Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Hobbits are just little self-propelled eating machines, aren't they?the irony of being half sized but having twice the diet...
Hobbits are just little self-propelled eating machines, aren't they?the irony of being half sized but having twice the diet...
However, racial abilities ere not tied to level, so it could be assumed that all dwarves had the same inherent characteristics.That is the general intent of 5E. Now, that was also the general intent of 1E AD&D. Most everybody was 0-level. Only leader types typically had any class levels and using just 2 or 4. Of course, walk into a village in an adventure and it seems like most NPCs you'll meet will have class levels. Then there were NPC classes that could do things PCs couldn't, sometimes much much better than (but those were mostly in Dragon magazine).
okay, consider, a '24 dwarf hasI've been thinking how you can make species traits more prominent and I'm increasingly at a loss except to give them moar powah! I mean, species already can fly, teleport, breathe fire, resist energy, heal with a touch, cast up to 2nd level spells, see in darkness, and grow large. What can you even do to make a dwarf fighter feel different from a human or elf fighter?
yeah i'm fine with dropping ASI modifiers or generic proficiencies as what define species from each other.It might have been an overreaction to making Species abilities so tied to attributes. It made some class combos better or much worse. I think that could totally be offloaded from stats. Though, some of the things like proficiency was weird. Where every elf knows longbows kind of thing. How to do it uniquely without it being illogical has a been a trick that hasnt been figured out.
With the exception of the ranger class which I would pull over from 1e, I'd play 2e in a heartbeat over 1e. No question.Is there anyone else who thinks Classic, 2e, and 4e are better than 1e, 3.5, and 5e?
Found a paper on mental subtraction vs addition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732312301000608Does that not also happen with the "organic" experience?
Like sincerely, if you've had a party of five characters consistently for (say) a year and a half of play, and then one of them dies, isn't that gong to lead to a lot of difficulties and dull, weak consequences because of dropped plot threads and "conclusions" that are anything but? Perhaps it is simply an attitude thing, but I find the "organic" method falls apart just as badly with character deaths. Especially TPKs. And to be clear, I run that method myself. I have used exactly one..."module", you might call it, and I heavily customized it for my own purposes--and it doesn't really have much of a "story" to it anyway. Otherwise, I do all bespoke work--and it is just as difficult to keep things sensible when you've had ten (or more?) different party members over the course of eight years. Maybe the change of just one character doesn't stress it that much, but it's still a stress, and the more you made it matter that it's these people in this place at this time, the more those deaths are going to strain things.
Subtracting a negative rather than adding a positive is not the same. The two may result in the same probability distribution, but that doesn't mean they are the same process to reason through.
And if you disagree, all I can tell you on this is, I've got diff-eq and vector calculus under my belt. In short, I'm no slouch at math (had to be good at it for my physics courses!), and yet I found THAC0 absolutely impenetrable for the longest time. The one and only reason I ever became even vaguely fluent with it is because I had to if I wanted to play Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate I/II/ToB. And even then, it was infuriating because the text is wildly inconsistent in terminology. Sometimes -1 is a penalty; sometimes it's a bonus. And the same goes for +1 (albeit rarely as a penalty).
I used to hang out with a guy who was working on his PhD on English.I am trying to figure this out…
Without a predetermined plot, a story is emergent…after play. This is especially true if you consider D&D to be a wargame with additions.
That said, in our current campaign we have had cut points before a new series of challenges emerge. These might be chapters if not stories.
But either way, I am in the camp of us playing a game and then ascribing a plot after the fact unless the dm already predetermines the outcomes.
We can’t write about beating the bad guy if it never happens. Or I don’t know the details until they take place.
I don't think this can be overstated. If 4E had gotten just Paizo on board, the entire history of D&D over the last nearly 20 years would look different.The fatal flaw was 4e killing the OGL. It alternative licensing made it unappealing for indy content to develop niches.