Search results

I meant history as a science. What we know of the past is subjective depending on the people who study history. It's not just the interpretation of historical events that's subjective - the actual events are too (what might've or might've not happened).

I don't give bonuses for example to Spot for specific descriptions, but in case of torture I would do so. I think it might even stop the PCs from doing it ;)

Yes, history is subjective instead of objective.

Sleeping in full plate is not a good idea, don't you get penalties for that? Anyway, I suspect Frodo always slept in his armor. Depends on the armor ..

It's Lovecraft :p Sorry if I came out too snarky. But your statement above isn't right either, IMO. You would require the player of the archeologist to provide 5 page background to be able to carry firearms. For you to do same requires two words of background: "I'm PI". Who's gaming the...

In the books it was about anyone who happened to be on the path of a knights marauding warband.

I think that George RR Martins fantasy books have a nice width of knightly characters. Some are good, some are monsters. Most are somewhere between those two. It's the peasants that take the blunt of the suffering in war, though.

English is not my main language, but I think you're reading it wrong. For ex "men and women in uniform" doesn't mean men AND women in uniform

What do you mean? They'll get their due no matter what .. there's no escape from old age. Or there is, like lichdom, and that's when the death gods get PO'd.

"Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power" - PHB. So it's still divine.

Okay, I don't get some of the subtleties in English. Still, I'm surprised the 5-10% chance would affect that much. If the PCs are embarking on anything so stupid that would elicit that quote, I think there would be some similar probability of a TPK, in which case there's never going to be a...

BTW, I just now wondered how does this "resurrections == no risk" jibe with the other 3E accusation that the magic items are more important than the character? Wouldn't that mean the greatest risk in adventuring is losing your gear, and not dying? And thus that the resurrection issue isn't...

Sooo ... it's a good thing when players say it? :confused:

In all my games of 3E, I've never once heard anyone say that. So, for me, the rule in 1E you quoted would be useless.

The main argument against raises seems to be that it lessens the risk of death. Risk is probability times the consequences. Raise dead reduces the consequence, savety valves (action points, no random deaths) reduce the probability. So I'd say that the risks are balanced in both types of games...

Very well, where do I begin? ..wait, I won't.

Quitting gaming altogether because somebody died (unless that somebody is yourself) makes no sense to me. Life goes on.

Whenever an NPC is required to stay dead, they'll stay dead. The spells require that the target be willing to return. Who's to say how they enjoy the afterlife? It's up to the DM to decide whether any NPC actually wants to come back.

MT is not fair and balanced. It's weak. What's silly about having both cleric and wizard 9th level spells? Clerics already can gain some 9th level wizard spells from domains. 9th level spell is a 9th level spell.

Could you clarify a bit? Do you mean that she should get by 1 encounter, or 1 day or 1 adventure with 60 arrows? What's keeping her from restocking the quiver from her backpack between encounters?