The Gaming Den

Still, that promotes a homogenous party, which is not what games are supposed to promote.

tussock wrote:Yes, ignoring hit points and using a condition track would also work, I was just thinking about improving on the hit point limit Mearls proposed. I've found tracks are a bit ... much, stuff. Something. Bla. Words. Pfft.

condition are MORE than a bit much. either it happened or its gone.. piling on crap to check during combat jsut means more time combat takes and nothing really gets done. they bog combat down.

...You Lost Me wrote:Still, that promotes a homogenous party, which is not what games are supposed to promote.

It's a lot better at letting different approaches work together than 3e though. Currently if you need to compel the guard captain you can either have the bard Charm him or Fascinate + Suggestion him (while the dread necro stands there and watches) or have the dread necro stack two Shakens on him (while the bard stands there and watches). With this advancement scheme the bard and the dread necro can play Good Cop Bad Cop. And if you had a barbarian with Intimidate or a cleric with Command, they could try to throw up their base conditions too.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120312

Ghosts: Ghosts phase out of existence for 5 minutes. If they are possessing a creature, that effect ends.

We can create effects that are useful but that don't give an automatic victory to the cleric. In most cases, turning is a good tool for evading or escaping the undead.

what the fuck kind of stupid shit did 3rd and 4th do to the game? this doesnt happen in BD&D which mearls is supposedly playing either IIRC....

to "destroy" anything other than a skeleton the cleric needs to be 7th level pre-WotC.

ok sure you have necrophilia Mearls, but a fucking level 2 monster like a zombie isnt really something an adventurer of 7th level should REALLY be worried about.

remember that certain monsters DO become less effective unless the world levels-up with the PCs, and then it would be stupid for ANYTHING to level up that being the case.

your lust for the piles of bones (or love since you are probably married to a sack of bones) needs to get a clue.

and where the fuck is the auto-win for a cleric? is this more PvP shit you are dreaming up? there are PLENTY of ways the turned undead will return to to attack, and it isnt something you can do more than once per encounter.

are you even fucking reading the rules of the edition you are playing Mearls? or are you trying to apply 3rd and 4th edition shit to BD&D rather than trying to learn BD&D so you can use what is presented in it?

Has this fucker even EVER played D&D or like Monte and the pemerton moron from ENWorld, they jsut play other RPGs and claim to be playing D&D so they can be part of the popular crowd?

it REALLY seems likes this fucker doesnt know his as form a hole in the ground.

how often do you REALLY plan to play graveyard adventures, or someone controlling udead?

rather than give the DM more work having to look shit up on each undead type, the simple turning table is fast an intuitive, and lets people play and make the choice of how to proceed. skeletons, like goblins, at some point should not really be a threat to seasoned PCs. you might as well kill off the cleric if his divine magic doesnt have the power of any divinity...

someone please shove a cock in Mearls mouth before he tries to use it to speak again.. and one in each hand, before he tries to type again.

shadzar wrote:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120312

remember that certain monsters DO become less effective unless the world levels-up with the PCs, and then it would be stupid for ANYTHING to level up that being the case.

Psst. Shadzar. That's how 4e works.

I do agree with you that the separate "turn undead for each undead" is kinda dumb. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say "this is your cleric's save DC, all the undead roll against it. On a failed save, they cannpt approach you/are afraid of you/whatever. If your level is twice theirs, you destroy them/make them your bitch."

I think the turning thing, in media, actually prevents the undead from attacking you so that shit is dumb. And, I must ask, who the fuck was complaining about turning being overpowered?

CapnTthePirateG wrote:I do agree with you that the separate "turn undead for each undead" is kinda dumb.

It's dumb ("clunky" is the word I would use), but I agree with the idea that for some types of undead making them run in fear sucks. For incorporeal undead, that's just giving them another chance to ambush you, for instance.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:And, I must ask, who the fuck was complaining about turning being overpowered?

It was pretty damn useful in AD&D. In 3.xE, you had an arms race kind of thing, where undead would get turn resistance, then clerics would get a prestige class like Radiant Servant that pumps up the power of turning, then undead would get more turn resistance, then clerics would get some kind of feat to pump up turning even more, etc.

@ModelCitizen: found my words. Condition tracks left me with too much thinking and looking things up, keeping notes, and remembering it all for too little game effect. That's what happened for me.

