Troll Lord Games

Fizz wrote: For fighters, how does specialization get involved? Just for specialized weapons? Or for all weapons, plus an extra half-attack for specialization? I can never seem to find a level i'm completely happy with. I can also see barbarians getting an extra half-attack, but only while in a rag...

Treebore wrote: Well hopefully the 4th printing will have the stickied EV rules in it. They are doing a lot of "changes", so hopefully upgrading the rules like EV is one of them. That would be nice to see! I would upgrade my 2nd print maybe for that... Is there any possibility we could ge...

serleran wrote: I'm thinking the 4th print will remove gnomes and half-orcs. And add Drow and Githyanki as primary races? Sweeeet. *I just puked a little in my mouth for saying that* _________________ "If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one ...

Treebore wrote: I never liked "specialty wizards". To me specializing is a frame of mind, not a class frame work. I guess I liked them because it gave the wizard more options (at least for Second Edition). The Clerics had their Specialty Priests, plus the Druid. I would have found the Wiz...

<t>Ah yes, I forgot to mention:<br/> <br/> Vista is buggy still, and has issues.<br/> <br/> XP is basically issue free...<br/> _________________<br/> "If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused...

serleran wrote: Ruins and Radiation: A Post-Apocalypse SIEGE Game Dude! I was just thinking about this yesterday while reading about Fallout 3 and looking over the Fallout RPG created by an online community. Hah! I was thinking.. hmm, would there be merit in a SIEGE Post-Apocalypse game like After ...

Troll Lord wrote: This comment was and remains a key one for me: "As all of the ADVANCED D&D system is not written yet, it is a bit early for prognostication, but I envision only minor expansions and some rules amending on a gradual, edition to edition, basis. When you have a fine product,...

<r>Woot! I love this game... only wish I had more time to play it.<br/> <br/> I picked this up right when it came out, and yes, I purchased the UK version that is not altered in any way. I'll never under stand North American garabage about how showing a nipple is bad, but hey, you can jump on someon...

adaen wrote: You could take a really zen approach and check off each use of a merit and not allow its use again until its corresponding flaw has been used.... That's simply brilliant... _________________ "If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back o...

<t>Wow, that sums up exactly how I feel... Like, every point...<br/> _________________<br/> "If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault<...

Treebore wrote: Me too, but I also like it to have a logic to it that I can agree with. I have yet to think of logical reasons to limit stacking in a way that I can agree with. You can count some magic as "force field" effects and make them not stack. I.E. ring of protection + cloak of pr...

<t>I think that there is good reason to believe this:<br/> <br/> 3.5 Sleep: A little nerfed<br/> <br/> C&C Sleep: A little powerful<br/> <br/> BUT, after reading this thread, I like the idea that the sleep spell is "indiscriminate" in it's AoE. I never thought of this, and it makes sense. If pla...

I think it would be a good idea to limit stacking more...
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

sieg wrote: Cool, have to check that out then. Back OT, one of the ones that were in the original AD&D version of the MCasC article that I dropped in the C&C version was the "Cleric/Ranger". IMO, I found it hard to see why one would do that combo (from a concept standpoint). Wanna...

<t>Yes, exactly.<br/> <br/> I don't see any where that says AC max is 30.<br/> <br/> Also, AC 30 is great for campaigns that stop at level 12. But past that, AC 30 is not much.<br/> <br/> It might actually be a good thing to have a cap of 30, but it needs to be official.<br/> <br/> I don't remember ...

Treebore wrote: I thought about only having Horsemanship with their special mount, but I axed it because it made no sense to me, the Paladin is the one who knows the Horsemanship, not the Special Mount. So I have the Paladin "know" Horsemanship, period. Besides, Horsemanship fits my conce...

Yeah, this looks great. Keep us updated please.
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

Moorcrys wrote: I liked the old AD&D, human only, lawful good, hard as hell to qualify for, tithing, magic-item limited paladin -- complete with strict paladin code and a fair but strict DM. It made the class special and exciting. When all the restrictions and limitations are taken from the cla...

serleran wrote: Not really, seeing as AC is assumed to cap at 30, and there are many ways to get modifiers to hit, such as attributes, magic items, spells, location, and so on and so forth... similar issues might be posed for high level AD&D with a wizard, for example, trying to hit an AC of -1...

<t>One way to solve this, is to combine the Knight and Paladin into one Class (give everything the Knight has, to the Paladin). Then drop the Knight class. But that's kinda going to far with it.<br/> <br/> Maybe just give the Paladin the Knight's riding abilities.<br/> <br/> On a non-mechanics note,...

<t>I wouldn't want to give a Wizard 1d8 + 1d4 at first level. I'd rather see the wizard with 1d8 at the most (equal to a peasant that way, not more).<br/> <br/> So, maybe instead just add a flat number at first level based on the classes HD.<br/> <br/> 1d12+7<br/> <br/> 1d10+6<br/> <br/> 1d8+4<br/> ...

<t>I understand the keep it simple thing (my main rule as an IT admin, KISS principle).<br/> <br/> I guess I just think individual monster primes would have been "neat".<br/> _________________<br/> "If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is ...

<t>So far lots of good ideas...<br/> <br/> On the 3/2 thing. It's not so much that "why do I get this extra attack only once in a while", but it's there because 1 whole extra attack, every round, is too much of a jump.<br/> <br/> For me, when determining if you get 1 or 2 attacks to "start the encou...

CharlieRock wrote: While I like the idea of listing the primes for all the bad guys, it's just too much work. I actually wish they had did the little extra effort to add Primes to each monster on the basis that most monster should have: 5 Primes (extremely powerful, Dragons, maybe greater demons) 4...

<t>I'm not wealthy by any means (not even lower-middle class I think?) - but I did buy my players their own PHBs... <br/> <br/> I have to commend TLG on their prices.. now if only the CKG screen at my FLGS didn't cost More than the PHBs....<br/> _________________<br/> "If everyone was drunker, was b...

<t>Wow,<br/> <br/> I never heard of this either till now.<br/> <br/> Redwall was the second fantasy novel I ever read, right after The Hobbit! <br/> <br/> I always wanted a game that was D&D but in Redwall setting and thought many times about making something like that up (and porting ideas from...

seskis281 wrote: Are we counting all the voices in our heads as a part of this discussion? "C&C is preciousssss......" Hmm, yeah, if you play 2 characters at once you count as 2 people *I really hope this thread doesn't get side tracked... damn it, I'm not helping... damn it voice in ...

Matthew wrote: Fighter, Knight, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and, yeah, I suppose Monk as well. If you're worried about balance [i.e. that Fighters lose out through this rule change], give Fighters 3/2 at Levels 1-6 and advance as necessary [i.e. 2/1 at Levels 7-12, 5/2 at Levels 13+ or some other co...

<t>I personally liked the Fractional Advancement. <br/> <br/> Mainly because, when most people have only 1 attack per round, 1 extra attack every other round was A LOT. This is the reason why people would play a fighter over a ranger. The ranger had lots of stuff, but man, that extra 1 attack every ...

serleran wrote: I am religiously opposed to the concept of a "zero difficulty." If it cannot be, reasonably, assigned something in the positive range, it does not need a check. I'd be happy with this, but only if using the 10/16 or 10/15 rule. I find it can be hard to get numbers (using o...