Traveller wrote:Show me an average d20 Fantasy player that can describe what their character looks like and what his personality is?
"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."
GraysonAC wrote:Traveller wrote:"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."18/00 strength eh? Mixing your systems
Traveller wrote:"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."
GraysonAC wrote:I'm not "fighting" anything ...
Xaxaxe wrote:WOTC has updated their site with their every-so-often look back at the real D&D. This time, it's a Halloween tribute to the Tomb of Horrors, complete with an art gallery and a 3.5 version of the classic module. It all appears to be freely download-able, for those interested.http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20051031a
Xaxaxe wrote:GraysonAC wrote:I'm not "fighting" anything ... Are you sure about that? You've got 13 posts in this thread ...
did anyone actually download the damn thing?
MShipley88 wrote:deimos3428 wrote:I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat... Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today. See also: "weapon specialization" and "double weapon specialization."
deimos3428 wrote:I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat... Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today.
deimos3428 wrote:I had hoped they would have fixed these sort of "power loopholes" by now. Instead, they seem to be creating more, and trying to balance them.
Traveller wrote:GraysonAC wrote:Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing.
GraysonAC wrote:Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.
deimos3428 wrote:Traveller wrote:I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing. Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.
Traveller wrote:I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing.
Deadlord36 wrote:If you give fire giants +4/+10, then you need to give dragons +6/+12 or some such, and pruple worms the same.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the d20 system. It is the ridiculous powers and characters that are in the game.
Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......
Of the General feats in the Player's Handbook 68 out of 90 are combat related. That is well over 2/3. The addition of Feats in 3E is what ruins the game. No player, not even myself, can avoid min/maxing feats and skills in 3E, and that is not roleplaying, it's powergaming.
deimos3428 wrote:Non-weapon feats (proficiencies!) are poorly written backstory footnotes at best, and an obscure attempts to get an edge at worst. Roleplaying isn't about backstories, it's about forestories. (Ok, I made that word up, but you get the point.)
deimos3428 wrote:Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.
GraysonAC wrote:The female drow example is funny to me, since the character I'm creating for one of my players (as mentioned before), happens to be a female drow. She's a bard/virtuoso though, not a paladin
GraysonAC wrote:deimos3428 wrote:Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.I don't see it as a major thing, as I've never played or ran a campaign where any character was raised from the dead more than a handful of times (at most). If your games have characters getting brought back from the dead 10+ times, then we're running games with very different feels.A loss of a level is a massive penalty that the player feels immediately, and one that doesn't go away for a long time. You lose character strength, and that's something that makes for one heck of a deterrant If the penalty was losing a point of Con in 3.5, that would also hurt like a kick in the crotch from a fire giant (and they get their strength bonuses ), but that's because of the way hit points work (+1hp/level for every two points of Con above 10). Going from 14 Con to 13 Con doesn't change anything in 1E, if memory serves. At worst, you lose a point to some of your saving throws (which is mirrored in 3.5, as you'd lose a +1 to your Fortitude save if you dropped to an odd Con score).
killjoy32 wrote:actually guys, after reading that thread on dragonsfoot and further stuff here, i put this one to you.... grayson, i would be interested too, if 3E deals with this in any way....on dragonsfoot, they are going on about the CON score and saying you can be raised X times depending on your CON score, ie. 15, allows you to be raised 15 times... ok? even frank himself was confirming this "limiting the amount of times a character can be raised"my question is this:if you look at the constitution table in the players handbook, it has "minimum scores" for a number of classes and races. if you are any of them, and your score goes lower....what happens then?if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf say youre a 12th level ranger...does it mean you suddenly cant be a ranger?how does everyone approach this situation in their games?Al
killjoy32 wrote:grayson, i would be interested too, if 3E deals with this in any way....
if youre a dwarf and then it goes lower...does that mean you cant be a dwarf
