Search results

Oh, I see. Well, I'm used to the mechanic of "first, player A declares his actions". Or to declare what you are doing/attempting BEFORE you roll. (I don't accept rolls that are made and then declared why they are made) That's why I "saw" a setp before rolling. Hope it helped.

I don't know what you mean by "an attack is defined by..." Because the attack roll isn't a definition, it's a mechanic. But it would make more sense to trigger a "when you are attacked" as soon as possible, and that is when the attack is declared, not after the first steps of its resolution are...

I rules these issues this way: When you someone attacks, you have these diffrerent "phases": Declare attack: Power used and target - Triggers activated: When X attacks Y Roll and determine hit or miss: - Triggers activated: When hit by and attack, When missed by an attack, etc Roll damage...

My experience is the same as Keterys'

The trick is something you as DM know. Players don't know that they can trick the devils the same way, both times. And even if they do, they can only do it once. Since, as you noted, Kazyk would have learned from Kurycheck. And if they play it first on Kazyk, then it doesn't rellay matters...

You're 100% right. I apologize for how I phrased that (and previous comments I've made too). It's something that has been bothering me for a while in the guidelines in the DMG: Ac is 14 + level NAD is 12 + level This, naturally, is to offset the proficiency that AC attacks normally have...

Wow! That's great! Thanks!

So simple. Nice one.

One problem with monsters is, mostly, Elites and Solos, whose attacks are equivalent to several monster attacks. So if a defender trumps all of these attacks, it's comes as too strong (because he wouldn't be able to mark the equivalent amount of monsters). Likewise, if only one defender can...

Oh, I didn't meant that. I meant two full blown 5 ongoing damage. That is, if you have two ongoing 5 fire damage, you receive 5 damage both times, and make two saves.

Another point to add to CapnZapp argument: Balancing monsters If 5 ongoing stacks with other ongoing, it's hard to measure how much output damage the monster has. 5 ongoing damage is roughly equivalent to 9 damage. Example: 2d4 + 15 damage would be equivalent to 2d6 + 4 + 5 ongoing damage...

One more thing. As usual, I've changed the encounter a little. First, I lowered Kazyk's huge Fortitude from 23 to 19. This puts it in line on how NADs should be in respect to AC. Second, I've added to the Lemure's the following ability, inspired on the Dretch (MM2): Poison Cloud (when the...

Oh, that's only the treasure that I give INSTEAD of giving gold. Of course they get weapons/implements, armors and neck items. Oh, and today we begun the combat against the new official updated Kazyk. Man, he kicks ass. They are really worried about the combat, although they aren't in any...

100% agree with CapnZapp. This is a flaw in the system.

Alternative Treasure Since the adventurers will not have an opportunity to spend money on this adventure, I thought I could replace the money rewards for consumable items, wondrous and items that are improbable of ever getting bought. Note that this treasure isn't as helpful as it could be, so...

Not for me :D

Skill training/booster feats may be overlooked because the DM don't make skills important in their games.

I'm so happy at Wizards right now... :D

I still don't get why ongoing damage isn't cumulative. It's not like it's damage isn't considered into the monster's DPR...

You're right, it's very notorious how the survivability goes up in the round he spends an Action Point. These are the things that stand out better in a 1 vs 1 fight.