Defining its own Mythology

[AWizardInDallas]

It won't be a two line foot note underneath the monster.

As someone pointed out, you don't know that for a fact any more than I do.

 

[Rechan]

All you might do is show how other systems work(ed). If you want to see how my single houserule affects the game, run a playtest.

Other systems? What? No. I'm talking about D&D, not your houserules.

 

[Rechan]

As someone pointed out, you don't know that for a fact any more than I do.

Sigh. We don't know that the PHB won't be a book of blank pages with the words "SUCKER!" written over them either, so making any assumptions about 4e is just as pointless.

Do you honestly believe that WotC, with Eberron as popular as it is, would just say "Here's two lines of text for gnomes, now get the hell out"?

 

[PeterWeller]

I think you could use a refresher on your Howard. Pick any one demon, and we'll see exactly what it can do in terms of D&D 3e.

They all struck me as pretty damn bad ass, not in the special powers sense, but definitely in the hit points and damage values sense. Then again, Conan himself always struck me as a giant BA.

But not low magic in the terms of "no more than 1 magic item per PC, no PC spellcasters". The Grey Mouser and the dwarves are, I am afraid, spellcasters.

I never said your low magic doesn't work, I was saying that your low magic house rules don't work very well for a world that's less low magic.

So, Grendel in our example would be CR 3, Grendel's mother CR 5, and the Dragon CR 7. Are you suggesting that this would be impossible?

RC

What if I want them to be a lot tougher than that? That's fine for how you want it, but your house rules don't necessarily work out the chinks in my idea of a low magic world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Other systems? What? No. I'm talking about D&D, not your houserules.

Um, no.

I suggested that low magic D&D was simple to do, and gave an easy formula for doing it. The responses of others who do not use that formula has nothing to do with how easy it is to do with that formula, or how well that formula works.

In fact, if you remove the definition of "low magic" as "1 magic item per PC, no PC spellcasters" you can do easy low magic in 3e using only one houserule. This is now posted to your thread.

There are other houserules you can use to make an even better game (I recommend weapon skills), but they aren't necessary.

RC

 

[Rechan]

Um, no.

I suggested that low magic D&D was simple to do, and gave an easy formula for doing it. The responses of others who do not use that formula has nothing to do with how easy it is to do with that formula, or how well that formula works.

Well that's a great statement, but that's not my hypothesis.

 

[Doug McCrae]

By the way, the racial foot noting in the monster manual is decidedly inconvenient. Once upon a time players were not supposed to read the monster manuals. Now players virtually have to if they want to locate additional racial options, even for as mild a change as high elf to wood elf. That simple option, my friends, used to be in the good old 1E PHB.

1e PHB page 16:

There are many sorts of elf, and descriptions of the differing types are found in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, MONSTER MANUAL. Elven player characters are always considered to be high elves, the most common sort of elf.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

The your argument isn't "This version of D&D isn't as flexible as other versions of D&D" but instead is "I don't like this version of D&D"

Which is, I guess, fair. I don't like AD&D, you reckon you won't like 4e.

Because what people are saying about 4e vs 3.5 (or AD&D) is that 3.5 is ... like 5 on the flexibilty scale but 4e looks like it will be 3 or even 2. Much less flexible.

Hero, or Tri-stat, or GURPS is (IMHO) 300 on the flexibility scale.

Compared to 'designed to be generic systems' no D&D system is flexible and generic. They are all D&D.

Those are all subjective value judgements so there's nothing to dispute except that you're now trying to put words in my mouth. I never typed the words you erroneously placed in quotes above. We simply disagree with the current design philosophies and changes we're seeing.

 

[PeterWeller]

Um, no.
I suggested that low magic D&D was simple to do, and gave an easy formula for doing it. The responses of others who do not use that formula has nothing to do with how easy it is to do with that formula, or how well that formula works.
RC

I want you to know that I don't think your formula is faulty in any way. It sounds like it works really well for parameters you set out. I was just pointing out that it does cut out a lot of the "end game."

 

[Raven Crowking]

They all struck me as pretty damn bad ass, not in the special powers sense, but definitely in the hit points and damage values sense. Then again, Conan himself always struck me as a giant BA.

Pick one.

I never said your low magic doesn't work, I was saying that your low magic house rules don't work very well for a world that's less low magic.

Which you attempt to prove by adding additional magical elements? Colour me confused.

What if I want them to be a lot tougher than that? That's fine for how you want it, but your house rules don't necessarily work out the chinks in my idea of a low magic world.

Well, I didn't say that the simple guidelines I gave would do everything that you might want; I said it would deliver low-magic D&D that worked. On top of which, if Beowulf's toughness is X, then Grendel's toughness is less than X, and Grendel's Mother's toughness is between the two. The dragon in Beowulf doesn't compare well to D&D dragons, though it might if you slapped the Advanced Bestiary feral dragon template on it.

So long as the bars constantly move, no set of rules can meet them.

RC