Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4113987" data-attributes="member: 57832">I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'.  Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"?  Depending on the numbers, the at-will temporary hit points are acting exactly as the shield would mechanically by providing damage protection.  In fact, the at-will ability likely works better than the shield, as you are guaranteed a certain amount of DR.  This is a prime example of a trivial choice.  The shield is unimportant, mechanically, since there is an ability that more or less mimics what the shield does, which is to mitigate damage.  In most cases, the at-will ability is probably more effective, although it may cost some kind of action, likely minor, possibly free.  Even as a minor action, you get your attack, exactly as you would with a shield.Because that has historically been the referee's task.  Otherwise, you can remove the GM and play a round-robin freeform storytelling session.  What else should the players be doing?  Deciding the composition of an encounter ("I made my History check and remembered there are no Ogres in these hills, only Kobold Minions")?  Determining the placement of traps ("My Dungeoneering roll tells me the walls are too thick to have a spear trap there")?There has to be some level of objective reality, even when the characters aren't looking.  An example I used a long time ago was a treasury vault.  Is the local baron thinking "Well, I am only expecting inexperienced thieves to attempt to steal from me, so I had better use simple locks and easily bypassed traps to secure it."  Or will the baron get the best security money can buy?  Granted, there may not be much in the coffers, or it may have been a bad harvest one year, but they will still get the best they can afford, and upgrade as soon and as often as possible.  This presumes the baron has been around for more than the ten minutes prior to the players running into them.  This kind of persistant history is precisely what makes a game interesting and not just a story-telling session with some fiddly rules*.I agree, saying 'yes' to your players is good, but only up to a point.  As mentioned earlier, if they are just pixel hunting until they find the right place, most players will get a bit miffed if they run into a wall where throwing random skills until they stick doesn't work.  If there is a specific situation or sequence of events you want to occur, the players will probably get frustrated when their usual reward mechanism fails.*Which is a perfectly valid play-style.  I just disagree that is the best play-style for everyone.</blockquote>

Verification