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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5885092" data-attributes="member: 27160">As a module I think this would be fine - it supports some specific world-model elements that people might want without warping the other rules to do so. I could see variants of this working, too, with conditions like Daze and Stun being applied for serious falls.In actual fact I am pretty sure arrows can be dodged for a variety of circumstances. I used to shoot longbow in field archery, and have stood near targets as people were shooting to announce scores. Dodging wayward arrows was quite easy, but its very important to note that (a) the range was more like what one would see in a real battle - 60 feet plus - than is typical in a D&D 'battle', and (b) there was nothing else of similar note going on, so I was concentrating totally on watching the archer (and could bar them from shooting while I was not). I think the "use of dodging" thing has a much wider range of issues, to be honest. For one-on-one duels it's dandy, but for a confused melee it becomes near-worthless and other factors, such as teamwork (covering your buddies) and fatigue - as well as the sort-of-analogue footwork - come to the fore.As an aside, if you really want D&D to be anything even vaguely approaching a "realistic" model of combat, you have one heck of a lot of "modules" to write!!If you have problems with hit points, it seems likely to me that you would also have an issue with skills and such advancing in lock-step. Surely, at this stage, a system of independent skills and talents would be preferable? Some could be grouped, as you find in DragonQuest (not the boardgame, the RPG), but they are trained in/bought separately. This also allows increasing skill to come from practice and training instead of killing things and taking their stuff...I'm not going to argue with wanting to support more play styles - as many as possible - because that's like arguing against free money. Obviously, it's desirable as long as the side effects aren't taken into account.But D&D in all of its incarnations has covered only a fraction of the styles possible in roleplaying games - and it has covered a far smaller fraction than that well.When D&D tries to be "all things to all men" it has an unfortunate tendency to compromise itself - and that's when you start to see the "oh, we can't take that out - that's part of the core of D&D!" D&D has a number of these "core features" (hit points, levels, classes, certain "iconic" monsters) that are seen as "defining" it. These features in themselves support some styles of play far better than others. Can you add "modules" around the edges to make it (look like it would) support other styles? Sure. But you will still have those core elements - and they will still cause issues for those who don't want the style(s) they support out of D&D.So, WotC's options seem to be:- Make a D&D that caters primarily to the style best supported by the "core elements" of hit points, levels, classes and so on, maybe with additional "modules" as, essentially, a marketing gimmick.- Publish a set of rules that don't really achieve coherent support for any style, but that have a few "buzzwords" and systems in them that will appeal to all sorts of roleplayers for marketing purposes. I don't believe the designers or developers at WotC would do this, actually, but the marketeers and business realities may suck them into it if things do not go well with the planned development.- Abandon the "core elements" so as to make a game that supports playstyles dissimilar to those supported by the "core elements", in the hope that you can get a game that supports a wider range of styles by doing so (which, looking at other games which do support other styles, seems unlikely, since they, too, are limited in their coverage - just limited to a different range of styles).Sure.</blockquote>

Verification