Search results

Plenty of things can exist that are "modern" that were also experimented with earlier eras; they simply didn't become part of the mainstream definition. B/X has a lot of contemporary respect precisely because it did something "modern" well before that practice became commonplace enough to be...

Try being a Seeker fan. :)

Realistically, day-to-day living should cause XP loss, proportional to the amount of total earned XP, representing the natural erosion of the edge life-or-death experiences give. Training and practice can ameliorate this decline, but not arrest it.

I had a player run one a few years back. No notes, just an awesome class.

It’s really just a vestige of the iconic 3.5 binder.

Shouldn’t characters who don’t help simply get murdered at camp? I’m thought that was how your games rolled.

In the context of "we're focusing on one big fight, not an attrition model", does a high level wizard having 5 5th level slots with 5 known spells for each big encounter work? I would say yes. Are there plenty of spells that would need to redesigned? Absolutely. This seems like a change for...

I have done that, if they're really "crushable fodder" like kobolds. But I use these rules pretty often for 3-4 similar creatures, like a group of 4 ogres, more for pacing and ease of tracking than anything. It's easier for me track one pool of 200 HP than 4 different stacks of 50.

My house rule is slightly different (I think, I haven't read Draw Steel!) in that killing all the minions requires both a successful attack on each minion and the depletion of the entire communal pool.

My minion approach is to give them a pool of communal hit points. So 20 soldiers for an 11th level party might have 300 hit points (15 HP per soldier). Whenever an attack lowers the communal pool by 15, that soldier goes down. But it requires a successful attack to actually make the soldier...

It's pretty wild how this thread has gone from "Are the differences between 2 distinct 27 point buy arrays meaningful for balance" to "actually, using a d20 means nothing is ever balanced". That's more variance than a d100! :)

Well, sure. But "matter" is kind of a limp word without any definable metric. Of course we're all going to disagree on that.

This seems to boil down to the "My odds are 50-50, either I make it or I don't" meme.

Usually you pay double for that kind of action, Cotton.

I mean, people have been iterating on skills for basic D&D for decades. Why not?

Skills are definitely the one part of Dolmenwood that our table, especially our DM, has trouble with. The impulse to test basic noticing or investigating or basic athletics is very ingrained after decades of D&D.

I think there exists a path where D&D is made into a more focused, defined game while still retaining almost all of its current player base. I'm not saying I know that path, or that I think it will be discovered, but I think the possibility exists.

Wizard should not be part of the basic line, at least not all its "hundred of spells with Vancian/pseudo-Vancian casting" glory. Make another class, call it mage, and have it be a simple blaster.

I'm a fan of campaigns running somewhere in the high teens to early 20s for number of sessions. Campaigns that run into the many dozens of sessions start to feel more like procedural TV shows than an epic adventure with continually rising action. That's what many people enjoy, of course, but...

Yea, I’ve done that narratively, but there definitely is a gap for something systemic to add to the system.