Dungeons & Dragons 5e, does anyone else?

[iamfanboy]

If I was in a game that was rolling stats and I rolled (in front of you) 4 to 6 16+ stats and you said I had to reroll. I would walk the hot place away.

That's a generic 'you', not a specific to any poster 'you'.

I'd allow it if we're doing random dice rolling. Allowing luck into the equation, then forcing everyone to be the same level, is kinda hypocritical. I've had a friend who rolled 18, 13, 18, 15, 18, and 17 using MY DICE on a new character - straight 4d6, btw. She's just super-duper lucky, and trampling on that would seem wrong.


I think that the one thing wizards still have over fighters (any non-spellcasting class, really) is AoE. Fighters have higher single-target damage, and can boost that to obscene levels (92 damage in one round at level 7!?), but the only way fighters can overcome groups is to go Eldritch Knight. Thunder Wave is, like, super-helpful.

[Sereglach]

I'd allow it if we're doing random dice rolling. Allowing luck into the equation, then forcing everyone to be the same level, is kinda hypocritical. I've had a friend who rolled 18, 13, 18, 15, 18, and 17 using MY DICE on a new character - straight 4d6, btw. She's just super-duper lucky, and trampling on that would seem wrong.

If I were to tone stats like that down, I'd probably still give them an edge over the rest of the group.  However, those stats as a whole are rather inhuman, and I don't see it as hypocritical to tone it down some.  I'm not saying, "Hey, give me all your 18's . . . you're not keeping them"  I'm saying, "Hey, how about we drop a 13 to an 11 and one 18 to a 14, just to make it more reasonable".  One person gets amazingly lucky, while the other person rolls like utter crap . . . at least the crap can still be bumped up to "standard matrix" levels with no complaints:  luck will still give one person an edge, but fairness/"intended power band" is going to reign in everything that goes beyond a certain point of reasonability.  I don't see that has hypocritical.  I see it as using the GM authority to control the power levels of the game, and preventing a balancing nightmare.

Honestly, the more we're talking about dice rolling, for character building, and power-bands, the more I lean toward using the standard matrix or point buy system to kill the argument.  Thankfully, I've had a group that's been really open about the concept of controlling power bands for the sake of not breaking the game.

[TigerShark]

There's a big difference between rolling a natural 20 in combat and demanding stats that are going to break a character by pushing them excessively outside the power-band of the rest of the party.

Then just make the entire party the exact, same stats. Nobody is "outside of the power-band" then. Not sure why anyone would choose random die luck to create a predictable result.

[Scotty]

I really think that everybody who's unsure of class balance should go through and read the classes they think are unbalanced for whatever reason.  Fighters are the unchallenged kings of melee combat, bar none.  With action surge, they get eight attacks in one turn against up to two different enemies.  If they're also an Eldritch Knight, they get eight attacks and a free 30 foot teleport to flank for the second attack.  If they're a champion, they get eight attacks that crit on 18-20.  If they're a battle master, they get an attack that gives them advantage or disarms the opponent or any number of really cool things and then they get four attacks right after that, all with their full BAB.

Fighters are sweet in 5e.

[monbvol]

So having a +40 from 3.5 was better?  That got absurdly broken, quick . . . especially among min-maxers.

However, maybe you could talk to your GM about taking a pseudo feat/stat gain that gives you +1 attribute point, but also gives you Expertise in a single skill, as well.  The attribute gain should probably be limited to whatever skill you want the expertise in.  Call it the "[Skill] Specialist" feat . . . kind of like the "[Attribute] Resilience" feat.

To me, that seems like a reasonable tradeoff.  It's not stepping entirely on the feet of a Bard or Rogue, and you're giving up a stat point for this enhancement.  Remember, for TT games house-rules really do "make the world go 'round".

I can't argue that pushing the maximums to such heights didn't have their own problems but this solution seems like it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to borrow an old expression and the proposed solution still makes it a very much all or nothing with no middle ground.

It's a game.  Battletech isn't any different.  Why should I believe one gunnery skill magically covers the nuances of every type of weapon system a mech can have equipped?  They'll all handle differently and require different touches of finesse to put to their best use.  Also, have you worked with live steel weapons before?  I have, and a lot of the "basics" apply no matter what kind of weapon you're using.  Granted, specialist masters are just that, masters.  However, medieval man-at-arms, for example, trained heavily with everything in their arsenal, from the mace to the flail to the war axe to the greatsword to the longbow, etc.  They truly were skilled with just about any weapon you could put in their hands.

