Recent content by Vespucci

I think we're getting tangled up. "So-and-so must be a given level in 3.X because they can do a particular thing" ranges between a running joke and a standard argument in D&D circles. We agree that this is silly and should be done away with. As I see it, the scrap is over how. Actually...

I will read True 20 before commenting further on its brilliance or error. Back to Trailblazer: :) That's the same amount of work as giving him a skill bonus. In fact, it's the same thing. He's not the McGuffin. He's just Mozart. Again, I am not taking out my frustrated literary...

Well, I wasn't thinking of including Mozart Child Prodigy in my latest attempt to drag a group of role-players through my-really-good-idea-for-a-novel-if-only-those-philistine-editors-could-see-my-talent. I did think that Mozart, or someone like him, might be an interesting part of a setting...

I haven't read True 20. But, for me, levels that aren't really levels (i.e. they don't provide anything beyond skill points and/or feats) are an obvious design error. If these character features are meant to be available without levels, then they should be designed that way.

Swoosh! :D "Grognard" does mean more than wargamer (or, for that matter, Napoleon's Garde Impériale). It really refers to an old campaigner - in wargames, they typically love lots of counters and maps of Europe. In RPGs, they typically love oD&D and/or 1e. That's all the term means...

You have that sideways. Grognards prefer Napoleon, it's part of the definition of the word. ;)

+8 was an arbitrary figure. :) +4 would be just as bad - and, actually, it's a problem for other great masters, as their levels in Expert (or Commoner) will end up making them much tougher than the first level warriors who should be able to push them around. NPC classes: they just don't work!

Multi-classing and prestige classes (together with the build complications these create) are the other component. Because Trailblazer removes the need for "fix" Prestige Classes, the pressure is eased. It's also simplified rolling up spell-casters. A serious consequence of this would be...

Evil would be giving them all a +5 Vorpal Sword - in the neck. I prefer to think of myself as "challenging".

I don't see anything wrong with players checking morale for their characters' retainers (except when morale is being used as loyalty). But if you go into a 'motivation' check, it strikes me that players will claim that they should be able to apply the character's ranks in Persuasion (Diplomacy)...

We just want to know who's faster? Roll the same number of dice you would to find out who's taller. Reflecting briefly on the physiques of elite athletes, Strength (acceleration) should be a major factor in sprinting, but fades as the distance increases, being overtaken by Constitution...

If you really want Morale Checks rather than a 'skin' for hit points, I sketched the outline of a d20 conversion from Moldvay's Basic D&D morale system here. (You'll have to put up with some rejoicing over the axing of Leadership in Trailblazer - the morale notes are towards the end, around the...

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I meant taking away the player autonomy when their character reaches 0hp.

The "can't dodge dragon breath while it's chewing on you" scenario feels familiar. I thought it was a holdover from 2e, but there's no mention of that in the Monstrous Manual.

This is an interesting insight. You're quite right: the reward system is based on having to battle away until the monsters run out of hp altogether. This does suggest a sly morale system. :cool: When a monster runs out of hp, they've run out of fight. Redefine 0 and less hp as "defeated"...