See, if the Wizard casts Charm Person, and there's an attack roll or saving throw, and someone looks up how Charm Person works because she tries something new with it, again, that's more than enough futzing about for me. Yeh, I maybe shouldn't need to look anything up, which is great for maybe seven conditions, but not 20 or more. I don't think I know how 3e's Charm works now, just haven't used it in a while, too similar to too many other things.


Also, back when a spell or monster just did what it said it did directly, rather than referring to some conditions among many, that wasn't a bad thing, it was just grossly inconsistent for no good reason.

@turn undead. Ditto. It's good for the game if 2d6 skellingtons just go boom, no fuss. Save vs special undead-fear also works, but it's a lot more dice and numbers and thinking for no better effect.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:

shadzar wrote:http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120312

remember that certain monsters DO become less effective unless the world levels-up with the PCs, and then it would be stupid for ANYTHING to level up that being the case.

Psst. Shadzar. That's how 4e works.

I do agree with you that the separate "turn undead for each undead" is kinda dumb. Wouldn't it make more sense to just say "this is your cleric's save DC, all the undead roll against it. On a failed save, they cannpt approach you/are afraid of you/whatever. If your level is twice theirs, you destroy them/make them your bitch."

I think the turning thing, in media, actually prevents the undead from attacking you so that shit is dumb. And, I must ask, who the fuck was complaining about turning being overpowered?

still dont know what DCs point is except to have a shit load more numbers than AD&D had for saves...but one central set of numbers would be better than lots of fiddly numbers.

and apparently it doesnt work in 4th, or we wouldnt be here 4 years later replacing 4th and ending support for it.

i guess Mearls is thinking CoDzilla exists in BD&D because it did in 3rd, and remember this is the first game he has played of BD&D in 20 years, so he somehow thinks the way 3rd did it is how it was always done.. again why i have that 3rd came out because people become stupid and thinking NOTHING existed before it.

DCs in general does NOT get the feel on pre-WotC D&D back.

i think they lost the concept of modules and just going to make a core 5th edition that tries to BE every other edition.

All the undead within a 30-foot cone in front of the cleric are subject to the turn attempt.

oooh what is this shit? i missed it on first read because i had to vomit form the stupidity ...

people elsewhere saying this fits with "the power of X compels you" in the media?

WTF? yeah thrillers with a single undead and single priest would show movement in ONE direction away from the "priest" and a tight camera focus to give the visual effect. there isnt a second undead at the time to see what happens behind the cleric as the camera is over him to show the response form the undead. that tight camera focus and zoom gives it a more scary feel for a thriller.

that doesnt mean that it works in a forward direction only because ONE type of movie makes that look good.

a holy symbol is a gun with a barrel that must be aimed?

when there IS more than a single undead in a movie, then the action DOES affect all in an area around above and below the priest. (see HP Patronus v Dementors)

just fucking treat it like a light source. the light goes in every direction AWAY form the source, and thus would the "holy" or positive energy from the cleric. it is simpler in the game, and it makes more sense as well. shotgun-turning is stupid Mearls.

Ok... let's brainstorm here. I do kind of like the idea of different undead reacting differently, but there's an easier way to do that.

Turn Undead calls forth a surge of positive energy, usually through a channel created with the power granted by a deity. This energy radiates in all directions, out to a range of 5'/Cleric Level, unless directed in a line or cone by the cleric. A cone is 10' long per cleric level, and a line is 15' long.

When an Undead is exposed to a turning effect, they make a will save, against a Wisdom based DC (10+1/2 Cleric's HD+Wis Mod+Relevant Bonuses). Success means they take 1d6/2 Cleric Levels points of positive energy damage. Failure means they are destroyed.

Turn Resistance becomes a flat bonus to the Will Save, Intelligent Undead get to add their Charisma bonus to the Will save (making Vampires and Liches god awful hard to destroy), and Positive Energy overcomes DR as any weapon type (bludgeoning, piercing, etc.), but does not overcome DR X/(Magic/Fire/Alignment/Etc.)

Rebuke Undead heals all undead in the same described areas, and can raise dead, as the spell Animate Dead. At later levels, it gets to act as more powerful necromantic spells.

Just off the top of my head.

where is the "turning" in your turn effects? looks like several little undead-fireball effects to me.

what makes the undead flee form the positive energy?

you made undead as fearless as kender.

the "turning" means to "turn and walk away'...o undead have no morale per say and dont care if they die now, and are just walking walls?

