Search results

I suggested it because naturalism can get us into the "Is it okay to kill babies?" line of questioning. Not having monsters be natural is only one solution. Just one that doesn't seem to be proposed much.

While this is a good idea from earlier editions that should be revived, it means less engagement with the combat system. And with some editions of D&D that's most of the game.

Why not state that 0 HP isn't death but simply "enemy decides not to fight any more"?

Or C) you don't invoke naturalism to explain how they live and/or reproduce.

World of Record of Lodoss War and related media.

In Full Monster Manual D&D, "regular people" should be incredibly badass, like your average peasant should look like they stepped out of Monster Hunter. (Obviously this will go against the tastes of many, which I respect. But it's kind of fun to imagine a world where everyone has had their...

I do agree that D&D and its ilk tend to suppose a world where -- outside certain species/sub-species -- no one even tries to get along. At least some of this is probably down to "Well, we need to have reasons to fight, might as well use racism." In the current social climate, it's probably a...

Not until someone writes that supplement, no.... (To be clear: I'm not disagreeing. Just joking.)

4 out of 5 giants can't tell the difference! (The fifth ate the survey-taker.)

I now want that game.

The wheat isn't for making bread. It's for luring in monsters, who are then killed, and bread is made from their ground bones. Hey, it makes about as much sense as anything else in D&D. :LOL:

I get that. I was mostly using it for comparison purposes.

Humans don't like change. I didn't really understand how much this applied to fandom until a couple of recent reboots did things that didn't give me the kind of satisfaction I was looking for from my memories. It can be a lot of mental work to separate a new story from the one we remember in...

There have been numerous attempts at a "Cloistered Cleric" in D&D and derivatives, mostly by removing armor and weapon proficiencies. Problem is they don't get a lot of use/press, possibly because healing has continued to be something that needs to be done in the middle of battle. I think if...

While I don't necessarily hate D&D 5e, the fact that A) I don't enjoy how it does things, B) it's very popular, and a little bit of C) it's currently the favorite game of one of my online friends who does most of the GMing, means that I can at least see hating it from where I'm typing.

A better bard strikes me as like the Truenamer DD3e tried to do: their entire thing being knowing and saying/shouting/singing words that make the universe do stuff for them.

I think too many examples work off D&D-style world-logic, where dragons are both smart and powerful. At the very least in such worlds anyone who rides a dragon should be pants-shittingly powerful.

If you want an example of a game that balances dragons with humanoids, Fantasy Craft has the Drake PC species.

High level. Not interested in watching people grow in power. EDIT: Also, my experience is probably different in that I do Play-by-Post, and everything is slow as heck, plus games often implode without warning. Not enough time to do any of the learning and growing other people have cited; in...

Isn't that set in the early 19th century? Would those guns be accurate enough to use like that? I do agree that if you want dragon-based combat you might as well just let players play the dragon.