Discussion:
What editions is everyone playing here?
(too old to reply)
John Geoffrey
2016-11-15 08:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
LL
2016-11-15 08:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
Pathfinder eastern style, with Ninja, Samurai, eastern weapons etc
h***@gmail.com
2016-11-15 09:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I play with 2 different groups
1 pathfinder
1 3.0 (core books only)

Not huge amounts of house rules
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2016-11-15 11:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
3e-Pathfinder blend currently.

There's always house rules, but far less than I had back in the day.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Tetsubo
2016-11-15 12:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
The only version that holds my interest nowadays is Pathfinder.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Ubiquitous
2016-11-15 13:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was
playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
We were playing 3rd edition.
I don't recall if we had many houserules or not.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats
did to America.
Spalls Hurgenson
2016-11-15 14:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I'm an old codger and play the edition everyone loves to hate, AD&D
2nd Ed. I personally don't get all the hate, especially since there is
a resurgence of interest in 1E; the core 2E rules are basically 1E but
cleaned up and made more accessible. Some of the later splat-books
muddied the water a bit but the core system is great (in an AD&D sort
of way). If anything, the splat-books are indicative of one of AD&D's
greatest strength: it's easy to tailor it to your own taste.

As for house rules, well of course; I would wager there's not a D&D
game played anywhere ever that hasn't used "house rules", even if some
of those consist of "I forgot about that rule". Having said that, we
don't use that many official house-rules; we still use the basic
Vancian magic system, THAC0 backwardness, proficiencies, the lot.
We've experimented over the years, making our own rules or picking and
chosing from the splatbooks but these days most of our alterations
tend towards streamlining the system, cutting or ignoring rules that
slow down gameplay too much.

It helps that our campaign tends towards lower-level adventuring, with
most PCs retiring at 10th to 12th level, which is where D&D excels;
the system balance starts falling apart when trying to deal with
high-level adventurers, but at low-level it's ideal (weak wizards and
thieves included, since that encourages party co-operation).

I've looked at other systems - more recent D&D editions, Pathfinder,
even Rolemaster (remember that one?) - but never saw any real
advantage to switching. For me, it's never been so much the rules as
the DM; our group has always focused more on the "Role Playing" aspect
of RPGs more than the Game; the rules are mostly there to add the
unexpected and to keep us from Mary-Sueing our characters. All systems
have their oddities and idiosyncratic and creaky as it is, I think
AD&D 2nd Ed still stands up well today against its competitors.
Justisaur
2016-11-15 15:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I'm an old codger and play the edition everyone loves to hate, AD&D
2nd Ed. I personally don't get all the hate, especially since there is
a resurgence of interest in 1E; the core 2E rules are basically 1E but
cleaned up and made more accessible. Some of the later splat-books
muddied the water a bit but the core system is great (in an AD&D sort
of way). If anything, the splat-books are indicative of one of AD&D's
greatest strength: it's easy to tailor it to your own taste.
As for house rules, well of course; I would wager there's not a D&D
game played anywhere ever that hasn't used "house rules", even if some
of those consist of "I forgot about that rule". Having said that, we
don't use that many official house-rules; we still use the basic
Vancian magic system, THAC0 backwardness, proficiencies, the lot.
We've experimented over the years, making our own rules or picking and
chosing from the splatbooks but these days most of our alterations
tend towards streamlining the system, cutting or ignoring rules that
slow down gameplay too much.
It helps that our campaign tends towards lower-level adventuring, with
most PCs retiring at 10th to 12th level, which is where D&D excels;
the system balance starts falling apart when trying to deal with
high-level adventurers, but at low-level it's ideal (weak wizards and
thieves included, since that encourages party co-operation).
I've looked at other systems - more recent D&D editions, Pathfinder,
even Rolemaster (remember that one?) - but never saw any real
advantage to switching. For me, it's never been so much the rules as
the DM; our group has always focused more on the "Role Playing" aspect
of RPGs more than the Game; the rules are mostly there to add the
unexpected and to keep us from Mary-Sueing our characters. All systems
have their oddities and idiosyncratic and creaky as it is, I think
AD&D 2nd Ed still stands up well today against its competitors.
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
Though what i really missed was 1e Illusionists, Druids, Monks &
Rangers. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to drop those back in. Finding
players for it these days is near impossible though.

