Search results

You can't breathe while invisible. ;)

Non-magical characters don't usually have much to track, but I don't think it's a good idea since they have other ways to make it work. I don't know what you mean by straightforward, but 5e is supposed to scale slower. The penalty could be -4 or -1 or whatever works. It's all about averages...

I think CODzilla is a different issue than what Monte is talking about. Both were (possibly) a part of 3e, but they aren't necessarily tied to each other. What Monte seems to ask is whether high level play should change: death as final -> death as minor speed bump; travel and terrain as...

True, there's a jump in the variance. However, increasing damage increases variance even more. Suppose attacks are balanced to hit with a natural 8 or higher. Assume e.g. damage 1d8 without bonus (any will do). To get equivalent average damage with two attacks, you need to apply a -6 penalty...

Maybe because most nonmagical abilities don't have a level progression (in editions other than 4e). I'm fine with class restrictions in nonmagical abilities, but you should note that many spells aren't class restricted either, since they appear on the spell lists of multiple classes (again...

At 25/75% it's 3.8 so closer to 4. The average of those values is 4.5something. Are the typical readers of that article stats-nuts? :hmm:

I don't think they actually missed anything, but only used a simple measure. As Truename shows, if the original chance is 25-75% the number 4.5 is a good rule of thumb. There are obviously other differences, but the chance to make a typical DC is important.

I will buy it for the reasons it is superior to what I currently play. If it is. On backwards compatibility, I would like to be able to run an adventure for edition X in 5e easily and port a character from edition X to 5e accurately (less important). I don't need to be able to use anything as...

Think of random encounters like the audience in improv theater. The creativity isn't in the "random" content that you get from audience or encounter table, but in how you roll with it and tie it into the scene or plot that's going on.

The 4.5 probably comes from the fact that the probability to make DC 10 with 2d20dl is between the probabilities of making it with 1d20+4 and 1d20+5.

This is the same for both jumps and random encounters: I can roll 1) without the players noticing, 2) so they don't see the result, or 3) openly. I tend to use the second option for most rolls. (In combat I often roll attacks and damage openly to let the players get a better idea of how tough...

Is "tier" really any less rules speak? Either term could have been invented by The High Authority of Magic or an ancient spellcaster in the game world, if you want.

Not necessarily - or at least they don't need to be large. Take the Trailblazer approach where at level 6 you get two attacks at -2. That increases your typical damage by 50-70% depending on what you need to hit. Make it -4 and you are down to a 10-40% increase. Of course, 3/2 attacks from AD&D...

Suppose a monster is chasing the party, who blast a 10' pit (DC 15 to jump) in it's path. Is there no less DM fiat when I just decide whether the monster makes it across instead of rolling? After all, I've decided how good a jumper the monster is. Similarly, if there's a 10% chance to meet 1d4...

Do you also think there's no difference if I make all opponents auto hit and just reduce damage instead of giving them an X% chance to hit and normal damage?

Any use limited abilities that can be swapped to something else, yeah. It used to be in its own silo, which IMO makes sense if it's something inherent to the cleric's faith. I didn't like the "use turn attempt to X" feats in 3e either. Maybe it should even be an At-Will.

Opposed rolls have been part of the game since initiative was invented. ;)

PF turning is the best I've seen. However, it's annoying that you sacrifice healing, and that the "real" turning effect is often* worse than just channeling damage. *Ok, against weak undead mainly. But strong ones get rerolls to fleeing.

So they should be like feats, except only some classes get them? Meh, I think feat is a good mechanic. Just use a prerequisite (other feat, ability score, class level) that isn't needed if you get it directly from a class. The 3.5 ranger thing was pretty good, IMO. Stupid feats in edition X...

For these it would actually make a lot of sense: While in the defensive stance you have -4 to all attacks and +2 to AC. Not so sure about combat styles, since then it would one or the other and you couldn't e.g. fight defensively with two weapons. Unless you have yet another TWF defensive...