Search results

It's not a one shot. There's no way you could get through the whole thing in one night. Not even if you just did the combats, and left out all the exploration. It's a decently sized adventure. My only gripe is that it's kinda flimsy, I would have prefered a perfect bound book to stapled.

Seconded. Withholding rules from players reminds me of some sort of fascist dictatorship. "There are rules you have to abide by but we aren't going to let you see them." How the hell are you supposed to play a game like that? I can just imagine it. PC "I draw my and shoot bow at him" DM...

Thanks! What's your source? Was it in the DDXP rules and I missed it?

Hey, I got my copy of keep on the shadowfell a couple of days ago. I've been reading through it and I quite enjoy the adventure, can't wait to run it. But there are a couple of things that would no doubt be addressed in the PHB, but for whatever reason were left out of the quickstart rules. I...

I've wondered why they didn't go with a much easier to understand label. Instead of At Will (special) why not Daily 3 ?

I got mine on wednesday. I thought that was when it was supposed to come out. I guess my local borders jumped the street date.

Colored Rubber bands.

The urgulstasta. Never has such a bad-ass monster been so fun to say.

Seconded. This is the reason that, while i'm not super happy with the "sound bite" version of the multiclassing rules, I'm certainly waiting to see the rest of what can be done with out it.

I completely agree. It's not at all easy. In that particular campaign my solution was to give the wweaker characters artifact weapons. Smoothed things out nicely and gave me the opportunity to design some of the craziest monsters I could come up with. But that game was all about excess...

It would be intersting to split up the multiclass feats by roles. So if you were taking a feat that gave you access to a cross-role class, lets say the fighter multclassing to rogue, you got more of the abilities than if you were going from role to same role in the case of a ranger/rogue. My...

Because it's simultaneously silly and awesome. I even had them chained together at the pommel. If I wanted to take balance and weight into account I'd go bust out the GURPS rules. But I wanted a guy to run at something like a bladed cruise missle because I like the mental image.

Well, no. But what's fun for at least one of my players is having a crazy character, and I try to make that work as best I can. I've only had a TPK once, and it was because I designed the encounter poorly. When I GM, I don't go for TPKs as I've heard some GMs do. I don't consider that...

You're missing my point. I didn't say there's a right and wrong way to play the game. I'm saying that creating a fully rounded out character isn't as well supported in core D&D rule set as it is in other games. I was merely suggesting that if that's the aspect of RPG's he likes there are...

I fully agree.

No, at that point, it was a character.

4 warrior classes in 6 levels is hardly the worst kind of min/maxing in 3e. You should have seen the gestalt campaign I ran. One guy had a rogue/druid/monk what would turn into a flying giant squid and pounce on something with roughly 15 attacks each gaining sneak attack for something like...

*sheepish* I liked finding cool combos in my spells. I was playing an lvl15 incantatrix that had a way to drop 98d6 on a single target in one round. Tee hee.

I agree with your first point, the classes are better, and they've reeled in the power or gimping that that could come about from multiclassing. Making a classed system in which first levels are as interesting and exciting as later levels is a fantastic achievement in my book. Clearly you...

With all respect, you probably should have been playing another game. It's totally possible that that was the only game your friends were into at the time, and you played it because gaming is fun, and generally I find that a game that isn't my favorite is still fun. Or maybe you just got sick...