Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spell" data-source="post: 3994875" data-attributes="member: 19718">i see what you mean, but do normal, "mundane", non adventuring people have access to the same modifiers? no.this is a thing that happened in previous editions of the games, as well. the PCs were above the norm, or they were meant to become above the norm if they survived. they were in another league compared to normal zero-level characters (which i found annoying an unconsequential at the time, and i still do... Hackmaster solves the problem by adding a hp kicker. very simple and very elegant, in my opinion. a real stroke of genious... anyway..). on the other hand, they weren't complete monstrosities.before, it was like saying: i am joe zero level, and a low level character is a university level athlete. eventually the character can become carl lewis, or god knows what... but for the moment, we're not so terribly far away.now, at least in my perspective, even at first level PCs are really another story. it's like 1st level characters are carl lewis, whereas i still have a bit of a belly and can't run for 10 minutes without having a stroke.i can be wrong, but you can't completely deny that this philophy is somewhat inbuilt in the game. it's fair. only, i don't like that type of gaming experience.personally: i like low magic games, because, to me, magic becomes more meaningful and wonderful if it's rare. philosophically, i like the idea of low power magical items being more or less common against three thousand years of mythology, and that, to me, represents an incommensurable break in my suspension of disbelief.as for the players, i have to admit that, faced with a nondescript "player", yes, i'd like to have some power on how easy a job they do, without having to beef up monsters (which, again, in my mind would create an inconsisten world). having said that, i rarely, in my years as DM doubted that the players *at my table* were going to do something that would have completely destroyed everyone's enjoyment of the game, at least knowingly. if they had a supersword that happened to be too powerful, they realised that some in game reason might have taken the sword away, and that would have been ok with them and with me.on the other hand, they also expected that i wouldn't had been mr. evil DM. and that was ok with me, too.thieves skills weren't really part of non weapon proficiencies, though, were they? they were detailed in another part of the PHB, and they had different mechanics.not really. i don't have an unlimited amount of time, and when i wanted to start DMing 3e, i couldn't run through the books multiple times to see what feat might have been affected if i decided to change this combat rule, or what wuld have happened to that class had i decided to drop the feats and substitute them with feat trees.maybe nothing would have happened. but there was too much stuff to consider and too little time to actually try and change things.i might have tried and solve problems as they showed up in the game. but i would like to have house rules that are somewhat solid, before throwing them at my players.the fact that i also moved to another *nation*, and i had to get a new group certainly affected my perspective.i still think things don't have to be necessarily this way, though.really? how comes i can do that in C&C? or GURPS? or OD&D? is that silly? if so, bring the silliness on for me! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />absolutely not! i would be a fool to do so, since AE and IH are professional products by senior designers. i am suggesting that i could house rule AD&D with much less hassle and fear of having unbalanced the entire system than i can with 3e D&D.the early articles of dragon, though, can hardly be considered the height of game design philosophy, can they? or does this matter only when you're putting AU and IH against some house rules some dude came up with in that campaign i heard of? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />yes, because adding 1, 10, or 100 feats does not change the system of feat distribution, or the fact that feats are in the game. insted of having, say, 50 options of what you're going to choose, you have 51, 60 or 150. same story, though.</blockquote>

Verification