Search results

I tend to run and play pretty adult games - as I say when advertising them, think Game of Thrones not Harry Potter - and romance is normally a big part of it (with the inevitable 'fade to black' moments). For me, the human interraction between pcs and npcs is as important as the moster bashing...

... a dozen non-flammable pages no less. :)

Thanks for the clarification - and yep, can't say I'm a fan of the change.

Actually, its quite the opposite. As you previously pointed out it specifically says that the fireball spell is somehow discerning with regards to what is in possession and what is not. Anyway, this is irrelevant - I suspect you are right that the rule is there so that a 3rd level spell doesn't...

Your fireball question, I'll admit, is a weird one - I guess the writer of the spell description assumed that most people being hit by fireball wouldn't want it to destroy their worn possessions (as opposed to using the spell to light their torch). But magical fire created by a spell is beyond...

Roll your dream proficiency please.

I'm not allowing fire to burn. Fire does burn whether I allow it or not. Sure I could rule that fire doesn't burn in my campaign but a rule that dictates that it does burn is as irrelevant as a rule that dictates humans can breathe oxygen. Sure you can rule exactly as you please - I'm not...

It's funny - generally I see things the entirely opposite way. The villain in the story (assuming he's not wearing the item when he's killed) would almost certainly try to conceal his valuables - regardless of whether I as the DM in an OOC capacity would like the party to find them. A cursed...

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. I don't believe allowing fire to light flammable objects is a rule - in exactly the same way as (going back to my previous post) allowing human characters to breathe is a rule. These are simply obvious unspoken truths that require no ruling whatsoever whether that...

I'm not familiar with the Mystara setting - but that's irrelevant. I can still see and appreciate the massive amount of dedication and work that has gone into this. 'Awesome' just doesn't do it justice.

Fair comment - and thanks for pointing out how I can undo my embarrassment! lol

I certainly wouldn't allow a rogue to carry around a torch in a pitch black setting and maintain stealth (or perhaps let them make their stealth checks at a ridiculously high difficulty) but then again, I wouldn't have every adventure set in areas of pitch blackness. I guess its a balancing act...

I don't know the new rules at all, I'm an old AD&D2e player coming back after a 2 decade break, so it could be that things have changed. But in old games I played the DM may well say ''he's got on really nice boots'' when he is talking about a perfectly normal, but well made, expensive pair of...

Well, actually, I voted yes - but that was out of ignorance of the meaning of 'houseruling'. I took the poll to mean 'in your gaming group do you allow a torch to be used to light another torch' - which I thought was an obvious 'yes'. Having read through the posts I see that 'houseruling' has a...

In my own gaming group we do allow for one torch to be used to light another torch - but only in a round where the character in question isn't using his action to 'breathe'.

Now, these ideas are nothing short of genius :) Love 'em!

To the OP question - yep, years ago (decades actually), I ran a 2nd edition campaign set in post roman 5th century Briton. The saxons had landed having been invited to help fight the picts and a few roman legions remained but basically the country was in a state of total flux. To turn it into a...

Yep... and that meant that your chance of being successfully resurrected declined with each resurrection and a failed resurrection meant you could never be resurrected again. I liked that system - you really feared dying. Even when your chance of failing a resurrection was in the low single...

My old group did this on occasion (rare occasion). Didn't always work quite as well as we'd hoped as normally players like to write up interesting back stories that justify their choice of class - often these were more interesting than the group wide 0 level adventure. But that was just my...

In that instance, I would say not - going by my 'wife' rule. Unless of course your backstory makes it absolutely necessary that you know about Liches. Say for example you are trying to play a Van Helsing type character. Even then I would imagine your GM would want you to use a proficiency on...