Sacred Cows You Hope Die?

[JVisgaitis]

And just for the record, I'm not trying to be rude. Just having a bad day.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And just for the record, I'm not trying to be rude. Just having a bad day.

That's okay, bad days can happen. I rather have somebody sound a little rude unintentionally than intentionally insulting me. We simply have different opinions about what makes D&D D&D, and that's normal ever since Arneson & Gygax. I dare say it is part of D&D just as much as some other things.

 

[Szatany]

In my experience the players who want rolls are those who like to "cheat" within the rules. They strive for powerful characters, and when fate deals them crappy ones they simply refuse to play them.

Get rid of randomness in character creation/developement.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

The D&D characters at my table are random rolled. I'll force 'em back in if they take 'em out, no matter how much brute force and ignorance it takes.

Other than that, the only sacred cows I want to survive are mind flayers, bags of holding, AC, hitpoints, and the full range of polyhedral dice.

 

[AGFlynn]

Bring back THAC0!
Seriously, never liked the attack of opportunity. Deep six it!

 

[Agamon]

I'm with alignment. Especially how it's currently meshed into the rules. As a guideline, it's not so bad, but it still can be misinterpreted as a restriction.

 

[Engilbrand]

I like rolling attributes. We do some balancing, though. Either the DM rolls a set of 6 and everyone uses those, or you roll and have to have a minimum number of bonuses to keep the set. That's what's in the book. When it comes to the random factor and having better characters than the others, "SO?" Not everyone is equal. It's why there are Warriors and Fighters. Commoners and Wizards. The are people who are alive and people who are truly living. Even just in general, there are people who are better than others. It's a fact of life. John has an IQ of 200 and Mike has an IQ of 85. If everything else is equal, I'd rather talk to John. In D&D, you're bound to have people who are just lucky. Not only are they built well and usually healthy, they're also charismatic and intelligent. Other people might just be really smart and wise. It's how reality works. Point buy is recent for me, and I'm not a fan. I hope they keep random rolling as an "option". It's always an option, but some people need it to be spelled out be considered an option.

 

[Psion]

I vemonously, spitefully disagree with (almost) everything MoogleEmpMog has put forth.

But I do agree with magic item dependency. Of more properly, magic item entitlement.

Now that 3e has given us much more capability and customization in the character abilities themselves, I feel that magic items are no longer as needed for this. Magic items should be considered transient.

I even considered only putting transient/charged items in my game to bring this point home.

I'll add combat centric balancing. My game has many more dimensions than combat, and think it should be appropriate to define character roles in other terms.

How about Dump statting. Wisdom and Charisma should be made more important so there are no "easy choices" for the twinks.

 

[Wormwood]

That's what's in the book. When it comes to the random factor and having better characters than the others, "SO?" Not everyone is equal.

Cool! Next time we play Cooperative HALO, you get the controller with the broken Y button and the thumb pad that doesn't go left very well.

 

[JVisgaitis]

That's okay, bad days can happen. I rather have somebody sound a little rude unintentionally than intentionally insulting me. We simply have different opinions about what makes D&D D&D, and that's normal ever since Arneson & Gygax. I dare say it is part of D&D just as much as some other things.

So what makes D&D D&D to you then?