- Justisaur
Ubiquitous
2016-11-16 16:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Justisaur
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
I still have a soft spot for 2nd edition, as I played that in college and
after i graduated for many years, but I don;t think I could ever go back to
playing it now.
Post by Justisaur
Though what i really missed was 1e Illusionists, Druids, Monks &
Rangers. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to drop those back in. Finding
players for it these days is near impossible though.
I forgot how those classes were changed for 2nd edition, other than the
Illusionist and Druid being used as templates for magical and clerical
subtypes, respectively.

OK, I did like the bit about how if an illusionist making a magic item were
interupted, the item would vanish like a dispelled illusion.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats
did to America.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2016-11-16 17:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
I still have a soft spot for 2nd edition, as I played that in college and
after i graduated for many years, but I don;t think I could ever go back to
playing it now.
My nostalgia is for the original booklets with Greyhawk, and the
original Arduin Grimoire.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Ubiquitous
2016-11-16 18:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
I still have a soft spot for 2nd edition, as I played that in college and
after i graduated for many years, but I don;t think I could ever go back to
playing it now.
My nostalgia is for the original booklets with Greyhawk, and the
original Arduin Grimoire.
I have fond memeories of the original box set with Keep on The Boarderlands.
Loading Image...
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats
did to America.
Tetsubo
2016-11-17 12:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
I still have a soft spot for 2nd edition, as I played that in college and
after i graduated for many years, but I don;t think I could ever go back to
playing it now.
My nostalgia is for the original booklets with Greyhawk, and the
original Arduin Grimoire.
I haven't looked at my Arduin books in ages. I wonder how they compare
in reality with my memories...
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
John Geoffrey
2016-11-18 11:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
I still have a soft spot for 2nd edition, as I played that in college and
after i graduated for many years, but I don;t think I could ever go back to
playing it now.
I also started D&D with 2nd edition. Back then it was amazing (and much easier to play than the games we played before), but nowadays it just seems to be lacking something, both compared to later and to earlier editions.
Justisaur
2016-11-18 19:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
It was my favorite edition, with my fondest memories. I actually found
it handled high level play better than any other edition I've played. I
prefer the flavor of 1e though, but when I ran it I still used the 1e
DMG and oft the 1e MM & FF, so it kind of still had a bit of the flavor.
I still have a soft spot for 2nd edition, as I played that in college and
after i graduated for many years, but I don;t think I could ever go back to
playing it now.
I actually did play a bit of 2e last year on play by post, it was still
fun, but PbP was just too slow for me.
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
Though what i really missed was 1e Illusionists, Druids, Monks &
Rangers. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to drop those back in. Finding
players for it these days is near impossible though.
I forgot how those classes were changed for 2nd edition, other than the
Illusionist and Druid being used as templates for magical and clerical
subtypes, respectively.
OK, I did like the bit about how if an illusionist making a magic item were
interupted, the item would vanish like a dispelled illusion.
I don't remember that bit, was that 1e or 2e?

