My artificer is currently the parties only means of healing, and well for the past couple of weeks, I've only been able to craft potions via the chaotic potion system. The one time I managed to actually create a healing potion, I drank it soon after without ever taking damage. (Because we don't know what the potions do.)
And now I've been given a wand of cure light, as I'm the only one with ranks in UMD. I've got a fairly decent chance off pulling it off, but there is that time of failure. And well.. the DM loves having wild magic happen, like suddenly spewing out bandaids or causing wounds, if I fail the role.
So never let the artificer be the dedicated healer/buffer.
(what else?)
My potions I'm creating I've been doing without expending money/exp in order to actually create the potion, and I've been allowed to produce 3 of them an hour.
The DM and I have talked about it for a while on the potion system, how to tweek it, what needs tweeking and this and that. So far we've come to the terms it takes 20 minutes to create one potion, and needs three ingredients.
As I've not been able to aquire time nor the place to create a proper alchemy lab and take in proper protocals in potion creation, even using the same ingredients will not exactly result in the same potion.
Now if i was to use the real "craft potion" feat, (after of course aquiring the lab and proper matierals.) then it would be a result of a more controlled creation, allowing me to create specific potions and know which potions are which.
Though I might not get any of my fun potions, like Emporers new cloths.
Then wild magic is another thing we discussed. And basically it runs off the Idea presented in the DMG when it was talking about like a fireball scroll. If you fail, it can still cast "fireball" which will typically have the general idea of what the spell was, or the opposite effect. So with a cure light wounds wand, I could throw out bandaids, a cure light woulds potion, cure minor wounds, cure moderate wounds, or cause wounds, if i fail to use it properly.
We had even gotten a new player in and suggested to him that he plays a cleric. Instead he plays a rogue instead.
I think you're more like 'never let this DM run a game ever again'. Seriously, those are some stupid houserules.
I agree.
Friends don't let friends join 3.x game with a veritable encyclopedia of stupid houserules.
Chanter, I've read your other thread about the same game. That and this gave me a big headache. I am never letting myself get sucked into one of your threads again.
And yet.. Everyone is like "OMFG! I hate your DM chanter! He makes up stupid houserules and stuff!" Even though.. It was actually me, making most of the houserules up. Never once have we actually needed a health potion. And even if it did roll a cause wounds on a player because I failed a roll, the DM typically trys to avoid character death.
I've been told a few times, My character should have been one shotted because he rolled a critical, or i critically fumbled three times in a row, but he ruled against it.
And hell, out of the three games I play on the weekend, His so far is the best. (Though my 2.0 game has just started for me. I'm still trying to find the elusive roleplaying that is suppose to be in 2.0)
I'm helping!
Never let the guy who can't read his power cards play a Swordmage or Warden.
Heh, what came of this?
Never let the guy who can't read his power cards play a Swordmage or Warden.
Heh, what came of this?
The specific incidents ...
Warden: He tried to use one of his Immediate powers on his own turn, after walking up to someone who had attacked me on his turn ... and he hadn't used his marking power at all, so it was triply illegal.
Swordmage: Assault Swordmage who sits there flanking with the party rogue ... with said rogue getting the crap kicked out of her because he doesn't use his freaking Aegis. No mark, no extra attacks.
I keep getting the feeling he thinks 'this class sounds cool', then actually makes the character in the CB, looks at the Aegis and Warden features, goes 'TL;DR' and ignores them.
Never let the guy who can't read his power cards play a Swordmage or Warden.
Heh, what came of this?
The specific incidents ...
Warden: He tried to use one of his Immediate powers on his own turn, after walking up to someone who had attacked me on his turn ... and he hadn't used his marking power at all, so it was triply illegal.
Swordmage: Assault Swordmage who sits there flanking with the party rogue ... with said rogue getting the crap kicked out of her because he doesn't use his freaking Aegis. No mark, no extra attacks.
I keep getting the feeling he thinks 'this class sounds cool', then actually makes the character in the CB, looks at the Aegis and Warden features, goes 'TL;DR' and ignores them.
That's probably true. They may be better suited playing a Striker, well who is not a Warlock, or a Fighter for a defender.
Never let the guy who can't read his power cards play a Swordmage or Warden.
Heh, what came of this?
The specific incidents ...
Warden: He tried to use one of his Immediate powers on his own turn, after walking up to someone who had attacked me on his turn ... and he hadn't used his marking power at all, so it was triply illegal.
Swordmage: Assault Swordmage who sits there flanking with the party rogue ... with said rogue getting the crap kicked out of her because he doesn't use his freaking Aegis. No mark, no extra attacks.
