View Profile: Yaarel - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 02:02 AM
    No, there are many options that are exclusive by class or race, for instance, or come at a different cost to different classes, etc... D&D has long moved towards classlessness, just never very far or fast. 5e is, as in so many ways, between the other WotC eds and the TSR eds, that way.
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:26 PM
    Exclusivity is a key feature of class systems, yes. If any character can take any feature, at the same 'cost,' you have a classless system.
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:19 PM
    AFAICT from the way they get used, they mean something like: Simulationism: An irrational, uncompromising, preference not for an actual simulation (like, say civil war re-enactment), but for bad games that are bad in the ways a game would have to become if it were adapted to function as a simulation, instead - even though the games in question simulate nothing. Narrativism: the Role half...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:06 PM
    Princess Bride reference wins the thread. ;)
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:59 PM
    To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate. And plenty of that, too, sure. ".... first casualty of war" and all that.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:42 PM
    To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:29 PM
    The Original OD&D 3, before the theif & paladin, map precisely to the 3 Sources in the 4e PH1. The 'Big 4' map less nearly to the 4 Roles, since the roles were so much more nearly balanced. Its been problematic since day 2, when the Thief came out, and established, that while it was OK for the magic-user to tap all the magic in genre & more ('cept healing), and for the cleric to you no...
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:06 PM
    The GSL, compared to the OGL is an impediment to 3pp support. And, of course, the threat of renewed edition-war hostilities (it's not like they've really stopped, just tapered off), is an impediment to WotC. I thought OSRIC got some kind of permission? I've glanced at it, bits look to be virtually verbatim. There's hundreds of powers - per class - compared to yoinking the srd and having a...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:09 PM
    To model a wider range of characters without creating a class for each. Multiclassing options move a game from the class based extreme towards a build system. 3e is an example of a hybrid of the two, though still clearly on the class side since it preserves exclusivity with distinctions like class level, favored classes and exp penalties. 5e, as always it seems when compared to 3e, is muddled,...
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:52 PM
    You are working very hard to make a clear, simple thing conform to your expectations of ambiguity and needless complexity. Simply repeating the same mistakes won't make them into a valid alternate interpretation. No, you are no longer Hidden in those instances. Once you are no longer Hidden, you are no longer Invisible to the creature that made the check or that you no longer have...
    189 replies | 6101 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:28 PM
    In development Forerunner an OGL derivation of 4e concepts and core functionality without IP or copyright issues.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:58 PM
    I generally think I can make heroic tier characters in 4e feel pretty legendary or mythic ... how one handles minions and how both players and DMs presents things can be a huge difference. Although things could definitely be adjusted to make some of that easier.
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:37 PM
    Theres always the name "Map makers who run away as much as possible and steal whenever they can til spell casters can kick everythings ass" but that is too long and the theme has already been taken.
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:35 PM
    This post was removed from where I posted it in the first place so meh...
    6 replies | 327 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:11 AM
    In objectives, for instance, it's quite similar. 13A & 5e are both compromise takes on D&D, harkening back to the classic game; both intent on enabling TotM by default, both trying to balance classes with different resource mixes, and both deflating bonuses... The GSL. 4e can't be cloned. 3e & 4e were both pretty explicit that players could describe their characters' gear as they like...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:56 AM
    Not if it's just one of many things a character can acquire. It was also HD, attack & save matrices, and learning another crappy weapon every 5th level, back in the day. Kits (backgrounds) & schools since 2e, skills & feats since 3e, class features since 4e... Exclusive, yes, until you get into multiclassing to circumvent it.
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:25 AM
    The "lots of..." I keep hearing in these discussions. I see no indications of PF2 being that game in any sense... certainly 13A was closer, and it wasn't close, at all. You'd be in good company, but little if it. D&D is just the easiest game to pull a groupbtigether around. Want to play something better, there's no shortage of games, the problem is finding a few other former-D&Ders...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:02 AM
    The context is 4e, in which Hidden and Invisible have precise, clear meanings. Since that's the context, you have been unequivocally proven wrong. No amount if ranting, dictionary definitions, or attempts to manufacture ambiguity are going to change that. But, only when the tangent drifted into that context. In 5e, you could have this whole argument in natural language, and, in the...
    189 replies | 6101 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:44 AM
    As I've said, I'm suspicious of appeals to popularity in any form. On top of that, consider what it meant to be a 4e fan. It meant you gave the new ed a fair chance, even when negative reviews cane out, even as the edition war heated up, and misinformation became common wisdom. They gave it enough if a chance to come to understand and appreciate a very different game. 4e fans may be...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:34 AM
    Especially since your title is Heros of Myth and Legend. You doubly need to assure the awesome is explicitly enabled and encouraged. If your title was Adventurers Guild not so much or Lost Treasure finders not so much.
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:25 AM
    I think that really is a big takeaway from this discussion taking a standard action is competing with at-wills... so aid other, aid defense, aid attack and the like have to be on a fairly similar scale because of it.
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:18 AM
    The distraction of a Mark is a type of distraction and depriving enemies of opportunity actions is another 4e is very broad in this regards...
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mike Myler's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 09:14 PM
    Forgot to respond to this when I first got pinged (sorry!) but aye he's got it right.
    14 replies | 335 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 07:29 PM
    Basically help someone who is focus fired on that way.
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 07:16 PM
    Aid defense should affect defense against all enemies if you still wanted it. I think they forgot from the ground up that the everyman abilities would effectively compete in the action economy with at-wills.
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 06:47 PM
    Give a fighter something to boost it up was my thought. True about the obsolescence of Aid Defense but they already made it automatic no roll with errata.
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 05:17 PM
    If we start enumerating stunts for high end abilities (strength over X lets you do things like these) we might to let those mythic stuff happen.... but are you going to enumerate long distance teleporting that way?
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 05:09 PM
    Heroes Shout, Hurl into Space, Wrestling with Death.... Quasi-Instant Social connections, Sequestering/Hiding an item, Preventing death "after they die" . I think we have a need for permission to achieve mythic extremes. This needs communicated a Mage gets it easily almost by default.
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 04:38 PM
    Remember a fighter can throw an improvised rock and mark an enemy while delivering damage. If we want that to be valuable for them... it will take more. (d4 psychic damage +?) Or perhaps it can cause the enemy to grant combat advantage to adjacent creatures
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 04:31 PM
    I think you misunderstood what I meant maybe or maybe not. it might mean you want to take the long haul if you have high CON... but does that mean you can always choose to do so? It means you do athletics better when you can repeat and retry and take a longer time to finish ... generally where failures are allowed. Something allowing few or no repeats requires the precision. ...
    60 replies | 2556 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 02:54 PM
    Just paying attention to the taunter is kind of a basic success I am thinking a bloodied opponent might do the full switch targets and considered marked, ie if primarily a melee combatant rushing away without shifting at the taunter next turn in addition to losing opportunities as described. I am now thinking about AbdulAlhazred and his Homl with different degrees of success.' I think...
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 06:52 AM
    Asking questions of the DM in 5e is slightly off. The PC does not have a hot line to an omniscient being (well unless he has access to powerful divinations). Rather, the player needs to declare an action - as simple as trying to remember or put together anything he might already know, or searching, seeking out experts, questioning witnesses or whatever. Once a player has an action the DM is...
    29 replies | 641 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 06:42 AM
    It's whatever/however the DM narrates it to be. I see no reason to presume that. In fact, even assuming a DEX(stealth) check will be called for is presumptuous. Any action declaration by any player of any character in any circumstance at any time can be narrated by the DM as failure or success at the DMs sole discretion. Your assumption is unwarranted, and, yes, they are.
    189 replies | 6101 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 06:31 AM
    Frankly, if PF2 succeeds in appealing to 4e fans, it's more or less doomed. The level of h4ter bigotry in the community is that overwhelming.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 06:18 AM
    They didn't assume feats, MCing, items, or other opt-in sub-systems when balancing, pacing, or otherwise calibrating the game. It works better without them. It is clear that they were trying to avoid some of the issues 3e had with 1-level dips and dead levels. In typical 5e fashion, the implementation was mixed. Avoiding dips erred on the side of hurting single-class builds, while avoiding...
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 01:47 AM
    One problem of leveraging intimidate? it's almost totally open ended... Ignoring that ;) OK so the direction this is going is that Taunting could easily be a function of Intimidate (fighters might like that a lot - a rogue or bard might get some skill swap or not ) so let's examine the root effect. For those who like a visual - Verbalization as a standard action might be something akin to...
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 11:16 PM
    Yes, totally OP. If a first-level thread dies, just roll up a new one! (I was going to say "that was good enough for us back in the day!" But, back in the day, we dialed up a BBS on a 300 baud acoustic modem.... and were greatful we could do it!!!) #getoffmylawn
