harami2000 wrote:bclarkie wrote:When your System SHock numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied. Sounds like a good incentive to avoid getting your characters killed in the first place: would have said that might be the biggest "whammy" Gee... a rule designed to encourage sensible roleplaying; who'd've expected that?!
bclarkie wrote:When your System SHock numbers decrease it also means that it is harder to raise you successfully, so dying and ressurecting in 1st edition you kind of get double whammied.
bclarkie wrote:Seriously, imagine that! Trying not to get your character killed through skillful playing. Where is that damn reset button with these tabletop games at anyway. What no cheat codes either?! This game sucks!!
Traveller wrote:In short, whether or not this is realistic really depends on the time and period in which you are playing. For the free-wheeling modern world, I'd say use a skill based system (and here, you're probably better off with GURPS than D20). For a more stratified society, a purely level based system works just fine.
Traveller wrote:More accurately, d20 is a blend of the ashes of 2d Edition, a bit of Alternity, and a heaping dose of RuneQuest (which TSR/WotC owned up until about a year ago).
Deadlord36 wrote:There are level limits on nonhuman characters because they have other bonuses. If they didnt have restrictions, who in the world would want to play a human?
bbarsh wrote:It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.
bbarsh wrote:...now it has turned into how cool my 11th level Barbarian/Sorcerer/Rogue with 187 hip point is...
Traveller wrote:bbarsh wrote:It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.I highly doubt that. Just because I speak of the game I had a (small) hand in creating doesn't mean that I've given up on OD&D, B/X D&D, or AD&D.
bbarsh wrote:Ship, Did you say with a straight face that a 11th level Barbarian character in your current campaign has 187 hit points! And that same character can be killed by Cloud Giant in one round!
radagast wrote:I don't like weapon mastery, I don't like multiclass characters, I don't like the proliferation of rules and options of 3.5 ... I think that when we had only seven classes (fighter, priest, wizard, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling) there was much more freedom than if we can be paladin, ninja, half elf/demi orc etc. My Gandalf was quite different from my friend's Saruman just because I am different from him.but this is simply what I like . Every people likes what he likes, isn't it?! Amen! I cant' tell you how many different times one of my brothers has played a mage, and the other a fighter...and in 20+ years, they were totally different characters. No one needed any specific rules, they just gamed them differently. And more rules or less rules ... cannot make an important difference. DM and the players can. And, BTW, I love D&D at low levels. When characters reach Name-level they become to powerful for adventure against monsters, but a campaign with rulers, diplomatics, etc etc (a companion level campaign) needs too time and energies. I cannot be a full time player (even if I love to ).
radagast wrote:I don't like weapon mastery, I don't like multiclass characters, I don't like the proliferation of rules and options of 3.5 ... I think that when we had only seven classes (fighter, priest, wizard, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling) there was much more freedom than if we can be paladin, ninja, half elf/demi orc etc. My Gandalf was quite different from my friend's Saruman just because I am different from him.but this is simply what I like . Every people likes what he likes, isn't it?!
And more rules or less rules ... cannot make an important difference. DM and the players can. And, BTW, I love D&D at low levels. When characters reach Name-level they become to powerful for adventure against monsters, but a campaign with rulers, diplomatics, etc etc (a companion level campaign) needs too time and energies. I cannot be a full time player (even if I love to ).
MShipley88 wrote: Did I say 187? I was exagerating...it is something more like 137, with the possiblity of temporary hit points when the character is berserk. You never stop getting hit dice in 3.5. 187 would be more like 15th level...which is still playable in 3.5. The cloud giant would have to roll pretty well...or there could be two of 'em! Two rounds is probably more realistic. :lol:
bbarsh wrote:Deadlord36 wrote:There are level limits on nonhuman characters because they have other bonuses. If they didnt have restrictions, who in the world would want to play a human?It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith. I know this may be hard pill for most rpgers to swallow, but games require mechanics to work. That is, there are systems of balance and counter-balance. In the old days, games were designed with certain mechanics in place (i.e. dwarves can't be rangers). The problem (for some people) is that game mechanics don't always make sense or are just plain stupid. But they make the game work - there is balance of a sort. That's 1e AD&D. ...
bbarsh wrote:Traveller wrote:bbarsh wrote:It seems that Dead and I are the only disciples of the old faith.I highly doubt that. Just because I speak of the game I had a (small) hand in creating doesn't mean that I've given up on OD&D, B/X D&D, or AD&D.I am not saying that at all. In fact, I am not trying to knock down the new game, either. Just pointing out, what I feel, is a major disconnect between the two.
