Search results

Yeah, another way the definition of level has changed is due to XP from treasure -> XP from overcoming challenges. Now you can receive half the kingdom as a reward and it won't change your level. I don't think they should attempt to redefine level to mean more than the power of the character's...

Sure.

The whole concept of a "quest" is rather artificial, but player initiative isn't particular to either style. I don't think the CAW/CAS distinction actually works very well for NPC actions, which is what the quote originally referred to, but player-initiative quests are usually more about goals...

Neither style inherently emphasizes winning. In fact I feel "survival" sometimes takes the front seat in CAW - escaping or bypassing the encounter is just as good as winning it, whereas in CAS it is usually assumed that the encounter will be won or lost. In any case, we will also have to agree...

Interesting post again! Re: The Sliding Scale of Meaning vs. Balance I agree that there is a trade-off between the consequences of an encounter and it's destabilizing effects on the ones that follow. Traditionally you could theoretically use up almost all of your resources in one encounter...

Me too. That's only going too far if they all die. ;)

This doesn't make much sense to me. A first level cleric getting a quest from her god is fine, no need to wait for epic levels. She can even save the world if she's in the right place at the right time. This, OTOH, makes perfect sense. Epic quests require superpowers. It's the character power...

Optional, unless that means they can't list morale in monster entries. In that case I'd like to see it core.

If they were given out as quests by NPCs, I agree. However, if they were player invented "solutions" to problems they encountered, they are typical of CAW play.

I wouldn't tie tiers to the kind of adventures the PCs will engage in. A 1st level character can be a king or other ruler - the level is only about personal skill and power. Instead I would base tier definitions on PC power like this: 1-10: Characters are still (demi-)human. They "cheat"...

That's a problem with lethality in general, not SoD specifically. This is why I think 5e should have a 4e like method to generate NPCs that was compatible with PC generation. Whip up a new PC in 5 minutes using the NPC creation guidelines. When you have time, build it to your liking using the...

I think many save-or-die effects don't really need to be strictly SoD. For examples of how save-or-die -type spells can work within the HP system, look at 3e versions of disintegrate and power word kill. If SoD effects are built this way, you only need to add an optional rule of "any effect...

My definition of exploration: Interacting with the setting of the game world and finding out what makes it tick. I'm more confused about what they mean by the role-playing "pillar", since to me "role-playing" is the whole game.

My preference: one target - wizard rolls attack; multiple targets - wizard rolls effect, targets roll save. Basically attack rolls for ray and touch spells, saves for area spells. It's fine if some powerful spells include both an attack and a save against some part of the effect. Disintegrate...

I'm sure there are players who play like that and players who don't. However, I don't see why that would mean player-invented, DM-arbitrated tactics would be any worse than character build derived. Is spamming a tactic involving equipment and environment somehow worse than spamming your highest...

What you list below aren't the goals of the game's design, but those of individual campaigns. The game isn't poorly designed just because it doesn't achieve the goals of every group of RPG players out there.

I don't quite understand the question... Whether a particular PC of mine values individuality or teamwork depends of course on that character. Whether I create an individualistic or teamworking character depends on the campaign.

I think it is fine that by default fighter is simple and wizard complex. Give options to make the fighter complex and advanced players should be happy. I agree that having the wizard also be simple by default would be a bad idea. There are other classes that use simple casting mechanics.

I chose two edition preferences, because it depends on the campaign. Both with CAW, but different in other ways.

Flanking? The [ CODE ][ /CODE ] tags help.