Search results

Stylization built on top of a solid base of realism... if that makes any sense? I prefer to feel as if the artist started with a real concept then layered fantastic stylized elements on top of it, as opposed to just staring with something fantastic and assuming that because the world is...

96 if you knew the right stores in china town... :P

I think it just goes to show you how the game rules weren't all that user friendly... Like you could be using a rule completely wrong or something and not realize it because a random paragraph somewhere mentions something about it. :P If you're just looking at the charts, it looks like weapons...

I think it's the 81 version. The one with the Otus picture on the front with the green dragon? MAybe it's 80? The outside cover says copyright 1980, but the inside says 81... weird. On Page B25 "AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All Weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (ad6) points of damage...

I know it was that way in at least the Tim Moldvay version of Basic D&D... Variant weapon damages were an optional rule. Everything by default did 1d6.

I would also hate this. Sorry.

I'd be willing to bet neither do most people commenting about charts and polls. :P

The law of internet based gaming polls states that however you word your poll, someone will inevitably tell you how you could have done it better. :P

You're supposed to wait until you've bought the first set of core books so that: 1. You can loudly proclaim that you've at least "given it a fair shot, but this is no longer D&D." 2. You can proclaim you plan to burn them, or demand your money back from your hobby store. 3. We can all call...

Sounds viable, but I don't think it accounts for the law of human nature. :P No one with the money/power to be resurrected would ever allow that to come about. That implies people consciously giving up their money/power knowing full well that they would return to the world. Call me cynical I...

I like chocolate. Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Wouldn't that be by default though? I mean by this meathod it seems a paladin would not be as martially powerful as a fighter, and not priestly powerful as a cleric, but would be able (in theory) to stand toe to toe with either of them based on the combined power. The trick I guess would be...

Here is Monte Cook's latest Blog about Resurrection spells Latest Bloggy Blog Blog Have any of you actually used a resurrection/raise dead type spell as written?

That wouldn't be true. The trade off for playing a paladin is it's both warrior and priest, but neither one to it's "fullest" ability. I guess the difference between that, and multiclassing is that a multiclass gets each of the class abilities one at a time, whereas the hybrid gets a smaller...

Sure- but that's not what the article seemed to indicate. The article linked to at the begining basically said they could take some fighter powers, and some cleric powers blend them together and voila... Paladin. Sure, they "probably" just didn't mention unique Paladin powers that would be a...

I completely agree.

Well it's kind of back to closer to how things were to start with I'd say... Some classes are just sub classes. I agree with you though... What the heck IS the difference between a paladin and a multiclass fighter/cleric? Guess we'd have to see what the multiclass rules look like.

I like the basic idea though, that each class has a set of "fundamentals" and sub classes are mixes of those fundamentals.

Walk into a bar... BLOGY BLOG BLOG New Blog about making the "sub" classes.

I think they need to do away with creature types. Or maybe work it so they are optional. For me when I look at say, a monster, sense of wonder is kind of spoiled by monster type... Oh it's Undead so it's immune to X Y and Z, and it has blah blah blah... It's too scientific and clinical to...