Search results

Who said anything about an average blacksmith? I don't know what your talking about either. I don't usually use standard arrays for creating NPCs unless their is a reason to and I create my own standard arrays as I see fit. I create the characters I want to create based on what is needed or...

I've never had NPC Classed NPCs go higher then 2nd level unless there was good reason. I have had some aristocrates go up to 10th level though. But past 5th level never really happens. The above feels right for me. This would be your typical human master blacksmith in my game world. Very few...

I've never played that companions/followers are to be directly controlled by Player Characters. I've always seen them as loyal NPCs, so the DM plays them, and this encourages the PC to interact with them as living breathing real thing. I guess then, no one at my table will see the...

I think the purpose for attunement is for inexperienced DMs and Lazy DMs. That way they can't make mistakes and they don't have to worry during prep time because the Game Designers have hard-coded everything for them in game. For me it's an additional construct into the game and unnecessary...

Nah. I expanded my list of skills actually. It works better since it comes up less often and makes it more special and it's another way of making the characters unique. The more you consolidate the more they will be used. Knowledge: magic, for example, would be used far too often because it...

I'm not following you at all. Your issue, deciding if one participant's action was happening simultaneously with another participant's action would be much more difficult to judge and rationalize if combat rounds where one minute long. That is to say comparing one minute's worth of actions by...

Wish replaces them all. ;)

It's not about "one swing-one roll" or "lots of nitty-gritty" is about being logical, fair and being simple all at the same time. No one I have ever played with in the real world has ever adhered to the one minute = 1 combat round even when they claim to be be playing one minute to minute...

Yeah I'm stuck in the way table-top D&D combat is resolved. Your also stuck in it. Games can't be resolved that way unless you break down the actions into smaller actions thus the logic of using rounds/turns based on small amounts of time. So basically you break down the game into smaller...

1 minute rounds has never worked for me. It causes confusion plus it does not follow logically for the game. It always felt right to allow each player to do an single action or perhaps a 2-3 quick actions on their turn. So I was always playing "6 second rounds" before it even was a rule back...

It just keeps getting worse!

That's not true they even consulted with Monte Cook on Pathfinder. The people at Pazio, in general, were against 4th edition.

D&D has branched out in many different ways, and has a little with every edition. The biggest branches, as of now, is 3rd edition D&D (12 years going ) and 4th edition (4 years going). I honestly believe that it best not to try and squeeze everyone who is a fan of D&D in the same box, and I...

Do you think I'm incapable of running a game with my playstyle that is balanced for both the druid and other classes using 3rd edition? That's what I'm talking about. That's what discussion is about I thought. I think you just can't see how that is possible based on how you played the game...

I don't know if you are talking me but... Yet again, I don't think you understand. I could, of course, kill a Druid in five pre-planned encounters or even 1 encounter. That's a dumb test. I could just have a 1 HD goblin pull a lever and drop a 10 ton block on the Druid's head as he walked in...

I don't understand your point. 1. I don't balance the adventuring day on a single battle or encounter and the game was never meant to be pre-4th edition. We usually have several battles and conflicts to overcome in one day (of course depending). 2. I don't allow nonsense from supplemental...

Like I said having problems with spellcasters is tied to directly to playstyle. If you full rest after ever battle (without consquences), don't concern yourself with spell components, and any other variables, plus live in a static non-reactive world, then spellcasting will work out quite...

I guess that's really the only way to ban them because wizards, clerics, and druids only exist in your mind (mentally) as opposed to physically.

Indeed, if Gary's goal was to make AD&D like Chess or just "simple, streamlined rules, unified system, good design" then he failed from start to finish. Just reading the rules for surprise will leave people confused or with different interpretations.

It's not a myth but a playstyle conflict. Because of your (former) group's playstyle you were unable to play with spellcasters. I have no idea what playstyle could force a DM to "ban wizards, clerics, and druids altogether from his 3rd edition campaign" but I have a feeling it's drastically...