|
Sorry to make this my "Personal Reactions to the Adventure Zone" thread, but the following exchange just happened on the pudcast: Fighter: Alright, I want to leap upon the spider's back! DM: Hmm, ok, well, he'll take an attack of opportunity against you then. Fighter: Nevermind... Bringing back all the hits, baby! Mmmmm To be fair, the DM was nice to the Fighter earlier and let him one-shot a monster by smart application of an environmental feature. But it's just killing me, the Fighter player clearly wants to do rad stuff and the DM is just making him roll dice and take penalties to do piddling effects. Meanwhile the Wizard casts a spell, gets what he wants. Painful to listen to.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
At least they are funny while they play their bad game! It's more listenable than most actual play podcasts. (Not to bash all AP podcasts. There are other good ones, too.)
Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
It's true, it's still entertaining but the system sucks. Update: PC Wizard one-shotted by an NPC Wizard with no attack roll (Magic Missile). Fun!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:wargame-hybrid things This actually got me thinking: are there games that abstracts PCs as parts of a unit in combat, like being generals with their retinue or a warband or something. I'm talking something going a bit further mechanically than "I bought some mooks as a perk" or "our ship has a crew quality stat". Arguably Reign could be stretched to something like this (it even had a subsystem for wargaming battles PCs could lead), and Beat to Quarters/Duty & Honour probably have this poo poo covered somehow due to their theme, though I remember nothing about their mechanics other than that they use cards. I mean, if there's no real Black Company: the RPG, we're sitting on a goldmine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World: Dark Ages is going to make you happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:This actually got me thinking: are there games that abstracts PCs as parts of a unit in combat, like being generals with their retinue or a warband or something. I'm talking something going a bit further mechanically than "I bought some mooks as a perk" or "our ship has a crew quality stat." Savage Worlds has Leadership edges for commanding minions/extras in regular combat, plus large scale battle rules. I don't have the books handy but I recall they're fairly abstract and might not be what you're looking for. Player's do influence the battle and characters can die. It sounds like you're thinking something more like a Heroes of Might & Magic type thing where the PC's would be "Hero Units" representing a small elite unit? The scratches a vague memory of the battle rules in the Rules Cyclopedia. Glorified Scrivener fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:The game claims that the advantage/threat results let you have "positive failures" or "negative successes," i.e. tiered successes (which naturally lends itself to fail forward), and the game itself tells you it wants to be those things. Even if it had binary pass/fail, you would still want it to be fail forward because there's literally no reason ever to not have failing forward. You can fail at a roll and still have something good come out of it. For example the dice could come up with more failures than successes, but if there are more advantage than threat those advantages can be spent for positive effects. The reverse of this is true as well. Lemon Curdistan posted:Most of the damage system comes from DH et al., complete with the d% random critical injury table. Dark Heresy is a d% game, so the critical injury chart actually uses the same dice as the rest of the game, unlike FFGSW where it's horribly tacked-on. The high lethality also comes from DH, where it makes a lot more sense than in Star Wars (do you remember that bit where Luke and Leia fight Storm Troopers, and they keep getting knocked out by a blaster shot and stimpacking each other back up every round?). The damage system in DH has a lot of similarities to the SW damage system, but they aren't the same. The SW combat system is simpler than DH"s combat system. For instance, in DH there's pages of critical injury effects. For all types of weapons and for different body parts. SW has one critical injury effect chart. Its justifiable to say that the crit system is tacked onto the system. It does seem weird to have to roll normal dice for crits. In regards to your example, The storm troopers Luke and Leia face would probably be minions. This means that they will be inferior to the Luke and Leia in regards to ability to stay alive and their ability to shoot. Luke and Leia should be able to beat the storm troopers without much trouble. Lemon Curdistan posted:Yep, I didn't do the maths. What that person didn't mention much was that its very likely characters will use boost dice in their rolls, which would alter the probability for success. Also there's destiny points which can upgrade a die in the dice pool. In the games I've played characters are more likely to succeed then fail. Also when I've played the game it does have pulpy action, for example a group of three PCs in outdated starfighters (two of whom had no piloting skills) managed to destroy a Star Destroyer's navigation system. This is using the rules as written with all the advantages, failures, threats, successes, triumphs, and despairs. Lemon Curdistan posted:Instead of trying to hack FFGSW so that the damage system actually uses the fancy dice, the lethality isn't off the charts and the system is pared down enough for their tiered success system to work, I'm just converting our group to Fate because it will do everything FFGSW claims to want to do, except better (and I say this as someone who doesn't like Fate). Did you just read the rules or have you played the game? My perspective is that of someone who's played the game (around once a week over six months or so) and I really enjoy the system. As far as I'm concerned its doing everything I want it to do. Obviously the game doesn't suit you. I can understand that. If Fate works better for you, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:44
|
|
The numbers you provided still lead to the PCs failing on rolls more often than is desirable for something like Star Wars unless they've dumped 90% of their starting XP into raising their primary characteristic and are specifically rolling for a skill that uses it. It plummets even further if you put them out of their comfort zone at all. On top of that, the amount of crunch in the rules just doesn't lend itself to just treating the action narratively enough to a) work for Star Wars' brand of pulpy action and b) work with the tiered success system unless you go out of your way to ignore the rules when adjudicating advantage on failures/threat on successes (this is not helped by their decision to not include suggested narrative effects for threat/advantage in the skill rules).
