Search results

I don't see where you've clearly defined what your "benevolent stance" is. You wrote But, what does playing on the PCs' team actually entail? It's like asking for others' ideas on how to get the most out of your flimdron. First, you need to explain what a flimdron even is, then, people can...

I like GURPS: highest Speed to lowest, no rolls. Easy to use without sacrificing verisimilitude. With 5e, DEX could be used, but for 2e and older editions using 'highest Movement first' seems better.

You could do what you want with d20Modern and the system is similar to 5e. OR, you could run with Everyday Heroes, a reboot of d20Modern using the 5e system.

Well ... depends on what "exceptional" means (again).

Right. So Tolkien's Dwarves could cast spells :ROFLMAO:

Pact Magic was almost OP and pretty fun. One of the few gems of 2e was how the original ToM introduced Metamagic, which is must-have for all casters IMO Good ones! I'll always prefer multiclassing into the classic Gish: F/MU/T That looks like a crazy combo. Must have been a long campaign...

Google is mighty. Google is just https://thetolkien.forum/threads/dwarves-and-magic.18041/

I let the players drive ;)

Exactly what you're supposed to do Have you run Queen of the Spiders by chance? If so, any tips? I want to run it for a group this year Very smart. Getting player engagement up-front is extremely useful That's a smart approach because it can make you a better GM, if you study the craft and...

There's more than that one line, though. Dwarves could cast spells, which they used for various things, including working metal and protection. It's weird that this would even be disputed - it's clearly written.

And it was fine to change anything you wanted. To me the biggest change - that actually disturbs character advancement - is dropping gold for X.P. What's filling that gap? A lot more combat, which means the PCs have a greater chance of getting perished.

Yes and? Free attacks = more chances to do damage = better chance to win the combat. Easy-peezy. I could see most GMs banning Riposte, but it provides the best combat advantage for the party, which is win-win (unless the GM is being adversarial).

Yeah but IME the PCs with higher stats end up protecting your lil underdog. Higher stats > lower stats (y) ... or victory. And there's a better shot at victory with better stats. Statistically-speaking 🤓

Lack of commitment by definition. And you can call it gatekeeping as much as you like but it only shows that you ask questions looking for answers you want, rather than actually being interested in open discussion. Agreeing to disagree.

We can agree to disagree here (y)

Yeah but Tolkien's Dwarves could cast spells :unsure:

Define "typical"? Would that be a character with all 10s for stats?

Most of us deal in stats and scores. What's exceptional? 12+? 16+? 18+? If I roll really well for stats, is the character exceptional just by the stats? Keeping in mind high stats are normally a combination of good genes and intensive training. If my Rogue has a 17 DEX but every other ability is...

Except, the OP establishes that MOST GMs are going out of their way to make sure the players enjoy the game. The OP describes the "Benevolent GM" as one who interferes in the game with an NPC whose only function is to help the PCs. Hence the GMPC kerfuffle. My point, again, is that GMs...

... aaaand Riposte FTW! I mean if your opponent misses you, you get an AoE?