Search results

Naturally, every player will have their own priorities that will lead them to value certain options over others. That's not much of a "problem". The key is to understand what players are likely to be looking for, and ensure a wide variety of options are worth considering. And a it should be...

What actually reduces options is high ability scores overpowering the alternatives. If there are meaningful alternatives to be gained by forgoing a max STR, then that's more interesting then everyone getting the same STR, just with superficially different ways to get there. That's what I mean...

Ah. That's kind of an odd way of saying it, since DC evokes Skill system, and Defender evokes combat. But I get what you're saying. Actually, that's not how it works in 3.5 or 4E. In 3.5, the higher bonus wins; if there's still a tie, there's a roll-off. In 4E, whoever is initiating the...

In 4E, there are limited means to raise ability scores. There's starting stats, racial bonuses, levelups, and Epic Destinies. And that's basically it. There's not "cap", but rather those bonuses are just naturally limited. If you want the absolute highest stat, it takes some sacrifice to get...

I like Zones in more narrative-style games. They might work for "no-grid" D&D combat, but it's hard to translate mechanics designed for them into grid-based combat, which is what I want from D&D. Even for "no-grid" D&D, I wonder if they're too abstract for the kinds of players who favor that...

I disagree with an arbitrary cap like that. If there are means to raise stats, then they should simply be designed to have a natural cap to them (so limited stacking), and to naturally get harder and harder to raise those stats (again, accomplished by limited stacking). 4E is a good example of...

That is a change. So an attempt to "fix it". What you're basically saying is "Meet for DCs, Beat for AC". Whereas it's always been "Meet" for all rolls, whether against DCs or AC. As I said, I can see a case for change, but it should be consistent. Either always "Meet" or always "Beat"...

Having specific stat block lines for "Turn Undead" is rather fiddly. Should we have a "damage taken when Backstabbed", and "chance to avoid Fireball" lines too? Time to standardize on hexes!

Now there's a good argument. If it enables a "player always rolls" system, I could see "Beat" becoming the standard. But then it's a question of whether "Meet, with d20+stat vs 11+stat" is preferable to "Beat, with d20+stat vs 10+stat". The former benefits from a ton of inertia from previous...

It's always been "Meet". "Meet" is highly intuitive for DCs, and I while I can see "Beat" being somewhat more intuitive for attacks, having a mixture would be ridiculous. "Roller always wants to meet" is a good general rule, and I see no good reason to change it. It gets iffy with opposed...

What I dislike most about Mike's specific suggestion is the power of the effects he outlines. The Skeleton, Zombie and Ghost ones are basically equivalent to Save or Die, in terms of encounter balance. Unless they have the HP limits as discussed last week (and was quite popular, according to...

First, D&D originally did have "wealth by level", in a way. The bulk of XP was directly from treasure. So it was reasonable to assume a significant fraction of XP, by level, was also what they could be expected to have in GP. Second, while "don't assume magic items" sounds nice and all, it...

Well, the problem then is having descending AC, which I see absolutely no good reason for, other than pure nostalgia. And only having a range of 0 to 10 for AC sounds extremely limiting. Only 10 difference, on a d20 die, between a buck naked commoner, and a level 20, Plate Mail-clad Fighter...

This would be more clearly stated as: [d20 + Number on PC's sheet] compared to [Number on Monster's stat block] vs. [d20 + Number on PC's sheet + Number on Monster's stat block] compared to 20 You're glossing over what that combined number means, and producing that combined number is where...

I prefer PC death to be both final, and very rare. I dislike casual resurrection, and disposable characters. What there really needs to be is a good way to have "players fail to achieve their objectives, but they live to fight another day". I'd rather the tension be on "do we succeed?", than...

Target number 20 seems completely silly to me. I don't see any redeeming value to it at all compared to d20 + bonus, compared to a DC. It's basically replacing a comparison to a variable number, with an addition of a variable number, plus a comparison to a static number. Comparisons are...

If "damage" is shorthand for "loss of HP", and doesn't necessarily mean "receiving physical wounds", then why shouldn't "healing" be shorthand for "gain of HP", and not necessarily mean "removing physical wounds"? What word should be used for recovering the component of HP that is not actual...

Depends on what's meant by "healing". Is any time HP increases "healing"? Or does healing just mean actual removal of physical wounds? Since the HP system doesn't differentiate between HP "damage" being actual wounds, or simply fatigue, loss of morale, and simple luck, increases in HP don't...

It might not be where you're thinking of, but in Dungeons & Dragons Online, Vorpals and similar weapons were changed fairly recently so that the auto-kill on natural 20 only works on things with 1000 or less HP. If they have more than that, they take 100 damage. While I don't mind it, I think...

That part in answer 1 was about customizing fighters to suit different players' desires. Different players have different "verisimilitude needs". Some can't stand things like Second Wind. Others see it as a reasonable representation of a well known phenomenon, frequently portrayed in stories...