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

Basic Information

Date of Birth
March 17, 1972 (46)
About Caliban
Introduction:
Looking to join a 5e game in the Valley.
About Me:
Experienced gamer, likes to have fun, roleplay, and min/max my characters in equal measure.
Location:
Phoenix, Arizona
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Phoenix
State:
Arizona
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
7,052
Posts Per Day
1.14
Last Post
Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage. Monday, 8th October, 2018 08:13 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
26
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 02:43 AM
Join Date
Friday, 18th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Phoenix
State:
Arizona
Country:
USA

Tuesday, 11th December, 2018


Saturday, 1st December, 2018


Friday, 30th November, 2018


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thursday, 2nd August, 2018

  • 09:54 AM - dave2008 mentioned Caliban in post Eberron to get it's own season 8 AL campaign around the time Dragon Heist is released
    The problem is, there is no *rule* that actually says a nonpolytheistic religion counts as Ďgodsí. Is there a rule that requires a polytheistic religion? If so, am not familiar with it. Xanathars Guide, a supplement, has a note that in effect invites the DM to consider religions that revere a cosmic force or sacred philosophy. However, if the DM does so, the DM ceases to play official D&D and is defacto homebrewing. Several posters have pointed out that XGtE and the PHB list things other than gods that grant divine domains. That would make them RAW, not homebrewing. The core rules must become more subjective, diverse, and open about the many different kinds of religious views, before it is able to meaningfully integrate worlds like Eberron, Ravnica, and Darksun, into a supersetting. Really? That seems like a bit of hyperbole. Could the rules be more subjective, possibly. I guess I look at like all the rules are subjective, so it is a non-issue. In addition, Caliban answered your question about AL (post #10), so I assume you are all good now?

Wednesday, 20th June, 2018

  • 01:13 PM - Ancalagon mentioned Caliban in post Booming blade - how does it crit, and is this legit?
    The person hit with the Booming Blade could choose to stop moving the instant they are hit, thus avoiding the sonic damage. Ergo, Sonic damage is separate from the attack damage and doesn't get to crit. I don't know about that - and by that I mean I'm unsure. The issue is... how does the spell work anyway? Does the person affected by it even know that they will take damage if they move? How do they know? Is it like Caliban says and there is a small elemental looking at you tapping its foot angrily?

Friday, 15th June, 2018


Tuesday, 1st May, 2018

  • 09:57 PM - Gradine mentioned Caliban in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe any accusation from any accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me. Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense. I think the problem people are having with the dichotomy that DemoMonkey has set up is that he's presenting it as a universal; as if you have to either always believe the accusers or always believe the accused. This struck me as the core of Caliban's concern also. Where DemoMonkey has the right of it is that the dichotomy is true for every individual event. Which isn't to say that everyone literally is choosing to either believe the accusers or believe the accused. But that, in regards to outcomes, at least in the sense that there should be any consequences at all or not, there are really only two sides. So maybe the dichotomy isn't so much about belief as it is about choosing a side. When there are only two outcomes, both of which are mutually exclusive to each other, there is no ability to "not choose a side". Not choosing a side is, in essence, choosing the side of status quo. In this case, that means choosing the side of the accused. Choosing to disbelieve both sides, as long as one is capable of overcoming the severe cognitive dissonance required to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs (stranger things have happened), is choosing the side of the accused. Saying that you believe the accusers but still don't think there ...
  • 09:54 AM - Hussar mentioned Caliban in post Why Worldbuilding is Bad
    Something Maxperson said stuck in my brain. Heís got so much world building material that he canít even sift through it all. Presumably heís got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust. I think that nicely highlights the ďcompromise ď here. People have so much material that itís not really usable. Heck this monthís Dragon+ has a several thousand word article outlining world building. Plus another few thousand words worth of fiction (part three mind you) set in Chult. Sorry Caliban but what compromise were you referring to?

Thursday, 5th April, 2018

  • 03:35 PM - Oofta mentioned Caliban in post Why I dislike Milestone XP
    See DMG page 261 for rules on noncombat challenges, plus non-XP rewards (under Milestones). I've read the DMG, I'm familiar with the rule. As Caliban already pointed out for me, it doesn't matter in AL. Unless the mod specifically spells out XP for non-combat encounters it is not granted. The rules for rewarding XP for non-combat encounters is also presented as alternative options, with the default being XP for combat and only combat.

Saturday, 10th February, 2018


Thursday, 25th January, 2018

  • 01:20 AM - pemerton mentioned Caliban in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    ...s from the mechanics of resolution plus the imagnation of the GM). In BW, it is what you call a "passive check" but against a difficulty set by the GM in accordance with the skill descriptions; but that mechanical difference doesn't mean that the GM gets to make the passive check fail automatically just because s/he thought it would be better for the map to be somewhere other than the study. In other words, (i) there is not only one model for RPG mechanics, and (ii) even when the mechanics are similar (both D&D and BW use checks against a difficulty), that doesn't tell us why it is the GM's job to do the stuff you say. To be clear: I'm not asserting that there is no answer to the question. But answers that don't take account of the range of ways RPGing works will (necessarily) be incomplete. I mean, obviously setting provides depth - but it doesn't have to be GM authored to do that (witness the various examples I've posted upthread). So a more complete answer adds information eg Caliban says that many players don't want to contribute to establishing the backstory, so someone else has to do it; Mercurius says that he wants the GM to tell him the backstory as part of his process of immersion (to me that seems very similar to being told a story by the GM - I think Mercurius queries that characterisation, but from my point of view I'm still working out why, and also why it's considered pejorative - I went to the pictures recently, and had a story told to me, and that doesn't make me feel offended). Nagol gave some different reasons: GM worldbuilding establishes levers/tools for the players. It makes sense that someone else has to do this, in that being able to just deem your own tools into existence seems a bit cheat-y. To me, that speaks to a style of play much closer to classic dungeoneering, though mabye Nagol would not agree with that. Also, the very term "action resolution" is here a bit misleading. Yes a PC has declared an action, and that action gets resolv...
  • 12:35 AM - pemerton mentioned Caliban in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    Congrats. You're free to play the way you enjoy. That doesn't make your way the "right"way, but it seems that was the entire purpose of this thread - and we all knew it. Your inability to understand why I prefer to play a different way has no bearing on the validity of that playstyle. Happy gaming.Three things: (1) I've never talked about a "right way" to play. I started a thread with a question: some posters answered it (@Nagol, Caliban, etc). Some other posters - Mercurius, Lanefan - asserted or implied that by asking the question I was insulting them. To be frank, that's on them, not on me. If they don't want to answer the question "what is GM worldbuiling for", or think that the answer is so self-evident that to ask the question is to commit some RPG faux pas, well, no one is forcing them to post in the thread. (2) What makes you think I don't understand why you prefer to play a different way? When I say "This is why I don't like such-and-such", what makes you think I'm telling you why you shouldn't like it? (3) I've replied with courtesy and honesty to all your posts in this thread, and have not attacked you or your preferences (unless you consider me explaining why my preference are different an attack - in which case see (1) and (2) above). I'm a little surprised that you don't seem capable of doing the same.

