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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tyrloch" data-source="post: 4740261" data-attributes="member: 24565">It's not a strictly historical campaign, but close to it. It's probably about 80% human, with a few humanoid races and there was one dragon encounter. But it was a very rare thing -- not commonplace like in a normally run 3.5 game. Not one of the core members ever liked the concept of the monk class, and it was confirmed when we brought in a new player who played one -- it was just asinine.    Again, before anyone goes after me again for trying to rewrite the PHB, I already admitted that this was my fault for attempting to inject too much realism in a fantasy game. Perhaps I should start looking for another system -- one with a higher death rate where you don't have to nickel & dime everything to bring it down. I'm a firm believer in the "one punch" scenario, as opposed to paper-cutting someone 100 hit points-worth to kill them.    Another problem is that I practice archery, knife & hawk throwing, whipcracking, swordplay and 2-weapon fighting. I also build medieval crossbows -- standard as well as double-crossbows (which is another weapon that gets totally raped in the current rules!). So when something from the rulebook doesn't jive with the way it really works, then it irritates me to no end. I realize the the game isn't broken -- it works fairly well as is, but I would like it be just a little closer to reality. Anyway, just my thoughts; everyone is free to agree or disagree, but a few responses were so deeply rooted in sarcasm that it felt as though I was being scolded by my momma (or my wife!!). I've been playing for 30+ years, and come to think of it, I don't think I've ever tried to fix any of the other editions before this one, hmmmmm...</blockquote>

Verification