Search results

I never said Knock was a cantrip anywhere in my post.

Alice: "Why are there spells that allow casters to do things better than non-casters?" Bob: "Because spells are a limited resource and as such they must be more powerful" Alice: "How many times per day do you typically need to pick a lock?" Meditate on the above and you will soon reinvent D&D...

My personal experience supports his theory for what that's worth. When 4E came out, the things I strongly disliked were Changes to the realms and other settings Changes to alignment Casters using implements Casters not having spells Terminology stuff But when we actually tried to play it, we...

That's a terrible argument. You're saying that the reason that 4E "failed" was not because of changes to the setting, because if the setting caused it to fail that would be blamed on the writers, and the writers were hired to write the setting stuff to 5E. That makes no sense, because it...

You can avoid the problem if you allow feats to scale with level. Instead of having x-billion feats. Cut them down to, say, 20 or 30, and then have each feat automatically upgrade at certain points. This allows you to have gated feats in the sense that the full ability of the feat isn't...

Looks pretty cool to be quite honest.

I dunno. To be perfectly honest feats are a very passive choice in that you make the choice once and then forget about it, basically. Unlike spells. If I wanted to keep the game as uncomplicated as possible, let's just say it's not feats I'd remove from the system.

Might be, but I'm concerned with options and not necessarily power here. Remove feats and you remove a nearly all ability to customise non-casters.

I absolutely despise it. It works in short adventures when you don't risk having to play an incompetent buffoon for too long, but long campaigns? Heck no. However, there's a variant I use if people request rolling when I act GM. I call it stat-max rolling. You roll a d6 to determine one...

Nah. You can future proof spells easily with tags (or traits or whatever you want to call it). Give each spell traits that describe the spell thematically. Magic Missile = Force, Projectile Shield = Protection, Force, Wall Charm Person = Emotional Teleportation = Teleportation, Conjuration...

Feats are essential. If you don't have any feats some classes will be absolutely abysmal to play. The system is already suffering from casters being the only classes with actual options as you level up aside from feats. If you remove feats then there won't be ANYTHING else available. But yeah...

I mean all rules should have a purpose, I guess? I think it's a bit weird to argue that "if we want to listen to what person X is saying about rule Y person X must know what the purpose of rule Y is in the first place" and then to dismiss the sex rules in AW by questioning what purpose they serve!

Uhrmmm... Edit for clarification: Maybe you simply don't understand the function of those rules?

The system in question is D&D 5E. The core issue is bad class balance. It's funny because this is kinda how it went for me: I started my RPG career in Dragonbane (very old edition from the 90s), then I tried D&D. People who start in D&D don't understand how weird it is compared to other...

I bet it's only a power fantasy if non-casters want it.

Playing two systems currently. PF2 and D&D 5E. Mainly happy with PF2, though it's borderline too heavy. Combat is great, though, and it works well enough for me outside combat too. Mainly unhappy with 5E. My biggest issue is the system is paradoxically too heavy and too light at the same time...

No. Magic in D&D, at least the type of magic used by spellcasters, has the explicit advantage of being very very flexible. A wizard is essentially a generalist that can pick their daily specialisation per day. If we could measure a character delta, a measurement of how different two characters...

I was GM-ing a Nobilis adventure and at one point the group needed to steal a painting from the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. I handled planning something like this, and I paraphrase: Otto, the Power of Waiting: "We've seen where the painting is, in which room it is I mean." Fenix, the Power of...

Red: So I take it here that you would prefer then that IF what you said happens, that if for example a class gains the ability to do outlandish thing X, then you want this thing to be outright called supernatural? I can live with that. Green: That's funny because it's really not something that...

RED: If no class is allowed to transcend from mundane to non-mundane then you can never have a character who becomes absurdly strong, because this character must at some point transcend from not being absurdly strong to being absurdly strong. The exception is, of course, if they start from...