Search results

This assumes that 4E will continue 3E's default assumption of a magic shop in every village. I'm hoping they won't do that, but we'll see.

Standard equipment: +2 chainsaw.

Further, I doubt there's any player out there who would consider it cheating for the DM to rule that enemy mooks die at 0 hit points, rather than make a bunch of pointless stabilization rolls every round. Indeed, as a player, I'd probably be pissed if he did make the rolls, since he'd be wasting...

True, there was always that quirk to the D&D rules. A 1st level character could be opened top to tails, and a Cure Light Wounds spell would fix him completely. But a 10th level character could just have a few bruises, and that same spell wouldn't even fix them all. I guess you're always going...

No, it was definitely in 2E (EDIT: and according to John Snow, it was in the 1E DMG). You may be thinking of BECMI, where characters did die at 0HP.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it was in 1E. I think it was in the DMG somewhere, though it might have been an optional rule. Regardless, it was a holdover from either 1E or 2E.

Which many if not most gamers already did anyway. Did you seriously keep track of the negative hit points for every single orc the PCs dropped in a big fight, and make stabilization rolls for each of them every round? If so, I think you're in a pretty small minority. How is rolling a d20 every...

Well, they have said that they want character death to happen less often than it did in 3E. That's a 4E design goal - make it harder to die, and harder (or impossible) to be resurrected after you die. However, they have not said it's nearly impossible.

Are you serious? The -10 rule wasn't one of the cool things about 3.5. It was a holdover from 1E that didn't work very well in 3E. In 1E, the -10 threshold almost always meant something, because even the more powerful monsters often didn't hit for very much damage in a swing. But in 3E, the -10...

Because then you could easily end up with a situation where it's better to be unconscious than conscious when you're hit for a large amount of damage.

Did you actually read the article? Andy Collins specifically stated that the threat of death still exists in 4E.

Yes, I get what happened from a flavor standpoint. But there's no getting around the fact that, from a mechanics standpoint, the orc just healed the fighter of a good chunk of HP by stabbing him in the gut. That bothers me (but, again, I'll have to use the rule for a while to find out how much...

I know what the rule is supposed to model; I'm just saying that mechanically, it's going to lead to some pretty silly things on rare occasions. Now, the excitement at the table of a player rolling a 20 and getting to rejoin a battle may be worth those rare moments of ridiculousness. I suppose...

Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case: A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by...

The one thing I really don't like about this rule is that it doesn't seem to matter how far below 0 HP you are; you have the same chance of dying regardless. This could lead to silly situations like a character getting stabbed in the toe by a halfling and dying three rounds later, while a...

This rule will probably also scale pretty easily. If you want a more lethal game, reduce the -HP threshold to 1/4 of the character's max HP or something. If you want a less lethal game, increase it to 3/4 or whatever. There may even be an optional rule to that effect included.

Quick question - is there a reason we haven't seen any epic-tier playtest reports? It is going on, right? I would hope so, since high levels were the most problematic, balance-wise, in 3E.

QFT. I've seen people say, essentially, "It's okay if the fighter dominates the scene in combat, because the rogue will get his moment to shine when he disarms the trap later, and the wizard will get his moment when he deciphers the ancient runes on the doors to the great hall." The problem...

No one at WotC has said that 3E was completely unfun. What purpose does hyperbole like this serve?

On the other hand, Juno has made $100 million, and that movie was damn good, so maybe there's some hope, anyway.