Search results

It definitely did. Consider OD&D Supplement II Blackmoor, 1975 -- it's got an entire system for Hit Locations and breaking down hit points/injuries by location on the body. Whole bunch of tables for different body types, attack direction, relative attacker/defender sizes, etc. Of course...

That stuff was all covered by OGL or the Conversion Policy. Fan licensing is yet TBA for 4E.

<Jaw hits floor> :eek:

We'll have to disagree about that. Admittedly they have to see it coming in advance -- you seem to be more focused on the after-effects.

Keep in mind how much stuff had to get pulled down around 2003 when Wizards released an official conversion license. And note that a fan-site policy is supposedly yet to be published from Wizards for 4E.

(1) Level drain. (2) Destroy magic items.

Somewhere in the last few years there was a WOTC designer essay saying thet they intentionally no longer put funny bits in their publications. Theory was: funny comes from players at tables, putting it in publication wrecks it for players who want to be serious. But I think that might be a...

I don't play in games I don't like. I don't remotely have time for any other modus operandi.

You know, the best RPGs are when the Gameism and the Simulationism work hand-in-hand within the mechanics. It's when they get split as separate considerations that I get a bad taste in my mouth. I don't use cheat codes.

Here is an all-in-one 3.0 ZIP file. There were lots of changes from 3.0->3.5. One of the biggest is wholescale changes to lots and lots of spells; whereas there was a lot of continuity in spell descriptions between 1E-2E-3E, 3.5 came in and changed some 445 spells at last count. Other...

I'm old-school, I don't like this, and I avoid games where this kind of thing is established. (a) I want new players to feel invited, get into the game as easily as possible, and not feel like work. (b) I want the characters to take shape in-game, and not be locked into particular static...

They didn't. The 3.0 stacking rules are really just a codification of the same rules as 1E/2E that happened to be scattered all over the rules (in different magic item descriptions). http://www.superdan.net/adndfaq1.html

No, they don't.

Ranger, thank you.

There are no house cats in the AD&D 1E DMG. Nor the Monster Manual.

OGL Section 1(b) "Derivative Works" mentions "potation" as one example. I've looked at a number of dictionaries and the only definition I find for that is "the act of drinking (esp., liquor)". Does anyone know what "potation" means in this legal/publishing context? Any reference to a place...

Level of confidence is in fact technically defined. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_level Look, my initial post was trying to correct a very bad misapprehension (that 900 votes in a poll is a low number), in the field for which I'm a professional teacher. Are you saying as a...

For some time, I've felt that there needs to be a hard (and fairly low) limit on total magic items carried. In my "d20 Diminutive" campaign I limit a character to carrying 5 magic items before something possibly stops working or gets cursed. One scroll can have up to 6 spells scribed on it, so...

I think I saw evidence that the poll was riggable. No one offered proof that the poll has been rigged.

I agree they shouldn't be surprised, but I disagree about the reason why. The OGL legal text is exceedingly easy to read, use, and understand. The problem is how to physically receive payments and deliver goods over the Internet. That part is relatively hard for a hobbyist layman.