Search results

It does specify that you must be aware of your opponents. "Opponents". Choice word, there, that. If a heated verbal debate made someone an opponent, they'd have already been in initiative order, but they weren't.

So? How's that a bad thing? Even in only core, allowing exclusively PHB options in 3.5, the wizard is vastly more powerful than the fighter anyway, so who cares about trying to balance things in a mixed party in the first place, and how does it prevent him from being an active and fun RPer?

Definitely. There are sometimes reasons to go in initiative order even though no combat is happening, but due to the slowing down of the game, it's reserved for when you really need to know where everyone is and in exactly which order things are being done in, combat being the most obvious and...

For starters, it really depends on the feel you're going for, so I'm going to share my personal preference, since I have nothing better to go on. Damage dealing; I think that in one round, or it's equivalent for your system, if everybody or everything on one side attacks the weakest member of...

I get that, and thank you for the feedback. However, I'm talking about the weapons themselves. What properties do they have such that you would choose one over the other, regardless how well balanced those are between eachother? What properties and uses does each weapon have, in and of that...

When you're going in initiative order, it doesn't mean you're necessarily fighting. If you're fighting, yes, initiative order, but not necessarily the other way around. I mean, it's not like you can be in the middle of town, talking to an enemy who's highly respected there, then, while talking...

1. Was there any bluffs or insights rolled to gain a surprise round by anyone? 2. The thief saw what was about to go down, and covered the distance before anyone was actually throwing any punches. The fighter may have taken a more aggressive stance or whatever, but the punch was simply not...

I'm trying to make general distinctions between certain weapon types for something I'm working on. Of these kinds of weapons, why do you choose that one instead of one of the others? What sorts of benefits does that weapon give you such that you prefer it? Axe Hammer Spear Sword

I already have enough evidence to determine that optimizing does not require you to be a jerk or otherwise a bad player. I'm not trying to determine what the ratio of good players to bad players is, or something. I understand that optimizers can be irritating or jerky players, and those guys...

Then you're hanging out with the wrong ones. I do have some questions, though; What is "organic tactics? Exactly what do these players want to happen in combat such that they dominate? I mean, wanting your abilities to work isn't a whole lot to ask, but I've heard some people indirectly claim...

My point was more about it being either a needless change (if the game will still be balanced against what the PCs are capable of), or fun due to it's difficulty (if you find things being overly difficult fun and the challenge is not adjusted to the characters' abilities). It could also just be...

I think he's mostly discussing that a newcomer to the hobby could be turned off if the experienced people at the table are more effective in every way than his character, simply because he didn't know what he was doing. Granted, you should work with the DM at least, and the other players...

How would you go about this challenge? By making decisions based on your limitations and strengths used to overcome difficulties, ie "optimizing", or through caring so much about role-playing over optimizing that you throw sound decision making to the wind is favor of personality such that you...

I don't know anything about that class except what you just said about it. What matters is if the player likes it and the DM allows it.

Also, the quest could tie in with the main plot of the campaign, drawing the PC into the primary plot. If he didn't help the PCs if they weren't helping him, that's selfish, but I don't see why not to put up with it and let the PCs handle it in game. A lot of problems aren't as big if you let...

Those are much more specific and, yes, jerky PCs. Both problems are easy to solve, though. When a PC ignores the needs of the group, the group ignores the needs of the PC. Either the player will adapt, or they'll just be dead weight the whole time who doesn't matter anyway and who gets ignored...

http://dndtools.eu/classes/justiciar/ http://dndtools.eu/classes/kensai/ http://dndtools.eu/classes/knight-protector/ http://dndtools.eu/classes/samurai/ You could also re-fluff basically any melee classes to function in a knightly way, if your DM doesn't mind re-fluffing (and I don't know why...

I actually wouldn't mind those, assuming they aren't the extremes I'm sure you intend to imply. A cowardly fighter would be fun, if their cowardice didn't prevent him from taking part in fights, but was, perhaps, specific to situations, and maybe caused him to simply avoid a kind of enemy...

I didn't say anything about combat. You can die outside of combat. I agree, but this point still stands. If you create a PC who is so atrociously anti-optimized that he's at serious risk of dying when the risk of dying is moderate at best for the other characters, then that thing I just said. I...

No, it was not intentionally inflammatory. It was to see how people would answer the question if I worded it that way. it being offensive, and my feeling bad after I realized it, was not on my mind at the time of posting, and I apologize for it to anyone it may have offended. Wait... what? My...