Bolstaf's page

As with the Pathfinder modules the physical quality is superb and everything needed to play is provided, sample PCs as well as NPCs. The storyline is relatively linear but well presented and illustrated and the DM has very little extra preparation to do to run this adventure. Overall, I am very impressed. If you are looking for an out of the box, easy to run, ready to go module, this one more than qualifies.

But, the module is numbered J1 which indicates that is is a Journey module. However, there is virtually no journey involved other than a very brief "Race across the Desert" to the pyramid and this takes up barely one third of a page out of about 30 pages of adventure. And the desert environment plays no virtually no part in influencing the PCs or their actions.

edit: bah! you posted while I was typing. Damn my slow copy/paste skillz!!!1!1!!!!1!!one!1!!

No, it is always good to get confirmation. Don't beat yourself up too much, you should see the number of "Previews" I have to do before hitting the "Submit Post" button. (8^)

Bolstaf--

I think those references were directed towards core classes like monk and paladin, which don't allow characters to take levels in other classes (core or prestige) and then return to progressing in the original class.

Aha, yes, that makes sense. I had forgotten those specific core class restrictions. (8^(

Quote:In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new Dungeon Master’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Unquote.

Sorry for jumping in late here but I was just about to post a similar question when I saw this thread. Some earlier books, eg 3.0 Sword & Fist, mention the fact that some standard classes may freely switch back and forth between the prestige and standard class when gaining levels, implying that, for most classes, once a prestige class is taken the player may not switch back to their old standard class. Is this now a bogus comment/rule under 3.5?

Is it right that players (or the DM) can use the delay action mechanism to move themselves higher up the initiative order in the next turn?

They get a low initiative roll, delay their action in round 1 and then jump in at the top of the order in round 2 and this then becomes their place in the initiative order for the rest of the encounter.

It does not seem right to me that the change is permananent but the rules seem to support this interpretation. Or am I missing some other restriction elsewhere in the rules?

Yes, I agree that Issue 142 has excellent content but.....

Is anyone else having problems relating the description of T1 and T2 on page 66 vs the cross section on p67?

Perhaps the description was changed (editted for space?) after the picture was drawn but there are some serious inconsistencies, e.g. the description tells me there is an iron grate after the players reach bottom, the picture shows me a pool. And there are a number of other differences that require the DM to ponder.

There is nothing "wrong" that a seasoned DM cannot "fix" if they decide to use the module but I have to say that this is not up to the very high standard of play-testing and proof-reading that I have come to expect from Dungeon.

Bolstaf wrote:

So, if WotC and Paizo are not joined at the hip, can we hope that Dragon/Dungeon content will remain relatively independant....

As the magazines are owned by and licensed from Wizards, they have full editorial control over the content, and can absolutely tell us what we can print and what we can't print. However, this is nothing new; the company that owns D&D has always had full control over the magazines. If you like the current direction, there's nothing to worry about.

-Vic.

As a long time DM (1st Edition 3 booklet boxed set) I really appreciate well put together modules, even if I don't use them exactly as printed they are an invaluable source of ideas and information. Hence my concern, there is simply no other D&D centric publication out there in the same league, my fear was that the Hasbro factor may have pushed WotC to take the magazines in a more overt "house magazines" direction. Your response is just what I wanted to hear, I like the current direction, keep it up.........

So, if WotC and Paizo are not joined at the hip, can we hope that Dragon/Dungeon content will remain relatively independant and not suffer the same fate as the old UK White Dwarf RPG magazine?

White Dwarf started out as an RPG magazine (I still have Issues#1 thru #94) with content across the RPG board but, when Games Workshop took control, it very quickly degenerated into a 100% Games Workshop vehicle for pushing GW tabletop gaming products and events, no RGP content, not even any advertising.

I would hate to think that Dragon/Dungeon could suffer the same fate with respect to WotC products.........

I seem to remember that there once was a group called MAD&D (Yep, Mothers Against D&D). It seems to be defunct now, I could not find any reference to it on the Internet. Anyone else old enough to confirm or debunk its existance?

Once, a few years back, when I was discussing my son's behavior (he is borderline ADD) issues in 5th grade at school, I happened to mention that he played D&D with me and the reaction was, to say the least, very negative. Not only did they conclude that his problems were very likely rooted in D&D participation, they also become somewhat hostile to me. Is it part of teacher training to view D&D participants with suspicion?

I'm predicting this different-tastes-in-game-worlds issue will pour out onto the streets in a bloodbath not seen in our time. Time/Life books might release a series on us.

"It was a time of brightly colored polyhedron. A time of NPC envy. A time of expensive purchasing habits. Brother against brother. Warforged against alphanumerically titled modules..."

I'm a vegetarian and when I go to a restaurant, I don't order the 22 pound butt steak (So DANG thick you'll be full before ya teeth touch!). But I really don't care if someone else likes to nibble at the ass of a steer.

There is enough on the menu for all of us.

So, as a courtesy, we could get down to chowing and stop talking with our mouthes full. I won't tell you how cruelly the Holstein died and you won't explain to me that tofu tastes like a moldy cardboard waffle marinated in bile.

And I do love Greyhawk, but I'd never suggest 'Gayberron' because 'Gayhawk' is so much better. Shh. I never said it and you didn't hear it!

Well said......

When all is said and done, D&D is just a game and Campaign Settings are just part of said game. A setting is simply a background to provide DMs and players with a relatively believable background and rationale. So why all this depressing intolerance, why do some folks have so much trouble accepting that their favorite might not be someone else's ? I know which setting is my favorite but that is just my opinion, I could be wrong........

Honestly, if you need to breakdown what the Hit Die is because you're tinkering with it for your own game or you want to do some modifications, you're probably going to be popping your books open anyway. It's not difficult to open your Monster Manual and check out the table James has referred to along with any other juicy info back there you're going to need to research for your tinkering.

No, not "tinkering". I have been plugging stat block hp details into a homegrown VB6 program that can generate hp on the fly during my sessions based on hit die type, quantity and base values. This change, along with the good advice in this thread, got me thinking, why bother? It is much easier just to plug the hp and hd, most players don't (and should not) care if Orc1 has slightly different hp to Orc2 , they just want them dead. (8^) If players ask "how many hp does it have left?" I just describe its health/appearance. Hp is, at session time, purely a DM concern.

So, bottom line, I am going to fix my program to use hp and hd from now on.

Well, thanks to everyone who joined in, I have learned a lot from this thread over the past few hours. (8^)

I am happy again........

I have run in to two problems:

1. Attacks - The stat block no longer gives separate Attack and Full Attack details. Which one is being supplied now? Is there some way of calculating or inferring the other from what is given? Or am to assume that monsters no longer differentiate between partial and full attacks?

2. Hit Points - Why have hit dice type and base hit points gone away? Are we to assume that every monster for a given name has exactly the same hitpoints? OK if the monster is unique but what about groups of the same monster? Also, without the dice type and base value is is impossible to tell how some of the values are derived, eg the Overworm in Issue 130, shown as hp250 (20 HD). Assuming hit dice type of 12 and we get very lucky and roll 20 12s we get to 240hp, so where does the extra 10 come from?