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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charke" data-source="post: 3241495" data-attributes="member: 19443">Touchy Subject - cool.As a module designer, I thought I'd drop my 2 cents.I love the core rules. In the last few years I have convinced the other DM's in my group (and myself when DMing) to drop a lot of our house rules and stick with the core rules. You take away the crutch and starting learning how effective crawling is. The core rules really do work and they are very effective and satisfying. Both the player and DM know how things work and can double check if they want.For example, walls have hundreds of hit points and a hardness ranging around 8. If you want to take a weapon and cut through a wall - go for it. I'll get back to you in about six hours and I am going to rule that you destroy that weapon eventually. Weapons have hit points and at some point I would start applying damage - but you CAN get through that wall if you are serriously determined enough. That is how I write modules.Permanency, Antimagic Field and Dispel Magic are classics and work nicely to "screw" the party without bending the rules. You need to be higher level than the caster to get rid of the antimagic field. Antimagic fields mixed with Darkness, or multiple sources of darkness can really blind a party... ...but so does smoke, or plants, or just about anything else.There should always be a way for the players to overcome an obstacle. It is something both writers and DM's must understand. They shouldn't let their frustation with certain Player tactics ruin the module - especially the writers.Well thats my 1 cent. I'd say 2 but I could rant about this subject for some time.Mark Charke</blockquote>

Verification