|
Reading the Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings,* I discovered that gnomes prefer to prank each other instead of direct confrontation. Personal injury is fine so long as it's humorous. The example given is a trip wire which sends the victim tumbling down a tunnel into an animal trap. Hilarious. *Don't judge me. Insomnia. What bizarre minutiae have you found in the backpages of a splatbook?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:I think the net effect of Pathfinder and 5e D&D on the hobby is negative. (and my statement was a little hyperbolic on purpose) I'd explain more but work is hard today. The short version is that training people into thinking that fundamentally flawed rulesets (and damaging social views on the side of 5e) as the norm stifles innovation and growth in the hobby. Specifically, it makes people less welcoming of better ways of playing every type of game. It will likely take generations (within the player base, not in design, where we are already ahead) for us to get over ability scores, save-or-suck, and even roll-to-win, lose-to-do-nothing. Wait what? D&D shoehorns social views into the game now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Fighter: Alright, I want to leap upon the spider's back! Yes, I would like someone to make a 'Monster Hunter' RPG, TIA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Yes, I would like someone to make a 'Monster Hunter' RPG, TIA. I still cannot figure out why nobody's done this yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I still cannot figure out why nobody's done this yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I still cannot figure out why nobody's done this yet. Last Stand is half a shade away. There was going to be even more MH-esque mechanics but we all know how that story went.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I still cannot figure out why nobody's done this yet. Close to zero interlap between "people in the ttg hobby who make games" and "people interested in fun mechanics and cool video games" I assume.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Manga distributor Seven Seas has opened a tabletop game imprint focusing on TCGs, strategy board games, and miniature games with anime flair. They're going to announce their first game, based on an unknown popular series tomorrow and plan to start releasing games later this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World: Dark Ages is going to make you happy. How is work on that progressing, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Manga distributor Seven Seas has opened a tabletop game imprint focusing on TCGs, strategy board games, and miniature games with anime flair. They're going to announce their first game, based on an unknown popular series tomorrow and plan to start releasing games later this year. Skimming thought this was in regards to Seventh Sea
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
I know this is late for DW talk that was going on three or so pages ago, but I don't think it's that bad of a game. I feel, unless I'm misinterpreting your earlier arguments, that it set out to be what it set out to be: a old school renaissance game based on Basic D&D using Pbta rules. In that regard, I think it turned out just fine and met the goals of what they said they were going to do. The fact it wasn't something more isn't really a strike against the game, in my opinion, since it never advertised itself as anything more: it's just a game with "modern rules and an old school style." Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely fine that you don't like that game and I'm not trying to say you're wrong for not liking it, but I don't think applying expectations that it never said it had and holding it against the game for not reaching them is a little unfair. It's perfectly fine to not find the subject matter that interesting, but, to those who do, it seems to work out well enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sorry to make this my "Personal Reactions to the Adventure Zone" thread, but the following exchange just happened on the pudcast: Just started listening to this podcast, fairly entertaining so far. Good audio quality as well which is a big one for me. Critical Hit also did this adventure recently so I'm interested to see how the groups differ in their approach. In other podcasts I checked out Six Feats Under to hear their play through of Strike. The quality is meh and there's some background music that distracting but I am definitely going to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Sorry to make this my "Personal Reactions to the Adventure Zone" thread, but the following exchange just happened on the pudcast: Spells in D&D aren't really magic so much as they're "make an absolute declaration of truth" tokens. Hell, if the Wizard yells "I damage the monster!" and shoots a Fireball, and the monster makes its save, the Wizard still deals (half) damage!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Yes, I would like someone to make a 'Monster Hunter' RPG, TIA. I did this once. I don't remember what system I cobbled it together out of but it consisted of a death priestess, a raptor-riding knight, and the hero of the cat people going on fishing trips and accidentally catching giant monsters that they then had to battle, and other similar shennanigans while trying to make exotic hats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
