|
Myriad Truths posted:So I've seen a lot of talking about DoaM lately (in grognards.txt) and my keen deductive instinct has finally suggested that it stands for 'damage on a miss'. Is that correct, and if so, do people really care that much about it that they've turned it into a rallying cry for their problems with the game? They've also tried to turn halfling movespeed into a rallying cry for how the new edition is bad and wrong. You're not exactly dealing with the most rational individuals.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:So I've seen a lot of talking about DoaM lately (in grognards.txt) and my keen deductive instinct has finally suggested that it stands for 'damage on a miss'. Is that correct, and if so, do people really care that much about it that they've turned it into a rallying cry for their problems with the game? We complain that the Wizard can rewrite the laws of the universe, they complain that the Fighter hits with sticks too good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:So I've seen a lot of talking about DoaM lately (in grognards.txt) and my keen deductive instinct has finally suggested that it stands for 'damage on a miss'. Is that correct, and if so, do people really care that much about it that they've turned it into a rallying cry for their problems with the game? It's their scapegoat, but it's the one they've chosen to die on. DoaM has more or less become the flag for what is or isn't allowed in D&D Next. Few people actually hate it so much as they hate what they've chosen it stands for; most conversations in ENWorld inevitably turn to the detractors admitting that they don't even want DoaM as an option because it might "breed other options like it." Likewise, while DoaM has a few fans, most are far more adamant that the first group gets told to gently caress right off with their demands that people not be allowed to play in ways they personally disapprove of. In other words, it's become the grog battlefield for "is Next allowed to give options for non-AD&D fans or are they to be shown the door?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I demand that the next Next be looked over by PAAFP* so that we can recognize the advancements made by fighters over history, not just the modern era, and remove these cruel stereotypes. From Cu Chulainn cleaving a mountain to Ken declaring you are already dead melee combatants have shown time and again they are more than capable of being equals to even the mightiest of wizards. *Planar Association for the Advancement of Fighter People
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Myriad Truths posted:So I've seen a lot of talking about DoaM lately (in grognards.txt) and my keen deductive instinct has finally suggested that it stands for 'damage on a miss'. Is that correct, and if so, do people really care that much about it that they've turned it into a rallying cry for their problems with the game? We even have a guy on ENWorld who's okay with flaming oil doing auto damage, but not a bigass greataxe. There's also a firm conviction that pre-4e saving throws and attack rolls actually mean different things, as opposed to them just being an arbitrary decision about who's responsible for rolling the RNG at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:It's become truly unhinged. I don't know why this minor, lovely mechanic has become the hill grogs have chosen to die on, but there you have it. The ENWorld subforum is the perfect place to see just how disingenuous the arguments are, because they know they cannot be called on their own bullshit. There's a reason every thread there is basically the same one thread with all the same arguments - you're not allowed to point that out. Make a statement, someone else shows you're wrong? Ignore them and start a new thread with that same statement! They've claimed that people who like the mechanic hate games, are poor sports, don't understand fun, and just want to win all the time. Curiously, none have responded when asked why spells that do damage on misses are immune to such criticisms - but they sure have responded by pointing all this out again and again on each thread when asked!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
New battleground: At will spells. If you've noticed a pattern in "What are grogs mad about D&D this week?" it's whether or not the mechanic was used in 4e. My short list: * Damage on a miss * At-will spells * Fast healing rate and/or self healing * Martial healing * Fast halflings ... What am I missing? And can you think of anything that's caused a furor that wasn't common in 4e?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:New battleground: At will spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
