Search results

Given some of your complaints, I don't think 1e will fix them. Despite our collective positive memories of it, its honestly a hodgepodge of weird subsystems etc. If you're players have trouble with remembering how bonus actions work....I don't think that it will get better with all the weird...

To be fair, I think this is a holdover from the Paladins in 1e. "You should do x,y, and z, because if you don't, the DM will take away your stuff." People just extended that to all alignments, especially since some of those old school rulesets included penalties for anybody switching alignments...

All of this is IMO, IME.... Honestly, I think tic-tac-toe alignment is rather pointless. You like Authority? Which authority? Why? You're concerned only for yourself? What about you....money, power, fame? You have a Code of Honor? Where does it conflict with itself, or what would make it...

I have used it. I like it, but the rest of my current group is pretty Old-School, so they don't like it as much.

Interesting question: I think I would have done the following: Keep the 4e monster aren't PCs thing. Just makes life easy for the DM. Along with that, the easy-to-use encounter building. All classes refresh on a similar schedule...paladins, I'm looking at you. Change the social skills to more...

Yeah, but that runs counter to your earlier claim: If Ability Scores weren't as important as they are now, then fighters wouldn't be as desperate for gauntlets or belts. (My experience matches yours, there.)

Don't suppose you know where/who it came from originally. I first saw it several years ago.

...I find the idea of character arcs in D&D confusing. IME, there is only one: "I started off pretty weak, but now I can take on gods." I'm not sure I count that as an "arc". (Alternatively, "I started off as a pretty weak adventurer...and now I'm dead.")

EDIT: Its the Method @clearstream mentioned At least for WotC-D&D, the best method for "fair" random stat generation is a method that I saw on this board. (Although I don't remember who thought of it, to give them credit.) Make a deck of 18 cards from the following: 3-2's 4-3's 4-4's 4-5's...

This is precisely the opposite of my experience. From what I can tell, the AD&D exceptional strength bonus is a tremendous incentive for fighter-players to "cheat"* on stat rolls. I don't know that I've ever seen a single-class AD&D fighter without exceptional strength...which flies in the face...

Games to consider: Fate (just use d6-d6, instead of funky dice) or Savage Worlds. The big difference would be how much "open-endedness" or "freeform" your players like. Savage Worlds is defined by big lists of traits and powers and skills, etc. much like D&D. Fate has mechanics that you define...

I think my answer is: "It depends on the world/setting, and the character backgrounds in it." That is...some folks in this thread are calling trolls common. But that's not necessarily true of all worlds. However, this problem is why I like to make up new monsters, or completely re-skin old...

Sure...although we'll be getting too political to talk specifics :)

I'm curious, because it seems to me that this would require some houseruling here and there. (Or maybe, I would just prefer it, having played and run other systems.) What bumps have you run into, and how do you address them? (Like, I would change the skill list, for starters...especially the...

hmmm.....congressional-military-industrial complex? Get your economy addicted to silly military expenditure? I mean, we've got some pretty expensive and over-the-top systems here in the US. (Bombers, etc.) Parts of your giant mech are made and assembled on every planet in the Federation! My...

Makes total sense to me. Of course, AD&D isn't exactly known for its streamlined, unified mechanics...ahem. The idea does remind me of BitD "Resistance" rolls.* The GM says something happens, and you say "nope". The interesting thing is that doing so always costs 6-1d6 Stress on the character...

Interesting thought, perhaps harkening back to "check for surprise". Some of this conversation has me thinking that a necessary part of making D&D more like PbtA/BitD is changing when we require the roll (and the attendant expectations of how play unfolds). Adopting the "to do a thing, do it"...

Lots of squirrely tunnels with "U" bends can really limit AoE effectiveness. Didn't work in the old days. To Zardnaar's list I would add...water. Pit traps with water 10' deep in the bottom are a real hoot. Bonus points for a 3' layer of oil on top or sewage in the water for disease/nausea...

I agree that "heightened drama play" is a terrible name. I think "exploratory" is fairly spot-on. As far as it being a spectrum....maybe in the way people run their games. Mechanically (RAW), though, it tends to be a little more "chunky". I mean, if you're game says "The DM is the final arbiter...

That's because the example hides where the difference is. (IMO, as I see it, etc.) So, in standard exploratory play (i.e. most D&D, etc.): if there is a connection between the stones, the DM already knows it the PC's history with another group of stones must have already been established...