Search results

What I think is happening is not a war on magic so much as an attempt to balance the classes. Otherwise, you end up with Ars Magica when the guys who can fly, teleport, turn invisible, launch fireballs, read minds, and so forth are also difficult to hit. If wizards can wear the best protection...

Yes, I suspect it is too much to hope that the final armor rules will be great, but it would be fantastic if shields could become a viable option again.

No to mention just how helpful a helmet is an an actual fight. Notice that even the 20th century (think WW1 and WW2), the helmet was the one piece of armor that persisted through all of the technological advances.

I wonder if the trick might not be to take an idea from Star Wars Saga Edition and make it so that armor using classes got additional bonuses in armor as they leveled? Then make armor not stack with a lot of other protective options. At high levels armor is very important to the warrior...

The logic of the situation, for me, has always been an issue of training. Wizards focus on learning how to cast spells. Warriors focus on arms and armor. If you let wizards acquire a major skill of warriors without detracting from magical focus then why can't warriors just pick up magic on...

I think that this would work. The extremes might be problematic but they have been problems in every edition. Die rolling systems like 4d6 (drop lowest) are extremely unlikely to give two 18's, and even then it would be a major investment to put them in strength and dexterity (and major...

I am beginning to think that the whole problem is the Armor restrictions to dexterity to armor class. At some point in 3E there was a decision made to make shields and armor less effective. They did this by capping the dexterity bonus to armor class (for armor) and limiting the number of...

I like simple rules that incent sensible actions (like carrying a shield) but which are simple in play. So I want to see more innovations like this: Trollsmyth: Shields Shall be Splintered! It solves two problems at once. One, it makes carrying a shield very useful (for no extra mental...

I suspect that the trick is few animals directly prey on humans. So, most of the time, you can kill them at a distance with ranged weapons (bow, spear). Even in battle, the skirmishers and the archers wore light armor and their role is a lot closer to that of hunters. I would be delighted...

This seemed on topic: HEMA Alliance Forum • View topic - Quarterstaff and the Armoured Man.

Exactly. In actual battle, everyone wears the best armor that they can find unless they need the mobility. Either for range of motion (archers) or long periods of fast movement (skirmishers). Light fighters should be viable, but it would be odd if they were vastly more effective than heavy...

I think that this might have been when he swims into the lair of Grendel's mother. A long distance, under-sea swim is likely to be another case of a trade-off. Conan varied his armor based on what he was doing but I agree -- he seemed to wear armor whenever it made sense. Fighting on the...

My general preference is to see reasonable armor decisions modeled in the game mechanics. Armor is something that D&D has always had trouble with and, unless fantastical is the only playstyle, something that I would like to see done well. The closest to "well done" I can think of in the D&D...

That would be what I would think was the counter-tactic under these sets of rules. The gap used by the wizard would be just as useful for the Hobgoblins.

I generally think that any D&D lore is at risk with changes to the game system. It is not hard to think of what substance actually killed a particular dwarf that was mistaken as poison (disease, magic, acid). Think of the zip line incident recently -- maybe the scorpion sting was the vector...

This was the system that got me to buy a scientific calculator so I could take cube roots for starship construction. Good times!

When does the sale end? The 31st?

Note that my argument was against a lot of small, transient bonuses: the cleric is 15 feets away so +1, the bard is singing so +3, the Vrock has a spore field so -1 unless I move 5 feet that way in which case it is -2, plus I am bloodied so +1 for bloodied determination, I am uphill so +1, and...

I think that this matters more for transient bonuses than permanent ones. Which kind of brings up another design idea that I am beginning to like -- declaring war on the transient bonus. It maximizes complexity and, when it is +1 or +2, does so for a very small shift in the odds.

I think that is fine to have a really cool weapon in the game (including as an heirloom). What is less cool is if everyone has to have that cool weapon in order to be effective.