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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7726524" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with all this. I also think that Gygax's stuff in his DMG might reflect changes in the approach to RPGing that had changed between 1974 and 1979 - this was a time of very rapid evolution in RPGing techniques and preferences.But, with all that said, there seems to be a "wargame" approach to D&D that has some degree of currency, and that treats the survivability of PCs not as a feature of story but as more like a series of saves or "takebacks" to keep the player in the game over the long term. Preserving that long term status of the player and the player's playing piece can be used to support story, but I don't think it has to be.I agree with this comment about RuneQuest.Which REH story do you have in mind?Gandalf doesn't through boulders at the Balrog. Nor do Aragorn or Boromir.In AD&D, a boulder thrown by a giant does 2d8 (hill giant), 2d10 (fire or frost giant) or 2d12 (cloud giant). (Stone giants are a special case, as they are masters of stone; and "unlike other sorts of giants, storm giants do not hurl rocks".)That is average damage of 9, 11 or 13. A fighter with a two-handed sword and 18/91 strength does an average of 10.5 damage vs a size S or M enemy, and 15.5 vs a size L enemy. Unless that fighter can do more damage with a boulder than a giant can, the boulder doesn't seem significantly better to me.In the real world, I don't think boulders have ever been the weapon of choice for attacking other soldiers (as opposed to, say, walls and encampments).Using terrain to defeat enemies is within genre, and 4e supports it more strongly than any other edition of D&D. But that has nothing to do with [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s comment that boulders should do more damage than an encounter power, for whatever reason.</blockquote>

Verification