P1NBACK's page

430 posts (432 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 430 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Is this per character, or total party?

Hello all,

I'm looking for a PbP game (preferably set in Eberron and using 4th Edition rules, but I'll play anything).


Rev Rosey wrote:

I'm in then, and my most grateful thanks Detritus.

Devlin will be up this morning. Just need to fiddle a little. Human warlord, resourceful brand.

Hey if you guys need another player - count me in. I'd like to be on the reserve list at least.


I'm running a 4E sandbox game soon and I'm trying to build some random encounter tables. This is my first sandbox style game, I usually run plot driven games, so I'm a little new to random encounters.

Specifically, this is going to be a wilderness exploration campaign. I'll have a variety of regions of varying difficulty (level) and I want random encounter tables for each area.

I've got down the basic jist of how to build the encounter table, what I'm struggling with is the "probability" of an encounter actually happening. Do I base it on time? Distance traveled? Other factors?

How do I determine that an encounter even takes place? When do I roll for the encounter table? Etc...

Any help/advice would be great.

And, any general advice on random encounters is also appreciated.


We're looking for additional players for a 4E West Marches style campaign. Please email me: michael dot p dot pfaff at gmail dot com.


Logos wrote:
...Dogs in the vineyard seems to get about 80% hate...

Wow. Really??

I love Dogs in the Vineyard. One of my favorite RPGs.

Shane Leahy wrote:

A bit of background first.

I am working on some ideas for a campaign to be run at a monthly Meetup. Each player would have a character that they can play at each Meetup they attend. Over time, some will level faster then others depending on how many times they can attend. Now at the Meetup we would not want to limit people by saying 'Sorry this adventure is for level X and you are only X-2, better luck next time.'

I would try and group similar level characters together but this may not always be possible. So my basic plan is this.

The adventure is set for a basic level (ie 4) then characters 1 level higher or lower can join without a problem (3-5). If someone only has a level 1 or level 2 they can play with the following modificiations. The character is boosted to level 3 (lowest level for the adventure). They gain the level bonuses (+1/2 level) to all skills, stats, rolls, etc that they apply to, along with the hit points for thier level. They do not gain any powers, feats, skills, etc that a level gain would warrent.

To my thinking this allows a player with a lower level character to participate more without feeling like a wrong move will kill them right away and it means they can actually contribute to the adventure mechanically. It allows a smooth power boost when required that can be removed for the next game. It does not take away from what the other players have achieved by gaining levels for thier characters. There may be a maximum how much you can boost someone, but I doubt we would have large ranges for levels.

Is there something I am missing that may make this unworkable? And yes, I got the basic concept from Warhammer Online.

I think that's a great idea.

We've developed a house rule that you can't take an extended rest until you complete 2 milestones. It works great.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I just noticed in the PHB II that with the vicious mockery at will power you can literally tease your enemy to death... Sorry, but that just seems kind of stupid. No more "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

I envision it as a secret arcane cant that tears at your soul.

FabesMinis wrote:
Don't get too attached to that concept - I may disallow some of the 'bad-guy' races. ;D

Ok Ok. :)

Thinking of what else I want to play...

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I'm having terrific problems actually trying to subscribe - I tried tonight and the site didn't seem to register my purchase, and wouldn't let me pay. Is anyone else having problems like this?

Check out the WotC D&D Insider forums - I believe they have some topics stickied for people in your situation.

FabesMinis wrote:


All the above-mentioned sources are fine. Point buy or array, either is fine. Level is yet to be determined, as is setting.

Sounds good! I am going to play a Gnoll Ranger with Archery Style.

FabesMinis wrote:

Rosey wants in also so...


Can you give us the skinny on character creation so we can go ahead and get a character ready?

Pt Buy? Array? Starting Level? Starting Gold? Sources (PHB, MM, FRCG, FRPG, Martial Power, Draconimicon, Dungeon/Dragon Magazine?) to draw from?

JollyRoger wrote:
P1NBACK wrote:

I would love this stuff. But are you sure you don't want to sell them on Ebay or something?
It's more trouble than its worth really, besides, I could use the Karma. Pitch in for the shipping and you can have as many as you want.

