Search results

... You've never had an all-martial party?

Ah - sorry, it seemed like you were saying that WotC should ignore any and all such models when designing their rules. And, while I agree that they shouldn't be the only method of testing and verification, they should be a large part of their testing procedure. And, hopefully, they're putting...

I have to admit that this particular rulelet is, so far, one of my least favorite parts of the playtest rules. I hate, hate, hate, HATE, HATE! fiddly little "this stacks, but this doesn't, except sometimes" exceptions on an item-by-item basis. While the bonus type proliferation of 3E was not...

That's really cool. For, like, one item in a campaign. If we have to go through that for every item, though? Ech.

I'm pretty sure we already have that with the Healer specialty: 25gp per healing potion, can make 3 in an hour, and eventually they're maximized for free.

Amended: The model tells us that when you're a fighter, facing melee opponents, using Parry or Protect is the best strategy.* And, given the rules on Parry / Protect, it'll probably work on ranged opponents, too. So, I don't think the test is quite as limited as you're proposing. Moreover...

And yet, if the model is telling us that constantly reserving your Expertise Dice for Parry / Protect is far-and-away stronger than reasonably intelligent use of, say, Deadly Strike, then the model is providing a useful service.

... why not?

Absolutely all of this. I view identifying magic items by trial and error as a page from the same book that has "Standard Party Procedures When Encountering A Door." It was fun while I was writing it, the first time, but eventually it just gets old and formulaic. At this point, it's very old...

No, I'm sorry, the set of "unbalanced stuff in an RPG" is not a null set.

No, it's absolutely fantastic advice, provided: 1) The rules aren't balanced with everything else. 2) The rules cannot easily be made balanced with everything else. 3) The rules, for some reason, need to be included to satisfy some particular desire. If the rules have to be there, and they...

You missed a golden opportunity for a Python quote, there, pemerton. I am dissapoint.

A. Men. I have a really hard time with anyone who argues, seriously, that there should be less DMing advice and fewer DM tools in 5E, especially when the reasons given always work out to be so trivial.

I don't believe that either of these things is true.

Actually, it'd work great. I love swarm rules (and squad rules from SWSE). I ran a rather large PCs-and-villagers combat against an invading Red Wizard with her apprentices and their human and undead soldiers using similar rules. But, I posit, a "swarm of ogres" monster is not the same thing...

The problem with this is that I believe that characters should be much more than their collection of gear (e.g., mechanically, there are no differences between 2 RC Fighters other than their choice of equipment). I would hate to see that go away. Also: Best misspeelling ever.

This, too.

One orc warrior can hit (and thus 'pose some level of threat,' albeit not much, to) a 1st, 5th, and 10th-level character in D&D 3.5. Isn't bounded accuracy supposed to accomplish something? Isn't the point to make monsters more broadly relevent? I mean, there's nothing stopping you from...

No? It's just a useful baseline. I mean, if slobo777 had run the 3 1st-level Fighters against 2 ogres, they'd have just done better than his report states. There's nothing mandating that there be 3 ogres there. Moreover, 4E, through minions, encourages having lots more monsters than players...

You know, you'd think that, and yet, here we are. Not you, obviousely, but some people are still claiming that an ogre is a threat to a 10th-level party. An actual threat? No. Something you'll need to seriously consider prioritizing as a target? I'm not so sure. 4E minions are a threat...