Search results

Ah, I love sarcasm. It's such a fine art. :) I agree with your sarcastic points, except for the following... Speed factor only came into play to resolved tied initiative rolls, or when you were attacking characters who weren't involved in trading weapon blows, like casting a spell. You...

An idea I had recently was similar to Algolei's, but instead, the characters start off as 1st level. They are told by the priests of the church they are in that they are great heroes that have been brought back to stop a great evil that has resurfaced since the last time the heroes defeated it...

Yeah, one thing I can say for 1e, is that my 6th/6th level archer/ranger was much more of an impressive achievement in that version than it is in 3e... people talking about their 18th level sorcerers and such, that they took from 1st to 18th level in about a year's time, and it took me a few...

Okay, thanks. :) I just know from other forums that some can be a bit sensitive about that kind of thing. I didn't want to start off on the wrong foot here, being new to EnWorld. heh.

See, that's the thing... the Constitution explanation text specifically mentions rangers and paladins getting the extra bonus hit points, and it specifically mentions them as subclasses of fighter, however the Strength explanation text ONLY mentions fighters. Oh, I'll clarify that every group I...

Yeah, I saw Olgar, thanks. :) I just didn't want to be hijacking Fenris' thread. So, that's one entry for "rangers and paladins got exceptional strength", besides my own.

Since there are quite a few 1e discussions going on right now... When my groups were playing 1st edition AD&D, we gave exceptional strength to Rangers and Paladins as well as Fighters. However, it was pointed out to me recently that the text in the PHB specifically mentions only Fighters when...

Yup, Grayhawk is right. The Unearthed Arcana lists it has 2/1 with bows up to level 7, when it becomes 3/1, and then 4/1 at 13th level. I can *kinda* see where he was coming from in this, but I don't agree with him. The chart in the UA specifically says "Attacks Per Round", and he's...

I thought people were kidding when they mentioned this book, but I really can't believe it's come to this. That's kinda sad. I mean... the rules aren't THAT complicated, are they? And they've got the new Basic D&D coming out.

ehn, maybe... That seems to be a pretty tenuous connection though. A torch would be an improvised weapon anyways, so just by the rules would incur penalties regardless of whether or not you were using it paired with something else.

Ooookay. I see where your feelings on this come from, given your experiences on another forum (I hang out on one that is less than friendly at times), but this was, in no way, what I intended with my use. I meant it to describe that undefinable presense in the game that makes it seem more than...

I've been thinking about the same kind of thing lately, since I've been collecting the 1st edition books again (specifically the old lizard idol cover PHB and the efreet cover DMG now), and I picked up a few of the different BD&D boxed sets earlier this year. I think 1st edition had more soul...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know that it's 3.5. :) What I meant was that if I wanted to play a game of D&D that used only the bare minimal rules, I'd just use one of the Basic D&D games I already own (as I'm doing now). This new 3.5 Basic game is very cool for beginning players. I will...

You sound like you've had the same kind of gaming background as I have, GlassJaw, except that most of my play was with 1st edition. I find that although 3.Xe is a good system, it lacks heart... Basic D&D and 1st edition had a flavour... a soul to them... 2nd edition seemed to drain some of that...

That's really sad, isn't it? That d20 has become so prolific that you can't interest anyone in going back to the origins. I almost was able to get into a 1st edition game on another forum site, but I think the idea died. That was, hands down, my favourite version of the game. I'm currently...

I saw that set advertised as well. It's interesting, but I have 4 versions of the original Basic D&D, so if I wanted to play a basic game I'd use that (and I actually am currently. It ranks a 9.8 on the nostalgia-scale!). :)

Wow... I wish I HAD the original 1974 version. I didn't start playing until the blue-book version in 1977. :( So, I don't have enough info to vote, but I will comment... I'd play it now, even though I didn't at the time... I think it'd be cool to have the chance to play the original. :)

I've actually never had anyone try to play a Paladin in any of my games, or any of the games I've been in... *I'm* the only person who's tried it, and my DM thought I did a great job. My character risked her armor and other metalic equipment when she attacked the villain's rust monster pet to...

I'll be 35 in about a month (been playing rpgs since I was 11), and as far as Ferret's theory goes, I waited until I was 31 before I got married (not by choice though, haha). My wife is now 26, and she was 23 when we were married. I think she likely follows your theory better than I do...

I'll probably have to wait until the article continues next week to see if they mention more about the ghost touch armor, but this passage seems to solve the dilemma... Some items, such as ghost touch weaponry, work for incorporeal creatures. In such cases, an item that an incorporeal creature...