View Profile: pming - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • pming's Avatar
    Today, 12:01 AM
    Hiya! I'm one for the old "tough kittens, bub!" type of DM's, so they'd be screwed in my game...then again, my players are smart/experienced enough to know to keep at least two copies of the map/information on separate PC's to avoid just this type of problem But if a Player asked "How much of the map can I remember?" or something similar, I'd let the group make Investigation rolls. The DC...
    10 replies | 358 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:47 PM
    pming replied to The Closed Door
    Hiya! Yup...love doors. Actually, any "portal" really. It's exactly as you said, @rgoodbb, its the whole anticipation and unknown that has my imagination whirling. One of the things I do often...but not constantly...is describe a dungeon door for no particular reason. It serves three parts: One, it lets me just 'go wild' with my imagination and free-flow a description. Two, it instantly...
    8 replies | 202 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 19th July, 2018, 11:49 PM
    Hiya! First, I didn't say anything about "unfair" or "unfun". My point was that the rules are to be used to adjudicate a situation. A rule will not be able to fit into every situation every time. The group initiative rules are used to speed up play. This works most of the time. In some unusual situations, like what we are talking about, they still 'work', but they lead to some "amusing"...
    87 replies | 1209 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 19th July, 2018, 09:44 PM
    Hiya! I think Uller pretty much got it. This sort of "incident" falls into the category of "newb DM mistakes" (I'm not calling you a newb DM, iserith, I know you aren't). I say it's a newbie mistake because a beginning DM will usually just default to "Well, the rules say..." rather than make an at the moment ruling because they lack the confidence in their DM'ing capabilities. A more...
    87 replies | 1209 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 11:32 AM
    Hiya! You picked one of the things I never really liked in 1e/HM4...lol! We never used it because it felt too much like the PC's were going to "school". And, being around 12 years old or so when I started with AD&D back in '82...it rubbed us the wrong way. I did, however, work out a method for HM4 (that's Hackmaster 4th, not the "new" hackmaster) where the PC would have a tally of time...
    200 replies | 5187 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 09:01 PM
    Hiya! Here's how I would do it: DM (Me): "Ok guys, this campaign is going to be a lot more gritty and deadly. That's why I had you each roll up two characters. In this game, there is no 'Death Save'. You hit 0hp and you are unconscious; you hit -1 or lower, you're dead. Alright, lets get playing!" But I don't think I'd ever need to do that. My games are plenty deadly. ^_^
    118 replies | 3538 view(s)
    2 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 11:08 AM
    Hiya! Phew! Lots to get to before I head of to bed... A Rogue learning "Cunning Action" is a Rogue thing. A Rogue NOT learning "Cunning Action", but in stead knowing how magic works and being able to cast Cantrips and 1st level Wizard spells...when 8 hours ago he was finishing his dinner and beer down in the common room. HUGE difference, imnsho.
    200 replies | 5187 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 07:03 AM
    Hiya! I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread. This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed"....
    200 replies | 5187 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 06:20 AM
    Hiya! No. Why do you ask? It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely...
    200 replies | 5187 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 11:51 PM
    Hiya! TL;DR the thread...but this is a quick "one main reason" why I don't like MC in 3.x+ editions. You know that scene in the Matrix? The first movie? Neo: "I know kung-fu".
    200 replies | 5187 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 10:52 PM
    Hiya! Ditto. In fact, I think it took me all of about 20 minutes from the moment I started running my very first 5e Starter Set game session, to read that this is how natural healing worked. I said "Ok, well...POOF! You are all healed in the morning I guess... ... but I'm going to change that next session. Lets keep it as-is for this session". Every one of my players agreed with me so it...
    40 replies | 909 view(s)
    3 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 12:26 AM
    Hiya! For the first paragraph: The escalation I was referring to was adding more bonuses to the AC. I see this as a step, even a small one, towards the classic 3.x "1-Up'manship" that the classes, feats and spells. I'm one of those DM's that has found that saying "No, unless..." is FAR superior to "Yes, but..." as is touted so loudly by many. Rather than "add stuff to balance/encourage"...
    34 replies | 921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 05:23 AM
    Hiya! I think you're looking at the "problem" backwards. You escalating the power level...not de-escalating it. I would put down penalties to hit when wearing heavier armors or something. Say -1 for Light, -3 for Medium, and Disadvantage for Heavy. Or something like that...something that messes with the Offense vs Defense ratio for a warrior. You can be quick, light and maneuverable...or you...
    34 replies | 921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Sunday, 8th July, 2018, 08:55 PM
    Hiya! Lanefan ahhh...got it. I didn't read the whole thread, obviously. (dusts off "Dunce" hat and places it on head for the rest of the day) In game-time, if I was so inclined, perhaps bringing in the 'training rules' for when a PC has enough XP to gain a level could be used? I'm thinking of the 1e/Hackmaster4 method wherein once a PC has enough XP to gain a level they stop gaining XP...
    93 replies | 2334 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 7th July, 2018, 11:05 PM
    Hiya! One year of weekly, 7-hour play, should get PC's to 9th. After that, 2 levels per year. That has worked for me for decades and seems to be the "sweet spot". All these alternative "milestone" or "chapter based" level advancement just sucks the "D&D'ism" out of D&D, imnsho. Gaining XP and levels is a large feel of the whole class-based system. Taking it out is, to me, the equivilent of...
    93 replies | 2334 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 7th July, 2018, 11:26 AM
    Hiya! 364 hours to get to 9th level. Roughly (I suppose a range of 312 to 416 is probably more accurate). ^_^ Paul L. Ming
    31 replies | 1092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018, 11:17 PM
    I'd add a new "stat" for Size. The ratings for Str don't make any sense in 5e to begin with as you can have a 7' tall mass of meat and muscles with a 10 Str and you can have a 3' tall lean mean fighting machine halfling with a 20 Str. So I pretty much ignore S/D/C/I/W/C ratings as indications of what a creature looks like in 5e. Anyway, I'd add "Size Adjustment" as a new rating for anything below...
    20 replies | 1214 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Monday, 2nd July, 2018, 11:24 PM
