Search results

When you trying to shoot a single target with a ray, or touch them with your hand, an attack roll works better. More often than not, it makes sense for these single-target evocation spells to target AC: things like thick leather vests, chain mail, plate steel and shields definitely DO help you...

I've DM'd for 20+ years. At the end of the day, D&DNext appears to be the edition that will provide the most fun tabletop experience for my group and my family. They have my business.

Fireball, and especially Lightning Bolt, are spells that really could go either way. There is an element of the caster 'aiming' to hit a location, as well as the defenders scrambling to 'dodge' out of the way. I hope they take each spell on a case-by-case basis. Chill Touch should not be a...

Spell attack rolls? Yes - but only for spells you 'aim' like a weapon. This includes rays, touch spells and all attack cantrips. Attack rolls make little sense for un-targeted spells where the target dodges out of the way, or resists it, more that the caster 'shoots' them with it. Examples...

Spell Attack Rolls I absolutely agree that single-target, weapon-like spells (mostly rays and touch spells) NEED to go back to being attack-roll based. It's more fun for the player, has the possibility of critting, cuts down on the number of saves the DM needs to make, and most importantly is...

I heard a chorus of 'lame!' this saturday when I told my players I would be rolling saves for all cantrip attacks. It did seem strange to now be rolling saves for all single-target 'rays' and 'touch ' spells, which behave just like weapons. Armor and shields should help you avoid things like...

They are 'forced' because it is quite obvious these attack-bonus increasing items dramatically break the rules of Bounded Accuracy - which, in D&DNext, is probably the most important rule not to break.

That would be fine, as it doesn't turn bounded accuracy on its head.

I've heard for years how game-breaking and fun-ruining Stat-increasing items are in a game with scaling-accuracy (D&D3.0/3.5/PF). I think forcing them into a system purposefully designed not to have such items is extremely irresponsible for the sake of tradition.

Because it makes the random element of dice rolling inconsequential - at which point the game becomes merely narrative story-time whose outcome is never in doubt. No player I've ever encountered likes auto-hitting with every attack. DMs, even less so. It's hardly fine. High level monster AC is...

If this happens in D&DN, then the experiment has failed. Bounded accuracy is the bedrock of a D&D system that actually works.

The Strength Belts are the most irresponsibly-designed items in the game. The better ones completely destroy Bounded Accuracy, the foundation of the system. They should grant damage bonuses ONLY. Even a +1 bonus to accuracy over the 'expected' attack bonuses in a non-scaling game press against...

If the artificiality of them is mitigated by a believable simulation (in this case mental and physical fatigue), then why dislike them? They open a lot of tactical design space for a class that has traditionally had little to do each round besides "attack" or "full attack".

You are probably right. I never liked how in editions past Ranger spells seemed 'tacked on' to the class. And I always felt Rangers shouldn't 'cast magic' in the first place. So when I saw that the new ranger basically had Favored Enemy and Druid Spells, and not much else, I dug in my heels and...

My post from the 'New Packet Is Here' thread:

I really liked Fighter's MDD being a mini-resource management, a form of combat currency you could spend or save tactically. But then I found out that they recharged every turn (on yours and everyone else's) and they became a rather brainless way to do 'more damage'. I liked them, and was...

Okay. I am wondering if many of you are reading the same packet I am. While some things strike me as overly complex, a step backwards, or dumb or irritating in some way, those might just be matters of personal taste. I really don't like the Ranger getting pushed so hard towards spellcasting as...

The more I think about it, 'Bounded Accuracy' has the potential to make D&D Next far and away the best edition ever published. For me, of the concepts presented so far for 5e, have ranged from average to pretty good – but this is brilliant.

This is what my DM did when I first began playing in the 2e days and I adopted it going into 3rd edition. Eventually players began pleading for mercy when both of us rolled low for hit points. Ultimately we began using average HD (rounded up) and rolling for hit points became a relic. I hope...

What happens when the fighter rolls a 1 for his hit points? Just curious. In my 25 years of D&D I have never not seen a DM house-rule this to one degree or another.