Search results

Damn good question! In some cases, you could fluff it as the wielder being just that good (e.g., the vorpal effect). In others, it's because the wielder's broad experience with magic weapons has clued him into a few tricks ("Look - an icesword is just a firesword turned in on itself, right...

Because a random encounter is one which is not, generally speaking, moving the story forward because it exists only to drain resources. And if you're including enough random encounters so that your player have to seriously plan for them, then ...

AEDU changes the equation from: PreNova: 100% power PostNova: 20% power ... to ...: PreNova: 100% power PostNova: 80% power ... and therefore, theoretically, disincentivizes giving up after a few short encounters. As in, AEDU isn't primarily supposed to stop nova-ing. It's supposed to stop...

Part of "more accurate" is that I can roleplay a character who is far more suave and convincing than I am in real life. This, generally, requires replacing my own ability with my character's in some fashion.

Because you don't split the party. Because there's a good chance that the party belives that they need the Vancian casters' resources to continue on: Because in a "lots of random encounters" set-up, you probably need to keep your reserves high-enough to withstand a couple additional encounters...

Magic Missile currently works that way in the playtest, however.

Because enough people had significant problems with "Your fighter can, [X] per [day, combat, etc.], do something martially flashy" that I believe that "Your fighter can, [X] per [day, combat, etc.], create or change a magic weapon" will face significant resistance.

I think this is an interesting approach (it's mirrored somewhat in the Magus class in Pathfinder, who can temporarily add magic abilities to a particular weapon several times per day), and that it could work really well: at 15th-level, your fighter character can treat every magic weapon as if it...

No, it's not solved, because the Vancian caster is still driving everyone to a [small number of] encounter[s] per day and then forcing a rest so that he can survive the expected wandering monsters. The problem you're trying to solve is "Vancian caster resource expenditure forcing a 15-minute...

So the Vancian caster novas a little bit less, holding back enough to fight off a wandering monster encounter, and then rests. Then you add more wandering monsters, so the Vancian caster decides to hold back enough to handle two wandering monster encounters, and rests a little earlier. Etc...

Yep - and I would had to see it go back to where there was no longer enough mechanical differentiation between characters of the same class.

Oh, gosh, no - do not, under any circumstances, break up the flow of the statblock with prose.

I don't think "pulling stuff out of your behind" is insulting. I do it all the time as a DM.

I was not around for it, but I understand from other posters that the 1E / 2E split was pretty ... contentious. Do you have the sales figures from that time to back up your factual statement?

It's basically the only version of D&D that doesn't require a cleric - who is, you will note, notoriously absent from the Fellowship. :D But you made the point poorly, is what people are objecting to. Because it would be trivially easy to rewrite your example, using 4E mechanics, to match...

I am not against some sort of mechanical framework for spells and wizards doing cool stuff (sorry if I wasn't clear) as long as it plays nice with the theater of the mind. What I do have a problem with is when the spell system becomes the entire game. The basic magic system should be robust...

That says to me that all challenge numbers (however they are expressed) are tuned higher - if the designers were being "honest," then they would say that an ogre is a viable challenge for 4th-level characters, but because it's a forgiving system, they actually list it as 6th-level. Otherwise...

Because, while playing such a character, I want my decision tree in combat to be deeper than: Who should I try to hit? As far as your refluffing goes, I can do that with or without 4E-style AEDU abilities (cute "z" change in "powers," BTW), so I do not see that as a strength of combat in which...

You're missing the point. Criticism in the form of, "I don't like the following rules in [Edition], and here's why ..." is perfectly fine. It's awesome, because it provides a place for discussion, for figuring out what works and what doesn't. Criticism in the form of, "[Edition] is just...

Agreed - but I'd add "or designed to highlight things I don't really care for" to your "poorly designed." Of course Bedrockgames intentions were what you thought they were. I thought he was saying the same thing, as well! It's been perfectly clear all along what BRG was saying. I'm saying...