Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Cthulhu]

Because even if I accept that 5e is worse then 3.5

haha no

and pathfinder

no, can't even muster haha for that

Pathfinder is a clusterf*** of what happens when 3.5 elitists decide they can make a better 3.5 and then let other people throw their ideas into he mix. There really isn't much on balancing.

I"d play 3.5 with Epic6 to deal with the unbalanced power-curve, but I'd never play PF again.


In other news, I'm getting ready to run a Mutants and Masterminds game set a few years after a multiversal conflux that scrambled the dimensions together and then haphazardly separated them again.  If you want to be a superdude in a setting where martians and demons team up with Montezuma to form a Legion of Doom, come by and let's make something happen

[highmax28]

I thought about it.

The most important rule that new DMs typically overlook... in the DM book...

Rule Zero

Is that "never say 'no you can't do that'"?

My advice is that by the way. If you read my wall of text, when you don't say no, even if it's an impossibility, the players may surprise you (such as calming an angry mob with a crit).

As for preparing, as a DM myself, there is always going to be the fact players will not do what you want and will do something unexpected. Feel free to change the location of dungeons if players want to go elsewhere in a more sandbox game, and if it's urgent, like a lich or a Mage on the verge of unleashing a power and the players won't do it, don't force them to it. Let them suffer the consequences of that

Most important tidbit though: while you do never say no, be firm when you have a troublemaker player is starting problems. i have one in my group and he managed to derail a session to the point nothing happened and everyone wasted their time. I didn't stop it when I could, but I should have.

Good luck!

Because even if I accept that 5e is worse then 3.5

haha no

and pathfinder

no, can't even muster haha for that

Pathfinder is a clusterf*** of what happens when 3.5 elitists decide they can make a better 3.5 and then let other people throw their ideas into he mix. There really isn't much on balancing.

I"d play 3.5 with Epic6 to deal with the unbalanced power-curve, but I'd never play PF again.


In other news, I'm getting ready to run a Mutants and Masterminds game set a few years after a multiversal conflux that scrambled the dimensions together and then haphazardly separated them again.  If you want to be a superdude in a setting where martians and demons team up with Montezuma to form a Legion of Doom, come by and let's make something happen

I hate DMing pathfinder because nothing is easy. Enemies have feats and hit dice!? What is this none sense!? who said I can't have a boss monster with 1000hp because the party drops enemies in one turn from how much damage it does?

That's pretty much how I ran 4e, and why it's a joy to DM. However, it is a pain in the ass starting out as a player. You pretty much need to use some online or computer generated tools to even get a level 1 character using every book that's available.

The fact that I can send a party of 6 with mostly damage dealers, one tank and one controller to a dungeon and they fight enemies that in 5e and 3.5 would be impossible to even make but they manage to kill it with not just smacking it, but thinking outside of the box (swallowed by an undead wurm, used turn undead inside of it) then you have a great thing

[Cthulhu]

I love building encounters and dungeons in 4e.  Templates and custom creation is so smooth and easy, though the first two monster manuals have some wonky math in them, and I dunno if anybody ever released a conversion tool for the older monsters.

4e is the best version of D&D.  5e and 2e are pretty fun too.  3e and everything associated with it is a hellhole.

[Arcvasti]

What would you guys say are the most important things a new DM should know/prepare before launching a campaign?

Aside from the basic tenants of "Let the PCs decide where to go" and the even more important one of "Make interesting places/situations for the PCs to interact with", knowing the kinks in the combat rules is highly useful. Flanking things, being flat-footed and provoking attacks of opportunity are the big ones.

Another big one is never having encounters that make a player feel useless. In general, there are ways to be useful against enemies your class is ill suited to facing, but newer players often won't think of them, which leads to fights where they can't do anything useful. Rogues against undead/constructs is probably the biggest one[So big you might want to house-rule a fix for it. Half damage from sneak attacks is the one I use, but I'm sure there are others], but enemies with high DR or absurd immunities can also be annoying brick walls of invulnerability.

[Neonivek]

The reason I outright dislike mythic is that mythic monsters are dreadful with their feats!

And you can't ignore mythic feats because often times that is the ONLY reason the monster is a mythic creature in the first place.

[wierd]

The reason rogues are ineffective against undead (specifcally skeletal) is because they are crippled to always used stupid daggers, and skeletons need bashing/crushing damage to be effectively countered. 

Giving rogues some means of generating a concussive force (say, an explosion shock wave), would solve the issue.

I have always chafed under such rule restrictions, because to me they make no sense. A rogue might have a weapon proficiency issue with using a billy club (doubtful, ruffians use them all the time. It is the weapon of choice for jackbooted thugs IRL.) but saying outright that they cannot figure out how to club something is downright absurd.  Saying a wizard cannot channel a spell through a melee weapon makes some sense, so I can tolerate glass cannon shenanigans, but I feel rogues should be able to use any simple weapon, and rather than say "no, daggers only!" I would give them a "Simple weapons" proficiency. (Simple weapons are under 2.5 ft long, have no special requirements for dex or str, and are of mixed type bash, bladed, and special. Special being for things like a length of chain, or a short whip, like a riding crop.) This would enable things like using a frying pan, a billy club, a blackjack, etc. Due to the weapon size restriction, it is still a close combat specialization, with all the drawbacks that has.

