Do you play Dragons in lair, right??

[Sir ThornCrest]

I wouldnt go that far!

I'd wager 10 gold pieces that you're wrong about him being a troll. The posts I've seen certainly have been filled with crazy foibles, but they have been consistent throughout and showed a certain sort of logic. I would bet that he really is running this party, using a system so complicated that it has put him over his head consistently, causing him to turn here for expert advice (again and again).

Now I could be wrong, and it could be an elaborate ploy, but it is consistent enough that I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he seems legit.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

well maybe but this is like the 20th attack in one day...I dont have DR.

thorncrest

Wow, aren't we the senstive one. :\

 

[Desdichado]

well maybe but this is like the 20th attack in one day...I dont have DR.

...

Except that it wasn't an attack at all...

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

we have a blast, every week. Im the Dm at least half the time..a few beers, dinner D&D has been a great time for many years now....so that means were doing something right aaahh!!
***also as a side note we as a group before every campaign will vote in different house rules sometimes good sometimes bad, but thats how ya find a balance....I hope nobody here is under the impression that Im not having a good time***

Thorncrest

Sir Thorncrest, legitimate question...

Are you having fun being the DM?

Rav

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

troll large green almost brain dead......Well Im not green!

I guess I'll have to be the eternal pessimist and and disagree. It seems like the same minor house rules and majour permissiveness in character generation are causing similar problems again and again. But his party of PCs is always consistent, so if he is a troll, he was very meticulous in statting out the party of PCs that he would use in his posts and keeping them consistent (though I suppose a dedicated troll could do that). I've just seen far more people similar to this who are not trolls than I have actual trolls.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

I didnt want to fill out a credit ap here I just wanted to post a party dusted a dragon due to some great rolling.....a triple crit! almost max damage several times...

Alright, well, you probably know the answer already...but, in this case, it's these house rules that really weakened this encounter. Those rules don't exist in the RAW for a reason. Under your house rules, once you begin to get an opponent on the ropes, it gets progressively easier for the party to hurt him (and progressively harder for the opponent to stage a comeback.)

And, I concur with BardStephenFox...9 times out of 10, a handful of bad guys are going to be harder for a party to deal with than one big bad guy. With one opponent, the party can absolutely gang up on their foe (and thus make your house rules on stunning even more likely to come into play). Spread the threat around to multiple opponents, even opponents that don't enter the fray for a round or two, and you may see combat go very differently.

PS -- I have to ask, are PCs in your campaign subject to this house rule on losing actions?

 

[Rystil Arden]

DM: She was a CR 13 encounter. But the EL was higher, as I admitted (EL is adjusted for circumstances, but CR is static). Subtle difference. And the item she had was really the only houserule that mattered. The houseruled half-nymph template (because at the time there was no official template) was irrelevant because she could have just as easily been a full nymph and had basically the same effect (it would have precluded her from needing to take the cleric levels, for instance).

If you compare what the item did with the casting ability of a 13th-or 14th-level wizard with standard core items (including something to give a slight caster level boost, but 3.5 has plenty of those), you'll find that she wasn't hitting any harder than a wizard casting cones of cold and quickened fireballs (in fact, that wizard would have put out more hurt per round). If I wanted a staff that shot off cones of cold and quickened fireballs, I could make that cheaply with the core rules. So no, it wasn't really my house rules. It was the min-maxing player and the fact that we were doing this right after 3.5 came out but before any of the 3.5 splatbooks (and thus using 3.0 PrCs).

Thorncrest: There are no such things as touch attack arrows. If you allow them, its your own fault if nearly half the big monsters in the game (the half that have extremely high natural armour as their only main source of AC) become greatly weakened.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Sir T. maybe, you should outline your House Rules.
Then we can understand better, why the things happen in the way you describe.
It is like two DM talking, one about Core D&D, the other about D20 Black Comapany Camapign Setting. Enough similarities to talk, but enough Differences to get confused.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Oh Sir T, not a D&D troll. He thinks you are a messageboard troll. A messageboard troll is a person who says something really inflammatory or silly in an attempt to get a response or reaction. I'm defending you because I think that you are a legitimate DM who is trying his best to wade through a morass of house rules and character options that were simply too many for you, too soon.

 

[BSF]

Im just telling you what he fired. The playewr simple looked at the dragon realized touch ac was min. so He took out his 4 touch attack arrows simple as that. Didf they add damage well they are +2 arrows so yah they did.

Touch attack arrows? Wow! That's powerful. Yeah I can see where a PC would use those. I suppose the good news is that this encounter blew some of them.