Search results

But Kirk would.

Zero, until baseball season starts.

They were men who wouldn't let someone in in a medical emergency. But then, I guess I'm evil because I'd murder half the planet to save my daughter.

*Citation Needed.*

I thought short rests were optional? Or maybe that was merely restoration of hit points after a short rest being optional. Admittedly, I haven't followed 5e much lately.

Both are silly. A true magic user should use a dagger or a staff.

Actually, I spent thousands of dollars on 3e (and 3rd party d20 stuff) and played it for a while, until the money grab of 3.5. ran us screaming back to 1E.

No, he isn't. If anything, WOTC has data from their forums, which are full of 4e players, which are definitely a minority of D&D players. At will, damaging cantrips do not belong in D&D and are one of the main reasons my group will be passing on it. Passing on those spells is not a viable...

That rule was adopted in 1901 to stop players from intentionally fouling off pitches they didn't like and upsetting the balance between hitting and pitching. It was not adopted because fouling off balls was "unfun." My objection is to any rule change made because something is "unfun." If it's...

Good thing they haven't removed "missing the point" from message boards. My point was that removing things from games because they are "unfun" is bad design, period. If it makes for bad gameplay, remove it. But "unfun" things are necessary, otherwise it isn't a game.

Aragorn was at least 10th level, otherwise he couldn't have used the Palantiri.

That entire premise is bad design. Striking out in baseball is never "fun." But it is a core part of the game. Should striking out, or strikes in generally be removed from baseball? There has to be some unfun parts of any game to make the fun parts worthwhile. Otherwise, the entire game is...

Actually, I make a small dot, in pencil, and easily erasable in the PHB (Or UA) by spells I can't learn.

As usual, Hussar is criticizing rules he doesn't know or bother to check. My int is 16. That's a 65% chance. As far as the spell list, in 1E, you check at character creation for which spells you can ever learn. We're doing it a bit differently, and only rolling one level at a time whenever...

No, but I suppose it would be possible to research a similar spell. That takes time and money, and if I were DM, I wouldn't allow that, as it defeats the purpose of the chance to learn spell mechanic.

Exactly. It's no fun striking out in baseball, but no one, even hitters who strike out 200 plus times a year, suggest removing strikeouts from the game. In our current 1e game, in which my mujust reached 5th level, here are the spells, I have thus far failed to learn - and remember, unless my...

I'm not all that familiar with 2e spell casting times, but in1E, the higher level the spell, the easier it is to get interrupted. Meteor Shower for example, has a casting time of 9, which, when added to the initiative score, can end up taking a round and a half. One arrow, rock, etc can ruin...

I think, rather, very few people were buying D&D products. There were plenty of people playing D&D.

Individually, the game runs just find without either of those classes, but, sans level 0, commoners and merchants don't have levels pre 3e. I was mainly thinking of his "in other editions" point in the op. Silly me, thinking D&D existed before 3e. That said, I haven't seen your "time honored...

You mistake me, sir. I never tell anyone anything other than what I mean. I don't know what a "tier 1" class is supposed to be, but the op starts with a false premise that clerics are necessary for a party. Sure, the healing they bring is nice, but it's hardly "necessary. An extra...