...

Interesting. It seems you're wanting to insert a level of abstraction. My perspective is that Wizards know exactly how magic works, but they don't know why it works the way it does. Kind of like quantam mechanics in our world. Quantam mechanics is one of the most well understood/predictable...

So you don't think figuring out the exact radius, duration, distance, etc of a spell is something that Wizards would have done over the eons that they've all been casting the same spells at the appropriate levels? You do have your Wizards learn their spells from research right?

I think this is an excellent post because it describes the elephant in the room. You point out something that seems almost self-evident: But why not? So why wouldn't a caster describe it as a level or tier or order as that is the most accurate way to describe it? I mean, Wizards in...