I was going to respond, then I saw it was shad...

seriously, though, yeah, I forgot the turning part in favour of big blasting. honestly, I like the "different undead react differently" part of mearls' turn undead, I would just do it by HD range and into score, rather than strict type.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... e/20120314

someone tell this hippy that BobRoss is dead, and he should follow.

WTF is he rambling on about?

a picture in a book is placed because:
a) you need to fill some space
b) you need to illustrate an idea presented in the words.

i wouldnt buy ANY of his products, and he left that poll option out conveniently.

a- droll, uninspiring. he hit it on the head with textbook, but its more along the lines of accounting textbook. 1st edition was droll and why MANY moved to 2nd because the books were jsut better organized, proofread, and did NOT look like some testbook inside. it doesnt have to even do with the pictures, because they were and still are pretty good.

b- WTF is this? you dont buy an experience. people like this are stupid and wasteful with money. they think money can buy you happiness or love. money can buy you sex, but not love.

c- this is for fad followers, not conscientious buyers. and mentioning "pictures of it on Facebook" just makes it sound like something for attention whores.

You know, I never expected art to be the thing that finally made me put shad on ignore. But here we are.

Shad, you're a dumbfuck who doesn't know a thing about art.

Illustrative art's really handy in an RPG book, you can find the rules quicker by flicking through the pages that way. Coloured chapter tabs don't hurt either. I'd rather it was Bananas than Apples or Cherries though, or whatever the fuck that art guy was saying.

Always figured perfect RPG art would tell the story of what the rules do as they pass by. That is sort of what we're all doing, after all.


Real key? Don't piss off the art people, they don't like that.

Well ignoring Shadzar's art rant, there is also a new Rule of 3 that was posted yesterday, that I don't think got linked here yet: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... 3/20120313



tl;dr:
1) Crit Fumbles and Injury tables will show up in some splat book eventually
2) Off turn actions slow down the game, expect saving throws to act like 4e saving throws to be your active defense, with off turn actions reduced to almost nothing. I pretty much expected this with their "1 action per turn" discussion a while back, but I still don't like it. Immediate/Opportunity actions add a potentially interesting dynamic to the game that I don't want to see go away. Saving Throws as an active defense is laughable imo.
3) Level 0 will not be a part of the core game, however rather than all features coming at level 1, they will be spread over the first 3 levels so new players feature a learning curve for their class.

Seerow wrote:2) Off turn actions slow down the game, expect saving throws to act like 4e saving throws to be your active defense, with off turn actions reduced to almost nothing. I pretty much expected this with their "1 action per turn" discussion a while back, but I still don't like it. Immediate/Opportunity actions add a potentially interesting dynamic to the game that I don't want to see go away. Saving Throws as an active defense is laughable imo.

You know, I considered the defending player making saves as a good thing. It's a minimal investment in time, it keeps the player involved when it's not their turn, and give them the feel that they have some control over their character's defenses.

I also don't think there is a problem with off-turn actions, unless you have way to many of them like 4e did, and to some extent 3.x as well. I'm also entirely unconvinced if removing that tactical aspect is really worth the time saving as opposed to the more engaging game if done right.

Seerow wrote:2) Off turn actions slow down the game, expect saving throws to act like 4e saving throws to be your active defense, with off turn actions reduced to almost nothing.

I think you mean "non-4e saving throws" (i.e. rolled Ref/Fort/Will saves rather than passive defenses), not "4e saving throws". At least, that's what I read in the article.

Previn wrote:I also don't think there is a problem with off-turn actions, unless you have way to many of them like 4e did, and to some extent 3.x as well. I'm also entirely unconvinced if removing that tactical aspect is really worth the time saving as opposed to the more engaging game if done right.

Off-action powers (or powers that behave like off-action powers, like a Monk's Full Discipline powers or fighter stances) which I am defining as 'powers that operate outside of standard-action attacks saving throws and require player investment to keep up' honestly aren't that bad. They add a potentially interesting element to 4E D&D that's more than 'run up to the guy and attack them'. There are several problems with them in 4E D&D as-applied however.

1.) The biggest problem with off-action powers is that they're distributed extremely unfairly. The big reason why rangers are the kings of DPR and rogues are a distant second or third is because rangers can get access to a full suite of minor-action / immediate interrupt powers with minimal effort. Wizards are by far and away the best controllers not just because of their monopoly of turn-disablers (though that would be enough on its own) but because they have access to powers that double-hit or more.

This rule has stuck so firmly throughout 4E D&D that you can judge the worth of a class by one of two metrics: 1.) How badass is their force multiplier effect? 2.) If they don't have a good force multiplier effect, how many off-action offensive maneuvers do they have? This is why Cleric, Warlord, and Runepriests are so friggin' good and Shaman, Artificer, and non-Oghma Warpriests suck so very bad.

2.) The Five Moves of Doom charge system really, really makes off-action powers worthless. In Book of Nine Swords with Warblades, off-action powers were an interesting tactical addition because you have to balance defense against offense -- which was made possible because Warblades can recharge their powers mid-combat.

In 4E D&D, off-action powers are just a way to pile on damage and/or status effects. Because there's no real disadvantage to using a power except that you don't have it after using it and there's not much in the way of round-to-round momentum shifting (there's some token efforts, but for the most not enough to justify holding off on the initial offensive push in most instances), people are incentivized to just burn through their powers as fast as possible.

I mean, if off-action attacks didn't generically reward you for burning through them as quickly as possible and enemy offense/defense wasn't so predictable and static they'd work out a lot better than they currently did. The closest the system comes to being tactical if when fighting solos who can recharge their powers. That could actually create some interesting choices to be had if it weren't for the Five Moves of Doom problem.

The biggest complain I have against interrupt actions is what Mr. Thompson described in the article: they break up the flow of play when they unexpectedly negate an action.

I once had a DM who hated my sorcerer every time he cast Ruin Delver's Fortune, and I suppose I can't blame him.

"You're poisoned!" "No, I'm not."

"Save vs. fear!" "Nope."

"The attack hit -- now you must be close to dead." "Temporary hit points, so no, I'm not."

Save or Die and Die Again
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... _die_again!

In Summary: Save or die is obviously a topic that polarizes people. It’s one of the many areas where we’re looking to players and DMs to give us feedback. The material I wrote about earlier this week, and the ideas I put forward in later columns, are starting points. The game is a work in progress, and it won’t be complete without a thorough playtest.

Why Hit Points? I have to admit that the idea of using hit points came from my 4th Edition campaign.

ok you have already failed at 5th edition. if you dont play an unaltered version of the edition you are playing, you in NO way can know or begin to understand the "feel" of it in order to compare to other editions. you automatically bastardized it to be a replica of 4th.

5th edition will be 4ev2 because Mearls has no intent to learning the "feel" of the past editions, he is still trying to make the game his ONETRUEWAY to play without giving two shits about the people who play past editions or even to find out what they might like about them. rather than being Mina Mina D&D (everybody's D&D) 5e will be NOBODY's D&D.

he might as well jsut take random paragraphs form each edition and copy and paste them into the respective books, and jsut call it 5e because that is what is going on when 4th or 3rd is being thrown into BD&D without first seeing how BD&D does it.

remember Mearls claimed that he had already forgotten 3rd after playing 4th for a while, so how the hell can he understand BD&D without playing it and jumping to alter it already?

you want to get the "feel" for an edition take a year and play them all. get the 4 top design and idea people together. each one DM the game for a full work week then switch.

that gives each designer 36 hours of DMing each edition and at least 108 hours as a player of each edition to see what the editions do and how they work. leftover days for months that have more than 4 weeks, can be used to reflect and discuss. that gives 5~6 months worth of getting to know the previous editions so you have a framework to know what there "FEEL" is, and plenty of notes of what each edition adds to its "feel" to be added as a module.

throw in a random 4th designer to fill out the character core classes, and they can play ALL the time for added benefit to make sure the game is playing good under each DM and to not ALL the DM styles and how players react to them to clinch that "feel" of each game.

Mearls couldnt design his way out of a paper bag if he had a box of matches.

Prak_Anima wrote:You know, I never expected art to be the thing that finally made me put shad on ignore. But here we are.

Shad, you're a dumbfuck who doesn't know a thing about art.

Yes i do. the art director should be focusing on what the books need, not just random shit jsut to pay the bored artists that have nothing else to do.

tussock wrote:Illustrative art's really handy in an RPG book, you can find the rules quicker by flicking through the pages that way. Coloured chapter tabs don't hurt either. I'd rather it was Bananas than Apples or Cherries though, or whatever the fuck that art guy was saying.

Always figured perfect RPG art would tell the story of what the rules do as they pass by. That is sort of what we're all doing, after all.


