View Profile: Alaxk Knight of Galt - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About Alaxk Knight of Galt

Basic Information

About Alaxk Knight of Galt
Location:
Knoxville, Tn

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
701
Posts Per Day
0.12
Last Post
Day of the Doctor Monday, 25th November, 2013 03:50 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Tuesday, 2nd December, 2014 10:31 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 10th April, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to show...
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Wednesday, 13th November, 2013

  • 07:45 PM - Morrus quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post New forum style available
    Link color seems to be a style thing (Reborn has blue links, the new legacy and eric noah has yellow links). Legacy used to have orange links. Like I mentioned, the luminous orange was a a bug. It was supposed to apply to just the control links (edt/reply/etc.). The fact that it was affecting regular links was an issue. Do you really want me to try to recreate one that looks like that screenshot? I will if it's important to you, but it might take a day or two.
  • 07:30 PM - Morrus quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post New forum style available
    Other differences Orange links (instead of yellow) Text font color was white/gray (instead of yellow) The Menu Bar featured buttons and was much larger (instead of plain text links) I mentioned those above. They aren't to do with the style.
  • 07:22 PM - Morrus quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post New forum style available
    I had the old legacy style opened in a different tab. I took some screen shots 5959859599 Ah! Got it. It's the background image! I added the background image! I can make a version without it if it's bothering you. (The luminous orange text was a bug - that was supposed to be the category header). Those right columns should have a black b/g. I see that too ( I had the sidebar closed). I'll fix that when I get a second.
  • 06:59 PM - Shemeska quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post New forum style available
    Hate to be that guy, but it's not (at least at the time of writing this) :D Agreed. What I was using as of like a day ago had the appearance of the reborn style, but black background and white text. The helf-fiend love child is not the same as that. The font and font size is completely different, only the colors are similar to what I had previously.
  • 06:58 PM - Morrus quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post New forum style available
    Hate to be that guy, but it's not (at least at the time of writing this) :D It's not what? It's the same style with a different name and a few fixes. I created the Eric Noah style by simply changing the logo on Legacy. I can rename it back to Legacy again if you like, but I figured the new name was cooler! :)

Friday, 8th November, 2013

  • 04:37 PM - quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ex-WotC Employees Weigh in on the No M:tG RPG Debate
    That bit is great. The mechanics are different, therefore they can never be used together! Exactly. Sure, we're not going to have a MTG: D&D where you summon monsters and battle players, but that's not what people wanted anyway, all anyone wanted was little more than we got for any of the other dozen book series written in the D&D universe, a "Guide to ....(Phyrexia, Domanaria, etc..) with D&D styled stats for D&D versions of MTG characters and monsters, and general location information.

Monday, 4th November, 2013

  • 11:08 PM - Deset Gled quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
    At the time, people I was around thought that WotC would surely make Dominaria the core setting of Dungeons and Dragons (and thus, hurting the brand). Elves would all be Llanowar Elves, goblins all from the Mons tribe, Dragons would be Shivan Dragons, etc. This is exactly the brand dilution that Dancey was talking about, and it's a very real problem. Even if Magic was just a campaign setting, elements would bleed together. The closer two pieces of IP are to each other, the harder it would be to keep them separate. It's also one of the reasons why they projected that sales of the crossover would be low: fans of both sides would eat it up, but others would completely shun it. The backlash from the crossover might even hurt sales of other books. IMNSHO, the only way that Magic could have been successful as an RPG is if it was a completely separate d20 product, like Warcraft. Dungeons and Dragons has room for lots of different settings (Eberron, Dark Sun, Spell Jammer, etc). This is argua...
  • 09:32 PM - Deset Gled quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
    I played both magic and DnD when WotC purchased TSR. The fear was (at least at the local shop) was that MtG would become the default setting for Dungeons and Dragons. I am confused by the way that you are arguing that WotC should have done some work to merge the MtG and D&D products, while at the same describing the general atmosphere of the customer base as "fear" of merging the MtG and D&D products.
  • 08:53 PM - Jacob Marley quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
    This times a thousand. Look at the Weatherlight Saga. This plot SCREAMS Dungeons and Dragons. A god banished locked in the 9th plane of hell (in this case Phyrexia). To do this, he's constructing an artificial plane of to overlap with the Dominaria. Only by collecting and understanding the artifacts left behind by a mysterious wizard can this threat be stopped. I believe Mark Rosewater referred to the Weatherlight Saga as a failure. I cannot find the quote, but it was referenced in this thread on Reddit. I think this quote from Reddit sums up a lot of what many Magic players feel: I like Magic because it's a game of strategy and math. I don't play Magic because it lets me feel like I'm living in an adventure novel. One day this silly back story just showed up and I totally didn't care about it. I think WotC made the right decision in keeping the two brands separate. I am not convinced that what Magic players want and need from a product is in line with what D&D players want and need from a pr...
  • 07:48 PM - billd91 quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
    The whole things reeks of the Magic side saying you can't play with our toys. Sometimes this is the right stand to take - particularly if your team has got a good thing going and the other team does not. Back in the early days of 3e, arguably both were looking good. But I can certainly understand Magic being wary of D&D's problems now. Ultimately, I'm not complaining. Magic has some fun lore to it, but it can certainly exist well separate from D&D and vice versa.
  • 07:24 PM - Tovec quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
    The "logic" behind it is mind-boggling. Here are the main points Magic is different from Dungeons and Dragons (asses, monsters, and friends argument) Magic as a setting might not sell and might be too expensive Magic would be diluted Inter-team squabbling I just want to say I agree with the prevailing opinion here. Asses, Monsters, and Friends Magic, as a setting, is an IP. IP successfully cross from their original genre all the time. Star Wars has made the leap from Movie to Comics, Games (Video, Board, RP), Novels, Television, etc. The setting, lore, characters, tropes, and themes are what translate, not the nuts and bolts. WotC translated Star Wars from a movie into a Roleplaying Game. Are they unable to translate a CCG into an RPG simply because it's roots are in a competitive game? Yeah, that one is total BS. Although it speaks to the ability of Dancey's colleagues instead of the property itself. Maybe THEY can't figure out how to make a game where the players aren't against each ot...
  • 07:16 PM - Jester David quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Ryan Dancey: This is why there was no M:tG setting for D&D
    Asses, Monsters, and Friends Magic, as a setting, is an IP. IP successfully cross from their original genre all the time. Star Wars has made the leap from Movie to Comics, Games (Video, Board, RP), Novels, Television, etc. The setting, lore, characters, tropes, and themes are what translate, not the nuts and bolts. WotC translated Star Wars from a movie into a Roleplaying Game. Are they unable to translate a CCG into an RPG simply because it's roots are in a competitive game? I bolded the most likely answer. Magic is competitive. The point of the setting is wizards fighting other wizards with monsters. It's trickier getting that into a cooperative RPG without losing the spirit of the source game. The die-hard fans of one might be less interested in the play of the other. It's worth noting, that this would have been the early 3e era. Right after WotC acquired TSR, having watched the gaming giant fall for trying to support too many disparate brands. WotC only really supported FR at this junction, alth...

Thursday, 22nd August, 2013

  • 10:49 AM - Zardnaar quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Revisiting 4th Edition
    We've now finished the 4th Edition game. We played through Reavers of Harkenwold, Cairn of the Winter King, and Madness at Gardmore Abbey. My thoughts on what could very well be my last experience with 4th Edition. 1. Magic items in 4th are all wrong. Most armor, weapons, and necks have a power associated with them, thus increasing the analysis paralysis the system suffers from as a whole. Turning over magic items to the players is a mistake, it turned magic items into a chore as players (namely me) had to sift through thousands of level X items to decide who could best use the unnamed, unformed loot found. 2. Conditions are out of hand. Too many things gave minor effects, +1 to defenses, +2 to attacks against a certain target, temp HP if you stood on your hands as a minor action. Save ends, until the end of the next turn, until the start of your next turn, until applied to another target, etc. They are a book keeping nightmare and impossible to get right. They slow down combat (which doesn't n...

Wednesday, 21st August, 2013


Thursday, 30th May, 2013

  • 02:53 PM - sheadunne quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Skill idea 3,142
    Since you cap at 5 ranks in a skill, a rogue with a 20 starting dex can never improve Stealth, Acrobatics, or any other Dex based skill? Worse, a rogue with an 18 dex can improve a dex based skill, but it cost him 5 skill points for a +1 bonus. I understand why it bugs people, it bugs me :D. Hell, even if you just sum Stat + Skill Rank with a +5 cap, you run into system mastery problems. If a character ever increases a stat (say from 16 to 18), if they didn't plan for it from level 1, they could easily lose a skill point. Say Dex 16 and Stealth of 2 to get a +5 bonus on Stealth checks. Dex goes to 18. Now you've wasted a skill point. So there are some design flaws with either/or. It has system mastery issues and leaves very little room for PC growth in a skill. This system could work with a few changes. Sum Stat Modifier and Skill Rank Make the Cap +10 +5 is the maximum modifier from a Stat 5 is the maximum rank in a Skill You've accomplished your goal in bounding skill checks and you d...

Wednesday, 29th May, 2013

  • 08:50 PM - sheadunne quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Skill idea 3,142
    Interesting idea So under this proposed system, would you apply your Str Modifier to your climb check or would it just be pure climb? Stated another way - Is the point a pure +1 to your normal Str check. Using 3.5 rules, how do you handle multi-class characters. I'm prepping a 3.5 Dark Sun game and I've been struggling with the skill system. I really like the trained / untrained system that was implemented in 4th and I'm hoping to add that level of simplicity to my upcoming 3.5 game. Under the either/or system, it would be Str 18 (+4) or Climb 5 ranks (+5). Don't add them together. It bugs a lot of people to not add your stat to your skill roll, but it does balance the two. Use the Pathfinder system which is a bit easier of a system than the 3.5 model. You don't have to use their skill list but the ranking system is easier and gets rid of class skills.
  • 03:51 PM - steeldragons quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post I miss seeing xp-comments
    I too would like to see XP on posts come back. I think it adds value to the site by Highlighting posts that the community thought was interesting, insightful, or humorous. Encouraging me (and I'm sure others) to strive to make every post I add XP worthy. Allow a user to publicly praise a good post without making a new post to simply praise it. Any feature brings the opportunity to misuse it and those who choose to do that should suffer the wrath of the mods. Fear of misuse should not be a reason to remove (or fail to implement) the system. The public XP system added to my enjoyment of the site and I hope it returns. All of this x2. Hope it finds its way back eventually.

Friday, 25th January, 2013

  • 04:51 PM - D'karr quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Revisiting 4th Edition
    Another thing I should note. There's a shift from Magic Items being the domain of the DM to the domain of the players. We've received magic items of level X and are tasked with selecting the items. I'm not sure I like that approach... With latter books, and item rarity, there was a shift on this back towards the DM. In my game, I've always been in control of the Magic Items, but I've also made them much more interesting than the base items. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium is a much more interesting book of magic items, than Adv Vault 1 & 2. YMMV.
  • 04:50 PM - DEFCON 1 quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Revisiting 4th Edition
    Another thing I should note. There's a shift from Magic Items being the domain of the DM to the domain of the players. We've received magic items of level X and are tasked with selecting the items. I'm not sure I like that approach... Yeah, that seems like it can get kind of lame when there's no "item" to speak of in the treasure pile. It kinda of short-changes the narrative. Seems like the DM is taking the concept of the "wish list" and just removing all effort on his own part and putting it all on you. The original idea of the "wish list" I think was a good one. Rather than populating treasure piles with heaps of magic items that no one gives two rats about and which end up just getting sold off for gold (which begged the question why there *weren't* more magic item shops that sold all these excess magic items that all these adventuring parties didn't want)... the "wish list" gave a DM an idea of what players would actually want and actually use, and thus could populate his treasure piles accordin...

Wednesday, 23rd January, 2013

  • 08:15 AM - pemerton quoted Alaxk Knight of Galt in post Revisiting 4th Edition
    skill challenges sound great on paper but make for poor mechanics in play. I know plenty of other 4e fans love SCs, but I tend to agree with you. I'm one of those who think that skill challenges - that is, a complex non-combat scene-resolution mechanic - are a good thing. They impose discipline on the GM's narration, give the players a focus for their efforts, and introduce finality. D&D has always had finality in its combat resolution, but has long lacked it in relation to non-combat situations. I really like SC but they are hard to pull off sometimes, or in the manner one expects. I found running a bunch of them to be very helpful; I got better the more I ran.For anyone who is interested, this thread talked about running skill challenges in some detail, with a bunch of different 4e GMs posting about their ideas and techniques. When I use a "published" skill challenge I always "flip" it to work in this manner. The skill challenges seem to work better when they are organically merged with the ...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Alaxk Knight of Galt's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites