tip #1: don't play it

6. Be flexible to wrenches the PCs will throw in your plans, and remember that nothing is set in stone until you say it. That man killing the blacksmith is at the same time the BBEG, and the psychotic minion of the BBEG, depending on if the players kill him.
7. Thing don't need to play like a video game. Be open to interaction, force some role-playing and creative thinking.
8. Nobody likes getting fucked over, and it doesn't need to happen. The rule of thumb is that a character should only die if they made a deliberate mistake. If a single die roll causes a TPK, the adventure was too hard.
9. Remember that foes are self-preserving more often than not! If things look grim, they would reasonably retreat. You still get full XP regardless if your opponents are dead, captured, or fleeing.
10. Remember that NPC gear IS the loot... it should still be level-appropriate. Potions, scrolls, and expendable items should make up good portions of the loot. The enemies can and should be expending some of that. If there's a Flametongue Sword in the loot, the enemy fighter had damn well be using it! Opponents should doff the Potion of Shield of Faith +3 before ambushing!

>>15998918
fuck you, cancer

11. Monsters can take class levels. Use non-associated class levels (3.5) to mix it up and provide more durable monsters. Ogres with levels in wizard, anyone?
12. The environment is a potent weapon and tool. Flat, smooth-surface fights are boring! Add in elevation, difficult terrain, line-of-sight blockage, traps, and more to make an otherwise easy fight hard or a formidable challenge piecemeal.
13. Adding a few low-level casters will only slightly raise CR while providing some vital utility and BFC to a solo opponent.
14. Not all encounters have to involve combat in the first place. A tricky negotiation, a clever ruse, or pure intimidation could provide alternate solutions to some encounters.
15. You must absolutely learn how to run your monsters! Too many DMs have sent Balors into melee combat without utilizing their Spell-Like Abilities. This goes for almost any creature.

16. Hand-pick feats and skills to be synergistic. Who know that the opponent actually used the spring-attack line, tumbling away from AoOs?
17. Music can be great, but ensure it is unobtrusive, or brief. Short and substantial descriptions of the atmosphere are more important for immersion, and shouldn’t be shelved for a soundtrack.
18. Same is bad. Random is bad. Find a happy medium. Diverse, thematically linked encounters with shifting environments and tensions all contribute to more exciting combats.
19. Try to stay away from Save-Or-Die/Save-Or-Screwed effects used against players. Related to #8, getting turned to stone with no practical solution isn't fun.
20. Motivation. Everything should make sense. Why are we fighting these guys? What do we want from them? Why are we here? Fulfilling these questions adds to the plot and realism.

Tips for Players;

1. Roll Attack and Damage at the same time. Remember your modifiers to hit and damage.
2. Figure out your course of action during other people's turns, and the DMs interludes.
3. Remember your readied actions! Communicate with your fellow players, and use delay/ready to your advantage.
4. In general, it is more effective to remove someone from combat, or somehow prevent damage from happening, than it is to heal in combat. However, don't let your allies die!
5. If you're dropped to negatives, don't despair! Your allies will win, and heal you, before you drop to -10.

Are there any monsters that you feel are CR inappropiate> And what are the best monsters in each CR?

6. Defend your teammates. If the squishy people don't have to worry about defence, they'll be that much more helpful!
7. More damaging hits are better against damage reduction, more accurate against higher AC, more numerous against lower AC.
8. Aid another! If there's nothing better to do, give modifiers in combat and place yourself in a better position.
9. Don't be a one-trick pony. Versatility will save your hide. If you have a weak save or AC, deal with it somehow! Either prevent it coming into play or boost it up.
10. The player who does no damage is just as important as the player who does the most damage, and every ratio in between. Don't be discouraged if your DPS is low, because you're contributing in other important ways.

11. You're not playing a video game! Try to act in-character, but don't use that as an excuse to drain fun away. Fun comes first.
12. A solid concept and back-story make a character so much more memorable. Try some mannerisms or accents, but keep them tasteful and subtle.
13. On that line, develop in-character relations with the party! Your PC should have opinions on the swarthy dwarf, the bookish wizard, and the sly rogue!
14. Formulate plans even before the encounters start. Have a procedure set up, so that things go by even quicker and safer.
15. You need to be able to contribute to the goals of the party outside of combat. Don't completely commit yourself to fighting and be useless out of it! Casters can have utility spells, anyone can grab social skills, etc!

These are good tips.
I like this thread.

16. However, don't be useless inside of combat! A pure social fop is going to get killed quickly. Use feats, skills, and class dips to keep relevance in the red zone.
17. Know when enough is enough. Casters shouldn't burn through many high-level spells unless the situation is dire. Pace your per-day abilities, and make sure you're not being redundant. Filling a missing role will usually be more effective than doubling or tripling up.
18. POTIONS! It bears repeating as far too many players forget them. Doff them before initiating a fight, or (especially with quick draw) drink one in the surprise round if you have nothing better to do with your standard action.
19. Keeping out of game chat to a minimum not only allows the DM to focus, it will allow everyone more focus to get through things quicker, leading to a funner, better session.
20. Be respectful! If you have issues, politely raise them at the appropriate time. If in doubt, man up and deal with it or leave.

...and that's all my tips!

>2. Roll attack and damage dice at once, always have your stat blocks handy.
>1. Roll Attack and Damage at the same time. Remember your modifiers to hit and damage.
I do this as a player. Saves me some time even though my turns are the fastest.

>8. Nobody likes getting fucked over, and it doesn't need to happen. The rule of thumb is that a character should only die if they made a deliberate mistake. If a single die roll causes a TPK, the adventure was too hard.
I agree wholeheartedly.

