Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The more I investigate this genre of gaming, the more I become obsessed with it.

My friend bought a PC game (The Temple of Elemental Evil) and I went searching for information about it. Unwittingly, I stumbled into a forum dedicated to the DMs of the boardgame version.

So I read. And I read and I read for about an hour and a half straight (could have gone upwards of three hours, but it was 1:00 AM), just of what had occurred so far in people's groups. And thus I became completely addicted to this style of game without ever having experienced it.

Odd, huh?

Anyway, I've decided that people should be encouraged to play all manners of these "D&D" games. Why?

Otherwise they'll be watching TV or playing videogames. They dull the mind over time, which, as I've discovered, isn't a good thing . From what I've read, D&D is a game that promotes IMAGINATION (w00t, I guess), quick-thinking, creativity, careful planning, and strategy.

Yawn.

I'm tired. Did I need to make another thread about D&D? Nah, but I felt like it.

I enjoy the D&D table top games quite a bit.

That said, for some reason I have trouble really getting into the video game versions of it. Even the quintessential ones, like neverwinter nights and balders gate, just don't do it for me. I don't know why.

All of Ush's games are Like D&D, Different rules, same Concept...

Originally posted by BackFire
I enjoy the D&D table top games quite a bit.

That said, for some reason I have trouble really getting into the video game versions of it. Even the quintessential ones, like neverwinter nights and balders gate, just don't do it for me. I don't know why.
In the PC versions, you don't get rewarded for quick-thinking and good shit like that. You can't just say, "Hmm, in order to kill a group of X, I'll cast Lightning while they are in a puddle" or "It seems that the monster's only weak point is his eye...so I'll climb up, jump on the back of his head--hopefully making the roll and subsequent reflex save--and stab him in the eye".

For computer games, it's "Shoot/hack the bad guy again until he's dead, please...no striking deals, no taking hostages, no really RP options".

I love table-top RPs. They're awesome.

I started out on the tabletop game back in the early 80's but got bored with the old "roll the dice" deal where sometimes it took an hour to kill a monster with one HP because noone got the roll. But yes, the old school dice games gave you chances to solve problems creatively, and for that, that's one area the PC games can never come close to.

I like the PC versions better for the sake of seeing the monsters and the spells in action, and just this week I beat the original Icewind Dale and now I'm working on the Heart Of Winter expansion pack. I also beat the original Baldur's Gate and had fun with that one in the Tales Of The Sword Cpast expansion as well.

On the whole,it's sad that Black Isle went under, they had a great repertoire of games, including Blackthorne and the Fallout series. I miss them

I must admit I am a fan of both tabletop and pc RPGing. But both offer different things. As FeceMan said, table top can be really quite enjoyable, and is good exercise for ones imagination, and it is a group activity, and so forth. PC versions are a bit different. The cut down a lot of the semi tedious aspects like dice rolls, and as a result are a lot more streamlined, though of course this limits the actual "role play aspect", often in order to deliver a well done story (I still think Planescape Torment, Fallout and the Baldur's Gate series are some of the best games ever.) However I agree it's very disappointing so much freedom is lost, and the often well made reactionary world of the tabletop is lost in computerised versions.

And I will admit I am very excited about the the new game on the way, Dungeons and Dragons: Dragonshard.

Right on man!

Another cool thing..is with Icewind Dale, there is some fantastic music in the game. And I LOVE the visuals in the PC games:
the feeling you get when you see the places you're in, like old caves and ruined temples..the atmosphere is so thick in the PC versions. Makes you actually feel like you're there. The immersion is a nice factor.

And a NEW D&D game? That's it, I'm taking the day off from work when it comes out

I've never played in a table-top RPG. They're not really popular around where I live.

What do you do, anyway?

Originally posted by hotsauce6548
I've never played in a table-top RPG. They're not really popular around where I live.

What do you do, anyway?

Well in the table top version, you need graph paper to represent the map you are walking on (each square represents about 10' if I remember right but there can be larger distances if the paper is hexagonal) and you have a DM (Dungeon Master) who controls all you see and encounter, and each person has a character, or PC (playing character) they create to form a party of adventurers.

Dice rolls decide combat and the largest part of the game is to imagine what the DM tells you. He describes a band of orcs, you form the image in your mind based on what the DM tells you. Also, you get points for overcoming obstcles creatively instead of with the blade of a sword.

After the adventure, your characters go up in level (providing they aren't killed in the course of the adventure) and your party divides the loot at the adventure's end, and it is also converted to XP (experience points) and also, everyone divides the magical items based on their class profession as usually only certain items can be used by certain classes.

A general outline but much has changed over the years since the days I picked up the original Monster Manual and basic Rules bookset.

Been playing DnD since 2nd edition, got almost all 3rd edition manuals, almost all 3.5 edition manuals, a crapload of 3rd party books like Mongoose publishing, etc. It's an awesome game, and if you have a great GM like i do (Ironically his name is D*** M*** so we call him DM all the time )
WHat matters most is to have a good GM, to have a party that gets along well, etc. etc. You can't have a hack'n slash maniac obsessed with optimizing their character (124 attacks per round droolio ) and a bisexual succubus bard that wants to role-play only. They'll never get along and they'll end up blaming the DM.
Telling war stories is feckin awesome (war stories - telling about the adventures over a nice beer). I remember a lot of awesome threads on the wizards.com boards, like "Last words thread"
Stuff like

"I just drank WHAT???"

or

"The Dragon's right behind me, isn't he?"



it's an awesome game. if i could gather up a couple of mature people from these boards that know how to rp properly and how to stay in-character without metagaming or such, and that also know the rules to some extent i'd be very happy to start an adventure in the RP forums

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Lana
I love table-top RPs. They're awesome.
Girls don't play table-top games, you silly.

Lol @ Wickerman's post.

Actually, one of the reasons I hate D&D is the amount it has become a square-based skirmish game.

Most decent RPs stay away from regimented boards as much as possible.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, one of the reasons I hate D&D is the amount it has become a square-based skirmish game.

Most decent RPs stay away from regimented boards as much as possible.

It can be troublesome only if the DM doesn't know how to do his thing. The skirmishing part is one of the best if you have mature gamers by your side and a good DM. It shows if you know how to use your environment, how to use strategies, how to think on the spot, make the decision, etc.

And if you can't do skirmish or think up tactics, then yep...in my book you're a crappy rp-er as well...that's just the way i see it. Too much rp-ing and no skirmishing = crap. Too much skirmishing, and no rp-ing = crap.

~wickerman~

Nah, disagree. D&D's combat system is cumbersome and restrictive and very easily reduces the enjoyment of the game for the non-combat whores.

D&D's maxim from square one was "Take a Fighter (though have a Cleric in the group)," and the later versions only made that more imperative.

Unchained from the grid system it becomes more manageable.

I used to play D&D along time ago. I have one of the first box sets, however, not in very good condition.

I absolutly love D&D tabletop.

Well, at least the tabletop vers. doesn't give you a headache.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, disagree. D&D's combat system is cumbersome and restrictive and very easily reduces the enjoyment of the game for the non-combat whores.

D&D's maxim from square one was "Take a Fighter (though have a Cleric in the group)," and the later versions only made that more imperative.

Unchained from the grid system it becomes more manageable.
How do you mean 'unchained from the system'?