    Hiya! As a 3D artist I can tell you why. The hand made one is unknown to our brains as opposed to something it recognizes ("Oh, it's a bowl", vs "Oh, is that a bowl?"). WARNING: Somewhat boring explanation below! ;) Photos: If it's a photo that was taken to convey information, it will likely be..."centrally focused". What I mean is the artifact, say a morter and pestel, will be sitting...
    13 replies | 646 view(s)
    7 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Sunday, 1st July, 2018, 07:05 PM
    Hiya! Yes, welcome! It's a pretty...er... "old" group of folks on these boards (not quite Dragonsfoot.org old, but still, I think the average age is in the 30's iirc a poll done a year or so ago). So we may seem a bit ornery every now and then...but overall, we're a good group. (ok, maybe I'm speaking mostly for myself; I can get quite ornery...often... ;) ).
    51 replies | 1797 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Sunday, 1st July, 2018, 01:13 AM
    Hiya! See the other thread for my long-winded replies (mostly to hawkeyefan) for details on my thoughts. But for this thread...the problem isn't a "TPK", it's how you are structuring/defining "campaign". Here's how my campaigns works:
    12 replies | 509 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 10:53 PM
    Hiya! "Assert your authoritaaayy!!" (insert police officer Cartman picture here). ;) Your players are behaving like...uh..."insert insane group of people here". They want the full effects of "reality" to be used...except when it's bad for them, then it's RAW. They want to be able to use their REAL LIFE modern knowledge of engineering/biology/chemistry/whatever to full potential...except...
    43 replies | 1269 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 28th June, 2018, 11:58 PM
    Hiya! Ok. I think on this point we are just going to do the old "agree to disagree" thing. :) When a DM rolls something random, or pre-places it, and that gets a PC killed or a TPK I don't see the DM as having any tangible involvement in the deaths other than he's the one making the rolls, or wrote it down in the past. I think our disagreement is on the "power" of the Dice Roll. I see the...
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 28th June, 2018, 02:34 AM
    Hiya! hawkeyefan, rather than respond point by point and end up with another mini-novel, I'll just make a few comments about your last reply to me. Re: The DM makes the tables/charts...so he's ultimately accountable. I don't think this is a fair assessment of claiming it's "still the DM's choice". At least not any more than anytime any other dice are involved in the game. Having a random...
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th June, 2018, 06:32 AM
    Hiya! I agree that there is a series of decisions a DM makes that leads to a TPK. I do not see this as wrong or a bad thing. The DM rolls a very difficult encounter. Check (NOTE: I removed "picks", because I don't do that; I have encounter chances and table for a reason...to help me remain neutral and unconcerned about the outcome). The DM doesn't give ample warning of a potentially...
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th June, 2018, 12:39 AM
    Hiya! Ahhh...I misread. My bad, sorry! :) I disagree with it being too harsh though. Technically, every death in the campaign is directly contributed to the DM...even PC vs PC, as the DM could have chosen to have the fight interrupted by something/somebody. But I don't think that's what you were aiming for, right? More along the line of "the DM rolled an encounter, it came up Hill...
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Tuesday, 26th June, 2018, 05:47 AM
    Hiya! It depends entirely on if the DM is a "new skool" DM, or an "old skool" one...or how much they lean towards one side or the other. As an Old Skool DM, I often don't have a "choice" to set things up a certain way for the PC's. Well, at least not if I want my world to be even remotely believable and sustainable over the course of years if not decades. I can't just "decide" that some...
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Tuesday, 26th June, 2018, 04:43 AM
    Hiya! Oh absolutely. But, it's D&D. I chalk up the 'lack of pain' as just one of the "realities" of the multiverse...sort of like how shooting a propane tank or a car (pretty much anywhere) in any action movie has said target explode into a massive, impressive, fire-ball. So folks in a D&D campaign world have the same sort of 'physics' applied to them; they can take multiple 8-pound mace...
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Monday, 25th June, 2018, 11:57 PM
    Hiya! Ahhh....TPK's! My specialty! ;) ...whoa whoa whoaaaa there buddy! Since when is it my job, as DM, to "tell the Players this is an extra-deadly monster"? ;)
    294 replies | 7004 view(s)
    2 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Sunday, 24th June, 2018, 03:43 AM
    Hiya! I don't see any difference between "You can't kill a god" and "Nobody goes god hunting because, well, you'll die". Functionally equivalent. If your players dream of going "god hunting" when they get to high level, the problem isn't with gods being killable...it's that your players are contemplating the attempt in the first place. In other words, the PC's are OP'ed. We never had a...
    61 replies | 2388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 23rd June, 2018, 09:23 PM
    Hiya! I like cheese. PS: Primus sucks! ^_^
    61 replies | 2388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 23rd June, 2018, 09:21 PM
    Hiya! Ok, and this is good I guess? Or bad? I'd put it more towards "bad" because I like the whole "evil" idea of everyone and everything having responsibility for it's own actions. This includes all gods. I also go by the general standards of it1e AD&D, where is was technically possible to kill Zeus, it was so far off the realm of likely as to make it virtually impossible. And...
    61 replies | 2388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Saturday, 23rd June, 2018, 03:12 AM
    Hiya! Lets go with... no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, sorta yes, no, no, yes he does/is if this is what you go by. ;) Pull out your Monster Manual II (yes, the AD&D one) and flip to page 91 for what "The Prime One" is. Everything after that, from other editions? As far as I'm concerned it's all bovine droppings. This was one of the MAIN things that kept ticking us off about 2e when they...
    61 replies | 2388 view(s)
    4 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Friday, 22nd June, 2018, 10:38 PM
    Hiya! 1: Never had any players manage to get a character past level 7 (and one got to 5th/6th, a handful to 4th)...so, never been a problem. Based on how I DM and my experience doing it 'my way', I can't see it being a problem. 2: Nope. It doesn't. It never has. Didn't work in 3.x either. You should just pretend the whole "CR" thing doesn't exist. It will make your DM'ing more fun, more...
    122 replies | 4307 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pming's Avatar
    Thursday, 21st June, 2018, 09:46 PM
    Hiya! If by that you mean how do they find out they have a time limit...well, I don't. They infer it based on information that they gather from sources/surroundings/clues/etc. It's usually fairly blatant, as most stupid minions are minions because they are stupid, they usually blurt out something specific "You'll never succeed! The Master of the Dead sees all! His flock is everywhere! And...
    74 replies | 3460 view(s)
    2 XP
No More Results
About pming