I'm just really interested in the 2nd Edition stuff. Please email me at :michael.p.pfaff@gmail.com:


JollyRoger wrote:

Hey gang,

I'm cleaning out my collection. I've got a stack of old 2nd edition stuff and a few 3rd edition items that need good homes. Any suggestions of where to donate the items, or maybe some of you would like them. I have the following items:

2nd Edition stuff:
1. Ravenloft Forbidden Lore Boxed Set
2. Ravenloft Campaign Setting Boxed Set
3. Ravenloft Nightmare Lands Boxed Set
4. A Light in the Belfry
5. Dragon Mountain Boxed Set
6. Axe of the Dwarvish Lords
7. Forgotten Realms Book of Lairs
8. Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium Volumes 2 and 3
9. Adams Wrath
10. Chilling Tales
11. Night of the Walking Dead
12. Dark of the Moon
13. Death Ascendant
14. The Awakening
15. Book of Crypts
16. Van Richten's Guide to Vampires
17. Forgotten Realms Hellgate Keep
18. Forgotten Realms Skullport

3rd Edition stuff
1. Forgotten Realms Campaign setting
2. Forgotten Realms City of Splendors
3. The Grand History of the Realms
4. Monsters of Faerun
5. Players Handbook 2

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

I would love this stuff. But are you sure you don't want to sell them on Ebay or something?

Logos wrote:

it never fails, ever make an npc that is somehow dependant on the pc for moitvation to help and that player will promptly drop game.

Im at 2 players, atm and if someone would like to bring us to playable levels (and you know be available to play in the future ) feel free to stat up a character (same as everyone else, see the first post) and we'll see where we go from there.


Count me in. I'll have stats up shortly.

erian_7 wrote:
This, for me, illustrates why Paizo didn't make a mistake in not going with 4E. Monsters are not just interesting combat options or XP bumps in Paizo adventures--the Golarion Goblin I think is a prime example. I know the combat-focused stat blocks of 4E do not prohibit RP, as the DM can simply make up whatever he likes or use material from other sources, but at the same time for many it seems they do not inspire RP. Paizo is focused on delivering a specific type of gaming product, one that focuses on a wide-angle view of the material, and they have found 3E/Pathfinder allows them the greatest opportunity to produce that material.

But you are comparing a campaign specific "goblin" to a default "goblin". I think this is exactly why WotC didn't try to bog down the Monster Manual with pages and pages of fluff. Instead, leave the fluff to specific campaigns or DMs.

You speak about the "Golarion Goblin", but 4th Edition has the "Forgotten Realms Goblin" and the "Eberron Goblin" and both of those are just as viable and interesting and make a much better comparison.

So you are right - Paizo is delivering a specific type of material, one that focuses on THEIR campaign world.

WotC is delivering material designed to be used in ANY campaign world, including their own published ones.

Scott Betts wrote:
When I wrote that, I was thinking specifically of a Paizo statblock in Pathfinder 15 (except the basketweaving thing, I just threw that in there) versus a WOTC statblock in Keep on the Shadowfell. I'm not trying to pull anyone's chain, and I apologize if I have; I remain a dedicated tri-editionist. The stats in a 3.5 statblock is more likely to make me think creative thoughts about flavor for that individual creature. The stats in a 4E statblock is more likely to make me think creative thoughts about how to use that individual creature in combat. I think these are both strengths. I wish there was some way to have those strengths together in both editions' adventure statblock, but there you go.

I'm not so sure that both are strengths. The reality of Dungeons & Dragons gameplay (and one that the 4th Edition design team took heed of) is that the vast majority of monsters see very little to no play outside of combat. Sure, it's nice for that goblin to have a +6 to Profession (make voodoo doll) but if that goblin is practically guaranteed to get cut down in the middle of combat there's very little point to providing that information to the DM when the priority could instead be placed on making that goblin interesting in the combat he's actually featured in.

Yes, for a handful of creatures or NPCs having relevant non-combat information available can occasionally be handy. Most of the time, however, it's simply a waste of text that could be otherwise spent.

I agree Scott, and let's not forget about the great monsters who will eventually be played by PCs who might want some society information. There have been several "Dragon" articles detailing this information, such as Playing Gnolls, by Keith Baker.

Mitnal wrote:
Daeglin wrote:
When I wrote that, I was thinking specifically of a Paizo statblock in Pathfinder 16 (except the basketweaving thing, I just threw that in there) versus a WOTC statblock in Keep on the Shadowfell.

Do you have something against basketweavers?

-- Mitnal the Basketweaver.

Yes. Yes I do. For every "basketweaver" in my party who should have had skill points in "Hide" or "Move Silently"! Damn you!

Daeglin wrote:
When I wrote that, I was thinking specifically of a Paizo statblock in Pathfinder 15 (except the basketweaving thing, I just threw that in there) versus a WOTC statblock in Keep on the Shadowfell. I'm not trying to pull anyone's chain, and I apologize if I have; I remain a dedicated tri-editionist. The stats in a 3.5 statblock is more likely to make me think creative thoughts about flavor for that individual creature. The stats in a 4E statblock is more likely to make me think creative thoughts about how to use that individual creature in combat. I think these are both strengths. I wish there was some way to have those strengths together in both editions' adventure statblock, but there you go. Paizo's "tactics" addition to the 3.5 statblock is a good attempt, within the limitation of the system

Right on man, I never meant to cause a disturbance. I probably seemed a little reactionary after KaeYoss's blatant lies about 4th Edition, but I honestly don't have anything against 3.x, Pathfinder, or 4th Edition. I just like to keep the facts straight.

Ubermench wrote:
We just lost one of our players and could use a couple more. It is Logos' game so it would be up to him to let you in though.

What characters do you have as of right now?

FabesMinis wrote:
I'll be starting one soon. You can be in if you like. Not entirely sure of setting etc yet.

Count me in. Do you want to go ahead and start a thread for that game?

Dragnmoon wrote:
P1NBACK wrote:
stuff about 4e

You are missing the whole Point P1N...

They are not talking about the Rules..

They are talking about the 'Flavor Text" or Monster description..

3E goes so much more into Flavor Text then 4E does... 2E does more the 3E...

4E you get a couple of lines of Flavor Text...3/4 page of 'Rules" and some Lore DC *A little Flavor* on the Major Monsters

3E you get Stats, Some Combat Rules and tactics and a A few Paragraphs of Society Info on the Major Monsters..

3E did Much better on the Background of the monsters then 4E does in the MM...

Actually, I think I do get it. He mentioned specifically a SKILL giving him inspiration for creativity (i.e. Basketweaving). That's in the "stat block", which was also said. Stat means Statistics. Not fluff.

But, if they are using "stat-block" to define the entire monster entry, I do apologize, my comments were specifically for the monster STAT block.

Horus wrote:


This back and fore argument over who's edition is better is pathetic.

Just enjoy your respective games.

Your not going to convince one another and this hostility is getting a little childish.

My opinion - best mechanics 4E, best flavour/fluff 2E. I seem to like the even numbers.

Does my opinion somehow invalidate yours? No, so why bicker?

I wasn't trying to say 3.x or Pathfinder were "better" at all. I was simply correcting misinformation and asking for examples as evidence.

Never once did I mention one system was "better" than the other. Obviously that's going to be subjective to each person. But to say that one system is "only good for combat" as a FACT. Ha! That's bullshit.

KaeYoss wrote:
If I want a system that's only good for combat and has no rules for anything except combat, I won't blow 90 bucks on three core books. The D&D Minis Skirmish game rules are available for free on the net, and they offer the same roleplaying potential.

I wonder if the "4E haters" are just misinformed, have their blinders on, or just simply want to lie about the system.

Actually, 4E has rules for resolving actions outside of combat. They are called SKILLS. And, in addition to the basic mechanics for resolving skill checks, a more complex approach to roleplay mechanics is presented called "Skill Challenges" that can be part of a combat or a stand-alone encounter system.

In addition, 4E has another robust system for magical effects outside of combat called "Rituals". These are magical effects that can produce a variety of problem solving measures, and can most definitely be used creatively and outside the box.

So tell me, how is 4E "only good for combat" any more than 3.x or Pathfinder? Please give me concise examples as evidence of such a statement.

Daeglin wrote:
When I read a 4E stat block, my thoughts tend to run along the lines of what the guy will do in combat - 1st this then this, and I appreciate how easy it will be to probably play at the time.

That's funny, because whenever I read a 3.x stat block (which is rarely these days...) I find myself thinking "wow... I wish this guy had some cool ability like in 4th Edition" or "what the hell?? why does this ogre have basketweaving?? ah... right... this is 3.x and they had to fill out all the little meaningless check boxes of level-based monster creation..."

