Some of my fondest memories of my first campaign involve copious amounts of krenshars (our DM just kept rolling them for random encounters somehow so we kept fighting them but no fight was ever the same).
...halflings should return to their origins -hobbits- if we want that the power-of-the-genre-archetypes concept which D&D is based upon since it came to life spread its magic; it seems they do so and I'm very happy!
The problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and...
View full commentThe problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and popular modern art of this century I think is a bad call.
I don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the...
View full commentI don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the word nymph came from a Greek word that meant "marriageable young woman," or "virgin," depending on the translation (I've seen it both ways). To that end, I think those should stay as they are, but my opinion is biased, and if they were included to have male versions, I would probably simply exclude them from my game. BUT, if they are included, I think they should be sort of like the maedar. There should be notable differences between the genders (females are lithe and graceful, males are strong and powerfully built? They are supposed to be the "ideal" of beauty, but also defenders of nature), and a difference in abilities. I'm also in favor of a variety of nymphs, however, like the Greek legends. Without male nymphs, you should explain how new, full blooded nymphs come into being. Is a nymph's daughter also a nymph, regardless of father (leaving room for inherited templates)?
As for the centaurs, only thing that bugged me was the exeption to them using their hooves as weapons. Charging centaur, dual wielding lances, with improved overrun. THAT is scary.
As for minotaurs, anything was playable in 3E, you just had to work around over inflated LA. The DM's I know worked with players wanting to play exotic characters. But I do like the two versions. Could we differentiate them with a new name, sub-race, etc? Feral Minotaurs (different from Savage Species)?
While I personally think that the 1st and 2nd edition covers are the best (and I admit, I may be biased to those editions), I think that the 4th edition cover is one that if you covered up the D&D name I would have thought Dungeons & Dragons the minute that I saw the artwork.
I agree, though it does annoy me that Paladins have to be lawful good. This is the only class that is restricted to good as their alignment, and I have always felt that a paladin could be lawful neutral or lawful evil instead, though the class description may take a little modification.
One of the things I loved about previous editions was the ability to use Items to complement my daily spells. - I always carried a variety of wands for "standards" (magic missle, fireball, lightningbolt). - I'd carry scrolls for "utility" spells (remove curse, stone to flesh) - and finally potions for "one-offs" (Water breathing). The rest of my daily spells would be a mixture of standards for a little extra "umph" and spells tailored for what we *thought* we'd need for...
View full commentOne of the things I loved about previous editions was the ability to use Items to complement my daily spells.
- I always carried a variety of wands for "standards" (magic missle, fireball, lightningbolt).
- I'd carry scrolls for "utility" spells (remove curse, stone to flesh)
- and finally potions for "one-offs" (Water breathing).
The rest of my daily spells would be a mixture of standards for a little extra "umph" and spells tailored for what we *thought* we'd need for the adventure. What was great is that I could make these items myself and not have to worry about finding them at "Ye Ol Magic Shoppe"
Unfortunately there is nothing quite like this in 4e =o(
Pathfinder's not going anywhere if you favor that kind of high-powered adventure, most game stores host a couple of people who at least have the books. I resented having to stock up on every piece of crap allowable to my character class to be effective in Third Ed. I'm sure Fifth will have an Artificer eventually, so keep an eye out even if it's not your game of choice, although wands and staves might end up being a bit more work. Wands don't seem to be quite the (relatively) cheap disposable...
View full commentPathfinder's not going anywhere if you favor that kind of high-powered adventure, most game stores host a couple of people who at least have the books. I resented having to stock up on every piece of crap allowable to my character class to be effective in Third Ed. I'm sure Fifth will have an Artificer eventually, so keep an eye out even if it's not your game of choice, although wands and staves might end up being a bit more work. Wands don't seem to be quite the (relatively) cheap disposable items they were in AD&D and 3E, and staves look to me to be taking more of an AD&D route.
I really like the idea of the "cursed (or blessed) cultist". However, I do not like the idea of these things banding together. One minotaur would be the leader of a rag-tag band of lesser followers (goblins?). A minotaur should be a ferocious beast that commands attention.
Pretty good—I like the story here, but I would tweak it in specific ways. (Comments!) yikaria, introduced in the Al-Qadim setting in 2nd Edition. Also called yak-men (or, unfortunately, yak-folk) they even enslaved the Dao Genies... we want them to be seperated from minutarous also we need more fact about the enslavement of the Daos and how many years have it gone sence the contract began ... i mean the contract says that daos are slaves of Yikaria in 1001 years.... and will it be a...
View full commentPretty good—I like the story here, but I would tweak it in specific ways. (Comments!)
yikaria, introduced in the Al-Qadim setting in 2nd Edition. Also called yak-men (or, unfortunately, yak-folk) they even enslaved the Dao Genies...
we want them to be seperated from minutarous also we need more fact about the enslavement of the Daos and how many years have it gone sence the contract began ... i mean the contract says that daos are slaves of Yikaria in 1001 years.... and will it be a total war between Yak-men and Daos?
Yikaria has a very deep story that shouldnt be mashed up with minotaurs.. maybe they have a race war against the minotaurs (Like the githyanki and githzerai race war)
This is something i totally agree with. another post mentioned splitting different spells up between different classes, but then you need all those classes to cover every magic need. Letting people do different things via flavor, makes the spells seem entirely different
I dont think the core rules need to give you that much flavor. Building a mechanic that lets you build your own background is much better. The fighter maneuvers and monk ki abilities are a great example. You can either chose ones that you like, or just pick and chose and slowly build your own fighting styles. By giving a base set of spells and abilites that all of that class has(set spell list) and then encounter powers that build your story.