>9. Remember that foes are self-preserving more often than not! If things look grim, they would reasonably retreat. You still get full XP regardless if your opponents are dead, captured, or fleeing.
Not utilized often enough.

>19. Try to stay away from Save-Or-Die/Save-Or-Screwed effects used against players.
This is actually a big reason why I don't play 3.5.

>2. Figure out your course of action during other people's turns, and the DMs interludes.
I wish ALL of my groupmates would do this.

>11. You're not playing a video game! Try to act in-character, but don't use that as an excuse to drain fun away. Fun comes first.
YES

>>15998955
I can't really pull specifics off the top of my head, but casters tend to be slightly under-CR'ed, anything with abusive application of non-associated class levels is under-CRed... some templates can be under-CRed (I feel vampire is) while others with a CR scaling with HD are over-CRed at high HD.

>>15999010
In general, save-or-die is a bad way to go for the player, as well. Against a boss, they will have high saves, so something more constant is a smarter choice than wasting your turn more often than not. Against multiple foes, a caster could have done something more useful than knock out a single creature in most instances.

bumping with some awesome

>>15998955
I forgot to mention one thing. Multi-headed template. It is fucking retarded in its under-CR application. Which is sad, because it is definitely one of the coolest templates out there. Ad-hoc ettins out of any giant? Two, three, five, ten headed dragons? Fucking two-headed Mind Flayers!

Oh, and the thirty-headed Tarrasque...

This is rather interesting, please continue.

See the CR thing really depends on how good your group is and what they're characters are. I NEVER throw a level appropriate monster at them unless the monster has the advantage some how. They just mow through them by turn 2 otherwise. I go as high as +5 maybe even 6 depending on the monster and the group, but almost never less than +2

>>15999612
A smart, well played CR appropriate monster can be much more dangerous than a CR+2 monster just thrown against the players.
I've used a small band of kobolds against a mid level party to great effect, with them being anything from annoyance to deadly hazard throughout the course of the arc.

>>15999640
And smart extremely well played PCs utterly slaughter anything that isn't a PC class...or a dragon...

And yes I have done the cave of nigh infinite kobolds before.

>>15998955
The juggernaut and thrym hound come to mind.

>>15999670
Sure. If you're PCs are brilliant, plan accordingly. I'm just saying that a monster or encounter shouldn't be cast aside just because the CR seems too low. You can be clever about it and effectively raise the CR of any encounter without changing the creatures involved.

And I didn't do that. I used about a dozen kobolds. They were just clever kobolds. It helped that my party underestimated them in the beginning. It was interested to see them ignore these little kobolds only to find out gradually that they were truly a threat, being especially clever and having the home field advantage.

>1. Stick to CR, or at most CR+2 for notably more difficult encounters.
But that's wrong you fucking reta-
>I forgot to mention one thing. Multi-headed template. It is fucking retarded in its under-CR application.
Uuuuuuuuuugh.

>>15999703
I'd say it's a good rule of thumb. If you don't experiment and find out what works for your party, you're doing it wrong. But it's a good place to start.

>>15998955
depends on what fits your players. Some monsters will murder one party and die like nothing to another.

But I find the Slaughterstone constructs to be a tad hard on groups

>>15999721
Yeah, one thing I find 4e did really well was fixing the ECL system. Because it needed it.

>>15999690
Sadly they are bloody brilliant and know their classes to the letter, are well tuned and work together seamlessly

But like I said, I'll use lower CR things if and only if they have some kind of advantage of terrain, numbers, ambush positioning or the like. You know, pick their fights intelligently. But I have no problem letting my PCs have the advantage if they plan well and get the drop on the enemy. Giants are fun though. Just let the fuckers wade right in, no planning and watch the PCS scramble to pull a strategy together to fight them

Please, kind /tg/, keep this thread bumped until tomorrow.

>>15999734
But then ( in the first MM) everything had WAY too much fucking health and did too little damage. Combat took for fucking ever. Gone were the days of mauling the wizard in one hit for the first 4 levels.

>>15999770
will do my best as long as there is someone to make conversation with

>>15999759
That's not sad. Makes your life harder as a DM, but it's great to see a party really work well together and kick ass. Just means you have to be even better.

Giants are fun, and you do get that "Oh fuck!" reaction to them. I like strange or custom monsters to throw against my really good party. When they have an enemy they don't know exactly how to deal with, it's a lot more fun for everyone.

>>15999805
That is my personal fav thing to do. Just make fun monsters or make alteration to make them more interesting. Too many of my players know the books backwards and forwards so adding a few things that they can't know about add a bit more tension.
Had one entire adventure where someone had cloned the tarrasque and made, shall we say, alterations to it. And did this about 10 times

>>15999892
granted there was a hell of a lot more to the adventure than that ranging from 1st-18th, but the look on you players face when when the tarrasque suddenly breaths a vast blast of horrible anti magic energy is wonderful

>>16000009
>>15999892
Am I the only DM to have never used the Tarrasque, even on higher level players?

>>16000070
Most DMs don't use it because it really isn't all that scary for high level players. Honestly the most common use is a walking disaster plot device that the low level PCs need to get away from or some such.

I've only used it twice in nearly 10 years

>>16000116
I guess I can understand that.
Just seems like there are a lot more creative things you can do to achieve similar effects, or have just as strong, but more interesting enemies in the same vein.