Seriously, if you want a creature to be a basketweaver in 4th Edition, you don't need to scan your MM for a creature that has the basketweaving skill - you just SAY that particular monster has basketweaving.

If anything 4E promotes using your imagination more than 3.x because as a DM you can make anything up you want for a 4E monster's "fluff". In 3.x you had to follow rigid guidelines... "Well, I want this kobold to be amazing at basketweaving, but I only have 4 skill points to spend, and I'd have to make his feat skill focus..." etc...

Anyways, to each his own I guess. I just want to point out that it's not a problem with the system, but a problem with the way you look at the system.

ProsSteve wrote:
It's a balance, but bear in mind I adjust the HP's during the encounter if the encounter is taking too long which has probably stretched the PC's more than it should anyhow.

The main things I am looking to accomplish in a typical encounter are:

1) Force the PCs to expend resources; whether they be healing surges, consumable items, encounter and daily powers, etc... If a PC makes it through your typical encounter without expending a decent amount of resources, then something is wrong. Now, depending on the level of challenge, the actual amount of resources can vary dramatically. They should be expending resources ever encounter though.

2) The fight shouldn't consume the entire game session, and should leave plenty of time for non-combat gaming. I think there's a "sweet spot" to encounter length. Generally, if I can keep most of my combats around 6 to 10 rounds (with 10 rounds being a BIG battle), I am happy. Under 6 rounds and I feel the players don't feel challenged, and over 10 I think the players start to get anxious for the encounter to be over.

3) Intensity. I want my players to feel like they are fighting for their life every time they get into a combat scenario. FEEL is the keyword. They don't necessarily have to be on the verge of death, but having a feeling of suspense makes combat more intense. That's improved greatly with minions, as I can swarm the PCs with tons of minions and they can feel an incredible threat - yet, generally they just mow them down, which leads into number four.

4) Make the PCs feel powerful and as if they are advancing the plot. Random encounters can be good to get your PCs adrenaline flowing, but I like to have most of my combat encounter deliver an advancement in plot - whether it be a clue, or an item they need, etc... I like to use weak foes and powerful foes. Minions make great weak foes the party can get their pride up as they take them down easily. Powerful, challenging foes that cause the PCs to get down to their last surge or daily or whatever, make the PCs feel like they have accomplished something by beating such a dangerous enemy.

Now, the problem with 4th Edition is that it seems like a lot of the battles can linger on after the 4 things above have been accomplished. That's why I use the "half-HP" rule and "double-die" rule outlined above. I think it shortens the combat slightly, but makes that shorter combat filled with much more suspense.

Hi all, I'm very interested in participating in a PbP 4E game. I DM a game in real life and haven't really had a chance to play 4th Edition.

I'm open to any type of campaign using the 4E D&D rules set.


Do you have space for one more? I'm super interested in playing.

KaeYoss wrote:
Hexmage1077 wrote:

a 4E version of Karzoug's statblock would probably be 1/3 the size of the existing 3.5 version.
You know, for me, that reads "1/3 the interesting" ;-P

You're kidding right? 4th Edition monster powers are WAY more thematic and interesting than 3.x's monster abilities...

Astute1 wrote:
One problem I've had with 4e is the following: it seems like in every battle there's one or two monsters who get left to the end, and they just won't die. It turns into a bit of a tedious slog: the party defender already has the critter locked down, the strikers keep attacking, the leader makes sure that the defender says healed, and they just have to wear the creature's HP to zero. This isn't a big problem, but it is an annoyance, and it seems to happen very often (last session, it happened in three of the four battles we ran.) I'm starting to think that the "last creature" should just surrender or run away, or if it's a creature that wouldn't do that, I could just have a "cut scene" where the party beats the thing to death. I'm wondering, is this just an aspect of 4e, or is it bad encounter design on my part? Has anyone else experienced this? If so, what did you do to solve it?

I've noticed this problem too. So, I've kind of had to wing it occasionally in order for the slogfest to end.

Basically, I've noticed that this usually happens when the PCs aren't using their dailies in the battle versus the last couple big guys. So, what I like to do is cut the HP for non-minion monsters in half (just look at their "Bloodied" number to find that out) unless it's a BBEG fight, or some other battle I WANT to last a while.

Unfortunately, if you cut the monster HP in half, it does tend to give your PCs a huge advantage as the fight is shorter and they are going to get hit less than if you'd had the monster at full HP and combat take longer. To combat this problem, I up the monster damage as well - usually by an additional die (so if they normally deal 1d8 + 3, I make it 2d8 + 3). This keeps the battles shorter - but more intense.

Hope this helps.

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
We'll see what happens to 4e...I know even the people in my group who were open minded about 4e have dropped it now...

For every story like this, there's 10 that speak of everyone they know abandoning old editions and playing only 4th Edition. The only thing this anecdote has evidence of is the fact that you play with like-minded gamers.

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
...one sold his books to another, and that one has finally dropped the idea of running a 4e game.

Sounds like at least ONE of your gaming group is interested in 4th Edition... Considering he paid for the "other's" books...

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

DDI was to be a part of 4e tho, they also laid-off the art director..

Oh I know the lay-offs are hitting everywhere, since I was laid-off once already this year, and the company I'm working for now, is in trouble.

D&Di is a supplment to 4th Edition. It's not necessary to play 4E D&D. Also, WotC has had many art directors and them laying off one doesn't spell doom for D&D at all...

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
I think you can already tell how it's doing, just look at the layoffs they handed out...

These layoffs were people who worked under the D&D Insider initiative, which has been lackluster thus far. You won't find any of the 4E developers on that list (Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt, Mike Mearls, Stephen Schubert, etc...) with the possible exception of Dave Noonan.

And considering the failure of the D&D Insider initiative up to this point compared to their goals, it would make sense to do some "reorganizing" in that department.


Does anyone know where I can find that star symbol they use in powers between Encounter * Martial? It's a little diamond symbol.

Haven't posted in a LONG while. And, earlier in this thread I said that I wanted to subscribe, but found the content lacking - especially in the "online tool" department.

Well, all that has changed. I got my hands on a copy of the Character Builder Beta (I won't say how) and took it for a test run. What can I say? This tool is AMAZING, and WELL worth the $5 admission when you throw in the Compendium, Magazines, and Bonus Tools.

I subscribed a couple nights ago and locked in the $5 a month price point for a year as this subscription rate won't change for me for a year even if they release more tools and increase the price.

I'm waiting eagerly for the full version of the Character Builder to come out, and if they can do the Visualizer, Dungeon Designer, and Game Table as well as this tool, I think WotC has a goldmine on their hands.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I believe exile goes there now and again, we both live in Kentucky but i have never been up there.

I live here.

Check out: www.louisvillerpg.com

It's a wonderful site for Louisville roleplayers.

There's a couple stores around town that are good for gamers. Most notably, The Book and Music Exchange on Preston Highway and one on Bardstown Road. There's also the Louisville Game Store, which does a lot of wargaming I think, and it's also on Bardstown Road.

Good luck.

xredjasonx wrote:
The character builder is really amazing, simple and quick. If you haven't downloaded it yet I highly recommend it!


Honestly, I want to subscribe, as I have enjoyed most of the online offerings so far, but I just can't find it in my heart to pay $8 a month for the online stuff that was basically free for the most part prior to D&Di.

I think I'll wait until they release a full and running version of the character builder.

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with.

So there is your first house rule.

Character classes in 4e are thematic. This is not 3.5 where characters are built by selecting level combinations from numerous classes until you mix them in some optimized form or another.

If you want to be a martial archer in 4e you need to be a ranger. If you want to be a longsword wielding con artist you need to be a fighter with the bluff skill.

For better or worse class customization is more limited in 4e than it was in 3e.

Exactly. People don't get this for some reason.

TheNewGuy wrote:

Yeah. It would be nice if they were willing to do 4e adventures, since it's such a fun, streamlined rules system and Paizo makes such interesting, tight adventures. The 4e ruleset really does make 3.0/3.5/PRPG look like a Pinto next to a Corvette and Paizo's adventures do the same thing to WotC's adventures.

But I live in Manhattan, have a high-stress tech job, there's a retirement to plan, I'm taking a Brazilian portuguese class (to retire to Brazil), and a girlfriend who is much more fascinating than any solo or elite monster. I'm spending 2-3 hours prepping for a 4 hour weekly game that I now no longer enjoy. That's an extra day of work that I do.

