Search results

The level system should handle badass monsters. The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with. It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).

I'm not going to bother arguing this degree of hairsplitting. ("Which came first, the keyword or the monster's difficulty?" "Pardon? I was gazing at my navel.") The purpose of "bounded accuracy" is to prevent this from happening. Also, I'm just ignoring the dude who came in here and...

Dude, what are you talking about? That a Marine has access to military-grade equipment and can radio in an airstrike tells me all sorts of things about how he interacts with the real world.

Satisfied enough to play? Yes. Satisfied enough not to gripe about them on the Internet? Nope.

The question is not whether I "like" D&D; it's whether I'm satisfied with it.

Rather than name names, I'll say that I think 4e was a very well designed game. It's not a game I like, but I'm willing to offer it (damningly faint) praise as a game that does what it is intended to do.

Shrug. Maybe that's your opinion, but if a company is publishing that much junk material, I'm not willing to give my money to them. It's like Dark Heresy. I love the setting, and I want to give FFG my money, but I'm not willing to deal with the system.

In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage. A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin...

What they need to do is decide how the low-level game should feel. Do they want it to be a lethal game where there is death in every d20 roll? Then make it that way, damnit. Low HP, high damage, decent chances of hitting. Do they want to be a game in which characters are expected to survive over...

I'd tell you to prove that Paizo's mechanics were good, but that would be trollish. Let me make a list of things that are bad: • Monk class. Terrible mess of sorta-kinda full BAB and far too many attack rolls. • Fighters are still bad, as are shadowdancers. • The assassin class losing spells...

The difference is that (a) mechanics exist in a closed system and can be tested with reproducible results, and (b) almost all of Paizo's unique mechanics (mechanics they didn't crib from 3e) have been mediocre at best.

Everway is awful, so no amount of art could save it.

A negative RPG.net review of the playtest gives me hope that 5e might end up pretty good.

Prone Shooter is a feat that does nothing. Paizo has published material that is worse than nothing, because nothing wouldn't take up a feat slot.

Personal experience lets me know that Ford engines are subpar. Likewise with Pathfinder.

>2012 >thinking that popularity reflects quality ISHYGDDT Pathfinder's success largely comes from the continuation of the 3e system and a fat art budget. Mechanically, the game is a mess, to the point where the designers routinely demonstrate ignorance of how the game functions and cogent...

I think eldritch blast spam is working as intended. Personally, I might drop the damage to 2d6 + Cha so it acts like a greatsword.

So if a fighter decides to use a melee attack all the time ad nauseum, does that mean his melee attacks are imbalanced?

How do you feel about this? Personally, I would like to see something like this. Maybe something where rogues get sneak attack damage based on how they're attacking their enemy, so you would have lots of damage for a target completely unaware of the rogue and perhaps half of that when the...

You can make bold proclamations from your ivory tower about what a real game designer does or doesn't do, but I challenge you to find a videogame mechanic that would improve an RPG. The majority of videogame mechanics are twitch-based (doesn't work for pen-and-paper games), terrible and gamey...