Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gothmog" data-source="post: 871798" data-attributes="member: 317">Originally posted by Dark Jezter:Nope, I am not saying one style is better than the other.  Historically, D&D has always been more combat heavy, but if a DM didn't want as much combat, he could simply decide not lessen it.  With 3E though, a much larger part of a character is built around combat, and 3E (through various aspects such as the Power Play articles) encourages the development of combat at the expense of other aspects of play.  When was the last time you saw a rogue take the Athletic feat in preference of Dodge, TWF, or Ambidexterity; or spend skill points on Perform rather than Tumble?  My guess is never- such a character under 3E is not as powerful, and therefore inferior and at a disadvantage.Originally posted by Dark Jezter: True, and I should have put in a few more details about the system I use.  What I propose is that skill points be spent to learn how to use weapons at their full BAB.  Related weapons that are not specifically known recieve a -2 penalty, while unrelated weapons recieve a -4 penalty.  I simply find it ridiculous that ALL fighters know how to optimally use ALL simple and martial weapons, even though some of those weapons might not be common or even used in their cultures!  Not to mention that historically all knights did not know how to use a longbow, halberd, or pike- those were traditionally the weapons of archers and footmen respectively, and a knight learning those weapons would be considered "low-brow".Originally posted by Dark Jezter: Originally posted by Grazzt: And D&D wouldn't be D&D without racial restrictions stating that dwarves can't be wizards either- but that restriction was broken with 3E.  What I am wanting to encourage is the reward of role-playing rather than random killing of creatures.  How does killing an orc make a bard a better musician, or a wizard a better spellcaster?  I would argue that it is assumed that the bard or wizard would benefit from this because of the path they would have to take to the event leading up to killing the orc.  But why not reward the methods used to accomplish a goal, rather than the killing itself.  Same logic applies to random kills on the part of the fighter in regards to rewarding role-playing and accomplishing goals.  Note that my points isn't saying that killing an evil necromancer animating bodies from a gaveyard wouldn't be worth anything, IF that was a goal in the adventure.  I'd just like to reduce the incidence of "Ohh, I need 22 more XP to make next level- I'm going to go start a fight with that group of peasants."Originally posted by Dark Jezter: The way I work it, ALL clerics still have access to Cure Light and Cure Moderate Wounds, but higher level healing spells are the province of the Healing domain.  Also, using a Wound Point/Vitality Point system takes a lot of the healing burden off the cleric, so they can be something other than healing dispensers.  The Strength and War domains are only so powerful because of the cleric base spell list- with a restricted spell list those domains are not as overpowered as they currently are.Originally posted by Dark Jezter:Sorry, I'm really not picking on you here Dark Jezter- its just that you responded to most of my comments. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  Its fine to say a warrior has become more resistant to harm or learns to roll with the punches as he advances- that is what hit points represent.  But it makes NO sense to say that he is more resistant to poison or disease- biological bodies simply don't work that way.  You don't learn how to become poison resistant or immune to disease.  Those are qualities that are determined by the innate toughness and resilience of the creature.  Otherwise vets who saw heavy fighting in wars and navy seals (who I am assuming you would concur are higher level than most people) would be immune to poison and disease, which simply isn't the case. Whew! Now for some other things I saw that I'd like to comment on:Originally posted by Celtavian: I'm in complete agreement with you here.  But this is a problem that is easily solved by the DM- simply don't allow raise dead or resurrection spells.Originally posted by Celtavian: Yes! Yes!  I forgot about that one!  Maybe 1d6 for 10 feet, 3d6 for 20 feet, 5d6 for 30 feet, etc.- up to the character's terminal velocity based on size.  It would be easy to do- just have a table with each size category and the max falling damage they can take.Originally posted by Celtavian: Yep, in agreement here as well.  One thing I have thought of but not tried is 1/2 the AC bonus from armor or natural armor (rounded down) is DR, the other half is added to AC.  Or alternately, DR 1 for light, DR 2 for medium, and DR 3 for heavy.Originally posted by Celtavian: Yep, I'm agreement here as well.  DotF already has some feats like this, and FFG has put out some feats along these lines as well.  I'd like to see this developed further, maybe giving each domain a special use for channeling divine energy.  Hmm.... I think I might be busy for a while! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> And I'll add one more of my own:13) This one especially make sense if you use the DR suggestion Celtavian made above: instead of AC, use a stat called Defense.  Defense is equal to: 10 + Dex mod + Reflex save + 1/2 AC bonus of armor.  This would also help the BAB outstripping AC problem D&D has.</blockquote>

Verification