Search results

I don't think dragons, greater demons and star gods are high magic. I think throwing fireballs, wearing full suits of magic armor and half a dozen trinkets, teleporting great distances with a word, wands of wonder, and staffs of power are high magic. Your system helps me cut out the latter...

I want you to know that I don't think your formula is faulty in any way. It sounds like it works really well for parameters you set out. I was just pointing out that it does cut out a lot of the "end game."

They all struck me as pretty damn bad ass, not in the special powers sense, but definitely in the hit points and damage values sense. Then again, Conan himself always struck me as a giant BA. I never said your low magic doesn't work, I was saying that your low magic house rules don't work...

I'm running a fairly low magic campaign right now, but it's pretty rules lite from my end, so that makes it easy to adjust the balance on the fly.

Fair enough :)

Howard stuff. I would put a lot of those demons on the level of Baalors and the like. They're pretty low magic compared to standard D&D. Newhon less so than Middle Earth. Also, why couldn't Mouser or the Dwarfs be PCs? My point was he still killed all of them, and felt he had a reasonable...

I think everyone would like that, but you are getting a greater range of races in the PHB.

But isn't that the point? Conan strangled his fair share of demons. Bard killed Smaug. Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser killed a whole variety of spooky otherworldly demons and giant Newhonian monstrosities. Beowulf didn't have too much trouble beating the snot out of Grendel, his mother, and the...

Low magic logically does away with most outsiders and dragons? Not necessarily, I say.

But in doing that, you have to cut out the upper levels of the Monster Manual, as well as a good number of critters in the middle levels. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a consequence of houseruling in that manner.

I know you were hoping it would be Grayhawk. ;)

If you stop looking at just the number of classes and races and instead look at the range of options they present, the game looks like it will be even more encyclopedic than earlier editions.

It feels more like WotC has decided that they won't release any class until it can actually do something in a fight. The bard is a great archetype (once you decide which archetype you're using: jack of all trades? inspirational minstrel? erudite scoundrel?), but sadly, it doesn't point to any...

I was going to write this up in its own thread, but I think it fits nicely enough here to not bother. I think the changes to D&D's core are actually opening up new avenues of gameplay that weren't as easily implemented in earlier editions of the game. There are two factors that are creating...

That's too bad. Even though I agree with this, I would've liked to see a solid argument against it.

Reynard, I think you're also of the incorrect assumption that fighter, ranger, and rogue powers are going to be flashy, magic wuxia style powers. So far, every example we've been given of martial special abilities has been grounded in "realistic" actions. There's been no sign of causing flames...

Oh yeah? What preview was that in?

First off, I want to say that I'm in the thin minority that actually likes the whole love triangle story. I'm all about the petty manipulative and manipulated FR gods as presented in the Avatar Trilogy and its sequels. That being said, goldang! does Green Knight make a brilliant argument as to...

Tell that to the rules lawyers.

Rewarding extra experience points for completing a quest according to the parameters set out by an NPC is not withholding experience points. It's receiving extra points for doing what you have been asked to do. You're acting as if the players are entitled to XPs. That's not true. They have...