Recent content by rabindranath72

But then you are in a position of needing 2e style dragons if they must keep being "threats to kingdoms." It becomes an arms race for no practical gain, gamewise. Even the usually inflationary 3e has explicit demographics guidelines that portrait a world of "nobodies" with a few rare...

I don't know, I guess it depends on how stat-inflated is the World. If you take the AD&D 1e World as an example, the largest majority of NPCs will tend to have hit points in the single digits. On average, it would take a unit of 258 0-level soldiers (with 4-7 hit points, so less than 1HD) to...

In my 3.0 Dark Sun games Templars were always Sorcerers first, but they often multiclassed as psions and some other class depending on their role.

2e dragons owe a lot to BECMI's Master Set dragons. I recall back then I struggled using the latter in my BECMI games as well.

The short answer: the 2e dragons are way stronger than the 1e ones, bordering on the broken/overpowered. So much so that you (DM) may be reluctant to use them at all. I know I was. The 1e dragons are tough and if played well, lethal, but seem well balanced across many levels of play. 2e dragons...

When I ran Dark Sun in D&D 3.0, I made Templars into Sorcerers, using the variant rule in the 3.0 DMG that required Sorcerers to have patrons to get spells (in hindsight, a proto-warlock.) Thematically it worked very well, and I can see it work with the Warlock in 5e (as it did in 4e.)

Nope, they removed it unfortunately. No idea why, as it was useful and flavorful. They also removed the "low magic" variant (which was reintroduced in a more fleshed-out form in PF1). More reasons I don't like 3.5

I have been thinking about the OP's topic of late. I started playing D&D with BECMI, then we moved to 2e as soon as it hit the market. Originally I only bought the 2e DMG, as I thought it was a simple expansion to make our D&D game "advanced", and since I was always the DM, I didn't need...

I found that using the variant rule (replace XP with 20xXP gp expenditure) tends to work better. As I also use the "power components" variant, and the same rule for creation of magic items, the money sink becomes relevant at all levels.

EXACTLY this! The first thing I ask when discussions on 3e get heated is "have you read the DMG"? And 9 out of 10 times, the reply is "no". And judging from the discussions I have seen on the 'net over the years, it seems hardly anyone has ever read it and put its guidelines into practice...

All Weapon Masteries had multiple levels, and they could be achieved by non-Fighters. But fighters got way more opportunities to achieve mastery in multiple weapons. It was an interesting system, but by admission of Frank Mentzer, it was not thoroughly playtested.

In 1e fighters with multiple attacks always won initiative, so a magic-user was screwed in melee. In 2e they changed the rule so the fighter with multiple attacks was still subject to initiative; that was a change for the worse.

The double specialisation rule from UA was better, as it did allow Rangers (only) to specialise, but they were much restricted in which weapons they could gain proficiency and (double) specialise in. Paladins were a subclass of Cavaliers at that point, so they couldn't specialise but got...

To be fair, per 3e DMG ("Ad Hoc Awards"), such an encounter would not give any XP at all if it didn't use resources or used very few.

And at least in Moldvay's Basic, the DM rolls for the damage! See p.B25 and the combat example; I suppose that's to keep the players guessing as to how much damage they have inflicted.