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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kinem" data-source="post: 5805053" data-attributes="member: 24234">Here's my take on these suggestions, as someone who's not a fan of 4E at all:No. Different situations call for different, and stacking, effects.No. It makes no sense if when you need a 20 to hit, every hit is a crit.No. It turns spells into mere delaying tactics while hit point damage is where the real action is. Yuck, yuck. Hold person was utterly a useless spell in 3.5.No. Some things realistically take a full round or longer to do.No. I really like the way multiple attacks give a sense of what's going on; if you have two weapons, you make two attacks; and of course you can split your attacks as you see fit. Perhaps a matter of taste, but it doesn't slow down combat much and adds verisimilitude IMO.Agreed. Of course, D20 modern did this first.No. It should be an option, as it was in 3.x. There can be advantages to working with what you happen to get.I can see a case for this.A wands of fireballs +1 is not a new (4E-era) idea.I do agree that things along these lines (but not required) can be cool.In certain cases it's fine. I would not like to see too much nerfing of (pre-4E) spells, though.Agreed, although this is hardly original to 4E.No and Yes.No, if it means that monster stats would be dumbed down and/or built in a different way than PCs thus making monsters with actual character class levels hard to pull off as in 4E.Yes, in that there should be a readable and simple presentation of the most commonly used information, and often that's the only information that will need to be re-printed in modules and such.Monster and NPC stats need to be "telescoping": There are the simple stats, and then there are the real stats for when you need to know more about a particular guy (whether he be human or not).3.x's negative level system was fine.</blockquote>

Verification