Search results

My Targets have board game sections but no RPG books in either the toy/game or book/magazine sections. This is an interesting direction for them to take.[/COLOR]

It's creating a real long tail of crap products, and it will take a while for the cream to rise to the top. The best I can hope for is a compilation product that collects the best DM's Guild products on a semi-annual or better basis, gives them an editing and artwork pass and gives them an...

As an extreme example, that's definitely a stupid rule (albeit with odds somewhere south of 400:1 if I'm reading that correctly). Although I think I probably played a game of WFRP where that happened just as a matter of course.

In Monte's game, monsters don't roll, so all the 1s in a game session are coming off a player's palm as attack or defend actions. So in the context of the OP, the frequency of a 1-roll is very relevant and even more important to avoid the "1-is-fumble" house rule.

5E simplified the critical hit rules, but no version of D&D has had a fumble mechanic on a natural 1 in the core rules.

In *skill checks* a natural 20 has no particular significance. All that matter is whether you hit the DC, regardless of how the die rolls. I don't know why you'd introduce a fumble mechanic into that rule.

That's not a very good characterization of the rationale at all. A roll of 1 on a d20 happens 5% of the time. In almost any RPG, the player characters are by definition exceptional people -- are they going to *fumble*, *screw the pooch*, *bollocks up the whole thing* 5% of the time? Probably...

Nah, it's not silly. It's a design sensibility. They're presenting two versions of the same character, and all the data that describe each version should be present in both cases. There wasn't a "substantive change" to his "Fighting Style (dueling)" ability yet it's printed on both pages. The...

I don't see the problem. The two pages present two versions of the same NPC, first at level 1 and then at level 4. The problem isn't that they've repeated the "Weapons, Armor & Items" box, it's that in 3 levels of adventuring the guy's only added 11cp to his kitty.

I'm not implying that Wizards had any obligation to Open Gaming, or criticizing them for their approach in the 3.5 era; I think it's interesting to contrast the different approaches to Open Gaming and what that might mean for a potential new version of the game.

Like the rest of the Divine rules, those domains came from Deities and Demigods. They may have also been in FRCS (I don't care to check) but they were shoveled into the SRD as part of the D&D package. What's funny is that they didn't even bother updating these domains for 3.5, i.e., the 3.5...

As far as I can tell, there are no domains in the SRD that weren't present in the PHB; I don't know what FRCS domains you are thinking of. Not that it matters; really Wizards got off to a good start with the SRD but it was effectively frozen once revised to 3.5 -- epics, divine, and psionics...

That's true. They didn't port it out to the SRD, though, and some of it came from other OGL sources in the first place, but yes a whole whack of variant rules were Opened in UA. The comparison stands; UA was one book of dozens, and Paizo's SRD still grows with every release.

Paizo are sitting (sic) in high cotton. They've been under no obligation to maintain the 3.5 SRD-derived rule set over the last several years but they have done so, and done so while being good stewards of the OGL, which WoTC never was. Every new rule, feat, and class Paizo releases has gone...