No, I'm citing the actual rules as they have been since Gary and Dave wrote the White Box. You hate that. I suggested you play a game more to your liking and not change what already is. It must be too difficult for you.
It's only a mechanical benefit since you can't force players to narrate shit. You've already proven that.
You actually did, but I'll let you off the hook this time. I don't feel like making you look like a bigger ass.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
I let players roll with the punches and figure it out. If they get low scores, then they got low scores, its gonna get harded to succeed for them, but thats a good thing.
Finally we agree on something. Almost all of the characters in my current game have one or two really good stats out of 7 with the rest being between 7-10 as the lowest.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
Barring some extreme cases. Standing there and taking whatever is thrown at you will get you killed sooner or later in any edition, even by a solitary peasant.
Thanks for admitting that even a lowly level 0 peasant can kill you in Real D&D™. Nobody said anything about standing there and taking it either. This is a strawman.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
This whole argument makes no sense at all "If you want to be absolute shit at something, you better compromise your entire progression". Isnt a good argument. Its far more elegant to use proficiency for it, its also simpler, easier to track and more character defining.
Wizards are shit at melee combat regardless of the weapon they use. However, that's not the point you were making. I gave you the fucking rules on how to play a wizard that uses swords in Real D&D™. You aren't happy with that and threw a temper tantrum. I even told you the system that allows you to play a wizard that can swing a sword. You weren't happy with that suggestion either.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
This whole argument makes no sense, if you encourage and reward something it will happen more often. Thats human nature.
Now if you want to stand up a pulpit somewhere and preach that it isnt the case be my guest, you are wrong and in doubling down you can only be more wrong.
I'm been a player and a GM longer than you've been alive. Back in the old days players actually role played. Since the 2000s players roll play. What I said is true. In order to get a narrative experience then you need players willing to narrate their actions. This means I'm not wrong.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
Thats plenty of spells to be honest, and they are all fairly powerful, even the level 1 ones. Nothing wrong with telling them "You cant concentrate on keeping 2 spells alive at the same time.", like I said, in fantasy wizards usually have one spell active if any at all, because it makes more narrative sense and keeps things interesting. "Buffing up" was always such a retarded and gamey concept.
Level 1 spells are powerful for level 1-2 for the most part and that is based on if they scale with the wizard's level. You do understand that Real D&D™ magic is Vanican and fire and forget unless you house rule it. Like I have a rule in Myths that spellcasters have to make a Spellcraft check to actually cast the spell.
Buffing up was the result of the CRPGs and save scumming not done at the table.
You're the one that brought up the fact that wizards and priests got newer spells. You just left out the part I highlighted. What's the matter is it hard for you to admit that you were actually wrong about the rules?
The only one arguing in bad faith is you. You refuse to use the rules as written and create strawmen to "allow you to win". I'm shoving your bad faith right back at you. You get what you dish out from me and you know this.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
I didnt lie, I claimed leather armor is only useful at low level, then you tell me leather armor stops being useful at mid levels
Yes, you did lie and I proven it with the rules. Now you act all smug. It's hilarious that we're all laughing at you over your retardation and failure to admit you were wrong.
Lhynn wrote: ↑
February 24th, 2023, 00:18
eah, no. I think you hate opinions because you hate anything new and refuse to see the implications of some mechanics. Some 5e ideas are good, though they arent really 5e, they were stolen from better systems and I think AD&D would benefit from some of them being implemented.
I don't hate opinions. I hate people with opinions that use lies to argue in bad faith like with calling Gary's original rules for spellcasters being gamey.
I've played and run well over 50 RPG systems. How many have you played and ran? How many rules systems did you write? I've written dozens.
You came to me to argue that Generic Fantasy Superhero the 5th Shitting was good. I said it wasn't because it's not Real D&D™. You proceeded to trash Real D&D™ like the fucking retard you are.
AD&D 2E is the closest thing to perfection for Real D&D™. It runs smooth and gives the group a lot of options for narrative gameplay. It rewards you for coming up with creative solutions to the problems you face. You get xp for overcoming the obstacle which means you have parlay, flee, ambush, fight, or whatever you can think of to overcome it. You have actual resource management as well. Oh you can die and lose levels to monsters that have energy drain. Your character is a mortal hero not an immortal superhero that at first level is more powerful than a 1st level AD&D 2E character. In fact, Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Fifth Shitting first level character is the equivalent to a 5th level AD&D 2E character.
Never mind the fact, that you are unshackled in your bonuses and you can easily improve your stats. Not so in Real D&D™.
Hey you like shit. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't call Generic Fantasy Superhero RPG the Fifth Shitting D&D because it's not. Real D&D™ died when TSR did. Nothing in Wizard's piss poor imitators has any of the original mechanics in it. That was my fucking point and it flew right over your thick head.