Search results

That's what the rules tell you to do, so it's slightly increasing. House rules can alter it in any direction.

Doesn't that lead to a very chaotic "implied setting"? If you limit it to only worlds that are at least somewhat compatible the content should be more coherent.

I'm still hoping for no (general) attack bonuses from feats and themes. :-S

+1, except you do find the round to round choices in at least 3e, buried under all kinds of (IMO boring) stuff. My fighters usually switch between the following both in and out of combat: 1-, 2-handed and ranged/thrown weapons; no, heavy and tower shield; tripping, high threat range and reach...

I don't think it's a bad idea, but why does it matter whether it's a theme or a feat? Both "modules" should IMO be as "optional".

I completely disagree. With flexible multi-classing and a few classes you can cover a huge number of archetypes. Lack of multi-classing just encourages needless class proliferation.

I don't like multiplying damage for margin, both because it encourages min-maxing (when there are no diminishing returns) and because of the extra math. However, something like your idea could work for critical hits (which are rare): DC Effect <0 Max damage 0 Double damage 5 Knock down 10 Push...

Are you saying that's a bad thing? :confused:

I prefer differences that start smaller and in many cases grow larger. The first level fighter is going to be better with a weapon than the cleric and definitely the wizard, but not all that much. By 10th the time the fighter has put into weapons has paid off and the difference is more...

After further though I think I might be inclined to *only* use +2 swords. That makes having a great magical weapon equal in effect to a circumstance bonus, like flanking.

Like Chris_Nightwing wrote, DC 10 to 15 for most of the challenges they are expected to be challenged by but overcome. I don't really like the idea of "level X challenge", though. A 1st level party will occasionally run into things that would be DC 20 or 25 or even more if they attempt them...

It's a nice idea. You can't do it for all monsters, but a general chart might be more boring... If the MM highlights some monsters as iconic, dedicating a bit more space to them (e.g. dragons, orcs), this is something that I could see for those that you are likely to see in numbers.

So, what, characters would only have a movement speed per second of minute and would move a different distance depending on how long this particular round is? Or how would you decide how far a character can move? Basically, it probably has 30ms or so "rounds" in the game engine and each action...

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how clerics and turning are so special. Some rangers might live underground or in cities and know nothing about moving in a forest. I could even imagine a druidic order that only cares about plants (though that's a bit of a stretch), or certainly one that considers...

Sure. That's one of the many reasons I like PF Archetypes and 3e UA class variants.

I don't think "campaign dependent" should be considered a reason not to include a class ability. That would mean no Wild Empathy, Track, Trackless Step, etc. Those are much more dependent on campaign for their use, IMO.

There are enough people who like it that my guess is 5e will have hit dice where you can take the average instead. Could be wrong, of course. Yes, that's how the OP defined it. But having variable con/hp ratio by itself doesn't help in any way. You could instead e.g. use HD+Con, but halve it...

The down sides include 1) I like rolling hp, 2) the effect of Con is not constant, and 3) multi-classing order matters.

Where I stop depends on how the game scales. :) +1 or +2 if up to 10th, +2 or maybe +3 if up to 20th. Not everyone would have such equipment, of course.

We use an additional house rule that if the modifiers are tied, the highest ability score wins.