Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Info On The New Edition Of D&D


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ok so the playtest isnt out yet and im still going to support Paizo and their products regardless of what the new edition brings but i thought id put this unfo out there for who ever is interested.

the owner of the gaming store that i frequent every weekend got to playtest the new edition last weekend. he couldnt give me too much info but he did say that it basically gonna be 1st/2nd ed D&D combined with their best ideas from 3rd and 4th edition.

im still going Paizo all the way on this since ive invested too much money into them plus they send me a christmas card and theyhave been good to me from the get go (no one can say the same for wizards).

i think putting out a new edition is ridiculous since 4th ed just came out not too long ago. i forsee a lot of pissed off wizards customers in the near future. what are your thoughts?

Taldor

My thoughts : D&D is dead, long live Pathfinder ! Rock n' Roll baby !

But more power to those who want the new ed. Enjoy yourselves and do what's right for you.

I just know my money keeps going to Paizo for quite a while I think.

Grand Lodge

I was (like many) greatly disillusioned with 4th Ed. I'm going to wait until long after it's been in print to consider playing the new edition. I have to agree with Stereofm, long live Pathfinder!


WOTC changing to 5th edition so fast is shocking, I read that already a few weeks ago, too bad there is a non disclosure agreement.
I will however look forward to see what they've done and see if it might be better than PF, but unless it's better than I can imagine right now, I'll stick with PF and Paizo.
They still got that fan-based, personal feeling to them, even though it feels wrong to call them the underdog. (I believe they sell just as well as 4th, but I'm not sure on this)


1st, I think these messageboards really really need a new sub-forum for Dungeons and Dragons: Next.

2nd, I can say that Wizards has been pretty good to me for over a decade and 90# of my group would probably agree. We enjoy 4E, a lot. That doesn't mean we've abandoned 3E or don't play Pathfinder, becuase we do that too. I just don't feel that I should be tied down to one group or system because variety IS the spice of life. That and I've realized that I have a hard time playing v3.5/PF without the notion to end encounters with one turn or do obscene amounts of damage.....just because I can. That, and exploiting it's many mechanical flaws. But hey, it's free and it's the system I know through and through.

3rd, Considered I hated 2E and I basing my judgement off of that, probably would hate 1E/OD&D as well, the Next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons doesn't sound that enticing. Plug-in play aspects have their merits and draw backs such as no group of people playing D&D:Next will probably be the same as the next group. And while I enjoy reading housrules, there are times when I'm SOO thankful that they're not staple points or product material for the masses. Hit/Location charts, fumble charts, and the removal of things like Opportuinity Attacks, Flanking, and non-spellcasting classes losing quirks/aspects because it somehow hurts verisimilitude are NOT good things in my book. And why would i bother doing heavy modification when I can just play the game I currently enjoy? Where's the hook for me to say..."Wow, this game is SOO much fun!"??


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hasbro is Milking the Cash Cow again, and the customers will either
A: buy the new version,
B: Stick with a version they like,
C: Drop D&D and find another RPG system that does not get a new revision every 3-4 years that is incompatible with previous versions, or
D: a combination of the above


It's quite possible that a lot of folks will buy D&D Next even if they don't play it to mine for ideas. I think there will be a lot of folks who are system switchers who play different campaigns with different systems who might play D&D Next one night, Original D&D a different one, Pathfinder for their monthly game and use 4E for their annual tactical battle scenario.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about the playtest when it becomes available.

L

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Perhaps I missed it but where exactly is the info on the new edition of D&D?


Pan wrote:
Perhaps I missed it but where exactly is the info on the new edition of D&D?

http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=dnd5e

Can I post that link here?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Don't see why not.

As I find design interesting I will most likely buy the core book but I can't see me switching away from PF as my group would hate that (owning books and all).


Fnipernackle wrote:
the owner of the gaming store that i frequent every weekend got to playtest the new edition last weekend. he couldnt give me too much info but he did say that it basically gonna be 1st/2nd ed D&D combined with their best ideas from 3rd and 4th edition.

