Search results

True. "Punishment" was probably poor word choice. In any event, we agree. The advancement system should match the tastes of the group and the nature of the campaign.

I am slightly baffled by this mentality (which seems to be rather commonly held). Our group feels that missing out on the fun of a gaming session is sufficient punishment that an XP penalty isn't required. Is this idea that players should be rewarded for being present a result of using XP as an...

The leveling of characters without the tracking of XP isn't necessarily antithetical to troop style play. In my current campaign, each player has multiple characters. One is designated the primary and the others as secondary. Like a TV show, I organize my campaigns as an inter-connnected series...

Actually I don't need to show anything of the like. But for a different reason than you mention later in your post. The quality of the author's "enhancement" is completely subjective and somewhat irrelevant. If the author changed facts and thought that by doing so he enhanced the story, then...

or perhaps he fully understands what he read (either as a child or an adult) but decided to take a little creative license to enhance the story told in the book.

The title of the thread says the PCs are travelling by longship (that language doesn't actually appear in the original post). So, presumably a single sail, no lower decks, fairly low gunnels, little in the way of rigging, etc. Of course, if the OP is willing to consider a tall sailing ship...

I am currently running a Viking themed campaign and the characters spend a lot of time in long ships. Storms have come up several times during play and I have appended the rules that I use below. I treat the storm as a man versus nature "combat". STORMS The storm will last a number of hours...

I've seen versatile usage come up frequently in my games. Usually this occurs, when a fight breaks out that the PCs weren't expecting. The action required to hoist a shield is sometimes seen as too onerous in the middle of a fight. Thus, the characters who usually use a longsword and shield will...

In my opinion two rule changes from edition to edition have exacerbated this problem. 1) The elimination of low-light vision in favor of darkvision has changed the balance so that often only one or two characters in a party can't see in the dark. Further, all of the underground races now have...

For those that like the aesthetic of a rapier, I keep rapiers as an option. When consulting the weapon table in the PHB, I call that option the shortsword.

This is an excellent description of my gaming group. As we've gotten older, almost all characters have become human. There are probably three reasons for this: 1) The novelty of playing a nonhuman has worn off. 2) Most of us realized some time ago, that its a lot of work to play a character...

Unfortunately . . . well not for me actually. The one time I got to actually play such a character for any length of time (Shark totem in a Polynesian campaign), the other players all decided that my barbarian's plans were brilliantly simplistic. I think the DM cried a little bit each night.

I choose barbarian for pure bone headed stupidity. I normally DM, so when I get to play, I don't want to think. I just want to hit stuff, be hit, and suggest stupid plans that no one with more than 2 brain cells should think "That's a good idea. Let's follow the barbarian's lead".

If the only problem is the similarity between characters (i.e., all melee combatants end up with a 20 STR independent of whether they are Hercules or Joxer), then a simple solution is to change the level cap individually. At the beginning of the campaign, each player chooses a single ability...

My biggest complaint with regular ability score increases is that it removes one common way of imagining a character. Its no longer possible to characterize your hero as the "strongest man alive" and have that define your character throughout play. Even if you start off maximizing your...

Its absolutely crucial that the PCs have a goal of their own. They need a place to start and a reason to talk to the NPCs. To give an example, I once started a campaign at a high-brow party. This was a pulp game (using Fate instead of D&D) but the principle is the same. The event was a party...

Well that seems like an admirable goal. Of course, the true answer to the OP question is "Whatever would frighten your players more!"

I could see the argument of large-size for a gorilla (they weigh about twice as much as a human), but I don't see small for chimps. Chimps are a bit shorter bu they only weigh slightly less than a human. Kind of like dwarves!

The stats could work for either. Both are medium size and both are stronger than a human on average. If you are treating them as aggressive, vicious bastards, I would probably go with Chimp. The fact that the ape throws rocks also suggests chimp to me.

Your point is well taken. However, I do believe that the "bounded accuracy" built into 5th edition helps mitigate this problem. Even a non-proficient character has a decent (not fantastic) chance to succeed on an Arcana check if they have a high intelligence (as most wizards should). Of course...