D&D needs improvement


log in or register to remove this ad



Just for the record...Platinum was used for jewelry as early as 1200 BC. There is some debate about whether it was intentional or not but its hard to argue that the Casket of Thebes from 700BC was unintentional. Either incident predates the typical D&D time period. In the Americas, platinum was an annoyance as it was often found by those panning for gold and was considered "unripe" gold.

I can understand why one wouldnt think it appropriate in a D&D game since it didnt come into vogue in Europe til the 1700s but there is no reason for it not to. Its not hard to mine and has been worked with for a good thousand years before the D&D era.

For more information on the fascinating history of platinum, check your local library...remember, Knowing is half the battlel!

;)

Corwyn

Edit for typo
 
Last edited:

Hairfoot said:
The OP missed the golden age of complaining about the head-up-arse complexity of AD&D. Glory days indeed.

I didn't say the rules were superior; I said the fluff was.

I did say that the 3.X base mechanics were better, just not everything that they did with those mechanics.

RC
 

Again, it's been a while since I read the older PHB's. Refresh my memory about where it said in the 1e PHB that combat was abstract.
 



Raven Crowking said:
3.X overarching crunch is better. Earlier fluff is better. My specific crunch is better for me. My Frankengame is far better (for my purposes) than your prepackaged, genetically pure game ever will be. :lol:
Well, I'll take your word for it. Go forth... and have fun.
 

Numion said:
Could you still explain why would you want to include a death spiral mechanic into the game (the hit point issue you mention)? You say you want it for realism, and I'm asking why would you want realism in D&D?
Plus which, it's counter intuitive, but death spirals are actually less realistic than hp.


glass.
 

Remove ads

Top