Search results

So you're criticizing him both ways? Seems a bit unfair. Some people just aren't allowed to win. The man's dead. Leave him alone.

Regardless of the adjective, what would make it feel satisfying to you? More combats before retreat? The denizens of the keep seeing them less often? Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I just feel like I don't understand the issue well enough to make a suggestion that's useful to you.

@DarkCrisis What is it that makes a module feel like an adventure to you? Being able to complete it without returning to a home base? I'm not trying to denigrate your displeasure with how your game is going, just trying to understand the cause.

Return to the Keep on the Borderlands is a sequel, not a reprinting. The caves are stocked differently, and many of the interactions between factions have been altered significantly. For instance, the bit you quoted about adventurers nearly wiping out the gobbos 20 years prior is referring to...

I don't think it's bad DMing to sit down with the players and explain the style of game you're running. Especially if it's young 5e players who've been trained to look for tactical solutions only in their PC's stat blocks.

Well, crits don't exist for just this reason, and going solo against a boss monster at 1st level is asking to die. Get rid of crits, and don't worry about trying to fix death by stupidity. Yes, as clerics don't get heals at 1st level, they need to return to the keep to heal slowly over a week...

Pretty much this. The name changes aren't even new names for the most part (other than Arn), they just changed the region names to what the inhabitants call themselves.

edited: oops, followed a link to an old thread and posted like it was current! where is the delete button?

Interesting, I've not seen this document. The Phantoms spell is a weird one. Giving a fragile non-melee class a melee spell that damages the caster is an odd design choice.

I could have sworn that it was a 1e thing as well, but a now that I'm home a quick perusal of my books didn't reveal anything. My memory may be faulty.

In 2e, at least, the large and huge spiders had type A poison.

Sure, but it still prevents a universal mechanic. And with some of those other saves (I'm looking at you, poison!) the severity of the effect increases with monster hit dice. I'm not saying such a mechanic is inherently bad, I'm just saying it's hard to implement in a system that isn't built...

It's not the DM's job to tell players how to run their characters. Allow them to make errors, it's part of the game.

What an evocative turn of phrase. Bravo!

Re: save modifiers for attack strength, they were included in the entry for the attacker rather than a generally applicable rule. The way that early editions scaled attacker power was through increased damage output rather than save modifiers. Once that is established, you can't reasonably add...

The Birthright setting for 2e had a bunch of stuff. In particular, they had charts of events that included political events, natural disasters, etc. There was a Birthright.net until fairly recently that had a lot of stuff adapted to later editions, some of it might be on the wayback machine.

As someone that did a lot of wargaming in my youth, I'm not bothered by measuring movement in inches. Movement in squares is boardgaming, not wargaming.

Their main issue was lack of versatility compared to the magic-user, but within their niche they had some quite powerful spells. I think they got a bad rep b/c players always wanted the freeform illusions to be win buttons, and the DM's kneejerk reaction was to nerf them into the ground...

The 2e bard never had more spells than the wizard. At times they had the same amount, but at 1st level they had zero and by mid-to-high levels they fell behind. The bard was a better character than a mage, mechanically speaking, in low level parties. Can't argue against that. As far as...

I wouldn't say a deck is overpowered. Potentially campaign disruptive, sure, but not really in an overpowered way when averaged out.