View Profile: Greg - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About Greg

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
0
Posts Per Day
0

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 8th February, 2003 03:33 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 8th February, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Friday, 26th October, 2018


Friday, 26th January, 2018


Wednesday, 17th January, 2018


Wednesday, 31st May, 2017


Sunday, 13th December, 2015

  • 04:02 AM - Connorsrpg mentioned Greg in post Divine Casters
    Greg K. SOunds similar to how we used to do things too. You could mess around with all of that again, but I just presented this as a much easier option. I spend a LONG time on domains/specific lists etc for divine casters. Mainly b/c I had spent so long on the Gods, BUT most of this went unused. I now just tell players, pick whatever 12 spells you want from the Cleric spells available, keeping in mind your deity, but I don't limit their versatility. So basically the Cleric list still is the ALL sphere ;) Domain spells bring in a few extras from other lists ;)

Wednesday, 2nd December, 2015

  • 04:24 AM - Hussar mentioned Greg in post World-Building DMs
    ...oncept due to trust issues isn't a going to stop that, and might be off-putting to people hoping to be more serious about their ideas. Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473017-World-Building-DMs/page21#ixzz3t87Q8Z9p I think, for me, this is the biggest point. I've found that it works much better for me to put the responsibilities for the table having fun back onto the players, rather than just on me, the DM. If you want to bring in your oddball character, and it's not going to force me to rewrite my campaign (for example, a gnome cleric in Darksun is a much bigger issue than a gnome fighter. The appearance of a divine casting individual in DS would be a HUGE change), I've become much, much more willing to let the character in and simply rewrite a bit of campaign lore. For DS, that gnome figure would be rewriting the line that so and so killed all the gnomes to so and so killed almost all the gnomes. For me, not a huge deal. Like I said, looking at GregK's responses, I would be very, very reticent about sitting at his table. I simply don't trust that anyone whose preferences are that strong is going to set those preferences aside once play begins. And I have no interest in second guessing the DM to try to figure out what I can and cannot do in the campaign every single session.

Monday, 6th October, 2014

  • 09:45 AM - pemerton mentioned Greg in post Come and Get It and Warrior's Urge: Please help me implement a change to both of these powers
    ...of STR, which is a strictly weaker version of the power. It's also not clear from your formatting whether or not you intend the fighter's enhancement bonus from weapon to apply to the attack vs Will. If not, that makes the power even weaker - poor stat and no enhancement bonus is somewhere around -5 to hit at 7th level (CaGI) and around -12 to hit at 23rd level (Warrior's Urging). The big problem I have with Come and Get It is that it's a martial charm power.It doesn't have the charm keyword. CaGI pulls in creatures with up to 2 sq between the attacking fighter and the target. Assuming a non-reach weapon, that's a gap between the fighter's sword tip and the opponent's body of around 5'. I think the power is most naturally conceived of the fighter using his/her deftness with his/her weapon to wrongfoot opponents. That is, don't pay too much attention to the power's name and treat it as a display of weapon skill. (The pre-errata version is better for this.) To adapt this to Greg K's purposes, I think you'd be better off leaving the power closer to its original version, and stipulating something to reflect the fact that the fighter is, in effect, moving through all the squares between him/her and the enemies that are pulled in - so the fighter will trigger any traps in those squares, for instance. Another modification that would fit with this general conceptualisation is to allow any enemy to negate the forced movement by falling prone in its square and becoming marked by the fighter til the end of its next turn. That way the fighter still gets a good control effect out of the power even with no damage dealt.

Tuesday, 17th June, 2014

  • 11:42 AM - Neonchameleon mentioned Greg in post So You're Just Not "Feeling It" for 5e - What ARE you excited about?
    Currently in playtesting: Feng Shui 2 (even in late alpha/early beta it's a big improvement on FS1 which wasn't a bad system at all) Apocalypse World: The Dark Age: Getting right everything Dungeon World does wrong. Rich and slightly dark fantasy. Recently out: Firefly: I don't like the 'verse much but it's great for games like Police Academy and Ghostbusters. Things don't go smooth. Atomic Robo: Ridiculous pulp game using the Fate engine. Urban Shadows: Finally doing the WoD properly - all the advantages of WoD without the Storyteller system. GregK, there's room for both Leverage and Firefly. Leverage is about experts, Firefly about things not going smooth.

Thursday, 13th March, 2014

  • 02:02 PM - jodyjohnson mentioned Greg in post GAMA Trade Show and Game Developer Conference start Monday - announcement Tomorrow?
    Do you think they'll announce details this week or wait to do the reveal to retailers at GAMA Tuesday? What do you think they'll announce at the GDC? Greg Bilsland GregBilsland Gregtito Yeah, a group of about five of us from D&D R&D will be there all week for GDC." 5 WotC staffers at GDC. WotC has a room blocked out for Tuesday at GAMA with DnD getting the 2-3pm slot. Are we going to go another few weeks without news on the DDN product line?

No results to display...
No results to display...

Greg's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites