Search results

The excerpt today raises a question. When the players specifically target opportunities to earn some quick cash, either by more targeting lucrative quests or by actually stealing from the robber-baron or whatever, do you give them the same amount of treasure they would have gotten anyway? Or do...

Wait, there won't be ice cream? What? As for 3e, I'm never playing with that puppy killer again. When I found out about that, I burned all my books.

When you put it that way it reminded me that they use minions in Mutants and Masterminds, with pretty much the exact wording you just used. I had forgotten. Anyway, they wouldn't actually kill each other in one hit, or from one accident, or whatever. But I've already gotten into on another...

I'm just going to direct you to our earlier posts, and encourage you to try and understand them, because we pretty much said it there. If I were to try and explain again I would just get frustrated. I don't remember exactly where it came up, but we've known for months that if a particular NPC...

You guys... the orc doesn't actually have only one hit point. Its a shortcut, a book keeping trick to save the dm time because they usually go down in one hit anyway. If you had a peasant run into the battle and start smacking them around with his scythe you'd have to adjudicate about how many...

In order to get a really good meal, and I mean a really good meal, we must consider the following: 1. Peanut butter. In the event that we're having the rare meal that does not feature peanut butter, PB cookies are delicious. 2. There must be enough to feed at least twice as many as are...

Ok, mechanics aside, (I think there are others a lot more qualified to discuss that,) the in-world explanation should also be considered. Take a war chief's bodyguard, for example. Say at level 9, these guys are minions and the main threat is the war chief himself. However, if you were to take...

Just thought I'd point that out. People were confused.

There ya go. To be honest, folks, there's probably a lot of stuff in all the games I've played that I didn't like as a DM and I don't even remember it, because if I don't like something my eyes just skip over it while I'm reading and I make something else up. More to the point, I don't...

They couldn't do that before? I really don't see what the angel preview has to do with gods.

You're right.

Hello. Do I know you? Point: Core should reflect the concepts most commonly associated with fantasy. Reason: Because the majority of players are going to want to use those concepts. If they want to mix things up for some reason, thats fine. But using the core setting to experiment sends a...

I said major fiction, not most. I'm not that well read, but these came off the top of my head. (There is no way to make that not rhyme.) 1. The Dark is Rising Trilogy by Susan Cooper 2. The Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander 3. The Shannarra series by Terry Brooks 4. The Belgariad/Mallereon...

I didn't have the two fiendish codexes. Sounds like I would not like them. I prefer to kinda stick to the source material, you know, where they devils/demons work for the Devil. The idea of thwarting the dark one and his minions is apparently interesting enough that just about every major piece...

I actually disagree. I don't think they're trying to keep up with the times at all. I believe they have two goals here. First, dissolving the traditional allegiances allows the DM to throw a higher percentage of the MM at the players. Second, they're either trying to make the setting involve as...

You do have to admit that it is a fairly specific concept. You want a ranged martial leader focusing on support and skills even more than most leaders. I'm not really surprised that this isn't in the first set of books. I mean, it sucks that its not in there and a in a perfect world it would...

Do we always have to ask questions? Is that a rule? I think a lot of times you could replace 'rant' with 'article' and it would fit. Without a question to answer, I think the idea is to comment or reply. Politely, I guess. Unless there's a rule I'm forgetting?

I get what you're saying, I really do. And I almost agree with you. But the problem is that the angels, at least the ones we've seen, are so unaligned that they look almost identical. I think that's what really bothers me about trying to use the new angels in a classic role. Maybe the bad...

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying I have personally formed an opinion that it is lame. So that begs the question: Why did they make the change? And the only answer I can come up with is to make the Angels more "useful" to the game. (i.e, have them come up more in fights.) They said...

Yeah. Why did we change that? Previously, if you wanted an epic intraplanar conflict in your campaign, the good gods sent angels (people with wings, celestial beings, etc.) and the bad god sent devils/demons (Monsters with wings, sharp teeth, red skin, etc.) Now, on both sides of the conflict...