Criteria: Evocative-Terse continuum vs. Rorschach for the referee

[EOTB]

Lack of free time and, honestly, having run out of things to say.

But it's true, things are much quieter post-pandemic. A lot of folks have gone to Discord, which I think is more of a voice-based chat room and involves less typing more playing.

I got me thinking back to the chat-room of the early 1980s --- pre-internet --- on 300 baud modems. The technology has changed, but not much else.

I think I just borked the HDD I kept most my D&D stuff on this morning. Sucks.

Fixed.

Although the voice chats play a part also. I can be working on my projects and have a conversation at the same time. Not really possible with forums. That, and (tying around back to play) it seems like conversations about D&D lead to play more often than essaying about D&D, which only seems to lead to further essaying about some other part of D&D not recently essayed about, to provoke another ore vein of essays in a chain cycle.

At least at this point, I prefer discussing D&D to be acute instead of chronic.

 

[squeen]

Totally get it, and I 'm not trying to disparage it...just can't bring myself to get that "live" right now.

 

[The1True]

With the whole 3 Rnds of study thing, assassins are mostly impossible to play anyway. And exceptionally hard to play in a group of other players.
I've seen it done as a sort of James Bond archetype, usually as part of a multi-class build. Even then though, in 3.5e terms, you should probably just be putting together some kind of tricked-out crit-hunter build. The abstract nature of combat in (every edition of) D&D makes it very difficult to create a character capable of dispatching level-matching creatures with one shot.

My group finally hit irreconcilable issues with Roll20's video chat and had to create a Discord server. It's...fine, I guess. Is this really going to be the new G+? uch

 

[Maynard]

I just finished my grad school semester. Won't start again until the fall so I should have some stuff to talk about.

Here's a nice discussion topic for you guys: Which classes do you tend to play with in your games? I like keeping things simple with just the original 7 from basic, then I tend to add in Ranger and Bard because I have a brain disease and it doesn't seem complete without them. I think what I really want is a thief that can do Ranger and bard stuff if they want (kind of like the Lotfp specialist).

 

[The1True]

I think what I really want is a thief that can do Ranger and bard stuff if they want

sounds like you're looking for one of the multitude of Skirmisher builds available in 3.5/PF/4/5e. Don't tell Squeen.

Which classes do you tend to play with in your games?

Sure. Most of us here do a lot of DMing, so I'm curious to what degree do you guys choose spellcasters (which best cushion the inevitable metagaming that results from a player knowing all the rules and most of the story archetypes), or big brutes that will let you take a mental holiday while playing?

 

[squeen]

What? What? Tell me what?

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

I just finished my grad school semester. Won't start again until the fall so I should have some stuff to talk about.

Here's a nice discussion topic for you guys: Which classes do you tend to play with in your games? I like keeping things simple with just the original 7 from basic, then I tend to add in Ranger and Bard because I have a brain disease and it doesn't seem complete without them. I think what I really want is a thief that can do Ranger and bard stuff if they want (kind of like the Lotfp specialist).

I have described my current campaign as "AD&D with everything on it."

The full suite of PBH classes, plus the ones from Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures.

Is this balanced? Eeeehhhh. But, players like options! If things get too easy, I can always add more/tougher monsters. And, a strict enforcement of race/class limitations and ability score requirements keeps the "candy classes" from completely taking over.

Right now our party includes an assassin, an assassin/fighter, a cleric/magic-user, a ninja/sohei, a magic-user and a ranger.

 

[Two orcs]

Here's a nice discussion topic for you guys: Which classes do you tend to play with in your games? I like keeping things simple with just the original 7 from basic, then I tend to add in Ranger and Bard because I have a brain disease and it doesn't seem complete without them. I think what I really want is a thief that can do Ranger and bard stuff if they want (kind of like the Lotfp specialist).

My original campaign I went totally ham with house rules and only allowed Fighter, Thief, and Mage (and later Barber-Surgeon when the players complained about the lack of healing available). In my second campaign I have 10 classes available: Fighter, Explorer (ranger-ish), Thief, Mage (2 schools, Alchemist or Astrologer), Cleric, Venturer (Merchant-Adventurer), Assassin, Barbarian (2 tribes, horse-nomad or hill-man), Bard, Priest (mage type with clerical spells).

 

[tetramorph]

There is only love, here, of course. But this is really off OP, even for me.
New thread, anyone?
Anyone with admin status capable of hiving off the off topic comments into a new thread?
Only for love, only love.

 

[The1True]

or we could just take the whole thread out back behind the woodshed and put a bullet in its poor suffering skull...

 

[Beoric]

Aw. I miss everyone as well.

I honestly think there's something wrong with the site's email notifications. I've seen people complaining that they can't open a new account because the email verification doesn't work.

I have just been super busy; this is the first time I've looked at the site in nearly a month, and it has been months since I have looked at any gaming blogs. Not playing, or even creating content, or even thinking about creating content, at all.

Here's a nice discussion topic for you guys: Which classes do you tend to play with in your games?

When I played 1e, and 1e/2e, I generally ran F/T or F/MU/T.

Now, in 4e, I am happy to run whatever. They each present their own challenges, and contrary to the common early complaints, each class plays very differently from the others, even if they theoretically embody the same role. Heck, for many classes, even choosing one class feature over another can lead to significant changes in how the character is played; for example, a sword-and-board fighter (encourages enemies to attack him rather than allies) is very different from a dual-wield fighter (happy if allies are attacked because it give him more opportunities to do damage), which is very different again from a brawling, one-hand-free fighter (locks down a single opponent and pummels him like a hockey brawler).

There is only love, here, of course. But this is really off OP, even for me.
New thread, anyone?
Anyone with admin status capable of hiving off the off topic comments into a new thread?
Only for love, only love.

Novel concept, in this forum.