Search results

Either we change HP scaling completely, making it much much slower, and increase defense scaling to compensate. OR We have a world where a fighter with 27 arrows in him is able to carry on fighting just fine.

Marking doesn't justify something that isn't true. It MAKES IT TRUE. By your logic, sneak attack damage is a way to justify the false idea that a rogue kills people faster than a cleric. Because it's only true with sneak-attack, and so it's false, so sneak attack is justifying a falsehood...

No. Marking is a way to show that the fighter is a bigger threat, if you ignore him, than anyone else. If you GM a game of 4e, and have all your monsters ignore the fighter, the fighter will dish out FAR more damage than a striker would. The mark is a way of distinguishing between "Continually...

On the flip side: Most 4e players have played a game where fighters did not have defender powers, and consider 4e superior to that game. Many 3e players have never given 4e an honest try, due to game loyalty. Trying to argue that 5th should leave 4e players in the cold because they may have...

There's never been an edition where it was impossible. EW apparently favours games where the only way to save your allies is to kill the enemies faster, so EW favours a VERSION of D&D where it's impossible. There are far more versions of D&D than there are editions, due to the variability of...

So playing a tough character is, well, pointless. Because if you're tougher than your ally, the monsters have no reason to go for you. I'm sorry, but just because your favourite version of D&D made it impossible to play a guy who guarded his friends, doesn't mean it SHOULD be impossible. It's...

And for those of us who WANT to be able to defend our allies? Oh, hey, look-at-that, you pretend like we don't exist. In D20 Modern, I played a bodyguard. I like standing in the way and stopping the wizard getting knocked down. And if the wizard can take care of himself, if he can soak all...

So A system used in battle whereby a group of warriors try to prevent their enemies attacking their allies by getting in the way, and threatening them. Has nothing whatsoever to do with: A system used in battle whereby a particular warrior tries to prevent their enemies attacking their allies...

Oh, yeah, as a side-note, this is also wrong. Giving one race a +2 bonus, and another race a -2 penalty, means that there's a 4 point difference. If you only give the +2 bonuses, the max difference is 2 points. Which is significant. Now, there's no difference between having only bonuses and...

Someone who wants to be attacked walks into a bar, goads people to attack them. Goes "Hit me or I will kill you" He is being self-destructive. A fighter walks into a bar, notices some people being menacing and goes "If you attack my friends I will kill you" He is being defensive. Significant...

Yep. And that's your error. You see, you can look through every fighter ability ever printed, and you won't find a single one that encourages an enemy to attack him. There are lots of abilities that discourage attacking his allies. Which is something many historical warriors have done, and...

I think we need two PHBs. A short one, maybe 100 pages, with only the basic core (four races, four classes, basic rules, just enough spells to play with etc.) and a long one, with all the PHB1 classes from all editions, all the PHB1 races from all editions, a good set of spells, etc.

I think the error was in giving fighters FEATS rather than Martial Techniques Because the fighter got feats, the feats had to be balanced for general consumption, not just for the fighter. They were balanced against other feats. Meanwhile, spells could have been done as feats, but were instead...

I don't see D&D going point-buy, so I don't think a price-break is the right way to go about it. Instead, I think it'd be better as an "option set bonus": like the Item Set Bonuses from 4e. Otherwise, great post. Just nitpicking.

10 races=20 pages. Given how much space is devoted to less important things in previous editions (150 pages for spells for example, or the inclusion of epic powers in 4e PHB1, when epic wasn't going to be properly supported... well, until PHB2 if we're charitable) I figure we can afford 20...

No, the two are really completely unrelated. Balancing the mechanics, and then fluffifying them as much as you want is entirely possible. Balance and simplified wording are two seperate design decisions from 4e. Personally I'm a fan of both of them, but that doesn't chance the fact that...

I mean, a magic-user was always the best choose whatever area you wanted to be good at. And unlike a non-magical specialist, they could change specialisation on a daily basis (well, for most things). Not always a wizard mind, but one of the magic-using classes was always your best option...

Balance can be achieved both inside and outside of combat, or even through sacrifice of combat ability for out-of-combat ability. 4e took it to an extreme trying to balance as much as possible. But when you look at 3.x, it's obvious why. 3.x was imbalanced in every arena. If you weren't a...

I did a thread to try and find the most iconic D&D spells The basic list, from that thread, is: Fireball Magic Missile Sleep Lightning Bolt Dispel Magic Teleport Wish Charm Person Polymorph Summon Monster Invisibility Wall of X Bigby's Hands Continual Light Flight With some others being...

I can agree with that, however I find that it pays to be clear that you're not saying "balance needs to come from the group" but rather "balance needs to be available, if imperfect, in the game, and then easily polished up by the group to fit their needs" Because "balance needs to come from the...