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

Basic Information

Date of Birth
July 20, 1973 (45)
About Seule
Location:
Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Contact


This Page
http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?407-Seule&s=5e3218b7f9a5c7b5f5d313a44e3f6ed6
Instant Messaging

Send an Instant Message to Seule Using...

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
625
Posts Per Day
0.10
Last Post
Check Out The Cover of Swords of the Serpentine From Pelgrane Tuesday, 4th December, 2018 08:00 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
1
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 06:18 PM
Join Date
Friday, 18th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Friday, 14th December, 2018


Wednesday, 5th December, 2018


Monday, 19th June, 2017

  • 10:23 PM - FormerlyHemlock mentioned Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    ... you run a group of players who are deeply savvy about the 5E ruleset, e.g. every single PC is Mobile and Stealth-proficient and Perception-proficient and familiar with the mounted combat rules, and the party is 75% range-specialized with 25% dual-specialized in both melee and ranged combat. Now the party has options they didn't have before: they can kill the Iron Golem and/or the Sphinx, bypassing the riddle entirely, and they can engage the whole gnoll tribe in a series of mounted skirmishes (with backup mounts pre-placed at strategic locations) and degrade the gnolls until they break. The additional player savvy has a major effect on the adventure, to the point where you have to either start writing more sophisticated adventures which anticipate sophisticated players, or you have to just relax and enjoy players stomping all over standard adventures. (This BTW is why I have little use for most published adventures--they don't work as advertised vs. savvy play.) I presume that you, @Seule, have some other standard in mind for judging "severe warp", and I'd like to hear more about it.

No results to display...

Thursday, 22nd June, 2017

  • 12:44 PM - KahlessNestor quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    Stat envy is when someone else's character is better at what your character's main schtick is than you are. It is trivial to imagine a party where the Bard (primary stat Charisma) has a lower Perform score than several other characters simply because they had a spare 16+ to stick into that stat while the Bard had nothing over 13. Or even lower. Similarly, a Fighter having a lower attack bonus than the Wizard, or whatever else you want to measure that other characters can theoretically try. I'm not saying that rolled stats are bad necessarily, I'm just saying that if you use rolled stats you have to take into account that it can go badly. I want my randomness during play, not in determining which characters are more powerful. This page (http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/) shows that the odds of getting at least 1 14+ are about 92.8%. That means that an entire party rolling up stats, the odds are pretty good (each has a 7.2%, or about 1/14) that someone will have a dud array and be...

Tuesday, 20th June, 2017

  • 09:09 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    ...ood at precisely nothing. It's about the same odds, in fact, that someone will have an 18+ (9.34%). I'll take the certainly of having a playable character who can contribute over the chance of having a powerhouse... who will then overshadow other characters if I'm not careful. A meaningful shtick isn't (shouldn't be) "having an attack bonus". It is "physical combat", sometimes more specifically "archery" or "physical control." Fighters get features that make them better at these roles than wizards, even wizards with good stats. If you roll up an array like 10, 12, 11, 9, 8, 10, there is still nothing stopping you from assuming the "good at physical combat" shtick. You just do it differently. You can be a Swashbuckler or a Moon Druid--either one works fine. You could also pick a different shtick. I can see both points, but the bolded part I think hits the difference in preferences. For example, I tend to agree with Hemlock on this for the same reasons he gave. But obviously Seule looks at it differently, and has different opinions on what "good" is. From my interpretation, in order to be "good", a PC has to have the higher/highest numerical bonus in a particular aspect, especially better than other party members. Whereas with Hemlock (and myself), what makes a class good or not is the entire picture, like even if a fighter has a lower bonus to hit over a rogue based on ability score alone, the fighter has other class features that makes him still "good" at melee combat, even better than other classes.
  • 08:54 PM - FormerlyHemlock quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    Stat envy is when someone else's character is better at what your character's main schtick is than you are. It is trivial to imagine a party where the Bard (primary stat Charisma) has a lower Perform score than several other characters simply because they had a spare 16+ to stick into that stat while the Bard had nothing over 13. Or even lower. Similarly, a Fighter having a lower attack bonus than the Wizard, or whatever else you want to measure that other characters can theoretically try. A meaningful shtick isn't (shouldn't be) "having an attack bonus". It is "physical combat", sometimes more specifically "archery" or "physical control." Fighters get features that make them better at these roles than wizards, even wizards with good stats. If you roll up an array like 10, 12, 11, 9, 8, 10, there is still nothing stopping you from assuming the "good at physical combat" shtick. You just do it differently. You can be a Swashbuckler or a Moon Druid--either one works fine. You could also pick ...

