Search results

So.... cursed items. They're a staple of fantasy stories and common enough in some of the genre shows. D&D has had them too, but their implementation and what they bring to the story of the game sucks. At their best, they're an annoyance that players have to figure out a way around and then...

I think this is really better addressed in a different thread. I think airwalkrr's goals are fairly clear. The bit that I've quoted above though... it's not universally accepted. Plenty of people feel that fighters are underpowered and they've been having that discussion for a decade...

No, they don't. But there seems to be a recurring feeling that fighters dishing out large amounts of damage is "broken" and a bad thing; the idea that a fighter might be able to dish out damage like a caster is something to be avoided by a lot of people for some reason. Personally, I think...

I've kinda got a mixed reaction here... On the one hand, yeah GMs _need_ to have notes or something about the game as they go. Being an improvisational sort of GM, I've made it a habit to make notes as I go along, just so as to avoid some of the problems laid out. And I make it a habit of...

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but I'd suggest one of the following: 1. Unusual Core Classes: The Spellweaver Unusual Core Classes: The Spellweaver - Misfit Studios | RPGNow.com 2. d20 Advanced Magic d20 Advanced Magic - Guardians of Order | RPGNow.com 3. True Sorcery True Sorcery -...

Personally, I think folks get hung up on the whole "class" thing. On the one hand, I'm fine with saying "yes" to an awful lot of player things. On the other hand, if you're making an exception for this player, that's not fair to the others. If you've no problems with multiclassing (some GMs...

Well, once you get beyond the easily dealt with situation of there being at least 1 surviving member of a conflict, then it winds up being a judgment call; this isn't an especial problem for me, since I don't rely on the rules to be arbitrator and make sure that the group I'm with is on the same...

It might seem simplistic, but "dead" simply means "taken out". The character is unable to further contribute to the conflict. This might seem strange to some folks, but I've spent the last 20+ years listening to people go on about how Hit Points aren't _really_ "damage points" but a more...

At the end of the day, "Character death, yes or no?" is the question you're effectively asking me. That's a fundamental playstyle issue. In other words, the question about "where does the sense of dangerous adventure come from?" is bread-and-butter, part-n-parcel of the reason why I and the...

*shrug* My approach would be even simpler... "There is no way of coming back from the dead." Every GM I had back in the U.S simply banned Raise Dead outright. That was just how D&D (BECMI and AD&D both) was played in any group I was in. I personally don't subscribe to character death when I...

Errrr.... before things get too horribly sidetracked... What you're talking about is more playstyle/philosophy than anything else. thenightgaunt and Bleys Icefalcon appear to subscribe to the style of play where magic is more restricted and GMs tend to keep things tightly clamped. You appear...

Thanks. I'll continue to operate on that assumption then.

heh. It's pretty good I'll admit, but it's not "whoa" material for me yet. No, "whoa" for me is this collection by Steven Cooper: Changes for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, collected by Steven Cooper Once I have other projects cleared off my plate, I'm tempted to do a similar thing for 3.5 and...

Yeah, this is something that folks have gone back and forth on. Some people like it the way it was done in 3.0, some like it the way it was done in 3.5. Pathfinder goes with an idea somewhat like what was posted by Monte Cook, one of the authors of 3.0. Pathfinder: Glossary Monte Cook: Damage...

A slightly odd question... The move from the 3.0 to the 3.5 SRD resulted in not just changes to the rules, but other changes too, such as descriptions disappearing. For example: In looking at the copyright section (section 15) we have: Now, I _believe_ that as long as I include _both_ of...

So far, the most comprehensive thing I've actually seen covering the differences is here: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook - Giant in the Playground Forums *shrug* There might be something more in-depth, but I don't know.

Howdy! So, one of those staples that shows up in fiction is the mage duel. Books, anime, manga, movies... it's a great idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have made it to D&D in a particularly satisfying or easy fashion. There's been suggestions and ideas before, but I figured I'd float one...

Ah. Ok, in that case... I'd say that for you, Trailblazer is probably a waste of money. It's not looking to try fixing the sorts of things you want fixed; honestly, I don't know of _anything_ out there that's looking to fix the thing you are, which is still going to be "recognisably" D&D-ish...

I didn't have Trailblazer to deal with that problem. I simply said, "There are no spells above 5th level". Draw your own line in the sand. Maybe just selectively ban the specific spells you've got a problem with, instead of level capping it like I did. Or go a whole different route... Someone...

Although I didn't do it quite your way, I ran a game where anytime "magic" damage was done, it was d6s. Got a magic sword? d6s. Exploding d6s. Yup, roll a 6, keep it and roll again. The system also was using armor as DR. All in all, it worked out quite fine. Folks had a d20 and then a pile...