I mean, it pisses me off to no end that Sorcerors use Charisma to cast instead of Intelligence because a) I like the title 'Sorceror' better and b) I like the idea that they have natural talent to use magic vs. a Wizard's studying. I'd like to make a very smart Sorceror, but I'm afraid that doing so would gimp him.

Of course, this is me just talking from the computer versions of the game.

As in take the grid out of it and either use no map or at most rough maps. Although the system is calibrated around the grid, using it actually reduces the playing experience; any half-decent DM can quickly adapt to get rid of it.

Still, no great matter, because there is only so far you can take D&D anyway. It's a limited game with a limited scope; there is way better out there. I always thought it worked better as a computer gane, in fact, because a lot of its limitations don't matter a damn there (monster-killing xp chase? Hell yeah!).

Meanwhile... that was just them finding something for Charisma to do. Rather arbitrary.

I've been table top rping since I was 11... that's 25 years now, nearly.... maybe its my age, but I just can't play any computer games for more than about ten minutes without becoming very fed up with them.... I've never used a grid for any tt game, and when it comes to D+D we play using a mish mash of rules taken from first edition D+D, AD+D, and anywhere else.... a lot of the rules we use we made up, because they make the game (for us) work.... I doubt if even the great EGG would recognise it now.... we mainly play Call of Cthulhu (both 1920s and Pagan's Delta Green) Alternity, Boot Hill and D+D, but we have been known to dabble with Runequest, Traveller, GURPS, Paranoia, Shadowrun, Malstrom and Tunnels and Trolls (Take that, you fiend!) As an aside, the group we started at School back in the eighties used to hold the record for the longest continuous game by a group of under eighteens.... 53 hours non stop.... and we raised over a grand for charity....

Rifts is so much better than D&D

What the hell is up with people playing D&D and vampire masquerade doing rock paper scissors?

R/P/S is the arbitrator for Live Action (rather than tabletop) Masquerade, that's why. I've never quite been convinced by that...

Incorporating rock paper scissors seems to cut down on advantages your character can obtain.

Well, Live Action is different. Even so, there is more to it than JUST R/P/S... but I still don't like it much.

yeah, i know there is more to it, but seems very limited in range of abilities. I know it is still chance, but atleast with dice, your chance is broad and technical.

Yeah, but in Live Action, the rules are kept to a minimum; it is all about social interaction.

Though in many a tabletop RP, the less you intrude rules in, the better.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nah, disagree. D&D's combat system is cumbersome and restrictive and very easily reduces the enjoyment of the game for the non-combat whores.

D&D's maxim from square one was "Take a Fighter (though have a Cleric in the group)," and the later versions only made that more imperative.

Unchained from the grid system it becomes more manageable.

That's just too funny. I'm sure you know your DnD, but you're talking a load of bull here. Sure, that was the idea. Get a melee fighter, a thief, a divine magic user and an arcane magic user. That's simply the quintessential team. It's what you're restricted to if you can't think anything else up and are therefore unable to bring something new to the game. And in that case it's better that you don't play, really

The grid system works just fine, it brings some reality to the game like only being able to move THAT much if you're going around a corner, moving only THAT much if you're carrying too much weight, etc.

As for the fighter per se, i dunno WHAT DnD you're playing, but EVERYBODY that knows the game knows that the fighter is one of the most powerful classes in the first levels, and by the time you reach mid levels (6 and above), they're the crappiest class in the game. Which is why most people that know their game won't be taking more than 2 levels of fighter. It's ya know...called....the fighter dip....for...ya know.....a ........REASON....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As in take the grid out of it and either use no map or at most rough maps. Although the system is calibrated around the grid, using it actually reduces the playing experience; any half-decent DM can quickly adapt to get rid of it.

Still, no great matter, because there is only so far you can take D&D anyway. It's a limited game with a limited scope; there is way better out there. I always thought it worked better as a computer gane, in fact, because a lot of its limitations don't matter a damn there (monster-killing xp chase? Hell yeah!).

Meanwhile... that was just them finding something for Charisma to do. Rather arbitrary.

The grid system works just fine. If you want to use a rough map or no map at all, go right ahead, but that hampers the reality of the game. Sure, it's fantasy, but still, mature gamers appreciate a certain dose of reality in the game. Otherwise, without the grid system rules, it's called munchkinism or overzealousness in rp-ing.

As for the charisma comment, that's completely not true. I've read hundreds of pages on wizards.com involving discussions with the former Sage Skip Williams concerning sorcerers. They're INCREDIBLY underpowered right now. If anything, sorcerers should be MUCH more like Wilders. Don't even get me started on how the masters of metamagic, which always WERE the sorcerers have to take up an entire round to use ONE FREEKIN metamagic feat on a spell......but good ol' wizards can use their cute little rods of metamagic all day long without so much as a problem. Also, don't get me started on clerics and divine metamagicking, or i'll have to show you some character builds that at around level 12 have an AC of 63 (for 12 hours or more for Christ's sake).

So yeah, the sorcerer is underpowered, even though it's one of the coolest classes in the damn game. As for the reason of their existence, Skip Williams has showed and admitted to an INCREDIBLE bias towards wizards (he has a thing bout em), + the name of the feckin company WoTC. It was always intended for Wizards to be very powerful, and for sorcerers to be just backup casters (which is total crap IMO, but oh well...)

~wickerman~

Sorry, disagree with you fundamentally there, Wickerman. And I don't remember saying anything about thieves or Magic-users. In long term play, every class eventually frustrates except the Fighter.

I have played at D&D for over 20 years and my brother since it first came out. I find it limited and not well designed and practical play has found the grid system to be severely wanting; most other RPs are totally superior. You may think I am talking bull but in my opinion if you like these things I do not have a high opinion of your role-playing.

And it IS true about Charisma. In first edition it did nearly nothing so they stuck a load more onto it. There is no logical reason for Sorcerers to use Charisma other than a. to distinguish them and b. to give the stat something to do- same reason they suddenly started basing turning on it as well.

"Sure, it's fantasy, but still, mature gamers appreciate a certain dose of reality in the game. Otherwise, without the grid system rules, it's called munchkinism or overzealousness in rp-ing."

That's shite. I know plenty of mature RPers and they loathe it. We've already heard from Kirk above agreeing with me there on not using it. Furthermore, in my experience, the grid system detracts from reality- time and time again it is simply logically frustrating beyond sense. It's more like a wargame than an RP- if anything, it encourages rule abuse, something D&D is exceptionally prone to in any case. To say removing it encourages munchkinism strikes me as a simply utterly unintelligent comment.

Horrible stuff.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, disagree with you fundamentally there, Wickerman. And I don't remember saying anything about thieves or Magic-users. In long term play, every class eventually frustrates except the Fighter.