Basic Information

Date of Birth
October 20, 1969 (48)
About pming
Introduction:
Location:
whitehorse, YT, Canada
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,474
Posts Per Day
0.34
Last Post
Map of Chult Turned to Stone! *SPOILERS* Today 12:01 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
7
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:02 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 21st September, 2006
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Friday, 20th July, 2018


Thursday, 19th July, 2018


Wednesday, 18th July, 2018


Tuesday, 17th July, 2018


Monday, 16th July, 2018


Sunday, 15th July, 2018


Thursday, 12th July, 2018


Tuesday, 10th July, 2018


Monday, 9th July, 2018


Thursday, 5th July, 2018



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Tuesday, 5th June, 2018

  • 01:59 PM - TheSword mentioned pming in post Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?
    You made a new race did not retcon an old one. Sometimes its not what you do but how you do it. Inventing a new race that can do that maybe in a new campaign setting well that's interesting. Retconning an old one well its a bit ham fisted. Itís hardly a retcon. Itís a small ability addition to the race which doesnít remove any abilities, only applies in a small number of cases, and is already covered in the lore of earlier additions. Letís not exaggerate the impact on the race of elves as a whole. It makes almost no difference to most players and probably makes a big positive difference to those that it does matter to. @pming There is a world of difference between recognizing a currently marginalized segment of society within the elf race (a mainstream popular heroic race) and relegating them to a monster-race off shoot of a brain eating fundamentally dishonest creature. If you donít see a relevance to that Iím not going to try and change your world view. Iíll just say it matters to the people it matters to, and is irrelevant to those it doesnít matter to. The whole exercise has Zero negative impact and yet there are still some people who come up with convoluted ways to write it off. Itís the internet I guess.

Saturday, 3rd March, 2018

  • 11:49 PM - Sunseeker mentioned pming in post Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?
    ...of my thoughts on this topic. :erm: So I guess I'll just bow out. Let me put it this way: As a long-time optimizer, the specific build of my PC has very little to do with who they are as a character. Now, maybe I'm the odd man out but it seems to me that all something like GWM or Shield Master says about your character is that they're good with these things. Doesn't say how you got good with them. Doesn't say why you're good with them. Just says you are. The how, the why, those are the elements you fill in through role-play. Sure, certain classes imply certain things about those hows and whys but those implications are often very small. Heck, Backgrounds say more about who your character is than their build. Hermit, for example, says a whole lot of things! Far Traveler on the other hand says very little. But GWM? That says nothing about your character other than you are skilled with big weapons. Mmm kinda lost my train of thought there... So when people like Mistwell or pming say that feats can restrict mechanical options, I can at least see their argument, especially when it plays to a much more "Try anything!" style of D&D (which I have been part of and didn't particularly care for). But when the argument becomes "These mechanical options limit my role-play options!" I'm just left scratching my head. I get it if someone feels pressured to take GWM when they really want to use *something else* because they're being pressured to increase their DPR...but that's not an issue with rules or options, that's an issue with table behaviour. It's one reason you'll rarely see healers, tanks or support-style characters in my games because I'm very big on "Play what you want to play." And I really don't see how, when someone like pming comes along and says that "fewer options increase creativity". Regardless of if we're talking about feats, races, classes or whatever. I mean...I guess people could feel limited by the built-in fluff of a race? But does that mea...

