D & D Diatribe

[teh bunneh]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Actually' date=' the thought just struck me - perhaps D&D players have always been essentially life support systems for their magic items because it's the magic items that differentate them?[/quote']

 

That was one of the things that kinda annoyed me about D&D. I run a low-magic world, in which magic items are rare. You've got a better chance of being struck by lightning than finding a magic weapon. But the default D&D system is geared towards games with lotsa magic items, so it became difficult to properly gauge how challenging an encounter would be. CR6 is supposed to be a good fight for a team of 6th level characters, but what if none of them has a magic weapon? Suddenly CR6 becomes something more like a CR12!

 

It was also kind of annoying to talk to other D&D players and hear them say, "Yeah, my 10th level fighter has a Ring of Regeneration and a Sword of Swiftness +4 and Chainmail of Etherealness +2 and..." And then I'd respond by saying, "Yeah, the 10th level fighter in my game is pretty happy with the masterwork great sword he just picked up..."

 

Still and all, D&D can be tons o' fun if you want to play that style of game.

 

Bill "Another +3 sword? Eh, just throw it in the pile" Keyes.

[SaintQuakko]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

I know' date=' I know. Given the (artificial, to me) distinction between Divine and Arcane, I can see why Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins share the same "source" of power - divinely granted magic. I can see how Wizards and Bards share the same "magic as a learnable skill" source. But Sorcerers? They are defined as having innate, spontaneous powers. Yet they need the same gestures, incantations and components as Wizards. And they cast the very same spells, including spells named after their "inventor". I can't wrap my mind around that.[/quote']

I believe (and may be wrong) that the official take on the matter is that wizards use long study and memorization of formulas to produce magical effects. Sorcerors use their force of will to bring about the same formulas spontaneously.

 

That is to say that a Bigby's Crushing Fist is exactly the same spell no matter if it's cast by a Sorc or a Wiz.

 

I like to think of it this way: A trained classical guitarist can play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" by knowing the notes and memorizing them. An improv musician with no formal training still needs the guitar, but he can still play Mary Had a Little Lamb."

[Guest taxboy4]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

That was one of the things that kinda annoyed me about D&D. I run a low-magic world, in which magic items are rare. You've got a better chance of being struck by lightning than finding a magic weapon. But the default D&D system is geared towards games with lotsa magic items, so it became difficult to properly gauge how challenging an encounter would be. CR6 is supposed to be a good fight for a team of 6th level characters, but what if none of them has a magic weapon? Suddenly CR6 becomes something more like a CR12!

 

It was also kind of annoying to talk to other D&D players and hear them say, "Yeah, my 10th level fighter has a Ring of Regeneration and a Sword of Swiftness +4 and Chainmail of Etherealness +2 and..." And then I'd respond by saying, "Yeah, the 10th level fighter in my game is pretty happy with the masterwork great sword he just picked up..."

 

Still and all, D&D can be tons o' fun if you want to play that style of game.

 

Bill "Another +3 sword? Eh, just throw it in the pile" Keyes.

 

 

Yep agree, fr the past two years odd I've run my games pretty lean on the treasure. In my games a stell weapon of any sort is a major plus and trying to afford chainmail....

 

The players had a whinge and for something different I'm upping the magic somewhat, maybe to mid level but a gold peice (Sovereign) in my game will feed / house you for a month, easy....

 

D&D burns me when you kill (another) dragon and carry (???!!!) out 30,000gp of treasure..after 1st level sp and cp are not worth taking....

 

p.s. loved the quote re d&D characters are only differentiated by their magic items...I think D&D can be used to play a good Fantasy game but it takes good players / DM to overcome the system first...

[Nuke]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

p.s. loved the quote re d&D characters are only differentiated by their magic items...I think D&D can be used to play a good Fantasy game but it takes good players / DM to overcome the system first...

 

A good DM and players will make almost any system fun, because the system should be the secondary reason why you are playing. Good roleplaying and DM cooperation can allow you to play the character you want under any system.

 

I think FH and D&D each have their places. Here recently, we had 8 players in our higher powered FH campaign that had been running for around six years (started on 175, ended at around 550). As you can guess, combat took so long it wasn't fun. At this point, we revised the FH rules to become more D&D-like so that it was possible to move from 1 combat encounter every other adventure to nearly 2 every adventure.

 

I will disclaim my thoughts by the following facts:

1) My D&D experiences were always with custom DM written adventures.

2) My DM always modified monsters here and there to keep you on your toes. I was fighting 3rd level goblin wizards 15 years ago.

3) I have been very lucky to have always played with "pretty good" players. Sure, we all maximized to the best of our abilities, but we also were focused on story development.

4) As a group, we worked to extend the rules as needed when something was impossible to do that we thought should be there.

 

Even though it may have copied, I think 3rd edition did a good job integrating some important features it was missing. And yes, hands down, I will always believe that Hero is superior in creating "the EXACT character you want". I have not seen anything to compare with it in that aspect.

 

-- Nuke

[Vanguard00]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

I wonder if it’s a mentality issue…

 

D&D (in all its incarnations) is not readily adaptable. You either go by the rules or you don’t, and going outside the rules makes things…unwieldy. You can, of course, and I have in many D&D games over the years. We make up rules as we need them, but they don’t necessarily gel with the rest of the system. They’ve gotten better, of course, but I believe that the gamer’s mind that is trained to D&D (and similar systems) is less open to adaptation and improvisation than one who’s mind is trained to Hero System (and similar systems). Hero System has built-in safeguards to allow for “going outside the rules†without penalty or even much in the way of apprehension. In self-comparisons these systems work fine, but when applying one system’s standards to the other they fall apart. It’s not a fault, merely a difference, and I think in many ways the difference is in the players’ mentality, not the inherent rules.

[Curufea]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Plus there is the belief that roleplaying means combat - and that it means getting power/making your character more powerful - and that can only happen from killing things.

 

So, what - there are no skilled craftsmen in D&D land? Or as part of their apprenticeship they must spend 10 years killing monsters so they have enough skill points to make a decent piece of jewellry?

[Fitz]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

I have a love/hate relationship with AD&D and D&D -- I love playing D&D, I just hate D&D. If you follow me.

 

I really like playing in a high fantasy milieu, mainly because of the very odd things that happen as a matter of course. I really loved AD&D, which was my introduction to the world of roleplaying, but became increasingly frustrated with the straitjacket the system imposed on character development. I started using Champions for fantasy gaming back in the olden days when it was a flimsy 64-page paperback, and stuck with it (through 4th Ed.) until D&D3e was released. I got all enthusiastic about D&D3e because it seemed to pretty much keep the old AD&D feel while allowing for more freedom of development. However, after a year or so of playing with it, I came to realise that the straitjacket had just been let out a bit in the gussets, and though a more comfortable fit than in the old days, it still wasn't what I really wanted.

 

And so back to Hero. If only I had someone other than myself who was willing to GM Fantasy Hero, but those are the breaks.

[Markdoc]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Oh I know exactly what you mean, Fitz - I'm off to play D20 tonight and I expect it to be as much fun as previous sessions. We have a good group and it's nothing to take too seriously.

 

I expect it will eventually end in tears - I enjoy mutilating character concepts too much and D20 makes it too easy (for example, last week "I'll hide by the riverbank til the orcs run past. As they run past, I get an attack of opportunity right? Good. I'll go into a Rage and use my clerical special power of strength. I have combat reflexes, so that's 4 attacks with greatsword at Strength 23..."). I can barely wait to get to third level!

 

But when I'm running a game, d20 is simply too restrictive: it requires rewiring parts of my brain I don't want to mess with just to run a halfway logical game.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nuke]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

So' date=' what - there are no skilled craftsmen in D&D land? Or as part of their apprenticeship they must spend 10 years killing monsters so they have enough skill points to make a decent piece of jewellry?[/quote']

 

This is a great argument against DnD. However, the players are adventurers and therefore the rules work well for them. You can very easily bend the rules for the non-adventuring NPC craftsmen of the world and say they gain X skill points per year or something.

 

I really like playing in a high fantasy milieu' date=' mainly because of the very odd things that happen as a matter of course.[/quote']

 

I find this a common and strange argument on this thread because this seems to be a comment about the setting rather than the rules.

 

I'm not 100% for either system, I just think they each have their place and you can have fun in either. The best thing I think about Hero is that you can be a more focused craftsman adventure much easier than you can in DnD because DnD has no method of converting XP into skill points if you'd like to keep your level lower but be more skillful. Also, it is much easier to play somebody "multiclassed" in Hero. Also also, I think it is much easier to match your character to what you see in movies or books.

