Search results

I don't like playing word games with my PCs, the idea of him being intimatating needs to be explained to some players (some would pick up on that) I don't think it's fair to both sets of players if it goes over ones head...

hence my good for the goose style of gaming... but I also let people react to intimidate in game... "hey my orc punches things that intimidate him" is a perfectly fine NPC or PC reaction

so if one of my players (Kelly) was playing your game and said "Can I roll to see if he's lying" what would you tell her... I ask because she is the most stereotypical nerd/shy girl she can't tell even obvius lies in real life, and in game she never trusts herself...

this seems so weird to me... do you tell them what they know with know checks like arcana or do you make them look it up because you don't tell them what there character thinks? I don't tell them how he acts, but if an NPC uses there ability to interact with the PC I let them know "Hey he...

no I know about them (I sometimes forget at the table) I like setting up cards ahead of time with "hey your arcana tells you such and such" with those rules, I just don't understand how this question comes up...

I wrote a long winded thing that now I wish had been summed up with "stop messing with classes that are done and make more campaign settings"

can I ask a related question... if you have a player who isn't good with social stuff out of game, but has a high wis skillful character how do you relate? I mean if he has wis 16 and prof in insight can't tell if your npc is lieing or not? I mean it has to be a roll, and the bluff skill vs the...

I'm a good for the goose good for the gander type of GM. So in some campaigns, ones where the players are more out of game ok with just RP we forget the social skills exists all together, but if the Bard can bluff check his way out of trouble, so can the evil viser to the king... I will add...

ok, start a thread about why you don't like clerics see how far it goes... I think GMforpowergames said he would like that thread earlier...

yup... the deity is outside the cleric and the barbarian and by definition an external force...

much like when the people in this thread request warlords...

I think even going that far is too far (I would prefer steps back to be honest)

you understand perfectly well... he, like I DON"T WANT A WARLORD AT ALL... we are winning, but had to put up with some compramises (hit dice, second wind, inspire feat, long/short rest) so we are far from a perfect game for us too, I have to put up with what I don't like and so do you...

in only 1 edition that regardless of your personal thoughts (my dislike is known) you must admit is at best controversial

OK, then we are in similar boats... I run D&D 90% of the time, I have only played 5e (not counting playtest pre relase) 1 campaign that last like 10 sessions, and 3-4 one shots...

I sometimes (even back in 2e) wonder myself why fighters can't take advantage of getting the drop on you like a thief/rogue

oh, the whole thing is the artifact lets them make these items, they have been prepping for almost 3 years... the items are supposed to be what turned them from a minor issue to a major "get PCs in here now" issues... yea I'll make the big bosses from scratch... thanks

you can use them to eat, can you used them to catch even slow bugs

again I plan to not give any real items that the party would want, but that they can give to the allied king and army. I mean the wand they would most likely keep, but the weapons and rings are not much use for them but would help make the challenge more... +1 items should be +1 cr sounds good...

I agree with Leatherhead and I think that would rock if elder brains started with Cannibalistic Flayers