Search results

There are some exploits that you can easily treat as purely metagame in effect; any +X attack or +X[W] damage or similar purely numerical manipulation effects are easily explained that way. Your continuous action example bear this out well: the difference between getting a lucky crit on one...

No, it's not "just because the mechanics say so," it's because some people want martial exploits to be metagame mechanics. You don't have to have magic with names and martial stuff without; take a look at Wheel of Time, where the master swordsmen have evocative names for all their maneuvers...

I completely agree with the dislike of the 1 minute melee round. I too didn't like how individual ranged attacks were individual attacks during a melee round but melee attacks were an abstract bunch of feints and retreats and wild swings and stuff. However, AD&D was also a lot more abstract in...

Two points. First, the druid has been pantheistic in D&D since 1e. Take a look at the 1e druid writeup: They don't worship gods of nature primarily, but rather nature itself. They don't have the alignment-focused abilities of the cleric (not even turning undead), they don't anthropomorphize...

I don't see why the question is SoD-breaking at all. In prior editions, "How many things can you hit in the next two rounds" had a definite answer that both the player and character knew, and it was consistent: if you could make 1 attack, or 2 attacks, or 3/2 attacks, you could just keep doing...

Divine encompasses "power from nature" just as much as it does "power from gods" because bivine energy is granted by the beings at the heart of a religion. Priest : polytheism :: druid : pantheism (alternatively, cleric : monolatrism :: shaman : animism).

We're not talking complicated plans here, we're talking about a simple question like "Can you, Mr. Fighter, attack all 6 of those goblins in 2 rounds before they get out of range, or should we have the wizard handle that?" and the answer being "No, I can't hit more than 4 of them, guaranteed...

That example was in response to Hussar's and your assertions that exploits don't actually correspond to anything in the gameworld, but are simply ways to abstractly influence the narrative--see Hussar's "Only if you insist that that cool move is something that the character distinctly knows in...

It does indeed. I object to the barbarian's rage being daily, Stunning Fist's uses being daily, and other martial mechanics being daily just as much as 4e daily resources. Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, the monk's Wholeness of Body, and similar are magical abilities, so while I object to them being...

As I mentioned earlier, and as Zustiur so eloquently expanded on, the disconnect between "This is real in the game world" and "This is a metagame thing" is a deal breaker. Your wizard can use particular spells, he can talk about his powers in-game, he can strategize about using them, because...

Well, most of the late-3e material couldn't reach T1 simply because they had only 1 book of their resource system (or 1/3 a book in the binder's case), while psionicists had 2 books and a smattering of powers elsewhere and Vancian casters had spells in every frakking book. If the PHB, all of...

T1 and T3 classes don't have inherently different resource systems. There are T1 and T3 Vancian casters and psionicists, the T1 casters simply have access to more spells/powers within their system. An incarnate who could reshape and rebind melds each turn as a swift action, a martial adept who...

I strongly disagree. You seem to think that all classes must be on exactly the same resource schedule to have parity, but as we saw in 3e with the T3 classes, you can have similar (but not identical) resource schedules and still be on roughly even footing. But that's exactly the point--they...

Interesting read. If Essentials really is more AD&D than 3e, I'll have to get my hands on it--I play 3e and some 4e now but I've always been a bit more of an AD&D fan. Thanks for the recommendation. To be fair, it easily breaks accidentally if you don't go in with AD&D assumptions in mind...

Part of the problem, yes, but again I only claimed going back to 1e memorization and acquisition rules would solve one part of the problem. Spell nerfs and reinstituting dangerous combat casting solves another part. I wasn't saying the wizard could nuke the fighter, just a roomful of random...

Regarding modular design: Okay, everyone saying "there's a module for thatTM" or "just throw it in a module and we'll be fine"? Modular design just Does Not Work That Way. Modular design implies a solid core to which modules are added that can add to or modify this core. Modular design also...

So I suppose all of my comments that martial classes should be boosted, and my suggestion of several things that would make the martial daily issue palatable mere sentences after that quote, somehow mean I'm demanding fighters be inferior to wizards...? I say again, I am perfectly happy to have...

*sigh* Once again, the people who want different systems for different power sources (myself included) don't see it as a power issue; the "everyone who doesn't like 4e that much is a whiny caster player who feels his toys were taken away and hates being on even footing with the mere mortals"...

It's definitely the class system, not the Vancian system. In 3e, every class that has some sort of resource management system is better than classes that don't, because for some reason the designers thought that getting something in the Special column of your class table (Smite +1/day!) was...

In addition to the above points, my main reasons for liking the Vancian system are as follows: 1) No siloing of spells. You can prepare all combat spells, or no combat spells, or any permutation. Which means you can spend one day fireballing everything in sight, and another day divining all...