    86 replies | 13177 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 10:16 PM
    Whatever bug causes brand new people to see really old threads should really get fixed one of these days.
    86 replies | 13177 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 10:12 PM
    Whoever makes the most noise on the internet, apparently. Burning books also seems to help. That's level. You can have one without the other. Class/level often go together thanks to D&D and the many games derivative of it, but they don't have to. The strength of class based systems is imposing limits & structure. If the setting demands magic work only one way, and magical abilities...
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 09:59 PM
    4e had some sterling qualities, balance among them, and, as you point out, clarity & consistency. But it's hard (and perhaps pointless) to point at one of them and say "most fans of this ed must like this specific thing." We just don't have the statistics to back it up. Maybe 4e fans will like PF2 if it's clear but not balanced, or balanced but not consistent, or maybe not. If what 4e...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 09:54 PM
    Lot of over-thinking going on.
    189 replies | 6101 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 08:36 PM
    The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute. But, had that been the case, and D&D been shelved for the last six years, we still might be seeing the come-back, just with the OSR & PF (mabye a more 5e-like TSR-era-evoking PF2 or Advanced PathFinder or something) reaping the rewards and Hasbro not noticing/caring. See, to me, when I read: I nod in agreement, but also think: ...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 08:20 PM
    Frightening thought: you could just have spell levels track caster levels. 1-9 spells levels over 1-10 caster levels... ...I suppose the caster class like that could be an 'advanced'/prestige/paragon class that you take as your second 10 levels...
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:46 PM
    Play more before you run would be the best kind of doing to learn by, but if you have essentially disposeable players available, why not? ;) If you're not running a stable group, Defiance in Phlan can be pretty easy to deal with, it's a number of relatively disconnected episodes, so you can run with different players or characters in different sesssions. One of the few I enjoyed playing in,...
    5 replies | 236 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:42 PM
    I think this isnt a bad analysis for 4e - but so far the taunts on here miss out on a lot. However the everyman abilities lack something that is implied in Bilbos taunt and it was affecting multiple opponents in a way to help allies escape (marking is certainly power oriented version) NOTE technically if someone can affect multiple enemies with intimidation telling them to attack you...
    32 replies | 1152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:33 PM
    OK, one of the three examples in the OP was a spell, and I didn't notice you were addressing that one, specifically (I actually noticed Umbran's post first). Sorry.
    29 replies | 641 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:23 PM
    Apparently, the whole "Core Brand" concept that called for such an unrealistic goal was just dropped. If it had been dropped a couple years earlier, 4e may not have gotten the desperate Essentials-redesign... a few years before that, might not have existed at all. Business.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:17 PM
    Of course, a strong point. You could simple give all healing sources more oomph, across the board.
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:16 PM
    MCing increases the complexity of the system and the system mastery required to use it, in exchange for that somewhat increased flexibility. Classless systems just cover more concepts without needing kludges and increased complexity. Class-based systems do have their advantages: they can be evocative of a property or genre, can make character generation more of a broad-strokes process, and...
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:07 PM
    I played one session of one GUMSHOE game - Night's Dark Agents - at a Game Day, like two years ago, so I know basically nothing about it. But, I did get a positive impression of how the investigative skills work, and a less positive one of combat... OK, I find it interesting that this side-discussion immediately went to using SPELLS in D&D as the analog for SKILLS in another game. ...
    29 replies | 641 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:01 PM
    True. 3.5 fans have had active support the whole time, but for maybe a year between the end of 3.5 and release of PF. 4e fans have been without active support since 2012. Maybe I need to look at it more carefully, but it seemed like casters were still basically Vancian, for instance. Avoiding dead levels is something PF was already doing, and even 5e does, sorta. So IDK... I don't...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 06:32 PM
    From the melee training thread: Engineering? I'm just wondering: I'm assuming this is from HoML, and I guess it indicates you added an Engineering skill. Why Engineering, and how many other skills did you add? Seems the answere was in this thread... So, - Dungeoneering, + Leadership, + Engineering. I don't see Engineering covering things like Kruthics & Gelatinous Cubes &c, let...
    60 replies | 2556 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:58 PM
    An uncomfortable truth about multiclassing rules is that they are a sort of tacit admission that class-based systems are innately inadequate to model a reasonable range of character concepts.
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:48 PM
    4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet. OTOH, total lack of support for the last 6 years goes a fair way towards getting you to give up an edition. And AEDU isn't so much the core/essence of 4e, as the consistency with which it was applied. It could have been AED or ADU or LMNOP, or , IDK, everyone getting feats...
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:47 PM
    My usage is also one I blythely self-identify as. Yeah, I know some systems pretty well and try to get the most out of them - that's 'powergaming' in my book. The terminology for discussing RPGs on the internet is mostly pretty useless, yes, and you're right that what use there is comes mainly in understanding the person using it, more than what they're trying to say with it. "Playing...
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:39 PM
    I do at least have SOME based on athletics
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:29 PM
    That sounds reasonable. By the same token a 4e-style second wind: spend your action 1/encounter to roll HD and heal yourself, maybe with an additional requirement that you be wounded past a certain point?
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 02:12 PM
    I am thinking somehow "gaming the system" is a bit like playing the game RAW instead of RAI. So it doesnt happen in games like chess as there is no nebulous difference. In the Runequest weapon caddy trick where you gain as much possible skill by behavior that is highly "unrealistic" and extreme - but the system was designed to encourage a much more subtle thing but never had mechanic limits...
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:08 AM
    Cool, I'm actually getting an idea I kinda like: Keep instant death at negative max hps. Track & heal from negative hps, so reduced whack-a-mole incintives. When dropped to 0, you're unconscious 1d4 hrs, wake up with 1hp. When dropped below 0 you die, unless you have HD left, then you can roll 1 or more HD, if the result is greater than your current negative hps, you wake up in 1d4...
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 06:56 AM
    Another occasional variation on that is negative CON score or negative 1st level HD... ...hm... actually, maybe you could use HD when dropped? Maybe, at 0, roll one HD, you have that many rounds to live?
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 06:35 AM
    Death saves give you a fair chance of stabilizing and waking up 1d4 hours later. So it potentially delivers it for maybe half of heroes. Could be a good general rule, it makes 'left for dead' scenarios plausible, because murderous bad guys can be murderous for a while without anyone living on them... ..retains the trope as a backstory element.
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:22 AM
    Well, rocs actually fly. Levitate's just a mime's elevator. Storm giants probably have it because they've always had it, and maybe to pick up small objects cluttering their cloud castles - like adventures.
    8 replies | 323 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:17 AM
    Half the action heroes out there, especially in their backstories get beaten/stabbed/shot/burned/defenestrated/disintegrated/whatever, to the point the bad guys leave, happily convinced he's dead. And he wakes up later, and there's a story.
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:14 AM
    I can't say I'm see'n the resemblance. PF was an outright, perfectly legal SRD/OGL clone of 3.5, fans who felt spurned got back exactly what they felt they had lost.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 05:03 AM
    That's a solution, by itself. Death at 0. Be careful out there. Heal proactively. Maybe add some more sources of temp hps. How are you going to manage KOs? Attacker's choice at 0? And what about the old 'left for dead' trope?
    95 replies | 2185 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 04:54 AM
    4es one of those games where the reward for good play is continuing to play. Magic items are on a wealth/level string with make/buy, just like 3e, so just a level-up build resource. There was no advancement in Traveller after chargen, you just got older and lost stats until you died. So you'd have to pick something you cared about to advance, like building up your free trader business or...
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 04:47 AM
    Chess is a pretty structured game, in itself, you'd more likely game the rules of the tournament to eff with your opponent. Dominating play, for a broad, obvious instance. The 5MWD, sure, prettymuch just choosing a Tier 1 class, its not like D&D makes it hard. Part of gaming a system is keeping it susceptible to the strategies you're using. There are innumerable exampkes from...
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 04:08 AM
    technically that is the 4e parlance ;)
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 03:04 AM
    Go ahead and post the link in the Essence thread, then. What's the worst that could happen?
    6 replies | 327 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 02:58 AM
    Definitely don't mean cheating, since that's breaking the rules, but the point of cheating, and morality of it are very closely comparable to gaming the system. Come to think of it, it's the opposite of fudging/illusionism, that way. Heh. What about fighting & swapping weapons just to get a check in RQ? I think that's a tough question, because its ultimately almost a moral rather...
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 12:10 AM
    In one setting, the two were linked. Sorcerers bargained with or coerced 'spirits' for overt magical power like fireball-tossing or flying or making someone you didn't like get sick & die, but were able to do so because they were essentially psionic, blessed with preternatural force of will that could communicate with/coerce said spirits - and also be used against other people to read/influence...
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 12:01 AM