I'm not sure what you mean by "every class eventually frustrates except the fighter". If you mean that the fighter is the most reliable class in the game, that's crap. I mean, sorry, but feel free to go to wizards.com and say that, and let the flamefest begin. The fighter is a good choice for the beginning of the game, but from mid-level on, mostly anything can take out a simple straight fighter. The fighter is (unlike arcane or divine casters) one of those "No reason NOT to take a prestige class or two" sort of classes. Simply going straight fighter is absolutely suicide. Not to mention if the rp-er isn't experienced, it gets quite boring. Going into other classes as well as prestige classes not only makes your character stronger rules-wise, but gives you excellent reasons to explore the characters personality even more, therefore more rp-ing.
If you meant that the fighter is a MUST in a party and you dislike that, that is ALSO crap. The Hexblade, the Swashbuckler, even the Samurai (but less), not to mention the barbarian, can easily match a fighter if well done, not only from a rules-wise PoV but also from a story-wise PoV.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I have played at D&D for over 20 years and my brother since it first came out. I find it limited and not well designed and practical play has found the grid system to be severely wanting; most other RPs are totally superior. You may think I am talking bull but in my opinion if you like these things I do not have a high opinion of your role-playing.

Cool. I have friends that've been playing the game since it came out. And the reason why i'm a bit baffled is that i've never....i repeat....NEVER heard ANYONE face to face or over the internet, including on wizards.com which is the biggest collection of DnD-ers EVER complain about the current grid system before. As for the game itself being limited and not well designed, that's your opinion, but it has nothing to do with practical play. Everything in the rules is acid-tested, and then errata-ed if something's wrond. There've even been instances where due to a lot of negative/positive fan reactions, some things were changed. How are the other RP's superior? DnD incorporates role-playing in a fantasy world with SO many possibilities, SO many campaign settings, and an infinity of other possibilities that YOU yourself can create by just following a few rules. And yeah, i encourage the usage of most rules, with a few house rules that "overrule" some idiotic stuff. As for the quality of rp-ing, i can see absolutely nothing wrong with it. And i can't get what YOU see wrong with it either.

You have SO many supplemental books, that your character can have more depth and be more complex than you . You can also CREATE your own prestige classes/ campaign settings/feats/etc. to further this to a practically limitless flow of opportunities. If you simply want to disregard any rules, it either turns into chaos, or LARP-ing.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
And it IS true about Charisma. In first edition it did nearly nothing so they stuck a load more onto it. There is no logical reason for Sorcerers to use Charisma other than a. to distinguish them and b. to give the stat something to do- same reason they suddenly started basing turning on it as well.

That's most likely because you have a misconception of what Charisma means. It's been stated over and over again that it's not good looks, it's overall power to influence others, confidence in self, etc. etc. Just like wisdom isn't just "being wise" it's the degree to which you perceive the outside world. And it made excellent sense, even in 1st ed. If what you're saying were true, they simply wouldn't have added charisma as well, and just left it behind.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Sure, it's fantasy, but still, mature gamers appreciate a certain dose of reality in the game. Otherwise, without the grid system rules, it's called munchkinism or overzealousness in rp-ing."

That's shite. I know plenty of mature RPers and they loathe it. We've already heard from Kirk above agreeing with me there on not using it. Furthermore, in my experience, the grid system detracts from reality- time and time again it is simply logically frustrating beyond sense. It's more like a wargame than an RP- if anything, it encourages rule abuse, something D&D is exceptionally prone to in any case. To say removing it encourages munchkinism strikes me as a simply utterly unintelligent comment.

So we've heard from......Kirk.....who is....i have no idea who..... as opposed to the let's say....20.000 and more members of the wizards.com boards??? I mean, sorry for invoking that so much, but it just seems weird that i've read a LARGE number of threads and have even made a few on those boards, and i couldn't remember anyone complaining about this, and making any rational points.

How more exactly, does it detract from reality-time? Just tell me how. Because it takes longer to run around a corner? Or because your dwarf runs slower? Or how? THAT's the shite my friend, right there. As for it being logically frustrating beyond sense, WHAT IS FRUSTRATING ABOUT IT??? Give me rational points saying "I don't like it because it does this: E.G.: .....etc. etc. " and it'll be easier to describe what happens. And you're making a HUGE mistake of assuming the grid system is there to turn the game into a wargame. It's there JUST SO YOU CAN USE IT DURING BATTLES and keep a level of reality involved in the game. I mean, nobody is supposed to use it during the entire game like "You move from here to here, then left, then here then there, then move your figures there, and ......you've reached the market". NO! You use it during battle time so that the whole episode doesn't turn into a fiasco of "I hit it first! No no, i'm more suave and dexterous, i hit it first. But i hit it harder!!!!! But you weren't even there!! Yes i was, i jumped down. FROM WHERE??? " and other such stuff. And THAT is why i said that removing it strikes me as munchkinism, because it's a blatant show of ignoring the rules, and just doing things the way YOU want it. It also hampers the DM's power a bit, making sure that there's no "special preference" which is always a good thing as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Horrible stuff.

I REALLY don't see what's so horrible about it. without the grid system, and skirmishing rules you have two options:

1. no battles whatsoever. This reeks of idiocy in a fantasy game...i mean sure, ro-based experience points are encouraged, being original is encouraged, etc. etc. But having no fighting AT ALL only goes to show that the DM is a writer-wannabe that enjoys "railroading" (if you don't know this term, i'll explain it, but i bet you do).

2. the battles that do exist are a chaotic blob of "i hit it, no I hit it, cause i gots da ninja skillz yo!".

~wickerman~

Or not..
You want an example of non-grid fighting? Look at some if the Matrix games here, or the Star Wars ones, but The Matrix ones are more fighting oriented...

I've Never really played D&D, just Ush's games here and elsewhere. But I find no problem in it.

What is Rifts?

another kind of table top RPGs

I agree with ush on the fact that they are forcing the grid system down the throath of the players. It gives the game far too much of a wargame feeling. I dislike it very much eventho it is very easy, quite a few rules don't work without the grid, or atleast not as they should. Still in all the games I master I don't use a grid, except in very special combat sequences where environment matters a great deal. Tho I'm thinking of quiting the use of grids all together.

Rough maps will generally do. If you can't have a decent combat without using a grid, I fear you aren't a very good RPer. what did people do when they played ADnD that game never relied on grids and it worked out perfectly.

DnD is indeed not the best quality RPG there is there are far better ones. However DnD was my first RPG and even tho the game has limitations (SEVER LIMITATIONS) I still enjoy it the most. I like the setting, I know the rules fairly well and I enjoy DMing it.

I still feel that if you make sure the game doesn't turn into a hack'n' slash or a dungeoncrawling fest it has a nice potential. Too bad those dudes at wizards don't get that too often. A lot of the most memorable sessions of DnD I played involved almost no rolls and NO COMBAT.

Now all that talk about classes being under and overpowered, does it really matter????? Sure it would be fun if things were balanced and so on but in a game as DnD with such a load of official and unofficial extra rules, classes, prestige classes, feats and so on......Why keep nagging about it??? If your DM is atleast half as smart as a normal person he will hold his party in balance and make sure powerplaying is looked down up on.

I personally love playing a fighter, I usually play it pure, no multiclassing maybe one prestige class but nothing else. I know this has severe limitations and severe weaknesses but I generally don't give a damn. I play a fighter because I like the concept.

I always remember what my first DM ever told me: "Don't look at the stats, the rules, the abilities, the numbers..... Just take what you think is cool". That's the guide line I give all my players and that's IMO the way someone should play any RPG.

I play World of Warcraft and have almost lost my current friends over playing that game.

If I played D&D my friends would dis-own me and I would need to go out and find new friends.

what kinda BS friends are that

Originally posted by Linkalicious
I play World of Warcraft and have almost lost my current friends over playing that game.

