Search results

So why bother leveling up at all? If the world levels up with you, you didn't really level up.

Multiclassing was done right the first time. Every version since has either been weaksauce or overpowered. Looks like 5e will be no different.

Holy... It's about time someone did this. Too bad it's not turn based, but I'll take rtwp. Thanks for the link!

AD&D. There are no negative levels.

My simple grappling rules: Anyone who even brings up grappling at the table immediately loses a level.

I will never understand this mindset. It's like Kool Aid only making orange or Ford only making Pintos. I know I often go to the store for Mountain Dew and get home and find out I mistakenly bought Pepsi. And I curse those that like that Code Red crap. I think I'll boycott the company and...

Anyone seen the pilot yet? If so, what are your thoughts?

I create the world. The player's choose the challenges. If an all rogue party wants to indulge in skullduggery and thievery, that's their call. If they want to join the arena and try their hand at combat with fighters and barbarians, well, they may not succeed very well, but again, that's...

I don't know where you came up with that idea. I've seen very few people playing 2e, but TONS playing 1e. The heyday of AD&D was the early 80s, long before 2e.

A forest is the absolute worst place for ranged weapons. They are great for hunting and assassination - I.E, one shot one kill, but as a weapon of war, they fail miserably. Too much stuff in the way.

Neither Drizzt or Robin Hood evoke images of rangers for me. When I hear ranger, I think of Aragorn, John Rambo, George Washington Sears, Zachary Bass, John Thornton, Davy Crocket, and Daniel Boone. Drizzt should have been a fighter/thief.

If a result is unacceptable, it shouldn't be an option. If 8 on a 1d8 is unacceptable, roll 1d7 instead. I'd rather take the unacceptable results out of the game before play than to ignore a result in game. Take the wandering monster table, for example. Instead of ignoring "dragon" when it...

If you're not going to abide by the die rolls, why bother rolling them?

Not no, but Hell no. The above statement shows your ignorance of previous editions. Rangers were, until 3.5 a warrior subtype. The only roguish abilities they originally had was the ability to surprise and in turn not be surprised very easily. Bring back the warrior ranger.

Pre 3e, the magic item tables were HEAVILY weighted towards fighters.

You must be, or I got a different playtest document, because all I see is 4e mechanics mixed with a few 3eisms couched in old school terminology.

Or Gurps, or Warhammer, or Harp, or a dozen different games which are all closer to pre WOTC D&D than post WOTC D&D. BACK to the dungeon? My games have dungeons, certainly, but that's hardly the focus. The focus is a wide world for the pcs to explore.

Well, if they want to make a "cool, interesting new game," they should do it and quit forcing D&D into a mold it's not going to fit. I love new games. Hell, I've played dozens of games. But when I sit down to play D&D - or Monopoly - for that matter, I expect a certain game experience. I...

I agree, but I would rather this the ONLY way a rogue got extra damage. Thieves should be deadly from surprise, and only fair at dealing damage otherwise.

I'll let you know when I find one.