Search results

That's all group/table-related.

There are many reasons why people would want to play 1E. If one is considering 1E for play though, the most practical question one can ask themselves is not dissimilar to the one that can be posed for any edition. "Do I want to play with those who want to play 1E?" If your actual preferences...

Not true. There were 2 epic level adventures published in Dungeon magazine (Stormlord's Keep and the Quicksilver Hourglass). Also the third part of Mongoose's Drow War was entirely epic level (21st+).

I read the article, read this thread, and then bought the Limited Edition GMG. I was thinking about it for some time but I need a bit of spur to get me going. Thanks, Kobold Press!

You get something for nothing for low end bonuses but if you don't care about that, it is definitely more straightforward.

Kirthfinder offered options for smaller numbers via a Diminishing Returns rule. Essentially, bonuses to d20 rolls or base 10 scores pass +5 were halved (so a +13 bonus became a +9 bonus) and bonuses couldn't go higher than a +20. After dealing with bonus stacking nonsense for the last 2 years in...

I tried set durations for spells. They helped but not as much as I would like (the crux is people wanting to use the effects and not prepping either personally or preparing the team).

From experience, limit the buffs to no more than 3. If you're generous, 4. It allows you to keep dispel effects useful without bringing the table to a halt.

Yes.

Keep to 3.0e. Pathfinder 1E is derisively known as Mathfinder because it exacerbates the bonus bunkum that began after 3.0e core. That alone should disqualify it.

There are four bestiaries? I'm assuming the NPC listings in the GMG are considered to be the fourth?

Pretty much. I've tried all matter of methods but anything short of "knock it off" from the DM is not going to work for policing character makeups that are too strong for the campaign at hand.

So basically you're right because you're holding yourself to a different standard. Understood. We're done here.

So I can't disagree? I have to be wrong because you experienced otherwise? I could parrot your very own words back at you. I could point out that the actual 3e playtest didn't really cover those levels and Living Greyhawk feedback really didn't improve that range with 3.5e either. I could...

I DMed and played in several dozen campaigns that reached those levels too and I disagree. Yes, most adventures had to changed but if that was the only problem then more people would run high-level games and it's very clear that that's not the only problem.

Scholomance argued that the digital scrutiny was a major contributor. I disagree though. Character optimization was always a thing but, past a certain point, it was communally derided. That character optimization became not only acceptable but enshrined is a communal issue, technology being...

The poor save progressions largely impact monsters and NPCs. If anything, monsters should have good saves (and possibly good BAB) to offset their relatively lack of features.

A +4 stat item around 8th to 10th level is absurd. That's 33% of a character's expected WBL at 10th level and for 8th/9th level, it's even worse. While it is affordable and characters played from 1st level end up with a fair amount of wealth over the WBL, it isn't an necessity and you'd probably...

An interesting idea. I imagine a campaign where a ring of protection just grants bonuses similar to AD&D (potentially a 5 ft. radius and/or a resistance bonus in addition to a deflection bonus) or a belt of giant's strength just grants the strength of an appropriate giant would be more...

There are still players want to use everything unfortunately.