 

-- Nuke

[Guest taxboy4]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

This is a great argument against DnD. However, the players are adventurers and therefore the rules work well for them. You can very easily bend the rules for the non-adventuring NPC craftsmen of the world and say they gain X skill points per year or something.

 

 

 

I find this a common and strange argument on this thread because this seems to be a comment about the setting rather than the rules.

 

I'm not 100% for either system, I just think they each have their place and you can have fun in either. The best thing I think about Hero is that you can be a more focused craftsman adventure much easier than you can in DnD because DnD has no method of converting XP into skill points if you'd like to keep your level lower but be more skillful. Also, it is much easier to play somebody "multiclassed" in Hero. Also also, I think it is much easier to match your character to what you see in movies or books.

 

-- Nuke

 

 

Unbeliever you must die!!!!

 

See - I can pretend to be a D&D supporter too.....

 

- Just kidding but if you voice any disregard with a lot of D&D supporters (esp on my local site) its like you are attacked as an unbeliever, only had attacks and accusations of starting a flamewar - not one arguement why it is a good system...

[Fenixcrest]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

My main issue is the one regarding powerful NPCs.

Take, for example, the cleric at the local temple, who for enough GP to reimburse him for the diamond, plus a little for the gods, will cast Resurrection on a dead character. This begs the question, "wtf is he doing here? He should be saving the world, one dragon at a time!"

After all, he is of high enough level to cast a bloody huge spell like Resurrection.

Since there's no literature on this, you have to be like, "Well, um, he took an oath against violence, and was given massive healing powers in exchange."

And, given DnD's big focusing on character level, it just doesn't sit well with me. I have no problem with toolkitting the system as I did above, but it bugs me really hard in the "internal consistency" thought-stream that I have running every time I run a system.

Also, and this might just be me, but it's really hard to come up with interesting and original adventures for low-level parties. At least in HERO, you don't have to worry about challenge ratings, and such. Low-level DnD games, in my experience, are consistently just skirmishes against bandits and kobolds, and the making of fairly simple deliveries. Starting-off Fantasy HERO games, at least, can be spiced by writing up some vaguely low-powered vampire who took over a tiny mountain village. Try doing that with a d20 vampire, and having him keep the balance of power that you need.

[Curufea]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

I have problems with the whole concept of challenge ratings.

They're based on levels, and are the main justifcation for a level system, correct?

 

Why then are statistics generated randomly - and more importantly, whiy are hit points generated randomly?

 

Doesn't this fly in the face of the logic of challenge ratings and levels for comparing combat difficulty?

 

What about types of class and low-magic item settings? Is that taken into account?

 

What about lack of healers or magicians or other specialists?

 

And What the Frell are combat-oriented asian-style "monks" doing in a fantasy setting? I don't remember Monks in The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings or any other fantasy literature of ANY sort.

[tkdguy]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

D&D doesn't handle low-magic games very well. Magic is supposed to be a staple of the game. HERO and GURPS are much better at handling low-magic (or no magic) games.

 

As for monks, think of the fighting Haruchai in the Thomas Covenant novels. They fought their enemies without weapons.

[Korvar]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

D&D doesn't handle low-magic games very well. Magic is supposed to be a staple of the game. HERO and GURPS are much better at handling low-magic (or no magic) games.

 

Indeed. I've been watching with amusement the attempts of the Dark Sun group to balance various classes, given that Athas is a fairly magic-poor, and specifically, magic-item-poor, world.

 

D&D Monks, for example, can become over powerful, as their various feats are meant to balance them against characters who have powerful magic weapons. When those weapons aren't available, the balance is lost.

[Solomon]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Not any more - I've just started playing d20 D&D and the multiclass system lets you ride all over other people's schticks' date=' since once you multiclass you get *exactly* all the powers they have, just a few level behind (and of course you shortly end up just one level behind, because that's how levels work).[/quote']

 

Ehm, pardon? What do you mean by that? If you multiclass a few levels down the road, you'll always be that many levels behind a single-class character.

 

Actually' date=' the thought just struck me - perhaps D&D players have always been essentially life support systems for their magic items because it's the magic items that differentate them?[/quote']

 

 

I've seen players take steps to protect their magic items even if it meant exposing the character to lethal danger. After all it's often easier to resurrect a character than to acquire certain magic items.

