Search results

As a pretty regular RPGA DM, I like it any time any of my players wants to do something "out of the box". RPGA sessions have a natural tendency to be not particularly memorable by default, and a few wacky things happening in a game can change that. Plus, there's been a big push, especially in...

My friends and I, throughout most of high school, ran a mix of Mechwarrior and Battlelords of the 23rd Century. These days though, my second love is complicated board games. If my gaming group isn't playing D&D, we're playing Catan, or Descent, or Mutant Chronicles.

I think I'd be pretty okay with either model, but I have a slight preference for the current way. While you say that the problem with the current model is that people who want to play with frost giants have to buy another book, assuming that frost giants are level 11+, then that's still the...

I do it basically the opposite way. If a monster can make two or more attacks as a standard action, they all count as separate attacks. Saying that a power that allows you to do something like "make a gore attack and two claw attacks" does not actually count as three attacks is twisting the...

This is good advice and I found it revealing that my own group has a tendency do do this. We use fuzzy pipe cleaner rings hooked on top of a mini, but sometimes 3-4 pile up on top of the same mini and it just gets silly. I think bloodied markers are helpful guidance for who the leaders need to...

I've seen complaints that 4e combats take too long. I've occasionally felt it myself, and I've developed some techniques to avoid it. I'm sure they won't work for everybody, and if your game is going well, there's no need to change it based on what I'm saying, but if you feel as though combats...

I should time how long the combats in my home game are taking. To tell you the truth, I don't really know how long they're taking, but I know that it seems about right. I voted 45 minutes, just off the top of my head, not backed up by any empirical data. I've played console games, like Final...

I saw it as a partial success. The system gave PCs class levels while monsters had hit dice, which were sort of like levels, but worse. Monsters made up for how bad their hit dice were by getting a lot of them, and by getting powerful racial modifiers to ability scores and AC. The systems...

I tend to agree. I also think this is what I was trying to say and what Mouseferatu said a little better in terms of adventure design. During most games, I think these sorts of things happen. The players may encounter teleporting (or other) effects, even in combat, that don't follow the rules...

Ah, well that's true. I admit, I was just, on general principle, defending the ability of the GM to make plots happen without regard for the statblock. I hadn't really considered whether the scenario as presented made for satisfying adventure design, and you're right, it doesn't.

Not to pick on you, sfgiants, since several people have said it, but this thread collects all the official statements about the change, and none of them says that sales were low. Maybe it's a failure on my part to read between the lines, but I didn't get that from any of the official...

No one's made the suggestion that the DM should just ignore the teleport speed listed and have Grazzt constantly teleporting around the battlefield in violation of the general rules of the game. Nor that monsters should ignore the HP mechanic. The only thing that's been specifically suggested...

1. Psionics: Good or Bad? Indifferent. Bad, I suppose since they were used very infrequently. 2. Tome of Battle: The antichrist or best thing that ever happened? The best. If it's not the actual best, it's in the top 3. 3. Fighter Sux: Yes or No? If boring=sux then yes. 4. Wizard and...

That's certainly true. I haven't seen the fighter hitting the extremes of 1-3 extra attacks every round, though I suppose that could happen in a large group with a lot of monsters. But, similarly, I think that if the fighter is intent on getting extra attacks, then he probably will, unless the...

It is not a good idea for every monster in a given combat, but it is the situation for the majority of the monsters. The default situation for most monsters is that there is at least one other monster that the fighter would rather focus on. In other words, for a combat with 5 monsters, 4 of...

Like Cadfan, I've found that sometimes the best way to play out a skill challenge is just to play out a scene, calling for skill checks where appropriate, and just keep track of it behind the screen (or pretend to be doodling, or make it obvious, whatever works). If you get a chance, you could...

The fighter does not "almost certainly hit you". Monsters are not always being flanked, fighters do not always have good Wisdom scores, or even always good to-hit rolls, and many monsters have high ACs. This interaction does not take place in a vacuum. There are typically multiple monsters in...

The point is that when you define a 16 as opposed to an 18 as "mediocre", you are blowing the importance of that extra +1 out of proportion. There are feats, specifically a lot of the paragon tier feats like Heavy Blade Opportunity, Scale Mastery, Hammer Rhythm, Polearm Gamble, Shield...

Oh, true. I didn't think about that or Combat Superiority. Well fighting higher-level soldier-type monsters isn't that rare. At least they have a chance. I respectfully disagree. I think that for most monsters either "let's stop fighting the fighter" or "let's quit being flanked by the...

Just to point out here, that if it's an equivalent-level enemy, and particularly if the enemy is a soldier, the fighter may have to roll an 11+ to hit. The ranger will also take an OA, but his damage on an OA is typically low, with a one-handed weapon and no striker bonus dice. Plus, even if...