The only time I really wanted to use the Tarrasque was when I heard an idea for a city built around the Tarrasque. The idea being that the Tarrasque can't die, in this canon being a part of the elemental forces of the planet itself, a physical representation of ancient and powerful forces. But it had been subdued and an entire city built around it's shackled and pain wracked body. The city prospered by selling the magical byproducts of the Tarrasque. Blood, scales, horns, etc...
I still want to run a campaign based around that.

>>16000218
The game I ran had where some crazies had not only cloned and alter the great beast, but also created grafts from it as well.
Think for a second of an army with unstoppable regeneration. But the catch was they needed a power source to fuel the clones and the grafts.
Oh and an 18th lvl Wiz Possessing a modded tarrasque body and casting spells is utterly terrifying

>>16000267
Pretty fucking terrifying.
The party come out victorious?

>>16000288
only just
they realized ( from fighting the crazy elite army) that even though the wounds would heal up, it would burn more and more of the fuel. so pissing off the mad wizard, blowing him up a few times and burning vast amounts of the fuel to nuke him repeatedly eventually exhausted his ability to regenerate

>>15999703
Like I said, this list of tips was for my failtard group. The current DM thought it was a good idea to throw the equivelant of party ECL +5, every single fucking combat. Those weren't easily CR'd creatures either, being devils and NPCs.

I found that for new players and new DMs, it's best to stick near CR. For more advanced players I can turn up the CR no problem, and get a feel for how well they fare against certain types of creatures. A low-CR flier or incoporeal/ethereal creature can devastate certain parties many levels above it, for example.

I'm glad to see that /tg/ liked the list, in general. People should add their own suggestions.

>>16000382
I think it's a good baseline to work from. Obviously every DM needs to get to know his players and find out what works. But if you have a new group or are new to DMing, I don't think you can go wrong by starting with these.

>>16000382
What's you DM style anyway? range from group to group, game to game? or do you have a style with your group you really like?

>>16000218
i remember reading your thread. The city tortured the poor creature and used it as a resource. It was pinned down with magical chains etc?

it sounded awesome.

Captcha: GABAA framla
sounds like the start of a spell

>>16000448
Yeah. I just lurked the thread, but I'm kind of in love with the idea. So many different things you can do with it.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15998909/

>>16000442
I'm not sure I can describe it accurately... I see a lot of dichtomies between 'rollplaying' and 'roleplaying' that I don't feel need to exist. So I try to provide games with a lot of exciting combat, yet still provide a good plot, interesting characters, and detailed backdrops.

What ends up happening is I spend too fucking long planning and I dont get much sleep, so I try to play more nowadays. But as my name suggests, I can min/max pretty well, so I always try to make NPCs and monsters more optimal. All the NPCs are handcrafted, and most monsters will have templates or class levels.

I've only ever had a good roleplayer for a solo campaign though, so my attempts to get my players more involved with roleplay usually fail. Still it feels better than just playing a video game. It feels good when you're the DM and you have higher system mastery than your players.

>>16000504
And I guess amount of combat and intensity range from campaign to campaign depending on the setting?
For example I ran a more intrigue based game and has heaps of role playing, story telling and over all a lot of world interaction. Combat was always brutal skin of their teeth kind. Had to use every advantage possible.
Meanwhile my war game, combat was a tad more casual and less OHGOD WE'RE GUNNA DIE and more tactical and mauling hordes of mooks

What kind of soft ass namby-pamby bullshit is this?
>8. Nobody likes getting fucked over, and it doesn't need to happen....a single die roll causes a TPK, the adventure was too hard.
Or your PCs made really stupid decisions. If a group of three low levels in a party decide that they want to attack an ancient wyrm in its layer, that's their fault that they died in its first attack. Without real risk to the PCs, the rewards are hollow.
>9. ...full XP regardless if your opponents are dead, captured, or fleeing.
In very, very few circumstances, I can understand this; however, in many circumstances all of this is a *bad* idea for the party and should not be rewarded unless there is a very, very good reason for it.
>10. Remember that NPC gear IS the loot... it should still be level-appropriate
Back to the top: I'm sorry, I'm not scaling all of my NPCs' loot. If I have a group of 3rd levels who take down a 10th level -- the items the 10th carries will be appropriate to *his* level. Why would someone who is up around that level carry around and use substandard gear?

Sorry, got that far and couldn't continue reading...

>>16000587
Your first point is stupid because he said right there, "The rule of thumb is that a character should only die if they made a deliberate mistake."
I'd say your example is a deliberate mistake.

Your second point is stupid because you offer no evidence as to why it's a bad idea.
It seems like a defeat is a defeat. Dead enemies offer the same amount of experience as running ones because they are both defeated. How doesn't that make sense?

Your third point is not quite as stupid, but still up there.
He's talking about encounters on average. An enemy that much stronger than the PCs is not average and they should be rewarded handsomly if they win. "Level appropriate" doesn't mean same level. An average party should have a few items higher than their level.

OP, you're kind of a tool. Some (even most) of these are applicable, others are just woeful. Some are downright insulting.

>>16000634
Ok, first of all, there's no such thing as a deliberate mistake. The first example was, admittedly, hyperbole; however, it is not stupid, because any world is populated with peoples of different skills and aptitudes at those skills. The PCs can do something that has them cross someone/thing much more powerful than they are. I'm not talking about planning out scenarios where that happens, but it happening organically. In those situations, they brought death on their own heads. Outside of that, it is not the DMs job to keep the party alive. Yes, keep it fun and don't go out of your way to smite them, but you must still challenge them. Without the specter of death, without definite proof that they're not the most bad-ass-motherfucker-in-the-valley, that doesn't exist. It's like playing a game with god-mode on.
...