I keep getting the feeling he thinks 'this class sounds cool', then actually makes the character in the CB, looks at the Aegis and Warden features, goes 'TL;DR' and ignores them.
That's probably true. They may be better suited playing a Striker, well who is not a Warlock, or a Fighter for a defender.
Agreed. The only character he's managed to play worth a spit (ahem) is an Archer Ranger.
Never let the guy who can't read his power cards play a Swordmage or Warden.
Heh, what came of this?
The specific incidents ...
Warden: He tried to use one of his Immediate powers on his own turn, after walking up to someone who had attacked me on his turn ... and he hadn't used his marking power at all, so it was triply illegal.
Swordmage: Assault Swordmage who sits there flanking with the party rogue ... with said rogue getting the crap kicked out of her because he doesn't use his freaking Aegis. No mark, no extra attacks.
I keep getting the feeling he thinks 'this class sounds cool', then actually makes the character in the CB, looks at the Aegis and Warden features, goes 'TL;DR' and ignores them.
That's probably true. They may be better suited playing a Striker, well who is not a Warlock, or a Fighter for a defender.
Agreed. The only character he's managed to play worth a spit (ahem) is an Archer Ranger.
If he couldn't do that correctly, it'd be hard to explain why he's playing D&D. Isn't that usually mentioned as the easiest character to do well? Not trying to rag on your buddy, I just wonder if they really wanna play or just want to hang out with you guys.
If he couldn't do that correctly, it'd be hard to explain why he's playing D&D. Isn't that usually mentioned as the easiest character to do well? Not trying to rag on your buddy, I just wonder if they really wanna play or just want to hang out with you guys.
He's actually been gaming since gaming was invented, which may be part of the problem ... you can't teach an old dog new tricks, as they say. He does pretty well with the Ranger, though (I may have misphrased myself up there ... I meant to say that was the only class he's played well).
If he couldn't do that correctly, it'd be hard to explain why he's playing D&D. Isn't that usually mentioned as the easiest character to do well? Not trying to rag on your buddy, I just wonder if they really wanna play or just want to hang out with you guys.
He's actually been gaming since gaming was invented, which may be part of the problem ... you can't teach an old dog new tricks, as they say. He does pretty well with the Ranger, though (I may have misphrased myself up there ... I meant to say that was the only class he's played well).
Ah, gotcha. I know a player a little like that, he was a bit disappointed to see templates gone for the most part in 4th edition, though that was in part because he knew they were broken and he likes his cheesy tactics.
Never be convinced to play a 4th ed campaign. The "once per day" usefulness gets really annoying.
Yeah, things were WAAAAAY better in D20, when all your spells could be used all the time forever and nothing was ever limited like that.
You are so smart that I like you.
Never be convinced to play a 4th ed campaign. The "once per day" usefulness gets really annoying.
Never cry bitter tears of "I can't figure this stuff out, so I'll just post teh stoopid and hope to start a flame war" when you can't get attention at home.
T
As a warlord, never let one of your fellow adventurers walk around in combat without a weapon.(Not including monks, I guess.)
Also, never let the chaotic stupid Eladrin defender teleport away, behind some barred up passage without a visible means to get her back. (Worked out fine, but was not very tactical.)
Never be convinced to play a 4th ed campaign. The "once per day" usefulness gets really annoying.
Never cry bitter tears of "I can't figure this stuff out, so I'll just post teh stoopid and hope to start a flame war" when you can't get attention at home.
T
Never reply to a attempt at starting a flame war. Unless of course you can't get attention at home and want to start a flame war. ;)
Never let yourself go into battle without a backup weapon. Especially with a DM who thinks Fumble rules are brilliant or something.
"Fumbled with a wooden weapon? Roll to see if you broke it."
Glad he eventually realized how poorly thought out that was.
Never, under any circumstances, let your heaviest character cross the wooden bridge first. At least if his weight is above 250 lbs.
Never let your allies wear heavy armor, while you're trying to sneak around. Especially if they tend to talk a lot, too.
T
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
A good DM would realize that "defeating" an enemy doesn't require death. You simply have to get past them. Though, you don't get to loot them that way.
I was more making a joke that Dagon-worshipping fishmen are more likely to eat you or sacrifice you than let you finish a sentence.
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
... Believe it or not, some players care about more than just the raw mechanics of loot and XP.
And ANY DM should know to reward the party for overcoming challenges, by force or otherwise.
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
... Believe it or not, some players care about more than just the raw mechanics of loot and XP.
And ANY DM should know to reward the party for overcoming challenges, by force or otherwise.
html_removed
html_removed
I saw them as murderous, savage, and unwilling to cooperate since previous talks from the NPC's failed HORRIBLY. That, added to full-blown raids against Archaeological camps and people being drug off during the night kinda turned me against the idea. If you also want to add into the traps they've set up against expeditions, the ambushes they did against people, and witnesses contesting to them killing or capturing people who surrender, I called SEVERE BS on the idea that it would work. Also, working in a career that deals with people being escalated to violent levels I know it's 10 times harder to calm them down once they reach that point.
But somehow, in Draconic, the Lizardmen cared that we wrote "Under New Management, Willing to talk" and peacefully escorted us to their village. W.T.F.?
Oh yeah..And we got jack from finishing that without bloodshed. We did, however, get some decent loot from Pirates that they had us attack (that the archaeologists would have had us investigate anyway) but where forced to leave everything valuable in the temple alone.
Killing them would have earned us much more loot and secured a solid research point in the kingdom that we where working for. Instead: we had to kick the Archaeologists out and they where pretty pissed.
Yeah, the Kuo-Toa aren't exactly the first ones to open diplomatic channels when they know you taste best with parsley.
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
... Believe it or not, some players care about more than just the raw mechanics of loot and XP.
And ANY DM should know to reward the party for overcoming challenges, by force or otherwise.
html_removed html_removedI saw them as murderous, savage, and unwilling to cooperate since previous talks from the NPC's failed HORRIBLY. That, added to full-blown raids against Archaeological camps and people being drug off during the night kinda turned me against the idea. If you also want to add into the traps they've set up against expeditions, the ambushes they did against people, and witnesses contesting to them killing or capturing people who surrender, I called SEVERE BS on the idea that it would work. Also, working in a career that deals with people being escalated to violent levels I know it's 10 times harder to calm them down once they reach that point.
But somehow, in Draconic, the Lizardmen cared that we wrote "Under New Management, Willing to talk" and peacefully escorted us to their village. W.T.F.?
Oh yeah..And we got jack from finishing that without bloodshed. We did, however, get some decent loot from Pirates that they had us attack (that the archaeologists would have had us investigate anyway) but where forced to leave everything valuable in the temple alone.
Killing them would have earned us much more loot and secured a solid research point in the kingdom that we where working for. Instead: we had to kick the Archaeologists out and they where pretty pissed.Yeah, the Kuo-Toa aren't exactly the first ones to open diplomatic channels when they know you taste best with parsley.
So, you were punished for finding the nonviolent solution to the problem? Here's a better rule, then:
Never let a DM think that rewards are supposed to be about combat. (I'd say the diplomatic solution should have given you the full XP reward, and the loot should have been offered up as payment.)
Never let your magic-user cast a burst/blast spell to hit more allies than enemies, when you're playing with Friendly Fire. Even worse if you have a Battle Standard in the area, and the damage type is fire (logic dictates, that while you may survive with minor burns, the Battle Standard will be set on fire).
Never let yourselves die.
Never let the DM lose track of whose turn it is, unless you know you can convince him that it's your turn.
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
... Believe it or not, some players care about more than just the raw mechanics of loot and XP.
And ANY DM should know to reward the party for overcoming challenges, by force or otherwise.
html_removed html_removedI saw them as murderous, savage, and unwilling to cooperate since previous talks from the NPC's failed HORRIBLY. That, added to full-blown raids against Archaeological camps and people being drug off during the night kinda turned me against the idea. If you also want to add into the traps they've set up against expeditions, the ambushes they did against people, and witnesses contesting to them killing or capturing people who surrender, I called SEVERE BS on the idea that it would work. Also, working in a career that deals with people being escalated to violent levels I know it's 10 times harder to calm them down once they reach that point.
But somehow, in Draconic, the Lizardmen cared that we wrote "Under New Management, Willing to talk" and peacefully escorted us to their village. W.T.F.?
Oh yeah..And we got jack from finishing that without bloodshed. We did, however, get some decent loot from Pirates that they had us attack (that the archaeologists would have had us investigate anyway) but where forced to leave everything valuable in the temple alone.
Killing them would have earned us much more loot and secured a solid research point in the kingdom that we where working for. Instead: we had to kick the Archaeologists out and they where pretty pissed.Yeah, the Kuo-Toa aren't exactly the first ones to open diplomatic channels when they know you taste best with parsley.
So, you were punished for finding the nonviolent solution to the problem? Here's a better rule, then:
Never let a DM think that rewards are supposed to be about combat. (I'd say the diplomatic solution should have given you the full XP reward, and the loot should have been offered up as payment.)
We got XP for the diplomatic solution, I think (All rewarded at end of both fights AND after dealing with a Weretiger Yuan-ti, numbers seemed ok but it's kinda hard to check the CR on the pirates and the Lizardfolk). But that tribe had a lot of gems and stuff we could have pawned off to the people surveying the area to help them better understand these new areas.
Hell, the Lizardfolk even attacked us! I just wanted to see if we could rescue the people they captured. And besides: after a week of fighting with people do you REALLY thing Lizardfolk, given what their portrayed as in the book, are going to openly respond to "Under New Managment, willing to talk", especially given how hostile and tense things where there?
"Come on, let me go in and try Diplomacy with the Kuo-Toa, I think I can get them to listen to reason."
I cannot tell you how many times I was annoyed when my party wanted to take "diplomatic" routes to resolve things when it would have been like 50TIMES more xp to just kill them because they're holding people captive, THEN (through the miracles of reworking plot hooks) allow us to stumble across the people raiding a temple so we can kill them to keep the items.
More Treasure+More XP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diplomacy.
... Believe it or not, some players care about more than just the raw mechanics of loot and XP.
And ANY DM should know to reward the party for overcoming challenges, by force or otherwise.
html_removed html_removedI saw them as murderous, savage, and unwilling to cooperate since previous talks from the NPC's failed HORRIBLY. That, added to full-blown raids against Archaeological camps and people being drug off during the night kinda turned me against the idea. If you also want to add into the traps they've set up against expeditions, the ambushes they did against people, and witnesses contesting to them killing or capturing people who surrender, I called SEVERE BS on the idea that it would work. Also, working in a career that deals with people being escalated to violent levels I know it's 10 times harder to calm them down once they reach that point.
But somehow, in Draconic, the Lizardmen cared that we wrote "Under New Management, Willing to talk" and peacefully escorted us to their village. W.T.F.?
Oh yeah..And we got jack from finishing that without bloodshed. We did, however, get some decent loot from Pirates that they had us attack (that the archaeologists would have had us investigate anyway) but where forced to leave everything valuable in the temple alone.
Killing them would have earned us much more loot and secured a solid research point in the kingdom that we where working for. Instead: we had to kick the Archaeologists out and they where pretty pissed.Yeah, the Kuo-Toa aren't exactly the first ones to open diplomatic channels when they know you taste best with parsley.
So, you were punished for finding the nonviolent solution to the problem? Here's a better rule, then:
Never let a DM think that rewards are supposed to be about combat. (I'd say the diplomatic solution should have given you the full XP reward, and the loot should have been offered up as payment.)
We got XP for the diplomatic solution, I think (All rewarded at end of both fights AND after dealing with a Weretiger Yuan-ti, numbers seemed ok but it's kinda hard to check the CR on the pirates and the Lizardfolk). But that tribe had a lot of gems and stuff we could have pawned off to the people surveying the area to help them better understand these new areas.
Never let a player think everyone at the table has the same priorities. :P (To be read with a healthy and amusing dose of snark.)
Seriously, not everyone thinks of loot and XP as the Holy Grail. Though, frankly, RP should be rewarded just as well if not better.
That's what Freeforming is for. I have a forum for that it's fun, but not at a table. D&D is for killing stuff and getting cool gear. Not putting up signs of, and I am NOT joking, "under new managment, willing to talk" when these things would love nothing more then to decorate their tents with out entrails.
I have no issue talking things out, when I know it will be benefitial to us (Like when we set up a massive trade route to a town and took a 15% cut from the profits, or when we dumped a good deal of money into a local blacksmith to watch his operation explode with a nice return). But this idea was horribe (in terms of realistic plausability) and upset many people we where working towards gaining favor with.
So, do NOT let your allies put a major setback in the plans of gaining better contacts within the kingdom.
Yes, because we should all forever be level 1 characters. Hell, let's just force players to start first level commoner.
That's what Freeforming is for. I have a forum for that it's fun, but not at a table. D&D is for killing stuff and getting cool gear. Not putting up signs of, and I am NOT joking, "under new managment, willing to talk" when these things would love nothing more then to decorate their tents with out entrails.
I have no issue talking things out, when I know it will be benefitial to us (Like when we set up a massive trade route to a town and took a 15% cut from the profits, or when we dumped a good deal of money into a local blacksmith to watch his operation explode with a nice return). But this idea was horribe (in terms of realistic plausability) and upset many people we where working towards gaining favor with.
So, do NOT let your allies put a major setback in the plans of gaining better contacts within the kingdom.
What better ally than one that is more than willing to do the dirty work? If these negotiations went through, then you wouldn't need to worry about a thing.
Yes, because we should all forever be level 1 characters. Hell, let's just force players to start first level commoner.
That's what Freeforming is for. I have a forum for that it's fun, but not at a table. D&D is for killing stuff and getting cool gear. Not putting up signs of, and I am NOT joking, "under new managment, willing to talk" when these things would love nothing more then to decorate their tents with out entrails.
I have no issue talking things out, when I know it will be benefitial to us (Like when we set up a massive trade route to a town and took a 15% cut from the profits, or when we dumped a good deal of money into a local blacksmith to watch his operation explode with a nice return). But this idea was horribe (in terms of realistic plausability) and upset many people we where working towards gaining favor with.
So, do NOT let your allies put a major setback in the plans of gaining better contacts within the kingdom.
Nice straw man! Can I get one to put up for Halloween this fall?
On a less sarcastic note, this is the only down side to these one-phrase-quip-threads, fun though they are. It becomes way easy for a specific example to be taken as an overall gaming philosophy that will in turn be someone else's pet peeve.
Sounds like in this case, the Diplomacy was indeed ill advised, though I agree that when it is a good idea, it should be rewarded in XP. Levelling ain't everything, but its an important thing!
On to my entry:
Never assume that the DM's roommate is just bad at playing the (pre-4E) paladin's moral code rather than actually playing an evil NPC mole the DM plans to make into the BBEG for the campaign.
Player: DM, Steve's not playing the paladin right!
DM: Steve's playing Talmon just how I want him to play Talmon.
Player: But that's not how paladins should act.
DM: Right, and Steve is playing Talmon the way I want him to play Talmon.
I swear, they thought every carefully planned outburst of non-paladin like aggression was me messing up, rather than me desperately trying to drop clues as to the fact something was wrong.
Yes, because we should all forever be level 1 characters. Hell, let's just force players to start first level commoner.
That's what Freeforming is for. I have a forum for that it's fun, but not at a table. D&D is for killing stuff and getting cool gear. Not putting up signs of, and I am NOT joking, "under new managment, willing to talk" when these things would love nothing more then to decorate their tents with out entrails.
I have no issue talking things out, when I know it will be benefitial to us (Like when we set up a massive trade route to a town and took a 15% cut from the profits, or when we dumped a good deal of money into a local blacksmith to watch his operation explode with a nice return). But this idea was horribe (in terms of realistic plausability) and upset many people we where working towards gaining favor with.
So, do NOT let your allies put a major setback in the plans of gaining better contacts within the kingdom.
What better ally than one that is more than willing to do the dirty work? If these negotiations went through, then you wouldn't need to worry about a thing.
Because Lizardfolk are severely xenophobic, there has been an excesslive level of hostility since these new people have came in and a lot of bloodshed is why it wouldn't have worked. I was, seriously, expecting them to actually stab us in the back once we got done with the fight BECAUSE of the previous conflicts (What better way to get rid of obvious reinforcements then when they're weakened? Hell, as a GM I would have done that!)
I love non-Lawful Good Paladins, or at the least, non-Dudley Do Right ones. Cuts down on seeing cookie cutter pallies.
Much agreed. This is why the Paladin of freedom rules.
Now, Centaurs or something, that is easier to understand trying to reason with.
True. Lizardfolk are not someone I would normally risk attempting to negotiate with. It doesn't help that some of them engage in eating humanoids. Would you attempt to reason with a Bugbear if you had the option to draw first blood? Usually no, and that is because the dynamic changes a wee bit when they might think of you as a feast.
Now, Centaurs or something, that is easier to understand trying to reason with.
Let's not forget that Bugbears value treasure and are greedy. Your gear would look great on them, or mounted in their cave.
Centaurs are negotiable, so as long as you don't strike first.
Back on topic: Never let the absent-minded and overly-trusting party member talk to a military captain about why you're out in the middle of nowhere. This usually leads to bad things and very private info being given out.
1) he will end up swindeling them out of money, in which case they will become overly enraged that he just made off with 1/2 of their treasure that the entire party is going to have to commit genocide in order to get out of this situation or
2) He'll end up gambling his party member's gear away and you'll have to commit genocide to keep it.
Either way, someone about gets screwed out of something and NPC's you'd rather keep as allies end up looking like bad guys in a God of War video game.