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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3698622" data-attributes="member: 22779">I disagree.  The fact that many of the gaps got filled after the fact points to the idea that the gaps were originally left unintentionally.  The addition of non-weapon proficiencies for example is a direct response to the idea of filling the non-combat gaps left in AD&D.  There are numerous other examples that were filled, either in hardcover books or in Dragon magazine.  Quite often by the original designers themselves.  For example, Col Pladoh recent told me in another thread that a monster version of Unearthed Arcana was in his plans (although never came to fruition) which would fill in a number of gaps left in the monster books.[In other words, you run CR exactly by the book.  Although, I've often seen this bit about creatures being too easy and DM's having to use highly over CR'd creatures just to challenge their players and I really, really wonder about it.I've stated this time and again and for some reason, it never seems to take.A given creature of a given CR is capable of killing a PC of an equal level in a single round.  Not always, but, most of the time.  The chances may not be great, but, over a long enough time span, the chances eventually equal 100%.  If you are forced to use high CR creatures just to challenge your PC's, might I suggest brushing up on your tactics and rules-fu?  That has commonly been the problem that I've seen.Again, said with a grin, not an ego-whip.</blockquote>

Verification