Search results

In my opinion, Stone Shape is one of the nastiest spells in the book to deal with as a DM. In various editions, I've had multiple vampire lords die from Stone Shape (in one case, to act as a channel for a river; in the other case, to drop the vampire into the trap underneath which was created...

Personally, I'd rule that the indestructibility of an artifact supersedes the Drunken Master breakage rule, but I agree that there's a conflict, and by RAW, you could destroy adamantine or diamond items in this matter. The 3.0 version is pretty powerful- you just have to take it from Rogue...

For those of you who like the shape on the right, note that you can get more area or volume out of it if you apply the same logic in 3-space.

This is why Pi = 2 is not a good idea The easiest solution is to house-rule diagonals back as they are in 3.x. Otherwise, you're stuck in a geometry that has a Pi of 2, where circles are squares, and any accurate visualization of even this trivial of a problem requires double the number of...

Good points. Concentrating more on minions (at least at low levels) or larger groups of lower level creatures (above low levels) may help. True, but this is true in every edition of D&D I've played. I didn't find the DMG advice to be very helpful. Good points. That's why we moved to 3 PCs -...

It's very clear that I could publish no versions of the current OGL material I've created under the GSL, nor would it be advisable to do so. (Problems include means of publication, existence of prohibited material, and re-definition of existing terms). Unless they construct another license (or...

I've played roughly 10 encounters with a party size of 2 (Wizard and Paladin), and 5 with a party size of 3 (Wizard, Paladin, and Rogue). In the former case, all party members were level 1; In the later case, 2 were level 2, and the other (Rogue) was level 1. I attempted to scale the encounters...

I guess your players never decided to make counter-dungeons under the existing dungeon, eh? ;)

Edited for tone. Personally, I'd prefer longer rests - perhaps a few days - to regain all healing surges. However, I'll have to admit that with the tempo I usually keep my games at, full regain on rest is probably a good thing. It seems to cost two minor actions. In any case, do you think that...

Note that most creatures would only make an impression on the surface prior to floating (assuming that the creature falls on the lava, and not vice-versa). A creature on top of the surface would only displace its mass of the liquid (which for a human would be less than 2 cubic feet - which is...

Note that the continual re-roll on max result ends up being less than adding +1 to the mean of each roll. For example, doing this with a d6 gives a mean around 4.2 (instead of 3.5).

The reality is that I'm still pretty happy with 3.x. after running and playing games through the low 20s several times, I have a pretty good idea of how to run with relatively few problems. I'll probably be stealing some ideas from 4.x, though. And I may eventually switch. In the unlikely...

If I were actually to do this, I'd probably also create the PCs for them. Of course, if I'm doing that, I'd probably run pre-generated PCs, with backgrounds, etc. designed for the particular module. I loved monster PCs in 3.x.

Heck, I'm used to dungeons which are dry below the water table, alterations to the basic laws of physics, and (when I play 4E) Pi being equal to 2 (or 3 on a Hex map). The lack of magic item markets is something pretty minor in comparison. I'd just prefer to know about it up front.

My point of surprise is largely that 3.x seemed to have high magic as a default, and at least the DMG explicitly had rules for buying and selling magic items easily, and at only a 50% loss. I'm confused why you feel that 4.x is worse from your perspective than 3.x in this regard; I'd think that...

I can deal with the ID rules from the article. I've thought for a long time that some (or all) items should be able to be used pretty much immediately upon acquisition, which mechanics like "Identify" make more difficult. I also think that Identifying an item should be far cheaper than buying it...

Back in 1st ed, I'd memorize the MM, MMII, and FF. From this memorization, I learned to reverse engineer the structure of (most) creatures, which means that I can often give pretty close stats, even to a creature I've never read, for a game that I've just learned. So, no. I don't have a problem...

Yep. Perhaps you have difficulty with the idea of "I just killed that Choker 6 seconds ago! Now I can finally speak fluent Kobold!" I have no problem with this approach. For that matter, during my first 3e game, I really had PCs leveling in the midst of combat. It was quite a change from using...

I don't think that it's that difficult to bump up your player's level if you think they're having too much trouble at the present one.

I'm still of the opinion that playing a 3.x/4e amalgam looks pretty easy, so I'll loose little of my investment even if/when I fully switch over. Even better, at the moment, I can steal 4e material into my 3e game with very minimal work. I mean, heck, looking at the recent Orcs pages, it looks...