Maybe you should just hand over the DM responsibilities to someone else and go back to being a player.

TGZ101 wrote:
Once again Scott, you do an amazing job of helping people understand this edition more clearly. A lot of the powers are up to the DM to interpret. Sneak attacking constructs, undead, and oozes are a good example. I personally like having this type of freedom to describe how the attacks and powers work.

I agree. Scott Betts is an asset to this forum.

Funny to see this thread after I just stumbled upon Call of Cthulhu and the whole genre.

Has anyone played Trail of Cthulhu?? It uses the GUMSHOE system. Any good? I've been considering picking it up.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
jdh417 wrote:

"A warlock sets an airship on a collision course toward the lich’s castle, abandoning the massive craft as it crashes into the topmost tower."

Shouting "Allah Akbar!" as it crashes into the tower.

Sorry, not enough time has passed for this not to be cringe-worthy.

Chill, its a flash gordan reference. Your comment is more offencive that the imagery itself.

I agree.

houstonderek wrote:

chainmail was just rules for adding fantasy elements to a midaeval wargame, with a chapter on making individual "heroes" IIRC (i haven't seen a copy in eight years,s ince i lost all my gaming stuff). OD&D took the game away from the wargaming tabletop, but was very rough in its execution and scope. basic codified and improved a lot of OD&D (the first three digest books, anyway) and pushed it further away from a miniature wargame, AD&D (1e) took the original books and the suppliments (greyhawk, blackmoor and eldrich wizardry) and codified them into a more comprehensive rules set, also pushing the game further away from miniature wargaming.

so, when people say 4e feels more like basic, i assume they mean because it is simplified and streamlined, since minis and positional considerations (which are a big element of 4e combat) are pretty much non-existant in basic d&d.

if i had to nail down a description of 4e using old edition terms, i'd say, combat wise, it is a move back towards chainmail, in that minis and position are a large part of the combat rules experience, but roleplay and ease of access wise, it is closer to basic in that character generation is fairly easy and roleplaying is largely left up to the group to hash out.

i think when some people say 4e doesn't "feel like D&D", it's because it really isn't the successor to AD&D (which most people consider d&d, never having played chainmail or basic), it is more the successor of chainmail meets basic d&d filtered...

Hey thanks for the lesson HoustonDerek. I feel better informed now and appreciate your time to talk it out to me. Thanks.

Jal Dorak wrote:
... So the argument from Chris that 3rd Edition did not recognize this is false - it did, it just didn't have hard and fast rules for it...

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that you couldn't have interesting encounters that utilize terrain, monsters and obstacles in 3rd Edition. As Betts has pointed out, the author said you could do that in 3rd Edition.

The difference being argued is that in 3rd Edition that wasn't the standard - NOW it is.

ProsSteve wrote:

My players normally start out either not able to ride at all( low grade militia, peasants) or already mounted archetypes( knights, mounted militia etc) who eventually learn things like riding. I've had a few PC's who NEVER learned to ride in my campaigns because the character doesn't get on with horses ( i've had a number of characters who've had very bad relationships with horses). Added some real comedy in the past when an inexperienced rider has taken off at full tilt on horse in the middle of a combat, even accidentaly running enemy troops over before coming flying off the horse into a stream. It was a comical talking point after the combat (statements like 'what the hell were you doing to that poor horse' and 'enjoy the swim?' came in).

Thanks for the input though it's given me some idea's. I will use a variation of the ride skill and the handle animal(under knowledge nature but only for mount creatures).

Good luck!

Mactaka wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

KOTS should have had some sort of thing to pressure the PCs into acting quicker. Perhaps when they found out about the whole story, maybe a large storm cloud over the ruins that kept growing larger, creating the sense of what's his name's progress... or something.

Noir le Lotus wrote:
Moreover, I see more and more players asking for a way to cast rituals faster, making them usable enven in combat situations.

As long as this doesn't happen, it'll be impossible for Rituals to shine in combat.

As for the rogue picking locks instead of the knock ritual, every time in 3.5 Edition when we had a mage, knock totally stole the role of the rogue. Nowadays, in 4th Edition, you have to stop and take a 10 minute break to get into that locked door. Not necessarily something you want to do in a dangerous place filled with denizens, or if you are being chased.

1 to 50 of 430 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>