DocBubonic posted:Did you just read the rules or have you played the game? Yes, I've run the game. I know the damage system is not literally DH's (it still majoritarily borrows from DH instead of being its own thing better suited to Star Wars), I know what the game has to say about tiered success (I mentioned this in the post you quoted and why it doesn't really work), and I know about destiny points. Obviously, there's nothing stopping people from playing and having fun with FFG SW, but it's got a whole host of design issues and just isn't very well suited to the source material at all.  e; the whole advantage/threat system is just really bad. There are no guidelines provided for adjudicating the narrative difference between different amounts of advantage/threat on a roll, all the suggestions in the skill chapter are for mechanical effects like "it takes half the time" or "maybe it affects more than one person" (when the stated goal of the entire system is to provide room for more narrative nuance), the guidelines for "positive failure" are even worse ("uh, maybe this makes things slightly easier for when you roll again to try to get a success on the same task?"), there's an entirely separate system for spending advantage/threat in combat (not that surprising since the combat system is clunkily bolted on from another system). It wants to do tiered success (which is great!) except instead of doing it right and having "fail/succeed at a cost/succeed," it has "fail/fail but maybe something tangential and good might happen?/succeed at a cost, but the mechanics get in the way of you describing the fiction impact of the cost unless you want to require PCs to roll another skill check most of the time/succeed" and muddies everything up. It would be much better if it just ditched threat/advantage entirely. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
I was playing with LemonCurdistan and even though I was willing to give the system a chance (and defended it more than once when LemonCurdistan criticized it), I don't think it is going to work for what our campaign is intended for. I think some of our problems might have been with the horrible, horrible adventure we were playing (Onslaught at Arda is an awful adventure and probably one of the worst I ever tried), but I do see issues with the game, especially considering how lethal combat is and how it revolves around getting stimpacked to get back into the fight. I think the system might work better for EotE-style games, because AoR campaigns with a focus on combat do not seem very interesting in terms of how the book deals with combat encounters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Since we had some discussion on World of Dungeons last month I'd like to throw this in here: I've been looking at World of Dungeons through the lens of trying to figure out its implied setting in broad brushstrokes: First of all, there's no race in the fantasy sense in World of Dungeons, so you can easily assume that the setting is a human-only setting. Secondly, the presence of pistols and muskets in the equipment list implies a setting with an early modern level of technology. The meat of the implied setting is, however, in the name lists. Most of the names given map out to historical cultures pretty clearly, although there is obviously some mixing and matching going on as well as subtly changing real names to make them seem more fantastic. The Northlands are obviously not-Scandinavia. Set against a backdrop of black metal album covers brave warriors of the North fight frost giants, trolls and other creatures from Norse myth. The Imperium has a mix of Semitic names running the gamut from Hebrew, Arabic and some which to me sound like trying to evoke garbled Babylonian names. The implication, to me, is that the biggest Empire in the setting is more ancient Babylon and less Roman Empire in style. A mix of Arabian nights and the imagery of Biblical epics. The Regency has the most Englishy sounding names, with a mix of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Norman influences. I'm imagining an island nation of warring duchies currently under a regency council because the current ruler is unfit to rule, or maybe said ruler is missing and in their absence a regency council has taken the reins. Imagery wise this place is the Middle Earth of Peter Jackson's films as well as a bit of Willow. Xanathar & Islands seems like a mix of North African and Ancient Egyptian names. I'm imagining Xanathar as once having been a huge Empire, having recently lost their glory due to wars with the upstart Imperium. Definitely death cults dedicated to dead pharaohs. Maybe the pharaohs are actually undead? Uru & the Great Desert I'm unsure of, as I can't figure out what the names are drawn from. At least one of the names, Harud, is Hindi for Autumn. Perhaps a large Indo-Aryan influenced nation, sort of like a clash of influences from Persian and Indian imagery? Finally, there's Ankhyra & Cythonis, a mix of Latin, French and Greek influences. I like to imagine that in the game's implied setting the Roman Empire equivalent never rose to become an Empire, only expanding as far as not-Greece at the height of their power. I like to imagine them as being constantly at war with the Imperium. Imagery drawn from the Byzantine Empire, but with a distinctly Hellenic Pagan influence. Colosseums, parthenons, warrior-cults and philosophers side by side. If anyone would like to flesh these out with me it'd be great. The point is not to write a definitive setting bible for the World of Dungeons, but to brainstorm a cool barebones setting with some fantastic influences. Edit: Obviously, after typing this, I realized that some of the name lists could be seen as referring to names within a single region with multiple nations. Under this light, Ankhyra and Cythonis are actually warring city states and not a single nation. I'm thinking Ankhyra for the more Athens/Greek Antiquity inspired city state, with Cythonis as a Roman/Spartan influenced state. These two city states are constantly at war with each other, only allying with each other when the threat of the Imperium becomes too great. Xanathar is thus obviously not-Egypt, but what are the Isles? Similarly, Uru is obviously close to the Great Desert, but what differentiates these two places culturally? Ratpick fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Covok posted:I know this is late for DW talk that was going on three or so pages ago, but I don't think it's that bad of a game. I feel, unless I'm misinterpreting your earlier arguments, that it set out to be what it set out to be: a old school renaissance game based on Basic D&D using Pbta rules. In that regard, I think it turned out just fine and met the goals of what they said they were going to do. The fact it wasn't something more isn't really a strike against the game, in my opinion, since it never advertised itself as anything more: it's just a game with "modern rules and an old school style." DW is a fine game, but for those wanting Fantasy Apocalypse World it doesn't really meet expectations - which is fine but there's other hacking that still needs doing. Also, as pbta has matured, some of the weaknesses of DW have been made a bit more clear
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:DW is a fine game, but for those wanting Fantasy Apocalypse World it doesn't really meet expectations - which is fine but there's other hacking that still needs doing. Also, as pbta has matured, some of the weaknesses of DW have been made a bit more clear Which is, like I said, is fine if that's what you were expecting, but I don't think it ever set out to be Fantasy Apocalpyse World: IIRC, it always advertised it self as a new way to play Basic D&D. Also, don't get me wrong, I know it has issues, but mostly the ones I know are issues I've noticed with the game itself like the Druid having a bit too much power. What issues came up as "pbta matured?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Covok posted:Which is, like I said, is fine if that's what you were expecting, but I don't think it ever set out to be Fantasy Apocalpyse World: IIRC, it always advertised it self as a new way to play Basic D&D. Also, don't get me wrong, I know it has issues, but mostly the ones I know are issues I've noticed with the game itself like the Druid having a bit too much power. What issues came up as "pbta matured?" I think we're mostly in agreement here  and tbqh i'm parroting a talking point I don't recall quite clearly, I think it has to do with as people became more familiar with what made a good pbta system, what the actual strengths of the system were, DW missed it on a few points I believe regarding the structure of certain moves? I'm sure someone can expand on this
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:I think we're mostly in agreement here Well, there are two parts: first, all PBtA systems define their genre through the moves they have available, and as it turns out DW's moves define quite a limited genre of dungeon-crawling. Second, they're a bit too liberal with their boosts to dice rolls. Getting a +4 or more throws the dice curve out of whack, and is pretty easy to reach in one or two levels with certain classes. While it makes it difficult to challenge that player it also makes it hard for that player to get XP, which can be overall unsatisfying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:Well, there are two parts: first, all PBtA systems define their genre through the moves they have available, and as it turns out DW's moves define quite a limited genre of dungeon-crawling. In response to the first, and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, that sounds somewhat intentional. The Basic D&D was very limited in scope and practically assumed you were only going to and from the Dungeon. The later releases in the set expanded on this, but, to my knowledge, I think DW was only attempting to be Basic. In response to the second, yeah, that's pretty bad. As someone who has taken a crack at hacking PBta and making their own system, you want to be wary of even going to a +3 to early on, +4 is something that should be utterly impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Covok posted:In response to the first, and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, that sounds somewhat intentional. Yes, it's absolutely intentional. Focusing your moves on a narrow range of fictions is a big chunk of how you get a good PbtA game. DW's main issue is mostly the mechanical complexity of playbooks (a DW playbook is 30 moves, and the player will only use half of those at best), and the fact that some of the core playbooks are pretty lacking (Druid Shapeshifting is poorly thought-out, the Fighter is mechanically weak and boring especially compared to the Paladin, the Bard has very mechanistic starting moves when it should be one of the more fiction-focused playbooks, it's easy for casters to end up significantly more powerful than non-casters, etc.). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I knew i wasn't talking entirely out of my rear end
