Search results

As long as there are people and things to complain about, there will always be unfounded complaints. 4E is no different. There's nothing wrong with being legitimately inspired by common elements in a certain genre or style, as long as they don't damage the game -on their own-.

The solution could be to turn x3s into 1.5x attribute damage and x4 into doubled attribute damage. Your scenario would turn into 10 hp + 18 con, which is enough to destroy anything normal.

Middle option. I'm doing fine enough with what I do use, but if the Spring of 2008 brings out an exceptional product, I may change my mind. Is it so wrong that I'm quite unsettled by 1/3 of the voting populace choosing the one at the top?

Interestingly, they are still relatively easy to cure, only via lesser and normal restoration. The truth is, a called shot variant, when combined with this, could invoke other kinds of damage based on the body part. Imagine great-clubbing someone over the head, going critical with it, and...

QFMT (more truth). I hope (against all odds) we don't have 8 more months of accelerated cries of "munchkin", "videogamey", "roll-playing", etc. about every other change in this new edition. That will be a hard lead-in to actual 4e. It was silly enough before. Besides, unlimited level caps...

Good news. I'm glad that WotC have maintained their right wits in this case. I'm still not touching the DI unless given a VERY good reason.

I like the idea of the virtual tabletop as much as I do the real one, but I'm not jumping on the DI thing even if 4e is the best thing ever. I simply don't feel the need to take those steps. If they make it so that 4e needs this initiative (unlikely), then count me out altogether.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! More sneak attacking stabby goodnessssssssssssssss! :D:D:D *bounces up and down with excitement* This is almost exactly the direction I'm foisting my Rucks rogue in right now. The lower levels were more devoted to the obvious rogue skills and trapfinding.

My responses will be in the form (Is it likely? Do I hope they do this?)

Ideally, this will give WotC a reason to improve on the epic play gap, and make some of the Epic feats more accessible to normal high-level players. Also, it opens wide the door to new high-end goodies at 21-30, without going epic.

Well, who says that WotC won't at least BS a reason for these changes that actually fits what the monster is, ex: "In recent years, the (insert 'new ranged monster variant' here) has trained itself more to approach intruders from a distance, maximizing its natural dexterity and speed, while...

Cause ability drains via spells or severe, non-supernatural special attacks, or special injuries (like a concussion or a severe leg fracture)

BTW: If there is a better place to put entire, stand-alone systems, I have no problem with this thread being moved there. This is an RPG system I built from scratch, which parodies common narrative tropes, while having a rules system that's fairly open, and actually intertwined with narrative...

Encounter-based systems eliminate difficulties for low-level players, but the distinction seems incredibly arbitrary and stifling when one considers that some runs may have no encounters, and the definition of an 'encounter' can become even more abstract than AC and strictly-RAW hitpoints. My...

It's also easier to have some of the longer games, and more established lengths of time, when going local. On the other hand, the non-local way makes it easier to come together at all. It's a matter of preference and varying mileage. I'm quite relieved that I hear more of this argument from the...

If this is how it will go down, where things that could -easily- be offered for free without hurting the company become charged, then I'm afraid I'll stick with 3 and 3.5 after all. The rest of it I can understand (optional subscriptions to new, optional content and new, purchased content that...

While I am quite far away from the kind of concerns people have with online versions of d&d or anything similar, I do understand them. There are a fair amount that would say 'it just isn't the same'. Is this where you're coming from?

I would not do this, my interest in RPGaming notwithstanding. The main reason is that I houserule enough of my own setting elements that I am more than happy with Core materials, and anything I can come up with that works with those Core materials.

It seems that your attack roll in this case must exceed that of the defender. Skill modifiers are nonexistent in this specific case.

Very well. If a two-dimensional axis cannot be effectively formed from this, then so be it. I'll stick with the tried and true in this case. Thank you for your constructive analysis :D! Also, GNS is tri-furcated rather than bifurcated, and therefore can't be compared to an alignment at all. I...