Search results

Yep, another Mac user here. A "limited" subscription to Dungeon/Dragon/other web content would interest me, but there is no way I will pay $10/mo. to get a client I can't use. Here's more detail on the PC-only-ness of DI: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908201 Oh, and I finally...

But with all due respect, our opinions on the subject are worth exactly squat. The fans know nothing about Wizards' ability to generate profits from an ongoing 3.5 line. In fact, since Wizards chose to announce 4e now, I think we can probably surmise that their confidence in making continued...

I also love the crazy picture of the DM with the Marduk (?) marionette in that same book. Such an excellent late 70s-early 80s vibe. Edit: And now that I come home and look at the picture, I realize that that one was by David S. LaForce. So to the list of things I miss about the old days...

My experience is the complete opposite. Back in the day, my group saw much, much more rules lawyering than we do now. And in fact, they knew the rules better then than they do now. Whether the change is because of the different rulesets, or, as Numion said, we're just getting older, I can't...

Moldvay Basic Set in NM condition, including a B2 as crisp and beautiful as the day it was made, for $5.

You don't need to go to the Realms. Improved Counterspell is in the PHB. Plus there's the duelward spell in SC, which allows you to counterspell as an immediate action. It actually makes counterspelling a pretty useful tactic.

You (and Wonko the Sane) ruled correctly. From the SRD: "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing." http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#aimingASpell

Polls have shown that a majority of the EN World community began their gaming careers in the period from 1978-1983. I go back to the Holmes set, myself, and I can't say that I find much appeal in the OP's approach. I don't think it's generational.

I, too, would like to know if the Paizo scan of Supplement I: Greyhawk has any writing on it. I was extremely annoyed to see that when I bought the PDF from RPGNow. Official errata it may be, but it's unsightly, and I don't want it.

The key aspect of D&D that I'd like to see captured in film is the arguing. I'd like to see the onscreen action halt for twenty minutes while the characters debate whether or not you can target a mirror image with a magic missile. I'm only half-kidding.

What he said. I'm a lover of bad cinema, and I could not sit through this film. It seems like about half the movies on Sci-Fi now feature Stephen Baldwin. Harpies, Earthstorm, Dark Storm, some other storm... they are all miserable.

I have to say that doesn't sound real convincing ;) . Based on what I've been reading, I think I'm inclined to agree with shilsen for the time being. Anyone else care to weigh in?

I think that's reasonable, and you may very well be right, but at the same time, if the hand took up space, wouldn't we expect to see some sort of verbiage in the spell description about what happens when you try to cast the spell if all or part of the 10 ft. square between you and the opponent...

I wasn't really suggesting that, but now that I look at what you are saying more closely, I can visualize what's going on, and the text now makes sense to me. So my question about that particular paragraph is withdrawn. Thanks for the help on that one. I'd agree that the part about the hand...

When it says that creatures of a certain weight can move past the hand at half or normal speed, does that include the selected opponent? My first guess is no, because the hand automatically moves to interpose itself between the opponent and the caster, and quite explicitly can't be fooled, no...

Does interposing hand occupy actual squares on the battlefield? From the spell description, I can't tell if it simply provides a two-dimensional force that grants a +4 cover bonus against one opponent, or if it occupies a full 10 ft. square, preventing an attacker from even reaching the caster...

Perhaps WotC should get Michael Scott to make an apology tape.

Apparently not:

Right, which is why I originally thought his testimony was really out of character. Perhaps under a cross-examination, he'd demonstrate the personal integrity that led him to do these things (and, to cite another example, blow the whistle on the vote fraud), and admit that he did not personally...

I agree with you that as dramatic devices, the opening and sort-of-closing statements were effective and interesting. But I think the whole thing was sloppily-written as an actual trial. I'm not watching the show as a legal drama, so it's not the end of the world, but it was really quite...