Search results

You know, if you really have to have balance, go play the version that has that balance. It happens to be the version people aren't really happy with. The one that caused the rift in the D&D Community to begin with. I grew up in the 70's and 80's. No such thing as a MMORPG then. Computers...

Good. Then go play your vanilla version. But don't go thinking that your vanilla version is how the game has and should be played. This is a fantasy game, not a superheroes game. I submit that anyone who is wanting "balance" really just wants Superman and Batman in a fantasy setting. If...

See the "vanilla" post above. Why would anyone play a figher, if you can play a MU who can deal out death from afar repeatedly at low levels? There's a reason the MU is weak at lower levels. New players have to learn how to manage the spells and what not. If you put too much on them, you...

Okay, explain that to someone who's relatively new here. How is that a deal breaker? Because you want a vanilla game where everyone has the same power level, or that you don't want to play a game where the fighter is powerful at low levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels? To me, the...

You can't achieve that without making the game so boring, nobody would want to play it. The beauty of this game is that the fighter is powerful at lower levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels. Somewhere in the middle, there is balance. But to try to have the fighter and the MU have...

Oh, they're rules alright. But what determines how your game is played is which ones your DM chooses to enforce, and which ones he throws out. Each gaming table is unique, and uses its own set of rules, based on the D&D rules. I'm a correctional officer, and its kind of like the policy book...

I think I would favor linking the cleric even more closely to his deity. All of the spells are already coming from the deity. Handling the prayer for healing differently than the other magic would make for an interesting class. The domain gives the spells, but the cleric can always pray for...

Which is exactly what I said to begin with. Balance is not found in the rules, nor should it be. Balance is found in the gaming group where it belongs. The rules are there as a guideline, and as a trap for rules lawyers to try to challenge DM (usually to their detriment).

That's where you begin adaptation. As they are rolling up their new characters, you're tweaking the adventure to account for it. If you can't adjust and overcome as a DM, why are you DMing?

Well, as I said before, I've never played using minis. I've only ever played roleplaying games (no matter what game) theatre of mind. If I want miniatures, I play Star Fleet Battles (the table game, not the computer game). I just like my gaming with as few accessories as possible.

The only thing the GM is deciding is what situations are present. If you're running a dungeon with 2 fighters, 2 thieves, 1 MU, and a Cleric (just as a for instance). All I'm saying is that you will design the encounters with the players in mind. You'll have a few traps and secret doors for...

If its a big combat, doing a simple party initiative is probably better. Of course, I still use D6 for initiative.

Well, FWIW, I believe Gigax was gone by the time 2E was written. Nuff about that, though. Again, I never played that version. I am, however, open to this new version because it harkens back to a system I learned to play this game in. I think if they keep it simple, it will enable DM's much...

Well I, for one, have never played in a D&D game using miniatures or grids. To me, they aren't necessary as long as the DM is descriptive enough.

I've got no problem with that. Its how you weed out the bad builds at the lower levels. But the whole campaign should be built around the characters and their goals. You provide the sandbox as far as setting, but if you don't have them at least partially in mind, then all you're doing is...

I could play in such a game. And I think it could work even with the Next rules as they are now.

I cut my teeth on Star Wars D6. As far as D&D, I learned on 1st. I've never played 2nd. I've played Pathfinder, though. So I guess you could call me one of the Grognards. Which is why I see things the way I do. If you look at Lord of the Rings, they start out as unknowns. They end up the...

Good for you. I, on the other hand, adapt my game world to the characters. Why? Because they are the heroes of the game world. For me, having everyone balanced out is not the point of the game. The Wizard is going to be more powerful. But he won't be able to defend himself if something...

You adapt the game world. Its not railroading. This is, after all, their story. Yes, you provide the sandbox for them to play in, but the story is ultimately theirs. As a DM, it is your responsibility to provide a way for all of them to make it to the front. For all of them to show off...

See my post above. It is the job of the DM to bring balance by knowing the characters who are in his game. Its not the job of the rules to bring that balance.