Search results

This is a common misconception. The 1e bard is hardly an uber-class. At high levels, a 1e bard gets an absolute mountain of hit points, especially if he has a hp bonus from con. Aside from that, this to-hits pale in comparison to a fighter, his thief skills aren't all that useful at that...

Yup. Very minimal core rules + lots of optional rules.

It's too late. D&D as a brand and a cultural touchstone got diluted a long time ago. The "core experience" has already been subjected to drastic changes over the course of the many editions of the game.

I don't see a problem with +3 to +5 weapons existing as long as they are rare and very difficult and very costly for PCs to make. In the campaign that I played in the longest, which was 1e, +3 weapons were rare for characters to posses until the high teens. +4 weapons were highly prized and...

I don't think that having perfect mathematical balance is important. Only a rough sense of balance is important, and that balance comes from the DM just as much as from the rules.

I prefer a hard cap for natural ability scores based on race: humans at 18 and demi-humans a point or two above or below that. However, I don't think we need a hard cap for magic-adjusted ability scores or for powerful creatures/deities. A Belt of Giant Strength should be able to boost a...

I'm really not impressed with any of them. #1 isn't too bad - it's the best of the bunch. #9 is acceptable. The rest are downright bad. If I was the art director, I'd tell the team to try again.

The problem isn't +X weapons. The problems are (1) The expectation built into the rules that every character will have a +X weapon by level Y. (2) If characters can't find +X weapons, they can just create them with ease.

Better rules, or more specifically, better playstyle. 1. I don't like using a grid. Combat is much faster without it and still plenty flavorful. 2. No character engineering. In my experience, "character customization" is just a nice way of saying "min-maxing". 3. The older editions are...

You could even eliminate race as an option and assume everyone is human in the base game. Races get added in the next layer of complexity.

So it's d20 + attack bonus + AC >= 20 Subtract AC from both sides and you get d20 + attack bonus >= 20 - AC Why not just subtract AC from 20 and record that as the number needed to hit you? For example, if your AC is 4, then you're hit on a 16 or better. Attacks simply become d20 +...

Check out Basic Fantasy RPG. It's a free clone of 1981 B/X with two changes: 1. Ascending armor class and base attack bonus 2. Races separate from classes - you can play an elven cleric, dwarven thief, etc.

121. Game sessions will suddenly and randomly come to a grinding halt, forcing the group to start over from the beginning.

119. All DMs are required to attend classes, pass a test, and get licensed by WotC. If an unlicensed DM gets caught running a game, he gets a lifetime ban from all game conventions.

Not this: This is the "iconic" 3e paladin art. Complete and total miss. Nothing about it says "paladin". Looks more like a ranger or maybe a rogue. Definitely not a paladin.

So far it seems pretty good. However, there's always the possibility that by trying to be all things to all people the game ends up lacking coherency and focus.

Duh. You think I don't know who lives in north africa and the middle east? The middle east/north africa had quite a bit of interaction with medieval europe. If you're going to have a medieval european background, then it makes perfect sense to have some art that depicts those cultures. I...

You obviously fail at logic. Admin here. Don't insult people, please, just because they disagree with you. -- Piratecat

You're basing your response on two words quoted out of context?

I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully. You're misrepresenting what I said. I NEVER said to deliberately exclude anyone. Your response is a classic straw man argument.