Search results

I prefer entertaining (which may entail challenging plots) adventures to challenging encounters.

The problem with the "do not bother with thinking, all is just relative to the PCs" approach is that not everyone is swallowing this in every situation. "Hey... what do you mean, we are the only ones who can save the city? Last week, when we got falsely accused of trying to kill the emperor we...

Amazon finally shipped my order, should have it in a few days.

It isn't that hard to judge probabilities. 1 in 20 swings is a 20. With 4 attacks, and 2 "full rounds" per fight, every 2 to 3 fights you'll roll a 20. If you use the 20+20=dead rule, then you've got a roughly 2% chance to land such a blow in a fight.

No. Only if just some minor edits are needed is editing easier.

Improvising such twists is second nature for me. It helps of course that I rarely present anyone as "good" and "bad", but shades of grey. Then it's just a matter of juggling and twisting stock motivations, and dressing them up in interesting ways.

I never really bother with stat blocks unless I am using some special NPC. NPC generators take care of the average NPC enemy. I also do not bother with a story - I make up NPCs and their goals and means, then act/react to the player's actions. The story develops in game. (Of course you could...

Great Strip!

Similar experiences here. It's easier to make up my own adventures than convert existing ones to my playstyle.

Also remember that not everyone plays the "Dungeon Way". In my campaign, the party is regularily split three-ways, for long times. (Currently one PC is off infiltrating the palace, another is working with rebels trying to topple the tyrant, and the third is dealing with a fiend trying to kidnap...

I don't like buff spells as a whole, especially the straight stat boosters. I feel they cheapen character stats and abilities, and add nothing to the game. As I said to the players "you boost your stats, I boost the NPC stats, and we're back at the status quo ante. So, why not drop the buffing...

Buffing was greatly reduced in our campaign even before the advent of 3.5.

Can't say I have seen anyone of those. However, when it comes to games, if a game is not satisfying, then it's not fun for me, and if a game is not fun it's not satisfying for me.

If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.

How long has your group been playing together? Since 2001, 1998 and 1995 or so. What are the ages, genders, and professions of the people in your group? 25ish to 40. What edition are you playing? House-ruled 3E with 3.5 elements such as Bo9S.

Most of my changes don't go into the direction of 4E. I actually like the "we usually have no more than one (big) fight in a session, so go nova" style. I like the Bo9S basically "unlimited per day powers". I like the different skills, classes and prestige classes. And I can take what I liek...

4E dropped the perform skill (like SWSE dropped Entertain). That alone, while easily house ruled, shows me my goals, and the goals of the designers do not mesh well. 3E just offers me more options I like, especially with Bo9S.

For me, 4E doesn't do it. The design, while elegant and rather consequent in pursuing its goal, screams "COMBAT! COMBAT! COMBAT!" to me, with a "oh, yeah, there's some stuff for non combat too... skill challenges... or something... not that we playtested them, or we'd have found the glaring...

I found it years ago: House-ruled 3E.

Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords took that problem away for me, during 3E times even.