At-Will Spells are a late 3e thing that started with Complete Mage in the form of Reserve feats, which gave you a spell-like ability you could use as often as you liked provided you had a certain category of spell in a certain level of spell slot. So if you had the Fiery Burst feat, you had an at-will small fireball you could use that did 1d6 fire damage per level of the highest fireball spell you had in reserve. The idea is that it would give you something to do for the rounds where you didn't need to cast one of your daily spells, where the previous assumption is that you'd tag dudes with a light crossbow or something. Of course, that option fell apart as you leveled thanks to the fact that monster defenses far outstripped the combination of your wizard's lovely BAB and middling investment in Dexterity and weapon enhancements/feats, so you'd be spending your entire turn firing a single bolt that would either miss or maybe do 1d8+2 on a hit. Even if your wizard was some sort of unnatural super sharpshooter who hit and crit every single time you fired a bolt, you'd still add maybe 12 points of damage to the battle each round. So if you compared a party where the wizard played sharpshooter in the off-rounds to a party where the wizard just lounged in a recliner and sipped martinis when casting wasn't needed, you'd find that the parties finished the fight in pretty much the exact same amount of time since the wizard's meager damage was basically a non-factor that could easily be absorbed by the party without anyone else noticing. With a reserve feat the idea you could add a level-scaling amount of damage to the fights when you didn't need to crank out the big guns. From personal experience, at high levels you have enough spells that you can cast two or three per fight and still go through most of the day, and many fights just end within two or three rounds anyways so you barely have an opportunity to get to your reserve feat. Sloth wizards win again. About the only Reserve feats I saw that were actually useful were Holy Warrior (grants you a bonus to weapon damage if you have a War domain spell slot in reserve, so useful for battle clerics boosting their attacks), Acid Splash (granted you a 1d6/level acid attack, notable in that it was the always-useful acid damage and it was an attack action instead of a standard action, so you could possibly full attack with it), Touch of Healing (gave you an at-will healing ability that restored health, though you couldn't use it on a target at 50% or more HP) and Summon Elemental (let you summon an elemental for a few rounds that you could use as a meatshield, flanking buddy or trapspringer). LightWarden fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
It started even earlier with the X&Y books, with spells that granted a passive effect while prepped that faded when the spell was cast. Still not as useful as Tenser's Floating Deckchair, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
I skimmed through Tome & Blood, but I didn't see anything that seemed to fit bill. Do you have any examples?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Okay if you remember I listed what we saw of a Sorcerer from the 25 hour Extra Life marathon. Well someone on the WotC forums apparently saw a 10th level Sorcerer NPC. No idea if this is the way Sorcerer is now going, or if being an NPC meant it was built differently or what but here it is.AlHazred posted:Pretty sure this got buried in the off-topic posts and I wasn't very detailed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:I skimmed through Tome & Blood, but I didn't see anything that seemed to fit bill. Do you have any examples? The first ones I can recall are druid spells, although I don't remember much more. (It's been a drat long time since I played 3e.) I think they're in Spell Compendium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:I skimmed through Tome & Blood, but I didn't see anything that seemed to fit bill. Do you have any examples?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:40
|
|
dwarf74 posted:There's also a firm conviction that pre-4e saving throws and attack rolls actually mean different things, as opposed to them just being an arbitrary decision about who's responsible for rolling the RNG at the moment. It's certainly arbitrary in the fact that a number is needed regardless of who it comes from, but It's not arbitrary in the psychology of the illusion of control. You put the dice in the hands of the players when they were being taken out of the game by something that would feel unfair if the DM did it. If a DM in a game said 'oh let's see if you looked into the eyes of the Basilisk (rolls) yep, you did, you're dead' that is the epitome of bullshit DMing. Giving the player the dice is like having them spin the roulette wheel, and we all know how addicting the thrill of gambling is. It's silly, and irrational, and ultimately an illusion, but it's not arbitrary. I've been at tables run both ways and one's boring and frustrating, the other's exciting and fun. (By AD&D standards.) Is this the 'feel' argument everyone hates on here? It's me. I'm the grog.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
I also think damage on a miss is cool and is exactly as cinematic as the climactic fight in many movies vs. a monstrous leviathan that beats up on everyone even with broad misses due to crap flying all around, falling off of furniture, barely ducking, etc. So there. Don't pigeonhole me too quickly.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
