Search results

And that what happened to that group in the end. I don't think the player understood why. There were other OOG issues that reared about the same time as the game exploded.

Yeah I should have listed the Paladin at LG, It was 3.5, before paladins had potentially other alignments.

Monk LN, Wizard LN Wizard/Archer N maybe NG Rogue NG I think Cleric LN probably maybe supposedly LG ETA It was a multiclass-heavy game (3.5). Those were the base classes/roles.

Because I was playing not running. As I said the player was adept at self-justification and the DM was trying to get along as opposed to enforce alignment/code. It was probably the major cause for the campaign failure though.

Most players I've run or played with who chose paladin PCs have acted in good faith. One of the players I played with sticks out like a proud nail. He literally could not/would not acknowledge his actions as evil/wrong/against code. He was not only willing to commit evil acts (torture...

Balancing happened on the random monster by dungeon level tables. The number appearing varied based on actual dungeon level vs. typical dungeon level. It was never balanced against the party because the assumption was the party would pick a dungeon level with a comfortable threat level.

1e and Holmes both have organization in monster descriptions. Even Chainmail has # appearing entries. Hard to find older than that.

Always go X is a depth-first search. It's primary advantage is swapping hands will get you out eventually. I prefer breadth-first searches when not facing pressure: there's less chance something is going to close my escape route.

Sure PCs miss. But this kicks in when everything goes right and they hit. So if the PCs burn a bunch of resources hitting and then making sure the hit counts (like a paladin burning his highest spell slot on a smite after hitting) then all those resources and positionings are gone.

If you want the player's choices to be meaningful, yes. The player choices matter not just the choices they make in how they react to the environment, but the choices they make wrt the PCs in the environment. If I offer a game and the player know solving mysteries are going to be important and...

Good, solid attempts! How about "Should the party treat a Paladin that gets them in trouble any differently than a Rogue who steals from them? Both are just doing what their characters would!"

That red must be lighter/brighter than the original or there's just more of it and the bulk makes seeing the colour possible. It is much easier to notice.

If I were GMing it, and it got to the point where I'm framing a scene with an inappropriately too powerful opponent demanding to eat a companion -- they'd eat the companion. Any backtalk, any subterfuge, anything else the PC on site could do would end up getting the PC eaten too - probably...

But makes success less likely since they'd be a man down.

France lost a lot of battles it should have won after it raised the "take no prisoners' flag. Common soldiers are often expected to surrender rather than stupidly waste their lives.

It's entirely legal in Canada. Person has Accounting job, for example, and is paid for Accounting work, but has a creative writing sideline. Employer has creative writing need and contracts person A at their typical employer rate for creative writing. Person A pays taxes on their full time...

He did, a few pages back. Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next? There's at last one after that as well.

It should be treated as true unless and until a game product changes it.

I prefer smaller denoms (20s are near perfect!), just more of them!

I took my first serious break to recharge after about 15 years of constant GMing. I find I need some way to refresh myself every decade or so. I'm beginning to feel the burn now so I'll need to talk to my players in the next year or so.