Search results

I'm trying to plan out the scope of a campaign, and I could use some advice. For the sake of my own sanity, I've divided the plot into a series of quests that connect to a much larger plot, and each of these quests corresponds to a level. We level once a quest is completed rather than by XP...

You know what? I've had it with this. It's my game, and you can all shove your pretentious notions that I'm somehow doing it wrong. I'm the one who knows what my game world contains, and most importantly, I'm the one who knows who my players are and the fact that they are enjoying my game. I...

Well, all GNSOMGBBQ stuff aside, a few DM lessons I've garnered through this thread: Don't make encounters architecturally adjacent to other encounters. Even when potentially justified, it leads to plot holes and potentially hairy situations for the PCs. Reward player creativity whenever...

I actually gave this some thought in designing this "dungeon." The dragons didn't hear anything because they were inside a secure vault. The kobolds in the office (a wyrmpriest and his personal guards) didn't respond because they were trying to complete a ritual. When the vault door was opened...

Thanks for the great advice, everyone. I'm giving them the option of a TPK or to be captured and taken as sacrifices. And for those that want to stay in the same plot line but don't like their character, I'm offering to either swap them out with one of the other prisoners there (essentially...

Hmm... this could have worked. I've got to get better about thinking on my feet like this. I guess I was worried about letting it work because 1) the temperature needed to weld metal is REALLY HOT, and I had no idea how hot Burning Hands is intended to be, and 2) I was worried about opening the...

I'll admit railroading is something I've struggled with in the past. I'm not a great at improv as a DM. But I guess it depends on your definition of railroading, and there are certainly degrees. I've got a general plot and the series (not necessarily the sequence) of events that I want the...

You're right, I allowed them to trigger them simultaneously, but how else was I supposed to address it? I don't mean that flippantly, either, I really wasn't sure what to do when they started talking about opening both doors at once. I guess I could have warned them, but that starts getting into...

Another fact worth noting: we will be joined in our next session by a new player who will replace the Wizard. I've considered allowing him to join in on the scene as it unfolds, though I'm not sure what a difference a single player could make. I've considered the capture scenario, especially...

My players triggered two encounters simultaneously. Should I have run them simultaneously? Here's some elaboration: Kobolds had tunneled through the sewers to an abandoned bank's basement. Our heroes (1st-level, 1st full dungeon in 4e for these players) had fought their way into the bank from...

I've been playing a Rogue since the beginning of the playtest, so I realize I'm not impartial here. I've seen the effectiveness of their sneak attack go up and down, and a number of class features come and go. So, where do you think they stand now? The question came up in my most recent game...

Yeah, I guess this is why I think it's not a big deal to include. It seems mostly like a Grapple with slightly tweaked rules. If you can keep Grapple simple (or at least, simpler than 3.5), it seems you should be able to keep Cling/Climb simple.

Where I see such rules most being used isn't necessarily by the PCs climbing onto big monsters, but tiny monsters climbing onto PCs. It would be nice to see an easy rule in core. Something that takes up no more room than the Grapple rules would suffice. It could make that choice to play a...

It's hard for me to draw conclusions from this poll, because I think the questions aren't asked in a specific enough way. I changed my answer from A to C, but I had a specific caveat in mind. When asking if Sneak Attack should be mandatory, I first considered that as their main, and only...

I'd like to point out that this really depends on the specific iteration of Sneak Attack. There has been some significant fluctuation throughout the D&D Next run, not to mention earlier editions of D&D. I'm currently playing a level 7 Rogue. Right now, that means +2d6. Back in March, it meant...

Indiana Jones and Sherlock Holmes both had their fair share of fighting ability (Jones could throw a decent punch, Holmes was a notable brawler/wrestler), and both carried guns. Both go on adventures expecting that there could be fighting involved, and both have killed in self-defense. Maybe...

I agree, too. Though I agree to an even larger extent that there are many subclasses that could benefit from some different base stats, including proficiencies. The Cleric is a prime example, since some armor and weapons are determined by choice of deity/domain.

By this logic, everyone but the Fighter should have d4, including the Barbarian. And I don't think that's what you mean to imply. Regardless, I don't think it's fair to put players in one of two piles, Squishy and Non-Squishy. D&D Next is trying to create characters that run the gamut. Indeed...

I'd also like it if there were some incentive for using only one weapon, but I can see how that wouldn't be a very popular notion. As mentioned, Rogues and Rangers are nudged into TWF by the mechanics right now. And there are some potential benefits to keeping a free hand during combat, very few...

I guess that depends on how the rules end up looking in the 5e finished product. Whatever the case, I'm sure he can continue to play by 3e rules just like the Order of the Stick continues to do.