Search results

Ouch. This sounds pretty time consuming. D&D combat takes a long time now. Are we sure we want to slow it down? Except, people flee from melee all the time in the real world without getting hit from behind. I think the exisitng rules where a combat move (moving somewhere then taking a combat...

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The first part about limiting attacks of opportunity makes sense. I don't know if it's written in the core system or just a house rule, but I have never allowed cleave on an AoO. People always attack with their weapons. As for the limit of only taking an...

I'm not sure this works. It creates new wacky scenarios. An orc is attacking a wizard, and the wizard's figter ally wants to prevent the orc from killing the wizard. All the fighter has to do is run past the orc to hit him from behind with flanking. That +2 on the attack roll helps insure that...

Well, yeah, I knew the rationalization was a stretch. I even said so when I wrote it. Even then, continuing the stretch: If you view a trip as simply sticking your leg out while someone moves by, yeah, that can fit the rationalization. But if you view it as a martial sweep, or as putting your...

So what is the answer? In 3.5, the current rules for AoO do, for the most part, just what they’re supposed to do. They punish people for dropping their guard (drinking a potion, concentrating on a spell, etc.), or overextending themselves (untrained disarm, grapple, or trip) during close...

I don't see how you can advocate that. This isn't chess. In chess, you can tell the bishop he can only move diagonally. If he wants to move like a rook, you can tell him "nope, you're a bishop, move diagonally because the rules say so." But putting in arbitrary "You can't do that" rules in a...

Actually, the 3.x edition allows for endless chases, even with AoO, because the person retreating can use the Withdraw action which doesn't provoke an AoO. He can then move his full movement range and even get outside of his pursuer's charge range (assuming equal movement rates, like a human...

It's not quite as flagrantly silly as that. The assumption is that when youi're not chugging milk, you're protecting yourself. Sod "Dude with Club" has to work harder, feint, lunge, and most importantly, spend time parrying and dodging your attacks. In between all that, he gets some openings...

Thanks for clarifying. I aplogize about the troll question, but unclarified, it really looked that way to me, though now I see your points. But another way to look at it is: If I wanted to play a crossbow sniper, I would have picked fighter or rogue or ranger as my class. I also started...

So, with all these posts, I keep seeing that for most people, the +x is irritating, the fact that they are required is much more irritating, and the items being too common and even being purchased is the most irritating. So, the proper way to fix the problem is to fix it from the biggest...

You made an interesting piont and then shot it down at the same time. :) Yeah, if I'm a fighter in your suggested system, i would never use a precious feat on any of those feats - I would just find the weapon I want. Or buy it. Unless magic items are pretty rare and hard to find, in which case...

I've already house-ruled that in for many items. No more will the group pass around the Ring of Regeneration after every fight. Now, for me, many items take hours, or days, to "attune" to a new character while the magic slowly pervades their body before the item can be used. That guy finds...

Well said. As for me, I want 4e to be right down the middle of the road, and very flexible. Not GURPS. that's too generic (hence the name). I want D&D to be a D&D spin on GURPS. Focused enough on the D&D stuff to still be D&D, and unique, and fun within that genre. But still flexible enough...

Such a setting is really fun to play. I enjoy them myself (althought I've only DMed them, never played in one). But, doesn't that sound more like a supplemental setting than a core magic system? From a game design perspective, I would much rather 4e have complete rules for magic items, and...

This is a little off-topic (OK, a lot) but why so few high level characters. When I first picked up 3.0 around the turn of the century, one of the first things I noticed was that level progression was a lot faster than it was in 2e. According to the DMG, an adventuring party should level after...

Your own logic refutes itself. If I need +1 armor to protect me from +1 swords, then I need it even more to protect me from flaming (etc.) swords. I don't want to be on fire. I don't want to take all that extra damage from acid, cold, etc. Making my foe miss me is even more important if he's...

This is a valid point, but is the problem the existence of +x swords, or the existence of people selling them? Yeah, buying your + (x+1) sword upgrade at the corner magic sword vendor is pretty boring. But, consider: "I'm a tough-as-nails 10th level fighter. I have a magic sword that I drew...

Because that's where the money is. J. K. Rowling didn't suddenly introduce a new main character, or group, halfway through the Harry Potter stories. Nobody tunes in to their favorite TV show to find their favorite characters have been written off and replaced by new ones. Once a writer has...

Hmmmm, maybe. But I think, aside from all that, the real main reason for it is that they don't need the restriction to balance the classes anymore. In previous editions, mages were the uberclass. They could do anything. A spell for every need. Played well, the mage is the destroyer of enemies...

I am curious to know why it needs to be cleaned up? As I see it, the Player group is not the only group of heroes in the world. There are other heroes. Some of those have fallen and will never be heard from again. Others, retired to a more stable lifestyle while they were still relatively...