Search results

Holmes Basic.

Weapon-vs.-AC adjustments (which were probably omitted from Holmes, though).

That's because they had lived among the Valar. Those who had not dwelt in the Blessed Realm were much less powerful.

I don't think spellcasters become increasingly "god-like", but even if they did, how is that "broken"? I don't think your premise is correct -- that characters can no longer advance in a meaningful way. When characters "max out" then they can concentrate on ruling strongholds and whatnot...

Yes, but at the same time they are more-or-less compatible with one another. That is, one can pick up a BECM D&D module and run it under AD&D (or vice versa) with not a whole lot of changes. The same can't be said for AD&D vs. 3.x. So even if the mechanical differences between OD&D and AD&D on...

Well, yes, but I don't think it's the DM's job to explain any house rules he might have. It's strictly optional. . . . ;)

One might say that doing anything is a privilege.

Can a human PC learn how to how to work stone as well as a dwarf?

In Geoffrey's game, yes. Others are free to do what they want with their own games. Simple as that. :)

Exactly. Thanks for the advice, but I'm not sure I want demi-humans to be a level behind all the time.

I think that the reasons cited by Geoffrey and others are good reasons. But I don't think it's the DM's job to come up with good reasons for his house rules. If the players don't like it, they can play in someone else's game or run a game themselves. Conversely, if the DM is having trouble...

Wow, that was unconvincing. Or perhaps it is convincing to those who are already convinced that demi-human level limits "suck." Anyhoo, for what it's worth I've taken level limits (but not class limits) out of my game. The caveat is that single-classed (but not multi-classed) demi-humans...

True enough. Old D&D removes the Norse "flavor" from dwarves as befits a neutral game system. :p :lol:

It's a different game mechanic but the end result is the same: unless one has a high score in one's prime requisite, one won't be able to learn the most potent skills of one's class. I'm sorry, I thought your primary objection was that level advancement was tied to ability (in this case...

Oh, halflings, sure, one expects halflings to have some knowledge of animal husbandry. ;) I wonder if it's genetic, though? or purely cultural?

That's not much different than the 3e mechanic of tying one's ability to cast high-level spells to one's Intelligence (or Wisdom) score, is it? Yes, stronger fighters are better fighters, more intelligent wizards are better wizards, etc. It may not be the most realistic rule in the world but it...

Whether or not they are bad rules seem to be a matter of opinion. Likewise the quality of the explanation. ;)

Who says it only applies to adventuring classes? One doesn't read often of dwarven shepherds or cranberry farmers, does one? Why should I accept, for example, that dwarves are well-adapted to living underground? Maybe that's just "flavor," too (after all, it does affect game mechanics). All...

Sure, why not? Why is that? I think environment has something to do with it, too, but I don't want to start the classic nature-nurture debate here. ;) Sure, why not? Some people are much better at math than others and this difference can't all be because of environment. But a certain...

Well, what is flavor doing in the core rules? ;) I disagree. Would a 7'-tall dwarf have a movement rate of 20'? Or a +4 dodge bonus against giants?