Search results

Yeah, but if you play that way you need a sub system for such injuries. I'd rather just make HP damage linger. That way HP damage abstractly factors in those penalties for most situations. In other words, an injured warrior with 4 hit points remaining will certainly be at a disadvantage...

I'll most likely remove hit dice from the game, as it reminds me too much of healing surges. As for magical item creation I don't see it being a problem anymore. It's all up to the DM like it was in 2e, and characters are not blowing XP and gold. The CLW wand is just a pain to keep track of...

The healer feat in 5e will put you at 1 hp, you can second wind and/or hit dice yourself to full after that grievous wound. In other editions, the moment you go to 0 you're either dead or you're hovering on death's door bleeding out. In 2e you lose all your memorized spells and you're in need...

I guess you think that a real physical wound must always inflict a penalty.

Yeah, that's always been a problem. It's still a problem in 5e too. Some editions restricted HPs over 10th level, but I think it's always been a situation that calls for DM intervention. The death on massive damage rule is a start I guess. Still, I'd have a hard time not describing...

You're assuming I would describe such wounds without adding in an extra condition to make it more believable. There is no reason why I would ever be forced to cherry pick injuries that demand such conditions for my narrative. I find that the loss in hit points is enough to reduce the...

Unless those arrows put the character down in critical condition, I think anyone using the 10 arrows in the chest narrative isn't being honest. You might want to use that narrative against a troll or a Golem, but against a PC without regeneration it would be jarring for him to continue...

I think 5e needs a few more modular options that support a wider range of play-styles. I was honestly expecting a lot more in that department. Also, support for more campaign settings is a must in my opinion.

Sticking with 2e.

I own all three books and I have yet to use them. 5e is still a mixed bag to me and I'm kind of disappointed. I figure I'll wait another year or so and take a second look at the system. It's a system in its infancy so there's really no need to jump in at this point or cast any major...

It's a valid playstyle that shouldn't be called a canard. I've often used the HP system alone to describe a serious injury. I've never had any problems describing a serious wound provided HP damage lingered and could only be restored quickly via magic. IMO, that makes hit points more...

I totally agree with you. In previous editions we didn't need an lingering wound module because hit point damage lingered. In previous editions you certainly could use hit points to describe a real wound when needed. I really don't have an issue with magic healing the party to full. A...

Well I stand corrected, JC says it does work. http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/magic-ranged-weapon/

It's rather interesting that magical arrows in 5e become non-magical after they hit. In other editions you had a 50% chance of the arrow still being useful. With that in mind, I think the bonuses should stack. After all, stacking is the norm in 5e. After reading this thread and the DMG...

I agree that they failed to provide a healing/hp module. I also think the DMG should have more information on how to run villains (how to introduce them, how to run them, how to make the PCs hate them, avoid cliches etc)

The goal of the mechanic is to prevent an action from doing no damage. Why not just call it a partial hit? Why not just say that the mechanic allows you to always hit? Why refer to it as a miss that does damage? I don't see the point. Sure, you can still hit something and not do damage...

Yes, the term was a bit emotional. Perhaps I should have used the term "pointless" I just don't see the need to redefine a term. Why even suggest that a miss is not a miss? People just don't naturally think that way. I'm not suggesting that the game be rigid and absolutely unambiguous, I'm...

If that's what you want then why not use different terms? Having clear language that everyone can understand is critical. The requirement of a language translator is asinine.

I'd strongly suggest you come up with some house rules for interrogation. It actually takes weeks of interrogation to get information out of an enemy. I suggest you turn their foes into religious fanatics who will even spit in their face when threatened with death. "Screwface kill me a...

For me a game is fun when rules are intuitive and simple to understand. When a hit isn't a hit and a miss isn't a miss something has seriously went wrong with the game design. I think you can have a perfectly fun game without concepts like DoaM. I just don't understand why a game would...