Search results

The 50% point in 3E I thought was elegant and reasonable. The 20% in 4E stretches my credibility too much.

I've presented the following position a few times. I lead a punk band in NYC and I've had to get good practice at firing people over the last few years. When I started out, I thought that as people started to flake out a good talk would fix things. It never did; it was always a waste of time...

I've actually never seen a wand of CLW in-game (having played every week for 5+ years, as I said before; and RPGA tournaments at Gen Con '04). Available, sure. Desirable, sure. Just never reached the point of spending a feat or seeking out a craftsman just for that. I've got a cleric with a mess...

You know, honestly, I played in a 3E game for 5+ years, every week. I played the cleric. And we never had a wand of CLW. Here's the reason: No cleric took the Craft Wands feat. We weren't allowed to buy arbitrary magic items -- we had to find a specific NPC with the right feats to craft it. We...

Give him one warning. Boot him the next time he breaks it.

My priority is that magic powers vs. mundane powers should use separate systems. There should be few key classes, and their mechanics should be very different. At the same time, there should be only one system each for those different kinds of things. So for me: 4E fails because everyone just...

If it happened to me, then yes, my experience of that would be like some sort of magical mind-control. Because my character is not to run up to fight people, especially people I don't who are doing advanced karate in a bar. And I can't get away from intepreting it that way for the NPC's in that...

Looking at Celebrim above and the last couple posts, I'd say in some sense they are. The main thing in 1E is that you could not both move and attack in the same round. (Exceptions: Within 10 feet, and on a charge.) That seems pretty elegant: 1 major action per round, period. I sometimes have...

Frank's right, I remember that in the FAQ (#1). Personally when I read the book myself I interpreted it as #2. Honestly, Skip Williams had a habit of ruling that spell-like effects follow exactly the same duration/activation/spell casting limitations, even when that really didn't make sense...

Quibble: A bunch of different polls have been consistent in coming up with about 40% disliking 4E.

What I do with the 5-ft step (in my Diminutive d20 rules) is simply not allow anyone to step out of a threatened space (or specifically, step away from adjacency to an opponent). I say you've got to use a Withdraw action for that.

Do hit points represent the same thing in 4E as prior editions? Based on your answer, do you think that's good or bad?

Well, admittedly Skip Williams wrote an article detailing the ranges that every monster type/size should fit into. And if you look at his specification for Dragon sizes (already inflated compared to other types) -- all the Dragons break those rules. So something's definitely amiss.

1E rules weren't optional. Hitting zero hp in 1E made you unconscious and dying, that was core rules. What was optional was possibly extending the "start unconscious" range down to maybe -3.

I'm still waiting for you to address the issue I asked of you here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/242512-challenge-players-not-characters-stats-5.html#post4501236 As you know, until that time, I don't play 20 questions with you anymore.

And utterly convincing that 4E is not a game I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole. I literally flinched when I read that. Edit: And let me expand on that. This very much reminds me of 2E sensibilities, for example: constructing magic items. They took a fairly concrete system in the prior...

You're confused. I haven't called anything moral one way or the other in this thread. It's the OGL itself (and its author/ owner).

It's not me. It's the OGL itself (and its author/ owner).

And yet, that's actually the reason for the OGL, as WOTC itself saw it, when it was introduced, by the author of the OGL. The quote is from the OGL FAQ on the official WOTC website: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d So it's not really the "sense of entitlement I see...

Well put. Personally, I think that's the single biggest difference between old-school and modern play. Games that demand I write a lengthy backstory before sitting down to play make me want to tear my hair out.