hey again @Papayaman1000

Sorry, a bit busy and left the tab open. Some other time.

13th Age's Swords Against Owlbears, the Free RPG Day adventure, is suitably demented. It features a Spydra: "eight heads, eight legs, eighty-four eyes."

@Magician LOL!

@Nzall If I may, I think the accepted answer on the MLOIC would be well outside the scope of even the smartest-AI CRPGs?

hey there @nitsua60

hey again @daze

err @daze413

wb again @Papayaman1000

Heeyyyy @Shalvenay! Got a game coming up with two newbies to the hobby. So far, the questionnaire for helping newbies pick a class answer by bluemoon isn't working. :/

@daze413 how so? :/

Eh. One of the players' results was a wizard. I know him for almost 10 years now, and I know he wouldn't like being a wizard, so I made him play a barbarian and he had a blast.

@daze413 hahaha

Then another player's result was ranger. Then the follwoing dialogue happened: "Ranger? I dont wanna be a bow guy!". "You did say you like to deal with enemies at a safe distance, though.". "... I wanna repick.". "Ok, but you know rangers dont necessarily have to use bows, you can still weild like, two swords but you won't be as good as a fighter." "Fighter! I wanna be a fighter."

...yeah

I might tweak my approach when questioning. Maybe have a mandatory 10 secs of thinking about your answer before actually answering?... idk.

...sounds like describing what each class does would have worked better?

Different strokes for different folks, yeah...

I might also have to force new players into playing non spellcasters.

@daze413 why's that?

@Shalvenay the extended list of options,and the added depth as a spellcaster might be too much for a new player to handle. Not to say there might be exceptions if, in the limited amount of time between meeting the person and char creation, that I know he can handle it, I might allow it. But generally, no... I mean, playing non spellcasters is not less fun, IMO. And its to just get the basics of the game down.

@daze413 yeah, the 5e martials are far better than their 3.5e counterparts

Hm. Weird. Errored when sending, clicked edit, and it sent on its own

@Shalvenay havent really played 3.5, whats the biggest difference, in your opinion?

@daze413 3.5e martials (esp. fighter, but to a lesser extent paladin, ranger, and even barbarian) tend to be very limited options-wise for dealing with situations. barbarian holds its own through raw numbers, and rogues are as versatile as you'd expect them to be, but the rest...well, they're low-tier for a reason sigh

(or to look at in another way -- in 3.x, casters are large and in charge because they have lots of options for any given situation)

Ah. So basically all martials are 5e champion fighters? Hehe

@daze413 that, but kinda worse off balance wise too :P

3.5e casters have a fair few more tricks up their sleeve for avoiding mundane damage

@daze413 I feel really bad for how that combat played. I have made tactically poor choices once I realized they were looking at me with a "you lost all your heartstone games tonight, we're gonna get a TPK" look.

I also used an elite monster without realizing it was an elite (it fit thematically), despite it being several levels higher than the PCs, and cut out retreats.

hey there @Ben