Weather Report's page

1,035 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
At least personally, I bristle at hard caps. I don't know why, but for me, that does more to hurt my suspension of disbelief more than anything. With the post 18 +1s a la starfinder, I feel like that makes sense. Diminishing returns and such. But a hard cap just reminds me that I'm in a game, and there are artificial limits. It's kind of like how in video games, not being able to climb a mountain because the cliff face becomes too sheer doesn't bother me, but hitting an invisible wall does.

I am the opposite, love caps for ability scores; seriously hurts my suspension of disbelief for a halfling character to become stronger than an ogre, that is simply silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A fighter is a martial artist, as is any class that makes an art of martial thingies.


QuidEst wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:

I like the Stances granting different Unarmed weapon types, but it seems the base monk is now completely sans weapons?

I really want to see more armour and weapons to get a feel for things.

A monk can spend a feat in order to use weapons with the "Monk" trait (lets see how many and how good they are but the blog mentioned a Temple Sword) and have those work as unarmed for all monk class features. This is pretty reasonable I feel. Getting to Flurry with a sword for example at no investment would mean either nerfing Flurry or taking something else away from the class (and would make unarmed monks straight up worse.)
Right on, that's cool; I asked in the Monk thread, but can you explain how Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then you make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
Roll attack twice. Roll damage based on that, and add it together. (At a certain level, hitting with both bumps up the damage dice.) Then apply resistance/weakness.

So both attacks must be against a single target?


Darius Alazario wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.
Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?
Yeah. Well, double if you used the same weapon both times, you don't have to AFAICT.
Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?
That has not been stated explicitly. I would guess you can probably make the attacks against two targets but forfeit the extra benefits of a double hit by doing so. An interesting difference from PF1.
So 1 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 2 targets, or 2 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 1 target?
I suspect you get to add your Str mod to both sets of weapon damage dice whether they're against the same target or not, but it's not 100% clear to me.
Okay, but what is the point of waiting until after the second attack roll to make the damage roll for your first attack?
I don't think there is a necessity for waiting to make the damage rolls. The key here is 'the damage of the two attacks is combined' why this is key is if things have say, resistance 5 bludgeoning and you do 2 separate attacks, the damage of each is reduced by 5. However, with this flurry the damages are being combined and as such the resistance only applies once! I imagine there are other similar cases but this is the most obvious one that comes to mind. I suppose also would be overpowering a shield, damage is reduced by...

So, does this mean both attacks must be against a single target?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.
Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?
Yeah. Well, double if you used the same weapon both times, you don't have to AFAICT.
Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?
That has not been stated explicitly. I would guess you can probably make the attacks against two targets but forfeit the extra benefits of a double hit by doing so. An interesting difference from PF1.
So 1 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 2 targets, or 2 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 1 target?
I suspect you get to add your Str mod to both sets of weapon damage dice whether they're against the same target or not, but it's not 100% clear to me.

Okay, but what is the point of waiting until after the second attack roll to make the damage roll for your first attack?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.
Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?
Yeah. Well, double if you used the same weapon both times, you don't have to AFAICT.
Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?
That has not been stated explicitly. I would guess you can probably make the attacks against two targets but forfeit the extra benefits of a double hit by doing so. An interesting difference from PF1.

So 1 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 2 targets, or 2 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 1 target?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.
Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?
Yeah. Well, double if you used the same weapon both times, you don't have to AFAICT.

Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.

Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:
Verbal component on Ki powers? Yeah no bad idea, sure if it is some sonic effect or something go ahead. But to my asthetics it is worse than the stereotypical lute playing bard being taken seriously by anyone.

It's tying the monk to the whole Kiai shout deal, which is rather specific.


The Raven Black wrote:
Just realized by reading the Monk blog post that the Barbarian does not have Fast Movement anymore. I liked that class feature. I hope there will be a way to regain it

Me too, and I hope there is a way for Barbarians to get a good unarmoured AC.


Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:

I like the Stances granting different Unarmed weapon types, but it seems the base monk is now completely sans weapons?

I really want to see more armour and weapons to get a feel for things.

A monk can spend a feat in order to use weapons with the "Monk" trait (lets see how many and how good they are but the blog mentioned a Temple Sword) and have those work as unarmed for all monk class features. This is pretty reasonable I feel. Getting to Flurry with a sword for example at no investment would mean either nerfing Flurry or taking something else away from the class (and would make unarmed monks straight up worse.)

Right on, that's cool; I asked in the Monk thread, but can you explain how Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then you make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, it's only the dreaded 19 and 21, noooooooooo!

I kid, I'm fine with it, I like that they have reined in ability scores a bit, all your scores may be rather high on average, but not 28 Str high.


I like the Stances granting different Unarmed weapon types, but it seems the base monk is now completely sans weapons?

I really want to see more armour and weapons to get a feel for things.


It looks like Ki is optional, which I am pleased about, and I like that it is a spell point pool.

I really like the sound of different Unarmed weapons from Stances. Though I am not that jazzed to see that nonlethal is still a thing, but we'll see how it pans out. I also find it a bit odd that agile and finesse are two different weapon qualities, seem if it's finesse, it would be agile, I am probably missing something.

Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?

Not being proficient in any weapons at all is rather extreme, so they are purely sans weapons by default?

I agree with someone else who mentioned some classes not making an appearance this edition, due to the modular feat like nature (hybrid), archetypes, and we still haven't seen multiclassing.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I am not too thrilled about Combat Manoeuvres being tied to Skills, but I look forward to seeing more.
One thing I like about it is now the magic item you have which makes you a better athlete also improves your grappling acumen.

Unfortunately I am not too thrilled with any of that, either.


Xenocrat wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Can we not compare slavery and sex work like it's the same thing? Forced prostitution absolutely, since that is a type of slavery, but not all sex workers are being forced into their profession.
Yes, I know some very content, focused, happy, successful ones.
"I'm not just the president of Hair Club for Men, I'm also a client."

"...we'll turn that Frankenstein you see in the mirror every morning, into a Franken-Fine...."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mostly the issue I had with prostitution in this context are contexts in which it is exploitative. I've always noticed that edgy folks are always more keen to play a pimp than a sex worker- the former gets eyerolls but the latter does not.
In my CotCT game a couple of PCs (one male, one female) both pulled some shifts at a brothel at one point after the madam made them an offer (I actually more or less expected them to turn it down). For a bit there it's what they did to make money during downtime. Meanwhile, I've never had anyone try to play a pimp.

Well, l now desperately want to play a superbly pimpish character with goldfish in his heels. With his own following background music-band.


Yes, of choice, anything is fine by me, whatever anyone wants to do, as long it does not hurt anything, is fine by me, go nuts; but forced prostitution is completely in the realm of slavery and bad news.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
I bring it up because there's a segment of players and DMs that feels if the player manages to say the right word or line, the character should be able to accomplish their diplomacy task no matter what the roll says. There was the old advice that you could almost always afford to dump charisma because effective roleplay could override a low charisma skill bonus, and that seems wrong to me. If I'm getting the advantage of my character's high skill bonus when as a player I'm just mumbling, I should also have to take the result of a low skill check even if I say the exact right thing.

Yes, that is not cool, the guess what the DM wants me to say game, so a game-related check or resolution is fine, as long as it is regardless of the player in question, if there is need for one.


Rysky wrote:
Can we not compare slavery and sex work like it's the same thing? Forced prostitution absolutely, since that is a type of slavery, but not all sex workers are being forced into their profession.

Yes, I know some very content, focused, happy, successful ones.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Full disclosure, when I was like 8 I got my hands on the original DMG and read through it and discovered the "Harlot encounter subtable". It was like a decade before I realized a "trollop" wasn't a kind of troll and a "doxy" wasn't a thing like a pixie.

Yes, that magical tome, ah, as has been said by others, it seems even after decades, whenever I hope it, I find some new gem; marvellous book.

All prostitution is not inherently bad/evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not too thrilled about Combat Manoeuvres being tied to Skills, but I look forward to seeing more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes in these conversations, people bring up not being naturally gregarious, charismatic, or what-have you, well, I don't expect the 100 lbs/40 kg player running a character with an 18 Str to perform amazing feats of strength, so I don't expect the introverted, uncharismatic player to make amazing, rousing speeches when playing their 18 Cha bard.
I do not expect players to speak in 1st person and really get into acting if they are not comfortable; whoever you are, if you are playing a high Cha, smooth talking, slim customer, you will be able to play/portray that in the campaign, regardless of what you are actually like, as long as you can communicate/convey in even the most basic way what you want to achieve, I will work with you as the DM.


Roswynn wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I've never really been into social mechanics/skills in RPGs, ever since my first 3rd Ed session when one of the other players interrupted the DM by incredulously saying "Sense Motive..." and started to roll a d20. Later on I heard about Diplomancers and was really put off.
That's not a very functional social contract between players and DM, though. Usually I can assure you that some persuasion/deception/intimidation rolls or a well-timed disguise self spell can work wonders and result in a lot of fun for everyone (you've never had this experience?). Of course the group's cohesion must be decent - if it's an adversarial relationship with everyone... geez. I'd run.

That's certainly a way to spin it, but not what I was saying or what was going on.


I've never really been into social mechanics/skills in RPGs, ever since my first 3rd Ed session when one of the other players interrupted the DM by incredulously saying "Sense Motive..." and started to roll a d20. Later on I heard about Diplomancers and was really put off.


bookrat wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Seisho wrote:

Seriously a setting where humans are the paramount of good would be weird for me... I don't think I could take it seriously

And I've had some rather weird settings until now

Well, it was more about goblins being more monstrous in certain settings, never tolerated by humans, elves, and such.

In Dragonlance they tied the original races of Krynn to an alignment: Elves = Good, Humans = Neutral, Irda/Ogres = Evil, that had interesting implications.

Was alignment in DL a set thing or a thing of perspective? (I'm having trouble finding the right words here, bear with me).

What I mean is that were elves Good with a capital G, or we're they simply good based on the cultural opinions of the most populous rsces? Did the Orgres see themselves as Evil with a capital E, or did they believe they were the good ones and the humans/elves we're the bad ones?

I guess it's a question of moral relativity vs objective morality within the setting.

(This doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion, I was just curious).

I know what you mean, they (the original races of the gods, before the dwarves, gnomes and kender) were more like the actual subtype (ala fiends, etc), so the Irda, probably the most beautiful and majestic, were corrupted by their inner god-given Evil or what-have-you. The original 1st Ed Dragonlance book has some really cool lore, also a cosmology separate from the Great Wheel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
I only wanted to add a last thing - it's better not to use the word "oriental" anymore, it's usually considered a pejorative, othering, demeaning, and rather unfounded in reality - I know you didn't mean to offend anyone, but East Asian is much better for a samurai, and better safe than sorry - wouldn't want other players to feel uncomfortable for a mere misunderstanding... sorry, that's all!

This seems to be more of an American thing, quite a few people, at last here in the UK, from the Far East (of far Eastern ethnicity) prefer the term Oriental (I have worked with quite a few in the NHS), so as not to be confused with those from India and Pakistan.


I'm not really into specifically Asian/Oriental classes any more, for a variety of reasons, but I do not mind Archetypes representing certain things.


Seisho wrote:

Seriously a setting where humans are the paramount of good would be weird for me... I don't think I could take it seriously

And I've had some rather weird settings until now

Well, it was more about goblins being more monstrous in certain settings, never tolerated by humans, elves, and such.

In Dragonlance they tied the original races of Krynn to an alignment: Elves = Good, Humans = Neutral, Irda/Ogres = Evil, that had interesting implications.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
If were gonna let humans in core I say we let goblins too. Its only fair. Humans are a way eviler race then gobbers.

Yes, we all know in the real world humans are the most evil of animals (chimpanzees can also be rather unpleasant), but sometimes in a fantasy games it's nice to think of humans as a more idealised, romanticised version of the race, with things like orcs and goblins representing the evil, twisted side, sort of like LotR (I know orcs were made in mockery if elves, but the general idea).

I also dig more cosmopolitan campaign settings, like Al-Qadim, cities with humans, elves, goblins, dwarves, kobolds, gnomes, and lizardfolk all living in relative harmony.

Cheliax and Belkzen are equally evil, it's just that Cheliax has better marketing. I suppose you can have settings where humans are a monolith of vanilla bean good guys but that's definitely not Golarion.