akasnowmaaan posted:If a DM in a game said 'oh let's see if you looked into the eyes of the Basilisk (rolls) yep, you did, you're dead' that is the epitome of bullshit DMing. I agree, but I find it no different than 'oh, let's see if you managed to avoid the ogre's maul (rolls) nope, you are a splat on the floor now'. Yet these people find the situation were a player dies from a critical without ever touching the dice completely acceptable compared to things that work on saving throws. Players should roll everything, DM's sould just give them DCs 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
I also prefer the players rolling to defend rather than the monster rolling to attack. But it should be evenly applied, rather than magic being player defends and physical being monster attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Also don't forget that early in the Next playtest a bone of contention was whether spells should be rolled by the caster like an attack or if they should force the target to roll a save, and it turns out that in that case players rolling the dice also went against the "feel" of D&D. Like a lot of these cases for "feel" it doesn't really seem like there's a lot of consistency in how it's applied. Also also, "doing [THING] makes it feel more empowering" is an argument I've seen poo poo on by a lot of the same people who like to pull the whole "entitled MMO babies ruining gaming with their dumb video game ideas" thing. I'm not saying this makes the notion that players rolling their own saves makes it feel more empowering is wrong, just that actual grogs are very selective about how they like to apply that line of thinking. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
akasnowmaaan posted:If a DM in a game said 'oh let's see if you looked into the eyes of the Basilisk (rolls) yep, you did, you're dead' that is the epitome of bullshit DMing. Giving the player the dice is like having them spin the roulette wheel, and we all know how addicting the thrill of gambling is. It's silly, and irrational, and ultimately an illusion, but it's not arbitrary. I'm in favor of picking one rule about dice and following it all the time. Either actor rolls, like in 4e (where you still get saving throws, and there's no save or die) or player rolls, like in Cinematic Unisystem. I think your example is also tied in with save-or-die crap, too, which shouldn't be there in the first place... As an example, there are two cantrips in Next, one cleric and one wizard. They do basically the same thing - damage a guy - but one requires the guy to save, and the other requires an attack roll. This is bullshit, and it stopped the game every time while we reminded ourselves which was which. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Also don't forget that early in the Next playtest a bone of contention was whether spells should be rolled by the caster like an attack or if they should force the target to roll a save, and it turns out that in that case players rolling the dice also went against the "feel" of D&D. Like a lot of these cases for "feel" it doesn't really seem like there's a lot of consistency in how it's applied. On the other hand, if the enemy Wizard casts flesh-to-stone on you you can go from full HP to Forever Dead with absolutely 0 input from your side. Could happen first turn of combat. Could happen before you even get a turn! So putting the "Does this hit or not" decision in the hands of the players gives you an illusion of control over the outcome. "*roll* You're dead!" vs "Roll to see if you're dead." So yeah, if you assume that SoD or SoS or similar "You're out of the fight!" effects are going to be in the game, there are arguments for putting the defensive rolls in the hands of the players that don't apply to HP-chip attacks. And if only Magic gets these effects, of course only Magic would get saving throws. It's still horribly flawed for many other reasons (A one-roll player kill is a bad idea in a tactical skirmish game no matter who's rolling the dice, uneven distribution of narrative impact etc) but the general concept of "Put the outcome in the hands of the target for the really lovely effects" makes sense. It was present in 4E to an extent, with saving throws to end ongoing effects (including "is bleeding on the floor dying") being target-rolled rather than attacker-rolled. As an aside, if you assume that Magic Just Works, then not rolling for magic and magical damage-on-a-miss makes perfect sense for "thematic" reasons. If you're punching a dude then you're rolling to see if you successfully put your fist where that person's face is. It's a judgement-and-skill dependent situation with a chance for error. As a Wizard, when you cast Flesh to Stone you're not rolling to see if you successfully cast Flesh to Stone. Flesh to Stone just happens; you press the "Flesh to Stone" button and the Universe executes the Flesh to Stone script on your target. After that point it's up to the target to defeat your Flesh to Stone attack by securing their meatwall and keeping their anti-magic definitions up to date do you see where I am going with this 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I think you've misunderstood akasnowmaaan a bit there. The point being made is that HP-based combat tends to be a lot more "fair" than exotic magical combat. Ignoring the Orc with a Scythe situation, you're generally given a lot of warning before someone's attack can finish you off, so having the hit-or-miss be out of the player's hands is "fair" since by the time you reach the stage where someone else's roll can kill you you, in theory anyway, have already had a lot of input into how you got to that stage. And even then if you're bleeding out all the recovery rolls are being rolled by you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:This is Dungeons and Dragons we are talking about. The whole part about generally given a lot of warning before someone will finish you off tends to only be a result of the DM not being a dick and not systemic to the system. In fact most of the dickish moves in the game aren't magic related and just an exotic form of "gently caress you" in a martial form.