Monday, 19th June, 2017

  • 10:59 PM - Lanefan quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    If you are okay with a party where one person has every stat at 16+ and another has no stat over 8 more power to you, but that doesn't fit my concept of what a cooperative, party-based adventuring game should be.The odds of that kind of spread happening within the same party (one character all 16+, another all 8-) are so extreme that if you ever see it, get thee hence to your local lottery retailer ASAP because you're on a serious roll! In fact, there are rows upon rows of graves out my window. Many dead 18 percentile fighters with names long since forgotten. So many combat focused mechanical dreams shattered and lives cut short. I need to animate them all sometime.I had a guy in my game who'd been playing 1e or variants since nearly forever. He'd lost yet another character (he was good at this) and decided to bang out another one - and in front of the table to much celebration and cheering rolled 18.00 strength for the first time in his life. That character made it out of his first ad...
  • 10:23 PM - FormerlyHemlock quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    ... you run a group of players who are deeply savvy about the 5E ruleset, e.g. every single PC is Mobile and Stealth-proficient and Perception-proficient and familiar with the mounted combat rules, and the party is 75% range-specialized with 25% dual-specialized in both melee and ranged combat. Now the party has options they didn't have before: they can kill the Iron Golem and/or the Sphinx, bypassing the riddle entirely, and they can engage the whole gnoll tribe in a series of mounted skirmishes (with backup mounts pre-placed at strategic locations) and degrade the gnolls until they break. The additional player savvy has a major effect on the adventure, to the point where you have to either start writing more sophisticated adventures which anticipate sophisticated players, or you have to just relax and enjoy players stomping all over standard adventures. (This BTW is why I have little use for most published adventures--they don't work as advertised vs. savvy play.) I presume that you, @Seule, have some other standard in mind for judging "severe warp", and I'd like to hear more about it.
  • 06:51 PM - RotGrub quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    Yep. Or play a game that actually has some balance by using a non-random character generation method. If you are okay with a party where one person has every stat at 16+ and another has no stat over 8 more power to you, but that doesn't fit my concept of what a cooperative, party-based adventuring game should be. I prefer my randomness to happen over time during play where it will even out rather than all at once during character creation. All those OSR games with characters of varying levels are more than just traumatic, they are oppressive hierarchical nightmares. Within, higher level characters wield oppressive +5% to +15% modifiers like a scourge, inflicting incurable systemic bleeding damage.
  • 06:39 PM - Oofta quoted Seule in post Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.
    I am not a fan of random rolls. It leads to unbalanced characters which can cause hard feelings. You also get things like the person who has no stat over 10... what kind of adventurer is that going to make? The two campaigns I have made characters for both use 4d6 drop lowest, then take the default array if you don't like the result. One allowed one rerolls before taking the default array, the other said to roll until you got at least a 16+ or two 14+ stats. In both campaigns I have the default arrays, while other characters started with multiple 16+ stats and nothing under 12. My characters are fun to play, no doubt there, but they seem a lot less effective than others in the respective parties. It adds up over time. Which is a problem that a lot of people face. Many groups (not all) say they roll 4d6 drop lowest when in reality it's roll until you get characters with uber-high stats which is not only unnecessary but messes with the balance of the game. Then if you state an honest opinio...

Thursday, 4th September, 2014

  • 06:53 PM - Dausuul quoted Seule in post Warlock without Eldrich Blast
    Warlocks have so much opportunity to be diverse, except that one of the three damaging spells is clearly so much better than the others. What gives? Can anyone come up with a mechanical reason to forgo Eldrich Blast aside from going all-in on a pact blade? To forgo it? Unless you plan to be a utility warlock with very limited combat ability, nope. Eldritch blast, and the Agonizing Blast invocation, are must-have for any non-bladelock who wants to be effective in a fight. I could, however, see picking up one of the other two as a backup. You might, for instance, use chill touch against a troll if you don't have access to fire or acid damage. Poison spray could be good against small agile foes (high AC, poor Con saves), and as Lancelot points out, it's nice to have a saving throw-based option in case of being stuck in melee or against foes that can mess with your attacks.
  • 04:50 PM - Chocolategravy quoted Seule in post Warlock without Eldrich Blast
    Warlocks get three options for damaging cantrips: Chill Touch: 120 foot range, spell attack roll, deals necrotic damage starting at 1d8 and scaling up to 4d8. Target also can't heal for a round and undead get Disadvantage on attacks against you. Eldrich Blast: 120 foot range, spell attack roll, deals 1d10 Force and gets additional attacks up to 4. No additional effect. Poison Spray: 10 foot range, target gets a Con save for no effect. Damage starts at 1d12 poison and scales up to 4d12. No extra effect. You'd think something called Poison Spray wouldn't be a single target puff of gas, would you? It seems like people spend more time fixing stuff than playing 5E. I'd think you could safely let the eldritch blast invocations work on the other cantrips if players wanted to take them. Poison Spray seems particularly crappy with it's CON save and range, I'd be tempted to just let it be an AE to begin with.
  • 08:22 AM - MarkB quoted Seule in post Warlock without Eldrich Blast
    Poison Spray has terrible range and caps at 4d12 damage with a saving throw for none. It's also Poison which I suspect some things are resistant or immune to. In the 4e campaign we just finished, the dragonborn barbarian chose poison as his breath weapon. The campaign was admittedly undead-heavy, but there was such a preponderance of creatures immune to poison that it became a running joke to surprisedly point out the occasions when he was in combat with a creature his breath weapon could actually damage.

Friday, 13th June, 2014

  • 02:28 PM - John Blackport quoted Seule in post Lance from horseback up close & personal
    Two-weapon reach and non should work just fine, but you are getting pretty feat-intensive to make it work well. It sure is . . . especially without the fighter-class bonus feats! I'm tempted to multi-class into 3 or 4 fighter levels, but I'd hate to slow down the mount's progression of feats and ability scores! Side note, I've been playing mounted characters on Large mounts since the first weekend of Living Greyhawk, you can get more lance charges than you might expect, particularly if you can get your mount to fly or airwalk at mid to high levels. I'm playing in a setting sort of like 1700AD. . . I'd love to try Greyhawk someday.
  • 01:31 PM - John Blackport quoted Seule in post Lance from horseback up close & personal
    I was just pointing out that reach weapons can't attack opponents adjacent to the mount. --Penn Not the answer I wanted to hear of course :) but your explanation makes a lot of sense: you "take on the space of the mount with your reach". Terrible news for riders of mounts of bigger than Large size! Here's another situation I'd like your thoughts on: Whirlwind Attack allows you one attack against "each enemy within reach". I'm leaving all the "spiked chain" stuff out of this, since I have no interest in it. Theoretically, you could have a reach weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other, to get attacks on everyone in 5' and 10', with all the appropriate penalties to hit. The problem is that, when you are on foot, all reach weapons seem to require the use of two hands. But when you are mounted, lances can be used in one hand. A horseman's pick in the other hand is a light weapon, which helps with the TWF penalties (especially if you don't have the TWF feat --- as you know, few ...

Seule's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites