Search results

This sounds great. I can always cover unexplored areas of the dungeon with black construction paper. One of my big complaints about the "Expedition" series was that they didn't include any full-sized battle maps. Seeing these included in the new 4e adventures might make them worth their higher...

I checked out my friend's copy. It looks pretty cool, but I wish they hadn't printed the gazetteer with that horrid greyscale background.

As far as Elmore goes, I have never liked his paintings. I wouldn't classify him as a bad artist (quite the opposite) -- just the antithesis to my cup of tea.

The editing is, indeed, horrible. I did enjoy the ideas behind the text, however.

Kind of like C&C evangelists over here on enworld, right? :cool:

I started with the Moldvay Basic Set in 1982 and then moved to AD&D (both via my older brother's books). I stopped gaming about a year after second edition came out -- 1991... maybe later. I'm not sure, but I know I had the first Ravenloft and Spelljammer boxed sets and several reams of...

This is what caused many problems for me with C&C. I believed the hype put out by over-eager shills, and that caused me to have a disproportionate amount of frustration when I ran the game. Now that I've let that dust settle a bit, I'm willing to go back to the book and mine it for ideas to use...

When questions come up with my distaff players, I refer their delicate little faces to the October 1976 issue of The Dragon.

I've used gnomes in all of the D&D games I've ran since 2000. As a player, about 50% of my 3.0/3.5 characters have been gnomes: a gnome wizard, a gnome barbarian, a svirfneblin monk, and a forest gnome ranger/assassin for example.

My Greyhawk world is very non-canon. I enjoy the generic fluff elements I have recognized as D&D since I was a kid. That's one of the reasons I liked the core fluff Greyhawk of 3.0 and 3.5 -- it was a customizable Greyhawk toolkit. I also game in Sunnydale, Hyperborea, Newhon and Yuggoth.

It depends on how I can incorporate them into the "Lizardfolk" template of previous editions. I've allowed Lizard-Men characters before.

I would prefer a feat to have a simple name that relates directly to what it does. The player's mind (especially mine) is a computer with limited RAM available... the designers should keep this in mind. :-) However, upon a bit of reflection, "Golden Wyvern Adept" isn't a bad sounding fluff...

OK, so I bought the .pdf and I've had my copy printed and leather bound. It is the best RPG supplement on my shelf aside from SOLID! and HoL.

Check out this OD&D discussion forum if you haven't already: http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi It seems to have the most activity, especially for a OD&D (not Basic/Expert-BECMI-Rules Compendium) focus.

This thread is like the "Werewolf" card game... but instead of Werewolves, it's Playtesters.

I don't think it will succeed. However, I think it will be claimed to be a success anyway, and it will be pushed for about four to five years until it is re-vamped into a completely different model or abandoned entirely. I hope WotC proves me wrong, wrong, wrong!

First off, I want to say that I agree with almost every rule change that has been mentioned so far. Outside of the needless fluff changes, the evolution of the mechanics seems to be a step in the right direction. I would have preferred it if WotC "fixed" 3.5 before moving onto 4e. The release...

Lots of gamers in my area, but hard to find compatible ones.

Great! Now if only I could get a group together to play Star Frontiers...

I ran the 3.5 revised White Plume Mountain and I've played in the 1e and 2e versions of Tomb of Horrors.