Search results

Yes, I clarified in a later post that I assumed 4 PCs and 1-2 (types of) monsters. While large parties should certainly be supported, I believe 4-5 PCs is a good benchmark to approximate typical groups.

The only baby I'm interested in salvaging is approximate balance between caster and non-caster classes. Anything else that 4e changed with the power system wasn't significantly better than in earlier editions, or was worse, IMO. However, I understand that many people want codified "interesting"...

I like cursed items that you can still find uses for, or great items with some drawbacks. From 3e at least ring of clumsiness and armor of arrow attraction. From AD&D ring of truth and rod of terror. Uniformly good items I like include immovable rod, cloak of elvenkind (AD&D), ring of...

You don't have to change monster math, exactly: just changing the encounter should be enough. In an encounter with multiple lower level creatures the PCs will on average have a higher hit chance than in an encounter with only one higher level creature. Both encounters can have the same overall...

You don't know that it will be 1 hp vs. +1 attack in 5e. You don't even really know which would be more valuable. My whole point was that *if* there are multiple abilities the class is equally dependent on, *and* each increase to any of them gives you as large a benefit, you will see characters...

Mathematical rigor? There's nothing unrigorous about progression. I would call it constant degree of swinginess. :) Anyway, like so many other play style differences (e.g. lethality), this is most easily adjusted by the DM through monsters. The DMG should probably give the tools for it, but I'm...

Ok, 18s is very fast, but I would take four players and two monsters as a baseline for my group. That's half a minute per turn, which is perfectly doable. If there are more than 1-2 monsters, some of them are likely identical and I can roll their dice at the same time, so they add less time. I...

Halve that and you are closer to what I'd like to see. And that's for the first round. Optimally combat should accelerate as characters die and options grow fewer, so that once the outcome is no longer in doubt we don't have to waste time on it. As is, it mostly slows down as the number of...

Not so much fix it to my preferences as use all the available sources. A book I can use as is with all the ones on my bookshelf is much more valuable than one that I have to either use by itself or tweak heavily into working with the others. Probably, yeah. I'm currently sort of considering...

Sure, but gods that are simply unlisted will still bring with them a number of connections, if you want to actually use all the fluff there is about them. Ugh, please no. A canonical timeline in flux would just make it even more difficult to use multiple sources if you want consistency...

Yes it does. If a fighter with Str 16 and Con 14 and a fighter with Str 14 and Con 16 are mechanically as powerful, you are going to see both options played. The one with Str 14 might choose to increase it later through leveling or an item, but he might just choose to max his Con. No sameness...

Because things have changed. If I want to use things I remember from past editions but conflict with the current fluff, I will have to work them into the current timeline and deal with any repercussions. For example, any gods that don't exist in the 4e Realms would bring with them a large number...

I use the MM *because* I don't want to invent what my monsters can do myself. If the MM monsters get too boring without tweaking, there may be something wrong with it.

I'm of course not opposed to printing them somewhere (where I don't have to touch them;-), but I think deity stats would have been a better fit for a book focused on epic levels. All the other crunch in F&P (prestige classes, encounters in sample temples) was for mid- to high-level non-epic...

I agree: that there are tens of products with loads of fluff available does nothing to limit DMs, unless they let it. I'm not a stickler to canon, quite the opposite. Instead, the problem I have is that their changes were in many cases incompatible with the fluff I've learned and read about as...

Yes, but if you do base it on a spell you can ignore rare issues in the monster entry and still have the rules explain them in the spell entry. If the monster ability uses the teleport spell you know it's an extradimensional ability that is barred by dimensional anchor and only works within one...

I thought D&D Clerics were originally based on Knights Templar and Hospitaller, while Paladins were based on Charlemagne and some other sources.

But the same is true for non-standard monster abilities. Make it too complex and you will need a lot of space to explain it. For the spells you mention, most monsters might only have one and that in a limited manner. For example, teleport (to lair only, no failure chance; PHB XXX), or polymorph...

Oh, come on. Even if blinded makes you only 50% as effective as otherwise, that is an exaggeration. It's not like there aren't situations where you completely lose your actions for an encounter - like dying or not being a part of it to start with. "Everyone should have something to do each...

I absolutely believe conditions, spell-like abilities etc. should be explained in the monster entry. That is one thing 4e improved a lot, but didn't perfect. However, that doesn't mean there shouldn't also be a list of conditions that are used consistently and a list of spells that most...