Sooooo, Castles & Crusades, then?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

This thread reveals the importance of sending holiday cards to your customers. Wizards, please pay attention.

Osirion

I foresee a lot of people being embarrassed about purchasing something called "D&D Next".


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I expect it will just be called dungeons and dragons when it's actually released.

Osirion

Steve Geddes wrote:
I expect it will just be called dungeons and dragons when it's actually released.

One can only hope. Dumber things have been done before.

Shadow Lodge

Jal Dorak wrote:
I foresee a lot of people being embarrassed about purchasing something called "D&D Next".

They'll probably still call it Dungeons & Dragons. Remember 4e was called 4dventure while it was in playtest.


"Next" has got to be a place holder. Terrible name (also implies a further editions).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I dunno. Sounds like a new variety of cola or something. Isn't there a Pepsi Next? Which raises the question of when we'll get D&D Clear, D&D Zero, D&D Throwback ... oh, wait.

Andoran

Im very satified with Pathfinder in most respects: and feel that it gives the player a good choice of various character creation options (without the 3.5 cheese), a solid but varied world setting, ongoing availability of organized play, friendly and helpful venture captains and lieutenants, and good service in general. I most likely will not buy the 5.0 core rulebook unless I hear from my group that it is far superior to Pathfinder (which I highly doubt will happen since Wizards/Hasbro has screwed up so many things in the past). At one time, I wished Wizards/Hasbro would sell the whole D&D name and franchise to Pathfinder. Now, I don't even care, since Pathfinder is more than capable of standing on its own merits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
I dunno. Sounds like a new variety of cola or something. Isn't there a Pepsi Next? Which raises the question of when we'll get D&D Clear, D&D Zero, D&D Throwback ... oh, wait.

Crystal D&D is the choice of a new generation!

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Oh for f$&~ sake, can we not have the same old opinions on 4e and PF and have some information on 5e, please? Jesus, leave it at the door.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Sure!

5E SUCKS.

;)


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Oh for f&*+ sake, can we not have the same old opinions on 4e and PF and have some information on 5e, please? Jesus, leave it at the door.

Probably because people have a hard time letting go of their hate, even if it's for something so trivial as a hobby or game.

So......some info for 5E? Well, right now 99% of it is just speculation and guess-work as the Devs have revealed little in the way of mechanics and works of D&D:Next. I'd say that a good amount of L&L articles touch base with a lot of game ideas and designs they're trying to push through R&D, but I can't say that it's all been positive or great feedback from the community.

Many of the articles I've read have appeared, to me, that they're rejecting or pushing to the background a lot of 4E's aspects. Even if those were probably good aspects from a mechanical point of view. And I think that's a shame becuase I'm a firm believer that 4E did a lot of GOOD for the RPG-community, even if they did slaughter some sacred cows along the way. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes and do the marketing correctly this time around as well as understand that there is a large part of the people who play D&D that enjoy a balanced system.

If there is one single aspects I DON'T Want to see with D&D:Next, it's a Base Attack Progression that varies depending on level. THAT was my biggest complaint about D&D previous to 4th Edition. I can't understand why someone is limited to swinging once in 6 seconds, but after a battle, somehow "Magically" finds out that he can swing twice in 6 seconds. THEN after a few more fights, realizes DUH that he can swing THREE times in 6 seconds!! If they keep that aspect OUT of the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons, I'll be much more open-minded to the system and its mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the title of this thread extremely misleading.


Diffan wrote:
If there is one single aspects I DON'T Want to see with D&D:Next, it's a Base Attack Progression that varies depending on level. THAT was my biggest complaint about D&D previous to 4th Edition. I can't understand why someone is limited to swinging once in 6 seconds, but after a battle, somehow "Magically" finds out that he can swing twice in 6 seconds. THEN after a few more fights, realizes DUH that he can swing THREE times in 6 seconds!! If they keep that aspect OUT of the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons, I'll be much more open-minded to the system and its mechanics.

Because people don't get any faster as they get more skilled?

If you're complaining about the "Magically" getting better after a fight that's a separate issue. Require training time or whatever.


Diffan wrote:
If there is one single aspects I DON'T Want to see with D&D:Next, it's a Base Attack Progression that varies depending on level. THAT was my biggest complaint about D&D previous to 4th Edition. I can't understand why someone is limited to swinging once in 6 seconds, but after a battle, somehow "Magically" finds out that he can swing twice in 6 seconds. THEN after a few more fights, realizes DUH that he can swing THREE times in 6 seconds!! If they keep that aspect OUT of the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons, I'll be much more open-minded to the system and its mechanics.

I can live with BAB-style progression, though I see the merits of getting rid of it too.

My beef is really with the powers system - it needs to die. It dictates flavor and character actions in ways that are just completely unacceptable and limits player imagination. With everything else having been designed to be so scalable, you'd think they would have given a mathematical rubric for allowing players to create their own powers in addition to some canned options for newbies, which would, I think, make players feel like they had more control of what their PCs could actually do. If I see powers-style play return in D&D Next, that'll be the dealbreaker for me.


thejeff wrote:
Diffan wrote:
If there is one single aspects I DON'T Want to see with D&D:Next, it's a Base Attack Progression that varies depending on level. THAT was my biggest complaint about D&D previous to 4th Edition. I can't understand why someone is limited to swinging once in 6 seconds, but after a battle, somehow "Magically" finds out that he can swing twice in 6 seconds. THEN after a few more fights, realizes DUH that he can swing THREE times in 6 seconds!! If they keep that aspect OUT of the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons, I'll be much more open-minded to the system and its mechanics.

Because people don't get any faster as they get more skilled?

If you're complaining about the "Magically" getting better after a fight that's a separate issue. Require training time or whatever.

Well it's one thing for a Level Up to occur when players get back to town and then train or do whatever it takes (within the campaign) to achieve the benefits of the bonuses, it's another when one battle against orcs the Fighter can stand in one spot and swing a weapon once and, as they gain a level, can do the exact same thing and now swing twice. As if there was some mental block that didn't allow it the first time. My main beef with the Base Attack System is two-fold;

1st is the problem I mentioned and how additional attacks scale rather poorly when looked at with the CR's of equal level to the PC. What's the point of having multiple attack when the chances of those even hitting are often slim-to-none? Espically when it slows down the game as a player sits there and does the math for each roll or multiple rolls. I think it'd be far better (IF they were to keep multiple attacks per turn) they make them ALL the same modifier AND be allowed to do it regardless of whatever else your doing such as drawing a weapon or moving

2nd, and this is a bit more of a problem I have, is that the BAB is used to mitigate the difference in class. Again, if they choose to re-enter BABs, it should be either Poor or Good as the Average BAB just sucked IMO. A class's combat application can be either GOOD, as in your specifically designed to be in melee or using weapons to fight monsters OR you use spells, in which your not trained very well with weapons and thus, suffer a bit of a set-back when using them. This was not the case with 3E's Rogue, Monk, Scout, etc. which are designed with the intent to be used in combat with Weapons but don't do so well at it. They HAVE to rely on "game-cheese" to be effective at something they should be equipped with in the first place.

So to wrap up: make BAB not scale and remain the exact same modifier per attack and don't use that to mitigate a classes combat prowess as there are definitly better ways to accomplish that aspect. I'd hope that, instead of multiple attack which all require an additional roll, we could just up the damage from one attack (scales with levels). That, to me, would be a better solution.

Power Word Unzip wrote:

I can live with BAB-style progression, though I see the merits of getting rid of it too.

My beef is really with the powers system - it needs to die. It dictates flavor and character actions in ways that are just completely unacceptable and limits player imagination. With everything else having been designed to be so scalable, you'd think they would have given a mathematical rubric for allowing players to create their own powers in addition to some canned options for newbies, which would, I think, make players feel like they had more control of what their PCs could actually do. If I see powers-style play return in D&D Next, that'll be the dealbreaker for me.

I agree with you, to a point. I think they started something good with the Powers in 4E. But they went a bit too far, making EVERY class required to use them for everything. Case in point, fighting with two weapons. Sure, anybody can wield two weapons so long as the off-hand weapon had the "Off-Hand" property (ok, so far) but you can't use them in the same turn unless you had a specific power that allowed you to do that (ie. be a Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, or Half-elf). That, to me, really limited player customization as I feel that was one aspect I think anyone should be able to pursue. Codifying ALL actions into powers wasn't the best answer to the solution of Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards but it was a start.

I think D&D:Next would best be served with "Basic attacks" that uses stances which adds additional apsects to those attaks, much like Essentials did with martial-based clases. THEN, as optional rules, you can start adding powers into character design, but it's not a core aspect you HAVE to use. So a DM that hates dealing with Martial Powers can say, "No, this isn't an option at the table" and they'll have to be fine with that or look else where. But it should be optional that a DM or group allows those into the game (sorta like the Tome of Battle) as well.


You've never been practicing something, then suddenly "got it?" Played a song a little more accurate and faster? Ran a little faster? Um, swung a weapon maybe one more time than normal?

The BAB mechanic made sense to me just fine. It didn't scale well with monster CR's, but then again, the CR system itself didn't quite work so well to begin with.


Josh M. wrote:

You've never been practicing something, then suddenly "got it?" Played a song a little more accurate and faster? Ran a little faster? Um, swung a weapon maybe one more time than normal?

The BAB mechanic made sense to me just fine. It didn't scale well with monster CR's, but then again, the CR system itself didn't quite work so well to begin with.

I see what your saying and when you say it that way, I understand why it clicks for you. But for me, that's more of a mental "Ah Ha!" moment when figuring out a problem or something similiar. When it applies to physical abilities or attributes, it's normally a one-time thing or something you do every once in a while. For example, when I threw Disc in school, every once in a while I knew the throw was just right, the way it came off my hand or the height of the throw or the speed of my spin, but it's not something that, once I figured out how, I could perform non-stop at leisure. It'd be days or weeks until I got that feeling of it being 'right' again. So perhaps I'm just minimalizing the difficulties of swinging weapons and combat in general, and I'd even be ok with iterative attacks with progression, but where I had a hard time accepting it was with the varying modifiers and not being able to do those iterative attacks and move in the same round.

So if they hammer out the scaling then I'll be ok with the application, or at least the option of that application, to the game.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You know, I was horrible at baseball in middle school. Gave up after two years.

Then in high school, I suddenly found out I could hit the ball.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

But could you hit the ball twice in a round?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

You know, I was horrible at baseball in middle school. Gave up after two years.

Then in high school, I suddenly found out I could hit the ball.

Could your allies shift two squares every time you hit the ball? ;)

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

What's a 'round'? And I had no allies.


Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

You know, I was horrible at baseball in middle school. Gave up after two years.

Then in high school, I suddenly found out I could hit the ball.

Could your allies shift two squares every time you hit the ball? ;)

One base, often. Sometimes more than that.


Bluenose wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

You know, I was horrible at baseball in middle school. Gave up after two years.

Then in high school, I suddenly found out I could hit the ball.

Could your allies shift two squares every time you hit the ball? ;)
One base, often. Sometimes more than that.

Must be a DPR......er an RBI king


Diffan wrote:
If there is one single aspects I DON'T Want to see with D&D:Next, it's a Base Attack Progression that varies depending on level. THAT was my biggest complaint about D&D previous to 4th Edition. I can't understand why someone is limited to swinging once in 6 seconds, but after a battle, somehow "Magically" finds out that he can swing twice in 6 seconds. THEN after a few more fights, realizes DUH that he can swing THREE times in 6 seconds!

The flaw isn't about having varying number of attacks per round; the flaw is the assumption that one attack roll = 1 swing.

If 1 attack roll = 1 opportunity to place a connecting hit within a series of swings, then the problem is solved.

That being said, I too prefer the "1 attack roll per round for everyone for every level" model (with extra attacks or re-rolls based on feats or class abilities). In the end, I like to have the choice between 1 big attack or two smaller ones, but I'm getting tired of the 6 attacks per round, one of which is a sure hit, two are Ok, two are so-so and one is a crap shot...

Silver Crusade

Just had a friend email me and say that Monte Cook just quit WOTC citing 'differences of design opinions'. I can't access WOTC website from here so I can't verify if that's a correct rumor or not.


The rumor is correct. Monte said as much on his livejournal page.

He cited differences with the company, but said he had no problems with his fellow designers.

It was probably a contractual thing, since he'd been there a year already.

You can read it yourself here.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Laurefindel wrote:
Diffan wrote:
If there is one single aspects I DON'T Want to see with D&D:Next, it's a Base Attack Progression that varies depending on level. THAT was my biggest complaint about D&D previous to 4th Edition. I can't understand why someone is limited to swinging once in 6 seconds, but after a battle, somehow "Magically" finds out that he can swing twice in 6 seconds. THEN after a few more fights, realizes DUH that he can swing THREE times in 6 seconds!

The flaw isn't about having varying number of attacks per round; the flaw is the assumption that one attack roll = 1 swing.

If 1 attack roll = 1 opportunity to place a connecting hit within a series of swings, then the problem is solved.

That being said, I too prefer the "1 attack roll per round for everyone for every level" model (with extra attacks or re-rolls based on feats or class abilities). In the end, I like to have the choice between 1 big attack or two smaller ones, but I'm getting tired of the 6 attacks per round, one of which is a sure hit, two are Ok, two are so-so and one is a crap shot...

Actually, the flaw is that it's a cumbersome mechanic. Add dual-wielding and Haste and you are rolling dozens of dice, throw in some more damage adds like Flaming or Bane weapons and it's a major exercise just to take a full attack action as the levels go up. It's a pain and I'm glad they dispensed with it in 4e.

Shadow Lodge

Some people like rolling a lot of dice. Their best bet is to find other people that do too, so their group doesn't get broken up over it.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Actually, the flaw is that it's a cumbersome mechanic. Add dual-wielding and Haste and you are rolling dozens of dice, throw in some more damage adds like Flaming or Bane weapons and it's a major exercise just to take a full attack action as the levels go up. It's a pain and I'm glad they dispensed with it in 4e.

It also leads to all the issues with full attack vs standard action. Casters usually get to do their best stuff with a standard, though some spells are full round. Archers have a major advantage since they don't usually have to move and can full attack every round. Melee combatants have to close and then have a strong incentive to stay put so they can get full attacks.

Removing the easy multiple attacks, but upping damage potential for each of them so that damage still keeps some sort of pace with hp could be a good idea.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Some people like rolling a lot of dice. Their best bet is to find other people that do too, so their group doesn't get broken up over it.

In out last 3.5 campaign, we had a dual-wielder with fancy weapons with lots of additional damage dice, and we often had Haste up. It literally took him ages to roll attacks and damage when we got to above 10th level (full BAB class) damage. No matter how much you like rolling dice, it really slowed things down, and the guy was trying his best to streamline it. And then I often had to subtract DR. I mean, yeah, if you like rolling a bucket full of dice and then laboriously adding it up and then subtracting it down again, doubtless it was heaven, but that's possibly a bit of a minority, and certainly not a spectator, sport.

Agree with thejeff here, and making something like Vital Strike the way forward would find my approval. Of course, 4e does this anyway, although some 4e powers can get quite laborious at higher levels too (especially the striker powers).

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I too have played with such a player, who rolled a fighter/rogue for our epic level game. I know the pain you speak of.

But it is more the fault of the player than the dice, as the same player rolled a ghaele eladrin, and then took forever dealing with his spells. A slow player will be slow regardless of what he uses.

Osirion

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The rumor is correct. Monte said as much on his livejournal page.

He cited differences with the company, but said he had no problems with his fellow designers.

