NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9216448" data-attributes="member: 18">That's not the issue - they're just not at the point where a quick start would make sense. They're earlier in the design process - this more like D&D Next was when it was in internal playtesting, before the first open playtest.That's very good of you, I don't think it's much of a derail given we're waiting for more info at the moment! Re: "risk of failure", well, the final system remains to be seen, but my expectation is you can still have attacks totally fail to work, but it'll be because the enemy used some kind of spell/ability, or you roll so low they soaked the damage or the like. This is what I mean by shifting things around - instead total failure being RNG based on a high-variability.I think D&D's gambling angle would work a lot better if it also used a "cooked" system, as it were - if you missed like, default 15% of the time, in D&D (which is what Pillars 1 went for), rather than, like, default 30-45% of the time (I forget exactly what the intended default is for 5E, but I think it's between those), I think you could retain the rush you describe but lose a lot of the swing-y-ness which can turn some combats into tedium or totally undermine good play (or buoy up really bad play lol!).But that would require moving away from a single d20 roll as hit, which complicates matters - I don't think anyone wants to be, for example, rolling 2d20 and averaging them! So there are other considerations at the tabletop.</blockquote>

Verification