Search results

House ruler. Although I have not tinkered at all with 4E rules, my group's current game. Just home-brewed monsters, races etc. I used to run my own-designed games exclusively (starting with writing new RPG systems in pen in exercise books when I was at school) Nowadays I play D&D because it...

In 3.5, those PCs were only obscene (well, to me) due to the loading of saves and some of the class features onto the first level. And this was in part due to the multi-class rules in 3E. Saves were a particular problem. Reverse problem was that mixing caster levels (even with other casters, or...

For animals and unintelligent beasts, IIRC, Wisdom is used to stand in for instinct/cunning, and many have a high value. It's crude, but works for a few skills/rolls that animal intelligences should do well at. Mental stats and skills for beasts are often a (minor) problem in the game, since...

A while ago, I had an interesting discussion with a friend who wanted to homebrew a spell that "gave you a feat". Not a specific feat, but a feat slot, where the caster could decide which feat was gained. In terms of power, it wasn't major - in D&D Next I could see this as maybe a 2nd-level...

I think we're getting into over-thinking. I sprint 100 metres, I need a short rest. Any set of powers that you can imagine drains fatigue quickly (or any equivalent resource), but that the person doing it should recover quickly, can be justified as as needing a short rest. There is a gamist...

It's not really the mechanics of tracking that's the problem. It's having to worry about the resource management as a game thing - when to roll out or reserve the big plays. And this is worse "feel" (for want of a better word) for my group, in part because they have to judge that over several...

I've found I get a bad taste in my mouth, when anything requires me as DM to "sit in judgement" of player behaviour. I have set up various xp systems - some objective (adventure goals), some subjective (in White Wolf style, for player actions that cause drama, interest or comedy). But nowadays...

Not my experience. Often, play styles with these kinds of difference emerge dynamically in groups. It's all down to personal preferences, whether players are cautious types trying to maximise advantages, whether DM wants to set a particular kind of challenge etc. I play 4E a lot, and simply...

It may do . . . AC "lockout" was a good strategy for low-level D&D 3E, and often so good for 2E that it did in fact spoil the game (because it became the only worthwhile and best strategy in games where it could happen).

Limiting the number of classes whilst at the same time increasing the available combinations of themes will give you the same, maybe more, choices on what to play. For instance, in 4E there were classes which were basically "Wizard", but with the choices of abilities chosen to fit into 4E's...

Another thought: If done well, the backgrounds and themes ought to reduce the number of classes, and re-claim sensible class names for all core classes. I lost track in 4E, there are far too many classes and class variants, just so we could have "A Holy Character Who Does Not Worship A Specific...

Mechanically, they are all just conveniently sized building blocks. I would guess the designers believe making 4 character choices at start up is a good balance point between too-simple-to-be-interesting and too-complex-to-pick-up. It will still take a good deal longer to pick equipment and...

I think the armchair game-design debates are interesting. I really don't think that the WotC 5E team are taking notes and trying to incorporate the ideas in the forum into D&D 5E core. If nothing else, they are well aware of their options for adding and removing game elements, and what it means...

Ah, what you need is more rules, to empower the player. How about: "You are born, you may choose a destiny from one of the four choices here, and the DM is expected to narrate it to entertain you. Look out for expansion books which give you more designer-prescribed choices."

Wikipedia, as usual, has some good references: Mana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Magic point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's OK. I think any method that gives players a fair shot of building a character they can believe in is OK. However, IMO the most elegant solution to the differences of opinion floating around is to stick with the core rules, plus "live and let live" on the many interpretations of what damage...

Sometimes things crop up in discussions that make you realise that you've been playing a different game, and live on a different planet, to other roleplayers. "Sleep is hard coded" would be one of those things . . . I'm really not even sure what that means, since "once every 24 hours" says...

IMO you don't need have to do that balancing because of encounter powers. It is other aspects 4E that cause the "must separate and balance" effect: e.g. (not exhaustive): 1) Time spent at the table and rules focus on the combat game. Encourages combats as "set pieces" which are fun to play in...

I expect that: 1) AC bonuses for light/heavy will vary from the playtest original values. 2) We will see differences between light and heavy armour appear in themes and backgrounds, with text like "Whilst you are wearing heavy armour, then [benefit]". Light armoured character will get benefits...

Over-complex for me. But some kind of "feat tree" for spells, where the caster must know the lower-powered version of something, before they can learn a powerful version, would do a lot for me accepting D&D's spell system (have *never* liked the arbitrary feel of it, which did make it a lot...