However that's still practical use, not the specializations and flavor of a character.  If you still really, REALLY don't like it, then you could always look at adapting the "Weapon Group" rules from 3.5 "Unearthed Arcana" into 5e.  It's not a huge leap, really.  Besides, the basic rules allow characters to choose the weapons they most want to use while not forcing people into pigeon-holed situations of "you're only any good if you have a longsword".

Honestly I do miss the segregated Energy/Ballistic/Missile skills of MW3ed/CBT:RPG but could do without segregating them further into Biped/Quad(I can buy that for Piloting skills but not Gunnery) and wouldn't mind seeing some other changes to Battletech at either the TW or RPG level to make it a bit more grounded in reality and I don't think it'd interfere with the fun if done right.

And while it was not real steel I have had some experience with melee weaponry.  It is part of what makes me rather inclined to use the weapons group solution.

As far as your Man At Arms example, they still wouldn't have the level of James Bond Syndrome that the Weapon Proficiency system has been implying for more than one edition now that I don't really care for.

I don't see/understand how you're feeling that everything is so blurred together, though.  I'm asking this with all sincerity:  Have you actually gotten to really and truly play 5e?  I assure you that all the character classes feel and play very differently.  There are HUGE distinctions.

I've played a probably poorly ran campaign but while each class still has some unique features they all have some feature that blurs their distinctiveness from another similar class.

And snipping my argument about Fighters because it isn't worth it since I'm not going to change minds.

If I were to tone stats like that down, I'd probably still give them an edge over the rest of the group.  However, those stats as a whole are rather inhuman, and I don't see it as hypocritical to tone it down some.  I'm not saying, "Hey, give me all your 18's . . . you're not keeping them"  I'm saying, "Hey, how about we drop a 13 to an 11 and one 18 to a 14, just to make it more reasonable".  One person gets amazingly lucky, while the other person rolls like utter crap . . . at least the crap can still be bumped up to "standard matrix" levels with no complaints:  luck will still give one person an edge, but fairness/"intended power band" is going to reign in everything that goes beyond a certain point of reasonability.  I don't see that has hypocritical.  I see it as using the GM authority to control the power levels of the game, and preventing a balancing nightmare.

Honestly, the more we're talking about dice rolling, for character building, and power-bands, the more I lean toward using the standard matrix or point buy system to kill the argument.  Thankfully, I've had a group that's been really open about the concept of controlling power bands for the sake of not breaking the game.

I've noticed the same thing in my group and honestly I do prefer point buy, even if I think the default point pools aren't quite where I'd like them, for much the same reason.  Wildly different attributes in parties and arrays that are too high do make D&D harder to balance encounters in and can cause recriminations in the player group.

[mike19k]

So when I made my guy it was the roll 4D6 drop one, I ended up with 17(18) strength, 16(17) dexterity, 13(14) constitution, 9(10) intelligence, 12(13) wisdom, and 7(8 ) charisma. I do not know if they are "super stats" or not I did feel that I rolled pretty good, I do not know how they compare to the rest of the group yet. The way that we did my guy was first came up with a basic back story and then the GM and I worked out where to put what stat. After that I wrote up about a page detailed back story and gave it to the GM who asked/told me to make some changes as some of the things that I had closed up he wanted left open so that they may come up in the story.

[monbvol]

That's actually a pretty good array.  Not really terribly over powered with some clear weaknesses for a savvy opponent to exploit so it could be a lot of fun.

[Sereglach]

I really think that everybody who's unsure of class balance should go through and read the classes they think are unbalanced for whatever reason.  Fighters are the unchallenged kings of melee combat, bar none.  With action surge, they get eight attacks in one turn against up to two different enemies.  If they're also an Eldritch Knight, they get eight attacks and a free 30 foot teleport to flank for the second attack.  If they're a champion, they get eight attacks that crit on 18-20.  If they're a battle master, they get an attack that gives them advantage or disarms the opponent or any number of really cool things and then they get four attacks right after that, all with their full BAB.

Fighters are sweet in 5e.

Very well said, good sir.  Excellent way of putting it.  Only thing you forgot is that the Battle Master gets to augment the damage of the special attack with their superiority die, so not only does that attack give them some cool effect or advantage or whatever, but it is also going to hit really hard for a single strike (since Superiority dice start as D8's and eventually become D12's).  Oh, and when you use a maneuver, you still get all your other attacks for the action . . . it's just the first one that's the special strike.

*snip*

Then honestly we'll just have to agree to disagree on things.  But that's the wonderful thing about D&D . . . you can use house rules to change your setting however you want, and if you don't like what the GM is doing, you can always go run something yourself.  However, it's nice to be able to give someone a tool to help them out, and honestly I think converting that "Weapons Groups" rule from 3.5 over to 5e will serve your purposes well, for what you want.  Again . . . House rules make the world go 'round.

On the other hand, if you've only been on one campaign, that you feel was poorly run, then I STRONGLY suggest looking for more games and getting more experience before laying down too many judgments.  You may find your mind changed on the skills (and possibly other things) after getting some more play time under your belt.  A poorly run campaign or a bad GM can do a great deal to ruin or skew people's views of game systems and/or facets of those systems.

So when I made my guy it was the roll 4D6 drop one, I ended up with 17(18) strength, 16(17) dexterity, 13(14) constitution, 9(10) intelligence, 12(13) wisdom, and 7(8 ) charisma. I do not know if they are "super stats" or not I did feel that I rolled pretty good, I do not know how they compare to the rest of the group yet. The way that we did my guy was first came up with a basic back story and then the GM and I worked out where to put what stat. After that I wrote up about a page detailed back story and gave it to the GM who asked/told me to make some changes as some of the things that I had closed up he wanted left open so that they may come up in the story.

NOTE:  Fixed the one number so it wasn't an emote.

Sounds like a pretty good character that should be a lot of fun to play.  You've got some good stat rolls in there, but the final numbers aren't insane in any way.  I'd say that's a nicely balanced set of rolls.

I'm glad you were able to get a backstory and everything worked out with your GM.  Doing a little extra work, like that, is always great for fleshing out a character and laying the groundwork for some good role playing.

By the way, I'd suggest the Champion Archetype, for what you've built . . . you've got some great physical stats and the Champion will exemplify that as he progresses.  However, what you do with him is entirely up to you and what you'd like to get out of him.

I hope you like the Fighter.  Like Scotty said:

Fighters are sweet in 5e.

[mike19k]

Very well said, good sir.  Excellent way of putting it.  Only thing you forgot is that the Battle Master gets to augment the damage of the special attack with their superiority die, so not only does that attack give them some cool effect or advantage or whatever, but it is also going to hit really hard for a single strike (since Superiority dice start as D8's and eventually become D12's).  Oh, and when you use a maneuver, you still get all your other attacks for the action . . . it's just the first one that's the special strike.
Then honestly we'll just have to agree to disagree on things.  But that's the wonderful thing about D&D . . . you can use house rules to change your setting however you want, and if you don't like what the GM is doing, you can always go run something yourself.  However, it's nice to be able to give someone a tool to help them out, and honestly I think converting that "Weapons Groups" rule from 3.5 over to 5e will serve your purposes well, for what you want.  Again . . . House rules make the world go 'round.

On the other hand, if you've only been on one campaign, that you feel was poorly run, then I STRONGLY suggest looking for more games and getting more experience before laying down too many judgments.  You may find your mind changed on the skills (and possibly other things) after getting some more play time under your belt.  A poorly run campaign or a bad GM can do a great deal to ruin or skew people's views of game systems and/or facets of those systems.
NOTE:  Fixed the one number so it wasn't an emote.

Sounds like a pretty good character that should be a lot of fun to play.  You've got some good stat rolls in there, but the final numbers aren't insane in any way.  I'd say that's a nicely balanced set of rolls.

I'm glad you were able to get a backstory and everything worked out with your GM.  Doing a little extra work, like that, is always great for fleshing out a character and laying the groundwork for some good role playing.

By the way, I'd suggest the Champion Archetype, for what you've built . . . you've got some great physical stats and the Champion will exemplify that as he progresses.  However, what you do with him is entirely up to you and what you'd like to get out of him.

I hope you like the Fighter.  Like Scotty said:

I have now fixed it in original post so not an emote, thank you. I have not looked at the Archetypes yet, so will keep that in mind, the only thing that I do not want is to add magic to him, items maybe but no spell casting just seams wrong to me.

[Scotty]

Then you'll end up picking between Battlemaster and Champion.  Champions get better crit threat ranges, which means you'll get critical hits roughly triple as often as any other character.  They also get an absolutely ludicrous heal toward the end of their progression that perpetually keeps them at or near half health if they're not under constant attack.

Battlemasters get to do special attacks called maneuvers.  These can disarm opponents, give you advantage, give them disadvantage, let your allies make a free attack, make them attack each other, or a dozen other cool things!  You also do extra damage when you use a maneuver.  It's cool.