(continued)
Second point
Defeat is not defeat:
Capture: whatcha gonna do with him? How is holding someone going to affect your rations? If you did it to pump information, are you just going to kill him afterwards? Good characters, watch your alignment. Who are you going to turn them over to? How are you going to prove that he was the bad guy and you weren't the brigand or whatever? If someone is fleeing: oh damn, an hour later a group of 20 really pissed off guys show up looking for retribution/the king's guard shows up because you assaulted yon honest merchants/etc. Just because I don't spell it out and you're too stupid to think on your own doesn't make my point stupid.

Third point: no, that's not what he's talking about. If OP wants to clarify, he can, but it all reads like it he runs his worlds like say Oblivion and countless other RPGs. What you get from enemies is based off of your level. Even if you manage to take down uber-awesome warrior of greatness, at level one you still get rusted sword +1 (again, this is a bit of hyperbole). Had he meant "on average" he should have said so. But I'm pretty sure that he won't be giving up that 10th level ranger's +2 dancing sword to a 4th level party.

>>16000712
Not OP, but which ones?

>>16000722
DM list in general is good, although #9 and #10 are somewhat incompatible with each other and #12 ignores that environment should factor into CR by RAW.

On the player side: #15 blatantly ignores the issue of say, a Fighter's 2+Int skill points and:
>>15999058
Messes with a bunch of advice in the player section regarding removal of opponents, non-damaging value, etc.

>>16000721
Shit if they capture the guys the PCs can get even more exp then just killing them, depending on what they do. As for runaways, I tend to give about half depending on what they could do about it. No chance of giving chase? full credit. let them get away? half or less

>5. Always try to make the players feel like the game is real. Describe the landscape, the air, the sounds, the growls of the opponents.

This. I'm playing with a decent DM otherwise, but I'd hope for more details with landscape and general atmosphere of the incredible locations we visit, but all I'm getting is one adjective, like "poor" or "burning."

That's just his style I guess, and I cant complain, we have loads of fun in the games, wouldn't skip em for a price.

>>16000721
Additionally, on the "defeat" thing, if you beat down and embarrass someone, guess what, you've just potentially gained an enemy for life, someone who's willing to go all count of monte cristo on your happy ass. Might not even be someone who decides to spend the rest of his life and energy seeking retribution, but at the very least, you've got somone who, if given the opportunity, will screw you over royally. To run a campaign otherwise is asinine and ignorant of even rudimentary understanding of the human condition. People hold grudges, especially the people you'll likely be fighting. Yeah, Grumdor the Barbarian is really going to just high tail it to the next county over after the PCs spanked him and took his weapons and money...

>>16000718
You want to argue semantics now?
The point is that if the PCs do something stupid, the world should punish them for it. Attacking a wyrm is a good example.
Now if they do everything right, but stumble into a situation that threatens them with insta-death through no fault of their own, that's tricky. Sure, the DM should pull his punches too much. A good world should be dangerous. That being said, I wouldn't be happy with a game if my character suddenly died out of the blue. Realistic and in keeping with an organic world? Sure. Fun? Definitely not.
A good compromise would be for the DM to offer, subtly, a way out of a bad situation for a clever PC.
But I think OPs main point for this tip is referring to Tomb of Horrors type bullshit.

>>16000721
Second point:
What are you trying to say? Of course there are variables and role playing options for captured or fleeing enemies. But the encounter is over. The XP that they should get from the fight stays the same. If 20 angry brigands come after the party because they let an enemy escape, sucks for them but the XP from the first encounter shouldn't be affected by it.
Your point is stupid because you're not saying anything of value and seem to be completely understanding what's actually being said.

The third point is fair enough. I can't speak for OP. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Having hard scaled monsters and loot isn't fun or interesting.

I had totally forgotten that you get the same exp for capturing or running off enemies. I'm going to have to implement that more often.

>>16000777
Yes but many bad guys may A) not even know who the PCs are and B) are you really going to mess with the guys who utterly curb stomped you last time? It's also in the human condition to value self preservation over most things

>>16000767
Yeah, I agree it can be something they get more XP for, but it isn't assured. It all depends on how they handle it. As far as giving full XP for when they actually take the guy, it depends on the situation. Was there a good reason for them to capture? Was it even a good idea for them to capture considering their situation? Most importantly: was it in character?

>>16000777
Yeah, still totally irrelevant.
It's true, of course. And that sort of thing makes a campaign more interesting. The PCs should see far reaching effects of their actions.
But the tip was about XP.

>>16000794
You award XP based on how "good" you think their choice was and whether it was in character?
XP represents how much they have learned, how much experience they have gained to improve their abilities. I might dock XP if they take the easy way out of something, but if they win, they win. It's probably harder and therefore might award extra XP to capture an enemy. And if the enemy is running away, it's close enough that outright killing them wouldn't have taught the PCs anything extra.
As for good or in character actions, they should be rewarded with bonus XP, but the lack of them shouldn't be punished. You sound like a real nazi of a DM if you do.

>>16000792
Truthfully it depends on the NPC. Some will make it their business to find out (if for no other reason to avoid them), others, not necessarily. But self-preservation takes many forms. Depending on various factors, saving face with whatever group the fleeing person is with may be far more important than facing the people who kicked your ass again. See, this is the hardest thing for the DM, bugger most everything else, but playing the NPCs with just as much faithfulness to character as the DM wants the players to play their PCs. This is why you need to sketch out the character of most intelligent creatures your PCs will come across, so you can believably represent those people. In the end, role playing is about stories, and stories are about people. People *have* to be believable no matter what shape they take.