Real key? Don't piss off the art people, they don't like that.

see, right here the fact that art used to fill space.. the chapter full page art, that is a good use. PF scales for race sizes, is another good art. polearms from A&EG are more good art.

a picture of a wizard on the wizard class is good art.

the game is found in books, but they are NOT art books. there can be, but not for the game itself, because you cant just play with pictures. art can HELP inspire, but shouldnt be the only thing to inspire, otherwise the words on the page have failed. the art should reinforce the words on the page, not replace their need.

read his article and look at what he is saying, and see the total bullshit in it. sure he IS the art director, but his is a job where he is assigned pieces that are needed for a purpose, or jsut filler art, and then works form there. he should not be designing anything on his own unless told to jsut create some random filler art. most of his job should be directed in turn which he should direct others to follow the instructions for the piece that is needed.

Dragon DDI thingy-zine going to feature drow, then his instructions could be as simple as "depiction of drow on the cover". then he and his flunkies can do whatever. if he depicts orcs having a bonfire, that in NO way h4elps the product no matter how pretty it is, nor that someone wants to collect pictures of drow or even orcs. his work will have failed at its function.

he is trying to do something WELL BEYOND what the art should do. i fugre that is how 3rd books are worse than 1st because at least you had real paragraphs and the intent of 1st was to read them, but 3rd had pictures in the middle of text breaking things up to look stupid and illegible. Sure they had LOTS of pretty pictures, but in the end, they were a failure because they prevented you from reading the books due to the pictures and stupid backgrounds like Dragon Magazine had around the time TSR was bought by WotC.

there is a reason that blank ink is used on white pages...the contrast is easy to read, and that is why words exist. also why comics have speech bubbles to make sure the words are separate from the art, so you can read them.

the way he is talking though is like making the books into a comic with pictures everywhere and words as an afterthought. who can play a game that cant read the words for the art being in the way?

i think there is a good reason he works with art not words, because he sure as hell sucks using words if he intended to say something other than what he did, because that article is just shit piled with more shit that is all nonsense.

I might have misread the entire colum. But it sounds like you are talking about a different things shad.

The colum is mostly about formatting style. Not about which pictures should go where.
Formatting is something different from just pictures and is very important to present your data to users.

@ishy

We won't get into the meat of the look and feel for a while yet. This high-level strategy tries to define big ideas that we can hang our hat on. In essence, the creative brief makes sure that everyone is looking at the same bull's-eye. Why do I bring this up now? Well, while I was reading the comments and discussions from my first article, an element of the creative brief came to mind. One of the discussions that I have been following is the debate about the heavily crafted look of 3.x vs. the "textbook" look of 4E vs. the easy-to-tote D&D Essentials format. This is a great conversation to have!

the end of the opening paragraph, and this is the art director, and his column.

he mentions "textbook" look for 4th books, which is how the art is structured...there is a LOT of whitespace at the end of pages, sometimes half pages due to no more powers for that level, or the end of an idea, etc, as well as how the powers look on the page. they look like a textbook with datablocks. this isnt unlike 1st edition where it had FEW images on the page.

3.x is mentioned as heavily crafted, both the cover to look like a book (make a book look like a book...hmm?) as well as the art strewn everywhere. text having to wrap around it, pictures int he middle of the page that doesnt allow for normal left-alignment, etc.

Essentials i have never seen a book for...

the "format" is exactly "where the art goes" when you look at it. formatting is something the editor should say "Hey, this page has too much lets break up the text with a diagram to show what we are talking about", "hey lets have a picture of a fighter near the fighter header to show what we think as the typical fighter". this last one gives those generic characters from 2nd revised, and the "iconic" characters of 3rd.

all the cover art could be textbook or not from any edition.

the only thing his "conversation" can be talking about is where the art goes, what color background to use behind the text, etc.

then he goes ans asks something unrelated to the "format" of the page itself of the book.

Have you ever thought about the reasons that you love a product?

this from the art director MUST be about the art. art if part of the Fluff of the book, including the polearms picks etc that depict an oft unknown weapon in this day and age.

then he further goes into a confused collection of ideas, not related to his initial paragraph, and not even correct assumptions.

Product A: I'm buying it for information and knowledge. I don't care what it looks like—I'm not interested in paying for a premium treatment.

Product A is what I call "consume." You want data and information. Forget the fluff. It just slows you down. Ditch the noise—if it doesn't make you smarter, faster, or more efficient, you just don't see any value.

this is the anti-Gygaxian, less verbose and arty, and more information. i can appreciate that for MANY things like a recipe. i dont need to see an egg drawing because i know what an egg is, and the same goes for a teaspoon. most people cooking arent in need of these drawings either, because they are NOT new to cooking. children's products however would REQUIRE these things, even with adult supervision, to help connect the words to a real world object. EZ-Bake oven for example would have a picture of the items with the instruction.

also this fails new users. in the case of an RPG that means someone who has never come across this before in other areas. take for example EVERY WH$0k piece. the first time you assemble a Rhino, you need the pictures to tell you what to do. they ARE the information and instructions (same for any model). once you have done it the first time, you rarely need the instructions again because you can remember what goes where.

so this product assumes little fluff (including art) and more like a book of tax tables. a collection of statblocks like say 4th MM. no ecologies, no reason X in a minion of Y, just it is because it is.

Product B: I'm buying an experience. I'm buying into the concept that I will be immersed, engaged, and given an interactive experience.

Product B is "engage." It's all about the experience. You want a bungee jump over a textbook, or you want to stroll through an art show. You want to get connected and excited, and you want to feel as if you are alive! If you don't get all dreamy thinking back to the experience, you'll feel as though you threw away your money.

this product just fails, it is the opposite of A and is the entire fluff book, or just an art book. he surely cant mean an engaging story, since an RPG is not a novel.

his description is total shit here. if he wanted to mention engagement with a book, he could have talked about the good and bad points of past books. 1e finding things i a total nightmare. it was poorly organized and there was not even headers much that you can tell to break things up. there is no excuse this art director has NEVER seen older editions or pre-WotC editions if his job will be to work with 5th that is supposed to capture the "feel" of the older editions, and the "experience" he mentions is party the art of those older editions.

he mixes two things, rather than explain. 3e you could find thing like 2nd and 4th due to better organization, then 3rd fails because like 1st you have to hunt for things, but this time you have to read around art or through it. not very engaging. reading the book shouldnt be a fight.

did the 3 archons (i think) need to be in the middle of the page of the 3e books?

Product C: I'm buying this one because I just gotta have it! It is the coolest thing around, and only a few select folks will own it.

Product C is "cherish." It's all about finding and squirreling away little treasures. For example, I have an original D&D book that is held together with duct tape and is filled with scribbles. I'd never part with it. The value isn't monetary—it's a priceless treasure. I know few of them are out there, and none of them are just like mine.

here again he mixes two things. one mentions like a collectible that has nothing to do with formatting and/or art. you cannot predict what a collector would collect. then he goes talking about something unrelated.

i have the 5th print with the alternate cover of 1e DMG and the book is in half down the spine. i dont love the book or cherish it, nor did i get it to collect...well slightly to collect but more, i got it to keep the original art (like the ones almost have on the front of the LE reprints on Amazon) books from getting trashed more.

the art director is mixing his ideas, and stepping outside of his field. he should be focused with the art not the page layout.

he should just focus on having he bored artists doing some normal sketches of skeletons, vampires, townsfolk, etc that can fill the books that is KNOWN to be needed so when the time comes they can say "we already have a picture of a wizard that can fit that space".

the layout and where art goes within the page is NOT his job, or shouldnt be unless WotC is failing to understand the jobs of the people that put a book together. nor should he even be dealing with header colors or fonts etc.

hogarth wrote:The biggest complain I have against interrupt actions is what Mr. Thompson described in the article: they break up the flow of play when they unexpectedly negate an action.

I once had a DM who hated my sorcerer every time he cast Ruin Delver's Fortune, and I suppose I can't blame him.

"You're poisoned!" "No, I'm not."

"Save vs. fear!" "Nope."

"The attack hit -- now you must be close to dead." "Temporary hit points, so no, I'm not."

But that's the fun part about them!
"Ok, so now you're screwed - go ahead and take --"
"Objection! [/phoenixwright] Actually, I'm not screwed, and the ogre that was trying to do so is now over there and on fire."

The DM has unlimited resources at their fingertips. If they can't handle a few negated attacks, they need to step up their game.


Re: Saving throws as an "active defense". I'm sorry, that's laughably bad. Saving throws are only "interactive" if you are superstitious or cheating. I'm not against the defender rolling, but don't try to spin it as even a shadow of actual interrupts.