I like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break...
View full commentI like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break games. I give my players my own unique and personal parts of the game - often custom tailored for specific characters. I am not opposed to having guidelines, especially for newer DMs, but leave them at that, and drop the expectations for characters to upgrade their weapons like they do in console RPGs. It ruins the magic. No pun intended. Honestly.
I like varying complexities and mechanics between character classes. That's what makes it fun. A wizard doesn't have healing powers, sword-skills, armor, or an affinity for stealth and shadow. In being a wizard you have chosen that you want to be a spellcaster, one who fights with his magic. In being a rogue, you have forgone spellbooks and claymores for sneak attacks and lock-picking. Maybe the NUMBER of traits doesn't add up, but those traits are also in varying areas of that character, and...
View full commentI like varying complexities and mechanics between character classes. That's what makes it fun. A wizard doesn't have healing powers, sword-skills, armor, or an affinity for stealth and shadow. In being a wizard you have chosen that you want to be a spellcaster, one who fights with his magic. In being a rogue, you have forgone spellbooks and claymores for sneak attacks and lock-picking. Maybe the NUMBER of traits doesn't add up, but those traits are also in varying areas of that character, and just reducing it to how much one class gets compared to another isn't fair. I don't think that picking a wizard is more challenging than playing a fighter - it's a more complex experience maybe, but some people can wrap their minds around magic very easily and they, in choosing a wizard, understand his advantages and drawbacks. It's my opinion that there be mechanical differences across the board and that not every class should get something from each category of mechanic just so they're not left out.
Just joined and grinding through previous posts. I wanted to agree with Blackdrazon. I believe it is very important to have classes that are both simpler and more complicated than the median (yes, that will happen by definition, buy you know what I mean). There need to be novice-friendly classes to introduce new players, and more complex classes for those who like to juggle options. The simple option is especially important. I run a youth D&D game and I've watched them run through...
View full commentJust joined and grinding through previous posts. I wanted to agree with Blackdrazon. I believe it is very important to have classes that are both simpler and more complicated than the median (yes, that will happen by definition, buy you know what I mean). There need to be novice-friendly classes to introduce new players, and more complex classes for those who like to juggle options.
The simple option is especially important. I run a youth D&D game and I've watched them run through first wanting to smash things as fighters, growing envious of mid-level mages and moving there, and ultimately realizing that a party is doomed without healing support, rogue scouting, and general balance. The progression is important.
I think that having "save or die/suck" abilities do HP damage along with saves is a cool idea. It makes it multiple saves or die, instead of "if you roll a 1 its game over, go toll up another character." However, players need to get more and more susceptible to the effects as they lose HP. Perhaps players should take "all action penalties" to their die rolls, saves, defenses, etc... as they lose HP. This represents a character's wounds and fatigue catching up with him during combat, or...
View full commentI think that having "save or die/suck" abilities do HP damage along with saves is a cool idea. It makes it multiple saves or die, instead of "if you roll a 1 its game over, go toll up another character."
However, players need to get more and more susceptible to the effects as they lose HP. Perhaps players should take "all action penalties" to their die rolls, saves, defenses, etc... as they lose HP. This represents a character's wounds and fatigue catching up with him during combat, or while battling a disease/poison/spell/whatever.
Here's an example:
At 100% hit points, characters take no penalties.
At <75% HP characters take a -1 penalty.
At <50% a -2 penalty.
At <25% a -5 penalty.
At 0 a -10 penalty.
This, after typing it out, seems slightly cumbersome and a pain to track on paper. Perhaps certain effects such as the save or die simply have increasing DCs as they progress would be a more elegant solution.
Using Hit Points as a threshold for so-called "save or die" effects is great ... for some things. Real "save or die" effects (such as a example Medusa, above) have their place, too ... as do a plethora of other possible mechanics. Not every monster has to rely on the same mechanisms to deal out negative effects and death. They just don't. Maybe one monster drains hit points, another requires saving throws, a third adds permanent disadvantage (until the curse is removed), a fourth...
View full commentUsing Hit Points as a threshold for so-called "save or die" effects is great ... for some things.
Real "save or die" effects (such as a example Medusa, above) have their place, too ... as do a plethora of other possible mechanics.
Not every monster has to rely on the same mechanisms to deal out negative effects and death. They just don't. Maybe one monster drains hit points, another requires saving throws, a third adds permanent disadvantage (until the curse is removed), a fourth strips away hit dice, a fifth ruins armor and weapon (ala the rust monster), a sixth causes experience loss, etc.
If you provide enough options, DM's can choose the monsters with the effects they want. To a lesser extent, some of these monsters could have multiple options for delivering such effects (perhaps with monstrous themes).
So often in our games someone will say "I'm not THAT type of rogue" but that could mean they're not the chatty spy rogue, or they're not the trap master, or they're not the sneaky-stabby rogue or the sniper rogue. Sneak as done in 3rd is awesome but it can be separated out as an option as long as there are other equally fun and useful paths are offered.
I view the rogue more as a "jack of all trades" or renaissance man. While sneak attack is an interesting ability, it is a very focused aspect and should be set aside as a theme rather than a requirement. Surely you can have rogues who are more direct, like zorro or robin hood who are more about finesse than stealth. Just a thought.
As someone who has been playing DnD and running DnD campaigns for nearly two decades: players should never die. Player character death creates frustration, both in the affected player (if he/she did not see it coming) as well as in the other players ("what are we going to do now") but also for the DM. Game over usually means game over for everyone at the table. Death should never be a punishment for reckless behaviour of players. Talk things out before it gets out of hand. A worse penalty for...
View full commentAs someone who has been playing DnD and running DnD campaigns for nearly two decades: players should never die. Player character death creates frustration, both in the affected player (if he/she did not see it coming) as well as in the other players ("what are we going to do now") but also for the DM. Game over usually means game over for everyone at the table. Death should never be a punishment for reckless behaviour of players. Talk things out before it gets out of hand. A worse penalty for **** players is just to ignore their ramblings.
e.g.
Player A: I run into the orc camp, waking them all, so we can fight them all at the same time. LOL
Other players: What? No, we sneak about, trying not to wake anyone.
Player A: Too late, I already woke them. ROFL
DM: Player A's character decides it's a bad idea to wake up orcs, and doesn't. The party tries to sneak about... roll your sneak checks!
I've had players like that who usually stopped showing up after a couple of weeks
My characters die all the time ... ... and I love it. It makes the characters who do survive all the more memorable. When one of my characters reaches high level, it's an accomplishment. For a while, we tried this whole "nobody dies unless sdoing something foolish" approach. Reaching high level was no longer an accomplishment. It felt a lot like graduation: Player 1: "I made it to 20th level." Player 2: "Who doesn't?" So, we eventually went back a few steps to the...
It makes the characters who do survive all the more memorable. When one of my characters reaches high level, it's an accomplishment.
For a while, we tried this whole "nobody dies unless sdoing something foolish" approach. Reaching high level was no longer an accomplishment. It felt a lot like graduation:
Player 1: "I made it to 20th level."
Player 2: "Who doesn't?"
So, we eventually went back a few steps to the old way of doing it. Compare:
Player 1: "I made it to 20th level."
Player 2: "OMG! That rocks, bro!"
View full comment