If I played D&D my friends would dis-own me and I would need to go out and find new friends.
Same problem here, LOL.

Fortunately, one plays EQ2 and GW, while another used to play AC...so they can't attack me too much .

Originally posted by Fire
what kinda BS friends are that

The kind of BS friends that want me to work out with them at the gym everyday.

The ones that want me to go out to the beach most afternoons.

The ones that want me dating more and playing games less.




When I stop defending games and step back and look at my BS friends.....I'm damn glad I have them.

If they're willing to stop being your friend because you play video games more then they want, then they obviously aren't very good friends.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
The kind of BS friends that want me to work out with them at the gym everyday.

The ones that want me to go out to the beach most afternoons.

The ones that want me dating more and playing games less.




When I stop defending games and step back and look at my BS friends.....I'm damn glad I have them.
DAMN THEM TO HELL for trying to get you out in the sun!

My friends try that...and I always get fried.

There is a difference between wanting you to go out more, go to the gym with them go dating more and stop being your friend because you play games, IMO that's a big difference

I think what Link is trying to imply (and this is my observation. It could be wrong so feel free to correct) is that these kind of hobby's take time from your daily life schedule. You spend too much time playing games that your friends start to feel unappreciated. And you really don't want friends to feel unappreciated. You gotta make time for them.

I for one get so deep into my hobby's that I lose contact with a few friends. But in time I make up for it. Anyways, back to D&D....BOOO!!!!! WarHammer owns D&D

lol well I hope he was implying that, cause I think of a few worse things to be implied.

I sometimes have the same problem WD, thank god most of my closest friends are RP buddies

Originally posted by Fire
another kind of table top RPGs

I agree with ush on the fact that they are forcing the grid system down the throath of the players. It gives the game far too much of a wargame feeling. I dislike it very much eventho it is very easy, quite a few rules don't work without the grid, or atleast not as they should. Still in all the games I master I don't use a grid, except in very special combat sequences where environment matters a great deal. Tho I'm thinking of quiting the use of grids all together.

The grid system isn't being forced down ANYONE's throat, it's only something to help you out. Just like most rules in the DMG are "mostly guidelines" . Sure, a DM can change as much as he wants, he can rule-zero anything, he can house-rule stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put in there as a guideline for a reason. The grid system should only be used during battles. Most people i know of that dislike having an occassional battle in the game now and then are either girls, or emo guys that have no idea what strategy means, or that have the "ewww....all these rules make my head hurt" syndrome. Example of the importance of the grid system: You're playing a fighter. The bad guy is a wizard. He sends a fireball at your group from his nice safe spot. Normally, on the grid system, you guys wouldn't be all together in one group, so that if he casts an area effect spell, he doesn't hit you all. So on the grid, only 1 or 2 characters would get damaged. Without the grid, the DM can simply say "Yep.....casts fireball....fries you all...."


Originally posted by Fire
Rough maps will generally do. If you can't have a decent combat without using a grid, I fear you aren't a very good RPer. what did people do when they played ADnD that game never relied on grids and it worked out perfectly.

DnD is indeed not the best quality RPG there is there are far better ones. However DnD was my first RPG and even tho the game has limitations (SEVER LIMITATIONS) I still enjoy it the most. I like the setting, I know the rules fairly well and I enjoy DMing it.

I prefer to make each combat seem epic when i'm DM-ing. They're pretty rare, and it's a chance to make the players feel good about winning the battle against the odds they face. I'm pretty harsh as well....And i can assure you that a good DM and a good PLAYER of the game, know how to do both just fine. That's what makes quality players of the game. Simply ignoring the fights, or simply ignoring the rp-ing shows that you're not an exceptional DM or Player. As for ADnD....the TSR one???? Since when DIDN'T it have grids?


Originally posted by Fire
I still feel that if you make sure the game doesn't turn into a hack'n' slash or a dungeoncrawling fest it has a nice potential. Too bad those dudes at wizards don't get that too often. A lot of the most memorable sessions of DnD I played involved almost no rolls and NO COMBAT.

Yes it does, it has great potential. And it has incredible versatility. As for wizards, didn't you get the Memo? Hasbro is on a crusade to take over the world........again


Originally posted by Fire
Now all that talk about classes being under and overpowered, does it really matter????? Sure it would be fun if things were balanced and so on but in a game as DnD with such a load of official and unofficial extra rules, classes, prestige classes, feats and so on......Why keep nagging about it??? If your DM is atleast half as smart as a normal person he will hold his party in balance and make sure powerplaying is looked down up on.

to someone that plays the game with skills in both rp-ing and fighting scenes, yes, it does matter, because their character is limited in comparison with other characters. It has the potential but no chance to reach it. That's why most good DM's houserule a few classes/prestige classes in order to give all the players an equal chance at rp-ing/fighting.

Originally posted by Fire
I personally love playing a fighter, I usually play it pure, no multiclassing maybe one prestige class but nothing else. I know this has severe limitations and severe weaknesses but I generally don't give a damn. I play a fighter because I like the concept.

That's always a good thing. My point was that the fighter class is a weak class compared to the rest, in the long-run. Also, going into prestige classes can always help with making your character more complex, giving you even more rp chances, making him deeper, and maybe even more interesting. Not saying you NEED to go into PrC's in order to do that, but it's great. It makes sure there's a difference between your character and stereotypes

Originally posted by Fire
I always remember what my first DM ever told me: "Don't look at the stats, the rules, the abilities, the numbers..... Just take what you think is cool". That's the guide line I give all my players and that's IMO the way someone should play any RPG.

I sort of learned to play the game on my own, and soon after joining a group was chosen the new DM. But yeah, that's pretty much what i tell my players as well. However, i'm a bit picky about who i let join my group. Only mature players, and by mature i understand people that understand the importance of both rp and fighting, and that can mix those two, without ignoring one or the other.

~wickerman~

I think the grid system is a good thing when calculating attacks of opportunity and stuff.

I'll admit, these sorts of games DO take time, not to mention how people look at you when you mention the name of some suit of armor or magic weapon during a public conversation. But there are worse things you could be doing, I guess. As for making friends feel unappreciated, as WindDancer says, well the street runs both ways.
But there again you don't want to spend your whole day doing one thing when you could be doing stuff with your friends. The old balancing act.

Originally posted by Wickerman
The grid system isn't being forced down ANYONE's throat, it's only something to help you out. Just like most rules in the DMG are "mostly guidelines" . Sure, a DM can change as much as he wants, he can rule-zero anything, he can house-rule stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put in there as a guideline for a reason. The grid system should only be used during battles. Most people i know of that dislike having an occassional battle in the game now and then are either girls, or emo guys that have no idea what strategy means, or that have the "ewww....all these rules make my head hurt" syndrome. Example of the importance of the grid system: You're playing a fighter. The bad guy is a wizard. He sends a fireball at your group from his nice safe spot. Normally, on the grid system, you guys wouldn't be all together in one group, so that if he casts an area effect spell, he doesn't hit you all. So on the grid, only 1 or 2 characters would get damaged. Without the grid, the DM can simply say "Yep.....casts fireball....fries you all...."

