Hi. I'm the DM of a fairly "mature" (ages 17-35) experienced D&D 3.5 group based on the edge of Paignton. We're currently looking for 1 or maybe 2 new players, preferably experienced with D&D and aged 17+. We play in the Greyhawk campaign setting, so familiarity with that setting would also be useful. We have no plan to move to 4e in the foreseeable future. Those interested can post here.
I'm the DM of a 3.5 group, like Greyworker we are also on the English Riviera in Devon. Playing since 2003 we generally have more trouble keeping numbers up than finding time to play. Somehow despite being in the same area we have never come into contact with Greyworker's group. Greyworker, fancy a chat on Messenger or a drink sometime.
Erik Mona wrote:
It only really crumbled after WWII. 1947-48 was the tipping point but I'm probably being far too serious for this thread.
I am entirely unhappy with the plans for 4e, far too many sacred cows are being sent to slaughter for my liking. I worry that the game I grew up with is only going to vaguely resemble the game I used to know. So I will be sticking with 3.5 for as far as I can see. I certainly have plenty of 3.0 and 3.5 material left to use. Ideally I'd like to see you with a Greyhawk licence for 3.5 but since WOTC seems unwilling to give you one, I'd like to see you doing 3.5 Greyhawk-lite or generic adventures. If you did that I'd probably buy everything you put out based on my experience of buying Dungeon and the Shackled City. I'm less keen on buying adventures for a specific campaign setting (other than Greyhawk of course).
Dragon 291 says" Some debased humans worship Kargoth as a god, though they gain no spells for doing so. The Sunsebb Sodality, a very secretive cult of undeath, spreads its devotion among him and the other death knights. Devoid for the most part of any heirarchy or codified dogma, the chaotic cultists respect malevolence and above that only raw power (for which they lust)". And that's it. I'm not aware of any other source so you can pretty much do what you want with this organisation.
Averil wrote: In the information on tharizdun, he seems to have two different holy symbols. One (the spiral) is listed as the symbol of the Elder Elemental Eye, and the other one is described in his stats. Can one god have two holy symbols? If not, which one is right? I'm leaning toward the spiral because a) It's actually depicted, and b) it's the one used in The Styles. This appears to be a fairly significant mixup error in MMIV. The spiral symbol marked as a symbol of the Elder Elemental Eye is in fact the normal symbol of Tharizdun. The triangle with inverted Y within symbol described in the text is the symbol of the Elder Elemental Eye aka Elder Elemental God and has been since the G1-3 modules. The front of Tharizdun aspect only appeared recently in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.
Kalin Agrivar wrote: The rambling point I was trying to make was I think that the format of the MM IV appears to have changed from past monster manuals and now has too much additional information that while would be useful for DMs, takes away from the (IMO) purpose of a monster manual, introducing new monsters. The pre-generated material would fit better in another type of accessory, like a Book of Lairs or a NPC accessory I entirely agree. Based on the Table of Contents I will be looking this one over carefully before considering a purchase unlike previous Monster Manuals.
Devilfish wrote:
Count me in. My vote goes to the Spider Queen as well.
The remaindered stock bookshops local to me (I'm from the UK) have been selling this for over a month for less than half RRP. The Torquay store had about 50 last time I was in, so overall I am sceptical that UK sales have been that good. I can't help suspecting that Hasbro has not been able to shift enough of it's stock of this boardgame in the UK and has consequently shipped some to the USA. The decision not to release it anywhere other than the UK seems bizarre to me. On the positive side it looked good enough I considered buying one.
As a DM I like the existing rules and spells concerning raising from the dead. I don't think I would want to see them changed. I feel that PC death needs to be a very significant penalty, rather than an inconvenience. If this is not the case, I think a lot of the tension from PC fear of death can be lost and this is detrimental to gameplay.
zoroaster100 wrote: I have no use for Eberron adventures. If the day comes that a new edition makes Eberron the core setting, that will be the day I don't convert to a new edition. Still, I don't begrudge the necessary evil that Dungeon will have to (for my purposes) "waste" some space on Eberron adventures, as I realize Dungeon has to cater to several groups of players, including those who like settings that do nothing for me. My thoughts exactly.
I haven't actually got my copy yet but the cover of Dragon 336 is up and looks very cool. Nice to see an alternative take on a Mummy that is not classically encased in bandages and also feminine. At least I think she's a Mummy. The covers of Dragon and Dungeon have been excellent for several months now IMO. The Undead articles sound interesting too and I'm particularly looking forward to the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, to see how Iggwilv is developed.
I can't say I agree. While FR does suffer from being over detailed in places, this article is providing additional detail for a city which will doubtless be welcomed by FR fans. I've always found Ed Greenwood's non-fiction very readable. I would appreciate some effort at punctuation and losing the text message style spelling.
I would just like to join those approving of the cover art for Dragon 329. Like Myrkul I personally find nothing wrong with a little tasteful nudity in fantasy art, particularly of the fairly tame variety found in Dungeon and Dragon. Speaking as someone from the UK (which has a somewhat undeserved reputation for sexual repression compared with the rest of Europe) I would agree with Stegger that in Europe (including the UK), a cover like 329 would not upset anybody at all. |