    Starting in 3e, when exp was generally given to the party, and divided equally, it became a reward just for showing up. Or any other system, yes. It probably looks like two peole playing chess, Monopoly or Backgammon, and one of them winning more often than he should. In RuneQuest, going into a fight swinging one weapon until you hit someone, then dropping it and pulling another, than...
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 11:31 PM
    Oh, go right ahead and be misleading... ;) Ideally, you shouldn't let players ask to make rolls, they should describe actions ("Do I remember seeing or hearing about a creature like that from my time with the Rangers of the North..." could be an 'action' in the sense you're trying to match the description to your own knowledge & experience) and you call for checks based on the action and the...
    29 replies | 641 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 11:25 PM
    Ironically I actually think they captured ahem the essence of 4e and its core elements better than the threads here.
    6 replies | 327 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 11:21 PM
    A bullet? From the Grassy Gnoll? Yeah, that deserves a laugh.
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 11:10 PM
    I suppose if we can make sure with Practices and the like that everyone gets as much awesome as the arcanist. Note I actually do not have that many practices based on athletics.
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 10:09 PM
    Happilly, Multiclassing, like the equally* controversial & game-breaking Feats, are optional rules, so as a DM, don't opt in, and as a player, simply don't use them for your character, yourself. (Yes, someone else might: let them. If you want to dictate how everyone at the table plays the game, DM it.)
    81 replies | 1983 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pukunui's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 08:56 PM
    They more or less did just that, via the DMs Guild’s predecessor, D&D Classics. Since we’re talking about wish fulfilment in this thread, I personally would like to see Chris Perkins revive his Valoreign campaign. The whole Feywild-destroying Night of Wild Magic, with its table of random power-ups, was a cool concept. I briefly toyed with my own adaptation of it, but neither it nor the...
    45 replies | 2135 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 08:20 PM
    But, really, what's the "intent" and what if the unintended way of playing the system turns out to work a lot bettter than the intended? 'Gaming the system' is a very real thing, whether the system in question is not meant to be a game (the more typical usage of the idiom, really), or is an actual game just not designed to be robust when "played" in that way.
    55 replies | 1178 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 08:15 PM
    That's a build the way a dugout canoe is the Titanic. Primitive & much less elaborate, also unlikely to be sunk by an iceberg in the middle of the North Atlantic.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 01:30 AM
    I also put insight on the skill list of the class with insightful presence on its potential feature list because you know. However I really do not know how to fix the issue in a broad sort of way. Even if I made a 4e descendant system of my own.
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 01:00 AM
    In ERB's Mars series, there were a pair of races on Mars, the Kaldanes and Rykors, the Kaldanes were intelligent and had a less dependent symbyotic relationship than you're envisioning with the Rykors, who looked like headless human bodies, while the Kaldanes looked like wierd, pallid heads with arthropod-like legs and 'tails' that they essentially plugged into the Rykors to ride them. (Bit...
    17 replies | 400 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 12:03 AM
    I admit noticing a couple of "close but not quite" but the overwhelming not "tons of stuff wrong" I indeed found pretty good.
    6 replies | 327 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 11:54 PM
    It's a hypothetical he's not actually doing it just talking about it: he's only messing with you.
    256 replies | 7340 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pukunui's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 10:11 PM
    Tiamat
    29 replies | 890 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 06:45 PM
    There not that different from just the rules. Move/Dash, if you break line of sight try to hide? You could use them without knowning they were there. ;) An hour lead would be more a matter of tracking, I suppose. Bring in the Ranger. Overwhelming numbers is definitely a thing in 5e, and, obviously, means you can't just split up... ...the existing rules wouldn't be practical to use...
    14 replies | 438 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 06:33 PM
    We listened to the first hour last night - damn, it's long - it was mildly amusing (we're reviewing this game that came out last month - 10 years ago), it's odd to hear people not get tons of stuff wrong when talking about 4e, though they mis-spoke more than a few times and carefully disected the original language of Comander's Strike as an example of how 4e used keywords ("templating") to make...
    6 replies | 327 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 06:30 PM
    wrong thread...
    31 replies | 679 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 05:59 PM
    Tony Vargas replied to 6e? Why?
    That's essentially what Hasbro has been doing with Monopoly for decades: 'special editions,' the rules are the same or barely different, but it's dressed up differently. D&D could also re-publish core rules with, a different default setting. Or with emphasis on a different sub-genre (S&S or action or anime or high-fantasy instead of... er, well D&D). Or even all the same rules, but with...
    137 replies | 6444 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 05:31 PM
    Y'know, I'm starting to think you never claimed anything.
    156 replies | 4662 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Yaarel

