Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6176309" data-attributes="member: 221">I think my point is that its not really the way your typical Pathfinder player (which crowd I am now in) would talk about it either. There is a subset of players who I guess do, but that's why I don't think some of this is edition specific. If I was explaining or arguing the rules, yes (at least sometimes), or if I am in an actual design discussion related to writing; but generally, in just talking about the game, the internal mechanics rarely raise their head in my conversations about 3e or Pathfinder. I never tell players they find a sword with a +1 enhancement bonus. I generally just say that its a +1 sword. Its such a subtle distinction that I am not sure its much more than a semantic distinction. Like I said, I was using the terms that way pre-3e. So that particular example doesn't do it for me. You know, I appreciate this reminder. My first game was Basic (circa 1983) , but I soon graduated to a Basic/Advanced hybrid which mixed and matched the rules and modules according to whatever was available. I don't actually remember how we handled initiative, though I seem to recollect that we determined it once and then just went back and forth. Again, 3e, for me, simply codified a lot of things that were already in use in my games via house-rules (such as 4d6 drop the lowest for stats).</blockquote>