Search results

For some reason they took the "what things should be optional" rather than the "what things should be core" poll. And then they didn't label it. Why? Well, hopefully it's a technical error, due to Cook being massively incompetent with technology, and he will apologise and (get someone competent...

The better job the book does, the less effort you have to put in. Roleplaying games can be entirely designed, top to bottom, by the group playing them. Balance isn't unique in being unnecessary. And yet people still buy books. Why? Because it's easier. Ignoring balance for the book is going...

My favourite system for this (that wouldn't work for D&D at all) is a system that had every skill be a die-type, from d4->d12. You roll that die, and all smaller die, and take the highest. So if you're on d12, you've only got a 1/6 chance of getting 11 or 12, but you're nigh-certain to get at...

Having a module which explicitly made classes have different power levels at different classes could be interested. But having classes weaker than others, over all levels, deliberately, without redeeming qualities (ie. story points) is just plain a bad idea.

Anyway, back to the Dice Tricks themselves: I don't like the idea of having more than one or two extra dice added to a d20 roll. One extra is fine, even if it's constant (as long as it's only for certain classes/builds, so that math-averse people can avoid it) but when you start getting three or...

I don't think that they couldn't write a description, but rather that they chose not to. The article was four paragraphs long, adding an extra paragraph of statistics explanation would be bad writing IMO. Game writing is not about going into detail explaining how everything works. In fact...

Then why were you claiming, in your previous posts, that they got the maths wrong? Remember this: You made a claim, it was wrong, own it.

Come out with them then? Number 1 is the naive method. It's the method someone who's never approached the problem before will use, and eventually realise is incorrect. Number 2 is the correct method. It's the method anyone who's actually thought through the problem thoroughly will use. I said...

Umm, no. No it's not. Look, there are two ways they could plausibly have calculated it: 1) Take the average value. This is clearly the wrong way to do it. The answer they got disagrees with the answer from this method. 2) Look at the chance to achieve a standard challenge. This is clearly...

Only if, you, yourself, automatically assume they're using the wrong math. They got the right answer. Which pretty much shows they used the right math*. They just didn't feel the need to explain statistics to everyone reading *the other possibility being the highly implausible "They used the...

Umm, no. The logical conclusion isn't: "Their simple math was wrong, and they were doing the wrong math anyway, which just happened to result in them getting the right answer by coincidence" It's: "They were doing the right math, not the simple math at all, and got the right answer"

Unless you think of it differently: Sure, a sorcerer, or god, can create a forceful hand. Bigby, having a bit of a... thing... for giant, crushing, hands decided to try and work out how to do that through spellcraft, rather than innate/godly magic. So, a sorceror isn't using Bigby's spell...

Damn you mr. Requirement to Spread XP around man... :p IOW: Good idea.

Confirming crits=annoying. Now, if nat 20=crit, and you then roll to see if it's a minor or a major critical, could be an interesting mechanic, but nat 20 needs to be "Cool I crit!" not "Cool I... Oh, wait, confirmation roll... oh, a 5, well I guess I just hit then :-("

There have to be rules that support organised play. Rules like Retraining don't get in the way even in home games, they provide a nice default-limit, which can still be broken as desired. But the rules that support organised play can be, to some extent, modules. Because organised play is going...

And lizards can be dominated. 3.x is beloved by people who want a "realistic" D&D, but it doesn't even manage to be self-consistent.

Charm Monster wouldn't do anything significant for either of them. They treat you like their best friend. Well, a zombie would eat it's best friend, so yeah... But that doesn't mean they should be immune to ALL mind-affecting spells. Dominate, for example, doesn't require them to understand...

If A and B are of the same size in both cases, opposed rolls are FAR more swingy. Adding additional randomness cannot decrease swinginess, only increase it. Otherwise (A+5d20) vs. (B+5d20) would be even less swingy...

I think having penalties for small size makes sense as long as they're balanced by appropriate benefits.

If you can name some truly mindless creatures, I might be persuaded. Zombies? They want to eat people. They have a mind. Golems? They will obey any order as best they understand it. They have a mind. In order for something to behave like a creature while being mindless, it needs to be a...