Search results

That and occasions too-easy fights. Not that I don't enjoy some free roleplay and skill checks. But if DnD was only one thing I wouldn't play it nearly as much.

Resource management makes a ton of sense if you're going into dungeons to fight dragons, after all. But sometimes we play DnD in a way that doesn't really involve any of that. It shouldn't surprise us when the game doesn't fit so neatly into that square hole.

I sometimes wonder if he's deliberately being obtuse in order to reverse-psychology people into realizing that the designers can't or at least didn't think of everything and they should figure it out themselves. I have never had a problem from the players declaring a silly rule silly and...

I broadly agree; I wish resource drain over the course of the day wasn't so integral to challenge in DnD, though if you got rid of that I'm not sure I'd even call it a dnd-style game. But I would love a fantasy adventure ttrpg where the game was built to make each combat interesting regardless...

A fighter with plate mail is forklift certified and "owns his own forklift" - once the loan is paid off he's set for life!

Arguably, PF2 actually made casters weaker (though almost entirely because of the incapacitation trait), and boy howdy do people complain that wizards are only the best at 80% of the game.

They still use magic, though, in every game I've been in. They just get it from items rather than class features. Have you ever seen a high-level (10+) assassin who didn't use any magic items?

That's where I disagree - I think "milestone" leveling where xp is not tracked is far more common, and many games do not allow for buying magic items at all - you get the ones that fit the narrative arc of your character, at appropriate moments. So neither combat nor loot are necessary, even...

I think there's a pretty significant difference between "we go fight evil, and occasionally get paid / rewarded / training / notice our skills increasing" and "lets go kill some bandits so we can practice fighting and take their stuff." Even if the mechanics aren't really any different, it's a...

RAW, there are no other such items, so at best you’d do double damage with a 1d4 attack - you have no way of targeting any other weaknesses. And 2-8 damage is probably a lot less than just hitting them with your sword one, but you get two or more chances to try.

I must admit I don't want actual medieval politics - but then again, actual feudalism is kinda rare in fantasy stories. The trappings are there (noble titles and whatnot) but in practice, we tend to want something more like post-imperial not-quite-anarchy, where everywhere beyond the town walls...

If you go this route, it also opens up the option of letting subclasses build on it. IE the Hunter/ Monster Slayer conclave should get damage boosts to the marked target, but a Gloomstalker might instead get the ability to track the mark through dungeons more effectively, etc.

Also a Samurai civil war brewing in Japan... But those are indeed three different settings.

Think of the lengths Frank Herbert went to make sure there were still knife fights in the distant future. Or E. R. Burrows's need to nerf guns so swords would still be a thing, and George Lucas doubling down with just "space magic" to bring magic swords into his space story - That's how cool...

Some advantages to generic-fantasy-medieval-ish: 1. Lots of known tropes: you don't nee to invent or explain a lot of things, because generic fantasy is well understood. This includes some really important stuff like pc options, enemies, and why adventuring is a thing. They're just already...

If they expect to use a reaction, I suspect they'd hold it until next turn, then try to re-up panache (with a bonus) and if that doesn't work - finisher before panache goes away. But if the enemy is close enough, finisher every turn becomes possible for most swashbucklers now.

Nah, they're both perfectly competent, able to hit enemies and deal damage and not die in most fights. Which is what the PF2 and 13A rangers pull off without giving one player twice as much combat power as everyone else.

Since I don't plan on dming any time soon - however my dm wants to. For one game that probably means "when we start a new campaign" which could be reasonably soon depending on how the next arc goes. Or it might be a year or more from now. (probably not much more.) We haven't discussed it at all...

In practice, this usually mean the minion and the master both get two actions, so they're individually weaker but there's two of them so they add up to "not overpowered." It works without being lopsided or broken. That's the goal, isn't it?

The only solution I've seen work is for the master to also be pretty weak, so that you're getting two sets of actions that are half as good as what another character can pull off. PF summoners are a decent example, as are 13th Age rangers in my experience.