 

Oh I know exactly what you mean, Fitz - I'm off to play D20 tonight and I expect it to be as much fun as previous sessions. We have a good group and it's nothing to take too seriously.

 

I expect it will eventually end in tears - I enjoy mutilating character concepts too much and D20 makes it too easy (for example, last week "I'll hide by the riverbank til the orcs run past. As they run past, I get an attack of opportunity right? Good. I'll go into a Rage and use my clerical special power of strength. I have combat reflexes, so that's 4 attacks with greatsword at Strength 23..."). I can barely wait to get to third level!

 

I once played a Rogue with a Spiked Chain, so I could sneak attack with a 10' reach. And I got to use Weapon Finesse too! How could one apply precision-based damage with a 10' length of chain is beyond me, but then a Rogue could technically sneak attack with a pike, an halberd, or even a knight's lance from horseback...

[badger3k]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Actually' date=' sorcerors, wizards, and bards cast arcane spells, and clerics, druids, paladins and rangers cast divine spells. That's Tradition handed down from the Basic set, IIRC.[/quote']

 

The Basic Set was just Magic Users and Clerics (and Elves, I think they cast spells). The origin of the separation goes back to the original '74 rules (the three-book set) IIRC. They had the 4 basic classes, and the two archetypes of Magic-User and Cleric. Supplement 3: Eldritch Wizardry added Druids (and psionics). Bards (and Illusionists, Paladins, and Rangers) came in with the Advanced game.

[badger3k]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

That was one of the things that kinda annoyed me about D&D. I run a low-magic world, in which magic items are rare. You've got a better chance of being struck by lightning than finding a magic weapon. But the default D&D system is geared towards games with lotsa magic items, so it became difficult to properly gauge how challenging an encounter would be. CR6 is supposed to be a good fight for a team of 6th level characters, but what if none of them has a magic weapon? Suddenly CR6 becomes something more like a CR12!

 

It was also kind of annoying to talk to other D&D players and hear them say, "Yeah, my 10th level fighter has a Ring of Regeneration and a Sword of Swiftness +4 and Chainmail of Etherealness +2 and..." And then I'd respond by saying, "Yeah, the 10th level fighter in my game is pretty happy with the masterwork great sword he just picked up..."

 

Still and all, D&D can be tons o' fun if you want to play that style of game.

 

Bill "Another +3 sword? Eh, just throw it in the pile" Keyes.

 

The game system does expect you to have certain equipment by certain levels,(but the magic/save system doesn't - I did an analysis of the basic numbers a while back). It does make you wonder about how the system was set up - in some ways it appears to be an arms race, and many players basically do define their characters by what they have, rather than who they are. This can be corrected by a competent GM/Group, but the standard game does have certain preconceptions about what a group will have at what level (flight or travel magic, protectve magic, +20 swords, etc).

[badger3k]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

This is a great argument against DnD. However' date=' the players are adventurers and therefore the rules work well for them. You can very easily bend the rules for the non-adventuring NPC craftsmen of the world and say they gain X skill points per year or something.[/quote']

 

Actually, the "Story Awards" section in the DMG has no specifics, but can be applied to such things as craftsmen. The logic is that you have to be challenged to gain experience, so you can get experience if you talk your way past a guard just as if you fought him - I use that since most PCs would not be involved in crafting normal items (magic uses XP rather than gaining it), but NPCs would have different standards for what is challenging.

 

Also, you figure that it takes an NPC years to study and practice to get a high enough level, while a PC can do it in a few days (or weeks). I think this link will illustrate some other problems with Experience and Multi-Classing, although this can be modified by the GM:

 

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=126

and

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=132

 

(actually I recommend the whole strip, and I know many here read it, but those are spot on).

 

I'm not 100% for either system, I just think they each have their place and you can have fun in either. The best thing I think about Hero is that you can be a more focused craftsman adventure much easier than you can in DnD because DnD has no method of converting XP into skill points if you'd like to keep your level lower but be more skillful. Also, it is much easier to play somebody "multiclassed" in Hero. Also also, I think it is much easier to match your character to what you see in movies or books.

 

-- Nuke

 

Good points. The Unearthed Arcana book for 3x makes some headway into different experience methods (IIRC), and has some form of "Classless Classes" (just don't mention Gestalt...urk...Munchkins Wet Dream...).

[badger3k]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

My main issue is the one regarding powerful NPCs.

Take, for example, the cleric at the local temple, who for enough GP to reimburse him for the diamond, plus a little for the gods, will cast Resurrection on a dead character. This begs the question, "wtf is he doing here? He should be saving the world, one dragon at a time!"

After all, he is of high enough level to cast a bloody huge spell like Resurrection.

Since there's no literature on this, you have to be like, "Well, um, he took an oath against violence, and was given massive healing powers in exchange."

 

I see that as a problem, but more of a setting one. A cleric that high could easliy be (a) too old to adventure - as a non-adventuring cleric, it could have taken him 60 years to get to that high a level; ( he could be too frail for adventuring (physical weakness - low stats, genetic disorder that magic can't cure - allergies?), or mentally unsuited (ie pacifist); or even © he could be a retired adventurer who sees his role as supportive (or his superiors ordered him to be temple-bound).

 

I do agree that the random creation of towns and classed npcs is a bit odd to me - I prefer to make up my own and rely less on random generation.

[badger3k]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Ehm' date=' pardon? What do you mean by that? If you multiclass a few levels down the road, you'll always be that many levels behind a single-class character.[/quote']

 

I think he refers to the classes that are front-loaded, like the Barbarian (they get a lot at first level). Take a level of Barbarian for Rage, Fast Movement, Weapons skills and HP, then go into an arcane class. It's better to take it at first level since you get max HP at first level. With a multiclassed party, you could end up with a whole party who can Rage, cast spells, and use psionics while in Wild Form! They may not be as strong as a single-class, but the added versatility is supposed to compensate.

I once played a Rogue with a Spiked Chain, so I could sneak attack with a 10' reach. And I got to use Weapon Finesse too! How could one apply precision-based damage with a 10' length of chain is beyond me, but then a Rogue could technically sneak attack with a pike, an halberd, or even a knight's lance from horseback...

 

To me that is one Effed Up rule - a high level rogue can outdamage many other classes, if he has someone else attacking at the same time (and the right opponent).

[Solomon]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

I think he refers to the classes that are front-loaded' date=' like the Barbarian (they get a lot at first level). Take a level of Barbarian for Rage, Fast Movement, Weapons skills and HP, then go into an arcane class. It's better to take it at first level since you get max HP at first level. With a multiclassed party, you could end up with a whole party who can Rage, cast spells, and use psionics while in Wild Form! They may not be as strong as a single-class, but the added versatility is supposed to compensate.[/quote']

 

Then I don't get the "you get all the powers they have, just a few level behind and of course you shortly end up just one level behind" in Markdoc's post.

 

Anyhow, you're right on front-loaded classes. Sadly the only one that was fixed is the Ranger. Barbarian is still broken.

 

To me that is one Effed Up rule - a high level rogue can outdamage many other classes' date=' if he has someone else attacking at the same time (and the right opponent).[/quote']

 

Admittedly, Sneak Attack is not the most reliable of attacks - some GMs place so many undeads, constructs, plants, oozes, incorporeals and whatsnots in their adventures, that rogues almost never get to sneak attack. Also, concealment prevents sneak attacks, so a simple Blur is enough to foil any rogue.

However, I shudder to think of what a high-level rogue could do in a quasi-hystorical or low-magic campaign. And the fact that one can sneak attack several times a round is not only broken, it makes water flow uphill. Rogues who rely on many, imprecise attacks (dual weapons, Quick Shot, or both) are actually more powerful than those who rely on a single, well-placed blow.

[badger3k]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Then I don't get the "you get all the powers they have' date=' just a few level behind and of course you shortly end up just one level behind" in Markdoc's post.[/quote']

 

Actually, I guess I misunderstood it - that doesn't make sense to me either. Guess we'll wait to see what he means.

 

However, I shudder to think of what a high-level rogue could do in a quasi-hystorical or low-magic campaign. And the fact that one can sneak attack several times a round is not only broken, it makes water flow uphill. Rogues who rely on many, imprecise attacks (dual weapons, Quick Shot, or both) are actually more powerful than those who rely on a single, well-placed blow.

 

I forgot the multiple times per round - but I can remember some of the horror stories (to me) that I've heard posted. Somehow a 19th level rogue striking 3 times for a potential +30d6 damage total - even for that high level - eek!

