Search results

Great character, but defenitely no Lawful Good paladin. As a Paladin of Freedom (UA) it'd be fine.

just contemplate this: 2 serial killers love each other, but roam the land murdering wantonly. Would you say they were Chaotic Good? You could make a CG succubus, but the fact that she is in love is no reason to qualify her as such.

Isn't it simply the fact that he was using a higher-level scroll of teleport?

Assuming that Water Bob is still playing his low magic Conan campaign, I can imagine playing out merchant encounters is fun. As a Forgotten Realms player on higher levels with vast amounts of treasure, that could easily take up multiple sessions of shopping. We tend to adopt Orion's tactic...

I'm probably pretty stupid, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Keep up the discussion, even though the point is moot for me. The wife just veto'd against me DM-ing again. (last time it was one of the reasons I got a burn-out).

maybe this would work to balance things out a bit: * at character creation, non-casters get a magic item and casters don't

Thanks for the initial replies! * Alchemical items are in. * They can get magical healing from party clerics/druids/etc. Otherwise, they just have to be careful. I've got a gaming group of very experienced and tactical players. Part of the reasoning to introduce a low-magic campaign is...

Oh, I forgot to note: PC's can be whatever they want (also spellcasters/psionics). Spellcasters are rare, not non-existent.

Hi, I'll be DM-ing again for the first time in a few years. The concept is a D&D 3.5 homebrew low magic campaign. I was wondering whether you could give me some tips to properly incorporate the low-magic bit. This is what I got sofar: * Magic items are rare remnants from another era...

Tomb of Horrors 3.5e version was by far the msot fun ever! Expedition to Castle Ravenloft comes second.

People were a lot shorter in the middle ages, ever visited a medieval castle/armoury? check the door heights end armours, they are tiny. 6'1" was exceptionally tall outside of Scandinavia in those times. I think the '5'3" average you qoute for Samurai would come closer to the average...

yes, and yes. Although it wasn't about a romantic relationship, but pure lust. Our party Barbarian is a hunk, but sadly not interested in the most beautiful women alive. He prefers ugly wenches.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. Really helped me in vocalizing, defining and understanding the problem(s) better, so I can maybe avoid it in the future.

I also agree that +2 to one and +1 to the other scores seems OP. I'd rather have them give all races a +2 to a specific score and the humans +1 to all.

I think the test has hardly any validity for whatever media. Regardless, criteria A should still be within your group's abilities. They just have to play female characters once in a while.

Criteria A: two female PCs having a discussion without the rest present not about men? pass, easily, on several occasions. Criteria B: haven't had more than 1 female player in our game at the same time, so not possible.

I agree, booting B and C would have solved the problem as well. But A, B, C, E, and F are all good friends, and D (Flumph) was only a friend of F and just an acquaintance to the rest. If someone had to go the choice was easy. If we didn't allow the situation to fester, probably no-one had to...

Just to point out, concerning these instances, we did voice our concerns! He just didn't acknowledge them as an issue. I am surprised about him being so surprised. The problem here partly was, who the authority figure is in our group. I must say, if I was the DM in this game, I'd ask him to...

Read the how to play. I'm pleased with the changes. they fixed surprise and introduced a nifty way of AoO. No free extra attacks, but a way you can respond to actions from otherplayers. Basing is in again!

I'm actually happy to hear that they put some form of AoO back in. Now I'm off to read the actual playtest package instead of this forum.