Search results

True, if a player wants to do a "protest sit out" they can screw around with the game. But, the DM just boots them from the campaign... That's what I'd do. Never been in that position though.

You could say that but, you'd be wrong. If the DM rules that you can't play a 1/2 Dandelion 1/2 dragon, you don't ever get in the game to be killed. Notice, the player never had a say in the rule...

I looked a the Condensed PHB. Awesome! Too bad WotC doesn't have design talent like that.

Thanks. Sounds like D20 meets 1st Ed. I'll download it.

Bingo. There are more players looking for DM's than there are DMs looking for players... It comes down to the fact that a player doesn't have to play & in the end, the rules of the game are in the DMs hands, not the players.

Thank you very much. A question. I've never played with the Troll Lords product, (only enough time to maintain my d&d campaign) is it very similar to 3.X? Thanks again grodog.

The same type of training that Barbarians get that makes their epidermis as resistant to damage as Adamantine. :lol: How long have you been playing?

Well, when all is said and done, fully developed game worlds sell well. Must be a lot of DMs out there using them...

As a player I try to help the guy who is slow. As a DM, it is easier. As I come around to the players during an encounter they can only ask a Q about the current encounter. For example a player might ask, "Is the pit 10' in front of us?" If the player can't quickly describe what they are...

Bingo! You use the 3.5 stats & mechanics because 4.0 isn't compatible. It would be like saying Mac software X is compatible with Window, all I have to do is rewrite the source code and recompile....:hmm:

It all depends on what kind of game you are going to run. If my players just want to hack & slash through levels, then no. If we are going to run a campaign that spans many generations of characters through many levels, then I fully flesh it out in a similar fashion to the original Greyhawk...

Yes, it is incompatible. You CAN tweak and use a concept but you 1st have to convert it to fit with the rule mechanics.

That's not possible. You can do it from the class side by tweaking 3.5 rules.

That's isn't achievable unless the classes are mechanically identical, which means only one class. A better definition is, "no class is such a 'super class' that it obviates the need for classes outside its category (ie: MU, Divine, Warrior, Rogue).

A good reason to not play with a DM that lacks a brain...

A +1 item at Epic level isn't going to make a real difference one way or another. Which was my original point...

The MM.

There could be some validity to the cramping of RP regarding multi-classing. However, earlier editions of D&D (1st &2nd) were MORE restrictive based on race. So, overall I don't see a big problem for most players... IMO

I reread the thread. YOU said that sandboxing didn't exist. I don't know why you think the the thread morphed into that. Anyway, I respect that is what your experience leads you to believe. My experience is different. I don't know if it is because of the amount of GMing I've done vs. you or...

What's with all the glasses?