>>16000827
And that is why being DM is a pain sometimes. A PCs has to worry about one character and their motivations. you need to worry about the world's.
God Sandbox games are hell on me sometimes

>>16000785
I can somewhat accept that, but truthfully, if it's a situation like you describe (1st point), I wouldn't even roll dice (well, possibly for "appearance's sake"), but I wouldn't leave a death like that up to chance. As for semantics, yeah, this could be considered such, but having to actually spell out our beliefs helps us sharpen them. Also, what's good for one group of gamers isn't good for another. His players might lynch me were I to DM for them, mine might do the same for him.

Second point I refer you to this >>16000794 post I made. I admit, I don't fully follow rules, but like you said, if the PCs make a dumb choice, I'm going to at the very least harass them for it. Taking someone prisoner in some situations is dumb, other times it's brilliant. Additionally, I don't always consider the encounter ended once the enemy has quit the field. Again, you may call this semantics, but for the most part, I don't think there should be the same level of XP just because the PCs are still standing. Maybe I just require more out of them, but then I always also believed that people rise to expectations and have been only rarely disappointed.

Third point: I admit to being pedantic in this case. Also, I'm much more of a 2e person than any other flavor of DnD, so that might be the source of some of my cynicism.

>>16000876
I think that was his point. One shouldn't leave deaths like that to a dice roll. Not that you should be soft on a player, but not to be unfair and give them no chance either.

How you assign XP is up to you, I suppose. In D&D I've always gone battle to battle, with specific XP rewarded out of battle. So when an enemy runs, they get an amount of XP then. If there's another battle ensuing from that fled enemy, there will be seperate XP awarded.
But my DM in another game awards XP by story arc, with bonuses for being clever, particularly useful, dominant in battle, etc... I've never had any complaints about that system. But I think that it wouldn't work as well for 3.5, which is what the discussion is about.

OP, I salute you. Those who follow the guidelines you presented are exactly the sort of people there need to be more of.

>>16000907
:) and since we had this little debate, do you think it'll help others who read it? I do. I honestly don't think you or he (even in my interpretation) are necessarily wrong in the grand scheme of things, but like I said earlier, I think us having to actually talk about this stuff makes us better. I know I'm not necessarily going to win you to my side, I just want you (and more to the point, me) to think about why I believe what I do.

Now, I do also follow something similar to the story arc for XP assignment. In some ways, I think the PC actually has to have at least a little time to think about what happened. This comes from my experience in the military: when you're in the shit, you don't have time for thought, for reflection on what you did right, what you learned, etc. This is especially true when you're out for a long period of time. Every moment is just an almost instinctual trying to do what you can to survive. True enough, there may be an epiphany moment or two, but usually, that doesn't come till later when you think back on the insanity you lived through...

>>16000949
The whole list as well as how one "should" DM is totally subjective. However, the more ideas and viewpoints one is exposed to, the easier it will be for them to form their own opinions. This is why I argue on the internet.

I often find that such reasoning, taken from real life as it is, isn't really relevant to gaming. Whatever is most fun is what should be pursued, not what is most realistic. Not that those two are mutually exclusive. The bottom line is that you've got to do what works for you and your players.

>>16001003
The other reason is purely logistical: it takes so much less time to do it per story arc than to do it at the end of each battle (and woe be upon you if all don't level at the same time).

1. Accept that CR is meaningless. Ban full casters and throw monsters of half CR at the party, or be extremely careful when designing encounters; many monsters have abilities that simply lock down or kill majority of classes because of the incredibly stupid save bonus distribution (who thought it makes sense that the frontline classes have bad saves?) and their crippling lack of utility.
2. Accept that the power curve is wrong, and that you are meant to patch this with equipment. Do not be stringy with equipment, and do not force players to use "quirky" and "flavorful" magic items. Gear like Cloaks of Protection is a tax, not a fashion statement.
3. Know your rules, ignore them. Oddly enough, Gygax got it right, but for all the wrong reasons.
3.1. You are the Lord God, Master and Commander, Judge, Jury and the Executioner. Use this power for good. Let good players have fun, keep cheaters and unnecessary powergamers under control. Do not negotiate with rules lawyers.
3.2. Lie when dramatically appropriate. 3e marries bad rules with a large die, and early on, luck far outweighs planning and character stats when it comes to determining success. Some people like having their characters die to random crap because of a few bad rolls, but they can usually be identified by the gimp suits they wear and the faint scent of urine that permeates the air around them. The game must be risky, yes. The game also needs to be more than just tossing a coin. When dice seems to have gone stupid, fudge.
3.3. You and the players are allies, making a story together. When you start trying to get at them, and they start plotting against you, your game is officially over. Find a way to integrate Tomb of Horrors into the next session, it might as well go with a whimper.

Imma make a pic out of the OP's posts when I get back from town later. Keep this thread alive till then, ya'll!

>>15999274
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!!! thats fucking mean,spiteful, and more then a little fucked up

>>15999690
>>15999640
so Tucker's kobolds?

>>16001139
I'm trying out a full caster ban in my next game. I am allowing only one. The Healer. all others can fuck off. I even have a plot device to explain it

>>15999787
Mauling the wizard with one hit... My level one avenger did enough damage to KO a common PC wizard in one hit. Of course it was a critical with a high crit weapon.

>>16003168

But unless the player is a complete retard he won't focus on healing.

And if by "The Healer" you mean the Healer class, that's just stupid, that class is a piece of shit.

