Search results

I have done that myself (certain styles of play demand it), but do you need an extensive list of items in the book to do so? IMHO, tracking each item you carry shouldn't be an assumed part of the game any more than tracking each individual pick in a set of thieves' tools. D&D has never been as...

Redirect to EN World?

I'm afraid I have to disagree. If the cost and weight of an object are nearly negligible and the object doesn't serve any purpose mechanically, I'm not sure it needs to be listed in the book.

You are my hero.

Recently, I've actually been doing it that way as well, although I understand why the RAW doesn't use this approach.

Heh, I like this thread. I came into D&D back in junior high, primarily through video games like Final Fantasy. When I ran my first session (oh, yeah, I didn't know anyone else who played, so I DMed for my friends), I understood most of the fundamental rules of the game quite well, but I still...

I thought the same. I didn't see the Freudian version until I came to this thread. Btw, thanks a lot, thread. :(

Haven't had the chance to read over the article yet, but, I must say, the art is fantastic (and colorful!) I definitely hope that this piece is indicative of "4e style."

+1. 'Course, I'm a fan of Pokémon, so take that with a grain of salt. ^_^

I suspect that this problem falls under the category of "problematic math" to which a couple of the designers have alluded. They seem to be examining these things quite carefully. I would definitely hope to be able to build a "fire snake" guy at any level, but we'll see.

Sounds like a fantastic idea. The number and diversity of spells and monsters that could be included in such a book would make it a worthwhile purchase, even if you never used the setting. Plus, M:TG has some fine artwork; it would be an attractive book, if nothing else.

Yes, but now with per encounter abilities! (Possibly banana-related ones.) edit - But what's with all this "sea monkey," "winged monkey" talk? I thought 4e was finally getting rid of all of those redundant monkey subraces by calling wood monkeys "monkeys" and high monkeys "apes"?

Experiences may vary, but, for what it's worth, the inverse relationship between amount of clothing worn and promiscuity was a very widely-accepted myth when I was in high school. It's immature, yes, but the attitude exists.

If you post loudly enough, maybe WotC will hear you. :p

Sure, I would love to see flumphs included, but I'm only comfortable saying that because I don't actually see it happening. I hope this isn't used as the sole justification for any monster's inclusion in the 4e MM. :p

Of existing D&D products, my favorite art definitely comes from 3.0 Magic of Faerun. Sam Wood's "gnome artificer," Carlo Arellano's "incantatrix," Carlo Arellano's "spellfire channeler," Sam Wood's "haunting tune," Carlo Arellano's "undead bane weapon," Carlo Arellano's "mage-killer"... all...

I would do the same. Make monster types less like classes and more like spell descriptors. Their main role should be determining whether the creature is affected by favored enemy, turn undead, bane weapons, and the like.

The Use Magic Device skill.

Ohh, I like this thread. Difficult question, though. I guess my top three would be... 1) Unearthed Arcana. Almost goes without saying. It's one of the few RPG books I own that I've read cover to cover more than once. I especially like the class variants, but I've probably pulled rules from...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/charactersheets