Search results

Took me forever to understand what skill dice are :P Anyone else thinks that there isn't a good reason cure x wounds is a family of spells instead of one spell that gets better if you cast it at higher level? I understand that it helps designing one of cleric's domains, but that's a weak reason...

I like that idea that some classes have worse dice but more of them. OTOH something like that never happened to casters in previous editions. There has never been a class that had less spell levels than wizard but more slots, and I wonder why. Anyway, rogue with lower and more dice sounds like...

Just curious - has any of the D&D mechanics in this version changed? Any changes to task resolution, skills, abilities, spells, statistics etc? What I found myself is this: - the level cap for the game will be raised - all improvements from Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn and its expansion...

Yeah, the list is there just as an example of how this rule might look in the book. Not that much thought was put to accurately pair weapons and maneuvers (both from the standpoint of realism and balance).

Download the playtest packet, they are very simple.

I'm ok if they change, but the values must be reigned in. Level 1: 1d4 Level 2: 1d6 Level 3: 1d6 Level 4: 1d4+1d6 Level 5: 1d6+1d6 Level 6: 2d6 Level 7: 2d6 Level 8: 1d6+2d4 Level 9: 2d6+1d4 Level 10: 3d6

I've been thinking about how to make weapons in DNDN more interesting to players, and also more diverse. It's about making weapons better with certain maneuvers so they play differently if a player chooses so. It also makes weapons more distinct from eachother. In a hand of a skilled warrior...

So what you are proposing is that rogues and monks still have maneuvers but under a different name?

No it doesn't. It's an useful construct for games, but from realism standpoint it's quite idiotic. However, even if it made sense, items having durability value also makes a lot of sense then. And the idea of "spending" that durability to prevent losing one's own health isn't that far fetched.

There's already system in place for that. You pay more to buy better armor as you gain levels. With armor HP, you wouldn't stop buying better armor after plate, because you can have armor better than plate while still providing same AC as plate. The hit-vs-AC portion of the equation isn't...

No weirder than giving living creatures some artifical HP value.

Can't xp you so I'll quote you instead. +1, I've been proposing this for months now.

Yes, they will call it multiclassing.

Agreed. Keep it dead simple and solely in the power of a player, and it will work. Basicaly emergency extra HP with no added complexity.

I would like that but as an optional rule. By optional I don't mean that DM has to decide whether to use armor hp in his games or not. By optional I mean that a player can choose to use it on round to round basis or not. Armor would have HP, and whenever you take damage from an attack that has...

I would keep them as important, just not in combat. I'd love if ability checks and saves were just ability score + d20 roll. Make modifiers lower and use them only for important stuff, and for everything else just use full ability +d20 checks.

I would go for something like 10-12: +0, 13-15: +1, 16-19: +2, 20-22: +3. That means that starting characters can hope for +2 at best (and it's easy to get). +3 is reserved for higher levels and is at the high end of the spectrum. Same, of course, should apply to Dex bonus to AC.

Wow, someone still remembers those :cool: Agreed. One trick ponies might look ok on paper, but they are no fun to play after a few sessions. (unless you're mostly into role playing and not into tactical combat/system mastery). TO be honest...I don't know. I love subclasses/class ability...

Is the reverse also true? By that I mean: All subclasses that are broad enough to be split further should be classes instead.

Lol, that not at all what they said. They talked about a magic user category of classes, not an actual class.