Total, as I said, defends on the setting; I can easily see Goblins being an accepted part of certain societies, cities and what-not in Golarian, there is a place for pretty much everything there. They could have their own city, where they export alchemical items.


Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
If were gonna let humans in core I say we let goblins too. Its only fair. Humans are a way eviler race then gobbers.

Yes, we all know in the real world humans are the most evil of animals (chimpanzees can also be rather unpleasant), but sometimes in a fantasy games it's nice to think of humans as a more idealised, romanticised version of the race, with things like orcs and goblins representing the evil, twisted side, sort of like LotR (I know orcs were made in mockery if elves, but the general idea).

I also dig more cosmopolitan campaign settings, like Al-Qadim, cities with humans, elves, goblins, dwarves, kobolds, gnomes, and lizardfolk all living in relative harmony.


Captain Morgan wrote:


Personally, I think 5e's over-reliance on advantage is to the game's detriment. There just aren't a lot of other things you can do besides grant advantage and disadvantage, double advantage isn't a thing besides one racial feat, and 2 advantage + 1 disadvantage is still just a neutral roll.

Yes, I would like a few more + 2s here or there. As for Advantage, a common houserule is to stack cases of advantage/disadvantage: Advantage x2 vs. Disadvantage x1 = Advantage. Many things were brutally streamlined in the name of simplicity for 5th Ed (the -5/+10 damage feats should obviously be based off of Proficiency Bonus, things like that). I like the base chassis, but definitely a DIY Edition, for me. Some grave design mistakes, luckily easily rectified.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

That really wasn't an "if." You didn't go on an adventure w/o a cleric back then.

Because of the low-level barbarian prohibitions against associating with spellcasters, in my group (during 1E) we only played them when starting at mid-to-high levels. Of course their presence still made everyone else, esp. wizards, totally paranoid about potential magic items in loot. "A wand? Great, I break it! Do I get XP or was it just a stick?"

Yeesh. The more I hear about D&D the more I'm glad I started with Pathfinder. It seems like most of the rules in "classic" D&D are designed specifically to prevent you from having fun.
It's amazing how many people appeal to the good old days, when seriously a lot of the good old days were ridiculously bad ideas.
Still it was pretty fun, with way less problems about linear martials and quadratic magicians, the ability to make a full move and full attack,

Here's where it gets a bit hazy, especially in 2nd Ed, it would seem you can move up to half your speed and "make an attack", but it doesn't specify how many.


I really dig the new Flat-Footed, I just wish they'd drop TAC.


Revan wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Back in 1st Edition AD&D, the Fiend Folio introduced the Githzerai, which were Chaotic Neutral, but had Monks.
But are they not LN, just like in 3rd Ed?

Not according to anything in the rather extensive Fiend Folio entry for the Githzerai, which described all the Githzerai as being Chaotic Neutral and living in Limbo (1st Edition AD&D's equivalent to the Maelstrom), while allowing their mortal enemies (and relatives) the Githyanki to be Any Evil, but never having Monks.

Interesting, I have owned and used the 1st Ed AD&D FF and the githzerai therein for decades now, and I always assumed the Githzerai Monks are Lawful.
I'm given to understand that they more or less became Lawful in future editions because of the character of Dak'kon from Planescape: Torment.

Right on, but in 3rd Ed, it's more that they are CN, but there are monastic conclaves/orders/temples that are LN.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Back in 1st Edition AD&D, the Fiend Folio introduced the Githzerai, which were Chaotic Neutral, but had Monks.
But are they not LN, just like in 3rd Ed?

Not according to anything in the rather extensive Fiend Folio entry for the Githzerai, which described all the Githzerai as being Chaotic Neutral and living in Limbo (1st Edition AD&D's equivalent to the Maelstrom), while allowing their mortal enemies (and relatives) the Githyanki to be Any Evil, but never having Monks.

Interesting, I have owned and used the 1st Ed AD&D FF and the githzerai therein for decades now, and I always assumed the Githzerai Monks are Lawful.


JulianW wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeesh, I'm suddenly very worried about the Barbarian... It sounds like on the fatigued round you're basically going to be dead weight.
Isn't that the whole point?

