Search results

I'm slightly less detailed than this. I track Monster hit points in the open, counting down. So since the players have just as much info as I do, when I don't want to bother they can do whatever narration they want if they want to bother. Most of the time, no one wants to bother.

I ran a one shot set in Maztica, and playec a pluma knight see displaced into the Dalelands in sunshine else's FR game. I also take from it for my current game, where a cult of city dwellers who worship Zaltec set up their secret lair in the megadungeon. Oh top of that, at least one other...

I used the ghost class briefly in one campaign when a couple PCs died in one encounter in a haunted mansion.

Yes. But I might be lying. You'll have to successfully Insight this post to know for sure.

A little bit of both, although I think we're more likely to sell off the stuff after it hasn't seen any use for a couple levelsn and we figure later will never come.

No, I did not look at your notes. And because I'm a world class Truth Teller (there's no one better at telling the truth than me!) so you'll need to make a DC 30 Insight check to verify that yeah, I'm telling the truth.

I pity the poor customs agent who has to inspect your exploding luggage.

What if I guess at the combination, and I'm lucky enough to match the combination in your notes? like, I specifically say "I enter 11, 22, 63 as the combination and open the chest" when your notes say the combination is 11/22/63? (I'm a Stephen King fan is why I chose those numbers "randomly")

I played in a whole campaign using the 3e OA. One of the guys in the group was a huge Lo5R fan and this was his way of getting us to at least play in the setting. OA was my most used 3e book (after the core 3).

This is very much the reason why I haven't dumped the skill system. My players might prefer that individualizing, and they certainly like it will enough that there no reason for me to implement a major change just because I would prefer it. And your right about the zero-to-hero, thing. I like...

*Sheepishly raises his hand* He might point to my how I've said I don't pay attention to a character's skill or tool proficiencies when adjuticatin success/fail, or seeing DCs, etc. But then, I'm not one of the people he's discussing this with, and I'm not claiming my method is like the one...

I'd totally prefer the opposite. I edited my last post, saying this: The constantly increasing numbers in 4e made me feel like low level characters were chumps who knew nothing, and could do nothing. I'd prefer a system that suggests that low level characters are skilled adventurers, and I...

Aye. That's accurate enough. Edit: Indeed, I am constantly tempted to dump all the rules around skill proficiency entirely, and implement old school ability checks: like, if an action is at all possible, I'd just say "roll a Strength check" and the player would tell me if they succeed by...

For me, the answer is it depends. In a quiet room, with no pressure neither of those would require a check. They'd both work automatically, even if the character wasn't proficient with alchemy/poisoner kit.* If there was a fight raging in the room, or some other chaos, they'd both require...

It is my belief that 5e is so loosely - broadly might be a better word - balanced that no small change like this will affect it at all. So no harm that way. It might change the flavor of rogues, give them a new favorite standard weapon.

Oh. That's simple! There is no consensus. :heh: Also, you should go right ahead and give them reach. It won't harm anything . . . except the trident's feelings.

Well put. I would prefer if it just gave proficiency with all simple and martial weapons, but only so I wouldn't have to specify any details when writing the feat on my sheet.

My first thought was to say no, the halberd is a halberd, and you need to be proficient with a halberd to use a halberd proficiently. But then I figured, sure, why not. After all, you could pick up a random long pole and use it to the same effect.

We're all gonna have different answers to these questions, and the only one that matters is the DM's. My answer to these two is: of the player is doing this surgically to be able to use his weapon at reach, then sure. Both wood count as a reach weapon. But the axe tied to the staff wouldn't be...

I'm really liking the design of this megamap, with the canal tying in all the various distinct sections.