Friday, 19th January, 2018

  • 09:11 AM - pemerton mentioned Caliban in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    ...an via NPCs), I'm there to provide a game* for my players to play in <snip> In my own game I already know all the spoilers, as such is my place and my job, and I know how the story might go at least for the time being. I don't know how it *will* go - the PCs can certainly surprise me with what they do, and when that happens I have to react accordingly. But that reaction is as a neutral arbiter, not as a fellow player. * - 'provide a game' includes pre-designing the world (maps, history, cultures), pre-designing and tweaking the rules (mostly homebrew these days) and then providing access to them, coming up with a possible storyline or three, and usually hosting.OK, but what does it mean to "provide a game - with predesigned world, maps, history, cultures, possible storylines - for my players to play in"? The language you use, that I've quoted, is metaphor. (Contrast: if you provide a swimming pool for your friends to swim in, that is literal, not metaphorical.) To answer Caliban, the main agenda of this thread is to dispense with metaphor and try to get some descriptions of actual social practices, and their rationale. For instance, "providing history and cultures for your players" presumably means telling them these sorts of characters are permitted; these other sorts aren't. It might mean, if a player declares an action "I search the room for a copy of the missing map", replying "You find nothing" without rolling the dice (or perhaps pretending to make a check but in fact stipulating the answer regardless of the roll), because you have written down, in advance, the contents of the room and they don't include a map. What is that sort of stuff for?

Thursday, 28th December, 2017

  • 03:48 PM - Li Shenron mentioned Caliban in post RAW: Spell attack rolls modifiers stack?
    Anyway Caliban I am sorry if I made you mad. This is why I hate the RAW, it always only causes trouble. But unfortunately the whole thread started off as a request to handle it within the RAW, and so I went along with it. But if you want to know the truth, I don't give a damn about the rules about spellcasting focus. I believe they could be meant to provide a balancing factor in the "hands economy" (stupid term I just made up) i.e. to require to occupy one of your hands if you want to cast spells, just like a sword & board or 2WF character has 2 hands occupied, while a 1WF character has a free hand in case it matters. But there are just too many excuses that allows bypassing this (between passing items between hands, drop/pick up an item using the "object interaction rule", or the infamous holy symbol semi-flavor text), that it makes it quite pointless IMHO to bother enforcing the details. And just to tell how much I despise and defile the RAW, I just gave our Druid a Chain Shirt, and called i...

Thursday, 23rd November, 2017

  • 04:11 PM - Sadras mentioned Caliban in post So Was That Z Fellow right?
    You keep replying to me to try and get the last word in. Unlike you, I'm at least honest about it. :hmm: Although I agree with you in this matter - I remember the time when you commented on my engagement with another poster... :p @Caliban circa 2017 (24 June specifically - Thread: Is it fair to cast save-or-suck spells on the players?) This is really a stupid thing to argue about, just saying. and The more I think about it, the more this whole thing seems sillier and sillier.

Wednesday, 22nd November, 2017

  • 08:13 PM - Nevvur mentioned Caliban in post So Was That Z Fellow right?
    FrogReaver Caliban I understand that, and I don't endorse the kind of attitude he expressed, but I'm also a pragmatist. There's no meaningful difference to me whether a DM kills off a PC because the DM is spiteful toward the player or because the DM is running his monsters in a tactically optimal manner.

Friday, 17th November, 2017

  • 05:27 PM - pemerton mentioned Caliban in post How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?
    Caliban - I think we mean different things by "roleplaying". I mean "playing a roleplaying game". If the dumb barbarian with no social skills can successfully negotiate with the foreign envoy, then I don't conlcude that player is a bad roleplayer. I conclude there is something wrong with the resolution mechanics. But if the player of the dumb barbarian opens negotiations with the foreign envoy, which therefore shapes the fiction - in whatever fashion (perhaps adverse to the PC's interests, if the resolution mechanics deliver the sort of outcome we would expect) then that is the player shaping the fiction by engaging the situation. There are obviously table norms around what it is or isn't polite to have your PC do - the player whose dumb barbarian torpedoes every social situation by "negotiating" with an axe is probably just a **** - but that's orthogonal to the current discussion. The reason for holding back there isn't to give timid players "spotlight" time, but a courtesy to one's ...

Thursday, 16th November, 2017

  • 10:59 AM - Lanefan mentioned Caliban in post A Proper Ability Score Generation Preference Poll
    For a lot of us, it is not your stats that make your character special. That's just the necessary framework that lets them operate in the game world. What make them special is their personality, their approach to the game, and possibly a signature spell, feat, or class ability that they use more often or differently than most other characters of the same class. If you don't make the effort, sure all your fighter, clerics, rogues, and wizards can end up being very similar. But rolling your stats or using point buy won't change that. Ultimately it's up to the player to make their characters special, not the stat generation method.Alert the media as this might be a first: I'm going to agree with Caliban :) With, however, one slight caveat regarding the bits I've bolded above. That being, stats alone don't make a character special but they can certainly be a part of it. For a player who already has a mostly-set-in-stone character concept going in, knowing the stats (or close) ahead of time helps, and if needed the concept can be made to suit these pre-known stats. But for those who maybe don't have a concept in mind going in, or who are still vague about parts of it, rolling some whacked-out stats - in particular, getting one that's very low - can provide a great jumping-off point to tweak or flesh out or even invent from nothing a personality and modus operandi for the (let's hope!) unique and memorable character you're about to play. I've heard players say - and have said it myself, once or twice - when rolling up a character and the first five rolls have come up somewhere between good and stupendous: "Come on, dice - I need a '7' to make this playable!". I always find that...

Wednesday, 15th November, 2017

  • 11:00 PM - Wulffolk mentioned Caliban in post A Proper Ability Score Generation Preference Poll
    Oofta, Caliban, Satyrn I suppose I should have used the word unique instead of special, but I am sure that somebody would misconstrue that too. Of course it is the RP that makes a character special or unique. I can play a character with any set of stats and make it special or unique or fun. I don't need to have the best stats at the table, and have no problem playing a supporting role. The point was that if everybody is the same then why bother. I did not claim that anybody was wrong, just that I do not understand the paradox of people choosing to be the same qhile wanting to be different. Of course, as evidenced by numerous threads, some with more than 200 pages, some people have entrenched positions and are resistant to differing views.
  • 10:15 PM - Satyrn mentioned Caliban in post A Proper Ability Score Generation Preference Poll
    Oofta, Caliban Ha ha! My response was seconds faster than yours :p

Monday, 30th October, 2017

  • 09:37 PM - Oofta mentioned Caliban in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    ...as to why your feel your group has less fun when you have unbalanced characters. Again, for my group the choice isn't about better or worse, but about what kind of feel we want, similar to a dozen other choices we make when starting a game. So you like it. Good for you. I don't. A lot of people like sushi. I don't, even though I've tried it multiple times usually at the insistence that I just haven't tried good sushi. Like you seem to be saying that I'm just not playing the game right. It's not that I'm not open minded, it's just that I'm realistic. When we rolled people fudged. They re-rolled until they got something they liked. Their character "accidentally" jumped off a cliff. People that had super-powerful characters were more effective at their roles and were just plain better. Whether or not people "should be" envious, they were. According to my simulations, the average low and high characters in a group of 6 will have a 25% difference in effectiveness. As Caliban says, why do I have to justify it by saying anything other than that it's not my cup of tea? Or let me turn that around. What value does it add to have some PCs be significantly worse at their roles than others?

Thursday, 26th October, 2017

  • 08:59 PM - Lanefan mentioned Caliban in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    ...al world are not "balanced" anywhere near as evenly as we would be if we were all using the same stat array. The range between best and worst simply isn't big enough, and we don't all perfectly trade off at being just as good at one thing and just as bad at another. Ditto for if we were all built by point-buy - there'd be a bit more variability but nowhere near enough range. Take intelligence by itself: people exist with IQs of 30, and of 180 or more, across a bell curve that peaks somewhere in the 110 range I think. Now there's no denying that this real-world bell curve is a bit tighter than rolling 3d6 produces, but there's also no denying its existence and there's also no denying that the 3d6 model is a reasonably elegant, if imperfect, attempt to model it. The game tries to model that same bell curve across six stats instead of just one; in all cases the resulting bell curve is too loose, but in all cases the model sort of works as intended. Now, in reply to Hussar and Caliban and others who say the general populace doesn't have stats at all: Somewhere deep in the Canadian wilderness is a tree, one among millions. No living person has seen this tree except maybe from the air as part of a huge sprawling forest, and no specific records have ever been made of it. Does it still have a height? A girth? An age? A species? Of course it does! Even though we don't know the specifics, all those things exist and should anyone ever bother to go and measure them actual results would be forthcoming. The same holds true of unseen elements in any kind of game world that exists beyond the PCs sight - and even what exists within the PCs sight. As the party enter Neverwinter the streets are teeming with people, and the DM maybe even mentions this. Does each person in that crowd have stats independent of each other person? A height, weight, and age? Of course they do! Even though we don't know the specifics, all those things exist - just like the tree in the f...
  • 05:46 PM - Oofta mentioned Caliban in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    ... extrapolate the truth that the general population is modelled on 3d6, even if that bell curve is flatter than the real world population. Since scores as low as 3 and as high as 18 are possible in the normal population, and since any member of the normal population could conceptually end up as an adventurer, then point-buy does not give me 'what I want'. Rolling can. Rolling leaves plenty of variation, just like real people. Rolling might not be a perfectly realistic way to generate either PCs or NPCs, but it is exponentially more realistic than point-buy or array or "every person has exactly 10 in all six ability scores". So? We don't know what the distribution should be. It doesn't matter if the scale is 3-18 or 1-100. We don't know what a realistic distribution should be, all we know is that 3d6 gives a distribution that does not reflect real world experience. As far as the populace at large, we don't need to know what their ability scores are so it's irrelevant. Or as Caliban says: NPC stats don't matter, full stop.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 74 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Monday, 8th October, 2018

  • 09:49 PM - cbwjm quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Sure, that's entirely possible. But, like me, you don't really know for sure. Send Crawford a tweet. Maybe he'll answer you. :) I decided to see if I could find anything more on Crawford's ruling and found a 2016 tweet that I hadn't seen before. I guess even Crawford isn't too fussed on which method to use so really, much like any houserules, find out which method is used when you join a table. "Magic missile. RAW: You roll 1 damage die (see "Damage Rolls," PH, 196). RAI: It doesn't matter; you choose." https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/17/magic-missile-do-you-roll-the-same-d4-for-all-darts/
  • 07:50 PM - Dannyalcatraz quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    And you think this justifies engaging in a little Sage bashing and generally being a jerk about someone who isn't present whenever his name comes up. Hey, I'm human too, and I don't like seeing people bullied or insulted, especially when - as in this instance - they were correct and all the smug little jerks bashing them are actually wrong. So you turn around and insult people? Calling someone a jerk directly or by implication is making it personal. Donít make it personal again.
  • 07:41 PM - 5ekyu quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Magic Missile specifies simultaneous damage - Scorching Ray does not. Scorching ray isn't damaging them all at once, it's doing it on different attacks. The rule doesn't apply. As I already stated in the bit of my post you quoted. Magic missile also doesn't have attack rolls. It doesn't even have a saving throw. But it does do damage simultaneously to all the targets, as specified in the spell itself. That's the important bit, since there is a rule specifically for spells that do that. Most of them are AoE spells, but Magic Missile is an exception - mainly because they wanted it to act like the iconic version of the spell which automatically hit. (In 4th edition you had to make attack rolls with Magic Missile.) In this edition, Magic Missile is kind of a unique spell in that is targeted, but also acts like an AoE in some ways. Let me make a point about the bolded part. There is no "rule" about one damage roll for "simultaneous" damage. All that rule says is "at the...
  • 07:05 PM - billd91 quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Or possibly intentionally. It's an iconic spell, and only one wizard sub-class gets the bonus - the one that is supposed to be damage focused. Given conflicting interpretations from Mearls and Crawford and overall lack of clarity, I'd say there's no intentional design going on with respect to how magic missile interacts with the evoker bonus OR with how it should be rolled. Letting magic missile slip through the cracks seems far more believable than intentionally packing multiple and significant changes to the magic missile's historical conception and then not addressing any of them.
  • 05:40 PM - delericho quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Magic Missile specifies simultaneous damage - Scorching Ray does not. p196 says nothing about the damage being simultaneous or otherwise. It specifically says "if a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target..." Scorching ray is one spell. The other problem with applying p196 to Magic Missile occurs if the missiles are divided unequally - if the Wizard sends two darts at the Ogre and one at the Goblin. If which case you "roll the damage once for all of them".
  • 05:18 PM - S'mon quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Hey, I'm human too, and I don't like seeing people bullied or insulted, especially when - as in this instance - they were correct and all the smug little jerks bashing them are actually wrong. While I think Crawford made a bad ruling and he's definitely not God's gift to rules interpretation, my problem is not with him, it's with this culture of treating tweets as holy writ. It's the rules monkeys who are the annoying jerks. (I don't plan to reply further, so feel free to get in a Parthian shot.)
  • 05:14 PM - S'mon quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Helps if you actually read the entire spell. The Magic Missile spell also says "The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several." And hey, there is a specific rule for spells that do damage to all targets at the same time! So don't pretend Jeremy Crawford was confused or making stuff up just because it's not what you wanted to hear. He has a solid basis in the rules for his answer, like it or not. Please, get off the high horse. No need to be insulting to Jeremy Crawford just because you don't like his explanation of the rules. He'd be the first one to tell you to roll the damage however you want, it's your game. Nothing you said gives any support to this ridiculous garbage ruling. I appreciate that Crawford will not personally force me to roll 1d4 and multiply it, but I don't want to see any Tweet-waving idiots at my table acting like this is a reasonable interpretation of the written rules (eg in order stack damage bonuses, ...
  • 05:13 PM - billd91 quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    So don't pretend Jeremy Crawford was confused or making stuff up just because it's not what you wanted to hear. He has a solid basis in the rules for his answer, like it or not. Please, get off the high horse. No need to be insulting to Jeremy Crawford just because you don't like his explanation of the rules. He'd be the first one to tell you to roll the damage however you want, it's your game. This wouldn't be the first time I think they've issued a weird ruling based on a literal yet non-obvious reading of the rules that comes as a surprise to most experienced players. Kind of makes me think they get backed into them rather than plan them.
  • 05:06 PM - billd91 quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Nope. The spell has to do damage to several targets at the same time, not on different attacks or rounds for this rule to apply. For the umpteenth time - PHB, page 196. Scorching Ray then. If I target multiple targets and crit on one - do I ignore the crit, roll the crit on all targets, or ignore the idea that I roll the same for each one and treat the unit of concern as each individual ray rather than the spell? If the last, then why am I not doing the same with the individual magic missiles?
  • 04:07 PM - delericho quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    Or more properly - giving answers you don't like and pretend are wrong, even if they are correct. :p No. The Sage is human, the same as everyone else. Not surprisingly, he makes mistake, the same as everyone else. And that has been true ever since the feature was introduced to Dragon magazine some decades ago.
  • 08:38 AM - S'mon quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    How about those who point to actual rules printed in the PHB which support the Sage's statement, or are you too busy laughing at your own "wit" to care about such things? It does not support the tweet* at all, it says "A dart does d4+ 1 damage to its target" and that the spell creates three. Nothing about them all doing the same damage. So yes I would be annoyed at a player being a dick and wanting to roll once for all, and if they persisted in being a dick (or quoted Twitter at me) they can get lost. *Edit: I wrote 'The Sage', but this is stupid. Sage Advice was an advice column in Dragon magazine - a printed column means time to consider and potential editorial review. The person writing it was 'The Sage' only when writing in that capacity, not as some kind of Professorial chair. Sometimes he or she got it wrong, but it was considered advice. Random tweets are not comparable IMO.
  • 08:31 AM - 5ekyu quoted Caliban in post Magic Missile. How have you and how do you roll the damage.
    How about those who point to actual rules printed in the PHB which support the Sage's statement, or are you too busy laughing at your own "wit" to care about such things?I support the Sage normally and even I say his selective reasoning here is dubious - albeit official. The mm spell says each dart does d4+1 to "its target" which is a lot different than the wording of actual AoE spells like fireball. He ignores or supplants that difference to declare them as "like AoE spells" (or was it sort of like) because of the simultaneous ruling which he then decides is what "at the same time" require under doing damage section - although one could just as easily ruled a spell like scorching ray counts as well for the "one roll hurts all targets" because it is an instantaneous spell. Basically there is a "pair of rules" you can take from the same sections and the same spells to make it treat scorching ray the same as mm or to make it different in regards to roll for each or roll once. But the diff...

Saturday, 6th October, 2018

  • 11:27 AM - Imaculata quoted Caliban in post You find a magical _____, it does _____
    Next Item: A blank scroll Shalmanezer's Scroll of Subterfuge This single use blank scroll can be placed over any spellbook, to instantly steal one of the highest level spells from the book. The stolen spell is automatically inscribed on the scroll, and vanishes from the spellbook. Once the scroll has stolen a spell, it becomes an ordinary spell scroll. Next: A mystical jeweled chakram.

Wednesday, 19th September, 2018

  • 04:27 PM - DMMike quoted Caliban in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    Arrrrr... I've had a GM say "your character wouldn't do that, it isn't what their personality would allow". I've also had the same GM say, "If you guys didn't suck so badly, I wouldn't have to cheat to keep you alive." (that last one was because he had set us against a 20th level dragon when we were 10th level in a 4th ed campaign. If there had been ANY way to escape that combat, we would have used it.) I'm also not a big fan of the whole "you need to solve this puzzle, out of character, based on some obscure bit of setting trivia, to get past this blockage" especially when the setting is a homebrew and the GM is not forthcoming with any setting info. Can we please pool our resources and make sure belphanor gets a good GM next time? I've also quit a game because the DM effectively turned my Noble background character into his NPC puppet by having the king send him on ridiculous missions that required the character to do morally questionable things in order to succeed. Oh, we...
  • 04:24 PM - Rya.Reisender quoted Caliban in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    That's great...if Jeremy Crawford is your DM. No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts. DMs that feel entitled to mess with the ruleset just piss me off and that's why it's my top 1 "Worst thing a DM can do". And yes I don't like it and thus don't play.

Friday, 14th September, 2018


Saturday, 1st September, 2018


Monday, 27th August, 2018

  • 08:51 PM - Ancalagon quoted Caliban in post Where Do They Get Their Money? Part Two
    I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination. So I'm probably completely off-base, but I suspect that in many cases any sudden price increases are for a different type of realism - that of the locals fleecing the rich tourists who are flush with new money. :) flush with old money, but yes, that could happen :)
  • 08:43 PM - Ancalagon quoted Caliban in post Where Do They Get Their Money? Part Two
    If you wanted to be "realistic" about it, yes. :) That's the thing. Some people think that PCs finding a huge hoard would drive up inflation in a significant manner, and that they (as a GM) should raise prices to be "realistic" I'm pointing out that if they want to be realistic... it wouldn't drive up prices.
  • 04:42 AM - Ancalagon quoted Caliban in post Where Do They Get Their Money? Part Two
    I think the number of adventurer's in the world would matter. If the campaign works on the "Chosen Ones" model, where only the PC's are raiding tombs, looting dungeons, and killing dragons, then yeah their impact would be minimal. On the other hand if the campaign uses the "World of Adventure" model, where there are thousands of adventurers all over the continent, all doing adventuring-type stuff, then they might have an impact on the overall economy. On the level of professional athletes and their related infrastructure does today - a local football or basketball team can have a significant impact on the local economy. A local "Adventurer's Guild" might do the same. This is a good point - but I think that the "liberated hoards of gold" phenomenon would remain rare - after all, there can only be so many hoards! If "adventuring" is common as a career, soon almost all hoards would be found/liberated.


Page 1 of 74 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Caliban's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites