Comments for The Angry DM: D&D Advice with Attitude

Comment on In Defense of Opportunity Attacks by krypt0nian

krypt0nian — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:52:31 +0000

Here, here!

Very well written and I agree. I’m not in love with AOO per se, but rather the effect it has on combat, illustrated in your post.
And I can echo Wolf’s sentiment, that as a Pathfinder player, I see no rel slowdown at my tables. Granted I play with well prepped players, and we roll to hit as well as dmg dice concurrently to speed things up. I can add that my time with 4E saw the same results.

Cheers!

Comment on In Defense of Opportunity Attacks by IronWolf

IronWolf — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:30:45 +0000

Very well written article. I am one of those that do not want to AoO’s removed from the game. I value them for many of the same reasons you have outlined in this article.

I typically play 3.x/Pathfinder and I just never saw them slow down the game to any real degree. Of course we are all players of many years, so we tend to make the decisions as to what we are going to do on our turn pretty quickly anyways. We sometimes choose to take the AoO or not and know up front what will draw the AoO. Sure, sometimes for some obscure action we might need to check if an action will provoke, but that is the minority.

With that said, I can see simplifying the list a bit. So cutting down on that list of actions would be a step for the better.

Comment on In Defense of Opportunity Attacks by Mike Karkabe-Olson

Mike Karkabe-Olson — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:38:43 +0000

I like your analysis. I think 5e should provide both options. I’m sort of with Alio on this one: I think 5e’s core rules should exclude them, but also provide an optional module for AoOs that is immediately available with the initial core-rules product.

Comment on In Defense of Opportunity Attacks by AlioTheFool

AlioTheFool — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:30:06 +0000

I’m all for eliminating the AoO & situational bonuses from #DnDNext. Those things would actually make perfect sense in the “modular” paradigm. Keep them all out of the core system and include them in an expansion module.

I honestly think you did the situation an injustice by showing it from the monster’s side. A DM will be much more apt to allow his or her monsters to give the chance at a free shot than a player will for his or her PC. It’s players who agonize over the choice to move through threatened squares because hit points are the most precious resource in D&D. When you run out as a player, it’s “Game Over. Please deposit $.25 to continue. 9…8…7…”

I definitely see your point, and I don’t particularly disagree. I simply want to reduce the time per turn and the Analysis Paralysis in #DndNext.

Comment on Aligning D&D Next by Jeremy Morgan

Jeremy Morgan — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:32:41 +0000

In addition to what Michael said above, I could see some interesting mechanics from characters adventuring on the outer planes having their alignment influenced by the plane, too. In fact, I really like that idea.

Comment on Aligning D&D Next by michael west

michael west — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:27:47 +0000

I have always loved the elegance of the nine box alignment system. The system effectively helped define character personality and encouraged role playing, but mechanics like know alignment and detect evil always put a monkey wrench into good story telling. Perhaps PCs and most mortal creatures could choose and gravitate toward an alignment but only creatures strongly associated with an outer plane could TRULY be aligned and thus affected by game mechanics that had alignment as a keyword. Even characters like paladins couldn’t truly become aligned until perhaps a paragon destiny path, while the alignment for most mortal creatures on the prime material plane would remain murky at best.

Comment on The Two Faces of Healing by SLOTH

SLOTH — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 04:00:32 +0000

Reading this and having just read your article on envounter-based abilities, I’m trying to figure out a way to make it so that while resting is a viable option, it’s not encouraged. Why does it matter what rituals you can use for recovery when you could just sleep it off? I sort of like the adrenaline idea (as in I love the idea but am not enamored with how you suggested it me implemented). Perhaps now would be a good time to take a page from FPSes and have abilities that scale up as you rach up kills or lose hit points? You could also tie that into tactical healing and have abilities which heal hit points when you kill someone, though that may not count as tactical healing since it doesn’t take a move… PS: Sorry if my thoughts are a little disjointed, it’s late where I’m posting from.

Comment on Winning D&D by Dungeon Mastering: Theory & Practice | The Id DM

Dungeon Mastering: Theory & Practice | The Id DM — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:32:08 +0000

[...] a brief three-sentence segment of a book that is over 200 pages long, but it seems to establish a false sense of equivalence in the roles of the DM and his or her players. Later in the section The Dungeon Master (p. 12-13) [...]

Comment on Tearing 4E a New One: Short Rests and Encounter Resources by It Makes You Think | Sage Owl

It Makes You Think | Sage Owl — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:14:22 +0000

[...] was reading an article on The Angry DM when I came across a line that really made me think. It’s rare that I get a statement so [...]

Comment on Tearing 4E a New One: Short Rests and Encounter Resources by Llathos

Llathos — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:24:35 +0000

Perhaps it is a new rule addition, but you failed to mention the detail that you cannot take an extended rest until at least 12 hours has passed since your last one.

So…yeah. If you’re dungeon crawling and you rest 6 hours, wake up, walk 30 feet and fight some critters….you’ll be standing around for another 11 hours and 58 minutes before you can rest again. Possible, sure, but really stupid. As a DM it would be irresponsible NOT to have them get attacked by a patrol..