Spells were limited at one point.I am open to that, it is not that different from AC making you harder to hit or absorbing more damage, both work just fine in practice
At a minimum I don’t see why spells should always succeed and weapon attacks need a check. If anything, magic should be harder than swinging a sword
I agree, but prefer you roll to hit with spells vs getting rid of attack rolls (4e had this part right IMO)At a minimum I don’t see why spells should always succeed and weapon attacks need a check. If anything, magic should be harder than swinging a sword
Heh. It's actually kinda funny, but, the VTT's are likely going to make this very acceptable. At least in Fantasy Grounds, you never roll your own saving throws. It's all automated. I target the target of the spell, click cast, and the saving throws all get rolled automatically. From there, it's a very small step to just making players roll to hit with spells. After all, we already do that with lots of spells anyway. Why roll to hit with a firebolt, but, roll a saving throw vs Sacred Flame?
I like rolling saving throws for a PC cause it feels like their fate is in my hands. Which, it kind of is since i'm making decisions for them. As GM though, its nice to have the VTT pop out 10+ saving throws for fire ball for me.Heh. It's actually kinda funny, but, the VTT's are likely going to make this very acceptable. At least in Fantasy Grounds, you never roll your own saving throws. It's all automated. I target the target of the spell, click cast, and the saving throws all get rolled automatically. From there, it's a very small step to just making players roll to hit with spells. After all, we already do that with lots of spells anyway. Why roll to hit with a firebolt, but, roll a saving throw vs Sacred Flame?
Oh, right... tradition...
My group made it through about half of Necropolis before ending in a TPK. (They "almost" made it to the tomb.)
It's an odd thing. How to make sure a character is able to do something (and feel good about it), yet still make the die rolls have weight and carry emotion. I am curious about it.
10+ rolls, yes. But, it should be noted, DMs like to roll too.
WotC, like most module creators, is a mixed bag. I had some that were good (Strahd, Tomb), some that look good (Witchlight, Storm King, Avenrus), some that were bad (Xarysis, Tyranny) and some that look bad (Fortune's Wheel, Obelisk). Module writing is a difficult process no matter what anyone says; sometimes you get I6: Ravenloft and sometimes you get N2: The Forest Oracle.Huh. WotC adventures are not as good as 3pp? News to me. I own quite a lot of 3pp modules and mine them for ideas mostly. Run a few of them. Rats of Waterdeep by @M.T. Black is a fantastic little module. I've run it for about four different groups now and I've loved it every time.
OTOH, I have Necromancer Games Necropolis and I couldn't even begin to slog through that. Sorry, but when your first boxed text of the adventure is six paragraphs (and meaty paragraphs at that) long, with an optional seventh. And cartography that looks like a 5 year old did it. I'm more than willing to stack anything WotC upside that.
I dunno. I've played Strahd, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, and Hoard of the Dragon Queen. I enjoyed two of those quite a lot, although, to be fair, Mad Mage left me cold. I've run Primeval Thule - and again, I'll stack any of the WotC modules against those - Ghosts of Saltmarsh (an okay adventure. Possibly better with a different group), Dragonheist - tons of fun. I really enjoyed that module. I've also run Candlekeep, which, again, is a fantastic module. Lots of stuff to hang on there. And some really cool adventures. Now starting Phandelver and so far enjoying it immensely.
So, I gotta say, I've had far more hits than misses with WotC adventures. I dunno. I like 'em. Maybe I just have really low standards.
