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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tyrex" data-source="post: 6040424" data-attributes="member: 6701652">Let's be clear.  For those of us that began with the original boxed sets, we loved the entire new idea of PRG (in my first running of B2 as a DM, I rewarded PCs for imaginative and quick wit by allowing them to regurgitate their one potion of healing at halved HP value to aid the next player) but quickly out grew the boundaries that were inherent in the sets.  Each reinvention of the game allowed for greater clarification (more or less), but in some areas that black and white structure was lacking.  I think no more so than in combat in general, healing as one of the sub areas of combat.I don't know where the answer lies.  Having never played 3.x or beyond, I do know that my groups always wanted more realism in terms of at least healing and damage.  We tried to incorporate ICE's Claw and Arms Law to give a sense of realism but that made it too fidgety for me.  We tried house rules that were constantly reassessed and at times situationally used (for mass melee, we just went by THAC0 and saves.  For more detailed battles with monsters on NPCs we brought back house rules).The fact that the kits specifically state that Hit Points are an abstraction worries me.  We are then presented with some B&W rules and then given Optional and Experimental Rules.  I don't see this as beneficial, and think the notion of abstraction needs to be addressed before any other argument can be made.  Fail to get past the abstraction and the rewrite is once again critically flawed</blockquote>

Verification