Search results

I think this is saying more about your own conspiracy-biased view than anything else, quite frankly. You can say "people meant X when they were saying Y!" but lacking telepathy, we're just going to assume they meant X when they said X, and so @EzekielRaiden 's point stands.

I was going to ask if anyone knew the third...

I mean, this is a lot of words to say that you personally don't give a damn about werewolves being in Krynn. I don't either, honestly. But since the scenario really doesn't require them, why break (however obscure) canon to make a scenario with werewolves? To use a different antagonist is not...

For sure. In this case, though, a different monster would have worked as well and been sensitive for the die-hard Krynn fans (which, again, I am not part of).

I mean, it doesn't have to involve those details...we just need an antagonist for you-know-who, that's all.

Hmmm. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem like it needs to be werewolves. 🤷‍♂️

LOL...I remember reading this article and thinking "Wait...wha...?" and wondering how this was being taken seriously.

I tend to agree. I mean, honest to goodness, who cares if there are werewolves in Krynn? But then I think that the answer might be: Some die-hard fans of the setting. So then I go back to the design question: Did it have to be werewolves? I don't know the scenario, so I am not judging...

Didn't we basically get classes with multiple roles after Essentials? Slayer is just a fighter in the striker role, for example.

1) Untold millions, huh? What about all the ones that DID run away? Or at least cower a bit? It's almost like some make their saving throws, and some don't. 2) "someone looking at them funny." Sounds like garbage narration on the part of the DM or player. That or a failure of imagination...

Why is "Levitating through magical power while casting a ritual" a pose that is apparently uniquely the province of super-heroes?

What's 4e support like on Foundry, does anyone know?

I really like Gareth Ryder-Hanrahan's work, especially Eyes of the Stone Thief for 13th Age and The Mirkwood Campaign for Adventures in Middle-Earth, two of the most interesting adventures I have read in over 30 years. I LOVED Gming the first and can't wait to DM the 2nd.

Your point stands, but not this particular example...the Grand Caliph spent all his youth adventuring, presumably picking up those 20 levels.

For bards, what about the AD&D bard that appeared in (I think...) Best of Dragon Magazine 3? Perhaps Monte Cook's variant for 3e Book of Eldritch Might?

Not a hundred, but around 30-40. Tried to use gnolls against my high-level PCs. They needed 17+ to hit the heroes, and did negligible damage when they did. I can definitely see how theoretically they are a threat, but in reality they were just somewhat annoying; really the whole fight was a...

Don't look at me, I didn't say it's a flaw! It's a strategy.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. I hope you don't think I was saying they were. They can be, though. Yeah, 5e is generally well-designed, but my point was simply that being a well-designed game isn't the main priority for the company. If fixing the flaws in the system would mean losing...

Everything else.

ONE favourite? Yikes. I will say that, for all the problems/contradictions/craziness it had...I really liked the swing they took with the 3e Epic-Level Handbook.