Search results

Fractionalization is bad Interesting design, but by and large this is a bad idea. What is this logo supposed to mean? Who is going to define it? Why should anyone use this logo as opposed to an extant "third party" logo, or just the very easy to recognize twenty-sided die? Just in...

Heydey hey, we found a typo / bad formatting. The first quote is from the SRD's section on Magical Weapons. It's obvious that it only applies to "attack bonus" enhancements--which, annoyingly enough, can be applied to shields. Hmm... so, if I enchanted a sword so it gave me an AC bonus...

Nope. They're two different parts for two different items. Magical weapons have +1 hardness and +1 hp per enhancement bonus, and cannot be damaged by a weapon of lesser enhancement. Magical shields have +2 hardness and +10 hp per point of enhancement, but can be damaged by anything...

Here ya go; let me know if the erratta says something different.

It's a method of tracking the damage done to armor in the current system, that is covered by generic hand-waving now. While the structure is good, the benefit in a system like this doesn't outweigh the bookkeeping cost; d20 doesn't support staggered degrees of success except in non-regular...

(darn dupes.)

Solving this problem is actually fairly easy--just lower the hardness of armor. Armor isn't exactly as good as a block of the metal, anyway--it has rivets, straps, and open spaces that can be moved out of the way. And, of course, the goblins et al can still disarm, grapple, and sneak attack...

Gee, I just started a thread like this a few days ago... As it stands, just remove the AC bonus, and have any hit damage the armor using the extant "attack an object" rules, complete with hardness and all.

"Better" as in "more historic" maybe, but not "better" as in "more fun." This, actually, is what I'd consider a bookkeeping nightmare--i.e., a change that adds complexity but not any more enjoyment. If i was going to remove the whole AC system, I'd toss damage along with it, have a...

Magical armor becomes quite a bit more useful with this system: either it's a way to gain a real AC bonus, or it's a way to gain a lot more HP. Shields and weapons have special rules for adding HP and hardness due to their magical bonus. It would probably make sense to follow one or the...

Close. Very, very close. The 10 damage that the Full Plate's hardness takes isn't subtracted from the Full Plate's armor. Like DR or any other use of hardness, it's just resisted (and no damage is taken if it reduced the damage below 0.) When the Ogre hits the fighter, the first 10...

Sure. In the variant, armor doesn't grant an armor bonus to AC. Instead, it intercepts any attack made against its wearer. So, for example, let's say that an Ogre is fighting a fighter whose AC, without armor, is 14. Under the D&D rules, the fighter has an AC of 22 when they put on Full...

Yep. Not quite. The only benefit that armor gives is that it absorbs damage. Thus, a 1st level characters with a 10 Dexterity and no other AC modifiers will have an AC of 10, regardless if they wear full plate or a thin silk shirt. The full plate, however, will block almost all of the...

details, details. (It's probably worth nothing that the campaign I'm contemplating this for uses a class Defense bonus.) Yep. Characters are hit more often, and any damage over the armor's hardness is inflicted on the armor. For example: A 5th level fighter in fullplate (standard AC 22)...

While talking with a player today, a different way of dealing with armor occured to me. What if, rather than giving an Armor Bonus or DR, armor had its own hit points and hardness, and intercepted any attack that hit the wearer? (Critical hits would be either critcal-damage-to-armor, or...

OGC declaration? Sweet. I've been waiting for this one. One question, though: What's the OGC declaration for it? How much of the book am I going to have to re-research (or get special permission for) to include in a seperate work, such as a campaign setting or a different take on angels?

You mean, once they've fought and been defeated? EVERYONE should coup de grace fallen and bleeding dying opponents once the battle is over, unless they have other plans--prisoners, captives, "living warnings", etc. Giving warriors clean deaths is almost a Good act, after all.

Site Correction Actually, our site's http://www.theFGA.com/ We're seeking public comment about the PCL draft 0.4, as well as opinions on what exactly to do with the OpenDie logo (the flip-top d6 with the universal poison compartment open).

I don't think that's possible. Well, if it feels right it for your group it is, but I think that striving for "balance" in the sense it's normally meant is more trouble than its worth in some cases. To mix classes, you'd just have to edit some D&D classes to take advantage of the combinted...

As in, "they don't like the EQ system", or "they don't like the EQ world?" If it's the former, I've got a massive rules-tweak that borrows some from EQ and comes out a lot closer to D&D. If it's the later, just use the EQ system parts that you like, and the D&D parts that you like, and use...