Poll: Let's Talk about D&D!
- Thread starter Saelune
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Cause magic, duh.RedRockRun said:
Though in 3.5 I almost always multiclassed rogue. Wizard/Rogue, Fighter/Rogue, Psion/Rogue, etc. I havent multiclassed in 5e yet, but 5e kind of has built in multiclassing with backgrounds and subclasses.
I've never played, but I've always loved the manuals. I got some 1e ones (I think they are anyway) when I was a kid and have bought a few of the later editions too. Particularly loved the Deities and Demigods manual, but was disappointed that some pantheons had been cut from later editions. Think I've still got them in the loft anyway.
I started with 2nd Ed, and the first world setting I bought was 'Dark Sun' because I played the PC game and loved it equally.
Hmm, new question. This one applies to everyone too!
How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?
We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).
Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.
How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?
We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).
Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.
We try to play once a week and usually play until 11pm up until 1am if we are actually into something.Chimpzy said:
We used to start around 5-6pm, but atleast with my current party of 2 who like to get food before coming over, usually starts 7-8, though we're heavy in the messing around.
However we're going to be starting a new campaign soon with the full group (5 total, 1 DM 4 players), but the 3 who have been playing a campaign with me DMing dont intend on stopping, so soon it might be twice a week for some of us.
As for Monk, coinkydink, I intend on playing a Monk in this new campaign. As I said earlier, a Goliath Tranquility Monk who tries to solve everything peacefully. Likely at the chagrin of my brother's character who wants to 'smite' everything and anything that goes against his views of our God. (The party is themed as worshippers of the same deity).
We play every Sunday, or at least try to. Three of us are authors so sometimes one of us is like "hey um I need to write this week instead" but we generally enjoy D&D too much to give it up. And as for how long the sessions go, again, we kinda enjoy the game way too much XD we play online (in Fantasy Grounds) because half of us live in the southern hemisphere and half in the northern, so sessions sometimes go from however early in the morning the southern hemisphere people wake up that day to however late the northern hemisphere people can stay awake at night. I think our record is about seven hours. It helps that we're all best friends of course.Chimpzy said:
As for monk, the first ever character I played was one! She was an eladrin with a mask covering the bottom half of her face styled like a Protoss (with psiblades in place of her unarmed strike) and I miss her a lot, though I was pretty bad at it, because it was my first time playing. I didn't really "get" ki points and how fast they recharge. I did once one-shot a goblin by throwing a dart, which I was pretty proud of :3 and when we were messing around with Fantasy Grounds and how the dice rolling worked, a Terrasque failed to beat my save DC to knock it prone XD I don't think I'll ever quite equal that feat
I've played a bunch of D & D, but the rules have never been so strictly enforced that I know the difference between editions. So there is no preference, because the DM can just pick and choose between the best of each. In the last game, the DM liked this whole thing from 3.5 about letting the players describe a long journey, using their skills to describe what they did at each leg (and whether it was done successfully), so he spliced it into a 5. game.
5th seems to want to be very open to homebrewing compared to past editions, which I find is a strength. I do think they tried to make 5e a chameleon so that regardless what edition you liked before, you can like 5th, and it seems to work. The main competitor seems to be 3.5 and thats likely due to a mix between the vast amount of published content 3.5 has, and the desire for stricter/higher number stats, since 5e sorta flattens things out.maninahat said:
I had to give the edge to 3.5/Pathfinder, because I've played that the most, though I've played a lot of 4th Ed, and honestly had a lot of great character moments there.
I haven't PLAYED 5e, but I'd like to. I've got more than a few concepts.
One of which is a Paladin, Oath of Devotion. Very much what a Paladin is said to be in-game (as opposed to what typical D&D players associate with "PC Paladin"). Shiny, kind, merciful, honorable, will give of herself to protect the helpless.
Also she's a Tiefling.
She sees no contradiction, necessarily, but she DOES feel as though she must be better than most because of her heritage.
I haven't PLAYED 5e, but I'd like to. I've got more than a few concepts.
One of which is a Paladin, Oath of Devotion. Very much what a Paladin is said to be in-game (as opposed to what typical D&D players associate with "PC Paladin"). Shiny, kind, merciful, honorable, will give of herself to protect the helpless.
Also she's a Tiefling.
She sees no contradiction, necessarily, but she DOES feel as though she must be better than most because of her heritage.
You mean a zealot without common sense, following the rules arbitrarily without actually understanding them, attacking anything evil (or perceived as such) on sight and without mercy, and generally frequently forgetting that the "Good" part of "Lawful Good" is just as important as the "Lawful" part?Kyman102 said:
Yeah, those are joy to have in your games.
Almost as fun as Chaotic Stupid players. Unless you enjoy basically having Kharn The Betrayer on the team.
Sure, why not. The contradiction can make for some good roleplaying opportunities.Kyman102 said:
I mean, we have a Lawful Neutral Succubus Favored Soul in the party.
Because the deities in our homebrew setting behave similar to the Olympian gods, and even the Good ones can be huge fucking dicks to lower beings, frequently giving them impossible quests, simply to try and prove a point to another deity.
Basically, a Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Evil deity are in a longstanding pissing contest over which is the supreme force: Law or Chaos. So they made a bet, exchanging their followers, forcing their respective alignment on them. Then the deities tasked them to perform a great deed in the name of Law/Chaos, while they also have to interfere with the other (and as part of the bet, neither is capable of killing the other). Unfortunately, their conflicting natures cannot exist within the same body, something which not even divine power can circumvent, and it's slowly destroying them, putting a (generous) time limit on the whole thing.
This has been going on for millennia. The current PC and her Chaotic Evil Angel counterpart are just the latest pair trying to satisfy the bet.
Basically, a Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Evil deity are in a longstanding pissing contest over which is the supreme force: Law or Chaos. So they made a bet, exchanging their followers, forcing their respective alignment on them. Then the deities tasked them to perform a great deed in the name of Law/Chaos, while they also have to interfere with the other (and as part of the bet, neither is capable of killing the other). Unfortunately, their conflicting natures cannot exist within the same body, something which not even divine power can circumvent, and it's slowly destroying them, putting a (generous) time limit on the whole thing.
This has been going on for millennia. The current PC and her Chaotic Evil Angel counterpart are just the latest pair trying to satisfy the bet.
Game night has been every Saturday (more or less) for the first 20 years, with each session lasting about 6 hours, usually starting around 8 PM and lasting till 2 in the morning. Earlier sessions used to be longer, some all-nighters, and there were some weeknight games as well, but my personal routine now, and for the last ten years or so, is every second Saturday night.Chimpzy said:
I like using monks as a DM, but I despise monks as player characters. I don't like the idea that a martial artist can kill monsters with their bare hands. Even if descriptively their attacks are wreathed in glowing energy or fire, I generally don't like it.
I'm not convinced of DnD. The gameplay is kind of boring, slow and convoluted and the storytelling is never going to be good because it is four or so people pulling the story in all kinds of stupid directions. I mean, it can be alright, but it can't really stand up to reading a good book or if you want to play a game together, just playing Imperial or any other game.
I get what you're saying, but the one running the game, the DM, is expected to be the one telling the story(per se), and the others are just playing characters in the tale.Pseudonym said:
Some books are great, true. Personally, I've never played any other game, be it digital or tabletop, that has been as fun as roleplaying, and D&D in particular.
Pseudonym said:
You clearly have never played with a good group (or rather a group that suits your tastes).
Books are boring, cause its set in...well, ink and paper, but fuck that! Freedom and choice and no walls! Maybe your DMs sucked and didnt let you impact the world, or your fellow players sucked cause they wanted to do what you didnt or didnt want to do what you did, but get a DM who lets you play your way and players that play similar, and it will be awesome, I promise!
Ever want to do something in a game but couldnt cause an invisible wall, or the game's rules, or because you cant kill just anyone? Well then have I got a game for you!
Depends on the DM and group. I want to tell my player's stories. Its why I do alot of one on one campaigns with my brother since he is the only of my group who wants to tell his own stories, but I leave alot of gaps in my world with the intent on letting my players fill them in.the December King said:
Unfortunately most of my other players are either less creative, or less assertive, so I end up having to dictate alot of the story, but I intend on trying new ways to change that.
Oh most definitely. Several of the other groups I played in liked to have stories practically read to them by the DM, but other groups wanted a sandbox to run around in, and the DM to barely provide descriptive commentary (and targets).Saelune said:
When I said the players were just to provide characters in the tale, that was rather unfair, as many a time a player's ideas or input outside of their character has helped define or determine some element or encounter detail.
I've had a look at the 5e Monk and so far it seems far better designed, with mechanical abilities that match the way the fluff describes them.Saelune said:
Because the 3.5 Monk didn't. The fluff describes them as highly mobile unarmed warriors who can flit into combat to deliver a fast beatdown, then jumps back out of range, and uses inner strenght and discipline to enhance their body. But in practice, while the Monk has a lot of interesting abilities, they don't synergize enough to be any good at that kind of playstyle. Not out of the box, at least. Doesn't help that there are other base classes who can easily beat the Monk at its own niche in some or all respects.