View Profile: Reynard - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Reynard

Basic Information

About Reynard
Introduction:
Writer and gamer.
Location:
Southwestern Connecticut
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Twitter:
IanAsItWere
Facebook:
IanAsItWere

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,158
Posts Per Day
0.68
Last Post
Official D&D Errata Updated (Nov 2018) Saturday, 17th November, 2018 04:34 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
61
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:37 AM
Join Date
Friday, 18th January, 2002
Home Page
http://www.ianeller.com
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

4 Friends

  1. LostSoul LostSoul is offline

    Member

    LostSoul
  2. Mark Mark is offline

    CreativeMountainGames.com

    Mark
  3. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
  4. The Shaman The Shaman is offline

    Member

    The Shaman
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4

Saturday, 17th November, 2018


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 29th September, 2018

  • 03:51 PM - OB1 mentioned Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences With High Level 5E
    Reynard - Thanks for the write up. Just curious as to what the level of the characters were and what you calculated the XP value of each fight as. Also, what if any magic items did the party have? I show the first fight as 29,700 XP and the second as a 33,100 XP base. If these were tier IV characters I probably wouldn't use a multiplier since all of the enemies are of a CR significantly below the party.

Thursday, 27th September, 2018

  • 01:56 AM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Reynard in post Sell me on D&D Beyond
    While there are various pros and cons, options to weigh, YMMV, etc., the decision to purchase content on D&D Beyond basically boils down to: Buy it because you would feel guilty about torrenting a PDF of the core rule books. OR, don't buy it because you don't feel guilty about torrenting a PDF of the core rule books. This would only seem true with a shallow understanding of what DDB provides. Having the PHB on DDB is strictly more valuable than having a PDF of the PHB. By far. Like, I can't even fathom how one could equate them. Reynard DDB is better than other digital versions of the books because of a few factors. 1, Indexed searching with in depth filters 2, hyperlinks 3, multiple ways to find information. You can either open the PHB via the Compendium tab, or go to Characters>Classes>Official>Wizard, and look there, or just type in Spellbook, and scroll down. 4, easy access to what is being playtested in unearthed arcana 5, great way to tinker with homebrew, and maintain a searchable collection of it, and then use it in conjuction with official material. 6, mobile app. it's still in beta, but it already has offline viewing of the books, and will eventually have the full functionality of the service. So, even if DDB goes away, you still have whatever books you downloaded to your devices from the app. Also, if you get the Legendary Bundle, it's all 15% down from normal amazon prices, including anything you ever buy on the service going forward. Also, if you just by the core books right now, and decided to...

Wednesday, 12th September, 2018

  • 07:45 PM - Satyrn mentioned Reynard in post Black Pudding split
    I think here original refers to the pudding being targeted but not their starting HP. Otherwise, you could theoretically be in an endless pudding feedback loop! So...it's the second option: That's totally how I read it, too . . . But I'm with Reynard. When I gave my homebrew demon the ability the split in half, I had it so that a Large one split into 2 Mediums, with the chance that those Mediums inherit the ability to split into Smalls. Even if the Large had 1 hit point when it split, each of those Smalls would start with their normal max (somewhere around 10 each). Mostly because it's meaner.

