Search results

Assuming they don't have any bonus due to Strength (or equipment if a bow/crossbow). It sounds like a lot as a flat percentage. In the context of the game I think it matters much less. A hard encounter for a single 5th level character is 750 XP, an owlbear is 700, or CR 3. Assuming the average...

I think I follow what you're saying. But in D&D somebody more accomplished in safe-cracking is more likely to be better prepared to avoid the consequences of failure. They kind of go hand-in-hand. It's not a problem in our campaign since we don't use the old D&D falling damage approach. Falls...

Oh yeah, our homebrew version is tailored specifically to our version of the Forgotten Realms/preferred playstyle. Pretty much every change is tied to the impact in the game world and to help us model any scene that we like in book, movie, etc. What we're not interested in is cool mechanics or...

No, because that's pretty much been the rule for the last 30+ years of my campaign. DEX for damage was new for 5e (maybe 4e, don't have it handy, didn't play it much). It was an unnecessary change in my mind. Having said that, you're only talking about a couple of points of damage for each hit...

But that's where the sharpshooter feat comes in. It gives you an opportunity to do more damage. I also wouldn't have an issue adding reroll 1s and 2s for damage (once). In other words, most people don't get the extra damage options, etc., that's part of better training (that is, a feat).

I just stick with damage bonus is Strength only. Melee or thrown weapons. No need to introduce an arbitrary distance to gain it. Bows can have a damage bonus due to construction with a minimum STR required to use. Light crossbows have no damage bonus, heavy crossbows do, but take an action to load.

No, they don’t have to understand hit points and level. They need the understand who might target them, and with what amount of skill. If you’re somebody like a mobster that might have to deal with swat teams and the FBI (not to mention other monsters) then you plan accordingly. In game terms...

I like the click rule when it makes sense. That is, if the players are being cautious and have time to react. Otherwise, their moment is a "damn, I set off a trap" moment.

I disagree. Most traps will be designed to deal with the 80%. That is, 80% of the populace has 10 hp or less, for example. So traps that deal 15-20 hit points are probably fairly common as you don't need more. Again, it's all dependent upon who created it and why. It costs coin to design and...

I don't entirely agree with any of this. I'm not designing the dungeon as a "game" and traps are one of the areas where that really shows up. Traps are placed by intelligent creatures in intelligent locations. They are created for a certain purpose, and usually that purpose is related to...

I'll answer with a question. If you and your buddies were playing paintball in the woods, and they were hiding behind trees that provided 3/4 cover, would you be confident that you'd see them all before somebody shot you? To my mind, yes, 3/4 cover is more than enough depending on the...

My campaigns are a mix of political, criminal, and good old dungeon crawls. Really I throw a bit of everything out there and let the players decide where things go. My campaigns tend to be low-leveled as well, but that always works out fine. Having less healing means they address combat and such...

I didn't dig into that, so that's interesting. Obviously they hadn't finalized things when the FRCS went to press. Personally, it doesn't make any difference to me. And wow, you're right. I had totally forgotten that 3e switched to the straight character level instead of leveling classes...

That makes sense. I can see certain circumstances where blocking the physical damage won't block the other damage. But a shield blocking a flaming sword wouldn't be one of them for me. As for the math, I think that's the goal of the approach of how that clarification is written, yes. On the...

A clarification would be that the act of popping out doesn't automatically reveal you. Which makes perfect sense. If I'm looking the other way when you pop out, then I won't see you. But if I'm looking right at where you'll pop out, then the circumstances are different. It's the "you can't hide...

No, and don't really have an interest. The main reason is that I want the rules/mechanics to enter the game as little as possible. That is, I want the majority of time at the table to be the players, through their characters, doing something, instead of engaging the rules directly. Being an old...

No, they didn't ignore it. They used official rules that had yet to hit the shelves, and states as much in the book itself. That's a publication timing thing. It was (became) legal with the FRCS because that was the first book utilizing the new rules. That's quite different than having to make...

I don’t think they have to be statted out in the same way as a character, but I like the rules to work consistently across the game world. So if the NPC is a 7th level rogue, I expect it to have the same class features. The opposite is true in my campaign as well. If there’s an ability...

So within the rules, combined with Sage Advice and errata, you won't find an answer that says, "this is how it always works." And I think that's intentional. In part because I think it also has a lot to do with the group and playstyle. So let me ask a few questions to start: Have you seen the...

I don't mind the players being more optimal, and I'd expect that actually, since the players will spend much more time working on their PCs. The archetype is most likely to be an average person of that type, perhaps with important NPCs more optimized. But they could have taken the recommended...