Search results

That is exactly what they encourage. As an example, the 1E rules for wish suggested that if a player wished for the petrification gaze of a basilisk, the DM should have him grow a second basilisk head in addition to his own. Yes. And what is unfair, unrealistic, or otherwise game-breaking is...

And I feel that any spell whose rules encourage the DM to screw over his players when they use it is a poorly-designed spell. YMMV, obviously.

I like the scare quotes around "fun," there. Anyway, what you seem to be forgetting is that Wish had limitations even back in 1E. Aside from the express limitation of not being able to wish another creature dead, the rules encouraged the DM to screw over players who got too greedy by...

It says right under the hobgoblin's MM entry that "These creatures have a strong grasp of strategy and tactics and are capable of carrying out sophisticated battle plans." It's not metagaming to use creatures as they're described in the Monster Manual. And honestly, given that you've been given...

And it's probably worth pointing out that that's a change that actually makes the game more like 1-2e.

But how can you possibly even pick a CR for a save-or-die monster? How can you even balance something like that? The only thing you can balance it against is the PCs access to Raise Dead and similar spells. Basically, you say that save-or-die is okay when used against PCs who have Raise Dead...

Plus, I think the reality TV market is pretty well saturated these days. That's why the networks' threat to just produce more reality TV (which doesn't need writers) hasn't deterred the WGA from going ahead with their strike. I guess we'll see what happens.

I'm in the same boat. More and more I'm convinced that David Greenwalt was the true talent behind Buffy and Angel. I'll give this new show a try, but I don't expect it to last long. They supposedly have a seven episode commitment, but FOX yanked Drive after showing only four of its six...

I think there were a few fundamental flaws. The big one I can think of right offhand is multiclassing. 3.X multiclassing works just fine - unless you're playing a spellcaster. Then, it's totally broken. It was broken so throughly that it warranted the release of PrC band-aids for it with the 3.5...

There's no doubt that the imagery in that comment was over-the-top, but it doesn't suggest that the person who made it is inhuman. If he'd been talking about a person that way, it would be different, but he wasn't. He was talking about a game - a collection of books and maps, nothing more...

The only one I've seen use the word "suicidal" in this discussion so far is you.

Nor is posting an opinion about a new edition of D&D an indicator of whether someone is inhuman.

Yes. I've done all those things myself. And you know what? Even given that fact, I've never for a moment lost sight of the fact that D&D is still just a game. If D&D completely disappeared from the planet tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Would I miss it? Sure. But life would go on...

If Claire had problems with the stunt she and West were going to pull, the time to voice her objections was before they pulled it, not after. Yelling at West for doing something that she agreed to help him do beforehand just makes her look irrational. Well, considering that West committed...

Inhuman?? Dude. D&D is a game. I really think you need to get some perspective here.

So your players always know every single creature they're going to face before going into an encounter? They never meet anything unknown or unexpected? It's your game, of course, but I don't think that's how the vast majority of D&D games are played.

Meh. This episode didn't really hold my interest. It feels like the show's trying to do too much, and none of the characters and storylines are getting enough attention. And, one thing I really didn't get - why did Claire yell at West after they pulled their stunt with the bitchy cheerleader...

*sigh* I am perfectly aware of the fact that each individual DM is free to run his or her game the way he or she sees fit. What I'm saying is that the rules as written should facilitate enjoyable games as best they can. And also refuting the notion that there's some kind of special rules...

Okay, I've seen two votes from pro-SoD people for "The PCs should never have to save or die unless they want to." Basically, they think that save-or-die should only be for big challenges that the PCs can face if they want to, but don't have to face. I see a few problems with this. 1. As a DM...

So in other words, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." Thank you for admitting that, even if it was in a very roundabout way. Now, given that we've...