Search results

Players should always be able to swap out a poor feat choice, or skill point allocation, or whatever. You don't need retraining rules for this at all. Nor do I think it should necessarily require some kind of DM permission. Generally speaking, why should a player be forced to stick with a feat...

I played 4e for two years when it came out. Then played Pathfinder for the past year and currently still play it. For combat rules, I far prefer 4e, but Pathfinder has some good points as well and does seem to encourage RP a bit more. My biggest dislikes about 4e were fiddly commoditized magic...

I think its highly debatable that save ends effects are significantly tougher than end of turn effects. Sure, they can theoretically last longer, but there are escapes built into the system to get out of save ends effects early. End of next turn effects often have no such backdoor. You pretty...

Wow! Absolutely amazing! :) I like what you did with the 4e fighter as well. If 5e looks anything like what you have done here, I would be completely sold on it.

Ideally I want multiple magic using classes, each with their own unique yet balanced sub-system that doesn't overshadow non-casting classes. I want all classes to have some at-will magic, so even if there are Vancian wizards they never have to resort to a crossbow. I also prefer non-charged...

Right. I agree with this model completely. So why are we disagreeing again? ;)

The writeups in DCA are intended to be the iconic versions of the characters based on how they have been portrayed over their lifespan rather than specific to a particular era or timeline. So they are perfectly accurate for what they are meant to be. The 52 reboot doesn't really matter in that...

Ahh, I see. :) Then you should check out my other thread on getting rid of ascending bonuses in D&D. ;)

Huh? Really? I find it very easy in 4e. The quick and dirty method is to just use the monster building rules to add the appropriate bonuses to attack and defenses, HP, and damage for the level you want and you are good to go. Maybe give them an encounter power to shrug off all conditions, or a...

Frequent reloading due to death isn't fun. Its why I prefer RPGs over videogames in the first place. Nor do I play RPGs to simulate being "hazed" by others. Since gaming is a hobby often taken to by those who have difficulty fitting into the social structure of say, high school, everything you...

I think making the 4e combat rules into the 5e optional "miniature" rules would go a long way towards making me happy as a WotC customer. Being to able to still use my 4e material in a 5e game would be awesome. Conversely one of my few criticisms with 4e is the lack of a good gridless option...

I had mixed feelings about AoO's in 3e. I appreciated the purpose they served but were unnecessarily fiddly in combat. I'm a big fan of the 4e model. Its simple and intuitive. -You make a ranged or area attack in a threatened space, you draw an OA. -If you move out of a threatened space...

Yes, exactly. Stalker0 highlights the problem with going the opposite way. With ascending bonuses but low HP and damage output. You end up with a grittier game, but one where the grittiness is predicated on swinginess. Without the HP pad, the game becomes very binary. Either you take no damage...

Well yes and no. I meant the design intent was there to reverse the power curve and to some extent they succeeded when you compare 4e to prior editions. But I don't think WotC anticipated the unforeseen synergy bonuses that comes in at high level play with so many options and powers interacting...

Hmm, I think the other way makes more sense. Complexity, which also means more rules to know, should come more into play at higher level with the lower levels being a more old school freeform game. Monte Cook talked about this in an L&L column. Though I don't fully agree with him. I think the...

Interesting thought. I agree with that. So you should average a level a session up until about level 5, then things slow down a bit and you linger longer at each higher level. That's somewhat like how earlier editions worked. I would support that model as long as their was a loose retraining...

I was going to post this in my other thread about ascending bonuses in D&D, but I think this is worthy of its own discussion. One thing that occured to me is that in most editions of the game up to and including 3e (though 3e mitigated some of it) is that the difficulty/lethality curve in D&D...

Thanks! :) I enjoy reading all the feedback, both positive and negative. mmadsen has some good thoughts, for example, though he doesn't seem completely sold on the idea. ;)

Right, pretty much what I had in mind. :) So a level 1 PC might have 25 HP to start and do an avg of 8 damage per round. A level 30 PC would have say 170 HP on avg. and do 66 damage a round (or even more). So higher level combat is more lethal in a straight up fight, but higher level PCs would...

foolish_mortals, this one of the first posts you have made that I pretty much agree with. I had no issues with THAC0 and don't get the THAC0 hate at all. I thought it was a distinct improvement over the 1e charts and tables. That said, the 3e BAB, and the 4e 1/2 level bonus are still...