View Profile: Azzy - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Azzy

Basic Information

Age
44
About Azzy
Location:
St.Aug, FL
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
St. Augustine
State:
Florida
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,722
Posts Per Day
0.28
Last Post
Idea to handle the "ghoul problem" Yesterday 09:35 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
3
General Information
Last Activity
Today 10:16 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 10th August, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
St. Augustine
State:
Florida
Country:
USA
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019


Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019


Monday, 1st July, 2019


Sunday, 30th June, 2019


Friday, 28th June, 2019



Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Sunday, 23rd June, 2019

  • 07:00 PM - Mournblade94 mentioned Azzy in post Acquisitions, Inc.: First Impressions
    But I dunno, people like Ed Greenwood and R. A. Salvatore who like Acquisitions, Inc...can they be considered Real Forgotten Realms Fans™, or are they just Johnny Come Lately posers? I haven't called anyone that likes it a poser fan or anything of the sort. Nor am I railing against people buying it if they want. Azzy I would much rather have no development than wholesale changing of the realms like 4e did. Be careful what you wish for I play Forgotten Realms for High Fantasy simulation. I have no desire for forgotten Realms to be the office humor campaign world. I'd take no development over that just like I didn't want them to change all the areas for 4e.

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 07:20 PM - Yaarel mentioned Azzy in post 4e Clone − help create it!
    @Azzy, jayoungr I updated the original post as follows. Any suggestions? Grappling Grappling represents wrestling, grabbing, pulling, and pushing. To make a grappling attack, add d20 to whichever is highest, your Dexterity bonus (for agility and leverage) or your Strength bonus (for physical size and power). To make a grappling defense, add 10 to whichever is highest, Dexterity or Strength. However, always use Strength to keep a hold ongoing. For example. To break out of a hold, you attack via your Dexterity versus your opponents Strength. To climb onto a Dinosaur, you attack via your Dexterity to grab on around a neck or a horn, and an unwilling Dinosaur attacks via its Dexterity versus your Strength to shake you off. Grappling attacks are natural unarmed attacks, with or without proficiency.

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 03:36 AM - Greg K mentioned Azzy in post Should I play 4e?
    I liked several things about D&D 4e. However, when I look at it, the following always crosses my mind: 1. I don't like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies so I know that I will never run or play those levels. 2. Things that I want are spread out across too many books and Dragon Magazine 3. Too many specific names on feats and powers (e.g. the deity named feats). Trying to rename feats and powers or changing power descriptions to fit my campaign setting is going to be a reference nightmare for my players. 4. When I look at the power system, I think to myself, "Hero System does powers better so why not just use Fantasy Hero 4e or 5e?" (which is why I laughed when Azzy told Elfcrusher that he would not like Hero System). However, to the OP, if it looks interesting to you, give it a try.

Thursday, 18th April, 2019

  • 05:37 PM - LordEntrails mentioned Azzy in post To boxed text or not to boxed text
    ... topic drift (either because it plain is or because it isn't an outright truism) but isn't absolute topic drift. The only way it becomes actual topic drift is if someone voices their disagreement and related conversation ensues. Can I vote for this one? Can I just say that I'd much rather be talking about the genesis of GMing and then discussing how that hooks into the utility (or the problem) of "boxed text"? Then start a thread! Nor would I have the use of such classic, box-free scenarios as B2. Part of what makes B2 usable by me is that it presents a place (the Keep) and a series of situations (the proximity of the Cves; the evil cleric; etc) but no pre-supposed plot in the form of boxed text. And see this is why when I was 10 years old we thought B2 sucked and was useless. Because we didn't know what to do with it. Now a days I would have no trouble using B2. But that's because I had boxed text to train educate me on one way of DMing. Look, we have examples from Azzy that boxed text did him harm. We have examples from me that boxed text benefited us. Good thing their isn't only one way to play the game huh? Or that not every module and system is written according to some monolithic approach. But, based on my experience, the good boxed text, or scripted narration, provides to new DMs is why I will keep recommending to authors that they use it.

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019

  • 10:00 PM - Hussar mentioned Azzy in post Sneak Peek At Ghosts of Saltmarsh Maps
    Sure, here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?604938-I-draw-the-occasional-D-amp-D-map /snip LOL Look at that thread you posted. Virtually every single map in that thread, nearly all of them, are oriented north to the top. Granted there's no compass rose on most of them, but, then again, lacking a compass rose, the presumption is always north to the top because that's the standard way maps are drawn. Anyway, like I said, this has got to be the absolute weirdest conversation I've ever had on En World. Azzy - you have not one, but actually multiple atlases where most of the maps in the atlas are not north to the top? Link please? Because, well, buddy, you found the unicorn. I'm not saying no map is ever done that way. I'm saying it's very, very much an outlier to not do them that way. Prakriti - WTF? Scary/foreign/unusual? Ooookay. I'll note that not a single person here who is so adamant to prove me wrong has taken up my challenge. C'mon, let's see these examples of RPG books where the majority of maps are not north to the top. Should be easy peasy for smart folks like you. You seem to be so sure that north to the top isn't typical or usual, so, let's get those examples rolling in. It's easy to make unsubstantiated claims and whatnot. Time to pee or get off the pot. Give me a SINGLE example of an RPG product where the majority of the maps is not oriented north to the top. http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d3/d38a9ea86a0911c1162382d6d50168753e1dfb0cd3eaabc3d4ae85bfc7...

Tuesday, 5th March, 2019

  • 09:53 PM - CleverNickName mentioned Azzy in post Critical Role Kickstarter Predition Game: Guess the Funding Outcome (GTFO)
    ... EnochSeven: $16,213,102 TallIan: $15,876,374 MNblockhead: $15,555,555 77IM: $14,980,000.00 jgsugden: $14,520,000 OB1: $14,000,042 The Big BZ: $14,000,000 dregntael: $13,935,109 chrisrtld: $13,635,019 pogre: $13,500,000 Aebir-Toril: $13,224,376.89 Satyrn: $13,000,000 Yardiff: $12,456,145 -----------Highest-Funded Game Project on Kickstarter (Kingdom Death: Monster 1.5) $12,393,139-------- Radaceus: $12,345,678.91 FarBeyondC: $12,345,678.90 Morrus: $12,000,000 Mistwell: $11,800,000 Mort: $11,620,000 Zardnaar: $11,354,883 <--- The Winner! Sadras: $11,120,000 SkidAce: $11,000,000 Tazawa: $10,700,000 togashi_joe: $10,250,000 DM Dave1: $10,101,010 MichaelSomething: $10,000,000 Lazybones: $9,750,000 PabloM: $9,500,000 akr71: $9,250,000 rczarnec: $9,250,000 Azzy: $9,000,000 Henry: $8,900,000 mortwatcher: $8,666,000 Lidgar: $8,423,976.73 vincegetorix: $8,360,000 SmokeyCriminal: $8,008,135 AriochQ: $7,777,777 robus: $7,750,000 MarkB: $7,500,000 phantomK9: $6,969,696 TarionzCousin: $6,160,000 ClaytonCross: $6,000,000 ---------Highest-Funded Film Project on Kickstarter (MST3K Kickstarter) $5,764,229----------- MaximusArael020: $5,685,000 Prakriti: $1

Saturday, 1st December, 2018

  • 10:30 PM - epithet mentioned Azzy in post WotC's Nathan Stewart Teases New D&D Setting Book in 2019
    The roots of D&D is in Grayhawk, but this was created by Gary Gygax and now it is too "fixed" to can add new things, for example an oriental continent. We can't see the Grayhawk equivalent of Kara-Tur, al-Qadim or Maztica because then lots of fans would say it is a "jump the shark", too big changes. ... The equivalent of Kara-Tur is in the Southern hemisphere on the same continent. Follow the coastline around the Amedio Jungle and keep going West, you can't miss it. You could also cross the Dry Steppes and get there overland. The equivalent of Maztica is the Amedio and Hepmonaland. Step pyramids, feathered serpents, etc. are all present in great profusion (see, eg, the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan.) Your al-Qadim is the Baklunish West, or farther to the West you have the great deserts South of the Empire of Lynn. So... we've already seen those equivalents, years and editions ago. Edit: Azzy beat me to it.