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I think you've misunderstood akasnowmaaan a bit there. The point being made is that HP-based combat tends to be a lot more "fair" than exotic magical combat. Ignoring the Orc with a Scythe situation, you're generally given a lot of warning before someone's attack can finish you off, so having the hit-or-miss be out of the player's hands is "fair" since by the time you reach the stage where someone else's roll can kill you you, in theory anyway, have already had a lot of input into how you got to that stage. And even then if you're bleeding out all the recovery rolls are being rolled by you anyway. I get what he's saying, I'm just pointing out that there's probably a lot of crossover between the people who would scream bloody murder if saving throws were rolled by the GM and the people who would scream if they had to roll "to-hit" with their Wizard's spell. He's right, it absolutely is what people mean (in part) when they talk about feel in D&D but it helps illustrate how inconsistent and arbitrary that "feel" can be and how trying to "capture the feel of D&D" as Mearls and co. keep aiming for winds up frequently boiling down to "do it this way because I said so!" And of course as you note yourself the reason that people don't like rolling to-hit on magic spells is because "magic needs to just work," which is its own kettle of worms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
The issue is that D&D mechanics started as roughshod stuff thrown together ad-hoc that now somehow makes up glorious classical perfect mechanics that can only be enshrined forever. Like saves. Saves were started when, loosely speaking, a DM said "as you glance in the window the medusa stares back, you die," the player said "Bullshit," so the DM had him roll to not instantly die. That's it. That's where saves started. Why are these connected to spells? Because literally every monster mechanic was a spell, thus every spell had to use monster mechanic rules. Saves were meant to be for situations where it was literally a case of luck or divine intervention or accident or what have you - the effect was impossible to miss, so something incredible caused it to not stop. "But Cirno, why should that be mechancally enshrined?" It shouldn't be. It should in fact be incredibly obvious that the difference between that and a standard attack roll are paper thin at best. It was a dumb ad hoc decision made spur of the moment, not something intended to be the one defining feature of D&D (just like all the other things that are the one defining feature of D&D). But because it's old, that means it's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The warning in question is that you're on 12 out of 56 hitpoints and therefore should probably take steps to get the hell out of dodge/quaff a potion/call a cleric etc, not the DM actually saying "I'm about to hit you now you will die". Also note my liberal use of scare quotes and the phrase "in theory". MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:35
|
|
Rexides posted:I agree, but I find it no different than 'oh, let's see if you managed to avoid the ogre's maul (rolls) nope, you are a splat on the floor now'. Yet these people find the situation were a player dies from a critical without ever touching the dice completely acceptable compared to things that work on saving throws. Ehh, not quite. It's messy and not quite perfectly divided, but you have melee combat (the stuff that came from wargaming), then 'special effects' where you have ability damage, save or suck, stuff that's either a one-off that has lingering effect on combat, or something that is so bad that it makes you find ways to solve it outside of melee. At least that's how I experienced it when I played. Original AD&D gave you a set of abilities, then to ramp up difficulty selectively denied certain ones (immunity) or made ones so dangerous you had to think differently (ability drain on every hit). If every single thing that people ever dealt with was resolved the same way with the same effects, then you only had to figure out one way to mechanically handle situations or one set of tactics. By having multiple parallel ways of solving things, and different characters had different strengths and weaknesses, it created different opportunities for the roles to shine. I'm not saying it did it as WELL as modern games. I'm saying there's a drat good reason for saving throws to be a different thing than hit points in the system as it was.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Honestly as a DM I find it a pain in the rear end to have to keep track of players' defenses in 4E. It would be nice if everything was handled like 3E saving throws or everything was not, just for consistency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
