Search results

Wizard's decision to design classes around four roles four roles is absolutely brilliant. The most brilliant part, though, is the fact that they eliminated what we might call a "support" role, and chose a "leader" role instead. Everything so far suggests that this changes both the way these...

I think originally it was a suggestion by George Bush, with some helpful revisions by Neil Young.

Can't we just say it totally depends on the group? Some players find the randomization nerve-wracking, and feel less comfortable with their characters than they would if they knew they had control over their ability scores. Some find it dull. Similarly, some groups adjust better to the possible...

I agree completely. "Feat" in D&D is clearly a technical term. When you explicitly define a technical term in a particular context, you stipulate that--in that context--the term has the meaning you give it. It doesn't make sense to argue whether the stipulation is "wrong" or something. It's...

Yes--that's exactly right! I'm pretty confident if you did some math you'd get precisely this result. A longsword deals 2 points of average damage over a dagger--that's not enough, at high levels, to justify the loss of accuracy (to say nothing of the possibility of additional attacks), as well...

Classic, classic instance of the facts that (a) yes, your fighter can indeed roll on the ground to avoid attacks; and (b) this is represented by his having a Dexterity score, which modifies his AC and, thus, helps model his ability to avoid damaging attacks by being agile. Abstraction keeps the...

Okay--it's kinda bothersome watching this thread. --) Obviously the original post (a) provides no plausible support for its thesis; and (b) is really pretty melodramatic--so you should ignore it or criticize it, but: --) Why all the hatin'? I've rarely, if ever, seen so many sarcastic...

Totally, totally dungeons, actually. What's essential to D&D is effectively yielding a particular style of play--in which characters are put into a position where they can confront obstacles without too much narrative complication, where they distinguish themselves from other players by using...

I completely agree. Here's a possibility that I find really exciting--suppose that subsequent books are (at least largely) usable on their own, only given the three core books, but that they're balanced on the assumption that players have access to most of the earlier stuff. Thus, material in...

You know, in the real world, sympathetic characters don't wander into the wilderness, kill things that look scary, and take their stuff. They don't get into interesting tactical combat situations: instead, when they fight, the results are swift, brutal, and pretty random. In fact, that's why...

Just go back to the 3.0e version. If you like, you can design an extra feat with Power Attack as a prerequisite and that provides some extra bonus when characters use a two-handed weapon. That extra feat might provide the two-for-one bonus, or, it might provide some other advantage...

The quickest solution--at least for D&D--might be to separate Constitution damage dealt on a critical hit from the weapon's damage dice. Instead, you might determine the size of a weapon's Con damage dice according to its size, and the number of dice according to its multiplier (by taking the...

That's a neat idea, and you're totally right--it definitely wouldn't be overpowered. But maybe it's a little boring? It's basically "+1 to attack rolls on all your full attacks", since there's almost never any reason not to flurry if your penalty is only -1. (And why the feat qualification...

Consider an even bigger switch: monks can flurry with a quarterstaff or with any light weapon they're proficient with, but take an additional -2 penalty if they're not wielding a special monk weapon. (This doesn't make the monk any more powerful--monks who want to flurry with a top-tier light...

Introduction Ever wanted a crisp way of understanding alignments that captured most of our core intuitive views about them but integrated them into a neat, consistent system that gave players a clear guide to roleplaying the alignments and groups a clear path to resolving alignment disputes...

That makes sense--I'll have to think about that. I'm mostly worried about low-level Jedi, to be honest--I'm okay with Jedi Knights only really being able to mind-trick stormtroopers, but I'm much less sanguine about third-level padawans using Move Object to hurl the stormtroopers around rooms...

Thanks for the feedback, sir! I think you're basically right. But I liked the simplicity of the progression--from just the Charisma bonus to the character level bonus to the competence bonuses--and I'm not convinced the benefit of the switch justifies the added complexity. (It also, again...

I'm really bothered by this too, but I think there's a simple fix. I know people don't like the let-me-pimp-my-house-rules links, but I really think this is an issue and I'd be interested in thoughts.

Basically, I think Use the Force would work a lot better if it had a steeper progression--if it scaled with a character's heroic level, like attacks and defenses, rather than half a character's heroic level plus a large flat bonus, like skills. The basic reasoning is that Force users should...

Fair enough--that's a really good point. I generally assess material against the core rules--I'm acceptable with new material only if it's balanced against the core rules (or if it strengthens elements of the core rules--like fighters or maybe bards--that I'd previously thought were on the weak...