Discoveries/Impressions
Missed Opportunity: Still no Evil High Priest
For thirty years, I've been waiting for a dedicated Evil High Priest class. For NPC's only, of course. It just doesnt' really work for me that evil priests have so many spells in common with good priests. Yeah, I know, they reverse and all that. But I always think of Evil Priests as cultist types who don't so much worship the evil gods as strike bargains with them, and are really more akin to necromatic wizards than clerics.
They stuck a five-level prestige class in the book called the Thaumaturge, but it isn't necessarily evil (could be good, colud be neutral). They just seem to get extra benefits involving planar allies and summonings. Yeah, that's part of what I'm looking for in an Evil High Priest, but what about the fireballs and <i>skulls</i>, man?
The Blackguard is a good flavor class. But why does D&D continue to ignore the one of the most frequently occurring villains in heroic fiction, the demented sorceror/cultist/priest type? If you do an "Evil Paladin," why not finally a dedicated "Evil Sorceror/Thaumaturgist/Priest" or what not?
Missed opportunity in my book.
For thirty years, I've been waiting for a dedicated Evil High Priest class. For NPC's only, of course. It just doesnt' really work for me that evil priests have so many spells in common with good priests. Yeah, I know, they reverse and all that. But I always think of Evil Priests as cultist types who don't so much worship the evil gods as strike bargains with them, and are really more akin to necromatic wizards than clerics.
They stuck a five-level prestige class in the book called the Thaumaturge, but it isn't necessarily evil (could be good, colud be neutral). They just seem to get extra benefits involving planar allies and summonings. Yeah, that's part of what I'm looking for in an Evil High Priest, but what about the fireballs and <i>skulls</i>, man?
The Blackguard is a good flavor class. But why does D&D continue to ignore the one of the most frequently occurring villains in heroic fiction, the demented sorceror/cultist/priest type? If you do an "Evil Paladin," why not finally a dedicated "Evil Sorceror/Thaumaturgist/Priest" or what not?
Missed opportunity in my book.
old dc 20 new dc 16 (charisma based fortitude save)
old incubation period one day new incubation period one minute
old damage 1d6 temp con new damage 1d6 con 1d6 charisma
Curing:
Remove disease no longer works. Must first use Remove Curse or Break Enchantment vs DC 20 to remove the curse part of the disease, then remove disease or other curative magics will work.
old incubation period one day new incubation period one minute
old damage 1d6 temp con new damage 1d6 con 1d6 charisma
Curing:
Remove disease no longer works. Must first use Remove Curse or Break Enchantment vs DC 20 to remove the curse part of the disease, then remove disease or other curative magics will work.
The Mummy Lord is now a very good boss villain. No longer do mummies need to be moronic tomb guardians. The Mummy Lord can be the Big Bad of an entire adventure, or an entire campaign.
I like that. The old book only had a limited number of really credible Big Bads. Their numbers have to be expanded.
I like that. The old book only had a limited number of really credible Big Bads. Their numbers have to be expanded.
Hmmmm. I'll agree that D&D "feels" different to me than it did back in the 1E days. Thinking back, it seemed better back then, somehow - but I'm fairly sure that, just like my memories of Star Wars, nostalgia is clouding my vision.
I certainly think it's easier to play now, and far more accessible. I kinda miss the smell, the feel, even the layout and typesetting of the old books. But, again, I'm sure that's nostalgia talking.
I find it hard to get excited about new books these days. I remember a time when a new AD&D rulebook was a major event for me; now it's not. I think that's partly due to my "growing up" a little - once the rules were the most important thing to me, whereas now they're just a means to and end, a mechanism by which I and my friends can participate in a story. I used to want more and more ever-complicated rules; now I want simple rules. I used to calculate encumbrance to the nth degree, come up with long, deeply complicated ways of adjudicating things - now I feel that it's more important to have a fast moving game where the rules don't get in the way.
Looking at it that way, 3E is certainly more suited to me now than 1E is; and I strongly suspect that I would have disliked 3E 15 years ago, had it existed.
I certainly think it's easier to play now, and far more accessible. I kinda miss the smell, the feel, even the layout and typesetting of the old books. But, again, I'm sure that's nostalgia talking.
I find it hard to get excited about new books these days. I remember a time when a new AD&D rulebook was a major event for me; now it's not. I think that's partly due to my "growing up" a little - once the rules were the most important thing to me, whereas now they're just a means to and end, a mechanism by which I and my friends can participate in a story. I used to want more and more ever-complicated rules; now I want simple rules. I used to calculate encumbrance to the nth degree, come up with long, deeply complicated ways of adjudicating things - now I feel that it's more important to have a fast moving game where the rules don't get in the way.
Looking at it that way, 3E is certainly more suited to me now than 1E is; and I strongly suspect that I would have disliked 3E 15 years ago, had it existed.
The owlbear remains D&D canon. I guess just for the sake of tradition.
I don't get this monster. Never did. It's stupid. Not as stupid as, say, an Ogrillion, or a Girallon, but it's wicked stupid.
And it's not scary. An owlbear? Is that scary?
You know what's scary? A <i>bear</i> A bear-bear. Bears are scary. They are huge predators with slavering claws and powerful fangs. <i>What, precisely, do owls add to this equation?</i> Spectacles?
If I had a choice between fighting a bear-bear and an owl-bear, I'd take that owl-bear, every time. Hmmm, let me see, a purebred bear, or a bear <i>mixed with a effin' parrot.</i> I'd feed it a cracker and then I'd say Polly Wanna Get Bitch-Slapped? Then I'd funk it up but good and make a frickin' hat out of it or something.
Yeah.
I just know that if I ever buy miniatures (never have before, but what the hell), the first goddamned figure I"m going to get is a goddamend OWLBEAR.
I don't get this monster. Never did. It's stupid. Not as stupid as, say, an Ogrillion, or a Girallon, but it's wicked stupid.
And it's not scary. An owlbear? Is that scary?
You know what's scary? A <i>bear</i> A bear-bear. Bears are scary. They are huge predators with slavering claws and powerful fangs. <i>What, precisely, do owls add to this equation?</i> Spectacles?
If I had a choice between fighting a bear-bear and an owl-bear, I'd take that owl-bear, every time. Hmmm, let me see, a purebred bear, or a bear <i>mixed with a effin' parrot.</i> I'd feed it a cracker and then I'd say Polly Wanna Get Bitch-Slapped? Then I'd funk it up but good and make a frickin' hat out of it or something.
Yeah.
I just know that if I ever buy miniatures (never have before, but what the hell), the first goddamned figure I"m going to get is a goddamend OWLBEAR.
Last edited:
Here's a discovery:
That much-vaunted, much-reported "Round by Round Tactics" innovation is only provided for six or so monsters.
And guess who doesn't get that work-up? Yeahp-- Dragons.
Unless I'm missing something (and I may be), the creature the game is named for has no Round by Round tactics.
That much-vaunted, much-reported "Round by Round Tactics" innovation is only provided for six or so monsters.
And guess who doesn't get that work-up? Yeahp-- Dragons.
Unless I'm missing something (and I may be), the creature the game is named for has no Round by Round tactics.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
billbo said:
Bears aren't scary, they're cute.
Anything that can drive little tiny cars and wear hats is not scary.
Similar Threads
