This is it ! Old School, AD&D
Dungeons and Dragons: Official TL Thread - Page 2
Forum Index > General Games |
PangO
Chile1870 Posts
This is it ! Old School, AD&D | ||
injerry
China25 Posts
| ||
mawno
Sweden114 Posts
| ||
Manit0u
Poland17073 Posts
Up until now: I advise everyone to check it out. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 28 2009 19:06 mawno wrote: 4.0 is more balanced and the combat is much more varied and fun. It feels very mmorpgish though... It speaks volumes about the system if the only improvement that can be said about it is improved combat. D&D has always been overly combat-centric among RPGs. I don't consider something that exacerbates that problem a good thing. IMO that's one of the things that 3.0/3.5 did right: skills being universalized to all classes let everyone, not just Wizards and Rogues, have a hand in non-combat adventures. 4.0 seems to put skills and noncombat magic in the background. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17073 Posts
1. How does min-maxing look like in D&D now? Is it even possible? 2. How does D20 mechanics work out for you all? Asking this because I'm getting with a bunch of friends who're hardcore RPG gamers who always like to abuse the system and I love to hurt them as DM (or whatever else equivalent there is) by creating stories which make their chars suffer hard for being highly specialized on low levels. Currently I'm working on a story in Star Wars RPG (which is D20) that requires a lot of flying around, talking, repairing etc. and knowing them, they're gonna go some crazy gunslingers or combat-oriented Jedi who don't bother to get any piloting/social skills (I like to do that from time to time, makes them think more when creating new chars). Don't really know if you have any social/technical skills in D&D so I'm not sure if my questions are relevant. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
Manit0u
Poland17073 Posts
On November 29 2009 03:37 TheYango wrote: Are you using Star Wars Saga Edition or normal Star Wars d20? SE | ||
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
My friends and I would always just house-rule patch up D&D 3.5 a bit to make (everyone except Wizards/Sorcs/Monks/Clerics) stronger later on. Worked great for us. We would also slightly nerf Jedi noncombat abilities in Star Wars d20 (stuff like the Friendship force ability was just completely removed). The best setting imo is Planescape, but that setting only works well if your players aren't min-maxing combat-munchkins. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 29 2009 08:30 Hinanawi wrote: My friends and I would always just house-rule patch up D&D 3.5 a bit to make (everyone except Wizards/Sorcs/Monks/Clerics) stronger later on. Worked great for us. We would also slightly nerf Jedi noncombat abilities in Star Wars d20 (stuff like the Friendship force ability was just completely removed). Random question: why monks? Monks are awful. The only core base class worse than the monk is Paladin (and only because a Paladin is a philosophical nightmare for both the player involved and the DM). Druids are probably a bigger concern, seeing as they are just as powerful as Wizards/Clerics until level 17. @Manitou: I'm afraid I don't know that much about Star Wars SE, though I'm told that there's less min-maxing to do than in prior d20 systems. Just stick to the core book, so you don't have to comb through a bunch of sources to make sure your players aren't abusing something. Also, check the numbers for the diplomacy system. That was one of the most flawed things about the d20 system, which was that a 10th level character focusing on diplomacy could make a lifelong worst enemy neutral to him on an average roll. | ||
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
On November 29 2009 08:44 TheYango wrote: Random question: why monks? Monks are awful. The only core base class worse than the monk is Paladin (and only because a Paladin is a philosophical nightmare for both the player involved and the DM). Druids are probably a bigger concern, seeing as they are just as powerful as Wizards/Clerics until level 17. @Manitou: I'm afraid I don't know that much about Star Wars SE, though I'm told that there's less min-maxing to do than in prior d20 systems. Just stick to the core book, so you don't have to comb through a bunch of sources to make sure your players aren't abusing something. Also, check the numbers for the diplomacy system. That was one of the most flawed things about the d20 system, which was that a 10th level character focusing on diplomacy could make a lifelong worst enemy neutral to him on an average roll. Our Monks never had any problems keeping up...it's been a while since I played, but they get insane spell resistance later on (Diamond Soul, I think it was) to shrug off a lot of magic (combine that with a couple +spell res artifacts and it gets crazy), and their punch flurries/ki abilities later on do great damage too. Combine this with most of them having great acrobatics scores and they're pretty good. We buffed Paladins quite a bit because nobody likes having to play Paladin Lawful Good (which may as well be called Super Lawful Good). Even then, people preferred playing slightly weaker Warriors/Barbarians just to avoid all the rules that Paladins came with. Also, our parties always had bad habits of having our Paladins die off...usually to fellow party members. Playing one was having a target painted on your back saying 'insert dagger here in my sleep'. We never had any problems with Druids because none of us ever played a Druid. I think it was the one class none of us ever touched. As far as diplomacy goes, in D&D and Star Wars, we would just completely ignore the 'diplomacy rules' and use common sense instead. There are some situations you just can't talk your way out of by rolling a 16, no matter how many points in it you have. | ||
tinman
United States287 Posts
| ||
Imagist
Australia484 Posts
I've since moved on to playing World of Darkness games (read: being pretentious), but being really keen on particular story genres, I've been really into 7th Sea (swashbuckling!) and Paranoia (madcap comedy!) over the last few years. | ||
Djabanete
United States2784 Posts
| ||
gaizka
United States991 Posts
Killing curse: The extra damage from the curse uses a D8 vs Brutal curse: When you roll 1 on the curse damage, re roll until you get 2 or more. To calculate the damage of brutal curse I calculated the average of a 5 sided dice +1. So my question is, is this correct? or am I missing some probability trick or something? | ||
ANGRYAFRICAN
South Africa25 Posts
| ||
FrontalMonkey
United States90 Posts
| ||
gaizka
United States991 Posts
| ||
Tom the Legend
United Kingdom38 Posts
| ||
plated.rawr
Norway1675 Posts
These days though, I find DND to be too much based on book-keeping and game mechanics, and far less on roleplaying - not my cup of tea. | ||
| ||