Thursday, 23rd August, 2018


Tuesday, 21st August, 2018

  • 12:41 PM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ...tomatically as part of movement by default" and "jump farther more recklessly knowing i can risk a lot of potential bad results aka setbacks" [Athletcis check, possible setbacks and other bad results.}I can see that. For my tastes, that's drilling down more than is needed - like we don't normally distinguish between different sorts of moves in melee combat - but that's just taste. Either way, the resolution comes out the same. My approach puts the p 64 rules more on the GM side, whereas your approach treats them as something (or as a model of something, like knowledge of their capacity for performing) that the characters engage with in their atheltic pursuits. The potentially different goals can be "jump a specific distance to a specific spot" (targeted jump at/to something) or just jump as far as i can in this direction" or quite a few others. likely others as well.Agreed, but again I think this sort of granularity isn't needed most of the time. I guess it becomes relevant for Reynard's scenario, though, where the PC has to not only jump from A but land on a reasonably small and wobbly B. One approach would be to up the DC for the STR (Athletics) check, and if it fails by no more than 5 allow a DEX (Acrobatics) check to hold on anyway.
  • 04:57 AM - iserith mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ...was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either. Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty. My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does. What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and @robus and I think @SkidAce, @5ekyu and @Reynard, on the one hand, and you and @Charlaquin on the other. I still think this comes down to approach. There are two goals here, you might say: Jumping Normally and Jumping An Unusually Long Distance. You can certainly achieve the second goal, in some circumstances, given a viable approach. This might mean interacting with the terrain in some fashion that is unusual, getting the assistance of an ally, or using a resource that reasonably helps. The resolution of that outcome may or may not involve a Strength (Athletics) check. What is a viable approach requires context and, even if we're all looking at the same context, we may rule differently as to its viability. Some might say it works, others that it doesn't - no roll. Some might say it's uncertain and call for a check. Among those latter folk, the DCs may vary. Do I think a character can jump an unusually long distance? Yes. The rules say it's possible. What matters is the approach they offer to achieve that goal.
  • 04:30 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ... was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either. Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty. My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does. What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and robus and I think SkidAce, 5ekyu and Reynard, on the one hand, and you and Charlaquin on the other.

Monday, 20th August, 2018

  • 03:15 PM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ...ll allow the character to succeed. I prefer using "say 'yes'" as a device to manage dramatic pacing rather than as a response to tactical planning, and to use "fail forward" to manage the outcomes of failure. It's also the case that it's a long time since I've run a system with a "notoriously fickle" d20 (4e has the illusion of being such a system, but there are so many player-side resources for generating post hoc boosts, retries, etc that it really isn't) - BW and Prince Valiant are dice pools, Classic Traveller is mostly 2d6, and Cortex+ Heroic is very complicated dice pools with a lot of player-side manipulation as well. Because of the way 5e strongly demarcates "mundane" checks and "magical" spells and class abilities, I suspect it may be hard to play in the style I prefer, which is one reason why I don't play it. But on this particular issue of a character jumping further than s/he easily can, I think drifting it in that direction in the way that I've described (following Reynard's description) is not that hard at all. (And in lieu of any sophisticated "fail forward" in the event of failure, if the PC is 14th level as Reynard suggested then the hp mechanics will probably carry that load.)
  • 04:44 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    I would certainly allow a PC to exceed their normal jump distance with a successful Strength (Athletics) check. I just don't consider "I try to jump further than I can normally jump by jumping normally" an action with an uncertain outcome, and therefore wouldn't call for a Strength (Athletics) check to resolve it. If, on the other hand, the player offers a method of jumping further than they can normally, that may or may not require a check to resolve, and as per the rules, I would call for Strength (Athletics) to resolve it.Can you give an example of a method of jumping further than they can normally? I mean, are you envisaging the player describing the use of a pogo stick, or spring board? Or a ramp to gain extra height? It's not clear to me why those sorts of things would involve STR checks (using acrobatic equipment looks like DEX check territory to me). A STR check smacks to me of trying harder, which is what Reynard described. If a character tries harder, I also think it's fair game to impose costs eg in this sort of case, hp loss for strained/torn muscles. That works very well in 4e (in my experience), but may be it doesn't translate into 4e where hp are perhaps governed by tighter expectations for their loss and recovery?
  • 04:34 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    I'm with Reynard - taking a deep breath and giving it all you've got is an approach to jumping across a chasm. Because it takes time to take a deep breath, the GM might reasonably advance any "clocks" that are ticking in the situation.
  • 02:37 AM - Oofta mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    Unusually being the key there. If you are just going to say yes to every time they ask to jump farther, it's no longer unusual. Also, that rule does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within the context of Page 6. To declare an action you describe what your PC is doing and then the DM adjudicates it. "I use athletics to jump farther" is not a description of what your PC is doing. It's a statement of intent, sure, but a description it is not. So you are breaking the rule on Page 6 if you accept that. That's fine, but it's effectively a house rule to do so. Usually you jump feet equal to your strength. I never said I would allow it all the time and honestly, I don't use the jumping rules all that often in the first place. If I thought someone was abusing it, I'd discuss it with the player. But, if the character is being chased by zombies like in Reynard's scenario I'd allow it. I think it's more fun, realistic and a cleaner reading of the rules. As others have pointed out, you don't have the corner on the truth.

