DMed my second game of DnD yesterday.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Poll of the Day
  3. DMed my second game of DnD yesterday.

User Info: Person106

Person106
2 months ago#151
ParanoidObsessive posted...
The DM suggests that they'd LIKE you to choose two classes for story reasons and combine them to make an interesting roleplaying character concept


I find the idea of a cleric mage interesting. Give me all the magic. But seriously, cleric spells used with mage spells can make for some pretty neat scenarios.
https://supermariomakerbookmark.nintendo.net/profile/person106

User Info: KthulhuX

KthulhuX
2 months ago#152
krazychao5 posted...
I never understood DnD

Reading this doesn't help

Listening to people talk about D&D with other people who play D&D or (as is the case here) targeted towards other people who play it is possibly the WORST way to try to understand it. If you actually want to understand it, I suggest you read the intro to an RPG book. Quite a few are available for free online, so there's no real cost to it.

User Info: KthulhuX

KthulhuX
2 months ago#153
shadowsword87 posted...
PMarth2002 posted...
Stone to flesh is basically just the counter to flesh to stone and other petrify effects, thats why people rarely use it. I mean you could turn a stone wall into flesh but most of the time why bother? You've got a ton of better uses for that high level of a spell slot.


That's my point?
How do you get players to use it and other high level super weird spells?


Honestly, if your players are the type to rarely, if ever, step outside of a few pre-determined attacks / actions, there's very little way to get them to use some of the more interesting options.. They're going to stick with what's familiar, comfortable, and (at least in their minds) optimal.

Honestly, both typse of spellcasting kind of discourage it, in a way. Prepared spellcasting requires you to pick out your spells for the day, so even if the player has access to the more interesting spells, they're going to stick to preparing the "safe" options. Whereas spontanous spellcasting limits the number of spells the character can know at all, so they are even more likely to stick with the safe options.

User Info: shadowsword87

shadowsword87
2 months ago#154
KthulhuX posted...
krazychao5 posted...
I never understood DnD

Reading this doesn't help

Listening to people talk about D&D with other people who play D&D or (as is the case here) targeted towards other people who play it is possibly the WORST way to try to understand it. If you actually want to understand it, I suggest you read the intro to an RPG book. Quite a few are available for free online, so there's no real cost to it.


Yeah, we weren't exactly being polite to anybody new here. DnD requires it's own unique language, in fact all roleplaying games do and they're all different. Like you can easily find someone saying this:
Two handing a weapon's attack goes like this: 1d20+Str+BAB-PowerAttack (if you have it, and use it up to BAB) to hit, and damage is WeaponDice + Str x 1.5 + PowerAttack (if you used it).

If you ever are curious about where to start though, I actually recommend podcasts to learn it because even if you don't understand the mechanics you can still enjoy the roleplaying that goes on.
You can understand the base mechanics and then read the books once you get the language down.

User Info: Lightning Bolt

Lightning Bolt
2 months ago#155
KthulhuX posted...
Honestly, if your players are the type to rarely, if ever, step outside of a few pre-determined attacks / actions, there's very little way to get them to use some of the more interesting options.

It's actually pretty easy as the GM to make the players stray away from their Plan A. Just make Plan A not work!

If their normal strat is to hit it with a stick, then easy ways to block that include swarms, DR, concealment/darkness, high AC, incorporeality, huge size plus mobile (players will provoke AoOs to get to it), STR damage, overstrong full attacks (players won't risk staying close), "burning blood" retaliation upon being cut, flying, burrowing, range enemies that kite, etc etc etc etc. That's all just off the top of my head, there's likely more.
Mix and match and apply all of the cool, weird things this game has against your party's weaknesses on the occasion when you want to force them to come up with an improvised strategy.

Counters are neat, but don't predictively counter an improvised strategy unless you're just trying to get them to retreat. That's a level of difficulty that a lot of players can't handle, or don't want to.
One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master!
-The Rev

User Info: Babbit55

Babbit55
2 months ago#156
Anyone cast magic missile at the darkness yet?

I am in a new 3.5 game, I am a Half or Cleric of Torm, bit different for me as I normally play rogue all the time

User Info: Babbit55

Babbit55
2 months ago#157
ParanoidObsessive posted...
shadowsword87 posted...
No because there's not 20 minutes of b****ing about rules.
In theory, yes that's how it can work, but it's entirely dependent on the group of people who run it

To continually reemphasize my usual accusation that a lot of your perceptions are colored by playing in s***ty groups, I've never actually had a 20 minute argument or complaint about how the rules work in any game I've ever played.

If anything, I think I've played with precisely one rules lawyer-y type player out of every group I've ever been in.



Simple rule to remeber about rules in any RPG. The GM is right.

@ParanoidObsessive posted...
PMarth2002 posted...
The DM doesn't have to tell you the odds. You've got a character sheet and will generally add a number to the die based on how skilled your character is. After you roll the die, the DM will tell you if you succeeded or not.

