Search results

In a lot of ways, CS dice have killed the need for explicit multi-attacks for fighter damage to scale (which IIRC was part of the drive for fighters to have multi-attacks in the first place). I think instead CS dice will be spent to provide multi-attacks. With Cleave, they already are in a...

I think any such advice is going arrive late, if at all, in the playtest documents. One stated design goal of 5E is to be inclusive of many different styles of play. At least phrased in terms of "styles" of editions. And most definitely 4E is very gamist compared to, say 2E. That means, to me...

That's where I'd like to see CS dice go - as a binding "martial power" mechanic, with the same central role for fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians* etc in the game as spell slots/caster level and the page or so of general notes on spell casting mechanics are for the magic-using classes...

How a monster performs in combat is not "metagame" in a game based around combat. As a DM, I find 4E's monster designations very useful, and they allow me to build fun combat board games. I understand those games inside a story framework, but in 4E's world the encounter games come before...

Common and Rare classes only make sense to me if I'm world-building NPCs with them as DM. Otherwise, I don't get what it's supposed to be for? Should I make it more difficult for a PC in a "rare" class to get hold of kit (i.e. it's some kind of balance mechanism to make up for their inherent...

The bounded accuracy should make it work close to how you see it. The problem in 2e/3e and 4e of having a higher level to indicate "boss" is that the numbers stop working. Higher levels in those versions mean that the boss becomes difficult to fight - no-one hits, spells fail etc. In practice...

I'd prefer classes that don't hold core mechanics, but do hold tricks and tweaks for them. So the fighter might share its CS dice with other classes, but will have some unique and powerful ways of using them. Perhaps the CS dice also scale best for the Fighter . . . I'd like some generic...

I think the OP is basically talking about 4E's highly detailed dynamic combats, and how they add a huge amount of colour to a combat scene. Typically PCs and monsters are knocked around the board, need to maneuver carefully, and suffer then throw off various short-term disadvantages. You don't...

Combat, Exploration, and Roleplaying . . . and by the latter, I *think* they are referring to social talky parts of the game outside of the Combat and Exploration parts (which are often full of roleplaying in the general sense too).

The 4E writers also spotted this from earlier published material, and improved on solo monster design over the years. The first monster manual has some bore-fest solo monsters that need adjusting.

I think this is a great move, provided there is advice and/or allowances for players not being bored. Balance between the three "pillars" in the game can be achieved by having PCs which shine in each one (and likely chosen by players that prefer the ones where their PC is good), or by ensuring...

I'm not sure if the Warlock should be it, but it would be kind of cool to have a spellcaster with just one basic combat power that they use (perhaps with some complications/adjustments via feats), and where the coolness resides in what they can do in exploration or social manipulation. But...

Ranged versus melee makes a difference. It's another part of the equation. Ranged specialists who are useless in melee I'd expect to go better ranged damage, since monsters have been handed a mechanism to deal with them. Versatile characters (like the cleric) I'd expect to be less effective at...

I think we'll see monster powers like that be their own thing and not use the spell lists. In general will be more like 4E monster power design. So the "death spell" would probably do a large amount of random damage and have some special effects (that might depende on how badly hurt that made...

That would be the result if you looked back in time at the tables I was at. I can see that other posters here who prefer rolling are more careful about that - either rolling more strictly than my experience, or with balancing mechanisms sort things out - it doesn't matter hugely if the average...

Those tweaks tweaks are easy: Adventure: Hobgoblin Gauntlet. A series of encounters with individual hobgoblins. Arbitrarily setting number of encounters, (for KidSnide): 4 Adventure results for 1000 timid dwarves: Died: 77 Ran away: 328 Completed adventure...

Duplicate

Inspired by this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/327735-dwarf-vs-zombies-series-contrived-fights-now-orcs.html and just because I could . . . The basic idea is to figure out what a "daily challenge" might look like, and how different player choices affect...

Or: Short adventure -> don't care, rolling is just fine Long campaign -> want PC/PC balance in effectiveness, and point buy One of my less enjoyed campaigns was an attempt to play in a Marvel Heroes game using the default random stat and power generation. It would have been fine for a 3...

Having just been at a workshop for the language I code in at work, I thought I'd look at adding some monte-carlo stats based on this. It's a different angle on the encounter balance issue, inspired by the OP. Just for a sneak peak / starter, I considered what an "adventuring day" might look...