Absinth's page

I've got a homebrew campaign that we're playing in for nearly six years now and its getting better and better, because every campaign adds more detail.
I've had another world before but back than i made the mistake to feel the need to develop all the important things (history, religion, politics, nations, cosmology) at once. This hasn't been a good idea, because it was a lot of work and some of the stuff wasn't that good because it was done in a hurry. Later i had quite better ideas on certain aspects but there was no room for these anymore.
In the current world i avoided these mistakes. At first i only developed the things that are absolutly necessary (like the important nations and their relationships to each other, important events in history, major gods etc.). But these informations weren't that fleshed out and were more of an overview than detailed and it worked really well. Sure, there has to be enough information that the players get the feel and tone of the world. I experienced that players have problems with too much information and that they get frustrated if you confront them with thirty new gods at once or century-long detailed histories of nations far away. There's time for this later. What i fleshed out in detail were the things that are needed for the beginning of the campaign, like the town they start it and the character background. And it was cool how much was added to the world just by the things the players imagined for their characters background.
For the pantheon i only fleshed out the three most important gods to start with and just mentioned that there're far more and the characters do know these. The players don't have to in the beginning. I know that many DM's feel the urge to develop a complete pantheon but i never met players that're introduced to a new world and that demand to get informations on all of the 30+ gods in detail. They're quite glad if they don't have to know this first...:D For a player that wanted to play a cleric of a nture deity i needed to create one and i did this together with the player and this was lots of fun and the finished deity is just great...
What i like most about this method is that it keeps the fun of creating worlds fresh, because i can add detail after detail as needed. There's always room for cool stuff i'm creating even years after we first played on the world and i don't have doubts that this can go on for another six years. Sure, by now we have lots of material and the players contributed plenty of it and they really know the world by now and its still fun to add things.
The history for example, which only told of a handful of important events in the beginning is now very, very detailed. The pantheon now contains about 30 higher and lesser deities and there's a whole bunch of important and/or memorable NPC's, just to give some examples.
To summon up, don't feel the need to create everything at once. Leave spaces for future ideas and create only those aspects that you need to run the adventure. And don't feel badly prepared if a player asks a questions that you can't answer. Mostly these are questions that are not important to the current adventure and just out of interest. Think about it and answer it next session or ask the player if he likes to answer the question himself by fleshing out this certain detail. When i look back at the development of the world i wouldn't change a thing. I'd only go back to play more...:)

I doubt they do so because of the huge amount of explaining sidebars they'd have to print because of the psi rules.
The Expanded Psionics Handbook isn't considered a core rule book so they couldn't just reference it (like they do with references to MM or DMG), they have to explain the mechanism to the readers that don't have this book. I'd be more than pleased to see psionics included as i imagine a wild pirate crew made up of psi-using cutthroats....
But i wouldn't count on it. :(

Oh, you're right. Its amusing how you can get things mixed up in memory...
But i didn't make clear what my point was: They didn't mention psionics at all and that was what i disliked because i find the psionic githyankis far more cool than the magic-based.
I'd loved to see psionic githyankis with psi-chrystals and mentally dominated dragons...
But for the above mentioned reasons i understand why they couldn't do it.

I agree with Peruhain. I wouldn't make changes to DC's too because the system seems balanced. What hasn't been considered yet in the discussion about saving throw-DC's is the fact that in many groups the PC's have more than average ability-scores from the beginning of the campaign. When their lowest score in any ability is 14 and they even gain more points by leveling-up or using magic items it is no wonder the DC's seem too low.
That's what high ability-scores are there for... This seems to be due to weird point-buy systems or the decision of many DMs to allow more than average points because "the campaign will be a killer" :)...
Several years back i had a DM that was very serious about the starting ability-scores being rolled and not point-bought. The outcome was that we had, at best, average characters. The campaigns we played under this DM were very challenging, scary, deadly and lots and lots of fun. Sure, the characters that survived leveled up too and upgraded their scores with items, but this progression seemed to be slower because it started at lower level. When a character begins the game with 18 and advances it is no wonder they seem unbeatable from the beginning on. And sometimes they really are...

Too summon up, i'd try to solve the problem at character creation. Sure, this is an useless advice when you're in the middle of the campaign. I wouldn't change something in a running campaign. I'd end it or give it a break and then try something new with the considered changes.

Btw, this is one of the most interesting threads i stumbled upon recently. Well done...:)

I think 'The Lich Queen's Beloved' in combination with the back-up material in Polyhedron and Dragon #309 was one of the best things that ever appeared within these hallowed pages.
Just reading it for inspiration was a lot of fun.
As already mentioned the only drawback to this feature was the fact that the stuff from the then recently released Expanded Psionics Handbook was ignored. But i understand this because they'd have to reprint very much of its content to not confuse readers that didn't own the EXPH...
I'd really like to see a project like this again. And i found it cool that James Wyatt (i guess he wrote the back-up stuff from Dragon #309, but i could be wrong) just outlined the progression of a Lvl 1-20 campaign. That was great! As a DM you could stick to the outline and still can be creative designing the adventures that will advance the story. Maybe this is something for more experienced DM's and beginners might've problems with this, but this was a concept i'd like to see more often.

Hmm, okay, i think i changed my opinion on this a little...
But i'd do this in the style one of the previous posters suggested with Tenser collecting flesh samples without the PC's knowledge (ouch!)...
And then i'd only make use of this option if a TPK happens.
Russell Jones is right, a Midnight-styled epic campaign where the Age Of Worms hasn't been prevented could be really interesting (or depressing, depends on DM & players).
If only one character dies and the other PC's get out alive (with all the important items) i would settle for classic ressurrection.
But even if cloning is used in a stylish way i think it could change the perception of danger for the characters. The players might assume that Tenser always has an ace like this up his sleeve and might play that way...
The cloning-option has Deus Ex Machina written all over...

Hmm, cloning?
Has it gotten that far?
Okay, it might be in the rules but is this a style of play you'd like to see in an exiting AP like AoW?
This is like a save-option in a Xbox-game!
Where's the danger, the on-the-edge-of-your-seat tension when fighting foes like Dragotha when the characters have insurances like this? I don't want to offend the gamers considering this option for their games, but this sounds boring and unstylish to me. I for sure wouldn't want to have this option within my game because the whole all-or-nothing-feel would be lost. I can even imagine characters using their own death in a tactical way because they know that they'll live on in their clone-bodies anyway...
Okay, the same could be said about ressurection, but there're certain aspects that doesn't make this a sure thing (like the possibility of a TPK with noone left alive to rescue).
And how should these guys even complete the AP with all the important items missing (okay, this assumes that a TPK takes place...)? No, as a DM i'd never allow this....

Oh, and if i hijacked this thread in any way, i'm really sorry but i couldn't resist....:)

There are no 3.5 stats for arcanoloths yet, but they woefully need updating from their 3.0 stats in MM2. Moreso than anything else in that book, I think!

This really sounds good...:D

I haven't written my own excerpts from the Apostolic Scrolls but i think that you're on a good way with researching Lovecraft and other authors that handled the Cthulhu-mythos (C.E. Smith, Robert Bloch, Brian Lumley, August Derleth etc.). The mythos is all about foul evil being hidden for ages to someday claim the rule of the world. You'll find thousands of quotes that would fit perfectly into the scrolls. Some passages from books by Poe or Algernon Blackwood might suit your needs too...

I've had a tribe of trolglodytes send out their young with fire trapped boxes as (unwitting) suicide bombers against the players. Just approach the party, open the box, and you have a divine delayed blast fireball.

You are an evil man, Sebastian...:D

Absinth wrote:

Yugoloths? I love these guys...:)

Does anyone know if there're 3.5-stats for the arcanoloth somewhere?

Check the MM3

Checked. It's not in there...

I agree with Office Ninja in all points except for 'Prince Of Redhand'. I guess this is one of the only adventures in the AP where a bard could really shine (and a rogue with social skills and performance too). But on the other hand i think that bards are maybe the worst character-choice for the AP, until you happen to have a really large group of characters (6+ i'd think). Sure the class is really flexible and can be quite useful in the urban adventures, but it will have a really hard time in all these dungeons. Maybe i'm wrong and there're groups out there that sucessfully include bards in the AP, but i doubt it.

The replacement doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem is that it would be a bummer for the player of the mage who played the AP through from the beginning only to be killed when the climax to the whole story is already on the horizon.

I can understand these thoughts, but i guess that this is one of the toughest fight in any adventure published to date and it should be played like this. Don't play Dragotha dumb or let him slip opportunities to defeat the characters. This is maybe the oldest known dracolich in the history of worlds (!!!) and it knows its ressources. And even with time-stop etc. i really can't see a single mage of this level whiping the floor with Dragotha, not with everything else that happens before the fight. But i might be proven wrong...
If i'd DM this module, i'd play Dragotha to the max, but i'd give the players the opportunity to prepare for this.
Maybe i'd ignore the ressurection-thingie too or treat it differently.
I really like the idea of this place beeing so soaked up with foul evil that the gods turn away from any request for help coming from this place. But i'd limit it to the place and not the character killed there. I'd rule that a character dying within the tabernacle of worms can'tbe ressurected there, but any place else. In this fashion you can play Dragotha as evil and forceful as it should be and still be nearly sure that the mentioned character can be around for the grande finale...

Yugoloths? I love these guys...:)
Does anyone know if there're 3.5-stats for the arcanoloth somewhere?

:D Okay. Hmm, i really wonder where i read that. Anyway, i hope you don't mind...

Okay, multiclassing into wizard might've been a house-rule back then. I don't remember the rules in detail but i remember (as most gamers back from these days will) having lots of house rules...:)
I love to play arcane spellcasters too and i had zero intentions to weaken this class in any way. This was only a way to keep character-advancement explainable within the game.

Totally cutting out multiclassing has never been an option for our group because we had really, really cool character concepts in past campaigns because of this possibility.
And i really love to build up interesting multiclassed foes or NPC's to drive my players nuts...:D

I find advancement in a prestige class way easier to incorporate into the story of the campaign because with all these requirements it takes a little planning by the player (usually over two or three levels) until he is able to take the class and this gives me enough time to bring this development into the story.

Btw, i read somewhere that you're from germany. Where exactly are you from? I'm from Hamburg...

I can't see why that argument shouldn't apply to every class.

How long does it take to learn to play an instrument? Speak a language? Wield a sword in each hand? Ride a horse and be manuverable in heavy armor? Punch/kick somebody and avoid being stabbed by their weapons? Channel your rage into a battle frenzy instead of just flailing about in combat?

These are exactly the same arguments some of the players brought up as we discussed this, and they are right. Of course.

I'm aware that if you're starting to view the game through the lense of "realism", you'll end up changing that many things that it kills away all the fun. But this one was something that always bugged me. It may be caused by our style of play. We are mostly playing ongoing and story-focused campaigns and not a collection of modules that aren't linked or only linked by the fact that there's always the same group of characters that makes it through.
I know this style of gaming back from 1st edition days and back then it didn't matter because it wasn't of any importance what happened between adventures, how much time passed etc. .
The fighter could take a lvl of wizard and nobody wondered.
In these days, where even the downtime between two adventures can be of importance to the overall-story this doesn't work for me anymore.
How should i explain that the fighter, after a rest in the middle of a dungeon crawl, knows how to cast magic missile?
He never even mentioned any interest in magic until this moment! I hope you understand what i mean. Its just dissatisfying when you're trying to come up with an epic story that makes sense and things like these are happening because its in the rules.
Sure you could start this with every class, but we thougt that adding an arcane spellcasting class is the most drastic change.
In a perfect world the players would concept their characters progression a few levels ahead so that the DM will be able to build in a story that explains the changes the character goes through.

My House Rules:

The first class a human or half-elf select is considered its 'favored' class at 1st level and beyond.

What do you think is the benefit of this house rule?

I think that the half-elf is already weak and stripping it of the ability to ignore its highest class when considering penalities for multi-classing is one of its few benefits.
If i understand your house trule correct (maybe i didn't) it makes the already weak half-elf even weaker...
With your house-rule you'd have to advance your first class as far as possible to not have drawbacks. With the original rule you have far more flexibility regarding multi-classing and spontaneous character progression.

I don't use many house-rules within my games, but we also apply Quick Draw to every item that is reachable ( this means not inside the backpack etc.) and can be held with one hand.

Another house-rule we use is a restriction for multi-classing into wizard, sorcerer etc. . A character has to have a connection with arcane spell-casting in his backstory because it's mostly assumed that it takes years to master the arts of magic and we always considered it unbelieveable that a fighter or a similar class learns the knowledge of a 1st lvl wizard between two adventures (even if there are several months between adventures). I allow it if there's a general break within the campaign (f.e. between two major campaign-arcs) that takes minimum one or two years game time. With the background-thing it is assumed that the character already knows the basics and does only have to deepen the already existing knowledge to benefit from the wizard/sorcerer/whatever spellcasting class. We don't apply this rule to clerics or favored souls because we think that the divine magic granted by the gods also grants instant knowledge on how this magic works.