[Wrangler]

I sometimes worry that I'll choose a too powerful of a character or evolve into one that it would make it difficult for the GM to keep us manageable course.  I know it takes a good gm, but there not alot guys/gals who want to be one. 

I've seen many years ago how some campaigns were into decades of play.  Yet I've been in games barely year old when they closed itself down.

[Istal_Devalis]

And those abilities took some preparation and could be countered fairly easily if a DM wanted to.

Mostly they were feat based, so it took some planning, but little actual preparation needed. The stuff that stopped it screwed over magic in general, so if you counter it, you're making it pretty obvious you're targeting them.

[False Son]

Feats are also optional.  Without those Fighters are a bit more grounded. 

[iamfanboy]

My delicious, chocolatey munchkin core always wants to red-line the system, see how far it can go - and then the GM candy coating around that core tries to fix it.

That's one reason I'm going Fighter (Eldritch Knight) up to 7 (so I can cast a cantrip then attack) then Rogue (Arcane Trickster) the rest of the way, to cast True Strike every turn so I can get my surprise attack damage without needing to move around or maintain Mage Hand.

Not the most munchkin thing, though; apparently a Druid (Moon Circle) has effectively unlimited temporary HP at 20th level. They can transform into a CR6 beast as a bonus action, can do so unlimited times, and each beast form's HP acts just like temporary HP. Mammoth is the only CR6 beast, but hey, who doesn't want to be a mammoth? 130 bonus HP a turn, and a gore attack or spellcasting?

[iamfanboy]

Also, how is your Arcane Trickster using damage spells?  They get spells at 8th, 14th, and 20th level from any school of magic, but otherwise everything else MUST be Enchantment and Illusion.  Very few of those do damage, and the ones that do typically have it as a weak or side feature of the spell (like the Vicious Mockery cantrip . . . but that's on the Bard List, and isn't even up for Aracne Trickster selection, unless House-Ruled).

I do hate to break your heart, but cantrips chosen can be from any school... so an arcane trickster can pick firebolt. That's quite possibly how he's dealing damage.


Oh, and Wrangler, it's not that fighters are overpowered, it's that they have high burst damage. We're just talking about their advantages more because SOME folks have intimated they're not as good as paladins. Considering that at level 20 the boss monster/god named Tiamat has AC 26 and 615 HP, regening 30 a round, and is immune to the elements of her five heads (which puts wizards up a creek), you may need that...

Darn two posts in a row.

[False Son]

I do hate to break your heart, but cantrips chosen can be from any school... so an arcane trickster can pick firebolt. That's quite possibly how he's dealing damage.

She was using Acid Splash and Poison Could... or something to that effect.  Also Color Spray or something?  This is what I get for lending out my Player's Handbook.

[iamfanboy]

She was using Acid Splash and Poison Could... or something to that effect.  Also Color Spray or something?  This is what I get for lending out my Player's Handbook.

Acid Splash is kinda terrible - dex saving throw or take 1d6 damage. Poison Spray is a little better, at 1d12 versus a con save, but the range is only 10 feet. Also, she doesn't get surprise attack damage on spells, only finesse or small weapons - though that may be wrong, I seem to remember a rule or feat or SOMETHING that lets Arcane Tricksters get surprise attack bonuses, but can't find it. Color Spray can only blind opponents, affects the weakest targets first, if a target has more HP than she rolls it isn't affected, and only has a 15' cone.

Cantrips do go up 1d in damage every few levels (5/11/16), so if you're at a higher level it'll deal more damage, but still... pretty limited range and saving throws ignore on her spells.

[False Son]

The effect of the Acid Splash and Poison Cloud are not that substantial.  Color Spray did save our bacon once.  But, it is the overuse of these spells that has us forgetting that she's a Rogue first and spellcaster second.  This is in part because we have another Rogue (assassin) in the group that does the scouting, trap finding and such a bit better.  The class redundancy with Rogues is really apparent with us.

[iamfanboy]

The effect of the Acid Splash and Poison Cloud are not that substantial.  Color Spray did save our bacon once.  But, it is the overuse of these spells that has us forgetting that she's a Rogue first and spellcaster second.  This is in part because we have another Rogue (assassin) in the group that does the scouting, trap finding and such a bit better.  The class redundancy with Rogues is really apparent with us.

Then maybe she should multiclass into wizard or sorcerer; she does add 1/3 her Rogue levels in determining spells per day, so it's not like she'd be that far behind. Or she could just recreate her character as a bard - now THAT'S a great character class now.

Multiple Rogues per group is unnecessary in 5e, unlike in 3.5 where they could have different specialities and benefit the party - one be a lockpicking and talking rogue, another be a sneaky pickpocket rogue, etcetera.


Y'know, that's another thing I like. Rogues aren't the "Skillwhore" of the group, taking over everything from diplomacy to appraisal. A Paladin can be just as good (or better) at Persuasion as a Rogue.

[guardiandashi]

Y'know, that's another thing I like. Rogues aren't the "Skillwhore" of the group, taking over everything from diplomacy to appraisal. A Paladin can be just as good (or better) at Persuasion as a Rogue.

that's the one thing that was my biggest gripe in 3-3.5 why is it that the various classes had the skill point allocations they had, I mean a rogue getting 8 base and fighters getting like 2 base, especially since in many ways INT/cha were the "dump" stats for a fighter (which adds insult to injury as far as skills go)

[Wrangler]

I do hate to break your heart, but cantrips chosen can be from any school... so an arcane trickster can pick firebolt. That's quite possibly how he's dealing damage.


Oh, and Wrangler, it's not that fighters are overpowered, it's that they have high burst damage. We're just talking about their advantages more because SOME folks have intimated they're not as good as paladins. Considering that at level 20 the boss monster/god named Tiamat has AC 26 and 615 HP, regening 30 a round, and is immune to the elements of her five heads (which puts wizards up a creek), you may need that...

Good to know about Tiamat, i'm in the adventure league but my group way behind. We haven't seen Flan fall yet. 

About the Cantrips....Where in the book does it say you can choose from any school?  Like Druid can take it from Arcane cantrip?

[Sereglach]

I do hate to break your heart, but cantrips chosen can be from any school... so an arcane trickster can pick firebolt. That's quite possibly how he's dealing damage.

True, but that's not the "game breaking" damage that's being described, here.  I had pointed out the other flaws in the issue, which were acknowledged; and sadly now the player must break it to his group that they've been doing it all wrong.  As he put it, he gets to be the one to "nerf the group".  No biggie, it happens all the time . . . people misinterpreting rules, that is.  The extremely limited number of spells that an Arcane Trickster gets that are not part of the Illusion and Enchantment schools ensure that they're not going to be running around nuking things like a Sorcerer or Wizard can.

Trust me, you're not breaking my heart.

Good to know about Tiamat, i'm in the adventure league but my group way behind. We haven't seen Flan fall yet. 

About the Cantrips....Where in the book does it say you can choose from any school?  Like Druid can take it from Arcane cantrip?

No, what it means by any school is any school of magic.  If you look at every spell in the PHB, they have a "school of magic" associated with it.  Classes are limited to certain spell lists of available spells.  In this case, with few exceptions, an Arcane Trickster can only select spells form the wizard spell lists that fall under the Illusion and Enchantment schools of magic.

The only exceptions, to that rule, are unless you make a custom spell and run it past your GM, or your GM approves you taking a spell from a different class list for a specific reason (however he should never approve something that steps on another class's turf . . . like a wizard should never get healing spells) . . . OR the other option (if feats are allowed) is the Magic Initiate feat.  The Magic Initiate feats allows you to choose a spell casting class, from which you get to choose two cantrips and one 1st level spell of your choice.

[False Son]

Well, we'll see who is munchkin later this month, as two of our magic users (including our Druid... no healing!) are taking a break.  A Fighter (Archer Champion), Barbarian, Rogue and Wizard walk into a bar... all offense, all the time!

I like that, because i'm not really about healing spells.  I think they lead to reckless behavior.

[Sereglach]

Well, we'll see who is munchkin later this month, as two of our magic users (including our Druid... no healing!) are taking a break.  A Fighter (Archer Champion), Barbarian, Rogue and Wizard walk into a bar... all offense, all the time!

I like that, because i'm not really about healing spells.  I think they lead to reckless behavior.

That actually sounds like a lot of fun.  Honestly, if you're not using the Gritty Realism rules, you should be ok as long as you play it smart.  If anyone's proficient in Medicine you might want to have some healers kits on hand (might want those, anyway, just in case).

[Sereglach]

My delicious, chocolatey munchkin core always wants to red-line the system, see how far it can go - and then the GM candy coating around that core tries to fix it.

*snip*

Not the most munchkin thing, though; apparently a Druid (Moon Circle) has effectively unlimited temporary HP at 20th level. They can transform into a CR6 beast as a bonus action, can do so unlimited times, and each beast form's HP acts just like temporary HP. Mammoth is the only CR6 beast, but hey, who doesn't want to be a mammoth? 130 bonus HP a turn, and a gore attack or spellcasting?

I think you're munchkin-pushing this a little bit too far.  Yes, you can transform as a bonus action, but that doesn't mean you get to constantly "re-wild-shape" into the same thing over and over again, at the beginning of each turn, to "renew the temp HP pool" as you're calling it.  Also, you only get one bonus action per round.  Therefore, you can't shift, cast a spell, and then shift back in the same turn.  The only thing you can use spell slots for while in "wild shape" is to regenerate hit points.

I think the situation is an oversight, on their part, however . . . to at least some degree.  On the other hand, as a GM, there's one easy counter to that, if someone went to abuse it . . . Bestow Curse.  It's such a simple spell, but it is flexible enough that I'd certainly use it to curse someone to be stuck in their current form until they're beaten out of it . . . or to prevent them from shifting in the first place.  Even if the character has remove curse, I get to mess them up some before they remove it and take on a wild shape, gaining their "temp HP pool".  You can also turn around and pummel the druid with debuffs that will persist even between shapes (temp HP mean nothing if I hit you with so many rays of enfeeblement that you die of being reduced to 0 STR), or hit them with an Anti-magic field to prevent shifts, etc.

Of course, by that point, you're level 20, so you should be pretty beastly, anyway, and it should be really tough to kill you.  Regardless, I'm not saying all the stuff as, "I'm a jerk GM who enjoys breaking and killing my players' characters", I'm saying all the stuff as, "If someone is going to munchkin my game too hard, to try and break it, I'm going to GM-pummel them like the fist of an angry god."  I love GM'ing, and I love it when everyone has a good time.  When one person breaks a game, it tends to ruin the game for everyone except the person breaking it and basking in everyone else's misery/aggravation.

The only players' characters I tend to kill off happen either because . . .
A:  They're pushing the munchkin limits hard enough that they're trying to break the game (I don't mind some munchkin play . . . everyone does it at least a little, otherwise we'd have no desire to raid the crypts and dungeons of long dead people and ancient civilizations for the purpose of getting a better magic sword).
OR
B:  Stupid hurts.  If players do something that is just utterly senseless, reckless, and asking for trouble, then they could very well die.

[Aokarasu]

Regardless, I'm not saying all the stuff as, "I'm a jerk GM who enjoys breaking and killing my players' characters", I'm saying all the stuff as, "If someone is going to munchkin my game too hard, to try and break it, I'm going to GM-pummel them like the fist of an angry god."  I love GM'ing, and I love it when everyone has a good time.  When one person breaks a game, it tends to ruin the game for everyone except the person breaking it and basking in everyone else's misery/aggravation.

The only players' characters I tend to kill off happen either because . . .
A:  They're pushing the munchkin limits hard enough that they're trying to break the game (I don't mind some munchkin play . . . everyone does it at least a little, otherwise we'd have no desire to raid the crypts and dungeons of long dead people and ancient civilizations for the purpose of getting a better magic sword).
OR
B:  Stupid hurts.  If players do something that is just utterly senseless, reckless, and asking for trouble, then they could very well die.

Where's the "upvote" option when you need it?

[Sereglach]

Where's the "upvote" option when you need it?

The praise is appreciated.  Thank you.  I love GM'ing and am just happy when my players are having a good time; and I get to have a good time alongside them.

Although, I forgot a third reason for killing characters . . . or putting them in severe jeopardy (to see if they'll learn):
C:  To teach a lesson.  I've had players say, "My character's invincible!" or parties that are like, "We can take anything! Kobolds aren't dangerous!"

I'd share the story of killing off almost an entire party of 5 level 5-7 characters in 3.5 with a Red Dragon Hatchling, because they were WAY too cocky and thought I'd always "Hand of God" them when they were in trouble; however this isn't really the thread for that (even though the story is pretty hilarious).

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Sounds like that story would go well in this thread.

[Aokarasu]

Yep, the more I look at it, I will give the players the choice of standard matrix or point buy. I also looked at the gritty realism rules - yowza; not sure I'll go that route, *but* I do like the rule requiring herbalism kit charges being used for downtime HP recovery.

[False Son]

Speaking of kits... am I missing something with the Poisoner's Kit?  It does the D4 damage, but would it also make the enemy disadvantaged as described in the Poisoned status?