- Justisaur
Tetsubo
2016-11-15 21:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I'm an old codger and play the edition everyone loves to hate, AD&D
2nd Ed. I personally don't get all the hate.
When I look at 1E or 2E now all I see is walls. So many walls. So many
things a player can't do. So many inconsistencies in the rules
themselves. So much that just looks like poor design in comparison to
D20 (Pathfinder). I see D20 and Pathfinder as an evolution of the
earlier rules. And like a real evolution the later species are improved.
That is where my distastes comes from. Though I do still like some of
the setting material and ideas from 2E. Just not the rules.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2016-11-16 02:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing.
And, do you houserule a lot?
I'm an old codger and play the edition everyone loves to hate, AD&D
2nd Ed. I personally don't get all the hate.
When I look at 1E or 2E now all I see is walls. So many walls. So
many things a player can't do. So many inconsistencies in the rules
themselves.
Yeah, that's pretty much what we were seeing from the beginning, which
is why when 3E came along I was really happy to see that they'd
basically knocked down most of the walls and removed most of the
inconsistencies that had been there since the original three booklets.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
JimP.
2016-11-17 01:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I'm an old codger and play the edition everyone loves to hate, AD&D
2nd Ed. I personally don't get all the hate.
When I look at 1E or 2E now all I see is walls. So many walls. So many
things a player can't do. So many inconsistencies in the rules
themselves. So much that just looks like poor design in comparison to
D20 (Pathfinder). I see D20 and Pathfinder as an evolution of the
earlier rules. And like a real evolution the later species are improved.
That is where my distastes comes from. Though I do still like some of
the setting material and ideas from 2E. Just not the rules.
I never allowed the 1e rules to limit me. I've certainly added lots of
things that 1e rules say are forbidden.
--
Jim
Justisaur
2016-11-15 15:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
5e, only because it's easiest to find players for. I don't actually
care for it much, but it works. I can tolerate it much better than
3e/4e/pathfinder.

- Justisaur
Joanna Rowland Stuart
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Justisaur
5e, only because it's easiest to find players for. I don't
actually care for it much, but it works. I can tolerate it much
better than 3e/4e/pathfinder.
WHS

5e is clean, and allows for houserules and use of the optional rules in
the PHB.

two such examples are:

a) I give all players an option at 1st level of sacrificing 2 ability
points (either 2 from one stat or 1 each from 2 stats) for a feat. This
essentially mirrors the choice at 4th level (and multiples thereof) of
choosing between a 2 point stat increase or a 2x1 point stat increase or
a feat.

b) I allow players to combine some of the features of the RAW backgrounds
to create a new (but not overpowered) background. e.g. a monk could be
allowed to take both the Hermit *and* Acolyte backgrounds to get the
features of both but not the starting gear from either, to create a
classic Anchorite priest with minimal possessions and money.




Cheers
JOanna
JimP.
2016-11-15 17:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
Not currently running anything. Some of my players and I have been
talking about getting back to gaming. I run 1E with some mods.
Basically, no level limits, multi-class for humans, and a couple of
new character classes. Along with new spells. The PC Shogosh character
is still under development as is Druid and Monk to 23rd level. One of
my players is trying to talk me into running Tunnels and Trolls.

my documents site:
http://crestofastar.drivein-jim.net/docs/
Mart van de Wege
2016-11-16 09:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was
playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
Vanilla 3.5. Just a bit of fudging on Knowledge skills, allowing someone
to take a roll using what I consider a related Knowledge with a penalty.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Spalls Hurgenson
2016-11-16 14:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I think the thing to take away from this thread is that nobody plays
4th Ed ;-)
Justisaur
2016-11-16 16:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I think the thing to take away from this thread is that nobody plays
4th Ed ;-)
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), John Geoffrey
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing.
And, do you houserule a lot?
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
I think the thing to take away from this thread is that nobody plays
4th Ed ;-)
I played 4e, but it felt like swimming against the current. At 18th
level my Rogue felt much the same as it did at somewhere around 3rd to
5th.

5e suffers from that to some extent, but not as much, I've only been up
to 8th with a sorcerer and started to see a little progression, to
paraphrase Douglass Adams from "useless." to "mostly useless."

My other major gripe with 4e was the dry textbook of the PHB full of
'game terms', this is not where you want a dry textbook, you need some
imagination and storytelling like the 1e PHB to grab potential players.
Such a book would be fine as a separate and solely reference book, but
it's horrible to read even for a jaded gamer. The DMG & MM were much
better.

The official adventure path for it was horrible too, it felt like we had
no reason for what we were doing, and the other adventures I ran were
similarly bad. The one thing I did run which went pretty well was the
Encounters, as it was set for a short 2 hour game.

