Search results

Yeah, but sometimes they're physically wounded, more often, they're not. Do I need to say that real people need to rest from time to time, and D&D doesn't have any rules to handle fatigue? ;) Sure, in books ( and in movies, as well...) people need healing ( aside from rest...you generally don't...

Yeah, I said it was not a precise science. Now, would you please address the rest of my post? ;) And no, as I said, there are monsters that just are not a credible threat due to their poor defenses. They just don't live enough to scratch the PCs. There's a point where you can't just scale back...

Not sure I agree with this, either. There is nothing unbalanced or wrongbadfun about making gaining levels harder the higher level you are. As you get closer to the pinnacle of achievement, it is harder to surpass where you are. This is not unlike increasing velocity -- the faster you are...

Faramir was more like an NPC :P

I'd say that they're not perfectly balanced anyway, but in some cases they come close. If I know that a monster has an AB of +15 and deals an average of 16 damage/hit, and I know what's the AC and Hp of my front line fighter, I' ll have a rough idea of how hard the combat will be. Thus, a CR 9...

Yeah. Once. In an adventure. The only character that had to rest in a bed for weeks was Frodo, BTW. And it's not like he had to rest in bed after every minor combat. And I could argue that he had to because of the poison more than mere HP damage. The game is called "Dungeons and Dragons", not...

It depends. In the context of this game, I'd say that "balance" doesn't mean "2 minutes of combat and 6 days of rest", for example. Or that it doesn't mean "make a DC 31 fort Saving throw or die. Too bad you'd only succeed on a 20, even though it's your good saving throw.". In other words, both...

I'm afraid the designers disagree with this statement. Sure, it's labeled as a "guideline", but it's also said that the game is balanced with that "guideline" in mind. In the context of game balance, it's not more optional than class features or CRs.

Then you and I must have different notions of what balance means in this context, because to me a difficult encounter should provide some xp. Maybe I've tried? ;) Maybe, I've tried various times, both in 2e and in 3.x? With both raw games and house ruled games, including the ones presented in...

Edit: Sry, double post.

He said the only house rule required would have been the spellcasting classes' one. Furthermore, this doesn't address the fact that magic would be less powerful, but still common due to item creation rules, or the over reliance on healing magic at higher levels.

At mid-high levels, even low level mooks won't cut it: for example, a 20th level fighter without magic items would probably have a hard time against a CR 9 opponent. This means 0 xp for the encounter. OTOH, even a 20th level "house ruled" spellcaster ( 10 CL ) can craft magic items. Thus...

Yes, but these settings were written with D&D in mind. It's like saying that D&D is flexible because it can emulate D&D. Sure, if you drop the fluff and just go with the combat system, you can invent just about any setting to go with the crunch (as long as you assume vancian magic, wealth/level...

In order to make Darksun work you have to rehash the arcane magic system ( and/or make it a nonoption for PCs ) and use psionics (and Psi is not even core in 3e.). In Dragonlance, you might have to remove Divine Magic ( aside from a couple of classes ) from the game. These don't seem like "minor...

Well, if I change a rule so the game fits my homebrew campaign I'm house ruling. If I want to play Planescape in 3e and I'm not interested in unofficial material I have to resort to house ruling. Thus, I don't really see the difference between "house rules" and "rules modifications", in this...

Proving that D&D can support settings written with the AD&D ruleset in mind in the first place doesn't help your point, you know? (Aside from the fact that most of these settings required heavy house ruling in the first place, even in 2e, and some of these aren't even officially supported in 3e)...

Yeah, and it's so flexible that you had to open a topic saying that low magic campaigns just don't work under the current system, without heavy houseruling :) Wouldn't "flexible" mean that the game can be played both as the high fantasy archetype D&D has been throughout 3.x or as the low magic...

Well, in the end, deciding how many magic items the party should have is up to the DM. What WotC can ( and should ) do is making the game balanced with or without magic items. This way when a PC goes to town and asks if he can purchase a +5 longsword, you're free to say "yes" or "no", as you see...

Ehy! In 2e, you had a good reason to play neutral: Kill the bad guys, take their stuff and their xp. Oh, noes, now good is winning! I'm afraid I'll have to kill the good guys as well. And take their stuff. And some more xp. :p

Eh, "neutral" alignment in 3e never made sense to me, it always sounded like an oxymoron. In 2e, OTOH, it was just plain stupid, IIRC.