Sunday, 19th August, 2018

  • 08:23 PM - iserith mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    We have probably exhausted the potential for worthwhile debate on the topic, especially given our very different readings of that paragraph in the DMG. But thank you! It was a fun discussion. Indeed. I'll leave you with this which gives an example of what the DMG is talking about in that section (page 239, for anyone who wants to see what Reynard was referencing). So here, from Basic Rules, page 2: Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, youíre looking at the gargoyles? Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations? DM: Make an Intelligence check. <--- Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply? <--- DM: Sure! Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven. DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge? In other words, "Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check."

Sunday, 5th August, 2018

  • 04:37 AM - Henry mentioned Reynard in post The playtest is here!!
    Critical Role was Pathfinder when it was a homegame, for the two years before the stream started. It was never streamed as Pathfinder. They switched to 5e for its faster play. CR has too good of a relationship with WotC to switch back now, and D&D Beyond is a major sponsor. Pathfinder has done a few attempts at streaming. Know Direction has one: http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/category/podcasts/kd-adventurous/ And there is an official Paizo Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/officialpaizo But few games are streamed there. They did apparently do a playtest game: https://twitter.com/JasonBulmahn/status/1025252371205697536 If a podcast of an hour or so is something Reynard is looking for, Glass Cannon Podcast is a very good one to check into, and itís officially Paizo sponsored.

Monday, 8th January, 2018

  • 06:02 PM - Oofta mentioned Reynard in post Setting Party level vs an Ancient Red Dragon
    I've been busy and didn't respond before, but I do have to say that the party was given every possible advantage and then some. So Reynard, I wanted to give some feedback ... I don't think the system is necessarily broken, but you bent too far backwards to "help" the party. It happens to all DMs, I know it's happened to me more than once (and probably will again) and it has very little to do with 5E. Solos are never easy to run, have never worked very well and the CR guidelines aren't going to be much help when you gave them this much of an advantage and an additional 20th level character. Having said all that, I'm trying to give some helpful advice. But the big question is: did the players have fun? If they did, then the encounter was a success. Sometimes the players stomp on your encounters, it's part of the game. wish to create a simulacrum of a 20th level bard Did they have access to a 20th level bard for the 12 hours it takes to cast the spell? Also, note the part of the rules of Simulacrum where it gives the rules for repairing it. Specific beats general in this game and if there's a specific rule...

Thursday, 14th December, 2017

  • 05:37 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Reynard in post Setting Party level vs an Ancient Red Dragon
    Reynard As a rule of thumb, I'd add +2 to Hit and Damage rolls, and add a 1d6 to the fire damage from its attacks. I think the CR rules in the DMG would only indicate a +1 to attacks, but I'd go a little more. Raise its AC to 21, which won't make a huge difference, but will turn a few hits into misses Raise the DC for Frightful Presence, Breath Weapon, and Wing Attack by 1 (Wis DC 20, Dex DC 22, Dex DC 23, respectively). I'd also add a good amount of HP...probably about 100. Or give it some other means to help mitigate damage. A simple Potion of Invulnerability would allow it to take half damage from all of the PC attacks for 10 rounds. These increases put it somewhere between the CR 17 Adult and the CR 21 Ancient. However, I think the key to this will be to increase the number of Legendary Actions and uses of Legendary Resistance. I think you could double each, at least. And as Warmaster Horus suggested, maybe create a couple of unique Legendary Actions that you think woul...

