Search results

The problem with all these skills is that they have no concrete effects, Animal Handling probably needs more work in the book because it has lots of utility in reality, but needs GM guidance. Performance is so bad that I don't even count it as a skill, but in my opinion it is bad for a...

Because it is perfectly in-line with the rules for the GM to say that it isn't possible. The only reliable way to do that is using magic, because magic has rules. Note that vaguely defined skills are not a problem by itself. Fate and similar systems handle them very well. The problem is when...

Only slight hyperbole. The skill functions if the GM is willing to have the skill actually do something, but it has no actionable rules. This means not only that the skill is seriously prone to GM-fiat issues, but also that a player can never know exactly what you can do with it.

Intimidation is a trash skill. It's useless. It doesn't do anything. It has no rules. If you want to play a fighter who intimidates people, play a bladesinger and use the fear spell.

Triangle Academy, possibly. It lacks the versatility of more main stream systems, but man do I love the presentation and the writing and everything.

So I read everything that's been posted here and this might have already been brought up and I missed it, but there is, as I remember it, mentioned in one of the old Planescape books something quite similar to this idea as presented by the OP. Here is a paraphrase from memory. "The people on...

I've always despised the concept of dinosaurs in my fantasy. I don't really know why I feel like this, but to me dinosaurs are sci-fi. They are modern. I associate them with electrified fences, DNA manipulation and hackers (I blame Jurassic Park).

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure there is no support for reactive spells in any of the infinity engine games.

Nah the problem is that the excessively long campaign wastes space. I can make my own campaign, but I want inspirational material for the setting itself. The ideal approach would be to keep them entirely separate, so for something like Ravenloft you'd have a core Ravenloft book with perhaps a...

They need to release proper setting books again, not these terrible campaign books that are part setting part mid adventure.

That reasoning is questionable because what it leads to is the conclusion that spellcasting must be a trivially simple activity like snapping your fingers (actually easier), but at the same time spellcasting is restricted specifically to some classes (while presenting the activity itself as...

There's a tendency on these forums for someone to start a thread about something like, say, how lock picking works in 5E, and the thread will inevitably end up in a near flamewar about whether or not Gandalf is actually a wizard.

Skill points were a huge pain point in 3.5, though. Those were so terrible that I would never manually make a 3.5 character above level 1 without some kind of software assistance. PF1 did fix that by making it so that it doesn't matter which class gave you the skill points, they just accumulate...

I disagree, but I see your point too. Locked-in complexity: Difficulty can be how easy/hard it is to fix a bad build. Wizard and cleric here are unbeatable. They rely so much on spells and the spells can be changed out easily. Martials are really bad here since pretty much everything they have...

Sorry for the mistake about accusing you of arguing rules run counter to roleplaying. I am pretty sure it wasn't you doing that, but I am too lazy to scan the thread again for that particular post. Mother may I. It's a term I myself have often used derisively in the context of D&D, but it's...

I disagree and agree. I believe that mechanically, the battle master is rather trivial. Not as trivial as the champion, but it is still a trivial class. I also believe it is rather straight forward to build since anyone who is completely new to D&D will still understand that the point of the...

I was mainly responding to the comment just before mine. I'd say there are two ways of looking at complexity, with a slight caveat. Complexity of build, and complexity of play. Some classes also allow you to home in on optimal play easier since they don't depend on fixed features. A badly built...

edit: accidental double post

Anyone who thinks casters are not complicated have speed blindness and need to try and play some actually simple systems. They are much more complex than even the most complex non-caster.

Let's take the mimic example you just gave. It's a good example. I like your reasoning, but I think there's a problem with this line of thinking. You argue essentially that if feature X is allowed to be designed such that feature X is REQUIRED for activity Y to be possible, then you lock...