In some games, and for some rolls (like "Insight", "Sense Motive", "Perception", etc), they won't even give you that much - they'll roll for you where you can't see the number, and then give you information accordingly.

There are some rolls which are WAY too easy to metagame just from the result ("I rolled a 1, I'm totally not going to trust anything the GM tells me!"), where it can actually be way more fun if the GM rolls for you so you have no idea whether you rolled low or high, and if you roll low, they can actively lie to you.

"Yes, while you were initially suspicious of Mr. Sinastrov McEvilface, in retrospect you get the feeling that he's actually quite trustworthy, and is probably telling you the truth about the Definitely Not a Trap Inn, and how you should go there to meet with his contact, Bob Absolutelynotgoingtotryandkillyouson."

Some GMs may do the same thing if a bad guy is using spells like Charm Person or something similar, where rather than having you roll your saving throw (and thus knowing for sure something bad likely just happened if you roll low), they'll just roll for you and then subtly encourage you to like/trust an NPC by how they play them, or just slip you a note so YOU know what happened but the other players don't.



In all honesty, only bad roleplayers need DM's to lie to them/ roll for them. I have been in many a game where people who acted out the outcomes perfectly. Recently in a roll20 game I got "Commanded" by a evil item to kill my friends, being a sneaky bluffing rogue who used bluff in combat, I walked over to the leader, asked him to look at an item I found then back stabed him (I missed, Doh!), he slapped me so I bluffed the party that really the Paladin had gone crazy and was attacking for no reason, the turned on the pala and fun times ensued!
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: Lightning Bolt

Lightning Bolt
2 months ago#158
Babbit55 posted...
In all honesty, only bad roleplayers need DM's to lie to them/ roll for them

If the only goal is to put on a show for like a podcast then sure. I can pretend I'm having fun so it looks realistic enough.
If you actually like mystery, intrigue, suspense, solving puzzles, or thinking at all, then sometimes it's nice to not have the solution given to you.

Bluff is something I very rarely have the players roll themselves any more, after Father Donnagin. One of my favorite NPCs was a Cleric of good/healing who had a knack for always catching the (evil) PCs with their pants down. He led the investigation of the PCs' first murder and managed to counterbluff them, making it seem like he believed the PCs' lies (or at least left enough doubt that they didn't kill him before he could investigate, and trust me they wanted to). If the player had seen his roll on Bluff, he would have known that the Cleric didn't believe him, and then goodbye suspense!

Hell, even your own story would have been more interesting if the party didn't know ahead of time via public rolls that you were fooling them.
That said, I don't let PCs roll Bluff against PCs anyways. Diplomancers tend to override the party's will when allowed to use CHA skills on allies (so... exactly what happened but all the time).
One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master!
-The Rev
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: KthulhuX

KthulhuX
2 months ago#159
Lightning Bolt posted...
KthulhuX posted...
Honestly, if your players are the type to rarely, if ever, step outside of a few pre-determined attacks / actions, there's very little way to get them to use some of the more interesting options.

It's actually pretty easy as the GM to make the players stray away from their Plan A. Just make Plan A not work!

However, if they are that type of player, their plan B is likely to be just as bland as their plan A.
Plus there is the fact that, if you are talking about spells, it's not always an option to immediately switch to the "super weird spells". Because they likely do not have those spells prepared or known.

User Info: Babbit55

Babbit55
2 months ago#160
@Lightning Bolt posted...
Babbit55 posted...
In all honesty, only bad roleplayers need DM's to lie to them/ roll for them

If the only goal is to put on a show for like a podcast then sure. I can pretend I'm having fun so it looks realistic enough.
If you actually like mystery, intrigue, suspense, solving puzzles, or thinking at all, then sometimes it's nice to not have the solution given to you.

Bluff is something I very rarely have the players roll themselves any more, after Father Donnagin. One of my favorite NPCs was a Cleric of good/healing who had a knack for always catching the (evil) PCs with their pants down. He led the investigation of the PCs' first murder and managed to counterbluff them, making it seem like he believed the PCs' lies (or at least left enough doubt that they didn't kill him before he could investigate, and trust me they wanted to). If the player had seen his roll on Bluff, he would have known that the Cleric didn't believe him, and then goodbye suspense!

Hell, even your own story would have been more interesting if the party didn't know ahead of time via public rolls that you were fooling them.
That said, I don't let PCs roll Bluff against PCs anyways. Diplomancers tend to override the party's will when allowed to use CHA skills on allies (so... exactly what happened but all the time).


Not disagreing with you, just saying public rolling to really good roleplayers won't change things up too much, though it does depend.

I agree on the rolling things like Bluff PC vs PC though this was a unique case and I did roleplay the bluff in a believable way, but since she had seen the attack rolls she new ooc that I had initiated combat hence the GM decided to go with a contested bluff roll
(edited 2 months ago)
  1. Boards
  2. Poll of the Day
  3. DMed my second game of DnD yesterday.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.