ultimatepunch's page

I have been running D&D games since 1989, most of them set in the Forgotten realms. Not once have I had an issue with high level npcs stealing the spotlight from the player characters. I haven't even mentioned Elminster in game. If you let npcs ruin your game that is your fault, not the fault of the setting.

I edited this post, because the original was far too snarky.

I don't think it's possible for the GM to cheat, by definition. If the GM says something doesn't hit, it doesn't hit. The rules are a tool for the GM, and something that tells the players how to interact with the world, and in general what to expect. They don't actually determine anything unless the GM agrees.

I read your original post, I didn't take it as snarky, I understood your point.

I'll expand on my comment that a gm should never cheat. With a few exceptions, like stealth and bluff, I roll all the dice in front of the players. This changes the way the game plays in a huge way. The players don't feel like they are the starring characters in a story I'm trying to protect with dice rolling behind a screen. They KNOW that their actions will not be manipulated by me by trying to steer things in a certain direction. I create the environment, they decide how to interact with it. If they blow it up, kill themselves, refuse to run from overwhelming odds, and so on, I will not save them. The GM remaining transparent and neutral with the dice changes, in a good way, how the players play the game.

ultimatepunch wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

I hate forgotten realms with a passion.

I hold the setting responsible for killing other settings I loved.

What is stopping you from using those settings?

They stopped publishing new material for non-FR settings for the most part.

Of course, but that doesn't mean you have to stop playing the setting you enjoy. I still use Planescape, nineteen years after the product line came to an end.

I hate forgotten realms with a passion.

I hold the setting responsible for killing other settings I loved.

What is stopping you from using those settings?

ultimatepunch wrote:

Zaister wrote:

Note how the OP never returned to this thread.

It had to be a troll. It was a useless question.

...their name is Albert Wesker backwards. I thought the implications were pretty clear.

Thanks to google I now know that Albert Wesker is a character in a series of video games that I have not played.

Even earlier then that (1st ed) in Dragon Magazine 131 or 151 (can't recall exactly) they had an Ecology of the Aboleth article. It's been a while since I've read it but could shed some light and it did expend on different, stronger aboleth.

It is Dragon #131 from 1988. It introduced the Greater, Noble, Ruler, and Grand Aboleths, the latter being 40 Hit dice.

Sunken Empires has an introduction by Zeb Cook that details how the Aboleth made it into the game. Really interesting historical read.

The last four or five pages of Sunken Empires is an article titled The Ecology of the Aboleth. It is a great book, you should buy it.

Have you read Lords of Madness? Chapter 2: The Deep Masters is all about aboleths.

...and then they just all broke down into random nakedness and braid pulling and naked braid pulling.

They did smooth their skirts when they grew tired of pulling their braids.

voska66 wrote:

ultimatepunch wrote:

Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?

With 12s and 13s for all stats the character would drag the party down on skill rolls during roleplaying.

even if he was good at roll playing i would take some one who doesnt roll play at all but can have a competent character in one or 2 aspects of the game than a really good roll player whos character sucks in every aspect of it

I would never let someone who doesn't roleplay into my roleplaying game sessions, but hey, whatever works for you.

Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?

The setting doesn't, and shouldn't, care about the magic item creation rules.

Scarlett O'Hara

Human Fighter

How would people feel about a game where the GM said "No 9-level casters"? A lot of the conceptual niches filled by the 9 level casters could be filled with 6 level ones (especially factoring in archetypes), and the 6-level casters are some really strong, interesting, and powerful classes. So if the GM said "For this campaign, nobody play a full caster" would that be unreasonably limiting to the point where it breeds resentment?

I've actually had a player ask me to run a game with only 6 level casters.

I find the backlash to tinkering with the game absurd. The thousands of books from the d20 era are all hacks of 3.0 D&D. Pathfinder is a hack of D&D 3.5 which was a hack of 3.0. Your home brew hack of Pathfinder is no less valid than Pathfinder itself.

It is simple to play a different setting with Pathfinder. You just have to be willing to leave out most of the books. Is the resistance to this really the level of magic? or does it have more to do with people on these boards playing Pathfinder with all the books and all the options? I'm curious.

You can make a real world Viking Pathfinder game by just leaving out anyone who can cast spells. It would work just fine. You don't need a different system if Pathfinder is the system your table enjoys and has rules familiarity, or even mastery, with.

ultimatepunch wrote:

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling.

If you want a gritty realistic low-magic ruleset, don't play Pathfinder

Nonsense. Iron Heroes was low-magic and it is basically compatible with Pathfinder.

The Advanced Gamemaster Guide by Green Ronin had some nice suggestions on how to change the magic level of your setting. Such as only allowing casters to put 1/2 of their levels into a casting class. So a 8th level character could be 4wizard/4fighter for example.

Or, instead of putting in the effort to finagle the rules to do something they weren't designed to do, you could just play a different game more suitable to what you're trying to do.

You really never hack games? Why not? It is easy to do and can make the game much more fun for your group.

Raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling.

If you want a gritty realistic low-magic ruleset, don't play Pathfinder

Nonsense. Iron Heroes was low-magic and it is basically compatible with Pathfinder.

The Advanced Gamemaster Guide by Green Ronin had some nice suggestions on how to change the magic level of your setting. Such as only allowing casters to put 1/2 of their levels into a casting class. So a 8th level character could be 4wizard/4fighter for example.

Back in 1992 or so we were playing 2e Forgotten Realms. Our party was beat up and just made it back to town. We went to a temple of Lathander and offered plenty of gold for healing. The DM told us that no one in the temple was high enough level to cast any healing. No big deal, we went about our business.

Later that day we come upon two high level wizards fighting over some artifact, can't remember what, they snap it in half and it explodes. Everyone dies. We all look at the DM and he seems nervous. Then he says that all of us are Resurrected by the priests of Lathander. We ask if these are the same priests who were not high enough level to cast Cure Light Wounds an hour earlier. The DM says yes. One of the guys in the group claps his hands and says 'OK, I'll DM, you guys ready to roll up new characters?' First, and only, time I've seen a DM get fired mid game.

ultimatepunch wrote:

I don't like at will cantrips. Especially with Detect Magic and Light.

I find it good that a low level caster can do at least something magical all day. Detect Magic and Light are situationally powerful, but then look at what other party members can do at level 1..

It has zero to do with game balance. I almost exclusively run hex crawls and dungeons. Infinite light spells mostly eliminates the need to cary torches. Infinite Detect magic takes away interesting decisions from the players. I always run games where resource management matters.

I forgot the most important one. No Immediate or Swift actions on 3.0 (or 3.5 core).

I preferred 3.0/3.5 Power Attack.

Standing up from prone NOT provoking attack of opportunity in 3.0.

No Deadly Aim feat in 3.0/3.5.

I don't like at will cantrips. Especially with Detect Magic and Light.

You aren't unlucky, you only think you are.

I see on the boards alot of people saying the fighter needs to be "fixed"

My table views them as one of the strongest classes in the game

I am curious about the "issues"

Just keep having fun. My table is the same as yours.

When I hear someone talk about quadratic vs. linear I assume they would be no fun to play 3.PF with.

3.5 but not Pathfinder things

• Tome of Battle...learn to love it

Tome of Battle was the most 4th edition thing about 3.5. Which makes it the least 3.5 thing about 3.5.

I'm loving Worldscape so far, and #3 is the best yet. Can't wait for the next one.

That 2 page spread (page 6 on comixology, not sure about print) is fantastic.

Thanks for the inspired work.

Anyway, just wanted to see if I am the last one playing and enjoying D&D 3.0 :)

I've been running 3.0 for the last few years. I love it, it is my favorite version of D&D.

Many of the reasons have already been mentioned, lack of grid, monster design, better dmg, etc.

Our group didn't transition to 3.5 till around 2005 or so. Once Pathfinder came out we started playing it. Along the way it all stopped being fun. I wasn't sure why, until I started flipping through the 3.0 core books again. Even if you run core only, 3.5 and especially PF are very complex (bloated) compared to 3.0.

When playing 3.0 you make a character and play the game. In 3.5/PF you build a character and look for ways to do the stuff you built your character to do. The games may look similar at a glance, especially 3.0 to 3.5, but at the table the games play out very differently.