Saturday, 3rd November, 2018


Monday, 29th October, 2018

  • 08:07 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned Azzy in post Mike Mearls: so here’s the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule
    Satyrn Oh totally agree. Sorry for not making it clear. Both versions do indeed weaken the feat, and I agree that Azzy's idea also eliminates the need for a shield. Personally, I don't know that TWF needs to be changed all that much. I especially don't think it requires changing the math of the attack bonus or including advantage/disadvantage. Just a tweak to allow unarmed strikes and natural weapons to be used with it, and changing the bonus action requirement. I think there needs to be some action economy investment since you are making an additional attack over what you would normally be allowed, but I think the bonus action is just too steep a price to pay when there are SO many other things competing for that spot. Edit: Actually, this whole thing also get me thinking about that other thread using a shield as an improvised weapon. I am now thinking that allowing it to be used improvised and off-handed is too good. I think one would need the Shield Master feat to use a shield with proficiency as a weapon, and Dual Wielder since a shield should not be considered a light weapon. This helps ensure ...

Friday, 23rd March, 2018

  • 04:12 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Azzy in post "Are the Authors of the Dungeon & Dragons Hardcover Adventures Blind to the Plight of DMs?"
    Actually, the lack of help with XP and leveling in the APs is another example of how unfriendly these books are towards new DMs. They don't need to have a complex fractional milestone system designed. Instead, just give a suggested XP value for each section. Trail of the Apprentice Adventure Path by Legendary Games is a good example of this. I think the APs do a good job of supporting the Milestone Leveling system in favor of XP. Which I think is probably a smart move. Azzy makes a good point above that we're all guessing what is easy or difficult for a new DM, but I would think taking away XP and all the maintenance that goes with it would probably make things easier. I mean, I've been DMing for a long time and I ditched XP a while back and it's helped quite a bit. I think that's why the APs largely seem to assume Milestone XP....it's simply easier. "The characters should likely be at least 4th level before they go to this area" is a lot easier to understand and process for a DM, regardless of their experience behind the screen. I know many long time DMs and players would hate the idea of having no XP, and that's fine, but to me it makes more sense for that to be the "advanced" method, and leave Milestone as the default. Especially since the published adventures cover such a large level range.

Wednesday, 28th February, 2018

  • 09:50 AM - Mouseferatu mentioned Azzy in post No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard
    Mouseferatu, why though? Isn't there an elegance to reusing the same basic rules and just changing as little as possible to get the desired effect? That assumes that they got the desired effect. As Azzy said, the classes that did this didn't feel distinct. Nor did their powers feel interesting or sufficient enough. (All IMO, obviously.) They didn't feel like their own thing; they felt like a poorer, more limited battlemaster. If a class can be designed around superiority dice that actually feels and plays like it's a totally different thing than the battlemaster, and feels sufficiently like it accomplishes whatever its concept is supposed to accomplish, and feels interesting in its own right, sure, I'm fine with that. But I've yet to see it, or even a hint of it, being done successfully.

Friday, 22nd December, 2017

  • 07:55 PM - LordEntrails mentioned Azzy in post New D&D Movie: July 23rd 2021
    ...al money making venture for them, they should and will follow a formulaic approach to the movie that they hope will yield the most profit for the D&D brand. For them to do anything less would be negligent to their shareholders. You cannot account for the tastes of audiences that watch them, however - and you cannot account for the millions/billions ? of people who openly think he is the worst moviemaker in the world today. Nice exaggeration. This will be my last attempt to add reason to your emotional rants. The vague number of people I referred to that have watched MB movies can actually be estimated reliable using hard numbers like this. You "one-upping" me by going to millions/billions is absurd. And rather than supporting your point, supports that you are spewing emotional responses that you haven't even thought through. Or do you really want us to expect that 1 in 7 people in the WORLD think MB is the worst moviemaker? If so, please provide some fact based support. Azzy & TrippyHippy, If you want a movie that conforms to your tastes, then go invest your own time in money in such. If you are right, then the critics will love it and you might even turn a profit. Or you could accept that what you want is of little important to Hasbro and your continued voicing of it and how bad MB is will have no real impact on the world. I'm done.

