Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 514764" data-attributes="member: 3139">Okay, here's a long post, (and I think I've commented on everyone's responses.)'Twinky' is a word I picked up some time ago when a guy randomly called me one. He was using it in the same way most people might use 'munchkin'.To me, it is a verb, adjective and noun: Verb: 'to twink'--- to make a character more efficient, generally dealing with combat. Adjective: 'twinky', 'twinkish'--- used to describe to properties of a character that has been 'twinked'. Noun: 'twink'--- a person who regularly 'twinks'....In my part of the universe, 'twink' is roughly synonymous to 'munchkin'. The former generally has a bit more prestige, however, because the latter is generally more concerned about Efficiency to the detriment of everything else (inlcluding other players).A Twink is a "Munchkin Jr.", if you will...I find that most RPGers have some measure of twink in them. (This description is not an off/on switch, but a sliding scale.) Most RPGers would balk at playing, for example, a bard with a dagger, or a mage with a 3 Int. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />...So, the way I was using it was to describe that our characters, though not munchkin-wet-dreams, are not anti-munchkin characters.  I never said always. Why would you think that I am attempting to say that CR is an absolute? I understand that CR is a guideline. However, in order for us to have any common ground whatsoever, I use CR. This is because I am not going to bring up every possible combination for every single type of encounter with every combination of character classes in a party against every single type of monster in order to satisfy you. I need you to trust that I comprehend CR and DMing enough that I am conscientious of the fact that situation and party composition are important factors in determining the challenge of an encounter.   I've never seen it, though it looks like a neat feat. (I fear however, that there are probably many archer feats in Dragonstar that compensate for this.) Whoa. Have you ever seen a full blown TWF character? With two weapons (or a double weapon) of speed, improved and greater TWF, specialization, and twin GMWs?I used to think that dual wielding sucked compared to a two handed weapon. I am now a convert. This is because most analysis' between the two neglect to take into account that increases to damage are more important than increases to hit. A high level fighter with a double-bladed sword of speed (or twin rapiers if you want to crit out) gets 9 attacks per round, with each one gaining bonuses from enhancement bonuses and specialization.  So you are trying to tell me that in order to compete with someone who uses a martial weapon, I need to learn an exotic weapon? Doesn't that imply that the martial weapon in question is too powerful compared to other martial weapons? We haven't gotten to PrCs yet. This has all been using base classes. Besides, if I go TD, he'd go PA, OotBI and AA (which are all better than the TD, especially if combined). I know this wasn't directed at me, but I can't stand this weapon. It ranks up there with the mercurial cheesword. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Actually, the problem is with core rules, namely GMW and RS. Which Petrosian already covered. (We've been playing with core rules in this specific campaign.)  Sorry to nitpick, but, in the past 6 pages of posts, we have already gone over lots of topics. Maybe, just maybe, your suggestions have already been covered. I concur. I concur. Easy way to fix this...make magical arrows less expensive, maybe? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Weird. Our melee guys never use Expertise. (Most never have the requisite Int, anyway.) Although I agree with everything else in your posts, I personally don't like this DMing style. I much prefer the treasure to not vary based on the party composition. Treasure, IMHO, should be plausible and probable, not a DM tool to limit character effectiveness. That is, afterall, the whole point of gp value for treasure. (To each his own, however.)I am more inclined to believe that the designers of the game were smoking crack when they priced magical arrows (sorry, Monte *grin*). A melee fighter swings their weapon way more than 50 times before the weapon breaks, and yet an archer would lose those hard-earned gps after 50 shots.I still stick by my 1/500 pricing. It's limiting, but not castrating. Of course, YMMV and all that... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification