-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Players Handbook II
- Thread starter Frostmarrow
- Start date
dvvega
Explorer
I already have a PHB2 
It's called taking all the erratta for all the books and updating my books.
When I play, I don't carry around a fistful of books, I have just the PHB.
What about splatbook/MM information?
1. I have a complete print out of all stat blocks for summoned monsters and nature's allies - found these on the net a long time ago ... they're great.
2. Any feat I have is listed on my character sheet with any notes about it's operation ... why bring a splatbook along for that?
3. Big erratta like the bladesinger is a different matter and I agree that is a little bit of a pain, but since I don't play a bladesinger it doesn't matter.
Seriously, a second version of the PHB would be cool with all the updates, but you can't go mixing DM stuff in with player stuff ... I like the layuot of the books now, PrCs in the DMG, not in the PHB etc. And then you'd find that the editing on that book needed revision, so the cycle would start again.
It's called taking all the erratta for all the books and updating my books.
When I play, I don't carry around a fistful of books, I have just the PHB.
What about splatbook/MM information?
1. I have a complete print out of all stat blocks for summoned monsters and nature's allies - found these on the net a long time ago ... they're great.
2. Any feat I have is listed on my character sheet with any notes about it's operation ... why bring a splatbook along for that?
3. Big erratta like the bladesinger is a different matter and I agree that is a little bit of a pain, but since I don't play a bladesinger it doesn't matter.
Seriously, a second version of the PHB would be cool with all the updates, but you can't go mixing DM stuff in with player stuff ... I like the layuot of the books now, PrCs in the DMG, not in the PHB etc. And then you'd find that the editing on that book needed revision, so the cycle would start again.
dvvega
Explorer
Oh and yeah ... I'm Australian, and sarcasm is our forte.
The fact that Australians might not notice American sarcasm (or other sarcasm) is because we expect subtlety, we expect well thought out sarcasm (it is an art form for us you know).
When people are OBVIOUSLY sarcastic, we play along, pretending we don't notice, since it's become a big joke for us to convince the other person we're 100% serious.
The fact that Australians might not notice American sarcasm (or other sarcasm) is because we expect subtlety, we expect well thought out sarcasm (it is an art form for us you know).
When people are OBVIOUSLY sarcastic, we play along, pretending we don't notice, since it's become a big joke for us to convince the other person we're 100% serious.
Bonedagger
First Post
rounser said:
...Hmm. You're easy to provoke
You forgot to criticize that I defined you as one group of identical people and myself as anybody else...
rounser said:Yeah, that's it for sure...
I apologize.
I had two different messageboards open at the same time and I for some reason typed an answer here to a question on another board when I copied some text over... Must have been because the word "Aussie" appeared in both threads?
It was meant to be sarcastic
(Didn't make much sense here.. LOL)
Bah, that's as constructive a statement as "You're getting defensive!" What are you trying to do, score points? Begone foul troll.
Either I'm not very good at "getting" it, or you're not very good at it. It's like a comedian who thinks he's funny, but has to tell his audience that they just "don't get" his jokes.
Now, am I being sarcastic? I could be...
Last edited:
Bonedagger
First Post
dvvega said:Oh and yeah ... I'm Australian, and sarcasm is our forte.
The fact that Australians might not notice American sarcasm (or other sarcasm) is because we expect subtlety, we expect well thought out sarcasm (it is an art form for us you know).
When people are OBVIOUSLY sarcastic, we play along, pretending we don't notice, since it's become a big joke for us to convince the other person we're 100% serious.
Interesting. But I think that you'll find most cultures to be in the subtle end of the sarcasm scala. The americans do have a tendency to be unsubtle in most things they do
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Reprinting is overrated. ^_^
What *I* would like to see in a PHB2 would be (all supplemental):
Chapter 1: New Races that would fit into Generic D&D Fantasy (perhaps some "official" Kobold/templated/etc. PC races)
Chapter 2: New Classes that would fit into Generic D&D Fantasy, but were markedly different from the classes already implemented. Stuff like....I dunno....a class that gradually transforms into a fiend, but wants to remain "heroic", or a class that gains the abilities of monsters by absorbing their essences, or a class that gives off auras of different types, a spellcaster who sells his soul for energy, or other types of things that toy with new mechanics or new takes on old things that can't be done with the original classes, PrC's, or feats.
Chapter 3: New Prestige Classes that would fit into Generic D&D Fantasy, but are markedly different from the PrC's so far made. Also, they have to be balanced by playtesting. Stuff like a PrC for commoners or something that brings them in line with current PC classes, a PrC or two that would relate to a class or race within the book, maybe a few for example generic organizations, like a Schooled Wizard, or the Goblins of Pelor or something. Added bonus: a section on designing PrC's.
Chapter 4: New Feats. Feats that are markedly different, and perhaps even guidelines for making new feats. Yahoooo!
Chapter 5: New Flavor: Descriptions of characters, beliefs, gods, things that could make heroes unique. Maybe here include things that would apply to even non-PHB2 characters, like archetypes of a sort, or new domains and stuff. A beleif-composition-lite could be useful.
Chapter 6: New Gear: New weapons, armor, items, and even magical thingies (Yay! +2 Vorpal Backpack!). Especially would dig new alchemichal mixtures and stuff.
Chapter 7: New Spells: JAKCPOT!
*******************************
I could see a DMG2, too, with stuff like settings, making things flavorful, weird adventures and stuff to do.
Why stop at more monsters?
As far as campaign settings go -- a lot of them are cool, but they require a bit of adaptation for use in a Generic D&D Campaign. Not all DM's (and fewer players) would be willing to buy an entire campaign setting that they would only use parts of. I mean, *I* do, but I seem to have this problem holding on to money.
By all rights, this should be done. Fudge your pre-packaged DMing dreams of publishing a setting you made. Just make new crunchy bits and shove it out!
I suppose something like this could *theoretically* replace the PHB, but I don't think it should. The PHB is a core rulebook, and I don't think anything other than the PH, DMG, and MM should be core rulebooks (with the possible exception of a Book of Homebrewing so us creative DM's could make our own shtick and have it be fairly evenly balanced)
What *I* would like to see in a PHB2 would be (all supplemental):
Chapter 1: New Races that would fit into Generic D&D Fantasy (perhaps some "official" Kobold/templated/etc. PC races)
Chapter 2: New Classes that would fit into Generic D&D Fantasy, but were markedly different from the classes already implemented. Stuff like....I dunno....a class that gradually transforms into a fiend, but wants to remain "heroic", or a class that gains the abilities of monsters by absorbing their essences, or a class that gives off auras of different types, a spellcaster who sells his soul for energy, or other types of things that toy with new mechanics or new takes on old things that can't be done with the original classes, PrC's, or feats.
Chapter 3: New Prestige Classes that would fit into Generic D&D Fantasy, but are markedly different from the PrC's so far made. Also, they have to be balanced by playtesting. Stuff like a PrC for commoners or something that brings them in line with current PC classes, a PrC or two that would relate to a class or race within the book, maybe a few for example generic organizations, like a Schooled Wizard, or the Goblins of Pelor or something.
Added bonus: a section on designing PrC's.Chapter 4: New Feats. Feats that are markedly different, and perhaps even guidelines for making new feats. Yahoooo!
Chapter 5: New Flavor: Descriptions of characters, beliefs, gods, things that could make heroes unique. Maybe here include things that would apply to even non-PHB2 characters, like archetypes of a sort, or new domains and stuff. A beleif-composition-lite could be useful.
Chapter 6: New Gear: New weapons, armor, items, and even magical thingies (Yay! +2 Vorpal Backpack!). Especially would dig new alchemichal mixtures and stuff.
Chapter 7: New Spells: JAKCPOT!
*******************************
I could see a DMG2, too, with stuff like settings, making things flavorful, weird adventures and stuff to do.
Why stop at more monsters?
As far as campaign settings go -- a lot of them are cool, but they require a bit of adaptation for use in a Generic D&D Campaign. Not all DM's (and fewer players) would be willing to buy an entire campaign setting that they would only use parts of. I mean, *I* do, but I seem to have this problem holding on to money.
By all rights, this should be done. Fudge your pre-packaged DMing dreams of publishing a setting you made. Just make new crunchy bits and shove it out!
I suppose something like this could *theoretically* replace the PHB, but I don't think it should. The PHB is a core rulebook, and I don't think anything other than the PH, DMG, and MM should be core rulebooks (with the possible exception of a Book of Homebrewing so us creative DM's could make our own shtick and have it be fairly evenly balanced)
Bonedagger
First Post
rounser said:
I would guess that the reason you don't get it was because it was taken out of a discussion you have never seen.
Don't flatter yourself to think I would care to score "points" by you. I was polite to explain that my post had ended up on the wrong board. You are the one who take my words out of context to hide that fact.
Added: And when I mentioned that it was sarcastic it was to tell people like you who don't "get it" that it was not a serious text.
Last edited:
You felt the need to make a personal attack after I commented neutrally and analytically on your post. I don't care what you think you've explained after that - you strike me as rude and obnoxious, not polite.
Nah mate, you're the one who doesn't "get it", being the person who felt that this post was objectionable enough to warrant getting personal and insulting me in response:
No, we're very sarcastic. Your accent probably hid the necessary intonation to signal it, though. I'd also assume that sarcasm intonations, like accents, sometimes differs across borders. It's possible that they were expecting more subtle sarcasm, so took what you thought of as obvious sarcasm as too blatant to be sarcasm, and therefore interpreted it literally.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
