Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tuxgeo" data-source="post: 6724473" data-attributes="member: 61026">In the IC thread, I'm going to let the keeper of the Bag of Holding stow the new treasure from the room with the giant spider; and I would expect that some PC who has training in Arcana (i.e. not Guran) would inspect the coiled 100-foot length of rope for unusual properties. Regarding other questions: 1. Unless I miss my guess, the 27-point-buy arrangement that is built into 5E is scaled to fit the other numbers in the 5E system. I'm happy with that. Further to the same point: when 4E came out, I studied the 22-point-buy of that system (which adds to a base of 10-10-10-10-10-8); then when I went to look at the "Living 4E" section of EN World, I saw that they were using 25-point-buy instead. That kept me from participating, as I had already started designing characters in my mind using 22-point-buy, so 25-point-buy felt sort of like cheating to me. However, I could adjust to a higher point level for a new campaign: I have become better informed about typical practices in the gaming community, and have learned that changes to point-buy levels are no big deal, so I'm fine with that. (IIRC, one of the 5E playtests had us using 30-point-buy.) (With that said, however: Looking forward to possibly participating in a followup game underground, I'm already a week and a half into designing "Gilroy LaTortoise, Gnome Warlock, son of Toulouse LaTortoise" using 27-point-buy. Gnomes don't get any bonus to CHA, so he's going to have to start with 14 in his casting stat. However, if we had more points to play with -- it would take me a couple of additional weeks to readjust, because I build slowly.) Questions 2 and 6 are inter-linked: if we use group initiative, then there's no need to update the map of the situation between one PC's action and the next's, because they all happen at effectively the same time. Personally, I enjoy individual initiative, partly because it lets different PCs shine more in different fights: one time the wizard will go long before the baddies while the rogue goes after the baddies; and another time the rogue will go first and the wizard won't get a turn until later. That mixes things up and makes it feel chancier. (Admittedly, though, it makes more work for the DM.)Questions 3 and 7 are both about the maps: The maps were not a distraction; they were very informative. With that said, however, I don't think we needed them quite as often as they appeared. I can usually follow the action through a few IC posts without losing my frame of reference. Plain background is good. The grid numbers are good. 4. Combat posts: announcement of a new round is a good thing, and the title is a good place to put it. I can find Initiative order wherever it's put; but putting it at the bottom makes more of a goad to action and less of a reference to refer back to. Have you considered cycling through the combatants by listing the "next-to-go" on top? (I have seen it done that way.)I mean, at the start of the first round you could have: Giant spider 23Colden ??Roscoe ??Fulgrim ??Kobold ??Guran 9Spec 8Orc ??. . . but if you post a combat post after the Kobolds go, it could look like: Guran 9Spec 8Orc ??Giant spider 23Colden ??Roscoe ??Fulgrim ??Kobold ??(I don't in any way guarantee that this would be an improvement, though.) 5. I love knowing the monsters' HP levels. Are you sure we should know that for free? Maybe we should have to make an INT (Nature) check, or an INT (Arcana) check, or something to know that stuff. But I agree, having the info for free is easier and quite fun. 8. Else on my mind: Stonefast ain't your father's Rogue-like game: the first level isn't the top, with more difficult challenges at lower levels. Thar's Kobolds in the ceiling!</blockquote>

Verification