Tuesday, 15th March, 2016

  • 05:55 PM - innerdude mentioned Reynard in post D&D comes to Middle Earth (from Cubicle 7)
    ...antra constantly on these forums, "Play what you like! It's okay to have your own preferences! No one has to tell you you're having badwrongfun!" But as soon as I talk about my dissatisfaction with the current One Ring product line, because I have personal preferences of what I enjoy in the Lord of the Rings fiction, somehow I'm now a bitter nerd-rager? To give some context: Faramir is BY FAR my favorite character in the Lord of the Rings fiction. (Peter Jackson's deplorable treatment of Faramir in the movies is worthy of much more nerd rage than Cubicle 7, but that's another debate entirely. :p;)) The entire backstory of Gondor, Numenor, Isildur and Anarion, the North and South Kingdoms of the Men of the West, etc., are by far my favorite parts of the Lord of the Rings lore, closely followed by the history of the Silmarils. I don't currently have any tattoos, but if I ever got one, it would be of exactly one thing --- the White Tree of Gondor. So yeah, I'm partial to Gondor. And @Reynard might be right; The One Ring isn't "made" just for me. They made a design decision to stick to one particular time period and locales for the system. And because of those choices, I have been unwilling to promote the system more, because that's not the Lord of the Rings RPG play experience I want. To me, The One Ring is missing what I consider to be some crucial, nay, vital pieces. Why the need to jump to Cubicle 7's defense? Do you work for them, or have some business interest? They made a choice to focus on what I see as particularly uninteresting aspects of Middle-Earth's Third Age. I'm not denigrating anyone who prefers what they've already produced; I'm simply saying I will be dissatisfied as a customer until I see support for Gondor characters. And this is somehow . . . offensive? As far as what Cubicle 7 posted on their web site, it's a lovely sentiment. Truly, I'm sure they mean it from the bottom of their hearts, and I'm sure they feel it when they say it. But the harsh real...

Wednesday, 27th January, 2016


Tuesday, 26th January, 2016

  • 11:56 PM - Quickleaf mentioned Reynard in post What map of Faerun can I use for DM Guild?
    Reynard I totally agree with you in principle about going for quality. But financially I'm not sure if doing commissioned art/maps as a little guy makes sense. If you look at a lot of the products on DM's Guild they're "pay what you want" with an average paid price of roughly $1.50. A commissioned full page piece of color art or map could easily run you $100. And remember that DM's Guild (technically OneBookShelf & WotC) takes a 50% royalty on every sale. So to recoup the price of a $100 commission, under the "pay what you want" model (where you're averaging profits of $0.75 per sale), you'd need to bring in about 133 sales to break even. I'm just not sure what kind of volume DM's Guild sales numbers look like, but my hunch is that reaching 133 sales would be a significant milestone for a little guy. That explains why few of the products I've seen use original commissioned art, and instead favor no art, Public Domain art, stock art, etc. bristolscale7 While I do think that WotC will ...

Tuesday, 7th April, 2015

  • 09:34 PM - feldrol mentioned Reynard in post FANTASY GROUNDS Virtual Tabletop's D&D License!
    Gecko85 : With one click you apply fog of war everywhere on the map. Then to remove it, you draw a rectangle or a freeform. Reynard : To see if this product is for you, sign on for an adventure at FGCon later this month. It is free and you will be able to play as a player. You will see how the programm runs for players.

Thursday, 12th March, 2015

  • 04:24 PM - Manchu mentioned Reynard in post So what exactly is Wizards working on?
    @Reynard Oh okay, sure I totally agree with that. I meant more that, GenCon was a wash in terms of 5E. The fun I had there was "edition neutral" which is counter-intuitive for an edition's launch event. DEFCON 1 I understand there are constraints on OP adventures that home play products can ignore but I don't think those constraints excuse bland writing. Maybe whoever wrote those adventures was trying to be "iconic"? I think anyone who has played D&D (even a D&D CRPG) would recognize those AL adventures as a pack of tropes.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 44 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 19th November, 2018

  • 03:35 PM - CapnZapp quoted Reynard in post Official D&D Errata Updated (Nov 2018)
    Probably. i had a player who during a high level test played a sorcerer paladin multiclass that really took advantage of that combo. I don't think this errata changes one main reason to multiclass Warlock with other spellcasting classes - that you can recharge your slots on short rests and then use those slots for smiting (Paladin) or sorcery points (Sorcerer). I think this is only about shutting down the idea that you can multiclass Wizard 5 and Cleric 5 and still pick spells as either a Wizard 10 or a Cleric 10. You can't. You never could.

Friday, 19th October, 2018

  • 06:22 PM - Retreater quoted Reynard in post DnD Sports Changes Name To RPG Sports
    Well, to be fair, that was only the suggestion if the players couldn't manage to figure out the actual program. Also, players not being ready when their turns come up and/or not knowing what their spells and abilities do in the game has been a problem since forever. That's not the fault of technology, that's just the tendency for some people to be super lazy. I can agree with you there. I don't like lazy players. I guess the difference between is that I think (for the cost), D&D Beyond should work better than it does and have better features. It doesn't come close to doing what I would want it to do as a DM, and it costs about 3X what I would consider a good price.
  • 04:14 PM - Retreater quoted Reynard in post DnD Sports Changes Name To RPG Sports
    Why do you think tools that make it easier for people to play the game are the "worst directions of the hobby"? Just my opinions. I think D&D Beyond is an over-priced mess that slows down the game. I've never had a player use it at the table that didn't take 5 minutes to look up a spell. And Roll20 - just search YouTube for the recent controversy. Not getting into it on here, but I will never support a company with those business practices. In fact, it sort of makes this entire enterprise questionable, and I would prefer if WotC pulled their license.
  • 01:45 PM - pming quoted Reynard in post DnD Sports Changes Name To RPG Sports
    Hiya! I smell a feel good sports movie... Cotton: "Yes...no..I... I'm being told that the Tuckers Kobolds doesn't have anyone above 0 hit points and will be forfeiting the rest of match". Pepper: "It's a bold strategy Cotton, lets see if it pays of for 'em". ^_^ Paul L. Ming

Tuesday, 16th October, 2018

  • 11:02 PM - pemerton quoted Reynard in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    While this is true enough as far as it goes, it says nothing about the nature of those stories or the characters in them. A role-playing game is no less a "storytelling game" because it focuses on stories of combat and competition.I'm not sure what point you're making that you think I missed. I am talking about the nature of the rules. 3e and 4e have a lot of rules, 5e is more (though not completely) about rulings. The emphasis has shifted from the rules to a story. I believe Mike even said as much recently in this thread about D&D design goals: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?653636-Mearls-On-D-amp-D-s-Design-Premises-GoalsI play actual rules-light storytelling games (eg the last 5 sessions I've GMed have been Prince Valiant and Cthulhu Dark). 5e has about as many rules as 4e (it doesn't have a skill challenge mechanic, and it's martial combat mechanics are slimmer though it's magic mechanics are less slim). So I don't take Mearls seriously on this. Or, rather, I take him ...
  • 10:26 AM - Tun Kai Poh quoted Reynard in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Unless -- and oh my God I hope they are doing this -- it's more like the WWE. That'd be amazing. The One Shot Podcast network already does this, wrestling-style. It's called The Dungeon Dome. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3-PonsBj4qNxSmRtZq0GHpfU7pZl30Mp

Monday, 15th October, 2018

  • 09:01 PM - Sword of Spirit quoted Reynard in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    I have been designing the bones of a competitive D&D for a while now and what I did was have two identical dungeons that lead into the arena. Each group goes through the dungeon to get to the arena. Arriving first has the benefit of allowing your team prep time or even a rest (depending on how long the other team takes), but spending more time in the dungeon means having time to look for things like potions and scrolls and other consumable resources. I'll be curious to see how they end up doing it. I'd be curious to see how your idea ends up working.
  • 08:12 PM - Ristamar quoted Reynard in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    I just mean the part about it having characters and scripts and stuff. Like, not PCs, but the players being big WWE style personalities. I don't think it will be scripted but tonally I'm sure it's going to be much closer to WWE than DotA or LoL. The people freaking out with the eSports comparisons are way off base.
  • 08:11 PM - Satyrn quoted Reynard in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    I just mean the part about it having characters and scripts and stuff. Like, not PCs, but the players being big WWE style personalities. Yeah, I got that. I just wanted to piggy back on the awesomeness with a silly joke.
  • 08:06 PM - Satyrn quoted Reynard in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Unless -- and oh my God I hope they are doing this -- it's more like the WWE. That'd be amazing. Well since weapons are involved, it'd be more like ECW. And crazy physics!

Saturday, 13th October, 2018

  • 11:34 PM - Charles Dunwoody quoted Reynard in post Free League: Explore Many Worlds with One Game System Part 1 of 2
    I am super excited to hear the Year Zero system is going OGL. It's a great system. Where can I learn more about this? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1192053011/forbidden-lands-retro-open-world-survival-fantasy OGL for Year Zero rule system was a stretch goal for the Forbidden Lands kickstarter I linked. That RPG is about to ship so I hope to hear something about the OGL soon.

Friday, 12th October, 2018

  • 09:36 PM - Mercule quoted Reynard in post Need a system recommendation
    My decision to pick up and try Genesys was not based on system "heft" so much as it being a nonbinary core mechanic. I am kind of tired of pass/fail. Yeah. This definitely is appealing. I'm kinda wondering whether it requires prior buy-in for the narrative dice to work or if the mechanics would pull narration out of reticent players. Also, anything without a power and complexity ramp is good for me. I have grown to dislike running even mid level 5E. This is where Fate (among others) appeals to me, as well. 5E D&D has a "sweet spot" of 5th-10th levels (or so). I can deal with the 1-3 "training" levels, but have been starting games at 3rd. I've also made it clear to my players that things will wrap right around the time they get 5th level spells -- and it's really the spells that bug me, though oodles of HP aren't a winner, either. I'm not totally sold on just how little advancement there is to Fate. I'd like to see the characters grow some. But, I haven't played in a campaign of it, ye...
  • 09:07 PM - Mercule quoted Reynard in post Need a system recommendation
    This thread prompted me to finally go ahead and spring for Genysis (plus some dice). I have been curious for a while. I'll be curious to see how easy it is to build in community rules. I picked it up when it was on sale for something like $12.50. I liked a lot of what it tries to do and would happily play it. Ultimately, it wasn't enough to suck me away from D&D because I wanted something lighter weight and I felt that Genesys is almost exactly as "heavy" as D&D. Yes, it lacks levels and classes are much more suggestions than straight-jackets (which I consider to be a huge plus). But, my players are resistant to changing systems, so not worth the effort -- especially because I had my eye on Fate specifically because I'm tired of having to memorize rules-by-exception and like the idea of "makes sense for your character". Still, I may have to pick up the Terranoth sourcebook, sometime.

Thursday, 4th October, 2018

  • 05:04 PM - Xaelvaen quoted Reynard in post Need a system recommendation
    The Cypher system may work for you. There's a free primer over at DTRPG to give you an idea of how it works. There is also Modern AGE, which also provides a preview. I have been looking for something similar, except I want a game that will handle modern era, normal people trapped in faerie-land, preferably with a level-of-success system (rather than a straight pass/fail system) that can also handle rules for negotiating with terrible powers and trying to keep a community alive. I backed the original Numenera in kickstarter, from which the Cypher system derived; incredibly fast play, narrative heavy - would also fit your criteria quite well. So seconding Reynard's recommendation (excepting my own previous).

Wednesday, 3rd October, 2018

  • 02:14 AM - S'mon quoted Reynard in post Which First Level Adventure for Beginners/Returning Lapsed Adults
    If only there was a thread where you could suggest such adventures... http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?653795-Which-First-Level-Adventure-for-Beginners-Returning-Lapsed-Adults&p=7501430#post7501430 And I've been running Stonehell Dungeon in 5e for the past year - it's brilliant, but the format takes a bit of getting used to to appreciate. I mentioned Gygax's Village of Hommlet upthread.

Tuesday, 2nd October, 2018

  • 09:00 PM - 5ekyu quoted Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences with Theater of the Mind 5E
    I am tired of grids and miniatures and fiddly tactical rules. In days long gone, we used to play D&D without any of that. I think I have forgotten how. Tell me about how you have succeeded (or failed!) with no grid/table/squares combat in 5E. Do you reduce the importance of combat generally? Do you just wing it, or do you use a "concrete" TotM system? Do you sometimes use minis (for "important battles, for example) or have you sworn off them entirely? Have you changed the combat rules in other ways to enhance the use of TotM? Have you changed the non-combat rules of the game as well? What do you do about "builds" (such as they are in 5E) that rely on 5 foot squares and other gridded movement/fighting rules bits? Thanks!I think the key to TotM is descriptions presented in terms of choices, not measurements. Do not say someone is 40 feet down the corridor but "a quick dash" etc. Someone closer is "close by" and right next to you is "on top of you" etc. When a GM presents scenes and describ...
  • 01:35 PM - lowkey13 quoted Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences with Theater of the Mind 5E
    I am tired of grids and miniatures and fiddly tactical rules. In days long gone, we used to play D&D without any of that. I think I have forgotten how. It's like riding a bike ... you never really forget. Do you reduce the importance of combat generally? Very much. I mean, combat is still fun, but it goes quickly! So it leaves a lot more time for everything else. Do you just wing it, or do you use a "concrete" TotM system? Wing it. Some people prefer a more codified ToTM system (and there are good ones out there!) but for me, having a codified system for ToTM almost gets rid of the reason for having it. Do you sometimes use minis (for "important battles, for example) or have you sworn off them entirely? No minis. Minis are god's and Gygax's way of telling you that you have too much money, and you need to do something more constructive with it. Like develop a nice cocaine habit. Have you changed the combat rules in other ways to enhance the use of TotM? Have you changed ...
  • 12:24 PM - Tallifer quoted Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences with Theater of the Mind 5E
    Do you reduce the importance of combat generally? We usually have only one or two fights per session, although one of them is always a significant melee. Do you just wing it, or do you use a "concrete" TotM system? I wing it. I usually illustrate the scene with a picture, and then people describe where they are and what they are doing each turn. "Can my fireball catch all of them?" "Hmm. about three of them." 101982 Do you sometimes use minis (for "important battles, for example) or have you sworn off them entirely? No miniatures. They tend to reinforce a grid mentalitiy. Have you changed the combat rules in other ways to enhance the use of TotM? Have you changed the non-combat rules of the game as well? Nope. What do you do about "builds" (such as they are in 5E) that rely on 5 foot squares and other gridded movement/fighting rules bits? If they like theatre of the mind, they roll along with the vagueness. If they are hex-counters or min-maxers, they might not continue playing with...

Saturday, 29th September, 2018

  • 06:52 PM - OB1 quoted Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences With High Level 5E
    We played on Fantasy Grounds so I used that program's CR calculator. The first was CR21 and the second CR22. The PCs were all 17th level with 4 PCs for the first fight and 5 for the second. Not sure what CR21 and CR22 means in terms of gauging difficulty of a fight since CR is only a gauge of how deadly a particular opponent is, not an encounter. Using the encounter building guidelines from the DMG, the first encounter rates between Hard (23,600xp for a party of 4) and Deadly (35,2000xp for a party of 4). The second encounter also rated between hard (29,500 for a party 5) and deadly (44,000 for a party of 5). If the way it spits out difficulty is by CR, I'd say you need to be in the 150% range so more CR26-26 if you want a challenge assuming the party has feats and MC as well as have some magic items.
  • 06:04 PM - Oofta quoted Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences With High Level 5E
    We played on Fantasy Grounds so I used that program's CR calculator. The first was CR21 and the second CR22. The PCs were all 17th level with 4 PCs for the first fight and 5 for the second. Not sure how that calculator works, but I use an alternate calculator that ignores the number of opponent multiplier and just adds up the XP budget. It seems to give me better numbers ... then again with only two fights there was no way to deplete resources. But for the other, I agree that knowing how the party works and what makes them tick makes a huge difference. It's particularly difficult with casters because of the whole counterspell schtick. Personally I prefer lower levels, but I've also had and run dynamic fun high level fights. I wouldn't want to just jump in to a one-shot though.


Page 1 of 44 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Reynard's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites