|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts 
I've had this for many years and, just now, went to install in on a new PC, after our old one died. I can't get the searching tool to install. Anyone have an answer for that..? I can still clal up each issue in PDF and search within that, btu it was pretty nice to be bael to search over many issues and book mark items.
For those of us in the day, The Temple of Elemental Evil was the biggest disappointment after havign waited years for it to come out. What a horrible edit and the worst maps EVER made by TSR. Then this one came along, and we who bought it first off the shelf, had no idea it was a spoof. Kids, THAT's why TSR died...
You should get a copy of the First Edition DMG with it's bell curves describing the 3-18 score range. A single die makes a flat graph. Multile dice create a bell curve with a MUCH higher probability in the mid-range. Again, on a single d8, EVERY number will appear, statistically, the sam eamount of times. On 2d4, five will almost always be the score, with four and six right up there. Get some dice out and try it, even just 2d6. Snake eyes has one chance of coming up when each dice comes up one. Seven, on the other hand, comes up with
BTW, I've played D&D since 1978, so I've covered A LOT of statistical ground, here. It really is a broken rule...
If you're going to resuscitate 3.5, and I have no problem with that, there are a few things that really scream to be fixed. First, and this is THE BIG ONE - the cleric. This class is SO completely incompatible with deities of magic, thievery, scholarly pursuits, etc, that I'm surprised no one's thought of it before. And this weakness goes back to First Edition! Imagine a cleric of Boccob wading into combat wearing platemail and swinging a mace! In our house rules, for years we've used watered-down thieves, wizards and sorcerer stats with lower hit die and base combat figures. Second, eliminate ALL multiple die damages. This is statistically corrupt. In First Edition, for instance, a long sword did d8, while a broadsword did 2d4. A long sword averaged 4.5 points of damage, while a broadsword averaged 5. Sounds pretty close, right..? Well, not really - a long sword was equally likely to score any number between 1 and 8, while a broadsword was 25% as likely to score a 2 (1-in-16) as a 5 (4-in-16). In fact, the broadsword was 62.5% likely to score a 4, 5 or 6. Just plain stupid. Most of that was cleared from 3.0, but a few have slipped in, especially with larger weapons. Get rid of it all. Third, damage modifiers by strength need to be rewritten. A character swinging a great axe hits and rolls the d12 and rolls a one. A nick, until the 18 strength modifier is added and it jumps up to a 5. A nick is just a nick, and there should always be the chance of doing just one point of damage. In our campaign we've long used a dx-1 for strength modifiers. For instance, for an 18 strength with a +4 modifier, we use d8-1 (0 to +7), which allows for nicks, but keeps the balance by upping the potential of damage.
I always think of Wood Elves as the Elves from Shakespeare's a Midsummer Night's Dream - the WHOLE forest is their home. The elves that kidnap Bilbo's companions in the Hobbit would be another good example. So, in my view, they would have no settlements, per se. They might have camps, feasting areas, etc, but no such thing as houses, living at one with the forest.
Ecology of... Column Hey, how about you list the book from which a monster is drawn, so we don't have to flip through four Monster Manuals and whatever odd supplement that has monsters just to get the basics..? BTW, as a D&D player for 27 years, and a Dragon reader for 26, I think that Ecology of, Class Acts and Bazaar of the Bizarre, whatever their incarnations, are the best. And, as long as I'm on it, I agree with those folks who hate the illegible print/funky backgrounds - I read this while I exercise, so legibility is important! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
