| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Echon |
Posted - 30 Nov 2002 : 18:48:15
I promised I would return later with other complaints. I would still like to know what you think, however.
- Spellbooks:
According to DMG spellbooks are split up into standard spellbooks and travel spellbooks. Of course, only travel spellbooks may be used for adventuring. I do not see why. As long as it can fit within his backpack and as long as he can carry it, everything seems fine to me. A second issue is the maximum number of pages within each. A stardard can have nothing more than 100 and a travel no more than 50. That is a very thin book even with thick sheets of paper. Seems silly to me.
-Identification:
Except when using luckstones (if using material components), the exact number of pluses or charges are never revealed. Since luckstones do not grow on trees, a large number of items will remain unindentified. I am not sure how they expect people to handle this. Should the DM secretly modify every dice roll?
Robes, Tomes, Manuals & Librams. All of which are unindentifiable with anything short of a wish. I think it would be fair to allow PCs to identify these items if the identify is combined with spells such as commune, divination and contact other plane. These are just examples.
Bying magical items is an okay thing to allow players to do in my opinion (after having played BG I & II and other I.E. games (of course, the reason for doing it that way in these games is because the PCs cannot manufacture their own)). DMG is very much against this and claims that no magical 'shops' should exist and that players should only revice very little gold if trying to sell these items or pay extreme amounts of money if trying to buy anything. However, even if such shops do not exist, there are always the Arcane from Monstrous Manual. Well, what I am getting at is that if players buy anything from Arcanes will they need to identify it even if the Arcane how told them what it is and how it works - Arcanes are, of course, honest? Still, identify is the only sure way to find out - a good way to cheat exess money out of PCs if they buy fake or cursed items from dishonorable members of society.
-Echon |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Artalis |
Posted - 11 Dec 2002 : 20:24:39
I allow my players to identify nearly everything...unless it is important to the plot that they not or I just don't want them to know.
Further I only use cursed items when the plot calls for it. I think the proliferation of cursed items in the DMG is odd. Considering the prodigious amount of work required to create such an item who would bother?
I would characterize my campaign as lenient but requiring a lot of thought. My primary concern is that everyone has a good time. It's hard to have a good time when your carefully created character has (insert curse/ailment of your choice) all the time. |
| Echon |
Posted - 09 Dec 2002 : 18:51:05
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
For someone who prefers 2nd edition over 3rd edition, you do have a lot of complaints on AD&D 
I know. But I could easily compile an equal list of complaints about 3E. I have read Player's Handbook (so now my knowledge is not based solely on CRPGs) and I still do not like it. I am, however, considering incorperating a few 3E elements in AD&D (bonus spells for mages and +1 to an ability every 4th level).
quote:
Though the DMG and Player's Handbook do provide rules which state the things you wrote in your post, nothing can stop you from revisiting these rules and adapting them to your own wishes. DM's prerogative. That's why there were so many 'house-rules' all over the place, some of which got incorporated into the third edition.
Well, nothing is stopping me from altering rules but I was not sure if I was doing it the right way. Discussing some of the issues here was very helpful.
quote:
Being realistic, in the near future there will also be a plethora of house-rules for 3rd edition. It's just the nature of the beast. It is impossible to satisfy all demands from the numerous gamers over the world. But IMO most of these 3rd edition house rules will focus more on little deatils rather then 'main rules', as has been the case in 2nd edition (one notable common house rule in 2e was to open weapon specialization to the entire warrior group.)
Can you give any exampls of what people do not agree on in 3E?
Regarding weapon specialization, rangers and paladins are warriors, right? To be a rules lawyer, they only gain weapon expertice - specizlization is for fighters only.
By the way, I had not noticed that you had replied to this. It seems that the 'Active Topics' option does not catch all of them.
-Echon |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 05 Dec 2002 : 15:55:45
For someone who prefers 2nd edition over 3rd edition, you do have a lot of complaints on AD&D
Though the DMG and Player's Handbook do provide rules which state the things you wrote in your post, nothing can stop you from revisiting these rules and adapting them to your own wishes. DM's prerogative. That's why there were so many 'house-rules' all over the place, some of which got incorporated into the third edition.
Being realistic, in the near future there will also be a plethora of house-rules for 3rd edition. It's just the nature of the beast. It is impossible to satisfy all demands from the numerous gamers over the world. But IMO most of these 3rd edition house rules will focus more on little deatils rather then 'main rules', as has been the case in 2nd edition (one notable common house rule in 2e was to open weapon specialization to the entire warrior group.) |
|
|
