Search results

I think I'll ban "Knowledge: Dungeoneering" just to make a point (Unless it is just a stupid name for a skill with useful "civilian" applications and should read "Knowledge: Mining" or "Underground survival".) Did I mention I hate Dungeon Crawls?

Well said. And I say the same to all those people talking about "earning" XP and rewards, and "paying the price for stupidity".

I am not excited about 3.5E anymore. The more information I got about it, the less I saw it as a core rule book I will use, and the more as a simple source for some tidbits and rules clarification - a glorified FAQ/errata/Splatbook, so to speak.

I'll second the question concerning the duelist.

About as important as using an official character record sheet during play - meaning not at all. I don't use all the 3.0E rules, and I will not use all the 3.5E rules. Matter of fact, with each new load of snippets released I usually discover something I will not use respectively ban in my campaign.

Care to explain the ratinale behind this rule? It seems to discourage taking, f.e., a level in aristocrat for roleplaying reasons when you want to play a noble.

Rangers have the problem that everyone and their dog has their own idea what they should be - and apparently no one is able to multiclass Fighter, Rogues and maybe Druid and call the result a ranger. Naw, there has to be a class named ranger, and it has to be "the ranger" everyone envisions. I...

I don't have raise dead, resurrection etc. in my game, at least not as spells accessible to clerics and other mortals. It really facilitates my campaign since I can have assassination plots etc. without having to consider the "lets just raise him" solution, and that my campaign world makes a...

In such a case I'd tell the other player that his antics are ruining your fun, and that his right to "just play his character" ends where it ruins your fun. Either he changes characters and playstyle so that everyone has fun, or someone has to go. I'd not try to handle it in-game - such...

Re: re If it is not fun, I don't play or DM. But then, I don't have fun if my character wins all the time - I have no problem with running from an enemy, scraping for some copper pieces to survive, etc. I don't want to know fear and mortality though - I can roleplay my PC fearing something...

I had already decided to ban the new ranger, so this is nothing for me to worry about anymore.

Think about some dirty tricks - marbles or caltrops to spice up a fight, or hinder pursuers, a cloak to throw over an enemy's head, some liquid or powder to throw into the opponents eyes, torches to keep others at bay, coupled with flammable liquids, the old chandelier-rope-cut-trick, both used...

Re: Re: Are you glad that Increased Threat Ranges no longer stack? I don't care what the legion of playtesters and the professional game designers know - I only care about what I have fun with while gaming. Many things of 3.5E detract from my enjoyment of the game, the threat-range change...

I don't have raise dead etc. in my game (Too many problems with the world setting for my taste, and too limiting for the plot when the dreaded "Lets just raise the victim" solution rises its ugly head), but I don't kill off PCs without a clear warning ("Do that and you will/may die - want to...

I have to add that you can use the FRCS without using the numbers and stats for the NCPs. I run a low-magic (item) campaign in the FR, and it works out very well. You don't have to run Elmister as an Epic mage of level X, you don't even have to run him at all. Just take the different cultures...

I voted FR, although I use a heavily modified FR (with less magic items and magic in general, and some changes concerning history and races).

My 1st printing PHB is in the worst condition, since I carry it around in my backpack all the time (serves as a spine ofr the backpack) and use it in my games. It is still all in one piece, however, and only has a couple stains on some pages - nothing major. The covers are not going to come off...

Re: Re: About Egypt Too even-handed? I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. Do you mean that in the sense that the principle of treating equal things equally and unequal things unequally has been broken? As far as "enslaving" is concerned, there is a difference between not-nice and...

Re: Re: About Egypt Point taken. Apparently I misunderstood your comment. Although I am still not quite clear on your opinion. I believe storyguide3 just wanted to know if the egypts were painted as the bad guys while the other nations' atrocities were glossed over. Do you think it "is a...

Re: Re: About Egypt I "dimly remember" that invading other nations and enslaving their people was common in old times - the greek did it, the egyptians did it, romans did it, israelites did it. Can we keep out religion from this thread? I too would simply like to know if the different...