I know what you mean by the area of effect and the ranges and stuff, but generally a rough map will do. Now I still think they are forcing it down the throat of the players in a very subtle way, just compare the 3 edition PHB with the 3.5 edition. In the 3th there is nothing about grids, no examples nothing. in the 3.5 they are all over the book. That plus the fact that they supply you with a grid if you buy the DMG of 3.5 (which in itself is a very nice gesture) classifies to me as ramming it down the throat of the players.

I prefer to make each combat seem epic when i'm DM-ing. They're pretty rare, and it's a chance to make the players feel good about winning the battle against the odds they face. I'm pretty harsh as well....And i can assure you that a good DM and a good PLAYER of the game, know how to do both just fine. That's what makes quality players of the game. Simply ignoring the fights, or simply ignoring the rp-ing shows that you're not an exceptional DM or Player. As for ADnD....the TSR one???? Since when DIDN'T it have grids?

well again the difference is that (atleast in my ADnD books) there never was any mentioning of this rule works on the grid like that and so on....

to someone that plays the game with skills in both rp-ing and fighting scenes, yes, it does matter, because their character is limited in comparison with other characters. It has the potential but no chance to reach it. That's why most good DM's houserule a few classes/prestige classes in order to give all the players an equal chance at rp-ing/fighting.

LOL again, play what you think is cool, and someone taking a bard should understand that in combat he will probably be less potent than a fighter. Some classes are just better at some things than other classes. The warrior classes are just better in combat than the non-warriors. I know it can be frustrating but that's just the way the game goes. Against undead fighters can be hacking away at them for round and after round and then one cleric comes around does a very kick ass turning and they're all turned. Not really fair either, but then again a cleric just has a thing with undead.

That's always a good thing. My point was that the fighter class is a weak class compared to the rest, in the long-run. Also, going into prestige classes can always help with making your character more complex, giving you even more rp chances, making him deeper, and maybe even more interesting. Not saying you NEED to go into PrC's in order to do that, but it's great. It makes sure there's a difference between your character and stereotypes

You can make a very big difference between your character and the stereotype without a PrC. I still don't consider the fighter class that weak. Indeed it has no skillpoints and no decent saves. But it has a shitload of FEATS and if you have enough books to choose from those FEATS RULE.

I sort of learned to play the game on my own, and soon after joining a group was chosen the new DM. But yeah, that's pretty much what i tell my players as well. However, i'm a bit picky about who i let join my group. Only mature players, and by mature i understand people that understand the importance of both rp and fighting, and that can mix those two, without ignoring one or the other.

~wickerman~

That indeed is best. you shouldn't play with everybody cause well the game needs to be fun for everyone

lol ppl always look at you strange when you start talking about DnD anywhere in public, still a nice way to pass the time.

I know Fece AoO without a grid can be a *****

but more important than discussing the grid ssytem and the classes there is a better question to ask: Who plays what and what are you planning to play in the future.

I myself am playing a level 8 ranger/level 1 cleric for the moment (undead hunter) soon to get his PrC.
Then I'm playing a level 5 samurai, a level 2 paladin.

I'm planning to play a fighter again if one of those guys dies. Probably a fighter on age, maybe an old gladiator or someone with a tad more talent and brains then the normal fighter, all depends on stats.

The coolest class (the one I like to play the most, but am not playing ATM for a few reasons) is Monk

Yes, have to agree, the Monk is usually my character of choice, although in a really well done RP setting I like to take characters I can have a lot of fun with while trying to make them unique and so forth. Might sound expected, but there was just something about the looks on the other players faces when my level 7 Paladin talks down the Lich villain of this particular campaign, rather then just going for the "he's a lich, and thus obviously evil." He wasn't a black and white character, but rather massive levels of grey, believing the was no true good or evil. Also ended up with a friendly beholder as a side kick. Ah memories.

Currently playing as a wizard (whom will end up becoming a lich if all goes well.) Next character I will be playing though will be a Nosferatu vampire in a WOD game.

I was one played a monk who worshipped death, you should have seen the faces of the other players when I started to explain that to NPCs. They were all like "Nooooooooooooooooo....." Cause everyone always thought he was evil. Almost never spoke a word and never left his sword behind.

Just as an example of how I tried to balance my party in Icewind Dale (which plays on AD&D Rules 3.0 if I remember right.)

I had a full fighter, a fighter\cleric, a ranger, a thief, a cleric\mage and a full mage. When one wasn't casting offensive spells, the other was enhancing the party with their magic and the thief and the ranger had high skills with the bow and crossbow. And one was healing while the other was casting offensive\defensive magic. Worked out nicely

The party would pummel the lower monsters with arrows while the offensive spells like magic missile and fireball would blast the stronger ones and make them shadows of their former selves before the fighters went in with magical enhancements like speed and bless spells. Also w\regard to the ranger, bear in mind a ranger is also a fighter and can use any weapon a fighter can.

And fights were usually over...FAST

I understand the fundamental difference between Sorcerors and Wizards...but how does the casting per day work for Sorcs? I know for Wizzies I have to memorize the spell 2+ times to cast it more than once, but for Sorcerors...?

Sorcerers only know a very limited amount of spells (they also progress slower in learning new levels of spells) They don't have to memorize anything. They have a number of spells per day which they can cast. They just choose at the given moment which spell they want to cast. If they deplete their number of spells per day they're done for the day.

Crap....too many replies, and i have to leave in about 5 minutes to get some work done......i'll be back with replies for everyone in about.....2 hours max or so . Be sure to tune in

~wickerman~

I will, waiting

Originally posted by Fire
Originally posted by Wickerman
The grid system isn't being forced down ANYONE's throat, it's only something to help you out. Just like most rules in the DMG are "mostly guidelines" . Sure, a DM can change as much as he wants, he can rule-zero anything, he can house-rule stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was put in there as a guideline for a reason. The grid system should only be used during battles. Most people i know of that dislike having an occassional battle in the game now and then are either girls, or emo guys that have no idea what strategy means, or that have the "ewww....all these rules make my head hurt" syndrome. Example of the importance of the grid system: You're playing a fighter. The bad guy is a wizard. He sends a fireball at your group from his nice safe spot. Normally, on the grid system, you guys wouldn't be all together in one group, so that if he casts an area effect spell, he doesn't hit you all. So on the grid, only 1 or 2 characters would get damaged. Without the grid, the DM can simply say "Yep.....casts fireball....fries you all...."

I know what you mean by the area of effect and the ranges and stuff, but generally a rough map will do. Now I still think they are forcing it down the throat of the players in a very subtle way, just compare the 3 edition PHB with the 3.5 edition. In the 3th there is nothing about grids, no examples nothing. in the 3.5 they are all over the book. That plus the fact that they supply you with a grid if you buy the DMG of 3.5 (which in itself is a very nice gesture) classifies to me as ramming it down the throat of the players.

That may classify as ramming it down the throat of the players to you, but it's not. They're just trying to make the rules easier to understand and to apply. In the 3.0 manuals the grid was hinted to, but in 3.5 they're making it easier to understand. Just like the conversion from 2nd ed. to 3rd edition, rules were made much more clear. The idea was for players to have an easier time understanding the game and enjoying it. That's a huge part of what 3.0 was all about. And so, 3.5 is very similar. They fixed some of the Su, Sp, Ex crap, they errata-ed a lot of PrC's.....they redid the druid's wild shape, etc. The grid being used more often is just a way to make players understand how to use it easier. It's not ramming down their throats, it's actually helpful. And it's not just about area effect spells and such, or movement, or Attacks of Opportunity, it's also about the fight sensation. I don't know if you've seen older battle maps. The ones that generals would look at. They're exactly like the fight grid in DnD. Either hexes, or squares. Most people that don't use the grid system either don't KNOW how to use it properly, or they're just too lazy.