Also: Pic related, it's you and your plot device.

>>16003234
Not the guy you quoted, but I also went with a full caster ban. Not because I thought they were unbalanced, my group just hates vancian magic with an unreasonable passion in my group but refuses to play anything but D&D and GURPS for some reason. But hey, it works.

Also,
>"Your fun is inferior to my fun, bawww"
>2011
I'd seriously hope you guys didn't do this, but that'd be like hoping world hunger was solved.

>>16003387
Derp, minus that second "in my group".

I don't get it, guys. I mean, 3.5 was pretty good at the time, but that was like over 10 years ago. I literally can not see a single reason to play it anymore. It has huge amounts of problems, and it doesn't have any strengths that other games don't do much, much better.

Is it just a reluctance to try anything new? Gamers can be so conservative sometimes.

>>16000785
I think you were being intentionally dense for the purposes of argument, but to clarify, that advice was more geared towards adventures that the DM puts his players against, and again this was for the DM who put us against CR +5 all day every day, where my playing of a God Wizard was the only reason we survived. If a first-level party attacks the king's champion, he IS level 15 and WILL beat the shit out of the party unless they surrender to justice or somehow flee. If I throw a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at a low-level party, it's either for them to high-tail it and run, or I'm make it obvious enough that someone will pick up on the fact that it's actually a Major Image.

>>16000942
I'm honoured, thank you ^_^

I would make the image myself, but my lack of finesse in photoshop means the anon who offered should go for it. This was on page 3 after 9 hours sleep, so I'm not worried about it 404-ing.

I do acknowledge that when picked apart, CR is arbitrary. But against less experienced players, CR is often close enough that the new DM can rely on it. But if both DM and players are skilled, by all means they can crank up the difficulty and spot where CR over or under-compensates, as necessary. My tips are geared more towards starting and novice DMs and players. or someone who is looking to improve their experience. Take what you will from my knowledge.

>>16003387

The caster ban was only half the reason for my "No Fun" statement.

The way he said it looks like one of his players will be forced to a Healer, and that class is literally the most boring class in all of D&D to play, he should ban that one too, unless he WANTS to ruin the game for one of his players.

>>16003503
Ah. Yeah, that's reasonable. My mistake.

>>16003411
It's a system with its full supply of source material. Nothing new is coming out for 3.5, which is nice for optimizers because they are working in a closed system. Many play simply because they own the books; there was a resurgence of players when 3.0 came out, and why pay another 100$ for a core-book set, plus letting the money on splats go to waste?

I only started playing D&D after 4e came out, bu the group I joined played 3.5, so that's what I learnt, and I stuck with it. Later on I've come to learn more about 4e and Pathfinder, and I personally disliked how each other system handled things.

In 3.5 particularly, I enjoy how customizable things are. With a bit of system mastery, you could re-flavour or multiclass out of your ass to achieve almost any character concept. That's not to detract from other edition fans, but it's what I personally feel.

3.5, as a metaphor, personally feels like being given the construction set to a Bethesda game, like Fallout 3, Morrowind, Oblivion, etc. It's really fucking confusing for a new person to figure out anything beyond the basics, but these myriad tools can allow you to build something amazing. The tricky part is learning how to do that in the first place. I hope my list can act as a bit of a tutorial on running 3.5.

I mean, my LGS is in love with me whenever I run games there, (and we have a few events in campaigns that are now lore withing the store) but I hate most of the manchild neckbeards who go there. Beyong any mechanics and technicalities, it's the attitudes that make the session.

What are some tips on improvising? Should I just have a ton of prethought out ideas ready made or just improve my improvising abilities through practice?

To be a good improv DM, what things should I basically have memorized?

>>16003567
>It's a system with its full supply of source material.
There are plenty of other systems with a lot of source material. And plenty of 3.x source material is terrible.

I mean, you like splatbook? GURPS has mountains of splatbooks.

>why pay another 100$ for a core-book set, plus letting the money on splats go to waste?
Because there are so many games that are just plain *better* than 3.5? I mean, 3.5 just isn't GOOD at anything--you just tried to list "it has a bunch of splatbooks and it's not actively supported!" as the high point.

>In 3.5 particularly, I enjoy how customizable things are. With a bit of system mastery, you could re-flavour or multiclass out of your ass to achieve almost any character concept. That's not to detract from other edition fans, but it's what I personally feel.
But 3.x isn't customizeable. Compare it to a universal system like HERO or GURPS--those enable a far broader range of character concepts, and they don't make you mess with stupid "level of this, level of that" bullshit that makes you accrue irrelevant class features along the way. I mean, you can multiclass into barbarian if you want a battle-rage, but then you also become faster. Why does having a battle-rage also make you faster *all the time forever*? Nobody knows!

You could just play your "fiddle with the rules" minigame on your own, and bring an actually good game to the table to bring with other people. It seems like an intense case of grognardism and Sunk Cost Fallacy to keep playing a game that inarguably has a shitton of flaws and very few advantages when there are so many good games out there.

>>16003234
I did this. Mages in general are seen as the bane of everyone's existence and are either captured or killed on sight.

The captured ones are used to create things like healing potions.

>>16003598
I'm not trying to come up with a coherent argument, anon. I know that it works for me, and it works for the shit-ton of other people who still play it, so something must be going right! Figure it out.

This thread really doesn't need game-system or edition-war trolling. I'm trying to help people play 3.5, and if you don't like it than fuck off.

>>16003625
>something must be going right! Figure it out.
You started playing it and you never stopped. Sunk Cost Fallacy and grognardism.