It was probably a contractual thing, since he'd been there a year already.

You can read it yourself here.

That's extremely disappointing, though Monte has a history of doing things like this. Also interesting that he singles out two people he DID get along with...Hopefully he does another Arcana Unearthed.

EDIT: Seems Monte realized his poor wording and posted an addendum on his website, stating he did not mean to exclude his other colleagues.

Osirion

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Some people like rolling a lot of dice. Their best bet is to find other people that do too, so their group doesn't get broken up over it.

In out last 3.5 campaign, we had a dual-wielder with fancy weapons with lots of additional damage dice, and we often had Haste up. It literally took him ages to roll attacks and damage when we got to above 10th level (full BAB class) damage. No matter how much you like rolling dice, it really slowed things down, and the guy was trying his best to streamline it. And then I often had to subtract DR. I mean, yeah, if you like rolling a bucket full of dice and then laboriously adding it up and then subtracting it down again, doubtless it was heaven, but that's possibly a bit of a minority, and certainly not a spectator, sport.

Agree with thejeff here, and making something like Vital Strike the way forward would find my approval. Of course, 4e does this anyway, although some 4e powers can get quite laborious at higher levels too (especially the striker powers).

I would be sorely tempted to allow the player to simply "take 10" on his attack rolls, and accept average damage in such cases. Against the rare opponent, he can roll if he wants the chance for more damage output.

I recently tried out a "don't add, just tell me what you rolled" system and it worked really well. A bit of getting used to, but the players turns resolved in about half the time. I think I will adopt this strategy in the future if players agree.


Taking average damage on huge amounts of dice rolls is a godsend. I was in a 3.5 Eberron campaign that went to level 30, with 8 players, and the DM allowed us to just takes averages. It sped things up a TON.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I too have played with such a player, who rolled a fighter/rogue for our epic level game. I know the pain you speak of.

But it is more the fault of the player than the dice, as the same player rolled a ghaele eladrin, and then took forever dealing with his spells. A slow player will be slow regardless of what he uses.

Actually, he wasn't slow, he was quite quick, but it was still an involved process for him and me as DM.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Jal Dorak wrote:
I would be sorely tempted to allow the player to simply "take 10" on his attack rolls, and accept average damage in such cases.

Seriously, why bother playing the game if you are going to do that? The whole point is the randomisation of outcome. Might as well play battleships. Not to be snarky, but the problem is the game in this instance, not the player.


I always thought that there should be a bonus for the next attack if your first was significant. So if you deal 1d8 and get 6 or better on damage you get +3 on your next attack. Ie instead of +10/+6/+2 it would be +10/+9/+5 or +8 if the second attack also did 75% or better damage.

For me... multiple attacks was about proficientcy and the effect it had on opponents. Some people can take a punch, but they still get caught every now and then. The chances of someone getting caught by the guy at the gym is significantly less than getting caught by Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquio... because they are more proficient. Not only would they get hit more, they would get hit harder which has a different effect that a simple jab. The jab will rock the head back momentarily and possibly bust the nose. A hook will do all of that, stagger and possibly drop the opponent which would not only provide for another attack, but increase the chances of that attack being successful.

At least that's how I look at it.

As far as speeding up game play is concerned... I implimented a homebrew version of 2E's Combat and Tactics critical hit matrix. Nothing like decapitating an Ancient Red Dragon on the first attack... =).

Osirion

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
I would be sorely tempted to allow the player to simply "take 10" on his attack rolls, and accept average damage in such cases.
Seriously, why bother playing the game if you are going to do that? The whole point is the randomisation of outcome. Might as well play battleships. Not to be snarky, but the problem is the game in this instance, not the player.

Be sure, I'm not advocating it. But there would obviously be many situations where taking 10 would still fail. It's merely meant to circumvent a 2 minute turn to deal 40+ damage to something with 20 hit points.

I'd also suggest that a group that doesn't care so much about combat would find such a rule more useful than others.

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / Info On The New Edition Of D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.