Saturday, 24th February, 2018

  • 08:14 PM - Waterbizkit mentioned pming in post What do you do when players say "we go north" but their characters don't have the "Keen Mind" Feat or Navigation Equipment?
    I'm fairly laid back about this sort of thing, to the point where it seems like pming might have an embolism. ;) When the players/characters tell me they're "headed north" or something similar I ask myself two questions: First, are there any extenuating circumstances that would prevent them from navigating normally? For example, perhaps they're underground, there could be poor weather, or maybe there's some magic obfuscating their ability to figure out what direction they're moving in, and so on. If there is I deal with that using ability checks of some form or another (usually survival or nature) like most people who've responded seem to do. However, if there's none of the aforementioned complications I move on to question two... Is anything interesting actually going to happen if they get lost? If there answer is yes, then again, I'll have them make a few checks or something of the like and see what happens. If the answer to this question is no, then I'll just say "Okay, you head north." No roll required. In essence, I need failure to provide something of ...

Wednesday, 31st January, 2018

  • 12:40 AM - Quickleaf mentioned pming in post 5e adventures set in swamps or arid lands?
    ...om one to the other and permanent gates left by an earlier civ dot the landscape here and there, often near cities (on both sides, or in some cases a city might have half its area one one side of a gate and the other half on the other), who use them for trade and travel. Think of the old Master of Magic game with its two worlds of Myrror and Arcane. One of the worlds is very wet (lots of swamp), the other is dry (arid lands). Can anyone recommend any 5e modules from DMsGuild or anywhere else, that might fit into such a world? Anything swampy, arid, or world hoppy might fit. Also, have a look at https://www.adventurelookup.com/adventures/ Matthew Colville was the guy behind it I believe. You can input search criteria like "Swamp" and get 110 matching adventures throughout the history of D&D. You can further limit those results to 5th edition, getting 42 matching adventures. I'd look for ones that catch your eye & then cross reference those titles with Merric's list that pming posted to see if there any reviews.

Thursday, 4th January, 2018

  • 03:57 AM - pemerton mentioned pming in post What Is an Experience Point Worth?
    ... would approach an elf when it sees one, which makes it a case of a world-building.Telling the players "A hybsil approaches you as you wander through a meadow, and adresses you in elvish" is not worldbuilding (under any standard definition of world-building I'm familiar with). Designing a "meadows" random encounter table, then putting hybsils on it, then rolling up a hybsil encounter, would count as an application of worldbuilding - but that is not what is going on when a referee uses The Book of Lairs II! One common mistake of bad DMs is that the PCs don't have sufficient motivation to enter a dungeon; or they have some motivation, but it's contrived rather than arising naturally from the setting and the characters.One obvious motivtion to enter a dungeon would be to rescue a captured family member. But by your lights it would be bad GMing (because "contrived") for the GM to write a dungeon with a captive in it who is related to one of the PCs. (This would also be bad GMing by pming's lights, based on this recent post, but I think for different reasons from you.) I don't really know what you regard as the proper way for a GM to give PCs sufficient motivation to enter a dungeon, when it is verboten for the GM to deliberately write in any part of the gameworld to engage some cue or signal sent by a player in the build or play of his/her PC. You talk about a world in which "interesting things" happen, but that must mean "generically interesting, given some generic set of motivations". This would seem to lead to many rootless PCs with few personal/intimate motivations - or else players who write their PCs to accord to the GM's world/plot. Realistically, the PCs know the dungeon is there because they sought information about possible options for adventuring and in response the DM dropped a hook in form of a rumour or legend or map or whatever. Why would you assume nobody told them about it or asked them to deal with it?So instead of framing the PCs into an enco...

Friday, 29th December, 2017

  • 01:37 AM - iserith mentioned pming in post "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.
    ... as". Its like the difference in a targeted spell and an AOE. In this case what is being talked about is hitting the whole party with a weaker character because of one players choices in how they play. that is just ineffective in my experience at serving to encourage individual players anything like a specific result for that character/player is. To be clear, if one player roleplays well and gets a roleplaying bonus xp and another character doesn't care so much and "fails to get" that advancement and advances slower than the norm for the characters, the player who roleplayed is weakened by the other player's slower advanacement when they hit another encounter and the player who did not roleplay to standard is helped by the other player's bonus and those who just made the middle ground are left in the middle with a bit of both. Then again some might feel level disarity isn't even a problem so its maybe a pretty weak carrot/stick after all which again makes it less appealing. pming said he gives out XP for "roleplaying" to whatever standard he sets at the table. However much his post implies it's a stick, it's really a carrot - XP as an incentive to play in a particular way. You can choose to play otherwise and apply your skill to overcome the character's perceived shortcomings, but you may not receive as much XP as others who do play to the standard he expects. But of course you'd rather call it a stick because you already made your mind up about XP 15 years ago when you decided it led to undesirable level disparity or you dislike integers or whatever other grievances you may have. To the extent that your posts can be called clear at all, that much was clear. Above, you double down on the level disparity objection despite obviously having no experience with it in D&D 5e. I do, quite a lot of it actually, and I know that claim is bogus. In D&D 3e and 4e, you'd have the shadow of a point. But not in THIS game. That said, the lack of a problem with level dispari...

Thursday, 28th December, 2017

  • 07:22 PM - iserith mentioned pming in post "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.
    ...tem i built/chose and what it was built/chosen to do. others may not but hey, thats what it is. Obviously at times roleplaying your character may indeed run counter to in-game odds of success and that is nothing exceptional in my experience - it happens at a fairly decent rate in complex situations - but adding advancement rate into that mix has never IMX helped make things better. I would hate for the approach a player chose for his character to deal with an in-game situation/task to be made based on "am i close to levelling up" and the XP consequences. i thought that kind of thing (systems promoting players choosing in game character actions based on XP to be gained) was outdated when systems (even DND) began to award points for "overcoming monsters/encounters" whether it was by stealth or trickery instead of just "you get Xp if you kill the monster". But i guess no idea ever goes away completely. See @Ovinomancer's post above. And note that my criticism of your criticism of @pming's approach is not an endorsement of his methods. Roleplaying (in the sense that you and pming are using the word, not how I would choose to use it) is rewarded with Inspiration in D&D 5e so that's how I do it in my games. I change how I award XP from campaign to campaign based on what I want to incentivize. Kind of like how I change my approach to DMing based on the game I'm playing rather than just stick to things I came up with 15 years ago when I was playing some other game.
  • 05:08 PM - iserith mentioned pming in post "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.
    ...to the party as a whole, especially when they had to cover the slack or heal up the other guy. So, for this particular example, having the player fully sanctioned to bypass his character stats etc with full blessing as long as they advance at slower pace is just (in practice) punishing the whole party because "Doug" is doing exactly what i as Gm allow and even reward with auto-success. (Some would call this "good strategy", i imagine.) I am sure, for some folks, that will be a successful tool, but over time i have moved well away from the *XP carrot/stick* approach for influencing players. i moved to what 5e calls "milestone" advancement maybe 15 years ago, maybe more. But again, Xp as a tool for carrot/stick certainly can achieve a variety of results for different groups. Have you ever considered that the approach you settled on 15 years ago in whatever game you were playing at that time doesn't necessarily apply to D&D 5e? Because while I don't give "roleplaying XP" like pming does, I have found that PCs at disparate levels in D&D 5e really isn't a problem due to the game's math. I have seen as much as a 7-level difference in the party and there was no problem. It certainly would matter in D&D 4e and D&D 3e, but this isn't those games. I would consider it unwise to apply my assumptions about other games to this game. I don't run games the same way when using different game systems. And why would I? This isn't to say milestone experience is bad, but in my experience, your decision to use milestone XP based on some notion of level disparity being a problem in D&D 5e is unfounded. As to your comment about "good strategy," in pming's game, it would depend on the player's priorities and the situation in play. If I care about leveling up faster (e.g. maybe I'm close to leveling up right now), then I won't always aim for automatic success when doing so would not be in keeping with the character's personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. If it's more impo...

Tuesday, 24th October, 2017

  • 07:37 AM - pemerton mentioned pming in post Thoughts on this article about Black Culture & the D&D team dropping the ball?
    Don't care one way or the other. I'll play my game my way, you play your game your way. pming, it's not about "you play your way, I'll play mine". If WotC publishes material that excludes, alienates, ridicules or stereotypes other people, then they don't get to play their way. If you're happy with "a few tribes - some noble savages, others depraved cannibals - roam the interior" of Chult, then you're set with the 4e FRCG (published 2008). If you're happy with pseudo-Africans who frame their lives and culture around the offerings of colonists rather than their own heritage (such as the destroyed city of Mezro), then it sounds like ToA (published 2017) will work for you. The 2008 version will also give you "[d]isease and parasites . . . everywhere on the Chultan Peninsula", while the more recent offering has Mad Monkey Disease. What about everyone else, who wants a game without this sort of stereotyped tripe? Are they - we - allowed to advocate for it? matters of race always tend to put folks on the defensive and causes them to either deny there's anything worth critic...

Friday, 20th October, 2017


Thursday, 19th October, 2017

  • 03:52 AM - MoonSong mentioned pming in post Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?
    pming I guess that as an oversensitive person I could tell you that maybe it isn't as much the prohibition itself as the way it is made the difference. Maybe something totally upfront, emphasizing the reduction in options as a bonus and stuff? More like "Let's play a dangerous and high lethality Old-school D&D game, no frills, no fanfare, no complications! 4 races 4 classes and your imagination!". Then you can seem more flexible by allowing plain ranger or plain barbarian from the phb?

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

  • 10:04 PM - dave2008 mentioned pming in post Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?
    @pming you have had 18 hours and 69 posts since your OP. Care to add to the discussion you started?
  • 05:14 PM - lowkey13 mentioned pming in post Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?
    Lord_Blacksteel pming I think the Lord Blacksteel had some good points. I'm going to throw in another option- Why not just advertise a throwback game? Just run a OSR/Retroclone/BECMI/1e game? It may appeal to your desire to get back to basics, and appeal to some players who want to try something "new," (or, at least, new to them!). Depending on how that works, you could migrate to a stripped-down 5e game, and then (maybe) if you are comfortable with it, expand the options. (FWIW, I migrated my grognard group to 5e. We started as bare-bones as can be; we still don't play with MC because REASONS, but we have allowed in selective feats, and those have worked out well.)
  • 10:07 AM - Lanefan mentioned pming in post Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?
    I'm sorry about your recruit failure, but what did you expect. D&D(all editions) is an evolving game. It gets bigger. It has to as majority will get bored after couple of years with same content.Only true if all the 'majority' cares about is mechanics. If things like characterization, story, and immersion are pushed forward then - given reasonable levels of creativity on both sides of the screen - the mechanical 'content' almost need never change at all. and after you say; no feats, multiclassing, UA or any books after PHB, you are just saying, we play D&D but it's kind of 24,7% of the game.What he's saying sounds more like "we play 5e D&D in a stripped-down, old-school way". Nothing at all wrong with that, and it's something 5e has been designed to accommodate. Though I do agree with whoever it was who suggested this ought probably to be noted in his players-wanted advertising. pming - another option for you might be to drop the puck on a 1e or even 0e campaign and advertise for recruits for that...see how much interest there is in old-school play. If this gets a decent response you can then try graduating that group to the stripped-down 5e you're trying to run. It is your choice, but you need to realise that you are swimming in ever reducing pool of players.Though I can't speak to pming's specific and quite isolated community, I'd disagree with this assertion in a more general sense. I think the pool of players is still growing. The pool of DMs, on the other hand... :( Lanefan

