Search results

I knew someone who refused to use spells that did acid damage because of having seen pictures of women who'd been subjected to acid attacks. And honestly, if RPGs actually dealt with scarring from burns or acid, or the effects of frostbite or actual poisons, or with what lightning or super-loud...

...You're saying that like there aren't tons of scripted shows readily available today, of just about every genre imaginable, from lots of places that aren't your home country. (Signed, someone who is closing on 50)

Both Greyhawk and Faerun have magical universities which have been discussed in various products for decades. I haven't read a great deal of supplements for either setting, but I wouldn't be surprised if they got written up in depth at one point or another.

OK, so for hypothetical 6e: Bring back both attack bonuses that depend on class and individual or small-group weapon proficiencies, rather than simple/martial. As you go up in level, you unlock abilities that come with your weapon. At some point, you will be so Good At Sword that you can, in...

Ah. Well, in that case, you just keep saying "no phones at the table" and boot people who refuse to comply.

Yes, and that was my point. The changes you don't want in a hypothetical 6e are no more radical than the changes that were made in other editions.

Jokes aside, bring back object hardness. That'd prevent cutting a galleon in half from non-epic characters.

Why does a game where you can have elf thieves instead of just playing Elf, the class, have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D people? Why does a game that has no level or class restrictions for elves, so you can have 20th-level elf paladins, have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D...

I think it could work. Level Up uses exertion points, which only martials get, and are used to power maneuvers. And adepts--which are monks, but renamed so as to be more encompassing--get extra exertion and use it both for maneuvers as a replacement for ki points. So there could be Ability...

And that leaves the GM having to push back when the players don't ignore the implications.

Funnily enough, with the exception of 1e to 2e, every edition has been extremely different from the previous one. People should be more willing to throw things out and try new stuff for this hypothetical edition.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Then you either need to get rid of the spells entirely or come up with some really good reasons why they haven't altered the world.

I dunno, I'm kinda hoping for Adventures in the Ramtops, Adventures in the Counterweight Continent, Adventures in the Sto Plains, and Adventures in Fourecks, if only to see what they would do with it. Heck, maybe we could finally get an answer to the Muntab question.

There's about a bazillion generic systems out there that can do this already, though.

The thing is, GMs don't necessarily need to know every spell the PCs have, but they should know what's in the system and actually plan the world (and adventure) around that. A world with teleport and sending in it will be different from one that doesn't have that spell. Maybe sending only...

Bring 'em back! Quote the things you thought were interesting and talk about them! Don't let the thread die due to kvetching! (Nobody commented on my two ideas, snif snif)

I mean, yeah, it's a suggestion, and I usually do run far fewer than that because my table doesn't care all that much for combat. But as I said elsewhere, I've run into a large number of people who not only took that suggestion as a rule but thought that I was failing at D&D for not adhering to it.

Sure, but it's still a ridiculously high number of encounters.

Ah. Strangely, I thought lumberjack.