Search results

As does D&D. I mean, in any edition a MU can put on plate mail if she wants to; she just can't cast spells in it.

Not all injuries have to be life-threatening in order to count as injuries, though. I mean, were I to badly mash my fingers in the car door my life wouldn't be in danger but my hammer-wielding prowess would be reduced for a few days; which in pure game-mechanics terms would mean my to-hit and...

How, then, can the game model the infliction and curing of injuries such as being shredded by a housecat or clonked in the head by someone throwing a rock? Because to a commoner, those can be serious; and IMO the game system is there to reflect everyone in the setting, not just adventurers...

Or start my PC out as a member of that faction in the first place. Chooseable backgrounds and all, remember? :) And here's the background I'm choosing: I've been a member of the Brotherhood of Shadows for five years, learning their ways. My class is Rogue (Assassin). Let's drop the puck.

Gad, those are the last things we need! There's already way too many of each. Agreed on more equipment. Epic play rules are something that should be in a separate book and maybe even be their own separate system entirely.

Another such game-first restriction that's always been there without real complaint is you can only have one magic ring on each hand despite said hand having (usually) five fingers; also magic rings will not work when put on toes when you've already got one on each hand.

Yep. We had to re-do percentile strength for Fighters to make it work, though; each bonus increment within the 18.xx range became its own full number thus 18.41 became 19 and so on up to 18.00 became 24, and Hill Giants are now 25. Never got deep enough into 2e to see this.

After every encounter or two? Maybe if those encounters are layering the treasure on thick and deep and if one is giving xp for treasure. Otherwise, IME it's fairly rare that they'll break mid-adventure for traininng unless over half the party has bumped or a specific character's training...

Which raises another question: are spell schools within a class even worth keeping as a concept? With two exceptions, I say no they're not. The exceptions are Illusion and Necromancy, which should each have their own separate class distinct from the standard Wizard.

Encounter design has been eff-around-and-find-out all along, even with guides in each edition that supposedly help you do it. My idea merely bows to that reality and skips the guide part this time.

Some of the new spells were highly overpowered and flat-out broken as written. Others were nearly useless. Ditto for the new magic items. The new classes were pure power creep (Cavalier) or hopeless (Acrobat) or unplayable as written (Barbarian). The new abilities for existing classes e.g...

Well, if you can get right to the end of the untrained level you train for the first one, go out and beat up someone in a back alley to get that 1 xp, then come back and train for the second one. :)

OK, I'll play. :) Note this isn't necessarily how I'd actually sequence the books' contents, it's just what ought to be in each one. Players' Handbook --- Species --- Classes --- --- Spells (they are, after all, class abilities; the bulk of 'em should be here) --- --- Pantheons and Deities...

Spells in one book, sure. Items and traps in another, though, as the target audience is different: that's DM-side material, not player-side.

The other thing about old-school play, in generalized terms anyway, is that things are somewhat swingier. A supposedly tough challenge can often be made relatively easy by lucky dice-rolling, while an otherwise trivial challenge can be made into a disaster via some unlucky rolling (I've DMed...

I did. Looking at the poll results, however, shows x people as DMs and y people as players but doesn't tell us how many of those are both vs how many are forever players or forever DMs who don't want to try the other.

Before the campaign starts you only have to vet the low level stuff - things the PCs can do and things they're likely to face. I'd assume this to be SOP; just because professional game designers made the game doesn't mean it's gonna be anywhere near perfect, plus tweaking to suit your own...

In the game I play in there's one such character in our adventuring company, invulnerable and capable to the point where a few of us have even had quiet in-character discussions as to ways and means of (maybe!) taking her down should she ever get turned against us.

Perhaps to no surprise, I don't agree with the bolded piece either.

No. Quite the opposite, in fact. Drow, not being a PC-playable option, might very well have inherent abilities that non-Drow don't have e.g. better dark vision, better ability to move over poor terrain underground, etc. But the moment they start casting arcane spells they're using the same...