Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4110552" data-attributes="member: 22424">Note: I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm probably repeating some others here...Somewhat. Simplicity will always trade off against 'realism', and believability will trade off against abstraction. Fun probably operates on a sliding scale along with all other measures: go too far towards realism and fun is diminished, but move too far from it and fun is also diminished. The key is to find the happy medium that best suits you. (And, in game design, that probably means that the best way to please the most people is something of a toolkit approach, allowing people to tailor the game to taste... but that's much harder to do, and to do well, than to define a set of baseline assumptions and design accordingly.)Yes, as seen in previous editions (with limited success, it must be said).Personally, if we're dropping the Vancian magic and going for per-encounter balancing, I would have gone with a Mana system for spellcasters (ideally, where the caster starts encounters with a half-full pool, and can take actions to replenish the pool. He then gets the trade-off of casting a realtively weak spell every round, or taking time out to build his pool and then nova-ing with an encounter-ending effect).I would have coupled that with a stunt mechanic for melee characters, where characters gained 'stunt elements' from the selection of skills and feats, and put together stunts on the fly. Each stunt would require certain elements to be attempted at all (so, Legolas' shield-surfing would require the balance, movement and archery stunt elements), and require a single stunt roll to accomplish. The first time any stunt was performed, a hefty bonus would apply to the roll, as the muse of entertainment bores easily.I suspect balancing such a thing would be a monster, though.I'm not fond of a lot of these powers, although I do like the greater emphasis on movement in 4e. The answer to your question is, "yes", but I suspect we'll also see a range of other powers in the PHB, and certainly in other books. Once a few supplements are out there, the DM should be able to disallow the powers he doesn't like (for whatever reason) without damaging the game.Here, I'm inclined to split the hit point pool into two, a Quick pool and a Dead pool. The former would represent being lucky, favoured of the gods, or in good cheer, while the latter would represent more serious wounds. At the end of each encounter, I'm inclined to replenish the Quick pool entirely (without the need for Clerical healing, healing surges, or any other such things).The Dead pool, however, I would not replenish except with the use of healing magic, or though long-term rest. Essentially, once those hit points are gone, they are gone until the end of the adventure.(I should note that I happen to like the "Second Wind" mechanic. It does represent something that is seen in the source material quite often, that being the ability of the hero to take a beating, take a moment while the enemy is gloating to pull himself together, and then get back into the fight.)AC as DR is nice in theory, but the implementations I've seen either bog the game down (extra rolls as in Iron Heroes) or are unbalanced (static DRs make Power Attack unbalanced, especially when combined with two-handed weapons (under 3.5e rules).</blockquote>

Verification