Search results

My main group are also my closest and best friends. We are playing together since 2008. At one point in time, i got burnout from fantasy and D&D. I sat down with them, asked if we could switch to something else, even offered to run something else, just not D&D fantasy. Rest of the guys had blast...

It's not about telling someone to suck it up. It's fair warning. Maybe DM just wants to run R rated game for a change cause he/she is burned out on running PG 13 games. Maybe instead of usual big heroes out to do good and save the world campaign for the N-th time, DM wants to run game with 50...

As someone who runs mostly R rated games, i give fair warning during my campaign pitch. Specially if i run Dark Sun or Ravenloft. I don't go into gory details, not my jam, but i do include various themes that are potentially uncomfortable for some people, so anyone who has problems, can nope out...

Exactly. Sometimes DM has concept of campaign and that's only thing at that moment he is willing to run. There is limit to how much you can stretch something to fit into a game. If players aren't interested in that concept with it's inherent limits, they can decline to play. In same vein, if...

I'll answer only for myself. Last couple of years, i'm extremely picky about what i'm willing to run in D&D when it comes to longer campaigns. I pick player options i'm allowing in advance to fit my vision of the game world, theme and mood of the game, then i compile it into a short "sales"...

Yeah, that kind of behavior sucks. It's like giving kid a lolipop for a few licks then taking it away. IMHO, if you wanna exclude some options, tell it to player straight forward when you pitch campaign. So they know, even before they start thinking about what they will play, what limitations...

First thing that comes to mind is monsters with abilities that negate player agency. Now, there are few of them in MM. But homebrew one with innate dominate person that targets cha save, that one would be very nasty.

Of course. That's why i said try to find compromise. Key word is try. Sometimes, DM's and player's vision is so wide apart that there just isn't any compromise to be made. For example. that one campaign i mentioned. Only race was human, only classes were barbarian, non casting ranger and...

As a DM i banned races and classes for various reasons ranging from "i don't like them" to "doesn't fit my campaign". Most extreme was campaign with 1 race and only 3 classes available. I also run plenty of 3.5 games where anything published by wotc was allowed (races, classes, templates, feats...

Just to add a bit here. There is absolutely controller in football. Central midfielder is exactly that. Luka Modrić is best example of modern controller in football. He dictates pace of the game, where ball goes, pulls opposing players from their zones. Pure field control. Leader is more like...

Sure, you could play Druid as a healer in 3.x/PF1. But primary healer in those editions still was - cleric. Bards were crap healers, since they were not full casters (they only got 2 0lv spells at 1st level in 3.x, 1 slot of 1st lv in PF1 and they had very limited number of spells know, which...

When 4e came out, most of my friend group who played d&d was already on WoW. And yes, our first impression was - damn, this feels very similar. Basic attack - at wills, short cool down - encounter, long cool down - daily (basically, ability for boss fights of the day). To be fair, roles...

Likes: Unified xp progression across all classes Milestone leveling Skills in 3.x Manouvers/stances in ToB, those were best martials i have seen across all editions Point buy as one of default char gen options AEDU system in 4e - best thing from 4e, one system where every class runs on same...

I finally remembered what Binder reminded me of. It's 7ths sea sorcery from Avalon called Glamour. It allowed user to call upon legendary heroes from Avalon's history and borrow their power, like Robin Goodfellow ( Robin Hood), who grants you great skill with bow (greater damage, greater ranger...

Truenamer was mostly inspired by Le Guin's Earthsea concept of wizards drawing power over things by knowing their true name.

As people said, late 3.5 had some interesting classes. Sure, they weren't really strong (compared even to some PHB classes), but at least they were interesting. Binder, truenamer, shadowcaster etc. They tried to do something more than just slap regular spells on class and call it a day. Binder...

We already had cool system for martials back in 3.5. Bo9S with stances and manouvers. It's similar to spells with 9 levels, manouvers known and prepared. But there are no slots. There are unique recovery methods for in fight recovery, but in essence, every readied manouver is per encounter...

Which is very good actual game time. Yup, you are very efficient and you skip stuff that usually slows down games. Pair it with very good actual play time per session and sure, you will move fast. 20 session campaign, in that style, sounds awesome, at least for me.

Sure. But than it's just longsword without versatile property. I'm aware. Compared to 3.5 version, it is. I mean, grappled creature can use 2h weapon or cast spells no problem. Hell, grappled condition doesn't even provoke concentration check. Cause this is labeled as D&D general, not 2024...

Action economy is king in D&D. That's why high level fights against single boss monsters sucks. 4-5 PCs with multiple attacks have way more actions and can do much more per turn than boss. On the flip side, if you use 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of lower leveled monsters vs PCs, they won't have good time...