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Serious question: does anybody use game rulebooks in ebook formats? I know they exist, but it seems as inconvenient to use as ebook cookbooks. I guess it's ok to browse and check out potential elfgames on a bus?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:The game claims that the advantage/threat results let you have "positive failures" or "negative successes," i.e. tiered successes (which naturally lends itself to fail forward), and the game itself tells you it wants to be those things. Even if it had binary pass/fail, you would still want it to be fail forward because there's literally no reason ever to not have failing forward. Lemon Curdistan posted:Most of the damage system comes from DH et al., complete with the d% random critical injury table. Dark Heresy is a d% game, so the critical injury chart actually uses the same dice as the rest of the game, unlike FFGSW where it's horribly tacked-on. The high lethality also comes from DH, where it makes a lot more sense than in Star Wars (do you remember that bit where Luke and Leia fight Storm Troopers, and they keep getting knocked out by a blaster shot and stimpacking each other back up every round?). Lemon Curdistan posted:Yep, I didn't do the maths. It's trivial to get positive modifiers, from entirely player controlled options (spending a maneuver to aim gets a white die in combat, there's a pool of light side points to give you effective skill ranks) to gm fiat (I'm on a roof can I get a white die for the high ground (the answer is yes)). Getting no successes does not mean nothing good happens. You might miss the guy you were aiming at but get a pile of advantages or a triumph, which you can cash in for a bunch of possible things, ranging from narrative bonuses to a bunch more white dice for someone else. Someone with no weapons training and slightly above average agility has a better than 50/50 chance to shoot a guy who is actively punching him in the face, first try. If it's narratively appropriate it goes up a bunch, with a miss having a high chance of positioning the bad dude for an ally to deliver the old double-fist to the neck. Sounds appropriately pulpy to me. But thats an opinion thing really. Lemon Curdistan posted:On top of that, the amount of crunch in the rules just doesn't lend itself to just treating the action narratively enough to a) work for Star Wars' brand of pulpy action and b) work with the tiered success system unless you go out of your way to ignore the rules when adjudicating advantage on failures/threat on successes (this is not helped by their decision to not include suggested narrative effects for threat/advantage in the skill rules).  so if this is the case, probably not your fault.Basically you were doing it wrong  *e: can't think of a less loaded term. I mean it neutrally. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Serious question: does anybody use game rulebooks in ebook formats? I know they exist, but it seems as inconvenient to use as ebook cookbooks. I guess it's ok to browse and check out potential elfgames on a bus? Yeah, they're much easier to read on the bus that use at the table, although if they're well-indexed it can be a lot faster to look something up in an ebook than in a PDF - particularly if the device you're using isn't that powerful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:Yeah, they're much easier to read on the bus that use at the table, although if they're well-indexed it can be a lot faster to look something up in an ebook than in a PDF - particularly if the device you're using isn't that powerful. I can't even loving imagine searching for grappling rules on an epub.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:I can't even loving imagine searching for grappling rules on an epub. Man gently caress grappling rules. That slog 3.5 combat I was talking about a couple weeks ago had a grappling chart involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Serious question: does anybody use game rulebooks in ebook formats? I know they exist, but it seems as inconvenient to use as ebook cookbooks. I guess it's ok to browse and check out potential elfgames on a bus? Yes - but only for relatively light games. Fortunately I like relatively light games (e.g. *World, Cortex Plus).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Len posted:Man gently caress grappling rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:I don't think I have ever seen a game with grappling rules that weren't awful. 4e kept it simple and straight-forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Spells in D&D aren't really magic so much as they're "make an absolute declaration of truth" tokens. Hell, if the Wizard yells "I damage the monster!" and shoots a Fireball, and the monster makes its save, the Wizard still deals (half) damage! Yes, I once had an argument with a 2e DM that Knock was the equivalent of burning a 2nd level spell slot and saying "these dummies left the door unlocked". "And that's ok, because it's MAGIC" was his response. And that's why I don't play any D&D other than 4e, which definitely ain't perfect but isn't a completely garbage Magic Show. Yawgmoth posted:I don't think I have ever seen a game with grappling rules that weren't awful. 4e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:33
|
|