Search results

By the quick rules, yes; I'm just arguing that it's not broken to be able to use more than 1AP in an encounter and that in fact being able to use more than 1 an encounter is a good idea. However, the Dragon had 2 AP and could use them both. As such, I'm guessing the following 1) Some feats...

"It hasn't been D&D since they allowed evil clerics to cast cure spells" - Old Geezer, on RPG.net. Just goes to show, D&D is a personal definition. Like Art.

*Shrugs* Sounds good, yes. Too good? Maybe. But 5 APs means around 10 encounters without spending them. Compare with 'Daily' powers which on average do tripel the amount of damage normally done. If the entire party goes 'nova' on one encounter, then the target(s) take 11d8+4d10+25 and 1d8+5...

Really? I don't think this is true, and I'll show you why. Take two people, on same physical build and abilities and train them both for 10 years using similar training schemes in two different martial arts. Lets say Kick Boxing and JuJitsu. Who wins? What's the chances of someone accurately...

Dave Arneson said explicitly the reason he ran Fantasy games and not historical games was because it made designing and running the game easy and more fun because you didn't have to argue over if something was 'realistic' If it worked for him, it can work for us...

I think it may well work, for two reasons. 1) The DM controls the number of milestones, and so can (will) limit the number of AP's that could possibly gain before a 'climax'. With characters having up to 10-20 healing surges, you can easily guess how long a group can keep going. 2) Fights...

I play the 'Buffy' game regularly. Hoarding points and splashing them out works for us in that. It's a different dynamic but it works. It allows for a very cinematic style, but you have to assume that players will indeed do this. It rewards you for not stopping, so you do 8-10 (say) encounters...

I think Action Points will do more. At least one feat uses them. I don't think you are limited to using only one action point per encounter, instead that you can only use one per encounter to gain an extra action. I hope so, anyway. If not my first house rule could be to rename them "Momentum"...

If he's immobile, he's helpless. Ref = 0. As true in all editions of D&D as anything else.

Have you ever played Ars Magica?

In 3.x, however, a non-specialist can be assumed to have a roll of +0. It's a Variance of 20 pts that is the breaking point. So, we are agreeing.

Ok, it's my first real thread... I'm working on the assumption that one of the issues to be solved in 3.x was the fact that tasks where either Auto-Success for a specialist or an Auto-Fail for 'everybody else'. This is the reason that 1/2 Level is added to skill checks. Let's take an example -...

Tell that to (American) Football players http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_man_to_man_marking_in_football

I don't think there is a 'BAB' anymore - you don't add half your level twice. So, a level 1 rogue makes a Dex roll of +4 vs Ref. A level 10 rogue (with the same dex) makes a Dex roll of +9 vs Ref. An Attribute roll is; [Attribute Modifier]+[1/2 Level]+other bonuses vs Target Number (Attribute...

Streamlined is not the same as simple. Streamlined, without drag. Simple, without complexity. You can have one without the other. (Or, in fact, both)

Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armour. The Big 6

It promises to be simpler to Prep and Run as a DM. If they deliver, I'm there. I'll happily play 3.X D&D, but I won't run it again.

But the Paladin's Smite is 'Divinely Powered' which makes it a lot more palatable than the Knights 'non-magical' taunt mechanic.

Flail Snail? Fond, fond memories...

Paladin has been defined as using a Divine Power source, same as the Cleric. It always was going to be as 'Magical' as the cleric.