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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SSquirrel" data-source="post: 5751280" data-attributes="member: 5202">Before this 2nd giant reply gets started, it looks like some of my points I made in my initial post have already been addressed, so ignore anything that no longer applies <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Oh yeah, warning, ultra massive post, but I'm all caught up now at least heh.I like starting the bonuses earlier like was done starting w/3E.  Subtract 10, divide by  2, round down.  So 12-13 is +1, etc.  Otherwise people who have only middling characters are very marginal while someone who gets lucky at all outclasses them severely.  Making the scaling spread out a bit more reduces the differences in someone who has an 18 and a 13.  Also, if you follow my above recommendation to make all melee and ranged attacks Dex based, you could rename that stat to Accuracy or Deftness or something.  Would still cover stealthiness and such too.  Dial your numbers back or having a shield is a complete waste of time.  If you already have +16 from plate, you add only 6% to your AC by adding a shield.  If plate gives +8, you gain 12.5%.  Makes it much more desirable.  If you want multiple shields, I would say Small shield +1, Large shield +2, Tower shield +4.  Tower shields aren't really that useful for making attacks tho, they're really for hiding behind when a dragon is breathing fire on you or a flight of arrows is coming your way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   Or Small and Large shields, +1 and +2.  Bucklers in recent editions only help +1 against 1 attack per round so they are extremely limited.  Regarding stat bonuses, if you want to keep things based on 4, every 4 points they get a +1, so an 8 would be +2, an 18 would be +4.  Allow them to add a +1 to a single stat every 2 levels (which means they could gain a +1 bonus climbing from 16 to 20 in 8 levels of time) and just make sure you are counting on the fact that anyone in the game would probably have at least a +2 to hit something just based on their initial stat.  It does advance more slowly than the 3E/4E method tho, which some might like.I'm not a fan of this idea.  As things stand Fighters really only care about one stat as it is, casters would have some serious MAD trying to keep up w/all 4 stats.  Also, this means if you want to cast any damage spells, you want to stat yourself like a Fighter, which makes no sense to me.Ok these first 2 could make sense.I'm sorry, if I bust a baseball bat or a big log over your head, you could very easily die.  Broken ribs puncture the lung, etc.  Damage types is just complicating things.  Damage type only matters if you are going to do things like X weapon type doesn't deal full damage to Y monster or you want to say things like edged weapons aren't as good against Plate armor as Piercing weapons, etc.  I thought we were moving away from complication tho.Welcome to 4E <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So that means a starting fighter at L1 in plate can have a 15 AC.  give him a magic shield and a magic ring and he has no more incentive to improve.  Also, I don't think the strict 19 limit is needed.  1 always misses, 20 always hits (or even crits).  Your enemy has a +7 to hit.  You could be wearing magic plate, w/a magic shield and a magic ring and he will still hit you on a  13 or higher.  I know you want to keep numbers lower, but personally stat increases and new feats and such are a couple of the more obvious ways to denote character growth and it seems like some classes would quickly hit a ceiling, leaving no further reason for them to try and better themselves.Crossbows should be more damaging to make up for their lack of ability to fire quickly, otherwise people will never take it.  So shortbow 1d4, longbow 1d6.  Light crossbow 1d8, heavy crossbow 1d10.This is simpler and less time consuming.  If people hold actions to change their initiative order that is one thing, but roll once and go from there is far easier.  Esp if you are the on in charge of the initiative board like I usually am <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If damage will happen a lot, people need a lot more health.  Add their Strength to their starting hit points.  There will need to be some pretty significant healing in the game too unless you are aiming for a very gritty game where people die a lot.  It seems reasonable that the guy who is wearing that much armor is only hit 1/4 of the time, but I think you could make this simpler by making class starting ACs either +4 or +2.  Mages already can't wear armor (or can they?) so they're going to be super easy to hit.  Making them have low AC and low HP just brings back all the things I really hated about old editions.  Cuz my group always wanted a wizard, but didn't wanna play one themselves.  I loved playing wizards, but I'm far happier playing a Wizard in 4E than I ever was in basic or AD&D where a housecat could kill you if you had rolled poorly on starting HPs <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Damage vs armor was dropped for 2E for a reason.  If I never see that again it may be too soon If your enemy has a +7 to attack and you have a 22 AC, he will hit on 1/4 of his attacks.  If you have a 12, he will hit on 3/4 o his attacks.  That is probably a death blow for a L1 Wizard and even a L1 Fighter would be really hurting the way you have things setup currently.  If they have a 24 and you have a 7, you hit on an 18 or higher.  He has sacrificed chances to improve his damage or force of will thru magic items and focused on protection.  That shouldn't be a detriment to him.Agreed.  Double damage should only apply to the base damage, so before they add in their various bonuses.  So if a dagger does 1d4, a crit from the dagger would deal 2d4 plus whatever not (1d4+a bunch)x2.  I'm assuming you were already planning for it to work this way as that is how the game has worked for awhile now, but just clarifying <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Surprise rounds are easy.  Anyone who was surprised doesn't get an action while the others all get one.  If you are adding a stat modifier to AC, remove it in surprise situations.  Or apply a flat AC penalty when they're surprised.  Maybe -2AC and +20% chance to opposing Sneak Attacks if surprised, as an example.That 2nd line is proof you didn't play 3E heh.  They sure as heck tried to have a rule for everything, altho they did stop short of some of the excess of Rolemaster heh.He just spent 4 feats to do all that tho, so now he hasn't been able to grab Expertise or Shield Bashing or whatever tasty fun he could pick up w/his first 4 feats.  He's very defensively minded tho so if he can give the enemies a reason to keep attacking him, he'll do well.  Of course, if he's really hard to hit and has nothing to entice the enemy to attack him, they'll ignore him.</blockquote>

Verification