The Gaming Den

Eh, I get the feeling that there's a way--I just haven't been able to find it yet. An example of a "fix" that's probably unsatisfactory - what if out-of-combat someone has to actually either be *looking* for an illusion to get a will save for just seeing it or has to interact with it physi...

One thing I'd like is a set of sane illusion rules. I've been in a few games where illusions were used so creatively/exploitively/MC-infuriatingly/encounter-endingly that the MCs just ruled that "interacting" includes even seeing the image, and this house rule carried on to other games. A ...

Silent Image. Every time you cast it, it does something new, hence it encourages creativity as far as I'm concerned. While I like aspects of the ritual system in 4e, the time and cost involved is not always practical or efficient. Nerfing or removing utility magic that does things outside of combat...

PhoneLobster wrote:Stuff

[/lurk]
+1
[lurk]

Another way to potentially do it is to give a bonus (scaling or static) to attacks that were previously touch attacks. In other words, re-implement size modifiers? Nah, something a bit more standardized. Like, 1/2 HD, minimum +4 bonus for touch attacks or something similar across the board without ...

Another way to potentially do it is to give a bonus (scaling or static) to attacks that were previously touch attacks.

One way you could do it is add it to the wiki (see the "Add your own Campaign Setting" link at the top) and have everything arranged nice and neatly for people to peruse according to their interests with well-organized sections to go through.

Has anyone tried making units out of the "mob" template (that can be added to most "soldier"-types) from DMG2?

Ok a little change of topic. Alignment systems, character traits/flaws/nature, etc are essentially just ways to try to wrangle players into playing their [characters] in a certain fashion. Is making rules to attempt to keep player actions in any line at all even doable? Is it worth doing? Would it ...

One idea to make the fighter "archetype" half-decent in "high-powered" games (as defined by many on the board) is to use something like the Unearthed Arcana or 4e ritual system--but redone. Imagine if anyone and everyone could use them. But redo them completely. So anything plot-...

Midnight_v wrote:Hmm... maybe a psion with priveleged energy? Kinda simpler.

Something like this.

(Replace Wilder with Overchannel if you're a psion.)

@Ghostwheel: A "striker"-focused Soulknife will do a fair amount of damage. Not competing directly with a Rogue, but he's also far more of a "fighter" type than a damage dealer. Atleast this is the path we chose to take with the class. The problem is though that "fighters&q...

Mild derail--I personally liked a lot of the work DSP did with Untapped Potential (3.5), especially as far as racial class replacements and such were concerned, along with many of the PrCs and feats--especially the mantras, if I'm remembering correctly what they were called. My biggest quibble is th...

For GW... 1) Ban multi-attack At-Wills. And off-action attack powers that are not part of a defender mechanic. This would mean getting rid of the ranger entirely, which is a pity, but it's the best way to balance things without doing a massive rewrite. Simply put, trying to keep attacks that get tw...

Stuff I would consider doing if I was gonna do a 4e rewrite: Fold enchantment bonuses into the scaling level bonuses. Have all at-wills come with small optional adds, akin to the domain feats from Divine Power. So even when you're down to using Reaping Strike each turn you can choose if you want to...

...it's weird to have such strong emotions over this. That's because humans are much more sensitive to loss than to gain. For example, if I told you that you had a 100% chance to gain $80 or a 80% chance to gain $100, most people would take the 100% chance to gain $80 immediately even though it's m...

Just use wands of lesser vigor (or belts of healing in the long run) for the gold standard in HP healed per gp

tzor wrote: I still think that roles are a good idea; even the original role names; assuming that you really use the original role name as they were intended, not as the idiots eventually made them out to be.

What do you mean by this? What's the original name mean? Could you expand on this a bit?

So, after my "fixing 4e" thread was almost derailed by the talk-talk about roles ( for PCs ), I figured I'd discuss them here. Originally I meant them only as a quick reference to players on what kind of character comes out when taking the class, but it quickly became apparent that it's a ...

So; another aspect of the system that I've thought about--powers. All classes come with powers. A character can have 4 powers prepared at first level, and may have another prepared for every tier they've completed. Thus, a 4th level character can have 5 powers, prepared, an 8th level character 6 pow...

Probably an answer that'll get shouted down rather quickly, but one way to make PrCing out less attractive is to make spells a class feature in that you give them up to get other Good Stuff from PrCs. Will people be as quick to jump into Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Incantatrix if they didn't g...

Robin D. Laws gave one possible explanation to the "why" that I found rather interesting in the book "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering (page 8, under "Crunchy Bits"): One of my pet theories about the popularity of roleplaying games goes like this. Roleplaying is fantasy s...

Sounds pretty interesting. What mechanics would you use for a setting like this? Would you use an already-created system and make the mechanics do what you want, or create one from scratch? Etc?

Few reasons; first, 4e comes with a number of assumptions by people that I like, and don't want people QQing about things like, "Wizards can't fly automatically by 5th level!" This is mostly basic assumptions people make, and doesn't actually have much to do with the design goals--it's jus...

On the theoretical front, characters can have the ability to contribute every round, but might not some rounds. There's the potential there--basically by that line I meant that people wouldn't end up worthless like a straight paladin, ranger, or monk in 3.5. That is stupid and you should feel stupi...