When playing solo and with 2 characters, do you use 3 locations per scenario for 1 player or do play 4 locations because of 2 characters? It would seem easier to defeat most scenarios running 2 characters with the 1 player rule, giving you 30 turns to route through 30 cards. But in a 2 player game, you get this extra location, with an additional 10 cards at that location and it forces the players to be more strategic in making decisions on where to be and how often to explore again. So wouldn't 2 characters for 1 player use 4 locations to keep the challenge up?
I am only going to say a few things about 4th Edition, though they may be long-winded...
1# They are revamping rules that they thought that worked, but now see that they don't. Isn't that what play-testing is all about? Trying something out, seeing if it works, then make the decision to place it in the rules or leave it in the dust.
2# This is not an expansion, but a new set of core rules. That means that everything that you bought before in 3.5 will now become obsolete...ao all that money you spent to own all those books, to keep yourself up to date and making some of the best characters you can...now that gets thrown through the window, and you now have to buy all new. Maybe if WotC decided that you can sell back your used books for credit into the new ones, then it wouldn't feel like such a loss. But they won't. Unlike Magic the Gathering, you just can't trade books.
3# Back in the '80's and '90's, TSR was to do the same thing for 2nd edition. There was a demand for more diversity with classes and races, yet not change or destroy that which they have taken so long to create. That was when they created the Optional rules (that included optional skills and powers books for all races and classes). If you didn't want these rules, you didn't have to buy the books, but those books contained all you needed to make those conversions for 2nd edition. The new 4th Edition sounds a lot like those rules (making races that enhance your special abilities and swapping out abilities for others). But they are making it a standard rule, re-releasing all brand new core books and supplement books there-after. This now becomes a requirement...and all future supplements will affect this, destroying all that you before. Sounds like a rip-off.
4# 4th edition would be good for those that have never played before, or owned any of the previous books. But to those that have spent all their hard earn money on book after book and their time learning all the new rules, this is a slap in the face and a hit to the wallet. I have been a big avid role-player for almost 20 years now, and I understand the nesscesity for change, but not this often...not this much. 3rd edition was released not even a decade ago. How many of you bought that edition and all of its supplements? And then it was changed 3 or so years later. Now you spent all that money on the new and improved 3.5 edition. And yet they still release supplements for it all the way up to the time that 4th edition will come out. How long has that been? 3 or so years later? At this rate...with a .5 for every edition, you will be at 6th edition before this company has owned the Title of D&D for 20 years. How many editions were there for TSR in that same amount of time frame? And...how much money will you have invested into each and every edition? How much of your time and energy and hard earned cash has went into those that you have been loyal to...yet there has been no loyalty back besides picking the wallet.
If they continue to make 3.5 supplements and made 4th edition as an optional rule, then so be it. But I don't see that happening, and in the end, I will continue playing what I have spent time and patience building than rework it all over again for a company that is searching for the almighty dollar.
You may place hate posts for what I have said, but if you would only sit back and think of what has been mentioned. You would know it to be true. If I become a dinosaur playing an old edition, so be it. And maybe...one day way down the road, when my kids are older...I might pick up a new edition...but I doubt it.
Thanks Sabastian and Moff Rimmer
But now I have one other question.
In the DMG, page 173, underneath the charts..there is a neat little example
"A monster with a 1HD and a +1LA has two levels of rogue, it's ECL would be 4."
If the Tiefling is not a 1HD creature..what is then?
I can assume we go about saying that the Tiefling (who normally is a 1HD and gains a d8 for hit points) shoves this to the door and picks up the class level of Rogue (which would be a d6 for hit points instead of a d8 her race normally has) much like a human and any other race plyer race does.
So what kind of creature constitues as being a 1HD and would fall into that example above?
Okay...I too am a newbie to 3.5. I understand all the rules but this little one for 1st level characters and Level Adjustments.
If I was to have a 1st level Tiefling Rogue characer..his ECL would be 3 right? (LA +1, HD +1, Rogue 1st Level)
The character would start out with all bennies from a Tiefling, a Rogue, 1st level feat, skill points X4, and all that. Right?
My second question is this...what would be the starting hit point? D6 (Rogue) + D8 (HD)? or just the D6 (Rogue). If you go with just the D6..then why add the +1 from Hit Dice to ECL if you are not going to get the hit points?
And (third Question), if the character is starting off at 1st level...his EXP would start at 0, and he would not gain a level of Rogue until reaching 6,000 exp, 4th level?
A little help understanding the 1st level thing would be great from any and all.
I, too, just started a play-by-email version of "The Shackled City". I currently have running in my game:
Sir Armoth Anwamane, Male Half-Elf Knight Lvl 1 Character Trait: Scion of Surabar
The Half-elf is the long descendant of the Surabar. He doesn't hail from the region, but has come to Cauldron to learn more of his namesake.
We have just started the game..and with the help of the wizard (who casted Sleep and took out two of the Thugs) and the Knight and Favored Soul using Intimidation checks...they were easily able to thwart the plans of the thugs. I let them have their victories, instead of beefing it up, because I know that when the big battles come, they will know and feel it. As well astmy players are pretty good at thinking outside the box.
It's going to get good.
To NorthernOkie, BigDaddyG, Mothman and Aureus,
In comments about Mage Armor...I, like BigDaddyG, hail from many years of many games. I can not seem to remember every single rule, so the one thing I do is look back into the books from time to time to refreshen my mind.
On the point about Mage Armor, I will refer to the two most important books...the Players Handbook (PHB) and the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG).
First to page 249 of the PHB. The Spell Mage Armor proves a +4 ARMOR bonus to AC. It doesn't say deflecting bonus. So with that established, lets turn to page 21 of the DMG. Under Bonus types, this explains what is stackable and what isn't...which from the above posts has been well established.
Now to answer the question of BigDaddyG, we turn to page 122 of the PHB and to Armor/Shield Bonus. It states that each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a Shield bonus to AC. It further goes on to state that armor does not stack from effects of such spells as mage armor, nor do shields stack with spells that provide shield bonus.
But..one thing I do think is that if you casted the spell Mage Armor, which provides a +4 Armor Bonus to AC, and you are wearing armor that provides a bonus of +3 or less (such as Hide, Studded Leather, Leather and Padded), the spell would raise the effective Armor level to that of the +4, i.e, if wearing Hide armor (providing a +3 bonus to armor), and to benefit form the spell, the Mage Armor would provide only an additional +1 armor bonus, raising it to the +4 that the spell provides. All other armor it would not benefit.
Don't mean to sound like a jerk, but when you have the books and don't understand something, it just takes a little bit of research to get the correct answer.