u/ApprehensiveType2680

https://preview.redd.it/3p5qrechcekh1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=92db8443e32eb526021488f5994338b2aa69d747

Hello, everyone.

If you had asked me about Dark Sun a little under one year ago, I would have said "I never played Dark Sun, nor am I interested in Athas, but I am vaguely familiar with it thanks to a particular cRPG." Well, things change. Although standard high fantasy is still my go-to setting, I have come to appreciate the qualities of this spent world created by Denning and Brown. If nothing else, this is a fantastic place to hold regular "one-shots" (an occasional change of pace, if you will).

By the way, I once had an opportunity to snag the "revised" boxed set; thankfully, I waited until I could find the original release. From what I understand, the revised version softens the depiction of Athas thanks to certain developments both in the actual game line itself and in the line of accompanying novels.

Good day, everyone.

Using the rules for Morale, how would you game out a PC wielding fire solely to scare away a beast? When I say "beast", I mean the mundane sort (e.g., a great cat), instead of a "larger than life", "legendary" or outright supernatural specimen. Fires would typically include torches and bonfire equivalents (we're assuming the fire was either already on hand or was hurriedly prepared), as well as low-level spells such as Pyrotechnics and Burning Hands.

The 2e modifiers below seem to be germane to this discussion.

>* Creatures with 4 to 8+ HD +1
* Defending home +3
* Creatures are fighting wizards or magic-using foes –2 (Does this require human-level knowledge of spellcasters?)
* Defensive terrain advantage +1 (this might apply with, say, a large bird attacking a human in mountainous territory)

Hello there, everyone.

This discussion is based on 2e material, but any edition which embodied a similar design philosophy is fair game. When leafing through a book for raw content (or, perhaps, inspiration), I find myself excising references to Spelljammer (appearing in any product from 1990 onward) and Planescape (1994 onward). The appeal of those settings is obvious, but there is a strange effect when undeniable knowledge of travel to other planets ("crystal spheres") and/or planes of existence is part and parcel of a classic fantasy campaign: everything shrinks.

That might sound right funny, but it makes a kind of sense. The ordinarily vast distances between villages, towns, cities, kingdoms, etc, that would necessitate adventures in and of themselves suddenly seem much smaller. Local events are nothing in comparison to multiversal and extraplanar affairs; the stakes of saving the mayor's daughter of Greendell are utterly insignificant set alongside the wresting of a demigoddess from Tarterian clutches. Satisfaction attained by achieving (comparatively) humble victories is diminished in a way that I believe cannot be undone, short of starting a new campaign while dialing back the focus.

I severely doubt this is any sort of revolutionary thinking. However, I do wonder - aside from selling products, naturally - why this sort of "meta inclusion" persisted in one form or another throughout the 90s. Did TSR executives operate under the notion that most every setting needed a grand interconnected atmosphere writ large? To me, the possibility of taking an adventure to the next step isn't the problem, provided the DM has the freedom to create opportunities which neatly align with the story in his game; it is the default assumption (i.e.,"Of course every world has access to spaceships." or "Of course every world has planar vagabonds coming and going.") that I find undesirable.

P.S. This brand of dilution can be achieved with convenient same-plane teleportation found in the PHB (although, that requires an abundance of master spellcasters, which, in turn, jacks up the overall power level of a world).

P.P.S. Planescape material is generally excellent (particularly, the trio of "Planes of" boxed sets); properly and surgically applied to planar adventures that have been truly earned through many trials, it can work wonders.

Greetings.

I found the perfect garment for a priestess of a love goddess (the sort disinclined to don armor); this treasure can be found in either Old Empires or the relevant Encyclopedia Magica volume.

>Robe of Protection

>These robes were typically worn only by the priests of Horus-Re, but they are now worn by priests of many different religions. They are said to be sewn by the priestesses of Nephthys. The robes, soft to wear but solid against the blows of the enemy, are emblazoned with the symbol of the appropriate deity. They provide protection for Mulhorand priests in battle and in places where it is not acceptable to wear armor.

AC adjustment begins at AC 6 and goes all the way down to AC 0. Based on the description, would you say this formidable magical item works in tandem with Rings of Protection, Bracers of Defense and the like?

Greetings!

Do default magical Bows (ref. the DMG) allow a wielder with Strength 16 or higher to enjoy his Strength bonus to damage? Must an enchanted Short or Long Bow specifically be designed to take advantage of high draw strength? If the latter is true, why is every bow in the various official supplements never described as such?

Is this a matter of game balance or...an altogether different consideration? Developer oversight, maybe?

Hello!

Here is a slightly out of left field question for DMs (and self-aware players, too): has there ever been something your players requested (e.g., more action, more realism, more titanic monsters, more treasure, etc) that they ended up realizing wasn't to their liking? The expression of this reaction can range from a quiet statement to vehement rejection, but the important thing is that perception did not live up to reality.

Good afternoon, all.

While looking at the "Horse" entry in the Monstrous Manual, I got to thinking: besides the obvious, such as horses being swift, while mules are hardier than many horse breeds (not to mention stubbornly intelligent!), is there any tangible (i.e., game mechanical) reason why a party would choose the latter for crossing terrain that ranges from merely "hilly" to outright "mountainous"? The aforementioned MM does say...

>Sterile hybrids of horses and donkeys, mules are very sure-footed and exceptionally stubborn. They can be ridden by patient handlers who know how to control them, but are best used as pack animals in difficult or mountainous terrain.

Is this potential benefit left solely to the DM's discretion? Are there any rules which definitively give these beasts of burden an edge while moving uphill and/or along narrow paths typical of terraced land? I am fine either way; this is just a matter of satisfying my curiosity.

Also, I vaguely recall mules being capable of subsisting on "lesser" fare; that ought to be a factor in their favor when the land is notably stingy.

The title of this discussion mentions "Second Edition", but answers from AD&D are also welcome.

Hello!

What sort of weapons are usually found on a farm? I know that retired adventurous sorts could theoretically have any kind of arms (e.g., ye olde trust sworde passed onto the next generation), but I was thinking in general terms. Of course, many farming implements can be used in a pinch as a means of defense, but I had specific-purpose items in mind.

I have the 2nd ed PHB and DMG. I can get other products to fill gaps if needed.