Yeah, everyone seems to want their cake and Edith too, these days.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Back in 1st Edition AD&D, the Fiend Folio introduced the Githzerai, which were Chaotic Neutral, but had Monks.

But are they not LN, just like in 3rd Ed?


Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:
A day without CE orcs, is like a day without sunshine...

While appreciate I the reference, pilgrim, but I prefer my orcs, LE, ala 1st Ed AD&D.


Sculcuvant wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Polymorph wings is good reason to consider some Barb class abilities working outside of Rage.
I think it's likely that Totem abilities in general work outside Rage. None of the ones we've heard of thus far seem super synchronized with the rage mechanic, and in particular losing your ability to wield oversized weapons from your Giant Totem
How do you figure balancing oversized weapons?
About four inches from the hilt.

Is this a LAIRE thing?


Talek & Luna wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet contains
That is one of the most common complaints I hear from people that are not into published settings, I just don't agree. If I run a FR campaign, you are not going to be hearing about Elminster taking care of business off screen, and Drizzt dropping by to save your heiny; as for mapped out, there are always areas, locales, NPCs, etc, etc, with with to challenge, surprise and entertain the PCs. The 2nd Ed AD&D Historical Reference series had D&D adventures on semi-historical Earth, and that is just fine.
It does not matter if you take Elminster behind the scene and remove him from play. How can a PC amass enough loot to found a kingdom that would rival Thay, Cormyr or Amn let alone powerful city states like Hillsfar or Waterdeep?

The same way they would in any other world, new cites and countries are a thing that happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:
Again, this reminds me a lot of what happens to the barbarian Wulfgar in some of Salvatore's books.

Ironic that he was to be the major star, but was upstaged by the spur-of-the-moment sidekick Salvatore came up with for his editor.


Malk_Content wrote:
Especially as a decent response in most situations from a barbarian can be "I am already showing you my strength, where is yours?" as they tear of the head of an orc and throw it at them.

And this is why I want more unarmed options for Barbarians, some sort of Rip-Off Heads archetype or something.


I would like them to rename Ki, as a power source, maybe with a sidebar noting that some monks refer to this energy source as Ki.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet contains

That is one of the most common complaints I hear from people that are not into published settings, I just don't agree. If I run a FR campaign, you are not going to be hearing about Elminster taking care of business off screen, and Drizzt dropping by to save your heiny; as for mapped out, there are always areas, locales, NPCs, etc, etc, with with to challenge, surprise and entertain the PCs. The 2nd Ed AD&D Historical Reference series had D&D adventures on semi-historical Earth, and that is just fine.


graystone wrote:

Myself, I started with the old blockmoor rules for chainmail and played every version of d&d [except 5e cuz yuck] and pathfinder and have managed to see max levels in each with my home group.

You hung on in there for a 4th Ed campaign until 30th level?


I am most interested to see their future release schedule, and the sorts of products therein. There may not be PF2 versions of things such as Advanced X Guide, Ultimate X. and such.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
There is good reason not to use some of those rules. Are you familiar with the chart that modifies different weapon attack bonuses based on the armor class of the person your attacking?

Of course, classic, Weapon vs. AC modifiers, those can be great (and 2nd Ed streamlines it a bit) in certain campaigns, helps weapons stand out (picks are better than swords against plate). That is one of the least byzantine 1st Ed rules.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.
1st Ed AD&D is rules heavy, extremely, if you actually use the rules in the PHB and DMG. They managed to capture an old school feeling with 5th Ed, but it is basically a stripped down 3rd Ed, with some 4th Ed and PF1 bits thrown in. I really like 5th Ed.
In a way I suppose but there was quite a bit that was left up to the DM to decide in 1st. You had to make things up quite often for unusual circumstances. I'll admit the actual rules are very similar but the feel of playing the game reminded me a lot more of 1st then 3rd. Which I suppose is that rules light part mostly. It had class and spells rules but very little on the environment and achieving tasks and knowledge stuff rules. I know a lot of time we ended up just saying make a stat check.

I generally agree, but 5th Ed is probably more like Basic (BECMI), as I said, 1st Ed AD&D is heavy stuff. Most people simply do not use most of the rules, hence the fast and loose feeling and reputation.

1 to 50 of 1,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>