Search results

The way I remember it, rangers had identity problems as far back as 2E. (Were they Drizzt emulators? If so, where's the tools to let them survive close combat?)

If the PC is proficient, and they're not in combat, I usually assume they auto-succeed. A typical session will see only one or two ability checks rolled (outside of combat.)

Carrion Crown, Serpent's Skull, and Skull & Shackles. It was the opening to SS ("You've been poisoned; roll fort to see who wakes up first") that warmed me up to the benefits of a heavy handed premise. In contrast S&S really refined my understanding of the perils of continuing the heavy handed...

Yeah; there's a big difference between a campaign premise and a railroad. For me, it was Paizo's APs that really drove this lesson home: Handing us a premise at the beginning of the AP? Easy sell. Handing us a premise at the beginning of the third module? Players feel railroaded, in a bad...

Yeah, I ain't gonna miss that aspect of Dancey's marketing pitch.

I like the funnies in my printed D&D content just fine; and I don't particularly mind if they include older joke monster/items that have become a recognizable part of the D&D IP. But, good humor is hard (and expensive) to write; so generally I find that less is more, especially in this...

What I really want is a set of sturdy guidelines for making new lair actions. I have a feeling that these were originally conceived as a dumping ground for the "imbalanced" abilities of older editions; but I really think this new design space has a lot of exciting potential for setting up...

I like that there are lots of mechanics (lair actions, backgrounds, downtime activities) that are just begging for conversion to the Birthright setting.

How does earth conquer air? Dunno--but maybe stuff like pollution, dust storms, unnatural things like flying mountains.

Sometimes I want identification to be an exploration challenge, and sometimes I don't. If I do, then I tell them that regular ID methods aren't working. Otherwise, we just do it like what's in the rules.

I might be mistaken since I have no data, but my impression has generally been that the MMO hate is mainly a messageboard phenomenon. Certainly most of the players i know love both (though there IS a general distaste for players who try to play TTRPGs like they're MMOs.) Nod. But in all...

Shucks, now I feel bad for raining on your parade.

That's not DESIGNED with D&D in mind; it's only being marketed by the seller to D&D players. Compare with: http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Messenger-Weather-Resistant-Printers-PowerShot/dp/B008529VGY

So, theoretically, what would it take for you to not want to play with him any more? Because from what you say, he's starting to sound like a good candidate for culling.

I had a player once who I was 90% certain was reading along in the adventure as we played (it was an online game.) Turns out, I actually liked the guy and didn't want to boot him. So I just let it ride. Oh, occasionally I would swap names in the module just to tweak him, and I made fun of him...

My favorite heads-up GMing tool is undoubtedly my laptop, with a little baby named RandomNameGenerator.xls loaded up and ready to go.

The only thing I really dislike about general D&D culture is the deep, abiding assumption by players and DMs that they're doing it wrong if things happen that the DM doesn't have a plan for.

I prefer Roll20, by a large margin. Mainly because I have a big hate-on for FG's interface. There aren't enough tooltips; there's no way to add or subtract values on the character sheet; and no way to ping the map. Setting up spells/powers is far too difficult, with little/no in-app guidance...

Heck yeah I did. But, the setting seems like a minefield for a corporation that wants to avoid major political/religious controversy. Do you really think it's possible for today's WotC to do AQ in a way that's true to the original boxed set?

"Overall feedback has been positive" is pr code for "certain things received very negative feedback." In this case I'm willing to bet that the things in question are the content of the magazines (or lack thereof).