Search results

If they want to avoid TONS of rule complexity, how about a generic house rule for ALL situations (may need wordsmithing): Rule 0.003a - - No single attack, ability, power, etc. may have a greater effect on a failed result than would be possible with a success.

Thanks...it's not like it's a complete killer -- I guess I would still decide that this is stupid (in that particular scenario) and would immediately house rule it to include text that says "to no less than 0 hp" for the miss. I'm thinking here about not just Orcus, but on the off chance that...

Was this confirming what I had asked about above - - this power really does more damage in some scenarios if it misses than if it hits? I can't actually believe that A) this is how it was meant to work and B) this actually made it through a large amount of playtesting/examination - seems like...

Clarification: If I have 60 hit points, my BLOODIED value is 30, right? Scenario - in the middle of the battle with Orcus, I find that I am reduced to 18 hit points - absolutely bloodied. Orcus then used his ToD on me...if he HITS, I am reduced to 0 hp, a net loss of 18... BUT if he MISSES...

Well said, Celebrim - How is someone going to apply their talents as a front-rank striker in a negotiation with a shopkeeper? As DM, this will actually save me money on mapping software, as I can just draw the points of cover directly on the grid with crude squares, instead of wasting a bunch...

Awesome - - Quick, Filbert! Use your shift power to move that Kobold wearing an adult diaper so it's adjacent to the red dragon!

Just wanted to jump in with praise for that series of adventures - I wish I could find them again (pdf market, maybe?)...at some point it looked like we were going to have no impact once the two started duking it out, and we'd be spectators, then there was another critical thing for us to...

Actually this would be a great bit of praise for the 4th edition, if it were true. Well, I guess you could quibble about what is meant by subgenres of 'fantasy', but the FIRST edition DMG, if I recall correctly, had multiple pages (at least two, I believe) on other genres, and specific rules...

The farming was a bit of a goof but someone had mentioned turnips....my point was simply that I think that there HAS to be some rules basis to adjudicate MOST actions, including those that are based on 'background skills' - - I don't necessarily need to have a number that says his background was...

Having not read the books myself, I can't say that you ARE missing anything...but what I will suggest is that even if the first HUNDRED pages were about motivation, background, desires, etc...this would all likely be meaningless if the mechanics of the game are oriented around making all...

Yick Okay...that's not a very well-thought-out appraisal. Yick....wow...not much better...okay, let me just say this. This is NOT the 'evolutionary' change mentioned. Are wizards unbalanced in 3e? Maybe, but having a spellbook full of stuff is a defining characteristic for me...turning...

Yep...and I have tried not to imply that what is fun or a 'good' game for me is fun or good for others - I'm just discussing those things about 4e that are keeping me from diving in and tossing $100 toward books. I firmly believe that people will have fun with 4e, and I think that my group...

Just my thoughts on a few of Oakhearts points: "What are these supposed to do? If given the choice between a feat that gives you +2 damage with all your attacks or one that gives you the ability to say "I was a farmer when I was young, so I can till fields.", a large majority of players will...

A bit off topic, but my current rogue has SF: Forgery, maxed out ranks in it, and has also maxed out Craft: Woodcarver and Profession: Scribe. While it doesn't always come up in an adventure AS WRITTEN, in any session that doesn't take place 100% in a dungeon, it's up to ME to figure out how to...

...and of course the thought that just made me chuckle was based on the fairly wide amount of AGREEMENT here (with some exceptions) that you can roleplay regardless of the rules system...that thought was: "...and so the sales pitch for me to buy the new set of books is what, exactly?"...

Okay...now I'm a thread hog. thoughts It feels like some of my players now believe that extensive rules, lots of feats and options and powers, etc., are required...one main driver of this belief is that by sailing the vast sea of splat books and expansions, they are able to create very...

As noted in my ealier post, I disagree with the idea that it's an absolute REQUIREMENT to have 'extensive rules for movement and combat' for a roleplaying game - - I think this is an artificial requirement.

An additional thought on roleplaying, 3E, 4E, and earlier... In my opinion, a large amount of the roleplaying gets muddled as soon as you pull out those damnable grids. While I like 3E for what it is, and vastly prefer it to what I've seen of 4E, in truth I remember far more roleplaying and...

I actually don't know if that was the (sole) intent or not, but what I was on about was that often when someone does point out an issue with KOTS, or talks about how it didn't really do much for them from a roleplaying standpoint, others will defend the module by saying that it wasn't meant to...

Good luck with that -- the more I read of 4E the more I realize that I don't have enough time to house rule it to a state I can enjoy, and my players HATED what they saw in KOTS. So my big concern now is how to best integrate EoM with True20....I'm really having my biggest struggles in these...