Search results

Isn't that true for all area or other multi-target attacks that have any chance of killing someone? Throw two fireballs at a single character and she has a decent chance of surviving. Throw them at four and someone is very likely to die. Of course, the four character party will deal with the...

What should the chances be? Is it OK if it has at least a 5% chance of killing you (e.g. 50% on touch attack, 40% on will save, 25% on fort save)? If so, why is that better than one d20 where 1 fails? Is it just psychological?

So what's the advantage of dealing 1000d6 damage instead of "you die"? Or do you mean it should deal damage that may not be enough to kill instantly?

Oh, the "they bypass hp" argument. I figured there must be a reason behind not liking that (lethality?), but I suppose I should have included it.

You left out easy character creation. In this case, I think it's easy to just select another spell if you don't like all or nothing. This is not a bad idea, although it doesn't work with all effects. I would also give rogues a SoD on critical sneak attack.

Based on the other thread about save-or-die, I think the poll options are the most common reasons people dislike SoD, as seen in previous editions. Please choose any that apply and let me know any that I missed.

The main problem I have with that is: Where does the 25 damage come from when you are not turned to stone?

Then you can't become a better swordsman without being able to carry more. I prefer increases in skill rather than increases in raw ability.

Early in a campaign, winning and fleeing are often the only possible outcomes where the party doesn't die. Later in the adventurers' career if they are rulers of domains it becomes easier to justify capture. Pretty much any intelligent enemy will be interested in a king's ransom. If in-combat...

I feel the basic hit point system models this well enough. When you are injured you fight ferociously to compensate, so you are as good at offense. However, the down side is that you are likelier to die, and even a lowly kobold can manage a serious hit.

That's a simpler method than point buy increases, but some people seem to be allergic to any randomness in determining abilities. Personally I don't see a real need for any ability score increases from level.

Combat speed is one of the biggest failings of 3e, PF and 4e. It's a part of the larger issue of complexity. Other than that: healing/hit points, class variety, magic (spells and items) and skills are important to me. Pretty much everything falls under game design, except OGL which would be a...

I don't see a contradiction. If a player wants to try something indirect that is not in the books, he is thinking out of the box - regardless of whether the DM tells him to resolve it using universal mechanics like ability checks or attack rolls. If the attempt is resolved using ad hoc...

Yes, I find them annoyingly immersion breaking. I think it suggests that the core of the game must have as few metagame resources or mechanics as possible, if it is to unify gamers of different play styles. Even if such things are "relegated" to optional rules, the game can be designed to work...

I completely disagree and believe those conundrums very much belong to fantasy role-playing, but of course not all individual games. Unfounded prejudices are also a very common theme in the literature. Racial alignment tendencies are OK, but even "always evil" should mean something like 99%...

25 hp seems like a kludge. Maybe SoD if bloodied or something like that would work better. An alternative way would be to roll damage. If that's enough to kill the target, your get kill/petrify otherwise either no effect or a secondary effect, depending on spell. Example Medusa: If the target...

I'm not touching "most role-playing happens out of combat", as that's specific to a playing group. There are daily utility powers that extend out-of-character resource management outside combat. That's in addition to the rest/retreat decision that is usually made outside combat (in the...

It's not really a difference of creativity or even plausibility, but mostly play styles. One style is about staying inside the character's head (method acting) while the other is about narrating both actions and circumstances (storytelling). You can increase narrative control by adding things...

I don't think that solves anything. For one, "appropriate challenge" shouldn't be the same for all groups - some want more lethality than others - so it isn't as easy to define. Additionally, you still need math in 4e, only the starting point has changed. Pathfinder replaced the 3e encounter...

That's another way to put it, but I want both. :) I don't think e.g. a daily martial power really adds enough to the adventure/story to make it worth the compromise in representing physics poorly. Playability is a valid reason to compromise: you want the rules to remain simple. Getting this or...