The sheer number of bonuses one accumulated were really bad, I was doing
something like +39 damage from at least 5 different fiddly circumstance
dependent bonuses at the end, while I was mostly able to keep up with
this, I made mistakes frequently, and only one other player at the table
was able to keep up with his bonuses, the rest would take forever for
their turns trying to figure out all their bonuses for that round. I
found this actually far worse than 3e.

Which leads to the last and most heinous issue with it, of combats
taking forever. Typically I could get through 2 or 3 in a 6 hour game,
but I had one that lasted I think over 30 rounds and took at least 5 &
1/2, and this was one from a published adventure in dragon mag.

There's a lot I liked about it that I miss in 5e: Minions, solo
monsters, traps, easy to run & make monsters, classes balanced enough to
play in the same party without wildly different power levels (though the
wizards were pretty crap, I'd rate them about 1/2 as useful as any other
class.) prices & rules for exotic mounts, the change in the planes;
fayewild, shadowfell, even if the names suck. Which was also a
considerable issue with 4e, everything being named noun+adjective.

- Justisaur
Ubiquitous
2016-11-16 16:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Justisaur
5e suffers from that to some extent, but not as much, I've only been up
to 8th with a sorcerer and started to see a little progression, to
paraphrase Douglass Adams from "useless." to "mostly useless."
I wondered about that when I read the 5e PH. Everything seemed to be nerfed.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats
did to America.
Justisaur
2016-11-18 19:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Justisaur
5e suffers from that to some extent, but not as much, I've only been up
to 8th with a sorcerer and started to see a little progression, to
paraphrase Douglass Adams from "useless." to "mostly useless."
I wondered about that when I read the 5e PH. Everything seemed to be nerfed.
Post by Justisaur
5e suffers from that to some extent, but not as much, I've only been up
to 8th with a sorcerer and started to see a little progression, to
paraphrase Douglass Adams from "useless." to "mostly useless."
I wondered about that when I read the 5e PH. Everything seemed to be nerfed.
Pretty much. It seems much more balanced than any of the previous
editions of D&D, with the exception of 4e - which was way too balanced
(people still find ways to abuse 4e apperantly, though I didn't see it
in any games I played/ran).

5e still uses the 4e 'tiers' concept, though it's hidden and not called
out, everyone improves drastically at 5th level, fighting types get
extra attack, and spellcasters main form of attack - cantrips do 2x the
damage, so effectively everyone does 2x the damage they did (though
there's some class abilities that give a bit more damage in limited
amounts).

I think spellcasters generally do considerably less damage than fighting
types because they get low damage dice and don't get to add ability
score bonuses. They supposedly make up with it with the higher level
spells, but really only the highest level spells they know are going to
have much impact because damage scaling is by slot level not character
level. Also because of the huge increase in hit points that monsters
have what seems like a great spell has about half the effectiveness it
would pre 4e.

Magic missile for instance is 3d4+3 damage, an average of 10.5. Vs a
fighter with a long sword doing say d8+5 (with dueling), which is an
average of 9.5, but the fighter can do that all day, sure he may miss
once in awhile. Taking a typical low level monster - a skeleton, has 13
hp, and AC 13. That fighter is at +5 to hit, so he's hitting on a roll
of 8 or more, and requires 2 hits to kill it. Meanwhile the wizard does
the same damage with a spell he's got 3 of at 1st level, so he could
kill one skeleton in 2 rounds and injure another skeleton, blowing his
wad, then reverting to probably a straight d10 if he took firebolt as a
cantrip, doing about half the damage the fighter does. Take say an
average 5 encounter day and the wizard is looking really bad.

O.k. so maybe magic missile is a poor choice. Sleep might be better,
but when I used it it was pretty useless, I slept a couple kobolds, the
others just woke them back up. We could take something inbetween, say
Burning Hands (though I've found thunderwave more popular) which does
3d6 - again an average of 10.5 in an area, save for half. Lets say
that's 3 opponents (about what I usually see it get). Unfortunately
Burning Hands or Thunderwave put the wizard in some serious danger as
they have to be right up in the monster's face. So their eating up
either their own spells (mage armor/shield) to do that or the cleric's
to heal them, or perhaps both. Lets say over 5 fights, a 'typical
adventuring day' he does that 2 times (having to burn one spell, his
refresh on mage armor to give marginally better safety up close, and
shield to save his ass once), Say half of those save taking 5 damage,
He's done 47.25 damage with those. Lets those fights have 2 or 3
skeletons (easy or hard fights for a party of 4, say a total of 3 with 2
and 2 with 3, so 12 total) so they have a total of 157 hit points.