Thursday, 5th October, 2017

  • 06:41 AM - Yaarel mentioned Azzy in post XGTE has the Samurai Subclass
    Azzy, Mirtek Using the Barbarian for a Samurai makes sense to me. The light armor, toughness, high Dexterity, relentless attacks, and so on, work pretty well. The suggestion by Mirtek to use the Barbarian was surprising because its flavor is so wild, and the flavor of the Samurai is so civilized. But both are arguably disciplined warriors, and the mechanics seem a good fit. Flavor ‘rage’ as ‘zen’, and it works.

Friday, 23rd June, 2017

  • 05:32 AM - Yaarel mentioned Azzy in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    @Shasarak and @Azzy You are kinda proving my point about ‘D&D peer pressure’ to pretend to ‘worship’ ‘gods’. If I told you, I hate Kobolds. I imagine your response would be something like. Thats nice. I dont care. But when I say, I hate polytheism. You guys seem as if unable to stop yourself from launching into some kind of reallife culture war about issues that I couldnt care less about. I enjoy D&D without ‘gods’. I watch televisions shows where polytheism is irrelevant. I want to play games where it is irrelevant too.

Monday, 2nd May, 2016

  • 03:57 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Azzy in post Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, & Revenant
    So, I have an observation and a question stemming from it. By the way, feel free to tell me it's ridiculous if need be, maybe I'm just new.... Looking at this discussion there seems to be quite a bit of negativity towards the idea of more options in general when they're for the player, with some outright stating that this is one of the biggest ways to impact tables in a bad way. Why is that? I'm primarily a player myself, and don't really understand the hostility. I love making characters, mechanically and through narrative, and every time Wizards releases an expansion to character options my field of possible characters and experiences in 5E gets bigger and better. What's wrong with that? Has it always been this way? I'll tackle this as well (although I think that Azzy and Mercule have also covered this, and I agree with what they wrote). The DM should know the rules- which means the rules for the game world (that's all the finicky stuff that the players don't have to worry about) as well as all the rules related to the players (that's all the cool stuff players such as you like). How you view the expansion of player materials depends on a few factors- 1. Increasing complexity (or bloat, if you prefer) is not a good thing. Even within the core rules, unexpected interactions can take place. Part of this is due to the fact that D&D has rules that modify other rules (meta-rules), and working out how these rules impact and refer to each other can be difficult. How does supplement A's spells work with Core Rule B to effect MM3's monster in light of supplement F? 2. Regarding (1), there will be a player (let's call him "That guy," because we all know who he is) who will invariably want to play an Unearthed Arcana Class with a new feat using skil...

