Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
---|---|
#1caeruleusApr 19, 2004 20:34:22 | I've heard that there was an issue of Dungeon/Polyhedron that contained some 3.0 or 3.5 material on Spelljammer. Does anyone know whether this is true, and if so, which issue it was in? Thanks, Draco Caeruleus |
#2nightdruidApr 20, 2004 9:24:04 | Dungeon #92/Polyhedron #151. Its sold out, as I understand it. |
#3zombiegleemaxApr 20, 2004 10:25:25 | Greetings! It was 3.0 stuff. It was my first Poly (still have the copy) and I found it quite enjoyable. Well thought out without glaring holes (at least to me ;)) It covered races and classes in a spelljamming setting. Gave a sketch view of the Spidermoon system. (Not hughly indepth, but enough that a DM could work with it fairly easily.) New rules, equipment, magic items, and a few prestige classes. It also included rules for spelljammer vessel movement and combat as well as statistics for various ships. And tokens for use in spelljammer combat. P.S. You won't find crystal spheres, griff's or helms that drain spells in this little gem but I didn't find that a problem because I didn't even play D&D until 2001. |
#4caeruleusApr 20, 2004 13:58:06 | Thanks for both of your replies. Even if the issue is sold out, at least I know to keep an eye out should I ever come across it. Draco |
#5zombiegleemaxApr 24, 2004 5:11:24 | Ignore this . . . For the dread double-post creature has again taken another victim . . . |
#6zombiegleemaxApr 24, 2004 5:12:53 | Originally posted by Nightdruid That actually surprises me somewhat, given the prevalence of negative opinion some of the SJ community have on much of the material printed for Spider Moon. I mean, while I still enjoy running a Spider Moon one-shot adventure in my campaigns from time to time, I would like to think that there was some aspects of the setting presented that had good points that other SJ fans must admit were okay. |
#7nightdruidApr 25, 2004 13:44:01 | Originally posted by Bookwyrm As I have recently learned, SJ was really far more popular than anticipated. Originally, it was supposed to be just a single boxed set, but proved so successful that it launched its own line. (Third hand information from an ex-TSR guy posted on a listserve lately). |
#8zombiegleemaxApr 28, 2004 10:00:19 | Well, that is interesting. I don't think will ever see that kind of popularity with this setting in the future though, unfortunately . |
#9nightdruidApr 28, 2004 10:26:36 | Originally posted by Bookwyrm There's quite a few imitations out there, so I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Off the top of my head, I can name Aether & Flux, Spacebuckle, and SotSM as SJ-ish (although these have a lot in common with Space: 1889, but SJ is more well-known in D&D ciricles). I add to that list with Airships, which although written for "skyships" rather than space-going galleons, has a similar writing style and concept as SJ. |
#10zombiegleemaxMay 05, 2004 16:43:53 | Originally posted by Nightdruid Yeah, it's the only copy of Dungeon/Polyhedron that I ever bought. I didn't like it as much as the original campaign setting, but it did have some information on SJ-type stuff. I've recently purchased a copy of the base SJ box, and I'm thinking of editing it into 3.5 format. I know that this is a minor violation of copyright agreements, but I don't plan to use it outside of the gaming groups I'm in. If you guys want (and WotC okays it), I might release a copy of it on this message board. SJ is still my favorite campaign setting, due to the sheer possibilities for role-playing and such which it contains. I'm currently working on a 3.5 version of the original Manual of the Planes (where the elemental planes are actually based off of the ethereal, and para- and quasi-elemental planes exist. Anyways, happy gaming all! |
#11wyvern76May 05, 2004 22:37:09 | Originally posted by Dragan_Timeripper Try sending it to Beyond the Moons. They have official permission to release 3.x conversions, and they can always use new material. Wyvern |
#12zombiegleemaxMay 06, 2004 11:04:52 | Originally posted by Wyvern76 Thanx for the info. I'll do that. |