Search results

I understand that. What I'm saying is: it's okay for invisibility to be strong, no need to nerf it. It's ok for the fighter to deal out tons of damage with his sword (if that's his schtick). It's okay for a class to have something unrivaled by the others at a given level. That's what makes that...

Sure. You can have a fighter hack down a door with his axe instead of the rogue picking the lock. Or the fighter battle a dozen orcs one by one, instead of the wizard fireballing them all in one shot. Those are situations where once class can do something less effeciently. There are also...

Disagreement lies even within your solution #1. The question is: how can wizards and fighters be balanced? I contend that low-level wizards that can become invisible and higher (but still not super-high) level wizards that can conjure a wall of fire, are not balanced with a figher that is...

I guess it's clear by now, but I'm not of your opinion on this. If every class can resolve any situation, then no class is special, really. I recognize the problem you highlight however: you don't want players to remain idle for long. I think the solution is to avoid game mechanics that require...

I agree with you. Hopefully each class can shine somewhere in the game, I simply hope that it's not all classes that shine equally in all aspects.

As a player who played a bunch of tabletop games (including RPGs and board games, including in the latter case several European board games, mostly German ones), and for having even designed (as an amateur) a few myself, both RPG and board, I have an understanding (that I won't rate, being too...

Then the most popular RPG ever, ever!, is a poor game :) Before 4E, all editions of D&D has a wizard much more powerful than the fighter. Yet, I have witnessed some people actually having fun playing this game. (And, were it not for the objections in this thread, I would admit to having...

Me telling everyone else how to run their game is fine, but no one gets to tell me how to run mine!

I think that the answer ought to be: he doesn't (compete, that is). I think it's fine for some classes to be unable to compete with others in certain spheres, at certain times, or in certain circumstances. A fighter (of just about any level) unable to compete with a high-level wizard seems...

Yep, agreed here. This is why I think that hardcoded restrictions into the core rules should be few. From this thread however, I take that the DMG could advantageously offer advice on how to either develop your own game world, or how to tweak another to your (and your players') taste(s). Some...

I'm not against restrictions, on the contrary, but as long as they're not too arbitrary or make some sense to me. To me, this means that restrictions should be few. Agreed. The solution you propose is kind of weird, no? You need to turn someone into a... ? You know what, I vastly prefer...

Partly snipped from the OP: Those are pretty general statements there. With hindsight, I can tell what you are referring to with regards to certain D&D editions, but really, general statements such as : I'd like for the game to include characters effective in and out of combat; or I'd like for...

I appreciate the open information sharing that they appear to be doing in the Rule of Three column. I appreciate the tone too, but then again I haven't gone out of my way to find how he might be critisizing powers (which I don't think he was). If I really, really want to think that, I'm sure...

And most importantly: Is the number 42 really the answer to all questions that matter?

I DMed a short series of home-made one-shots 20 years ago, where the BBEG was always the same guy coming back in resurrected, undead and finally demon form to do evil, but the PCs were always there to save the day! I usually hate bad guys being resurrected (and I've never done it apart from...

Haha, fair enough :)

That's why I wrote "if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours" at the end. We had paralysis in 1E, it didn't suck because battles didn't last long and PCs had ways to remove it. One thing's for sure: spellcaster were feared because magic had the value of being powerful, meaningful. Right. Am I...

Sure, scaling values are found in pretty much every RPG. However, in 4E, too many things scale. Whereas in many other RPGs, you have some things that remain static, and others that scale, and suddenly those things that scale have value. Take a sill system where the PC skill modifiers scale (as...

In 1E, we had mages and clerics with Dispel Magic and Remove Paralysis spells, and other such contingency protections. So we could defend against those dangerous attacks. I'm don't think 1E was the best design you could have. But I think in 4E they went overboard with having nothing to fear -...

Here are two things that I would hope for in the new edition: 1) asking oneself whether each power and effect is fun does not make a game better IMO. Only positive things is like too much candy: it's not good for your health. Bring back stuff that hurst the PCs and makes the victory meaningful...