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Azzy in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...er/Maester/Maesteri/Maestro (predominantly craft skill level, craft guild rank, or academic/musical) Headman/Hauptman (root of Captain and too authoritative) Proconsul (the Pro- makes it too authoritative) Shepherd (too religious, too bucolic, too Firefly) Synergist (too boring, and sounds like some kind of psychic) Armiger (exclusively military and noble) Sherriff (too noble, too law enforcement) Impetro/Impetrus (too authoritative – Imperial) Adjunct (too subordinate, too Star Trek Borg - Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One) Prolucutor (the Pro- makes it too authoritative, sounds like the person is a professional talker, and is just too hard to say) Warden (too Ranger) Leader(zzzzzzzzzz…) @3e4ever ; @77IM @Aaron Of Barbaria; @AbdulAlhazred ; @admcewen ; @Aenghus ; @Ahrimon ; @Ainulindalion ; @airwalkrr; @Aldarc ; @akr71 ; @AmerginLiath ; @Andor ; @AntiStateQuixote ; @aramis erak; @Aribar ; @Arnwolf ; @Ashkelon ; @Ashrym ; @Athinar ; @AtomicPope ; @Azurewraith; @Azzy ; @Bawylie ; @bedir than ; @Bedrockgames ; @bert1000 ; @billd91 ; @Blackbrrd; @Blackwarder ; @Blue ; @Bluenose ; @brehobit ; @BryonD ; @Bupp ; @Campbell ; @CapnZapp; @CaptainConundrum ; @CaptainGemini ; @Carlsen Chris ; @casterblaster ; @CasvalRemDeikun; @cbwjm ; @ccooke ; @Celebrim ; @Celondon @ChameleonX ; @Charles Wright ; ChrisCarlson; @CM ; @cmad1977 ; @costermonger ; @Creamsteak ; @Crothian ; @Cybit ; @Dausuul; @Dayte ; @dd.stevenson ; @DEFCON 1 ; @Delazar ; @DersitePhantom ; @Diffan ; @discosoc; @D'karr ; @Doc Klueless ; @doctorbadwolf ; @DonAdam ; @Dragoslav ; @Duganson; @EdL ; @EditorBFG ; @Edwin Suijkerbuijk ; @Eejit ; @ehren37 ; @Elfcrusher ; @El Mahdi ; @epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ;...

Friday, 2nd October, 2015

  • 09:22 PM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Azzy in post Here's That SCAG Table of Contents!
    Azzy has a great point, and it has given me an idea: I'm going to share the primary reason why I, a long-time D&D player with a full collection of Forgotten Realms supplments, am purchasing this book (besides that my players might like to use any mechanical options found in it). It could serve as an outline for how to efficiently present Mystara setting information to my current players, who have no more knowledge of that setting than can be found by me constantly mentioning random cool esoteric factoids from it and playing the arcade games Tower of Doom and Shadow Over Mystara, that are currently in their first campaigns set in Mystara (and are, luckily, playing characters that are as unaware of basic info about the world because they have only just arrived their from an old home-brew world I am abandoning and Oerth). I've looked at other campaign setting products and books and found them to be lacking as such an outline because they are far to lengthy (busy lives and all means not m...

No results to display...

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 04:22 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Azzy in post How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules
    I don't get why you guys just don't hew as closely as possible to 4e to begin with, just to get it all in order and in place, and then fork from there to meet personal preferences.... I mean, it makes sense to have OSRic in place before you start working on Adventures Dark & Deep. This makes a lot of sense. A document parsing each of the 4e PHB classes and races, and the general rules, plus enough monsters to run a quick level of a dungeon with a boss fight, using the 5e OGL, would be a basis from which every other 5.4e variant could diverge, while having some common ground for discussions. I do think even THAT conversion should tighten up the numbers treadmill dramatically, but I'd be willing to compromise on that. Though that isnt where I am thinking about too much... i am concerned how much is +3 added to non-proficient activity Intimidate or Deception use for my Chosen one I have using in my example. I guess it does make her as able as someone with basic proficiency in say Heroic...
  • 04:10 AM - Elfcrusher quoted Azzy in post Should I play 4e?
    You'd hate the HERO System. Yeah, and GURPS.

Tuesday, 4th June, 2019


Monday, 3rd June, 2019

  • 10:11 PM - Garthanos quoted Azzy in post Mythological Figures: Sherlock Holmes (5E)
    Actually, the martial art "baritsu". this one there... indeed. In 4e one could use something like Melee Training (not too glorious sounding) to have ones basic melee governed off of a different base stat, we could have a sherlock with Int based for the Robert Downy Junior hyper predictive intelligence. But that isnt anything fancy. like the character would use (so not perfect) I seen this done for a Decent Wisdom based Socrates fighter though...
  • 06:47 PM - Bacon Bits quoted Azzy in post Let's list the "broken" spells
    My dat thread necro is gud. I really wish they'd autolock discussion threads that have had no activity for over a year, especially if the original thread had more than 50 posts. Thread necro is not conducive to new discussion. If someone wants their thread to survive longer, they can switch it to a wiki thread. If someone wants to continue a discussion, they can create a new thread and reference the old one.
  • 06:29 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Azzy in post More Ships of the Sea
    Just as long as I can name a sloop the "John B". I assume there is a reference here?
  • 03:11 PM - DM Dave1 quoted Azzy in post What 5th edition books should I be buying?
    I get more use from Kobold Press's Tome of Beasts, which has a lot of distinctive and high-threat monsters that work well as 'specials'. Tome of Beast, as S'mon mentioned, is a great monster resource. More monsters? Tomb of Beasts and Creature Codex add a bunch of variety. I third the recommendation for Tome of Beasts, and its follow-up, Creature Codex, is equally good. Over here for a fifth! Both enormous Kobold Press monster books are chock full of such a great variety of monsters that it is a challenge to not find something to fit your desired CR, environment, monster type, alignment, etc. The artwork in those books is quite nice as well.
  • 03:00 AM - Charlaquin quoted Azzy in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    Great, so you want something different than what fans of the original class and of Eberron want. Go you. However, this playtest isn't going to give you what you want as it's designed for an Eberron supplement. Sorry. Which is shortsighted. The class isn’t only going to be used for Eberron, it should be built to be able to accommodate more concepts than just the Eberron Artificer. It should absolutely be able to accommodate the Eberron Artificer, but with 5e’s broad approach to class design, it should be able to accommodate other types of magitech characters too.
  • 02:42 AM - Charlaquin quoted Azzy in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    The 3.5e Artificer had spells, why would you want a 5e version of the class to not have spells? Most editions’ Rangers could cast spells too, didn’t stop the 4e ranger from being a non-caster. And for that it was, in my opinion, a much better expression of the archetype the class represents. I don’t really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current edition’s expression of it the best it can be. It seems like you want a different class altogether. I disagree. I think the thing I want very much fits within the fiction of the Artificer. I just want a different mechanical expression of that “magitech crafter” concept. And I’m fine with both spellcasting and non-spellcasting options existing, it’s judt much harder to remove spells from a class that has them as part of its core features than it is to add spellcasting to one or more of the subclasses.
  • 01:31 AM - Savevsdeath quoted Azzy in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    The 3.5e Artificer had spells, so why would you want a 5e version of the class to not have spells? It seems like you want a different class altogether. A lot of people don't like and/or never played Eberron or played with/as an Artificer, and thus want it to be something that it never was. Others just don't like any magic that isn't 'choose from a spell list, memorize, cast'. Still more just hate magitech. Regardless, to those people i say: if you don't like it, don't use it. You weren't going to anyway if it didn't exist, so don't ruin it for people who actually like Eberron. That being said, I don't think it's perfect right now - just very, very close.

