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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5776594" data-attributes="member: 17106">Do I think the Tome of Battle was one of the worst 3.5 books, one that I would never allow in my game? Yes. Do I have a problem with it being published and someone else using it? No. The only problem is if (as in 4e) it becomes the only option. There's plenty of room for a subsection of rules for people who like a certain style.Does rage work and provide a positive gameplay experience? Would an alternative form of rage not limited by daily use not do as well in those respects? There are perfectly viable mechanics for rage other than the one in the 3.5 PHB (some are even suggested in this thread).The substantive issue here is not gamism vs simulationism. It's whether the mechanics being raised are well written in any domain. Good rules impose limits, but with reason.It's very easy to have a system where after you rage for a while (time based on Con), you get fatigued and suffer penalties that you have to rest to remove (without any of this rage/day business). It's very easy to have a system with vitality or stun damage that can be healed by a "second wind" during combat or a brief rest afterwards. The same goals are accomplished as with ability uses/day and healing surges (tracking tactical resources, balancing the character against a fighter, modeling the effects of prolonged exertion), but the result is more balanced and more believable.Hit points aren't a daily resource; it's significantly more complicated that "I can take 3 hits in a day and then I die, period". They certainly are arbitrary. I certainly wouldn't cite them as an example of good design, nor do most other d20 mechanics resemble hit points. More to the point:Even if it were true, "things have always been this way" isn't much of an argument.  "Things are better for most players of the game this way" is the issue.</blockquote>

Verification