kingcom posted:That was the first time i've ever had buffalo chicken and it was pretty amazing. Please post more slow cooker recipes! Missed this from a while back, but take a chunk of pork shoulder/butt (4.5 to five pounds is about ideal) and rub that with choice of pork rub. I went with a paprika and chili powder rub with a bit of sugar and salt, but check around online and find something you think you'd like. Stick that in a big ziploc bag or saran wrap it or whatever and put it in the fridge overnight, then put it in the slow-cooker. Pour a 20 oz. bottle of whatever brand of root beer you'd like over it. You can also rub on a little bit of BBQ sauce before you start cooking, but I get the feeling that that was unnecessary and I probably won't do it next time I make this. Anyway, start slow-cooking the pork on low and let it go for about nine hours. I did a four and a half pound chunk of shoulder last time I made this for about nine and a half hours, but it was probably done after eight and a half or nine or so. You may want to turn it halfway through, but I didn't and it was still fantastic. After that, very carefully take the pork out of the cooker, put it in a big bowl, and start shredding it with two forks. The pork's going to be really tender, so if you'd rather shred it in its juices (and depending on cut there might be a lot of juices) you can just do that and transfer it to a bowl, making sure to let the juices drain first. Stir in choice of BBQ sauce to desired consistency and congratulations, you've got loving amazing pulled pork. Serve it on whatever buns you've got handy, maybe with coleslaw or a pickle or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Honestly as a DM I find it a pain in the rear end to have to keep track of players' defenses in 4E. It would be nice if everything was handled like 3E saving throws or everything was not, just for consistency. As a DM I have to ask, why were you constantly having to keep up with their defenses? All you have to do is ask the player what they are when you need to know what it is. They've got space for it on their character sheet, it's their book to keep. No need to create extra work for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:As a DM I have to ask, why were you constantly having to keep up with their defenses? All you have to do is ask the player what they are when you need to know what it is. They've got space for it on their character sheet, it's their book to keep. No need to create extra work for yourself. First, if I give enough of a poo poo in the first place, I probably have a chart tracking their AC, Fort, Ref, Will, and Passive Insight/Perception. But that's not enough. You see, 4E loves to give everyone moment-to-moment situational bonuses based on how they're positioned, what end-of-next-turn ability they popped, what encounter-long daily they happened to pop this combat, or which dumb feat they took that gives them a tiny bonus against one type of attack or while they or the monster have a certain condition. (This a problem with all of 4E, not just player defenses). "You, you, and you make a DC 15 Reflex save" is actually a lot better of a system, because then the players are tracking their own poo poo. They immediately know when they: 1) Critically failed or succeeded, I don't have to tell them so 2) Aren't telling me all their bonuses every round and expecting me to write it down, which is nice because I'm the DM and not the player, and already tracking more creatures at the table than they are And I'm not rolling anything but damage dice and handing out results. D&D is over-complicated enough that when unavoidable rote tasks can be delegated to players, they should be. In the name of Holy Christ, what I definitely don't want to be doing is rolling a burst or a blast and then asking every individual player what their defenses are while I individually roll attacks against each one. During Murder in Baldur's Gate, we ran Next, and while Next totally sucks rear end, we could actually run through a ten-PC table in combat faster than a four-PC table in 4E (of experienced players). This was refreshing, even if it was entirely because the Next playtest was free of petty considerations like tactical options or "things to do besides roll attack." The DM should be handling his own pawns and the players their own (significantly more complex) pawns. Otherwise we might as well make everything on the PC's sheet a static number and have the DM roll against it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:First, if I give enough of a poo poo in the first place, I probably have a chart tracking their AC, Fort, Ref, Will, and Passive Insight/Perception. But that's not enough. You see, 4E loves to give everyone moment-to-moment situational bonuses based on how they're positioned, what end-of-next-turn ability they popped, what encounter-long daily they happened to pop this combat, or which dumb feat they took that gives them a tiny bonus against one type of attack or while they or the monster have a certain condition. (This a problem with all of 4E, not just player defenses).  