Search results

I'm not sure I really agree. If anything, it makes smaller settlements away from the big cities more dangerous because the regional rulership is less likely to be willing to send armed assistance to help with what they'd see as the insignificant troubles of a smattering of peasants. A large...

Just at a glance, I can tell you that they did not. They used it as an adjective, as in "mental process," not as slang, such as in "you've gone mental." A stronger phrase along similar lines would be "mental gymnastics," and that would have been pejorative, but the operative negativity in the...

I like that a fair bit (though what is "hit" for thrown?), but I'm still kind of growing to the idea of making caster requirements by spell instead of by class, forcing them to make decisions between specialized effectiveness and widespread utility.

It's all too abstract for me to be bothered by those kind of inaccuracies. Honestly, if I was designing an RPG today, I wouldn't even track phys/ment stats like that. I'd just make the base assumption that every PC was generally competent in the things their character was designed around, and...

I think when you get to the point where you have to edit the entire equipment table to justify changing the way a single rule is applied, you've either hit the point where the justification for your house rule is thin to the point of translucency or that you need to reassess what it is you want...

I think that when your house rule makes the game less comprehensible, it's a bad house rule. "It doesn't mean anything" doesn't really work when the word means the opposite of what you're trying to make it mean.

It kind of does matter what we think if we're talking about applying it to situations it wasn't designed to be applied to. It just seems kind of rules lawyery to try to claim that it technically works due to the way it's worded while conveniently avoiding the fact that it isn't a property that...

Wat. Okay, let me get this straight. The proposal here is to add finesse to a weapon that currently is dex only (it was late when I posted, so I didn't pay attention to the exact weapon being modified), and that somehow, by being a weapon that can now be "finessed," it would then be subject to...

Isn't this the opposite of that? Adding finesse does nothing for strength based characters; it just makes dex generally more useful.

Plenty of other ways to do it. Draw numbers from a hat (did that once), some people mentioned a random array instead of a standard one. One time when I was really young, we made up real world tests to see what stats we got. Shooting basketball hoops for dexterity, lifting for strength, etc...

I've been the guy with the low stats in a party with better. It's fun (for me and the groups I played with anyway). Last time it happened, I played a dwarven cleric who got blackout drunk after work one day and woke up in a caravan the rest of the party got hired to guard, no idea of how he...

Might want to check that again. You added a word that wasn't there. For reference:

If that's a concern, you could always roll one set of stats for the entire party and they get to arrange as they wish. Then, good or ill, everyone is on an even field from an ability score standpoint. Of course depending on the roll, it could favor some classes over another, but player against...

Would he be a barbarian or a bard?

This is basically what I take issue with. You're treating anyone with a below average intelligence as being impaired. Most people with below average intelligence act exactly like people with above average intelligence because most people's lives are routine and don't call for exceptional use...

Well I suppose as long as we're talking about infant adventurers, that would be a decent metric to use then. Actually, that unironically sounds like a lot of fun. D&D Muppet Babies style. I call dibs on playing Gonzo!

Ah yes, the Saiyan saga that somehow got crammed into our 2E game.

That's not what I was saying. I'm not saying to have multiple mechanical systems for intelligence. I'm saying that there is no reason for the fluff to follow when it doesn't make sense, and that the best way to make sense of it isn't that someone with a low intelligence has the intelligence of...

As I kind of indicated in an earlier post, that's less a problem with the ability score system and more with people trying to apply the same meanings across species. As much as I hate the IQ comparison, if one were to consider it as an analogue for the intelligence score, what then is the IQ of...

Now I want an intelligent sword that acts as the 4E warlord class. "Hey jerkwad! Who told you you could lay down and die? I'll have no layabouts on my watch! Up and at 'em, up an at 'em!"