Originally posted by Fire
I prefer to make each combat seem epic when i'm DM-ing. They're pretty rare, and it's a chance to make the players feel good about winning the battle against the odds they face. I'm pretty harsh as well....And i can assure you that a good DM and a good PLAYER of the game, know how to do both just fine. That's what makes quality players of the game. Simply ignoring the fights, or simply ignoring the rp-ing shows that you're not an exceptional DM or Player. As for ADnD....the TSR one???? Since when DIDN'T it have grids?

well again the difference is that (atleast in my ADnD books) there never was any mentioning of this rule works on the grid like that and so on....

Back in the ADnD days, grids were being sold like crazy. And there were area effect spells and such, and speed, etc. All that were used on the grid. Grids were being:

1. Sold
2. Hinted to in descriptions of spells, spell-like abilities, psionics, etc.

Originally posted by Fire
to someone that plays the game with skills in both rp-ing and fighting scenes, yes, it does matter, because their character is limited in comparison with other characters. It has the potential but no chance to reach it. That's why most good DM's houserule a few classes/prestige classes in order to give all the players an equal chance at rp-ing/fighting.

LOL again, play what you think is cool, and someone taking a bard should understand that in combat he will probably be less potent than a fighter. Some classes are just better at some things than other classes. The warrior classes are just better in combat than the non-warriors. I know it can be frustrating but that's just the way the game goes. Against undead fighters can be hacking away at them for round and after round and then one cleric comes around does a very kick ass turning and they're all turned. Not really fair either, but then again a cleric just has a thing with undead.

Are you shittin me??? My 3rd level bard saved the party like....at least 9 times seriously.....And no, that's just stereotypical. there's really no such thing as a non-combat oriented class. There may be non-melee oriented classes. But trust me, after level 6 Mages start rocking your world Not to mention Mystic theurge builds, A cleric with divine metamagic and Initiate of Mystra can reach an AC of around 60 around level 9, etc. A bard/sublime chord can annihilate pretty much any fighter-like character, etc. etc. etc. Each class, used properly, either as in game-play or simply the way they're built, can do pretty much anything. That's the fun of it. The great versatility of PrC's.


Originally posted by Fire
That's always a good thing. My point was that the fighter class is a weak class compared to the rest, in the long-run. Also, going into prestige classes can always help with making your character more complex, giving you even more rp chances, making him deeper, and maybe even more interesting. Not saying you NEED to go into PrC's in order to do that, but it's great. It makes sure there's a difference between your character and stereotypes

You can make a very big difference between your character and the stereotype without a PrC. I still don't consider the fighter class that weak. Indeed it has no skillpoints and no decent saves. But it has a shitload of FEATS and if you have enough books to choose from those FEATS RULE.

The fighter class has crappy skillpoints, crappy saves, and yeah, a shitload of feats that you're gonna blow on crap mostly Unless you have a clear cut vision of what you want the character to become, that's not gonna help a lot. A psychic warrior/illithid slayer has almost the EXACT same attack bonus as the fighter, a few feats less, and can manifest like a psion of a HUGE level. It just stomps the fighter into the ground. But that was just an example. There's a gajillion other things.


Originally posted by Fire
I sort of learned to play the game on my own, and soon after joining a group was chosen the new DM. But yeah, that's pretty much what i tell my players as well. However, i'm a bit picky about who i let join my group. Only mature players, and by mature i understand people that understand the importance of both rp and fighting, and that can mix those two, without ignoring one or the other.

~wickerman~

That indeed is best. you shouldn't play with everybody cause well the game needs to be fun for everyone

Yeah, i know, it sounds like elitist trash, but hey, they can learn with another group, till they're good enough to join my group. And by good enough, i mean 'till they reach the point where they won't annoy/disturb my players and myself.

Originally posted by Fire
but more important than discussing the grid ssytem and the classes there is a better question to ask: Who plays what and what are you planning to play in the future.

I myself am playing a level 8 ranger/level 1 cleric for the moment (undead hunter) soon to get his PrC.
Then I'm playing a level 5 samurai, a level 2 paladin.

I'm planning to play a fighter again if one of those guys dies. Probably a fighter on age, maybe an old gladiator or someone with a tad more talent and brains then the normal fighter, all depends on stats.

The coolest class (the one I like to play the most, but am not playing ATM for a few reasons) is Monk

I only play a character online, not IRL, since IRL i usually DM. Last character i played was a druid/shifter (The old PrC from Masters of the Wild). Needless to say he kicked ass.

Currently i'm sort of online in an epic game. I play an infernal/wizard. Don't ask.......

ps: i don't suppose you're going to take the age modifications to STATS in consideration huh?

Originally posted by Fire
I was one played a monk who worshipped death, you should have seen the faces of the other players when I started to explain that to NPCs. They were all like "Nooooooooooooooooo....." Cause everyone always thought he was evil. Almost never spoke a word and never left his sword behind.

Monk w/ sword ?!?! ahem.....there were a few nifty tricks and items and feats to make monks pretty awesome. I once made a character that involved paladin, monk, and a few more classes. He was basically untouchable by anything other than psionics. So i called him the Steadfast Nightmare

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Just as an example of how I tried to balance my party in Icewind Dale (which plays on AD&D Rules 3.0 if I remember right.)

I had a full fighter, a fighter\cleric, a ranger, a thief, a cleric\mage and a full mage. When one wasn't casting offensive spells, the other was enhancing the party with their magic and the thief and the ranger had high skills with the bow and crossbow. And one was healing while the other was casting offensive\defensive magic. Worked out nicely

The party would pummel the lower monsters with arrows while the offensive spells like magic missile and fireball would blast the stronger ones and make them shadows of their former selves before the fighters went in with magical enhancements like speed and bless spells. Also w\regard to the ranger, bear in mind a ranger is also a fighter and can use any weapon a fighter can.

And fights were usually over...FAST

Icewind Dale 1 was 2nd ed. Icewind Dale 2 was 3rd edition.
You're prolly talking about the 1st Icewind Dale, since in the 2nd Icewind Dale it was pretty useless to make a cleric/mage or a fighter/cleric. That's because in 3rd edition you don't progress in both classes simultanously, so while a 2nd ed. cleric/mage would be cool, a 3rd edition cleric/mage would be a moron that sucks at both divine AND arcane spells (unless you get ur-priest or mystic theurge in there, which weren't available in IWD).

Originally posted by FeceMan
I understand the fundamental difference between Sorcerors and Wizards...but how does the casting per day work for Sorcs? I know for Wizzies I have to memorize the spell 2+ times to cast it more than once, but for Sorcerors...?

ENJOY

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
That may classify as ramming it down the throat of the players to you, but it's not. They're just trying to make the rules easier to understand and to apply. In the 3.0 manuals the grid was hinted to, but in 3.5 they're making it easier to understand. Just like the conversion from 2nd ed. to 3rd edition, rules were made much more clear. The idea was for players to have an easier time understanding the game and enjoying it. That's a huge part of what 3.0 was all about. And so, 3.5 is very similar. They fixed some of the Su, Sp, Ex crap, they errata-ed a lot of PrC's.....they redid the druid's wild shape, etc. The grid being used more often is just a way to make players understand how to use it easier. It's not ramming down their throats, it's actually helpful. And it's not just about area effect spells and such, or movement, or Attacks of Opportunity, it's also about the fight sensation. I don't know if you've seen older battle maps. The ones that generals would look at. They're exactly like the fight grid in DnD. Either hexes, or squares. Most people that don't use the grid system either don't KNOW how to use it properly, or they're just too lazy.

I still think there is a difference between the battle map used by a general and the grid map of a room used in DnD. unless you mean big combat maps like in "Heroes of Battle" (Great Book btw)

And let's just decide that ramming something down anyone's throath is subjective


Back in the ADnD days, grids were being sold like crazy. And there were area effect spells and such, and speed, etc. All that were used on the grid. Grids were being:

1. Sold
2. Hinted to in descriptions of spells, spell-like abilities, psionics, etc.

Guess I was wrong about ADnD then, but I never got into that game very well as a master, I only played it

Are you shittin me??? My 3rd level bard saved the party like....at least 9 times seriously.....And no, that's just stereotypical. there's really no such thing as a non-combat oriented class. There may be non-melee oriented classes. But trust me, after level 6 Mages start rocking your world Not to mention Mystic theurge builds, A cleric with divine metamagic and Initiate of Mystra can reach an AC of around 60 around level 9, etc. A bard/sublime chord can annihilate pretty much any fighter-like character, etc. etc. etc. Each class, used properly, either as in game-play or simply the way they're built, can do pretty much anything. That's the fun of it. The great versatility of PrC's.

I know that every class with the right modifications is great in combat all I am saying is that the roll of a bard is generally not to do the fighting.


The fighter class has crappy skillpoints, crappy saves, and yeah, a shitload of feats that you're gonna blow on crap mostly Unless you have a clear cut vision of what you want the character to become, that's not gonna help a lot. A psychic warrior/illithid slayer has almost the EXACT same attack bonus as the fighter, a few feats less, and can manifest like a psion of a HUGE level. It just stomps the fighter into the ground. But that was just an example. There's a gajillion other things.

I always have a clear cut vision of what I want to do with my character, again you seem to focus immensly on making a character that can not be beaten. You really care that much about it?


Yeah, i know, it sounds like elitist trash, but hey, they can learn with another group, till they're good enough to join my group. And by good enough, i mean 'till they reach the point where they won't annoy/disturb my players and myself.



I only play a character online, not IRL, since IRL i usually DM. Last character i played was a druid/shifter (The old PrC from Masters of the Wild). Needless to say he kicked ass.

Currently i'm sort of online in an epic game. I play an infernal/wizard. Don't ask.......

ps: i don't suppose you're going to take the age modifications to STATS in consideration huh?



Monk w/ sword ?!?! ahem.....there were a few nifty tricks and items and feats to make monks pretty awesome. I once made a character that involved paladin, monk, and a few more classes. He was basically untouchable by anything other than psionics. So i called him the Steadfast Nightmare

~wickerman~

ofcourse a monk with a sword you never read the Quintessential monk????

ofcourse I take into consideration age modifications to stats. if someone wants to play a 70 year old human he should accept the fact that he won't have a natural 18 on his physical stats.

Originally posted by Fire
ofcourse a monk with a sword you never read the Quintessential monk????

ofcourse I take into consideration age modifications to stats. if someone wants to play a 70 year old human he should accept the fact that he won't have a natural 18 on his physical stats.

Most of Mongoose is crap. Quintessential Monk was 3.0, but it was acceptable. I can't remember every single thing in the book since i only read it once i think Ask me something from Book of Vile Darkness and i'll quote it

And i only mentioned the age modifications because you said he'd be a fighter. And old characters are good for casters, but for melee classes they're kinda....well....nasty. But yeah, i can see that. I made an old gladiator NPC once. If you want i think i can send you his char sheet.

~wickerman~

Edit: just noticed the responses inside the quote box.

"I always have a clear cut vision of what I want to do with my character, again you seem to focus immensly on making a character that can not be beaten. You really care that much about it?"

No, i don't. But like i said earlier, i'm pretty harsh when it comes to fighting, just like i am when it comes to rp-ing. You need imagination, quick reflexes and a well built character

true, but a well built character doesn't have to be designed to be invisible, you can have a very nice well build character that just sucks at combat and still make it very memorable, I had players play blind characters, worth dick in combat but one of the nicest characters ever

Originally posted by Fire
true, but a well built character doesn't have to be designed to be invisible, you can have a very nice well build character that just sucks at combat and still make it very memorable, I had players play blind characters, worth dick in combat but one of the nicest characters ever

True, they can RP very well, but they're worthless in combat situations. And since the players in my group strive to reach excellency on all sides of the game, whether RP or combat, i have a problem with characters that are SO weak that they can't fight properly. Sure, they can be brought back, with an XP penalty, and many many difficulties for the rest of the party, etc. etc.

OMG now i sound like some sort of racist dictator

~wickerman~

lol nah you just seem to be strict, all that bring back from the death crap is something I dislike tbh. if a character dies it's death ppl have to accept that.

Originally posted by Fire
lol nah you just seem to be strict, all that bring back from the death crap is something I dislike tbh. if a character dies it's death ppl have to accept that.

I'm usually very clear about what'll happen: "Look, John......you have a crappy character stat-wise.....It's most likely going to die one session or another......remake it now, or when it dies it'll suck"

Assuming John doesn't listen, the character will inevitably die (not out of spite, just fact). When the character dies, i give them two options:

1. John's character stays dead
2. John's character can be brought back to life with a LOT of effort from the party, both physical and financial, AND when he comes back, he's also gonna be 1 level behind what he used to be before....sooo....

They mostly go with option 1....that's an incentive to create characters that can hold their own

~wickerman~

True, but if you use dice to determine stats a player can't help it much if his stats suck

Originally posted by Fire
True, but if you use dice to determine stats a player can't help it much if his stats suck

4d6, drop the lowest, if it's under 10 reroll. They don't get that many bad stats. And they learn to use the good stats to their advantage and to cover up anything their bad stats might hurt them with.
EG: If John gets acceptable stats xcept for his Wisdom, he'll be sure to save up some money on the side to get himself a ring of Wisdom +1, or maybe he'll just use Mettle, or....he'll find a way to overcome it.

~wickerman~

if it's under 10 reroll??? WTF they never have a negative modifier?

Originally posted by Fire
if it's under 10 reroll??? WTF they never have a negative modifier?

If you saw one of my sessions, you'd understand I very very very VERY rarely allow templates, and i'm VERYYYYY closed-minded when it comes to playing creatures with a LA. Also, remember that almost all player races have a negative modifier in one or more stats.