Friday, 31st May, 2019

  • 02:36 AM - Giltonio_Santos quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    I was trying to address both editions—that's why I pointed out that most of 2e's (typoed as "@e") stupidness were optional, thankfully, or holdovers from 1e. This is very common, but from the point of view of 2e fans, makes no sense at all. Truth is that not a lot of people used to learn D&D by reading the core books. I don't know if this has really changed, but it appears that between 1980 and 2000, many people were playing a mashup of D&D editions passed on through an oral tradition that was sometimes close to what the core books said but would also sometimes travel far away from them. Just as a very common example: I keep reading from people here (based on what they know about 1e) that 2e thieves were incompetent with their thieving skills, but a half-elf with a Dexterity of 17, no armor and the cutpurse kit could start at 1st level with a 75% chance of successfully pick-pocketing if pick-pocketing was his/her thing. That same half-elf could then raise that chance to 90% upon reach...
  • 02:08 AM - Reynard quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    And then there are the stupid things like weapon vs Armor mods, This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You throw these out and your drastically reduce the capability of the fighter, because they are the ones that have weapon versatility. Instead every fighter walks around with a long sword.
  • 01:56 AM - Enevhar Aldarion quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    And then there are the stupid things like weapon vs Armor mods, gender-based ability score maximums, going into comas at negative hp, racial level limits, etc. Pretty much none of this was used in my groups. lol And on the whole coma thing, the reason I did not remember that is because I did more 2E than 1E and that rule is only in 1E. I had to go look through my 2E DMG to make sure and it is not in there.
  • 01:43 AM - vecna00 quoted Azzy in post Baldurs Gate 3 apparently in development (with evidence)
    While that would be awesome, I wouldn't get my hopes up. IIRC, even NWN1 didn't have some of the extra stuff until its first expansion. It's been ages since I first played, so my memory might be a bit fuzzy. I would expect more via expansions and DLC for BG3. In fact, I would be disappointed if they didn't do expansions or DLC for this.
  • 12:53 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    And then there are the stupid things like weapon vs Armor mods For every stupid thing, there's someone who liked it back in the day. I'm about the only one who liked that one. I think may I have a compatriot around here somewhere. going into comas at negative hp, racial level limits These weren't all bad, either. And Fighter's saves became really good at higher levels, LFQW was def something introduced in 3E. Maybe Linear Fighters Doubling Wizards is true in older editions. Heh. 3e did take casters off the hook when it came to Save DCs, that's for sure, if most dramatically for top-level spells, since DCs scaled with slot level instead of caster level. OTOH, in 1e, scaling - damage, range, duration, &c - of low-level spells by caster level was without limit; in 3e damage, at least, it ran up against caps based on spell level. In 5e, damage &c tends to scale with slot level - but save DCs scale with /character/ level ('Proficiency'), while 2/3rds of PC saves don't scale, at...
  • 12:35 AM - Zardnaar quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    And then there are the stupid things like weapon vs Armor mods, gender-based ability score maximums, going into comas at negative hp, racial level limits, etc. AD&D needed to be hacked apart and reassembled based on each groups' preferences. Especially 1e. @e had its own list of foibles, too, but many of them were (thankfully) optional. 2E doesn't have gender based maximums. People throw shade at 2E via lumping things in from 1E. 2E isn't perfect, I don't expect everyone to like it but yeah it is different to 1E.
  • 12:17 AM - Reynard quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    Right? And how many trules that just got ignored. "The rules for this are... nope." :DI think that why people have some weird negative memories of AD&D. It's actually a pretty complex system with a lot of interconnected parts. When people ignore some of those systems arbitrarily they end up creating unintended problems in other parts. The easiest example is the book keeping associated with equipment. If you ignore encumbrance you end up with the Golf Bag problem and you neuter the resource management aspect. If you ignore spell components you overpower wizards. Etc.

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 06:13 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    Humor is obviously lost on you, Z. Also, the meaning of "that's a wash" - maybe it's not a kiwi idiom? Bingo, Psionics in 2E were way overpowered. In fact, they broke the game at my groups table. I actually liked 2e's psionics. Way better than 1e. These two statements are in no way contradictory. Seriously, 1e psionics was just weird, random, barely-useable, and not particularly less broken than 2e, just not something you could gain access to merely by choosing a class. Because it was. Especially compare to later editions, and especially compared to 5e. You seem to be forgetting a lot of differences. Possible. By the time I migrated to 2e, I'd modified 1e rather extensively, and continued freely modding 2e. Of course, everyone I knew did that, so ::shrug:: talking about what AD&D did or didn't do is often an exchange of variants we thought were rules and options we thought were default... Hit die was lower in 2e. Wizards used a d4 for hit points, for example. True of the...
  • 04:11 PM - Aridon quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    And 2e didn't have a good psionic system, so I'd call that a wash. Bingo, Psionics in 2E were way overpowered. In fact, they broke the game at my groups table.
  • 03:25 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Azzy in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    And 2e didn't have a good psionic system, so I'd call that a wash. I actually liked 2e's psionics. Way better than 1e.


Azzy's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites