also, while i'm thinking outloud elsewhere. I wouldn't mind them bringing back different weapons doing different types of damage. If used properly that was a neat system. if ignored it's pointless.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
As long as its in the context of vulnerabilities and not 3.5's context of "well if you haven't brought a mace to this skeleton fight, you might as well be using your fists"
So I've been thinking about the (probably one shot) game I'm planning to run for my friend and his daughter. I'm looking at adapting the adventure from the Pathfinder Beginner set just because it has some nice dungeon features (a magic fountain, a trapped room, etc.) that I think will be fun for a younger player. Since there's only 2 of them, I'm trying to think of ways to make the dungeon survivable without just cutting the monsters down to a couple of sickly looking goblins.
I was thinking about giving them a 3rd character to run between the two of them to round out the party a little. I was also thinking of using some stats for a Shock Lizard I found online to give them a potential rescue if they need it. (I was thinking I'd have it approach them cautiously, if they're friendly towards it, it scurries away but can pop up later to lend a hand in a tough fight.) All of my friend's kids are Pokémon crazy right now so I thought she would dig the idea of a magic pet.
i don't know much about children, but i do know they love talking animal sidekicks.
As well, instead of cutting the number of monsters just lessen their hit points a touch. maybe give them zombie weakness (critical hits kill them in one go)
Maybe set up traps that they can use to kill the goblins. make them kind of obvious but hint at them well enough that the kid will get it.
Guys, I want you to know that I don't get to roleplay a lot right now. Too much shit going on. But I come into this thread, and I read it, and it sustains me. So thank you.
i don't know much about children, but i do know they love talking animal sidekicks.
As well, instead of cutting the number of monsters just lessen their hit points a touch. maybe give them zombie weakness (critical hits kill them in one go)
Maybe set up traps that they can use to kill the goblins. make them kind of obvious but hint at them well enough that the kid will get it.
How old is she again?
She's 12... I think. I am planning on doing some stat tweaking as necessary behind the scenes. I don't DM often so hopefully I can find a balance. At least she's not likely to realize that monsters are easier to defeat than they should be.
Man I really want to run a game but I have no confidence in my ability to write a world for other people to play in.
I would use a setting but I really don't like any of them for the most part.
Find a published adventure, and tweak it to fit your needs. Alternately, grab some of the people that might want to play and brainstorm a setting up based on what they'd like to see.
Depending on the age of the player, don't underestimate them. If they're old enough to be engaged in the game and able to pay attention they shouldn't be at any huge disadvantage in a combat scenario from the beginners set. Maybe soften any traps or puzzles that they might not have the life experience or information to get past.
Refreshed the page and Read DMAC's last post. I'd be willing to bet that a 12 year old can be just as crazy in character as any adult. Maybe more so, since they spend more of their time playing make believe.
I mean, if Mattel gave Barbie a sword and some plate mail...
Personally, the biggest thing to remember is to be flexible. If it looks like the game is getting too rough, fudge your rolls down. If the game is too easy, fudge your rolls up. Enabling the DM to lie about his dice rolls is the main purpose of the DM Screen.
That said, I do like the idea of the shock lizard ally coming back to help.
Man I really want to run a game but I have no confidence in my ability to write a world for other people to play in.
I would use a setting but I really don't like any of them for the most part.
Find a published adventure, and tweak it to fit your needs. Alternately, grab some of the people that might want to play and brainstorm a setting up based on what they'd like to see.
Yeah I might have to use a prepackaged thing, because I'd need to round up players first.
I've only got two as of now.
Maybe I can do a prepackaged thing and branch off from that.
at least you aren't likely to have to come up with a way to prevent a PC from raping a horse
that wasn't fun
Geebs were you playing FATAL?
I was playing 4E d&d. Another character wanted to seduce a wench. Which was fine, even though I'm not super comfortable running that kind of thing, because it finally gave me a hook for the adventure.
I eventually had the horse kick him half to death, until he decided he just wanted to steal it. And then he was drunk, so he rode it in a circle until he got tired, and parked it in the same stable.
at least you aren't likely to have to come up with a way to prevent a PC from raping a horse
that wasn't fun
Geebs were you playing FATAL?
I was playing 4E d&d. Another character wanted to seduce a wench. Which was fine, even though I'm not super comfortable running that kind of thing, because it finally gave me a hook for the adventure.
I eventually had the horse kick him half to death, until he decided he just wanted to steal it. And then he was drunk, so he rode it in a circle until he got tired, and parked it in the same stable.
I feel like there are few steps missing from this story.
at least you aren't likely to have to come up with a way to prevent a PC from raping a horse
that wasn't fun
Geebs were you playing FATAL?
I was playing 4E d&d. Another character wanted to seduce a wench. Which was fine, even though I'm not super comfortable running that kind of thing, because it finally gave me a hook for the adventure.
I eventually had the horse kick him half to death, until he decided he just wanted to steal it. And then he was drunk, so he rode it in a circle until he got tired, and parked it in the same stable.
I feel like there are few steps missing from this story.
at least you aren't likely to have to come up with a way to prevent a PC from raping a horse
that wasn't fun
Geebs were you playing FATAL?
I was playing 4E d&d. Another character wanted to seduce a wench. Which was fine, even though I'm not super comfortable running that kind of thing, because it finally gave me a hook for the adventure.
I eventually had the horse kick him half to death, until he decided he just wanted to steal it. And then he was drunk, so he rode it in a circle until he got tired, and parked it in the same stable.
I feel like there are few steps missing from this story.
I DMed a game for a group of people I use to work with who had never played DnD before. I had some good adventures planned out, and after a little trial and error our female player was "metagaming" a bit much. I kept telling her its what her CHARACTER can do not what she can do, but she used her own logic to solve all my puzzles. Also she wanted to get drunk and laid, so I had her get pregnant from a dwarf....that didn't end well.
Then the last time we played there was this caravan they were traveling with, people would get attacked at night by wolves. Turns out it was one werewolf. Ok, they figured out it was this little girl who was cursed, I laid out a quest to cure her, but my logic player convinced the group it was better to take her out into the woods and murder her. They told the parents their attempt at a cure failed. And because they had good persuasion it worked, and they got rewarded for trying.
at least you aren't likely to have to come up with a way to prevent a PC from raping a horse
that wasn't fun
Geebs were you playing FATAL?
I was playing 4E d&d. Another character wanted to seduce a wench. Which was fine, even though I'm not super comfortable running that kind of thing, because it finally gave me a hook for the adventure.
I eventually had the horse kick him half to death, until he decided he just wanted to steal it. And then he was drunk, so he rode it in a circle until he got tired, and parked it in the same stable.
I feel like there are few steps missing from this story.
I DMed a game for a group of people I use to work with who had never played DnD before. I had some good adventures planned out, and after a little trial and error our female player was "metagaming" a bit much. I kept telling her its what her CHARACTER can do not what she can do, but she used her own logic to solve all my puzzles. Also she wanted to get drunk and laid, so I had her get pregnant from a dwarf....that didn't end well.
Then the last time we played there was this caravan they were traveling with, people would get attacked at night by wolves. Turns out it was one werewolf. Ok, they figured out it was this little girl who was cursed, I laid out a quest to cure her, but my logic player convinced the group it was better to take her out into the woods and murder her. They told the parents their attempt at a cure failed. And because they had good persuasion it worked, and they got rewarded for trying.
I hate my friends sometimes.
Have the werewolf come back and bite the annoying one.
Let the group decide if they are going questing or stabbing.
Oh Monte Cook, i don't believe a thing you have written in your article today.
le sigh.
It sounds like what they're doing is actually an option set of rules that will allow translate editions back and forth across each other so that you can work within various systems.
I'm not sure what I'm looking for in 5E. I've been a pretty big Pathfinder fan and having been a regular spectator in enough PbP Arena games for various systems its exploitability doesn't really bother me. I'm a fan of the 3.X skill systems, multiclassing and ability to run gridless combat.
I like 4E's class balance (or what I've seen of it in the first set of books) but the classes could also stand to feel more varied. I also like the relative ease of use on the DM side for 4E. In the few PbPs I've run, encounters (at least from a creation standpoint) are done with ease.
Overall I don't see them modifying a ton of mechanics for the next edition as they seem to have some pretty good pieces already around that they simply need to fit together.
Oh Monte Cook, i don't believe a thing you have written in your article today.
le sigh.
It sounds like what they're doing is actually an option set of rules that will allow translate editions back and forth across each other so that you can work within various systems.
If this is accurate then it will fail gloriously.
i read it more as you can either make a character with very broad stuff like, the fighter from 3e with the skill system from 4e kinda thing, or you can get super complicated.
I'll be honest, when 3.0 came out, I'd been out of the game for a while. When I saw ads for it at a new game shop I'd just heard about in town, I was surprised but intrigued. When 3.5 was announced and released, I was a bit miffed, mostly because I'd just spent all this money on the 3.0 books (like 3 years ago), and was a bit disappointed at how little had changed (though in retrospect it was a pretty massive fix). When I saw "Wizard's Presents:..." on the shelf of a Border's one day, after I'd again gotten out of the game, I immediately got very excited. I actually bought both of the preview books, knowing full well they were completely flavor and behind-the-scenes type stuff, and was very, very excited for the new game.
Now I'm sort of meh to the whole thing. I'm very interested in what's going on, by my interest is almost academic. I like 4e. It's not perfect, but the issues are correctable (and most of the bigger problems have been fixed, if not the biggest ones). I'd be happy to continue to play 4e for a long, long time, because I feel it's the game I've been looking for for a long time. Hell, 2nd edition's Player's Option content kind of started in the direction that 4e went.
I'm definitely interested in what's going on, but I'm a little discouraged by what feels like marketing crap ("Oh no no! It's not another edition of the game! No more edition wars! This is just a new iteration. Totally different concept!")
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Y'know what I would like to see
4E with a different mechanic for how your abilities work based on your power source
Like, martial powers are unlimited usage based around setting up key factors in combat (flanking, enemy being bloodied, whatever)
Divine just do standard 4E setup
Arcane is downright Vancian
Or what have you
It creates several different play styles, and within those you can have the more flavorful differences
Like if you want to be an arcane ranged striker, congratulations you're a warlock, which plays totally different from a ranger (martial ranged striker)
I could see that. Sort of how Psionics are set up with their own unique mechanic.
Actually, the full-discipline mechanic works pretty well, and martial characters could work with that. Give them a basically essentials style design, where they have mostly at-will, and some, simple encounter powers to work with.
The closest to "Vancian" I ever want to see in D&D again is basically where you have X number of uses of a thing, and Y number of options for what to use that thing for. Kind of like Channel Divinity in 4e, where you had a bunch of different CD powers to choose from, but could only use one per encounter. Change it so that you get a bunch of 'daily' powers, and can get a number of uses equal to an ability score mod (potentially getting more every time you reach a milestone or two). Even then, those classes should have some sort of at-will powers available to them. Because running out of spells and having to go hide behind a rock and throw daggers at stuff is the dumb.
It's a neat idea and I'd had similar thoughts (like the characters in Final Fantasy VI: Sabin used fighting game commands, Setzer had his slot machine attack, Gau learned his attacks from monsters, etc.) but I think that having a different system for each class would just get too crazy very quickly.
4E with a different mechanic for how your abilities work based on your power source
Like, martial powers are unlimited usage based around setting up key factors in combat (flanking, enemy being bloodied, whatever)
Divine just do standard 4E setup
Arcane is downright Vancian
Or what have you
It creates several different play styles, and within those you can have the more flavorful differences
Like if you want to be an arcane ranged striker, congratulations you're a warlock, which plays totally different from a ranger (martial ranged striker)
My idea--which I think I mentioned in the previous thread--was fairly similar to yours.
Basically, I thought Divine and Arcane could use a 4E power mechanic (at-will, encounter, daily). Psionics would work pretty much like they did in 3.5. Martial would basically copy Tome of Battle (because that book is really good).
I'm not sure how I'd differentiate Primal, though.
I'd be alright with Arcane's getting an E-style power system. They have a couple of at-will powers, and daily powers, and then they have one or two encounter powers that they start with, and they don't really gain more in the way of encounter powers.