Actually that would mean he's done more than his fair share since that's
more than 1/4 the HP, and that's before adding in any cantrip damage. Of
course a lot of that is probably wasted as damage over/under what's
needed to kill them. Another way to look at it would be that would let
him kill 3 (each saves then fails the next) out of 12 which would be
exactly his fair share. I suspect it's the uncertainties of actual
combat vs. this averaged damages that make it seem like the wizards are
useless. Or perhaps it's less burning hands off than I represented,
using instead 2 shields to keep from getting knocked out.

At least when I was playing it was probably more the DM kept punishing
us with really hard encounters. He was running a 3e module and changing
out the monsters with 5e versions, it's possible he didn't realize how
much relatively harder they are in 5e, I know I didn't until I
discovered the party/monster size adjustment formulas. Referencing
those skeletons again they are CR 1/4, but unlike with 3e that doesn't
mean that 4 of them are an appropriate encounter for a 1st level party,
that means that 2 of them are an easy encounter, and 3 a hard encounter,
neither of them are a typical encounter. 4-5 CR 1/8 Kobolds are a
medium encounter, not 8 as you would do with CR 1/8 ones in 3e. Even 7
would actually up them to 'deadly' territory.

Which I don't really like, I prefer using larger numbers of monster,
instead in 5e you should typically be fighting lower numbers of monsters
than your group size.

- Justisaur
John Geoffrey
2016-11-18 11:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
I think the thing to take away from this thread is that nobody plays
4th Ed ;-)
Back in the days I was surprised by 4th edition. I was not interested in D&D for a few years, and all of a sudden I saw that in my gamestore. I leafed through it and was overtaken by a feeling of I-don't-care. The art, the text, the few mechanics... were everything I didn't like about 3 and 3.5 taken up to 11. And while I tried to get into it later I just never cared enough.
I actually started the thread partly because I wanted to know if people are still commonly playing it, because I never saw the point.
Zaghadka
2016-11-17 00:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:03:02 -0800 (PST), in rec.games.frp.dnd, John
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
3.5/Pathfinder hybrid with many, many house rules. We play with cards,
where each player gets 4-6 cards from a large deck that grant special
bonuses (like turn one roll into a crit, or automatically succeed on a
strength check), and "conviction," which basically allows you to add a d6
to any roll except damage. NPC BBEGs get conviction sometimes, too, but
not the mooks.
--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten
f***@yahoo.com
2016-11-18 21:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
I only play 5e at this juncture. It's my favorite version of D&D. It allows us to play the types of campaigns we used to play back in the 80s, but with a far superior ruleset. My highest level PC is a 16th Level Wizard (Diviner), and he is extremely powerful and fun to play. They are significantly more powerful than 4thed, but not as preposterously unbalanced as they were in prior editions.

I do miss the sheer volume of setting material that came out in previous editions, but most are easy to convert.
Tetsubo
2016-11-18 22:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
It allows us to play the types of campaigns we used to play back in the 80s
And here is one of the things that baffles me. It isn't possible for me
to ever play those same games from back in the 80s. I am not that
person. I don't hang-out with those people. We have spouses and kids and
mortgages. If you say, "I like rules set X best", cool. Game on. But
play the same games that we did back then? Not possible for me. The past
is a book. We can learn from it but never change it. I don't think we
should live there either.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
f***@yahoo.com
2016-12-08 20:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
It allows us to play the types of campaigns we used to play back in the 80s
And here is one of the things that baffles me. It isn't possible for me
to ever play those same games from back in the 80s. I am not that
person. I don't hang-out with those people. We have spouses and kids and
mortgages. If you say, "I like rules set X best", cool. Game on. But
play the same games that we did back then? Not possible for me. The past
is a book. We can learn from it but never change it. I don't think we
should live there either.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Yes, we are all married and have kids and mortgages, too. I wasn't talking about things outside of the game, rather, the actual games themselves. We prefer the newer rules as we are older and appreciate the much better rulesets, but we didn't like they way the previous two rule sets (3.5 and 4th)prohibited us from playing the type of campaign we wanted.

I apologize for the confusion.
Tetsubo
2016-12-08 21:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Tetsubo
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing. And, do you houserule a lot?
It allows us to play the types of campaigns we used to play back in the 80s
And here is one of the things that baffles me. It isn't possible for me
to ever play those same games from back in the 80s. I am not that
person. I don't hang-out with those people. We have spouses and kids and
mortgages. If you say, "I like rules set X best", cool. Game on. But
play the same games that we did back then? Not possible for me. The past
is a book. We can learn from it but never change it. I don't think we
should live there either.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Yes, we are all married and have kids and mortgages, too. I wasn't talking about things outside of the game, rather, the actual games themselves. We prefer the newer rules as we are older and appreciate the much better rulesets, but we didn't like they way the previous two rule sets (3.5 and 4th)prohibited us from playing the type of campaign we wanted.
I apologize for the confusion.
OK. How does a rule set prevent a group from playing the game they want?
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
f***@yahoo.com
2016-12-16 21:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
OK. How does a rule set prevent a group from playing the game they want?
If our game focuses on certain areas, and the newer ruleset does not appropriately cover those areas, then it gets difficult to play without serious modification to the rules. The problem arises, is some of the rule sets are not conducive to modification, as changing one part of the rules seriously affects another part.
Tetsubo
2016-12-16 22:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Tetsubo
OK. How does a rule set prevent a group from playing the game they want?
If our game focuses on certain areas, and the newer ruleset does not appropriately cover those areas, then it gets difficult to play without serious modification to the rules. The problem arises, is some of the rule sets are not conducive to modification, as changing one part of the rules seriously affects another part.
Do you have a specific example? Because I've never encountered that issue.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
JimP.
2016-12-17 02:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tetsubo
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Tetsubo
OK. How does a rule set prevent a group from playing the game they want?
If our game focuses on certain areas, and the newer ruleset does not appropriately cover those areas, then it gets difficult to play without serious modification to the rules. The problem arises, is some of the rule sets are not conducive to modification, as changing one part of the rules seriously affects another part.
Do you have a specific example? Because I've never encountered that issue.
Neither have I. I run games, the rules obey me, not vice versa.
--
Jim

d***@bin.sh
2016-11-19 07:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing.
And, do you houserule a lot?
D&D 5e. its my favorite edition to date, ahead of 2e because the
mechanics are sensible.

a few house rules (group initiative, some new races), and a couple of
things which aren't house rules per se, just us being lazy and doing it
wrong.
--
Post by John Geoffrey
<><< /\/' \ / '\/\
/' \'' \/\ /\ /\/ ''/ '\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ n''''' '\/\/\/' \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ''' '' n '\/\/\
Justisaur
2016-11-23 23:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@bin.sh
Post by John Geoffrey
What the title says, I was wondering what everyone here was playing.
And, do you houserule a lot?
D&D 5e. its my favorite edition to date, ahead of 2e because the
mechanics are sensible.
a few house rules (group initiative, some new races), and a couple of
things which aren't house rules per se, just us being lazy and doing it
wrong.
I'm using partial group initiative, monsters go all at once, which is effectively group initiative, just the players go in their own order amongst themselves.

I've been trying to stay mostly away from house rule, but I've had to make up some for bits that just aren't fleshed out like lycanthropy. I'm curious what house rules are you using? And where can I be lazy to speed the game? :)

- justisaur
Joanna Rowland Stuart
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Justisaur
I'm using partial group initiative, monsters go all at once, which
is effectively group initiative, just the players go in their own
order amongst themselves.
I do this also, except for boss monsters, who have their own initiative.

Cheers
JOanna
Loading...