Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 4018085" data-attributes="member: 5038">I consider myself more simulationist than gamist.  Yet, I don't care how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells unless their abilities do not back up their ability to dominate lesser inhabitants. And, I could definitely care less about how they set up fortifications.What I do care about are the following which break my suspension of disbelief:1) Rings not being able to hold trivial powers that low level characters can utilize.  I could easily imagine a wizard who enjoys traveling or lives in a cold environment, likes the little comforts and posessing a fondness for jewelry creating such an item.  I also think it is reasonable that anyone wearing the ring would benefit from it.  As such, level limits for benefitting  all  rings seems completely arbitrary and gamist to me.2)  character's gaining automatic bonuses to skills in which they have not been trained, have not had the opportunity to utilize or acquire knowledge of simply because they are of higher level ( I seem to recall the Star Wars: Saga Edition being mentioned as being in. If not scratch this.)3) per encounter magic.  Player A: "What do you mean you can't use spell x again?  You said that spell x is weaker (or of equal power)  than spell y. So, why can you cast spell y now, but not spell x?"Player B: " I don't know why other than the rules say so".4) Per encounter combat maneuversI agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience).  Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.5) characters starting encounters fully refreshedHmm. I can use ability x only once during this one long fight, but I four seperate encounters within that same time span, I can use the same ability 4 times.6) the bleeding rules: I am fine with the bloodied state inflicting penalties and indicating how the battle is going.  However, I dislike the idea that the dragon breath weapon attack from that one early playtest example (or was it  a design journal)  might apply to all dragon's of that type, because the designers thought it was a "kewl" ability.7) Keeping luck and skill as aspects of hit points.  We now have game elements that can reflect skill and luck and, imo, hit points no longer need to reflect these elements.  Skill is covered by level bonuses to save and class defense bonuses.  Luck can be simulated by the use of action points. As for lethal blows being turned into nicks, action points expenditure could be used for this as can creating a feat or ability to roll with a blow.  Furthermore, by removing luck and skill, there is no longer the bizarreness of healing spells curing luck and skill.</blockquote>

Verification