Search results

That's how Mike Mearls did in Iron Kingdoms. Pathfinder new classes mostly work like this: Monks and ninjas have "Ki", Samurais have "resolve", Gunslingers have "grit", etc. Old classes have something similar (paladins spend "lay on hands" resource for several effects, barbarians can spend...

This is a major problem to build a new edition indeed. It's hard to catter different playstyles. I ussually do 1 single encounter per day. Often less than that. With that, the regular 4-5 encounters per day that the game is balanced for, makes me a problem. Players have 5x the resources (be it...

That's a wonderful story. And actually, the newbie is right, the orc is a superhero. He is 10th level, and that's a superhero. If he were a 5th level orc or so, he would had been an ordinary hero, just like Aragorn. At 10th,, that orc was nearly superhuman. I mean... what's the athletic score of...

Don't know about you, but if I ask my DM, while standing still in the middle of a Plain "can I have a cover bonus?", his answer will be no. Some people would argue that you *need* to use the shield to get some bonus from it. But whatever, yes, it might be represented as full defensive action...

Never said you can't have heroic or gritty rules. You can let people die when they fall. You can also kill people that fall, and let them survive dragons that crush on them, but at the cost of in-game coherence. What you can't is to claim that your system make "common sense" and other's (like...

I bolded the important part for me. Just to point, I did not bent ANY rule. It's you who are trying to convolute then. "snatch" rule is clear. "crash" rule is clear. "grab" rule for T-Rex are clear. The Dragon DOES crash on you, the T-Rex DOES bite you with his giant jaw. The str 15 fighter with...

In my experience with AD&D 2e and 3.X, it was much easier to keep alive a low level cleric than a low level rogue, based on having more hit points, better armor, use of shields, arguabiliy higher weapon options, better saving throws, plus the ability to cast spells. Druids had all of those, and...

You keep *trying* to rationalize things. If that works for your selective blindness, fair game. If that's how you want to delude yourself, fair game. But don't try to tell us that your version is "more logic" or "more common sense", because it is not. A Tyrannosaurus Rex that bites a man in...

Ingame coherence. Your proposal has none. It's not like you have any kind of common sense. You have a selective blindness that works for you because you are blind, but that does not make your "way to play D&D" possesing any kind of common sense. When a Huge Dragon comes and uses the "crush"...

Sure, you can. That's what happens if he fails. But as the Tyrannosaurus Rex has the "grab" ability and the "swallow whole" ability, you didn't. He BITED you, for sure, because you are grabbed (and swallowed next round). Same goes with a dragon that snatch you in his jaws. So your character...

Damage can scale without increasing the number of magic missiles. They scale up when you increase your INT and your enhance bonus to your wand, for example, if those things are added. The only reason 3.x magic need to scale with caster level to keep up with the hit point inflation, it's because...

I'm not being moralistic about it, or arguing about a game design standpoint. I'm just stating that some *players* (as opossed to PC) might want to play Conan-like or The Great Mouse-like characters, and still being comparatively competent to other players who choose diferent kinds of flavor for...

Really? I've done a lot of times. Giving a instant success in a chase skill challenge because you use a teleportation power, or quelching a tavern on fire using a blizzard-like power are the first two that came to my mind. EDIT: I've just remembered one that happened in the very first 4e...

You could rephrase that as "this is all martial classes' *players* can hope for" That last sentence is incredibly dismissive. Some people want to play a certain archetype. They want to be Conan, for example. And they don't want to be underpowered. If the Caster player can cast "power word to...

If a Tyrannosaurus bites you, you die too. Which makes fights against dragons kinda dissapointing in a game that's called "Dungeons and Dragons", you know.

In D&D terms, they don't hide behind cover. Shields don't give cover. They just have a very high AC naked and wearing a Shield, and arrows miss.

I think Alignment is a good moral system for D&D :p

As others had said, the blog said 4e taught to focus fire. That sentence is true. The blog did not say that other editions did not taught to focus fire as well. Just that 4e did. And a case can be made about it too. In other editions, players *learned* to focus fire by themselves. The edition...

Will like to see a little bit of your RPG. How can a level 20th fighter defeat Dragons, Balors, Liches and Pitfiends, and die to level 1 fighters with common arrows?

That I'm totally supporting them. However... notice that they did *not* say there won't be differences by level. They have stated there are other things (like Hit points, damage, and "powers") that make 10th level characters much better than those low level. So the 12 crossbow wielder militia...