Primal and Divine would more or less get the standard 4e treatment.
I never played Tome of Battle but I don't like recharge mechanics for PCs because they're too swingy. Something like the e-style at-will augmented by one or two encounter options is a good idea. That's how they did it in Player's Option back in 2nd.
I never played Tome of Battle but I don't like recharge mechanics for PCs because they're too swingy.
I've played two ToB characters (a Crusader and a Swordsage), and it really isn't that swingy at all.
The Crusader recharge is especially nice, since it doesn't take any actions, it's intuitive, it encourages you to use a power every turn, and it forces the player to take advantage of all their powers instead of constantly abusing one or two of them.
Meanwhile, the Swordsage mechanic is meant to encourage a more strategic, carefully-paced use of powers, since it costs a turn to recharge.
There were some ridiculous builds from ToB. Leaping specialists that used Raptor Strike (I think that's what it was called) were incredible. That's the kind of thing I think really redeemed non-magic classes in 3.X and made them actually fun to play. I mean, a little bit late but still a move in the right direction balance-wise. One of the many reasons I see a good 5th edition being a successful mish-mosh of past WotC goodness/mistakes.
Posts
Useful for clearing debris without overusing resources, or carrying wreckage or something.
I guess
giant anthropomorphic/bipedal robots are the dumbest things from a physics/logistics standpoint
but who gives a fuck they are awesome
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
look wise guy how are you supposed to punch things without hands
like skeletons having vulnerable 3 burgeoning would be better then resist 3/bludgeoning.
I was thinking about giving them a 3rd character to run between the two of them to round out the party a little. I was also thinking of using some stats for a Shock Lizard I found online to give them a potential rescue if they need it. (I was thinking I'd have it approach them cautiously, if they're friendly towards it, it scurries away but can pop up later to lend a hand in a tough fight.) All of my friend's kids are Pokémon crazy right now so I thought she would dig the idea of a magic pet.
Any other thoughts?
As well, instead of cutting the number of monsters just lessen their hit points a touch. maybe give them zombie weakness (critical hits kill them in one go)
Maybe set up traps that they can use to kill the goblins. make them kind of obvious but hint at them well enough that the kid will get it.
How old is she again?
She's 12... I think. I am planning on doing some stat tweaking as necessary behind the scenes. I don't DM often so hopefully I can find a balance. At least she's not likely to realize that monsters are easier to defeat than they should be.
I would use a setting but I really don't like any of them for the most part.
Find a published adventure, and tweak it to fit your needs. Alternately, grab some of the people that might want to play and brainstorm a setting up based on what they'd like to see.
Refreshed the page and Read DMAC's last post. I'd be willing to bet that a 12 year old can be just as crazy in character as any adult. Maybe more so, since they spend more of their time playing make believe.
I mean, if Mattel gave Barbie a sword and some plate mail...
Personally, the biggest thing to remember is to be flexible. If it looks like the game is getting too rough, fudge your rolls down. If the game is too easy, fudge your rolls up. Enabling the DM to lie about his dice rolls is the main purpose of the DM Screen.
That said, I do like the idea of the shock lizard ally coming back to help.
Yeah I might have to use a prepackaged thing, because I'd need to round up players first.
I've only got two as of now.
Maybe I can do a prepackaged thing and branch off from that.
I was playing 4E d&d. Another character wanted to seduce a wench. Which was fine, even though I'm not super comfortable running that kind of thing, because it finally gave me a hook for the adventure.
I eventually had the horse kick him half to death, until he decided he just wanted to steal it. And then he was drunk, so he rode it in a circle until he got tired, and parked it in the same stable.
I feel like there are few steps missing from this story.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
the story is pretty good right where it is
I DMed a game for a group of people I use to work with who had never played DnD before. I had some good adventures planned out, and after a little trial and error our female player was "metagaming" a bit much. I kept telling her its what her CHARACTER can do not what she can do, but she used her own logic to solve all my puzzles. Also she wanted to get drunk and laid, so I had her get pregnant from a dwarf....that didn't end well.
Then the last time we played there was this caravan they were traveling with, people would get attacked at night by wolves. Turns out it was one werewolf. Ok, they figured out it was this little girl who was cursed, I laid out a quest to cure her, but my logic player convinced the group it was better to take her out into the woods and murder her. They told the parents their attempt at a cure failed. And because they had good persuasion it worked, and they got rewarded for trying.
I hate my friends sometimes.
It makes vicious mockery a lot of fun.
Satans..... hints.....
Have the werewolf come back and bite the annoying one.
Let the group decide if they are going questing or stabbing.
Satans..... hints.....
le sigh.
It sounds like what they're doing is actually an option set of rules that will allow translate editions back and forth across each other so that you can work within various systems.
If this is accurate then it will fail gloriously.
I like 4E's class balance (or what I've seen of it in the first set of books) but the classes could also stand to feel more varied. I also like the relative ease of use on the DM side for 4E. In the few PbPs I've run, encounters (at least from a creation standpoint) are done with ease.
Overall I don't see them modifying a ton of mechanics for the next edition as they seem to have some pretty good pieces already around that they simply need to fit together.
i read it more as you can either make a character with very broad stuff like, the fighter from 3e with the skill system from 4e kinda thing, or you can get super complicated.
Now I'm sort of meh to the whole thing. I'm very interested in what's going on, by my interest is almost academic. I like 4e. It's not perfect, but the issues are correctable (and most of the bigger problems have been fixed, if not the biggest ones). I'd be happy to continue to play 4e for a long, long time, because I feel it's the game I've been looking for for a long time. Hell, 2nd edition's Player's Option content kind of started in the direction that 4e went.
I'm definitely interested in what's going on, but I'm a little discouraged by what feels like marketing crap ("Oh no no! It's not another edition of the game! No more edition wars! This is just a new iteration. Totally different concept!")
We'll see.
4E with a different mechanic for how your abilities work based on your power source
Like, martial powers are unlimited usage based around setting up key factors in combat (flanking, enemy being bloodied, whatever)
Divine just do standard 4E setup
Arcane is downright Vancian
Or what have you
It creates several different play styles, and within those you can have the more flavorful differences
Like if you want to be an arcane ranged striker, congratulations you're a warlock, which plays totally different from a ranger (martial ranged striker)
The martial one is one mentioned by someone in the last thread at some point
And Vancian magic is hilarious and I always want more of it
Actually, the full-discipline mechanic works pretty well, and martial characters could work with that. Give them a basically essentials style design, where they have mostly at-will, and some, simple encounter powers to work with.
The closest to "Vancian" I ever want to see in D&D again is basically where you have X number of uses of a thing, and Y number of options for what to use that thing for. Kind of like Channel Divinity in 4e, where you had a bunch of different CD powers to choose from, but could only use one per encounter. Change it so that you get a bunch of 'daily' powers, and can get a number of uses equal to an ability score mod (potentially getting more every time you reach a milestone or two). Even then, those classes should have some sort of at-will powers available to them. Because running out of spells and having to go hide behind a rock and throw daggers at stuff is the dumb.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
My idea--which I think I mentioned in the previous thread--was fairly similar to yours.
Basically, I thought Divine and Arcane could use a 4E power mechanic (at-will, encounter, daily). Psionics would work pretty much like they did in 3.5. Martial would basically copy Tome of Battle (because that book is really good).
I'm not sure how I'd differentiate Primal, though.
Primal and Divine would more or less get the standard 4e treatment.
I never played Tome of Battle but I don't like recharge mechanics for PCs because they're too swingy. Something like the e-style at-will augmented by one or two encounter options is a good idea. That's how they did it in Player's Option back in 2nd.
I've played two ToB characters (a Crusader and a Swordsage), and it really isn't that swingy at all.
The Crusader recharge is especially nice, since it doesn't take any actions, it's intuitive, it encourages you to use a power every turn, and it forces the player to take advantage of all their powers instead of constantly abusing one or two of them.
Meanwhile, the Swordsage mechanic is meant to encourage a more strategic, carefully-paced use of powers, since it costs a turn to recharge.