Search results

For 3.0/3.5? Where? All I can recall is Avalanche Press's Endless Sands, which I haven't gotten the impression from reviews is all that great. I do definitely think there's room for more good D&D/d20 settings. But that's personal opinion as I can't find one I like (and from the way people...

Poll needs to be multiple choice: I am a Player and DM. I loath save-or-die with a passion that I cannot describe. I can only suppose two reasons: I hate death being easy: If easy things are not accomplishments than death should not be easy because DEATH should be an accomplishment. It...

Similar to the person who asked before about Pathfinder can someone tell me each of the things Trailblazer changed?

Not all Americans know, either. I gotta go with: " "Githyanki" sounds like one of those midwestern lake names that means "the place those white people keep asking about" in Pawnee." Because I could totally believe that happening.

What I want is to ease off on the amount of predicting and changing the DM has to do with crafting adventures. The specific problem proposed is of burning through resources quickly and then doing whatever activity is necessary to replenish those resources. I have read proposals that harass the...

Agreed: if their decision had been stated as being wanting a new version of 3.5 that would have been fine. But their desire for "backward compatibility" makes the changes seem pointless.

It was still pointless to change anything if they weren't going change things like power balance. What "dungeon punk"? Did I miss some releases somewhere?

One of the exact reasons that if Pathfinder wasn't going to change it from 3.5 then the whole exercise was pointless. In my case I don't mind it, and kind of like it sometimes (I bought the bestiary solely on the art). The 3.5 art just has a more inspiring "feel" to it.

Probably a bunch of reasons: 1. I'm not terribly into D&D of the 3.5-type rules anyway. 2. All the rules I need to play Pathfinder are online for free with their SRD. 3. If Pathfinder's mostly going to still be 3.5 and not change any of the stuff I would have liked changed then it feels kind...

My opinion on the milestone/after-encounter bonuses is it offers nothing to help the DM know how the encounters will pace. Players can still choose how many encounters they want to have. Encounter balance is messed up because the amount of resources used up is out of the control of the one who...

Perhaps you could also define some other resource that can be spent to earn "R&R". I don't know what that would be, but it does make some vague sense that being allowed to rest isn't always dependent upon having gotten paid.

I don't see how requiring the DM to set the pace is any different from having per-[insert non-in-game time unit (with maybe the exception of "session")]. As it is the game has set up so that the DM must follow the "rule of the rest", taking the choice out of their hands and requiring people to...

Although in some cases a distinction has to be made between not caring for laziness and deciding that you wish to do things "wrong" for the style value. I do think being more concrete about realism vs. believable might be a good idea. I mean there are tropes common in fantasy...

I don't buy anything without at least waiting to see what other people review about it. That said I'd buy a fantasy or science-fantasy (e.g. Star Wars) built with a lot of whimsy. By "whimsy" I mean not getting getting anywhere near the realistic nuances the...

At least in my case I haven't lived long enough/played enough D&D for this to be the case. I hate alignment for reasons of just not agreeing with its moral system.

Sounds like it's the various 2e conditions with a mix-and-match option.

Could you perhaps answer some questions for those of us on the fence? I'd like to know how they changed Growth/Shrinking, if any. And I'd like to know the basics of how Affliction works.

Ah, it makes more sense now. I still think it's a stupid kind of power, but at least it makes sense why it got rationalized in the first place. Also I must thank you for this in post form rather than being able to give Experience.

Because for some people no matter what you pull out with the "human cultures are different from each other" there will be people who don't see it that way. For them they need something more. (Personally I don't think this "something more" is D&D's default line-up, but it's better than nothing.)

I'd do both, just because I want to cut D&D into little pieces and stick them back together weird. However realistically I'd cut humans first, because they have a higher "holier than thou" content than elves across all spectrums of storytelling.