But no, IMO, the official rules are way too anal about "NO! Thieves and Rogues USE DAGGERS AND BOWS! ONLY DAGGERS AND BOWS! *screaming hissyfit tantrum*"

I cannot stomach that nonsense, personally.  It makes sense that somebody that specializes in stealth and finesse wont be using a 2H claymore. I get that. But you know what a blackjack is? It was designed for stealth elimination of guards and subduing marks for performing a mugging (originally- It has since found some modern love as a self-defense item). Exactly the kind of thing a rogue would be using. It is essentially a little leather bag filled with lead pellets, attached to a handle. It deals blunt impact trauma.  Similar in nature to a sock filled with a bar of soap. It would be super effective against skeletons.

But No. "Rogues use daggers! (tantrum!)"

Needless to say, I feel it necessary to house rule that nonsense out of existence.

[Rolan7]

Gross, what edition is that?  Pathfinder?
Rogues in 3.5e can certainly use clubs and saps/blackjacks (in fact they need saps to do nonlethal sneak attacks).  But they cannot sneak attack damage undead.  The only ways I ever found were a freakin spell gem in Mystic Items Compendium, and I think some exalted feat, and one or both of those only allowed half the damage.

Really...  Why would a rogue not be able to use a blunt weapon?  I assume they can equip simple weapons like clubs, but not sneak attack?  Still, completely ridiculous.

[Tawa]

Uh, wierd, rogues have proficiency in all simple weapons, and are specifically mentioned as having proficiency in saps--otherwise known as blackjacks. What rules are you reading? 3.5 and Pathfinder both have these proficiency rules.

Also, this is a nitpick, but lengths of chain and frying pans aren't simple weapons, they're improvised weapons, which have a -4 to all attack rolls because they're not designed for combat.

[wierd]

The hell they arent.

A manriki is JUST a chain with some weighty bits on the end.

Note, they state that ninja use bits of rope to train with.

In addition to that specific weapon, there have been chain whips and simple chain flails all over the world, all over history. A chain is totally a weapon, when it is used as a weapon. A short length of chain handles a LOT like a slapjack, but does LOTS more damage. A frying pan is an improvised weapon, and will likely break after 2 good hits. (the handle will break off. Cast iron is brittle.) a good length of chain? Not so much.

(Also, mostly 2.5, for such restrictions. Things get really absurd in a lot of ways with 3.5/3.5E+)

[Rolan7]

DND 2.5?  Huh, I only ever looked into that a little and it seemed byzantine.  I guess take comfort that they removed the bladed-weapon restrictions in 3 or 3.5 and AFAIK they never returned, unless in 4 (maybe 5 but I really doubt it).

(also unrelated, I meant "weapon crystals" not "spell gems", and rogues can use a sap *or unarmed* to non-lethal sneak attack)

[wierd]

Used without restraint, a sap is totally lethal though. It can cause very deep tissue damage, much the same as soap in a sock can. But hey, the people who crafted that rule wanted a specifically "safe" non-lethal attack, they just didn't do good research.

[Rolan7]

Saps in 3.5 are actually lethal by default...  In fact, RAW, I think they only become nonlethal when a rogue uses them in a sneak attack.  And even then, optionally.

Of course, blunt head trauma as a harmless KO is pure hollywood, but it's hardly the most extraordinary (heh) thing people do in DND
For one thing, *any* weapon can be used totally nonlethally by taking a -4 to the attack roll.  Sometimes I joke about "turning the arrows around backwards" or other ridiculous explanations.
And while people may houserule it, AFAIK there's no point where nonlethal damage because permanent.  Except that you can keep "nonlethally" attacking someone until they're asleep for days and might die of thirst.

[Neonivek]

The funny thing about Rogues is that even though everyone builds them with Dexterity.

They benefit greatly from strength builds.

That is until Pathfinder created the Unchained Rogue... Which most DMs don't allow because they don't understand the Unchained classes (which are essentially the Pathfinder creators attempting to create a superior version of the original class)

[Harry Baldman]

Used without restraint, a sap is totally lethal though. It can cause very deep tissue damage, much the same as soap in a sock can. But hey, the people who crafted that rule wanted a specifically "safe" non-lethal attack, they just didn't do good research.

Next you'll tell me that conking people on the head so they fall down unconscious isn't totally safe either.

[Oneir]

What would you guys say are the most important things a new DM should know/prepare before launching a campaign? Are there any important mechanical details that are easy to miss if you don't read the DM's guide front to back? If I'm planning a more story based campaign rather than a sandbox, what story beats should I have written out beforehand? Should I even plan that far ahead in the first place?

Sorry if I'm being a bit general, I have some time before all my players are able to get together and I want to make sure everyone has enough fun that they want to play again.

Make sure everyone is on the same page. Are people looking for goofy good times, high-intrigue with no combat, or a gritty meat-grinder where only the optimized survive? Is everyone willing to play them game with the other players or is someone planning to make a chaotic evil character who'll kill and rob the other characters "because that's what he does".

Are people okay with the risk of death, actively in favor of it, or will it ruin their day completely? More broadly, are there any topics that they're really interested in exploring, or ones that'll make them so uncomfortable there's no way for them to have fun in a game that includes them? (the classic bad game example being one where someone springs sex or sexual assault on another player.)

Basically: everyone is probably there to have a good time. But that's not necessarily going to be the same for every person. Hopefully everyone's invested enough in the game, and being friendly with the other players, that no one's good time has to come at anyone else's expense.