Search results

I don't think anyone expects that.

Depends. Less so than AC formula derived by Armor worn and level. No problem with that. It is a special ability like barbarian or monk unarmed defense. An ability most monster don't have. And if you see someone in armor, you still know what to expect.

Not my example. If so, spell it out. And describe it. I don't like completely dissociated mechanics.

Yes. Of course. If you descrobe the hammer woth one spike on one side thatvis possible. But not my example.

Yeah. The bar for what is D&D and what not is not so high. 4e has suffered from that. 4e essentials might have been better received if it came before 4e. I think it is actually worth a try. It is not hard to convert. I guess if you are not proficient in armor, you don't get proficiency bonus...

You told me that equipment and AC don't have to correlate so why should daage type?

I hate that. Sorry. It was a bad exoetience in 4e for us.

A simple idea could be just having AC = 8 + prof bonus +dex. Same restrictions for light and heavy armor as usual. For medium armor, add only half dex bonus rounded down (instead of max +2). Then use AC from Armor as DR. Shields add to defense score. So at level 1 and dex 14 is: leather...

I would be more happy if monster HP were lower and PC damage was lower. Some players are raising their eyebrows when 40 damage won't kill an enemy wizard at level 3 or so. If it uses AC as DR and a defense score determined by level and dex, I agree.

Really. Does not matter. Does not help for narration. If you want that, better use AC as damage reduction and have a defense score. For attacks it already works that way: skill = attack bonus. Weapon and stats tells us which damage die and a base modifier. So those things are seperate in...

Happy for you.

An that was really bad. It made the game/narration unreliable.

Of course you can change it. That is the point. Someone said, it does not matter how we get to AC. Because it is a made up number and noonce cares. That is not my experience: players do care if numbers and descrived visual are matching. Hammer: bludgeoning damage expected. High AC: some...

No just the normal blunt on both sides one. It is not about making things up. It is about reliability. If something has AC 18, something should give that away. I think noone questions AC 13 for a Kuo toa or a dragon with AC 22, but if a random bandid has AC 18 without wearin heavy armor...

Yes. That is not the point. Imagine a monster that attacks with a hammer. And then you say it deals piercing damage.

I hate that. I hated that in 4e. It removes sense from the game. How should players gauge the difficulty if youbjust make it up?

Maybe hobgoblins and bugbears will see more use in my games.

One problem I see is the question of how they handle orcs. In many adventures and games orcs and goblins serve similar roles. Maybe they could have worked as giant kins. I think in 4e orcish was a dialect of the giant language. Maybe this way, powerful built could have been justified.

For low level PCs that might work, although the muscles and weaponry might create doubts. For level 20 PCs which are probably known to everyone on the plane, not so much.

It was not meant seriously. But I actually do play with kids in my School D&D club. Also agreed. It was just a joke.