Search results

Yes, that would work. I guess that will depend on the unliving in question. A wight is basic, so I'd suggest that the minor effect is wight gets advantage on its next round's attack versus same character. A major effect might be the wight gets advantage and ++damage versus the character until...

WotC's follow-up publication to the magic item rules will probably be a diet book that will allow you to eat as many calories as you like without getting fat. At least that will be the declared approach in the design phase. Mind you, I could do with that diet, so I still hold out some hope that...

Hmm, I'm not sure what we should call "resource character spends to alter a situation in their favour".

The original Vancian design is almost literally a plot coupon. There's a slight other-worldness to the "rules of magic" that Mr Vance achieved with the mechanism, which works in its favour in a written story. I think this also works for its acceptance amongst D&D players. But the general...

If any creatures deserve to put nasty conditions on PCs, then undead get my vote. I'd go for Hit Dice drain - with a minor condition attached. Then put a major condition on someone who's already out of Hit Dice.

Necessary in general? No, but they are movable, small units of character build customisation. I think they were one of the better changes moving from 2e to 3e. And I believe they are popular with 3e and 4e players. By bundling feats into Specialisations, WotC are trying to find the compromise...

Just to add to the different angles inferred here, I played basic, 1e, 2e- then moved to other systems because I had grown dissatisfied with D&D as a whole. I came back with 3e because I felt it had radically changed the game in ways which made it acceptable again. And I moved to 4e out of...

Having two combinations which are mechanically different does have the benefit of more options for everyone. But yes it does introduce a little confusion to know which is better for your long-term character goals.

I see "adversarial play style" and assume the usual negative connotations. But thanks for pointing out that it could be taken as a more neutral style description. I probably meet your definition of "adversarial", but that's because my group is generally roll-in-the-open and we'd rather write...

Yeah, I'd go for "gamist" - although the label is seriously ret-conned by at least 20 years. I think that early D&D can be positioned nicely on the gamist side of gamist <-> simulationist, but it was released when such a map was beyond anyone's understanding. If anything, it created the first...

That logic does of course depend on what alternative feat options there are for the sword-and-shield and 2-hander fighters. Because once they've met your "no investment" and "slight investment" levels, what are they going to do? Are you suggesting those builds should have no access to anything...

Point (1) can be extended a little - it's what I'd call an "edge effect". Basically if a large enough percentage of the time, enemies are on low (in this context from 1 to 4) hit points, then how hard you hit is less relevent, and how often is more so. That can happen in more situations than the...

Based on the text in the playtest material: "All the damage of each of these attacks is halved" The first word is "all", and it's "of these attacks", so you'd have to mentally allocate the DS and SA damage to not be part of the attack to arrive at adding them on without halving them. Which...

My feeling is a +2 on a PC in 4E has more impact than a similar +2 in 3E, due to extra rolling required in 4E, and because many of 3E's mechanics that work around attack/hit-points are not available in 4E. Definitely you'll see much more advice in 4E to keep everything same level. Some of it is...

This was fun, way back when, and a big draw for magic items in the game when I started to play. DMs (myself included) withheld even the bonus to hit and damage of magic weapons, and a whole level could pass without the player knowing what effect, if any, the item had. It becomes dull around the...

I think a 3E system with the kinks ironed out would be just fine. But as you say, they might need to adjust the base classes, which IMO would make it over-complicated. A 4e-style mulit-class feat system, accessed via Specialisations, might also work, but would of course be limited to the power...

The NPC/monster rules in 3E were created in order to build combatants with varying abilities to fight. So that's what they tend to do, even if you bend them to other purposes. Most NPC artisans and socialites aren't equipped for battle anyway, so all the high level ones get is a some extra hit...

Yes, I'm more "ideas first, detail later". Most personality rating schemes (e.g. Myers Briggs) recognise detail-first bottom-up thinking vs ideas first top-down thinking as personal preference and part of who we are. It's common to do both well enough, but usually there's a strong preference...

Both 3E and 4E expect in-game explanations for monster stats. In 4E the explanation can be provided at any time, and isn't always given to the DM for each and every number. In 3E the explanation and mechanics are served up in little units (of feats, "levels" in monster HD, special one-off...

Yes, in the same way that a huge dragon feels wrong as a minion, even if the game design would point you that way. The mechanics give you a maths game that works (in various ways, depending on version). For it to feel like a D&D story, you still need to have workable descriptions. 4E would have...