Steve, I rolled 22 vs reflex. Hit. 15 damage. Alice, I rolled 12 vs reflex. I'm assuming that's a miss. Yup! Bob, I rolled 19 vs reflex. Uh... Hit. Hang on I'll pop my shield thing. Miss.e: I mean, nobody's going to argue that 4E wasn't full of fiddly nickel-and-dime bonuses, but they're only the GM's problem when it's the GM's little dudes. Splicer fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Splicer posted:What are you talking about? Why would you track anything other than Passive Insight/Perception and Initiative? Already you're doing more work than I ever bothered. :gm: Fire billows out over the party! (rattle rattle) You, 17 against reflex, you, 23, you, 14, you, 20. Everybody who got hit, take seventeen fire damage damage. Wait, what was mine again?:gm: I don't remember. I think it was 22. Oh, a 22 misses.:gm: Everyone it missed, take 8 fire damage. Bob, you're on deck, Alice, you're up. Whatcha doin'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Already you're doing more work than I ever bothered. That sounds like my group on a good night, yeah. Sometimes people want to go back and calculate something. But if people were paying vague attention it's usually pretty easy to say "unless it's gonna change more than 2 points, don't bother". I'm sure we sometimes gently caress up. I'm sure that someone could cheat if they wanted. I'm pretty sure nobody does. e: I've always felt like you should get to cheat a little bit if whatever's happening is super important to you. Maybe once every few sessions or something. Not that I do, but it'd be cool. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:PULL PORK This man speaks truth. If you take the liquid from the slow cooker once you're done, wait for the fat to separate, skim that off and then boil it down (maybe with some sugar, tomato puree, and cornflour to help thicken) you get a pretty good sauce for the buns. When I made it for my players I used Worcester sauce and cider vinegar in the slow cooker, and chucked a chipotle chilli or two in there. That was some good eating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:e: I've always felt like you should get to cheat a little bit if whatever's happening is super important to you. Maybe once every few sessions or something. Not that I do, but it'd be cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
That really is a good rule for any edition of D&D I know of. I don't know 4e, but if it really has tons of poo poo to track stop using printed character sheets. Blank paper gives you places to put any sort of modified to hit chart and variable defenses. I suggest my players make a to-hit matrix using their normal + to hit modifier to make the +1 bitching go away and speed up combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Splicer posted:This is why every game should have some form of "reroll that/add five to the roll" token dealy. If you get one of those a session then you're essentially being allowed to "cheat" once per session, but without actually cheating. Yeah. Even Hackmaster sorta does it, and it's pretty much AD&D with the grognard dial turned to 11. You get +1 to hit on every roll, and one mulligan on a single d20 roll per session, if your honor is high enough (but not too high). But hey, it's a one-per-session reroll of any single d20 result, and you mostly get honor by doing your class/race/alignment things, so unless you gently caress up continuously you should have your mulligan and +1. It's described in the fluff as the gods loving a hero or antihero but hating a smartass, thus the loss of your benefits if your honor is too high. I wouldn't do it like that in D&D, but it's kinda funny that an intentionally over-the-top grog retroclone can do something that the D&D fanbase would undoubtedly call wowbaby dumbed down poo poo for idiots. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:First, if I give enough of a poo poo in the first place, I probably have a chart tracking their AC, Fort, Ref, Will, and Passive Insight/Perception. But that's not enough. You see, 4E loves to give everyone moment-to-moment situational bonuses based on how they're positioned, what end-of-next-turn ability they popped, what encounter-long daily they happened to pop this combat, or which dumb feat they took that gives them a tiny bonus against one type of attack or while they or the monster have a certain condition. (This a problem with all of 4E, not just player defenses).  Man, you're doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
New content! Sorcerer and wizard spell lists will be different in some areas and not others, which I assume means we go back to the 3e style of one gigantic list of spells with non-mundane classes mishmashing their way through them. No metamagic! People are already complaining that there are magical things their wizard cannot do. The gish is a gish. Overall very little actual new stuff here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:30
|
|