>I'm trying to help people play 3.5
The thing is, you're not doing them a favor. Just because you're too much of a change-fearing grognard to try a better game doesn't mean you need to encourage them to stick with an objectively highly-flawed game that promotes munchkinning and makes DMing an incredible pain.

>>16003629
>niggeryoujustwentfullretard.jpg
We're not arguing games, so fuck off. Masturbate to your favourite games somewhere that isn't this thread.

>>16003629

>PEOPLE CAN'T LIKE WHAT I DON'T LIKE!

Someone plays 4e...

>>16003629

>OH NO! SOMEONE LIKES SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE!
>I KNOW! I'LL INSULT HIM AND DERAIL HIS THREAD! THAT'LL SHOW HIM!

Yeeeeeeah, No.

Fuck off.

>>16003649
Judging by his earlier statements, it's more likely that someone plays GURPS.

>>16003649
I actually don't, but thanks for demonstrating that 3.x fans are stuck in a bullshit mindset.

>>16003648
It's not even about my favorite games, which certainly aren't for everyone.
It's about the fact that NO MATTER *WHAT* KIND OF GAME YOU LIKE, there are much, MUCH better options than D&D 3.x, and by luring people back to 3.x, you are harming them.

>>16003660
I personally can't stand GURPS, but if you want a mountain of splatbooks and crunchy options, it's the game for you.

<hipster>The games I prefer are really obscure, you probably haven't ever heard of them.</hipster>

>>16003661
No, it's called there's a 3.5 on most pages of /tg/ at any given time, take your derailing bullshit there. Nobody is providing counter-argument because this thread doesn't need to turn into edition wars. Fuck off.

The guy's basically right. Between FantasyCraft, 4E, and Pathfinder, whatever you want out of 3.x, there's a game that does exactly that but better than 3.x itself.

>>16003674
bro, nobody's providing a counterargument because they *can't*. come on, I had some funwith 3e myself and all, but pretending that it's not outdated and broken is dumb.

>>16003698
I'd probably start with backing up "objectively worse" with something more than hot air. Burden of fucking proof, shit-tier troll.

>It's objective because people agree with me!

>>16003723
>burden of proof
I don't think I need to go over the problems with 3.x because they're so notorious.

Why don't you list some things 3.x is actually GOOD at and I'll explain what other games are better at that and why? So far, all you've said in its favor is "It's out print" (lol) and "lots of crunch".

One that I have observed as a player; DM's, please, don't spam illusions. It's pretty cheap, and makes players lose interest rapidly. Illusion in moderation is totally fine.

>>16003732
Nope, I think I'll not feed the troll. Good day, pseudo-intellectual grognard.

>>16003745
>I can't actually identify anything 3.x is good at
That is what I thought. Enjoy justifying to yourself why you're totally right.

>>16003733

But what if the BBEG is an illusionist?

>>16003756

WRITE A NEW BBEG.

>>16003733
Fucking Aizen. He's pretty high on my list of "Worst Villain Ever"

>>16003755

I've read thousands of pages of splatbooks for 3.5, It's a system that I acknowledge has many flaws but one that I still like, I also Play Vampire: The Masquerade and Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu, but when It's comes to high-fantasy 3.5 is my go to system, I'm not gonna learn a new system for no other reason than that some asshole on the internet thinks that his system is better than my system, in fact even if i knew your system was better I still wouldn't switch.

You can go eat a dick, plenty of people still play 3.5 and enjoy it, and they're sure as fuck not gonna stop because you tell them to.

>>16003793
>I'm not gonna learn a new system for no other reason than that some asshole on the internet thinks that his system is better than my system
It's not that he thinks *his* system is better.
It's that he thinks *pretty much any other* system is better. And he's right, 3.x is awful. There's only 2 possible reasons to enjoy it.
1) never tried anything else, set in your ways
2) love breaking the fiddly ruleset and exploiting it instead of roleplaying.

>in fact even if i knew your system was better I still wouldn't switch.
That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

>>16003793
>when It's comes to high-fantasy 3.5 is my go to system
What others have you tried?

Money. Also
>2) love breaking the fiddly ruleset and exploiting it instead of roleplaying.
Stormwind Fallacy. You fail at life, resorting to that. Have a nice life, while we have fun with our purchases. "But they don't want to fork out more cash, instead working with something that works for them! Badwrongfun!

>>16003809
2) love breaking the fiddly ruleset and exploiting it instead of roleplaying.

Sure is Stormwind fallacy in here.

>>16003819
AD&D, 2nd edtion, 4th Edition, Pathfinder and a single session of GURPS in a high fantasy setting.

I wanna play d&d with you recovering powergamer

>>16003809
>2) love breaking the fiddly ruleset and exploiting it instead of roleplaying.
>Implying this is a horrible thing. Bad fun!

>>16003849
That's still ... rather limited. Burning Wheel and Legends of Anglerre are pretty awesome ones that give totally different feel than D&D of any edition.

>>16003825
>Money
You know about pirating things, right? Also, do you have a job? RPGs are cheap.

>Stormwind Fallacy.
It's not a Stormwind Fallacy. Optimized characters can be roleplayed just fine, but when you're exploiting the rules, you're not roleplaying. When you come up with some kind of strategy that only works because of the fiddly details of the rules involved? That's not roleplaying, that's gaming the rules. When you exploit various spell combinations to achieve your goals? That's gaming the rules. You're not focused on your character, you're focused on the minutia of the rules.

>>16003849
What on earth is preferable about 3.x compared to those?

>>16003887
Ha! I fucked up. Selecting new tripcode...

>>16003661
Your attitude towards game systems is exactly like a powergamer's attitude toward how to play games -- you're convinced that if you're not doing it the absolute best way you possibly can, you're doing it WRONG and any fun you're having is BADWRONGFUN.

Is 3.5 riddled with flaws? Abso-fucking-lutely. Are there systems that do the same basic thing 3.5 does, but better? Yes.

However, that doesn't mean it's a worthless system, or that you're somehow in the wrong for playing it. What really matters when you're playing a game is whether or not you're having fun, and the fact is that there are plenty of people who genuinely enjoy 3.5 for any number of reasons, often even with full conscious knowledge that it is mechanically inferior to other systems out there. And there's no guarantee that switching to a more mechanically sound system would necessarily lead to an improvement in their fun significant enough to offset the trouble of learning a new system, because obviously mechanical soundness isn't terribly high on their priority list of what makes a game fun.

If you don't enjoy flawed systems, that's perfectly fine -- play whatever is best for your interests. But that doesn't give you free license to go about bashing people who don't mind the flaws and like systems you don't like. Just live and let live, and accept the fact that there are people whose priorities and tastes differ from your own, even if you can't for the life of you understand why.

>>16003879
Of course, every single one of those games is better made than 3.x.

I'm coming to believe that the whole "exploit the rules which we already know so well and which are so exploitable" business IS a lot of the appeal of 3.x. Like, when I hear people talking about awesome things from 3.x games, it always boils down to a "clever" use of some spells to break the game world/economy/plot/etc, or a build that did something gimmicky, or etc.

I run Rifts, your argument is invalid.

Question: What sort of contracts should I make for my Changeling soul merchant? I'm thinking real seelie/unseelie stuff. Firstborn children, hidden stipulations, fine print, the whole shebang.

Any ideas/tips?

>>16003914
>2011
>playing Palladium
I seriously hope you're just trolling and don't ACTUALLY do this.

>>16003894
Right, so if you actually want to play a game with me, if I run one in the future, I registered as RecoveringGamer at GiantITP.coM

Before you say it, yes it is a bad website with possibly them most nazi admins on the internet, but it's also the largest hub for playing play-by-post for 3.5 that I've seen. For anyone interested, shoot the account a PM and I'll contact your account if I start a game on the website.

>>16003941
What the fuck has this keyboard done to my spelling?!?

>>16003930
Most important question: Are you playing solo or with a party?

>>16003955

With a party. My group aren't pricks though I won't necessarily have to do like that story where the guy enchants the party's gear to kill them all.

>>16004036
I think you have the right idea in secretly enslaving people within contracts. Just be ready to flee or fight once someone has the concentration to actually read the fine print. Basically, prepare all contingencies. Sure you got the bloke's family in a contract, but you must still have the means to actually take them away/suck their souls out. I'm unfamiliar in how you're doing this soul-merchant business in the first place, so I'm fairly ignorant of the matter.

>>16004313

I'm thinking of using contracts that have legitimate magical power, i.e. if the contract is broken, certain stipulations are filled which states I get someone's soul, then wham, their souls are spontaneously ripped out and implanted within the contract's vellum/script for safe keeping.

Kinda like a phylactery, only without the Lich part, and it's more like a prison.

>>16004354
Okay... but if that actually exists in the rules, why not just cut out the middleman and steal their soul as soon as you can ambush them?

>>16004362

Because it's more entertaining to play someone who is actually lawful about his soulstealing shitfuckery.

>>15998919
Before I forget (and for the archive), DM tip #6 is something I paraphrased from MR. RAGE, when he was posting about "quantum DMing" a while back.

The CR system is broken and useless. Much better to adjust stats on the fly.

>>16003234
Wow this is still around
I'm not forcing anyone to take the healer class, it's just the only 9th lvl caster that doesn't drown/explode with eldrich power or wallow in the pain of their gods
SOMEONE as in an NPC has to make the assload of healing goods these guys are going to burn through

>>16004620
The ranger is perfectly capable of shitting out healing wands and minor wondrous items. So is the paladin. And the bard.

>>16004665
but not any kind of resurrection or high level healing

>>16004620

Actually if one of your players does take the healer, watch out if you're playing at high levels, because the Healer still get Gate, and Gate is fucking broken.

>>16004762
considering it would be his one biggie I may let him have it. The whole game is one big experiment of house rules anyway

bump

>>16004876

>I may let him have it

Enjoy having an infinitely large army of solars crammed up your ass.

>>16005729
>laughingcandlesofinvocation.jpg

>>16005733

Yes I get it, one can also create an infinte army of solars with a relatively low level magic item.

To be honest, the reaction to the guy pointing 3.x is flawed totally undermined the advice of 'Recovering Powergamer' for me.

>>16005729
I see an exp cost and a monetary cost that would inhibit that

>>16006000

1.One casting of Gate, summon a Solar.

2.Order that Solar to use Gate to summon another Solar.

Repeat step 2. until you have the ammount of Solar you want.

>>16006048
Oh look you use the classic "summons can't summon rule"
but on the off chance you allow it you get a vast number of Solars, who then all leave because the've completed the request of summon another solar. you you really only have one at a time

>>16006245

Why should a Summoned creature be able to summon? It's a SLA the same as any other.

And no it doesn't go away right away, you bind it to continual service, pay it for that, and you then make it gate in another Solar, which it does not have to pay for on the part of the spell being an SLA, do so endlessly.

Infinite army that you can keep for weeks.

>>16006333

That should be why SHOULDN'T a summoned creature be able to summon