Search results

Can't you do a point buy plus random overlay? The random overlay would consist of a chart upon which a d20 is rolled. The chart advises you to randomly add or subract one or two points from various abilities.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Skeletons and Zombies-- NEUTRAL EVIL! Finally. I don't even use alignment. And yes, I know the <i>theory</i> that these mindless creatures cannot endorse or embrace a philsophical scheme; they are no more "evil" than a swarm of rats (see above) or an earthquake. But theory is fine. Let's...

Here's another thing I like. The 3.0 edition finally solved the problem for me of introducing snakes and spiders into the game-- I mean, NORMAL snakes and spiders. Back in the old 1e days, there weren't, as far as I know, any "official" normal vipers or tarantuals. Just the giant kind. Which...

emirikol, Earlier tonight I had the idea that if they really wanted to recapture the feel of the old game, they should have commissioned an update/homage to the old Emirikol the Chaotic illustration. That one illustration was enough to get a DM's mind cooking.

Emirikol, I am speaking of the controversy over whether or not these books are "worth it" from the POV of someone who already owns the 3.0 books. So far, I think these are just about the best D&D books ever, offering the best version of the D&D rules ever offered; but they offer such a slight...

In the same vein as "getting back to that First Edition sense of Wonder" is the great picture of a salamander crossing a Sea of Fire to reach the fabled City of Brass in the DMG. Remember the old DMG had such a painting on its rear cover? Something else: I'm kind of glad they're calling...

The old AD&D first edition was less generic than 3.0. 3.0 is such a bland, featureless, generic toolbox of a ruleset that it just failed to inspire me. I think the new edition puts a little bit more fun and inspiration into, for example, the DMG. I'm having fun reading the little bit about...

Post things you discover in the new books here. Also comment on your overall or specific impressions. One thing that annoyed me about previous Monster Manuals was the plethora of attacks given to, for example, Sahuagin. In one round, they could bite, claw twice, and then rake twice with (I...

In case you don't grok what I'm getting at, Tough Geek, it's quite simple. If you are going to criticize someone out of the blue, you can do it in a more apologetic, friendly manner. And if you take a bossing, superior tone, YOU are the one offering the first insult. You got that, Tough Guy...

Hey, "Ankh," it wasn't me who began with the condescending, bullying tone. You ain't the boss of me, pal, and if you have a SUGGESTION for me, I suggest you state it as a polite SUGGESTION, and not presume to instruct me in your s:):):):):):)ing, superior way. And if you think you ARE the boss...

Yes, Ankh, I suppose could have, and all of those people who posted in their own threads could likewise have posted in someone else's. Get off my :):):):), idiot.

I'm sorry for the vanity post, but I just need to slap it up on the boards that Amazon says I now have a Tracking Number. Whoo-hoo! Just a couple of states away...

Oh, I misunderstood. I didn't read the reference to the Monstrous Compendium. I just assumed you were saying that the 3.5 books had better art than 3.0. I was surprised to hear that they had re-done the dragon art!

As the guy above says, spikes aren't something evil creatues have; now spikes are something EVERYONE has. A movie strives for a unified production design, a unified look; and so has D&D 3rd edition. The look of the creatures is unified by "punky" features like spikey hair, chains, leather...

I'm not big on the whole Gothic Punk aesthetic of D&D, but I can't see how the presence of spikes detracts from whatever "depth" a creatue was previously purported to possess. Is everything always a case of "it used to be better when..." ? I'm scratching my head trying to remember a time...