Search results

Nonsense. In some rule sets I know I can kick in a door because I know that doors of this type are so-so hard to kick in, and my strength is such and such, and I know from reading the rule book that my strength is enough to kick in the door in front of me. In other rule sets I know that I can...

The OP was referring to direct compatibility with OGL game material, not release under an OGL license. From the OP:

Well, the question was why spells had to become obsolete. So I was pointing out that structurally, in earlier editions, it was bad for the game if a 1st level spell slot was doing the same work as a 7th level spell slot when your character was at, say, 15th level. My general take on the issue...

If 30 years from now the published version of D&D is still a game where someone can fire this Acid Arrow at this Arrowhawk without any mechanical gears crashing, then stagnation has occurred.

If you're right and the OGL means that all future editions of D&D need to be compatible with the 3e OGL material, then I hope the OGL dies in a fire before it murders Dungeons and Dragons forever. Stagnation is death.

The issue is scaling. That was just the easiest example of completely linear I could come up with off the top of my head. TLDR for my last post: If spells scale perfectly, then limited actions per day stops balancing the wizard because his actions per day go up and the fighter's stay the same...

There's a reason that earlier editions had spells become obsolete with level. Supposedly, if the system worked right, the balancing factor that kept wizards in line was a limited number of spells per day. But once you hit 9th level or so, you probably had more spells per day than there were...

1. There's a group of people who really, really want D&D to have what they call "realistic healing." That is, if you get injured, you sit in a bed and rest for weeks until you're healthy again, unless of course you have access to magic. And generally people who advocate this want access to...

My thoughts: 1. The skill thing could work. Just make a 15 strength a +15 to strength checks. Easy as pie. And it wouldn't cause any meaningful problems that I can think of. It probably should have been done a long time ago. In fact, ability scores probably SHOULD have been dropped down by...

I'll agree with this. If the game provided significant non magical means of accomplishing things, AND specified that the non magical players MUST get them in the course of a regular game, THEN explicitly prohibited the wizard from using them, it would be at least possible in theory for magical...

The Psion is dead! Long live the Psion!

In a "combat as war" game, much of the interaction with the enemy takes place outside of combat, where there may be the ability to rest before actual combat begins. For example, if your "combat as war" scenario takes place over a three month interval culminating in a final battle, the choice...

I voted for physical only, but I'd be ok with the piercing/slashing/bludgeoning system IF AND ONLY IF it came up often enough to matter. Its stupid to have a weapon type subsystem and barely use it. Its a waste of brain space.

I put down gamist. But I did so with a reservation. I'm only gamist if you're going to make me spend time playing a game. I can play Og: Unearthed with a purely narrativist style (jokes are valid narrative if they're funny!). But this is because combat in Og takes like... 10 seconds? If I'm...

Its not a matter of whether the DM is doing "the right thing." Nor, as you mention later in your post, is it a matter of whether the DM is being a jerk, or being untrustworthy. Its a matter of whether you're winning when the DM lets you win. nyghtwyrm got things right when he said that in a...

I used to have what you'd call a "combat as war" style. The problem was that eventually I started to recognize the man behind the curtain. I knew that I wasn't actually coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the monster, I was, at most, coming up with brilliant plans to defeat the DM. But...

I'm concerned that "emphasis on the player" will mean "emphasis on mother-may-I DMing." I am not a fan.

Roughly speaking I'm a Johnny. But if combat isn't tactically interesting, I get bored with it, and wonder why its even in the game.

Character creation takes at least several hours, including detailed back stories. These are mandatory, because they're worked mechanically into the Theme subsystem of the game. Level 1 characters have a maximum of 8 hit points, and level 1 monsters regularly deal 1d8 damage on attacks. Death...

The problem is that if D&D were being designed from scratch today, it wouldn't have a stat system where you have one set of stats that do nothing except generate a different set of stats. Its not good design.