[Jhamin]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Then I don't get the "you get all the powers they have' date=' just a few level behind and of course you shortly end up just one level behind" in Markdoc's post..[/quote']

 

If I may venture a guess...

 

In the 1st and 2nd editions of D&D you could have two or three classes at once and divide your XP evenly between them. Which sounded fair until you factor in that past about 5th level or so each level required about double the XP of the level before them. 10th-12th level characters could take about 80% of the monsters in the game. This meant that a character who divided his XP in half to cover both classes was only one level behind his buddies with one class, and since non-casters didn't get many new toys by level in 1st & 2nd you were quickly better then them, and you didn't need ultra high levels in any one class to beat on the monters.

 

3rd Edition/D20 actually only half fixed this and went too far in the other direction the rest of the time.

Now you can mix and match levels, not XP, and monsters keep scaleing forever. You never have a character that is the equal of the nastiest monters. This works great for fighting type or rogue characers, but really hurts spellcasters. By the time you are a 5/5 fighter/wizard your third levels spells are nearly worthless while your buddy the 10th level wizard is kicking a$$ with his 5th level spells and the 10th lvl fighter is power attacking his way to twice the damage your character is with a sword.

 

The old editions rewarded getting good at everything, the penalty for not sticking every plus into one pile was small, and the rewards of spreading them around was large.

 

In 3rd, you are rewarded for specializing. Every plus/caster level/feat/etc you don't put toward your primary focus is all but wasted. Being kind of good at lots of things gets you killed when you fight monsters designed to take on uber-specialized characters.

 

However, I shudder to think of what a high-level rogue could do in a quasi-hystorical or low-magic campaign. And the fact that one can sneak attack several times a round is not only broken, it makes water flow uphill.

 

You underestimate the mind-boggling power of all other 3rd editon classes. Spellcasters can easily do that kind of hurt with their spells (and they have plenty) and a 19th level barbarian can likely take those hits and throw back an attack series that can match it. Without needing all the setup. Multiple Sneek attacks do seem broken at first glance, but trust me: They don't stick out in a party throwing around time stops, harms, +50 Dmg x3 Power attack criticals, holy smites and so on.

 

Rogue multiple Sneak Attacks are scary, but they need them to compete with the other classes, and the monsters those classes fight. (although I do agree with the assesment that lots of attacks are king)

[Markdoc]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

Ehm' date=' pardon? What do you mean by that? If you multiclass a few levels down the road, you'll always be that many levels behind a single-class character.[/quote']

 

No - you'll always be the same number of *experience points* behind. In D20 that works out to levels behind, since all levels cost the same (a smart change in my opinon), but in every other D&D variant, you'll end up one level behind because of the cheapness of lower levels.

 

I once played a Rogue with a Spiked Chain' date=' so I could sneak attack with a 10' reach. And I got to use Weapon Finesse too! How could one apply precision-based damage with a 10' length of chain is beyond me, but then a Rogue could technically sneak attack with a pike, an halberd, or even a knight's lance from horseback...[/quote']

 

"Eh, Roland, do you hear a sound like the drumming of hooves?"

"Oh, it's probably nothing. Focus on the chess game."

 

Yeah, it's best not to think about these things too much. My wife does that - in our most recent session, my character deliberately veered close to the scary wood. After the inevitable fight she berated me for my "foolishness" (to be fair, two of us almost died - but hey, we were were all better in a couple of days). But, umm, how else am I going to go up levels? You don't get any points for "cunningly avoiding random encounters" in d20! Some things that seem common sense simply don't apply in the D20verse.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lupus]

Re: D & D Diatribe

 

No - you'll always be the same number of *experience points* behind. In D20 that works out to levels behind, since all levels cost the same (a smart change in my opinon), but in every other D&D variant, you'll end up one level behind because of the cheapness of lower levels.

Um... except when multiclassing, you don't restart the XP chart.

 

If you're a level 5 fighter, and you pick up level 1 wizard, you're a level 6 character overall. You need 6000xp in order to level up to fighter 5/wizard 2, exactly as if you were going from fighter 6 to fighter 7.

 

Are you perhaps thinking of AD&D Dual-classing? Where you dropped your first class, and couldn't use its features until you exceeded your old class' level? In that case, you restarted the XP table...