~wickerman~

I know but that -2 ony gives them a -1 modifier

:weird:

Originally posted by Fire
I know but that -2 ony gives them a -1 modifier

:weird:

Yes, and a +2 only gives them a +1 modifier

And that "rolling" is mostly for newer members. The older ones or in online games, i allow only point buy. You get a number of points (32 for example...but that;s very high). All abilities start from 8.
To increase, you add points. 8-14 the cost is 1 point. 15-16 the cost is 2 points. 17-18 the cost is 3 points. Therefore, in order to get 18 in a stat is 16 points. I also usually ask for a general 20 level character build so i know what they intend to do with their characters.

~wickerman~

I know how it works

Originally posted by Fire
I know how it works

Well i had no way of knowing that you know

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
Icewind Dale 1 was 2nd ed. Icewind Dale 2 was 3rd edition.
You're prolly talking about the 1st Icewind Dale, since in the 2nd Icewind Dale it was pretty useless to make a cleric/mage or a fighter/cleric. That's because in 3rd edition you don't progress in both classes simultanously, so while a 2nd ed. cleric/mage would be cool, a 3rd edition cleric/mage would be a moron that sucks at both divine AND arcane spells (unless you get ur-priest or mystic theurge in there, which weren't available in IWD).



ENJOY

~wickerman~

Oh ok, thanks for the 411 on the rules edition there. I noticed you don't progress in both classes simultaneously in ID2 as you do in ID 1, (played ID 2 for a short time) and that's sort of a natural thing considering all classes have different rquirements. Makes it a bit more challenging though. Soon as I finish the Heart Of Winter exp. pack I'm off to ID 2 maybe. Thanks for clearing that up for me though

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Oh ok, thanks for the 411 on the rules edition there. I noticed you don't progress in both classes simultaneously in ID2 as you do in ID 1, (played ID 2 for a short time) and that's sort of a natural thing considering all classes have different rquirements. Makes it a bit more challenging though. Soon as I finish the Heart Of Winter exp. pack I'm off to ID 2 maybe. Thanks for clearing that up for me though

No problem. Heart of Winter was more than awesome
Also, i can't remember where the hell i found it, whether in IWD1 or IWD2, but i think in 2......there's a paladin-only sword called Pale Justice. It kicks royal ass. 'Course, There's also "Heart of " or "Golden Heart of " that are awesome as hell.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
Yes, and a +2 only gives them a +1 modifier

And that "rolling" is mostly for newer members. The older ones or in online games, i allow only point buy. You get a number of points (32 for example...but that;s very high). All abilities start from 8.
To increase, you add points. 8-14 the cost is 1 point. 15-16 the cost is 2 points. 17-18 the cost is 3 points. Therefore, in order to get 18 in a stat is 16 points. I also usually ask for a general 20 level character build so i know what they intend to do with their characters.

~wickerman~
I do prefer that method .

I like 30 points--25 is too low, and 28 is alright, but I first got used to it with KOTOR (yeah, I'm newbtacular), so...

Originally posted by Fire
Sorcerers only know a very limited amount of spells (they also progress slower in learning new levels of spells) They don't have to memorize anything. They have a number of spells per day which they can cast. They just choose at the given moment which spell they want to cast. If they deplete their number of spells per day they're done for the day.
Sorcerors > Wizards, IMO...for the sake of the name and utilization (don't want to start an 'age-old' debate about the two, but I prefer specialization over generalization).

Evocation FTW!

Double post FTL.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Sorcerors > Wizards, IMO...for the sake of the name and utilization (don't want to start an 'age-old' debate about the two, but I prefer specialization over generalization).

Evocation FTW!

Double post FTL.

Oh man........it's so difficult resisting the urge to answer this

~wickerman~

So what editions is everyone's favorite?

Originally posted by vaya_the_elf
So what editions is everyone's favorite?

I never got to play 1st edition....so i can't comment on that

2nd edition was awesome because of one thing. Stories. A single short adventure would have a 50 page long module. 48 of those pages were storylines and such. The rules were very difficult to understand and many many people had trouble with that.

3rd edition came along, with a different system. The rules were OBVIOUSLY superior, it was a well made, well oiled machine. The 50 page module however became a 10 page module out of which about 5 were storyline . Soon, loopholes emerged and ruleslawyers reared their ugly heads to exploit them. A lot of problems with Su, Sp, Ex abilities, a few powerful builds, etc.

3.5 edition came along, with the same system, only improved. So far, it looks like the best. They're beginning to bring back the storylines. Draconomicon is an excellent example of this. They errata-ed most mistakes from 3rd edition, and for me it looks like the best version so far, trying to

1. improve the problems with 3rd edition, but with the same rules system

2. bring back the 2nd edition storyline feeling

It's the most balanced. It gets my vote

~wickerman~

Personally I love third. Not as much math *laughs*

I'm horrible at math. Thats the only problems I ran into with the other systems.

Other than that I kind of like them all.

Originally posted by vaya_the_elf
Personally I love third. Not as much math *laughs*

I'm horrible at math. Thats the only problems I ran into with the other systems.

Other than that I kind of like them all.

You're not the first girl i've heard say that, and most likely won't be the last

~wickerman~

Well its true

Originally posted by vaya_the_elf
Well its true

The math part in 3rd edition is just slightly different from the one in 3.5 . Given that, and the fact that 3.5 also clears a lot of things up, i find it superior.

~wickerman~

Moving to games...

I think the math is about the same. But I agree with Wicker that the rules in 3.5 are a lot clearer than the rules in 3th. The general system change from second to third was a good thing tho. Makes the game easier for new players.

About the storylines I dunno, since I don't play premade adventures or campaigns.

Originally posted by Fire
I think the math is about the same. But I agree with Wicker that the rules in 3.5 are a lot clearer than the rules in 3th. The general system change from second to third was a good thing tho. Makes the game easier for new players.

About the storylines I dunno, since I don't play premade adventures or campaigns.

If you read the premade adventures or campaigns, you'd notice that. If you want i can send you an example of this, from 2nd edition. It's amazing.....about Netheril's fall. It's not just a premade adventure, it's also the friggin story put in there..... Brilliant.

Anyway, this thread doesn't belong in the video/computer games forum. i'm going to try to get it moved back

~wickerman~

hehe, idd it doesn't but when Raz gets an idea

I dunno why but those stories never appealed to me very much

Originally posted by Wickerman
So we've heard from......Kirk.....who is....i have no idea who..... as opposed to the let's say....20.000 and more members of the wizards.com boards???

~wickerman~

Kirk.... who is a DM of 25 years experience, regular at gaming conventions, author of a couple of dozen fanzine published adventures for D+D, CofC and T+T, once held a gaming world record, was editor of Wizard's Eye, a member of the old D+D Players Association, DMed a few open D+D tournaments, set up three gaming clubs in Leicestershire, and has so far not met anyone he would call a mature gamer.... nor anyone who would even call him or herself a mature gamer.... I've met a couple of players who did like the grid system.... however, when playing one of my games they seemed to have an awful problem with imagination, and with understanding that there are no rules, only guidelines, as the great EGG would say.....

good points.

in my opinion the grid can be useful for more than say 5 pc so they can see what and where everyone else is including enemys but a good group with imaginitive players can use rough maps much easier and quicker aswell it really depends on both the experience and imagination of the group!

and what im playing:
a level 6 lizardman ranger
two charactors in two different GURPS games
GMing a superhero based GURPS game
and about to start a Qin game not sure what as yet

sorry about the bump didnt look at dates at all!