DM Alistair wrote :I never understood the hate against 4e and 5e.
For me, it was because when WoTC hyped their upcoming 4.0 and told us : «in the meantime, keep playing and buying D&D 3.5.» Only to find out later thant the 500$ worth of stuff I bought from those dweebs, would not be useable with 4.0. So I stuck with Paizo and Pathfinder and never gave WoTC another dime.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
The question was : things you just don't like in your fantasy RPG's.There doesn't have to be a logical reason to this. It is an emotional response. It does not mean what you have in your's is wrong. I, for one, am interested in knowing what bugs you in your RPG.
Played a wizard at level twelve and got fed up. Most of all the encounters at that level have DR and SR. Half of the time my caster checks would fail and my spells did ... zip, nada, zero. Meanwhile the tank beats the c**p out of the baddies. Also most of the spells at high level are save or die. Not to many have 1/2 damage or is you save this effect happens kind of thing.
Now before you start arguing for or against what I just said... remember that I am talking about my experience with playing the character. It is the impression I got.
Most of the games wee play are between levels 4 and 10, not counting AP's
I think they are pretty much okay. I might postpone the effect of no 2 till they are level three and up.
In my campaigns :
wizards cast with no dice cap for damage à la AD&D.
Neutralize poison neutralizes poison à la AD&D.
No one wants to bother with spell components, so don't waist a feat with eschew material.
And before anyoe starts griping with the die cap thingee, it doesn't unbalance our game. If you play a sorcerer you have more spells spurr of the moment, if you are a mage you studies allows to augment the potency of the spells. Add the fact that at hight level, most of the critters have dr and sr anyways so.....
What a stupid idea. Reminds me of Coca-Cola who asked you to vote if you wanted the old coke (now known as Classic) to return. The call cost 25cents. Are you stupid or what? Look at you sales, bozo!
My way of doing this is to refuse to buy WoTC books that are not 3.5 compatible.
Good luck to all the people signing that petition however.
Hey Greg and Neil
Started running Fidler's.
Didn't have them hear the music right away. They had to make a percetion check once inside the general store.
Not only did they not accept the monlender's generous offer, they even forced the mercenaries to hide the children and the dog from the level 10 gazeebo inside the shop.
They handled the public post incident and are off towards the church.
All in all, players are enjoying the plug-in and the opportunity to rack-up trust points. It is also nice to have a floorplan of the general store. Fountain will be next.
This is a post from a critic wannabee concerning
Overall, I like "Lord of the Rings." However, I do feel that Tolkien kind of rips off "Harry Potter" in many ways. There are several parallels, such as elves, dwarfs, wizards, goblins, trolls, magic (especially invisibility), etc. Sauron is referred to as “Dark Lord” just like Voldemort is. There is also the elder white-haired bearded wizard who serves almost as a mentor, Gandalf, who is reminiscent of Dumbledore. Some of the character names are similar, such as Wormtongue as opposed to Wormtail, too. There is even a gigantic spider (Shelob) at the end of "The Two Towers" that reminds one of Aragog from "Chamber of Secrets." I even noticed that the plots of both series begin with the protagonists’ birthday. Now I see that Tolkien, this unoriginal bastard, is coming out with "The Hobbit" in December. This would be fine, but why didn't he just write this book first to begin with? I still like "Lord of the Rings," though--don't get me wrong--but I wonder if Tolkien has ever said in interviews whether he borrowed elements from Harry Potter. I’ll be watching the extended DVDs later this week and I think he’s featured on the commentary track, so I look forward to that.
After being verablly abused by fellow posters and on his facebook page, he came back with this gem with my added comment in caps throughout 'cuz I don't grasp the bold thingee. Sorry!
Hello everyone, okay admittedly I feel a little stupid (FIRST THING HE SAID THAT MADE SENSE because I accused Tolkien of ripping off "Harry Potter" with regards to various elements. However, I just found out that "Lord of the Rings" actually came out before "Harry Potter." NO`! YOU DON'T SAY I don't have any apologies, though,REALLY? WHAT DOES IT TAKE? because seriously , how many people actually were aware of this? ALMOST EVEYONE WHO HAS READ THE BOOKS I also saw "The Raven" recently and was shocked to learn that Edgar Allen Poe had died not too long ago. WELL IF 1849 IS NOT TOO LONG AGO, THE SURE WHY NOT. CONDOLENCES TO YOU ON YOUR LOSS. I didn't even know this until my friend pointed this out to me after it was over. So you can never really be sure about who is ripping off who, or who is even still writing literature at any given time.
Also, it is conceivable that Tolkien might have known J.K. Rowling in some way, either directly or indirectly (via email or something) TOO BAD HE DIED IN 1973 AND ROWLING WAS 9, AND THE WORLD WIDE WEB WASN'T INVENTED YET, BUT MAYBE THEY SENT EACH OTHER TELEGRAMS....so it wouldn't be stunning that he could have gotten some plot elements from her. SURE, HE PUBLISHES A BOOK IN 1939 AND PUMPS SOMEONE NOT YER BORN FOR IDEAS.
In any case, both "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" are great series and stand alone by themselves. But anyways, getting back to the subject of this board, I had a question about "The Hobbit." Does this movie/book take place before or after "Return of the King"? Is this "Lord of the Rings" part 4, and if so, why did they wait this long to come out with the movie? YES IT IS PART FOUR. GANDALF AND BILBO GO TO HOGWARTS AND HELP SET UP THE DIFFERENT HOUSES.
To be followed by this.
Okay agreed I should have done more research about Tolkien before asking YOU BET YOU HAVE, but I just assumed he was a modern popular author like Steven King, J.K. Rowling, Ernest Hemingway DEAD, Agatha Christie DEAD, John Grisham, etc. I didn't realize that "LOTR" was such an old story AND CHRISTIE'S AND HEMMINGWAY'S ARE NOT? I do plan on getting a master's in literature eventually YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME, so I'm sure I'll learn and study more famous authors GET A HEADSTART, READ BOOKS NOW! I could have sworn I've seen interviews with Tolkien commenting on Peter Jackson's directing style and early career PARTLY RIGHT, THAT IS ROYD NOT JRR (and I also thought that he had previously written "The Godfather" books/movies as well as "Mansfield Park") PUZO... TOLKIEN... I SEE WHRE THE SIMILARITY IN THE NAMES MIGHT HAVE CONFUSED THIS BIBLIOPHILE, but obviously that must have been someone else. Sure, I should have done more research, but I try not to rely too much on Wikipedia because any moron is able to post on there. But anyways, overall, my larger point is that "LOTR" and "Harry Potter" are both well written fantasy stories
Dallas, TX, (June 7th 2012) – FROG GOD GAMES, the makers of roleplaying games and books, today announced that they are acquiring Necromancer Games, the award-winning publishing house known for Necropolis, Rappan Athuk, City of Brass, Tomb of Abysthor, Crucible of Freya, Tome of Horrors, and many other famous titles
They will provide updates of their old products to boot.
IIRC, I read somewhere that particularly powerful vampires had an ability that allowed them to walk in daylight (optional ruling from some 3rd party co I think). They don't want to, they don't like it, but if need be, they can do it.
I you are planning an encounter with a vampire boss, you could make up something like that. After all, if it's good enough for Gary Oldman in Dracula, why not for a vampire baddie in PF?