Monday, 2nd October, 2017


Monday, 18th September, 2017

  • 02:01 AM - Ilbranteloth mentioned pming in post A New Thought About Skills
    ...ck. At all. I think that proficiency indicates some formal training. A character with a high DEX would be able to use Woodworker's Tools to make a piece of furniture, but they wouldn't be able to tell you technical terms like "dovetail joint". They also would have no idea about any history or lore, and couldn't estimate the value of any pieces of furniture. Their piece of furniture would probably be pretty ugly. I've tried going this route. In addition to being tough to maintain all the time, I also think it can't always apply. For example, somebody proficient in Athletics, and somebody not. Or Intimidation, Perception, Persuasion, etc. In general, I settled on anything with a DC of 21 or higher requires proficiency to attempt. And as I noted, I increased DCs by 5 across the board. This provides a nice breakpoint, while still allowing the majority of things that are probably attempted to have at least a chance. But with this new approach, it's less than a problem, and to tie into pming's post the numbers are a closer match to proficiency/expertise. So the number and the training correlate better. Right now I only have a few things that require training. Swimming (part of Athletics), literacy (part of Intelligence), and languages themselves. Without training in swimming, the best you can do is try to keep yourself afloat.

Thursday, 7th September, 2017


Thursday, 17th August, 2017

  • 11:18 PM - MostlyDm mentioned pming in post Should PHB +1 apply to spells?
    Saying "which is why many non-AL games don't follow the rule" implies there is a rule to follow. There isn't. Again, it isn't a rule. Only in the small subset of games organized by the AL do several extra rules apply, and this is one of them. Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app Sure, but the rules also don't suggest that non PHB books are okay, either. For non AL play, the game assumes no feats, no multiclass, and just the PHB classes/races. Basically, pming's game. Any other method comes down to you as a DM exercising your god given right to allow whatever rules and books you choose. It's not standardized because... how could it be? Why? It's such a choice of personal preference. AL had to make those decisions for you. It tried to strike a sort of compromising middle road.

Sunday, 16th July, 2017

  • 08:10 PM - Obryn mentioned pming in post Talislanta: Fantasy Role-Playing Without All Those Elves
    You know, Talislanta says no Elves, but I count several different kinds. :) Just, you know, not actually called "elves." Anyway, Talislanta 4e is rad, and I was thrilled when I found I could download those wonderful books. pming - Powers & Perils is still one of my favorites. :) It's fascinating.

Friday, 17th March, 2017

  • 07:56 AM - Dualazi mentioned pming in post Making Intelligence less of a dump stat
    pming – adjudication is largely irrelevant in analyzing “dump-stats”. It’s akin to having a class that underperforms in most identifiable metrics, but the DM just so happens to create situations that only that class can succeed in. It doesn’t mean the hypothetical class is good, just that they can be babied like anything else. Your anecdote is amusing, sure, and I can’t speak to your group in particular, but in mine that type of thing would happen once and only once. The players would simply opt to write down pertinent information and we’re right back to square 1. Because they have attacks that require Intelligence saves, thus encouraging players not to dump that stat Unless you’re fighting them every other combat (if you run dark sun it might work I guess) then players will continue to not care. Nobody really optimizing for situations that come up as rarely as int saves, even with the inclusion of the mystic. If you make your ability to ...


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 48 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 20th July, 2018

  • 12:37 AM - iserith quoted pming in post Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening
    First, I didn't say anything about "unfair" or "unfun". My point was that the rules are to be used to adjudicate a situation. True, that was a more general comment that I did not mean to attribute to you. A rule will not be able to fit into every situation every time. The group initiative rules are used to speed up play. This works most of the time. In some unusual situations, like what we are talking about, they still 'work', but they lead to some "amusing" results; where the image is similar to the scene where Jack Burton causes a hanging gong to knock over two statues...that fall over, hitting other statues, that fall over, hitting other statues (insert "domino" effect). All the while this is happening, Jack and crew are just sort of standing there, watching this unfold over the course of multiple seconds (like, 15 or 20 iirc). This is used for comedic effect. A goblin waking up, slapping a sleeping goblin, who wakes up, and slaps a sleeping goblin, who wakes up, and slaps a sleepi...

Thursday, 19th July, 2018

  • 10:11 PM - Oofta quoted pming in post Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening
    Hiya! I think Uller pretty much got it. This sort of "incident" falls into the category of "newb DM mistakes" (I'm not calling you a newb DM, iserith, I know you aren't). I say it's a newbie mistake because a beginning DM will usually just default to "Well, the rules say..." rather than make an at the moment ruling because they lack the confidence in their DM'ing capabilities. A more experienced DM will look at it and say "Well, the rules say X, but that doesn't make sense. Hmmm... Ok, lets do it this way...". An experienced DM will take the rules for what they are and are actually meant to do: be guidelines for making rulings to help the players imagine being adventurers in a fictional world. Alas, there are an infinite amount of things a Player character (and NPC/Monsters) can do in the overall scheme of the game setting. Because of this it is impossible for a rule to "always be THIS way" and make sense in every situation where said rule comes up. Case in point... Sleep spell an...
  • 10:08 PM - Harzel quoted pming in post Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening
    Hiya! I think Uller pretty much got it. This sort of "incident" falls into the category of "newb DM mistakes" (I'm not calling you a newb DM, iserith, I know you aren't). I say it's a newbie mistake because a beginning DM will usually just default to "Well, the rules say..." rather than make an at the moment ruling because they lack the confidence in their DM'ing capabilities. A more experienced DM will look at it and say "Well, the rules say X, but that doesn't make sense. Hmmm... Ok, lets do it this way...". An experienced DM will take the rules for what they are and are actually meant to do: be guidelines for making rulings to help the players imagine being adventurers in a fictional world. Alas, there are an infinite amount of things a Player character (and NPC/Monsters) can do in the overall scheme of the game setting. Because of this it is impossible for a rule to "always be THIS way" and make sense in every situation where said rule comes up. Case in point... Sleep spell and grou...
  • 10:01 PM - iserith quoted pming in post Sleep Spell and Chain Awakening
    I think @Uller pretty much got it. I think what you and Uller "got" are some presuppositions about what goblins know and can do that are not axiomatic. I have already shown a reasonable, even enjoyable, case can be made for goblins knowing and acting the in the manner it played out in the game. The mutability of fiction is great that way! As well, I would say nothing about how the rule was applied was unfair, unfun, or incorrect or required a ruling other than the one that I made in my view. Nothing was "broken" about the system or the outcome as I see it. It was an interesting interaction based on turns and in particular group monster initiative, notable enough to make it worth my time in sharing it here. And as far as being "realistic," we are talking about goblins and magic.

Wednesday, 18th July, 2018

  • 03:34 PM - phantomK9 quoted pming in post Crit and death saves mean automatic ability score damage - Too gritty?
    Hiya! "A creature gets 1/2 of his Maximum HD, rounding up, upon waking the next day after a good nights rest. This HD roll does NOT count towards the normal use of HD for healing. It's 'free' HD. A PC may spend actual HD, as per normal, if they want" So a 5th level fighter would get to roll 3d10 upon waking in the morning after a safe, comfortable rest. I note "safe, comfortable rest" because if it's not, then I reduce healing by using a negative adjustment per HD; -1 if it was safe but uncomfortable (in a rainstorm in a tent but no fire), perhaps a -2 if its actually unsafe at the same time, dropping it down to -3 if it's unsafe, uncomfortable, and un-sanitary (no bandages or worse; say on a barely-afloat raft in a lake in a swamp during a rainstorm. I do give a bonus of +1 if someone with the skill Medicine is looking after them, +2 if the person makes a DC 15 Medicine check in the morning AND has access to clean water, sheets, bandages, etc. It works well and gives incentive to...

Tuesday, 17th July, 2018

  • 09:44 PM - jasper quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! No. Why do you ask? It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it. ^_^ Paul L. Ming But But remember all those times I handed you a note telling I was sneaking the spell book out of mage's pack at night? Then snuck it back in. Oh yet you told be to quit Fbeeeeppppiing around. And started throwing those notes back in my face? Well note 50,60,184. 193, 111, all said I was secretly studying the books to became a spell caster.

Monday, 16th July, 2018

  • 02:06 AM - Greenstone.Walker quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it. You could solve that by requiring training for levelling, the way OD&D required. GM: You have the XP for level 7? Excellent, now you need the 7 weeks of training. What are you training in? Warlock? Cool, that will cost you X gold.

Sunday, 15th July, 2018

  • 01:33 PM - 5ekyu quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! Phew! Lots to get to before I head of to bed... A Rogue learning "Cunning Action" is a Rogue thing. A Rogue NOT learning "Cunning Action", but in stead knowing how magic works and being able to cast Cantrips and 1st level Wizard spells...when 8 hours ago he was finishing his dinner and beer down in the common room. HUGE difference, imnsho. I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think... "In Game Considerations Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to a class you already have. Remember...
  • 08:49 AM - ccs quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think... "In Game Considerations Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to a class you already have. Remember, the Multiclassing rules are here for those who want to create a character who's abilities and skills don't quite fit into the Class system as presented here. With Muliclassing you and your DM can create unusual secret orders who's members are trained in the arts of Fighting as well as have innate magical abilities as Sorcerers, or perhaps there is ...

Saturday, 14th July, 2018

  • 06:07 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    A Rogue learning "Cunning Action" is a Rogue thing. A Rogue NOT learning "Cunning Action", but in stead knowing how magic works and being able to cast Cantrips and 1st level Wizard spells...when 8 hours ago he was finishing his dinner and beer down in the common room. HUGE difference, imnsho.That can happen the the very next level, even if he doesn't multiclass: arcane trickster. I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think... "In Game Considerations Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to...
  • 08:16 AM - ccs quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread. So what? AL is a specific campaign. Just like my Thur night game is a specific campaign. As is my friend Alex's Fri night game. And yours. And his. And hers.... The only difference is that it's WoTC deciding wich options are/aren't permitted in AL, not the individual DMs. You want to play in a campaign? You do so using whatever rules & options those in charge have green-lit. Disagree? Don't play in that campaign. This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or some...
  • 07:28 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions.Then don't let them do that. It's your prerogative as DM. But you seem to be assuming that all multiclassing is going to happen like that, when of course, it doesn't. Would you be fine with this player taking a level of wizard if they actually had roleplayed hitting the libraries over those sessions? If so, then your problem is with "DM/player style", not multiclassing per se. And if not... well, why not?
  • 07:23 AM - 5ekyu quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread. This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions. It's the same as if the DM said "Oh, yeah, you guys did destroy the Bad Evil Dude's castle and burn down all the surrounding farms supporting it. But I guess he was just rebuilding it and stuff over the last couple months"...when the PC's never left the town that is within sight of the hill where the Bad Evil Dude's castle was...and now his ...
  • 07:19 AM - ccs quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it. Sounds like your real problem lies with people not being good storytellers & not communicating with or listening to each other. This cannot be fixed via the rules.
  • 07:02 AM - Winterthorn quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! No. Why do you ask? It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it. ^_^ Paul L. Ming I basically agree with what you are saying. I'm not a big fan of multi-classing (I soured on it from 3E onwards) and I'm glad it is optional. For me, as a DM trying to maintain a modicum of suspension of disbelief, it's all about the degree of change when leveling up. It's one thing to gain a new class feature when gaining a level, it very much a massive difference when gaining a whole new class and its new focus, concept and features. That said, there are ...
  • 06:46 AM - 5ekyu quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! No. Why do you ask? It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it. ^_^ Paul L. MingHow is that different from a rogue spending weeks without dashing in seen playtime, not once using disengage and suddenly at 2nd level getting cunning action dash and disengage? In both cases, the player and GM can decide to nust assume off-screen prep *or* choose to show it on-screen as a lead up *or* work the new choice into the narrative in a number of ways for both single class and multi-class features. This is nothing different from many point buy systems where a lung fu...
  • 05:18 AM - 5ekyu quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! TL;DR the thread...but this is a quick "one main reason" why I don't like MC in 3.x+ editions. You know that scene in the Matrix? The first movie? [Neo laying in chair...Morpheus next to him] Neo: [opens eyes] "I know kung-fu". Same thing when the last thing the PC's did was stagger off to their rooms at the inn. DM: You are all awoken in the morning by repeated caw'ing from the roosters outside in the back fields, and the smell of bacon and eggs from downstairs. I assume you each grab your gear and make your way downstiars? Player: Well, I don't wear my scale-mail. I also want to leap over the bannister into the common room, with a sumersault in the air...for flourish. :) DM: Uh...you're a hulking brute of a fighter. Are you sure? Player: Oh, I gained a level of Monk. I know kung-fu now. :) DM: ...er... ...and that makes sense how exactly? Player: Multiclassing, ftw! THAT is why MC sucks in 3.x+ editions, at least in my opinion. The second major culprit is... Player: "O...
  • 03:59 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted pming in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! TL;DR the thread...but this is a quick "one main reason" why I don't like MC in 3.x+ editions. You know that scene in the Matrix? The first movie? [Neo laying in chair...Morpheus next to him] Neo: [opens eyes] "I know kung-fu". Same thing when the last thing the PC's did was stagger off to their rooms at the inn. DM: You are all awoken in the morning by repeated caw'ing from the roosters outside in the back fields, and the smell of bacon and eggs from downstairs. I assume you each grab your gear and make your way downstiars? Player: Well, I don't wear my scale-mail. I also want to leap over the bannister into the common room, with a sumersault in the air...for flourish. :) DM: Uh...you're a hulking brute of a fighter. Are you sure? Player: Oh, I gained a level of Monk. I know kung-fu now. :) DM: ...er... ...and that makes sense how exactly? Player: Multiclassing, ftw! THAT is why MC sucks in 3.x+ editions, at least in my opinion. The second major...

Wednesday, 11th July, 2018

  • 01:44 PM - Quartz quoted pming in post Tweaking the fighter: bonus to AC when unarmoured or lightly armoured
    Hiya! I think you're looking at the "problem" backwards. You escalating the power level...not de-escalating it. How is this escalating the power level? An unarmoured or light-armoured Fighter typically has a worse AC than a Fighter wearing heavy armour. My point is I wouldn't be giving "bonuses" for using lighter armor so much as I would give "penalties" for using Armor. That's a change too far. We expect Fighters to fight so penalties for doing just that are in the land of Not Fun.

Monday, 9th July, 2018

  • 12:23 AM - Lanefan quoted pming in post Level Advancement and In-Campaign Time
    In game-time, if I was so inclined, perhaps bringing in the 'training rules' for when a PC has enough XP to gain a level could be used? I'm thinking of the 1e/Hackmaster4 method wherein once a PC has enough XP to gain a level they stop gaining XP until they "go train and contemplate" what they have learned...by spending GP's and time. I never really used them because, well, my Players PC's don't gain levels very quickly and it's never bothered us. Yeah, the idea of advancement stopping dead when you bump never appealed to us either; so what we did was put in a gradated penalty system such that the farther you got into the new level the slower your xp gain became, until you trained up. It works in thirds: you advance normally until you get 1/3 of the way through the new level, after which you start losing 1/3 of any xp you earn. If you get 2/3 of the way through you start losing 2/3 of any xp earned. And if you somehow plow all the way through a level without training for it (rare, but i...


Page 1 of 48 1234567891011 ... LastLast

0 Badges

pming's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites