KenB3's page

27 posts (53 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.



3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun story, I was in a group where we played D&D 3.5. We found some magic loot and wanted it identified. The DM said it would cost like 1,200 GP for five magic items. We as players said it costs 100 GP per spell so it should be 500. The DM said that's the wholesale cost, but there was only one wizard in town and there was a big mark-up. The party wizard player said "fine, I'll buy a scroll of identify, put it in my spellbook, and identify the items." The DM was pissed and said the scroll would cost way above the normal price, but it was less than doing all five items so we paid for it. This exchange took up most of a three hour session as we just wanted to know what we had and the DM thought we were trying to pull something.

That DM moves away, the group stays together, but we switch to Pathfinder. The next time there are magic items, someone makes a spellcraft check, and the DM says, "It's a +1 sword," and we move on with the damn game. Beautiful new rule there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started with the 90s, read X-Men comics for over a decade and then went back to the Essential books. I really have to say that 80s group feels the most like the "real" X-Men to me. Claremont, Cockrum, and Byrne really defined the team and everyone else kind of followed that lead.

In terms of Psylocke, I have to say while I didn't get far with New Mutants, in the actual X-Men title I did not see much personality before her transformation. Certainly not a deeply layered personality like some people are saying here, but to be fair there were other comics featuring her at the time that I haven't read.

Hard to read the current comics, I love Marvel but I have event fatigue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think with a new player you want to get them interested more than you want to make them plug a perceived hole in the party. Like others have said I would keep it simple. A melee class or a spontaneous caster without many spells to keep track of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a couple factors here. First off, 3rd edition came out with Wealth by Level. While I think it was a good idea to have an idea of balance and to work out CRs for monsters, they really standardized magical items. With the charts for buying and customizing magical weapons, armor, etc it really hit home that this is not special treasure you find but gear.

Apart from that though is the fact that a lot of us have been playing for a long time. Getting a +1 dagger is not as impressive as it was the first or even the third time. It takes better and more unique items to really excite experienced players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think while I am an opinionated person and I rarely agree with a DM 100% of the time, there have only been three I would say were actually bad GMs to where I didn't want to play with them.

1) The straight up killer GM. Had an actual adversarial relationship with the players. He maxed out encounters, rerolled stats for monsters so they'd be higher, and misinterpreted spell descriptions to further hurt the players, all while saying the fights were fair because before he tweaked them they were within the CR of the party. When he was a player he was also a power gamer who would whine when he didn't get his way.

2) The obnoxious guy who would get off topic and lecture us about his views about politics, sports, whatever since we were a captive audience. He also fought with his wife at the table, made our characters act like stereotypes "Your cleric is healing the peasants"and showed blatant favoritism towards his friends and family members that played over the people he brought through online postings.

3) The DM who just didn't know what he was doing. He was a very nice guy and the whole group was nice. He just didn't have a clear idea of how to set up an adventure and let the players have victories as part of his larger story. I think he was trying too hard to be original.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, nothing to say we can't use beholders and mind flayers in our own games


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I never liked from 3.5 was weapon size rules. I liked that a halfling would use a human short sword, and that was basically his longsword in every other version of D&D. Now you have to find separate category weapons if you have gnomes and halflings in the party. It's really pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the player. If a battle is obviously suicidal I don't see why a paladin would have to fight. Honestly, if the paladin is not doing anything outright evil I would not treat them differently than any other good character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather the DM be up front and say no right away than allow something he or she has a problem with and then target my PC during the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the deal, there are different styles of playing the game. One group might hack their way through monsters all day long, while another may be really into the story and have really developed characters. One group may know all the rules while another wings it a lot. There is not a right way as long as people have fun. Most of the time, you do not have a group that all likes the same things to the same degree. The GM may need to have social encounters for one player, fights for another player, and traps for another.

The thing to remember is that Pathfinder and tabletop rpgs are social games where the GM and players all need to respect one another. One player may be very quiet most of the time and while the GM might encourage them to speak up, they shouldn't force them. A player might be pretty ineffective in combat, and while the other players may recommend builds or tactics, it is their character and ultimately their decision. And while one player might have a novel length back story and speak with an accent and have a custom mini, he can't force the guy playing the generic dwarf fighter who never speaks in character to suddenly become his acting partner.

In short, until someone is being disruptive and being a dick and cutting into your fun, don't cut into theirs. If you want to roleplay why your rogue became a paladin and do a whole scene about seeing the light of the gods and the errors of his ways, that's awesome. However, when the barbarian takes a level of sorcerer, you don't get to demand an explanation why. You may ask and learn that she is taking rage mage, or that she thinks her barbarian should have draconic blood, but ultimately she doesn't owe you an explanation as to why she did something allowed by the rules that doesn't hurt your character or impact your fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Coming in late on these but this a really cool idea and all well executed


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am ambivalent about this concept. On the one hand I've played with disruptive players, people who argued with the GM, who tried to cheat or otherwise bring down the game. I don't want to play with anyone like that again.

On the other hand, part of the appeal of the game is that I get to play a heroic character. In real life I am a pretty average person, working retail to pay the bills, but in the game I have an elf duskblade who can slice through the monsters like butter. I don't try to hog the spotlight, I follow the rules, and I get along with the group.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I once played a half-orc cleric of Tempus with the idea of being a war priest. I figured I would heal the party some but that wouldn't be the main focus of my character. The DM looked at me and saw hit points recharging. "The villagers come to you for healing." "Where am I during this important conversation with the king? Oh, you're healing people in town." Sure, you see a six and a half foot half-orc with heavy armor, a battle axe, and a symbol of the war god on him, and your first thought is "Man, I wonder if he can clear up this rash."