Search results

I believe that buying a ticket is the analogy of choosing to invest in proficiency in arcana (or religion). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Indeed, there are more options; I was trying to keep it simple. I seriously considered adding your option (3) to my original list, but didn't want to talk too much about when I would consider making the change of type in the middle of play. I'm glad I waited, your description is more...

Obviously, I don't have that much control over the table:) But, more seriously, many of my players have a hard time making a decision and a little help from their friends speeds things up and makes it more enjoyable. Clearly other tables, like yours, will feel differently and may restrict...

At my table, the request for a skill check and the checks themselves would take 10-15 seconds. The tactical discussion about whether counterspelling is a good idea could take half an hour. :) Telling the players what spell is being cast outright would in fact lead to more time being spent...

Sure. Happy to explain further/better. When I have a NPC who has counterspell on their list, I make the decision of which type of counterspeller they will be prior to the encounter: 1) The NPC counterspells everything, irrespective of whether the spell is recognized or not. 2) The NPC...

First, this comes up relatively rarely. I do not often include NPC spell casters with counterspell on their list. If overused the players at my table find counterspell annoying. But in those rare instances wherean NPC is capable of casting counterspell, I do indeed only roll for spells that...

Its quite easy to be objective. I give the NPCs the same chance as the PCs to recognize a spell being cast. If they recognize it (via an arcana or religion check), the NPC will counterspell if its in their interest to do so. If they fail the check and don't recognize the spell, then they...

I have found that "fantasy" names have no resonance with my group of players. Therefore, I almost always use real world names for NPCs. People seem better able to remember, Ned and Lars the gate guards than Nedlum and Jarskaar.

Or pan to the window. Start and finish with "OK, you seduce the barmaid." Then move on.

I once had a player who wanted to argue about gravity and how falling damage wasn't realistic. I simply answered, "How do you know how hard the air spirits pull you to the ground?"

If you are worried that the PCs are going to break their contract, they probably will. You know your players best. So . . . let them break it and then as many have already said, ensure there are consequences and make them interesting. The consequences shouldn't be seen as punishment. What...

I once ran a campaign where the player of the wild-magic sorcerer was absent due to illness. The player suggested that a wild magic surge turned her character into a small statuette (easy to carry, hard to damage, etc.). When the player showed up the following week for the next session, boop...

If you are looking for a simple minimalist solution, the DMG's downtime rules have guidelines for running a business. They include rolls to assess the profitability of the enterprise.

Keep in mind that there may be nothing malicious here. Some players have a hard enough time figuring out what they are going to do next, much less consider what other players plan on doing or are capable of doing. Next time, roleplay who your next target is going to be. "Yo, lickspittle...

Or take them from the fighter who keeps bogarting your targets ! :) In 3rd edition I had a similar problem. I was playing a barbarian with great cleave. I can't remember if we were using a houserule feat, but I had the ability to cleave then move, cleave then move, cleave then move, ad...

Forgot the advice! But, Satyrn ninjaed me. The only other advice I can offer is to NOT try and change how the other players play. Some people just don't think tactically, and often they don't want to. If you find that your problem with lack of targets persists, pick up a few thrown weapons.

My solution is to run two games concurrently. The primary campaign is a homebrew game that we only play when everyone is present. This game is the one that I spend my time planning, incorporating character backstories, and developing well braided plotlines. The secondary campaign is played...

My guess is that the players on both nights are equally unfocused on tactics. However, from your post I infer that your Thursday game is run by an experienced DM, and I suspect that the experienced DM is compensating for the lack of tactics to ensure that everyone has a good time.

Well, if your only metric for fun is combat optimization, then I agree with you. However, as many aspects of play other than straight butt-kicking make the game fun for me, then yes, it sounds like a fun character. (Edited to add the missing quote)

Sounds like a fun character. Personally, I think many people overvalue the benefit of high stats. Sure, your spell save DC and your spell attack bonus will be a might lower than it could be be. But, if you had a 16 CHA, your chance of success when casting a spell (or using a CHA based skill)...