I really like monster books (with 'Monsternomicon' (IK) and 'Fiend Folio' being my favorites). I agree that there's little need for even more monsters because the huge amount of cool creatures and templates from several scources provide an endless possibility of variations. Even if there'd never ever be a new monster book for 3.5 you could torture your players with "new" creatures weekly for generations to come...
But i'm looking forward to MM 4 because i was really, really surprised by the quality of the MM 3. I found MM 2 to be really terrible and hadn't very high expectations on the follow-up, but i was very happy with it.
I don't think that the index provides a view on the quality of the content but i like the fact that WotC changes its concept of monster-description. I'd like to see more in-depth information too and I care more for well designed critters with an interesting background than for a huge number of half-heartly designed creatures.
What i don't like is the trend to make up thousand versions of already known monsters. Who needs stats for a 5th Lvl orc-fighter? You could make one yourself in a couple of minutes.
Sure, some people don't have much time to prepare adventures and might appreciate it, but i don't see why this has to be within an MM. I was really bored and annoyed by the several frost giant variations in Frostburn too...
Sure, i'd like to use a pre-made creature that fits my needs too and i'd rather use this than make one up myself, but i already have thousands of useable stats in my issues of Dungeon.
This is one important reason for me to buy the mag every month.
I have a list with all NPC's that appear in the Dungeon issues i own and if i need, for example, a 6th Lvl grimlock ranger i flip through the list to see, if there's something like this in one of the issues. Usually i find the exact thing or a similar NPC that needs only slight modifications to suit my needs.
I don't need this within a 30$ scource book! I expect to see new creatures, new templates, maybe sub-races of already known creatures in a new MM, but definitly no standard-monsters with class-levels that appear in hundreds of Dungeon-adventures.
Okay, i'll stop my rant now. These are just my two cents...:D

I, for myself, don't like guns in classic fantasy settings like Greyhawk or FR. It just doesn't fit in there for me. Would it be necessary to invent guns with all the magic around?On the other hand, if i'd be invited to a Greyhawk-campaign and the DM announces the inclusion of guns, i would still take part.
I really like guns, canons etc. in low-magic steampunk-settings like the IK. In there it makes perfect sense to me and it blends in well with classic medieval weapons like crossbows and similar stuff.

I've got a question regarding the Archivist-class. In the description of the prayer book it is mentioned that the archivist is able to copy spell from other classes that use divine magic (cleric, paladin, druid, ranger etc.), but it isn't mentioned which level the spell will have for the archivist.
If the archivist is able to cast 3rd level spells and he attempts to copy a 3rd level cleric spell into his praybook, will it be treated as an 3rd level spell for the archivist?
I couldn't find notes on copying spells from "foreign" scources in any of my rule books. Is something written about this in DMG II or PHB II? I don't own these books yet...

As I DM for many years now, I see it as a challenge for me and the players to have atypical groups. In the past I was worried when there wasn't, for example, a cleric in the group, but now I find it really interesting to see how the players react to this situation.
Sure, it's way easier if you have a group with the typical core-classes but it's far from impossible to have a successfull group without the certain classes. Sure, if you mostly play published adventures which assume that there're wizards, clerics etc. in the group you might have a hard time, but as a DM I write all the adventures myself and haven't had that much difficulties with the group constellations.
I don't design my adventures with the group constellation in mind. The story's always first. And I can't remember much tweaking in favor of the PC's, but it happens from time to time (but mostly in favor of the story).

I'd like to see articles like 'Ring Of Storms' that focus on interesting locations across Khorvaire, Xen'drik etc. .
Backdrops and maps for towns would be cool too.

Thanks, Zherog, I looked the bloodlines up in UA and considered them nearly perfect for my needs. What I didn't really understand is, how a character progresses further after he took a bloodline-level. For example, a 4th level fighter takes a bloodline-level when he'd advance to 5th to fulfill the requirements for a minor bloodline. He doesn't get BAB-progression etc., only the benefit, if any, from the bloodline. What happens, when he advances after that as a fighter? I assume he progresses as 5th level fighter, even if he is, in fact, a 6th level character. This isn't stated clearly in the description...

I’d like to ask for a little advice on expanding the bloodline-feats from Dragon #311 and #325.
I really like the idea of gaining further abilities because of unusual anchestors.
In my campaign world, many nations were ruled by monstrous races in the past and the inclusion of the bloodlines would make this more clearly.
As described these bloodlines are for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters and they are gaining an additional known spell on each level.
I’d like to expand this idea a little further. I want to change it so, that it doesn’t only grant an additional known spell but the mentioned spell as a spell-like ability. It wouldn’t be avaiable only to sorcerers etc. but to every class. This would be far too powerful in relation to other feats so I’d like to add drawbacks to it so that it would turn out a little more balanced.
First, the feat can only be taken at 1st level. In addition, the character could only make use of one spell-like ability per day, regardless of how many he actually knows.
And I’m thinking about including drawbacks like, for example, a -4 malus on CHA for a character with the necromantic bloodline or light sensivity for a drow bloodline (I can’t remember if a drow bloodline even exists) and similar things.
Do you think this would balance the benefits a little more?
What kind of drawbacks or limitations would you add to make this work?
Should the caster-level be equal to the character level or how should this be figured out?

Well I'm nearly addicted to independent, guitar pop and shoegazer stuff.
Lately the following albums were on heavy rotation:
The Decemberists - 'Picaresque'
Gravenhurst - 'Fires In Distant Buildings'
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - 'Show Your Bones'
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! - dto.
Film School - dto.
Amusement Parks On Fire - dto.
The Shins - 'Chutes Too Narrow'
Postal Service - 'Give Up'
The Smiths - 'The World Won't Listen'

My favorite songs right now are
Sunshine Underground - 'Commercial Breakdown'
The Smashing Pumpkins - 'Thru' The Eyes Of Ruby'
Boyfriends - 'I Love You'
Levy - 'Rotten Love'
Morning Runner - 'Gone Up In Flames'

COTSQ is a very good adventure, but it can be quite deadly, when played out to the max.
There are far too many powerful NPC's and challenges and if a DM really makes use of all the possibilities these creatures and dangers offer, the PC's are meat (unless you have a group of extraordinary smart players).
I started the game with the PC's each one level higher as originally intended and they barely survived.
I had to do a lot of adjustments on the spot because some encounters developed in ways I hadn't imagined and I didn't want to provoke a TPK.
I cut some of the big fights and encouraged role-playing to make it a little less deadly.
I found the adventure not suitable for a group of classic hack'n slash players because if you'd take on every fight possible within the story (and playing NPC's smart while using their ressources), sooner or later the PC's will die.
My players found it great to solve the adventure in a tactical way.
They were very cautious and chose wisely which fights to take on and which to avoid.
Sometimes they operated in stealth-mode, sometimes with diplomacy and sometimes with sheer force.
It was a great experience for everyone and my players were quite proud making it through with only three characters, that didn't survive.
But I think that for a less experienced DM, the adventure can be quite difficult.

I never had any problems with evil characters in my games, but I have a very mature group of players so there won't be any bad vibes carried into real life.
As a DM I always found it way easier to include lawful or neutral evil characters into non-evil groups than chaotic ones.
An evil character doesn't have to commit evil acts all the time.
Mostly the evil alignment showed up when ethical decision had to be made and this always led to challenging roleplaying.
Even if the character is evil, it is not addicted to commiting evil acts.
It can integrate into a non-evil group if this will help him reach his goals.
I think the description of the various alignments in the PHB is pretty good, but it should be remembered, that these guide-lines doesn't have to be followed all the time.
An evil character can save a helpless person, but his motivations for it will be different from the motivations of a LG character.
A mixed-up group with characters of good and evil alignments is more challenging to DM than a group without these extremes in alignment, but it can be a lot of fun with players that want to portray an interesting character-concept.
If an evil character is chosen just for the sake of acting evil, I wouldn't allow it.

A high resolution download of Kyle Hunters picture and the map would be really cool.
This is one of the best drawings of a location I have ever seen.

In my groups, we're still in the stoneage of pencil & paper-maps. :)
We never considered changing to something like Dwarven Forge.
It sure looks cool, but I think it limits my flexibility as DM.
When I'm DMing i like to change elements like dungeon rooms on the spot when i find it necessary to pace the game or when i have a sudden great idea.
I love to improve and some of our most memorial encounters developed out of this technique.
With Dwarven Forge and similar tools i think a DM has to stick with his initial plans and this would rob me of a serious portion of the fun i have while DMing.

When I'm starting a new campaign i nearly always give limitations regarding races and classes.
I never had a player that complained about the restrictions.
Sometimes we argued about allowing certain races, but as a DM i alwyas have the final word and when i think something won't fit into the mood of the campaign or could be trouble in another way, it was always accepted.
Okay, i won't do things like not allowing half of the PHB races or similar harsh restrictions, so my players still have a wide variety to chose from (unless we are playing a very special-themed campaign).

I think Host of Angels gave his players a really wide variety with allowing ECL +2 creatures. The possibility for cool character-concepts is nearly endless within these limits.
So why does it have to be a Thri-Kreen Psychic Warrior, if it bothers the DM?
Hell, there'd be so much else to chose from.
I'd offer him some alternatives to show him, that there is so much else to choose from, but I wouldn't allow the Thri-Kreen.
If the players sees that the DM is allowing him a character he normally wouldn't like to be added to the party, it is possible, that he trys to gain other benefits out of the DM's generous behaviour.
This could lead to trouble in the gaming group, especially with the players that sticked to PHB races.
Maybe they'd like to get their share of "exceptions" in form of an additional magic item or something in that manner.
I wouldn't let something like this endanger your campaign.
If the player only wants to play a Thri Kreen Psychic Warrior and absolutly nothing else, than i'd assume that he's not that interested to play in this campaign.
I myself was always more than willing to accept restrictions etc. that ensure that i'll have a cool campaign with a DM that finds the ideal conditions to deliver great adventures.

Sorry for my bad english, its not my native language. I hope you get what i mean...:)

These are strange times.
People are taking a weretiger/monk as their very first character.
This isn't meant to offend, but i just remembered our first attemps at roleplaying back in 1st edition days.
I had enough to do managing the possibilities of my dwarf.
Heck, non-human weren't even allowed to take a class!
Okay, i was eight years old...:)

Zhuno from Tony Moseleys Zogonia-site is fun too...

I totally agree with the praise for 'The Styes' and the issue in general.
Its hard to imagine a better issue of Dungeon.

@R. Pett: So you play a whole campaign located in 'The Styes'?
Sounds fun to me. I really liked the mood you created in the adventure.
Asylums, mad cults, a degenerated city on the brink of beeing swallowed by the sea.
This is exactly the stuff great adventures are made of...

I'm not a big fan of fiction on Dragon too, but i have to admid that there really were some highlights (like the G.R.R. Martin story).
But I like the idea to have something gaming-related in each fiction-article.
It could be a description of a magic item featured in the story, stats for one of the characters or similar stuff.
With that, there could be something useful in there for the readers that normally skip the fiction.

I agree with the initial idea by Samuel Wright that it would be nice too see a regular column focused on material from "old" settings.
What about the last page where they reprint the cover artwork?
This page could be used in the style of class-acts.
Just pick one interesting aspect from one of the settings (like a game mechanic, a spell, a popular NPC or a feat, whatever)convert it to 3.5 and you'd have another interesting column every month.

Hmm, i can't really understand why Wizards would refuse to approve a Greyhawk-compendium.
Sure, they own the rights, but i guess all risks regarding sales, production etc. would be on Paizos side, right?
And i guess they'd get a good share of the profit if the book would be a success.

I never knew that Rich Burlew was runner-up at the setting search.
Is there any information on what he submitted?
I thought 'Dawnforge' was second in the contest...

I hate psionics. I never allow my players to use it, I think the system is profoundly overpowered.

I don't think the Psionic-System is overpowered. I also think that it is one of the game systems from 3rd edition that has been created very carefully. I guess that most of the prejudice towards psionics remains from the terrible 2nd edition treatment of the theme.

The revision of the 3rd edition rules was a good move and ensured, that there's nearly no overpowered aspect within the system.
Sure, it feels really different than standard D&D, but both systems work together nicely.
I always encourage my players to take on psionic characters, because they're adding flavour and a mystic feel to the campaign.

Hehe...
I once had a group where there were about as much animals as characters.
Two wizards with familars, a ranger and a druid (both with animal companions), a paladin with his mount and a halfling fighter with a riding dog.
It was definitly more of a wandering circus than an adventuring group and the trouble at taverns (okay, they understood that the mount must wait outside) became quite a running gag.
And it happened several times that an animal delivered the killing blow to a villain.
"Hey, why don't we call it 'The Adventures Of Harry, The Bear And His Human Companions'?" was one of the funny quotes i remember from these sessions...:)

Yes, kudos to James Jacobs for one very well written article.
The idea and the concept of presenting hauntings is great.
I always liked themes like haunted places etc. in my games and now i have some rules backing it up.
I'll definitly use the format to invent hauntings of my own to terrorize my vict...err...players. :)
Thanks for a real highlight!

I think this looks really cool.
There's more 3.0/3.5-stuff in it than i expected, but maybe the second volume will have more converted 2nd ed. material. Hopefully...
I'll definitly buy it.

I just stumbled upon a product entry for Fiendish Codex, a WotC book written by Eric Mona & James Jacobs and sheduled for a summer 2006 release, on Amazon.com
Here's the link:
FiendishCodex
I was really exited and surprised to see this and I'd like to ask if it would be possible to have some information on the book.
WotC couldn't pick better authors for a book with this theme.
Will this book be part of the creature-series (Draconomicon, Libris Mortis etc.)?
Also, its labeled as Vol. 1 so we can expect to see at least a second volume. Will this be written by the same authors?
And is it possible that there'll be stuff from the Demonomicon-series included?

Hasn't it been mentioned that the Demonomicon series will be written by James Jacobs only?
Does it make sense to submit Demonomicon-queries?

Cool idea!
I'd really like to see this...

If you plan on running AoW like it is intended (with battling Kyuss at the end), than you have missed something very, very important with skipping 'The Whispering Cairn'. Inside the cairn the pc's find a fragment of the Rod Of Seven Parts which will be needed to defeat Kyuss in the end.
There'll be some more scenes within the AP that'll refer to the item.
You should make it avaiable in another way if you don't plan on running 'Whispering Cairn'.

I never had the problem that one of the players wanted to add more than one template to his character.
We have the rule that every aspect of a new character has to be explained by its background and i really can't imagine a really good story for a creature with three or more templates.
If my players come up with a fantastic idea that proves me lies, than i'd allow it if it is within the balance regarding other characters in the group.
Templates themselves aren't that bad. They are a great way to create unique concepts for characters of all kind (including PCs)and are some of my favorite game mechanics of the recent edition.
It really depends on what you make out of it. PrC's, feats or even multi-classing can be abused in similar ways so i won't create restrictions regarding templates in my game.
As always, the DM has the last word on everything in the campaign.

I had great games with a 2 players + DM group, but both players were gaming veterans and enjoyed the fact, that their characters got more spotlight than in a game with five or more players.
A small group can be a great opportunity to outplay the characters and have a more story-focussed game.
But with less experienced gamers i imagine that it could be a drawback too...
The problem can be the adventures. If you use adventures from Dungeon or other ressources you'll have some work with scaling them to suit your small group.

I was a little disappointed with #335, too.
Its not because of features like First Watch, the editoreal, class acts, fiction or interviews.
I guess it was the certain mix within this issue that made it boring to me.
I like the idea of having an interview with Greenwood and the first part was really interesting, but the second part was too Waterdeep-specific to me.
I liked the Cunningham-story too but i agree, that it wasted too many pages.
There were definitly too many long articles in this issue (Greenwood interview, Cunningham story, bard-college article).
I didn't really get, what Eric Boyds Waterdeep-article was about. Was it meant to name all the ressources DMs can find Waterdeep-material in? Or was it just meant as a praise to Waterdeep in a patriotic kind of way? ;)
The few things i liked about the issue was the ecology of lizard folk, magic items from the swamp (kudos to Mrs. Scott by the way...), the Charlatan-PrC and spellcraft.
So, it wasn't that bad...:)

I know that it is nearly impossible to publish a monthly magazine without certain ups and downs in term of content and quality. There'll be better issues to come, i'm really sure..
I'm looking forward to next issue with the newest part of the 'Demonomicon' and the horror-theme.

There were many very useful issues.
I used issue #301 (Swashbucklers) a lot in one of my campaigns back then.
I always like the issues with darker themes like #312.
The 'Incursion'-issue (#309?) was a blast, too.
The best of the recent issues was #329 with the first part of the Demonomicon and the great ecology on kenku...