Search results

That's fine because in D&D magical healing can trivialize this so it can be described as HP damage. A serious wound is not always debilitating, Why is that a problem? Why is a penalty always needed? That 1 HP remaining on a clay golem could certainly be the result of several direct...

Lose 50 HP in 2e and you get to roll a sys shock roll or die regardless of level.

A serious or moderate wound doesn't necessarily impair. You are trying to claim that it always does impair. Caltrops are not spells and either are monster attacks. The Critical hit location rules in the players option books are not spells. Called shots are another mechanic that can be...

Was it a called shot with a -10 penalty?

Not really, a cure spell can magically fix that. In other words, the french king who had a splinter lodged in his brain could have been cured by a D&D cleric. I think a Cure Serious Wounds spell would stave off any suspension of disbelief that a serious wound was cured. I don't...

Well I find that most of the time with 2e I'm not describing serious wounds. I'm describing moderate wounds like an arrow in the shoulder. 1 HP simply means that a character is able to fight on heroically. You can role play the situation if need be, but mechanically you're still functional...

I think you are 100% correct with your observations. Personally, I'm not a fan of grinding HPs, so I think it was a good thing. I also think it's hard to kill a PC in 5e. A PC hit for max damage with a great sword while at 0 typically results in a single failed death save and not death...

Yeah that's a good outline of the differences. It's just too bad 5e didn't provide the 2e option in some way. I've looked at the problem for a while now and I've concluded that I would need to remove hit dice, powers like second wind, and bost divine healing slots. I'm also not convinced...

The 0 HP threshold is dead in 2e unless you are using the optional rule in the DMG. So unless you make every single "real" hit a death blow that theory doesn't work in 2e by default. I think the healing mechanics of 2e allow for HP to be used for deep wounds and other injuries like serious...

So you think that HP damage in AD&D and 2e can't be anything more than a scratch? Why do you think that serious wounds are always debilitating? Where do you get that from? Isn't that a case of reading too much into it? Now, 3e wands are cheesy, but at least they provide a reasonable...

Not all wounds are mortal, but they can be serious physical wounds. Falling from a cliff, swimming in a pool of acid, being struck by an arrow, are all such wounds that can be healed by magic. Look at it this way, I would hate to avoid telling a player that the arrows a rogue shot in his...

Off the top of my head I'm reminded of the 2e falling damage rules and mention of someone surviving a 33,330 foot fall. Thankfully, 2e did not attempt to force any particular narrative. That kept them more abstract. I think the mechanics of 4e and to a lesser extent 5e forces a particular...

I understand you're not a fan, so you don't really care. I think some people just want offical 5e rules updates for the offical campaign settings of D&D. Partial updates are not helpful. It's not that complicated to make fans happy and make money at the same time.

I'm glad you agree that it wouldn't be such a big effort on WoTC's part to provide an update. Of course, I think Eberron fans would disagree with you and if I recall correctly, Greyhawk has a number of races that are in need of rules. I'd just rather see WoTC embrace its past a little...

I don't disagree, I just think that a rules update for a few of the most popular campaign settings isn't that much to ask for. IMO, campaign settings have always been a major part of D&D. Two years in and fans of these campaign settings have not even been provided an indication as to what...

There were other more grievous things going on with the way they marketed 4e, campaign setting support certainly wasn't one of them. All I thought is that they would give us a little more of a balanced approach. I certainly have no interest in adventure paths and I wouldn't want one for each...

But what about the homebrew folks who make use of offical campaign settings, but not modules? Many people hate having players at the table who own or have played a published module. If it wasn't for guys who put out Children of the Night, 5e Ravenloft would still have nothing.

As the DM, your job is to cut the cheese. In other words, you really have to play RAW to make cheese out of 5e. Swimming in heavy armor without the DM saying, "NO you start to sink" is one that comes to mind. You go down, get healed by the healer feat, and then second wind your life...

Well my group is homebrew, but we haven't purchased a single module, and it's not like we don't have money to spend either.

The point isn't that they are not publishing the same number of books as TSR did, as I can tell no one is upset about that. The problem is that they are not focused on what people have been waiting for. I think they need to balance their publishing focus much more between modules, rules...