Basic Information

Date of Birth
September 14

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,027
Posts Per Day
0.78
Last Post
Open Up New Worlds Of Gaming With The Open Legend RPG Yesterday 11:18 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
55
General Information
Join Date
Sunday, 16th December, 2007
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

12 Friends

  1. Bawylie Bawylie is offline

    Member

    Bawylie
  2. Blackwarder Blackwarder is offline

    Member

    Blackwarder
  3. Cam Banks Cam Banks is offline

    Magic Vacuum Design

    Cam Banks
  4. CydKnight CydKnight is offline

    Member

    CydKnight
  5. Garthanos Garthanos is online now

    Member

    Garthanos
  6. MechaPilot MechaPilot is online now

    Member

    MechaPilot
  7. Mercule Mercule is offline

    Member

    Mercule
  8. Mike Myler Mike Myler is offline

    Member

    Mike Myler
  9. mrpopstar mrpopstar is offline

    Member

    mrpopstar
  10. pukunui pukunui is offline

    Member

    pukunui
  11. Tony Vargas Tony Vargas is offline

    Member

    Tony Vargas
  12. Zak S Zak S is offline

    Member

    Zak S
Showing Friends 1 to 12 of 12
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Wednesday, 11th July, 2018


Tuesday, 10th July, 2018


Thursday, 5th July, 2018


Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018


Monday, 2nd July, 2018


Friday, 29th June, 2018


Thursday, 28th June, 2018


Wednesday, 27th June, 2018



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Monday, 9th July, 2018

  • 05:17 AM - Sunseeker mentioned Yaarel in post Mass Effect d20
    Yaarel So, I wanted to do something different, and by "different" I mean sci-fi. But I didn't want to do the gritty space horror of WH40K, nor did I want to do "swords and sorcery in space" of Star Wars, and I wasn't really looking for the high-minded science and exploration of Star Trek. Starfinder really isn't "doing it" for me, there's just too much that is "Pathfinder in space" and there's some really silly elements they included I'm not a fan of. So it turns out that me and another player in a different group are both Mass Effect fans. And it subsequently turns out that there is a completely free Mass Effect TTRPG based off the d20 system. And I gotta say, it's a fairly robust manual. See: Mass Effect d20 For those of you not familiar with the setting, Mass Effect is essentially, a sci-fi soap, but with a little less of the "magic space swords" of Star Wars, a bit more of the exploration element of Star Trek and a touch of the grimdark. It's got a little bit of everything for eve...

Monday, 25th June, 2018

  • 08:35 PM - mrpopstar mentioned Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    I think that Yaarel is really onto something with the medium weapon being 1d8 versatile. I like how middling and vanilla that sounds for the standard longsword.

Friday, 15th June, 2018


Monday, 11th June, 2018

  • 09:30 PM - 77IM mentioned Yaarel in post Psychic Class
    I have just uploaded Psychic Class to the downloads area. Yaarel made me do it! Story-wise, I called it the "Psychic" because it's kind of part-way between the classic D&D psionicist and the modern pop-culture depiction of a person with psychic powers. I wanted to cover character concepts like Eleven, Firestarter, Jean Grey, Professor X, and the Shadow. The subclasses are meant to represent these story archetypes rather than being tied to particular abilities. Mechanics-wise, the class is a full spellcaster because that's just easiest to balance and it seems to work. It uses spells-known but with a sharply limited spell list, built up from "disciplines" -- each psychic picks what disciplines they know, which in turn determines their spell list. The psychic can enhance their spells by spending extra spell slots when casting. You can find the file here in the downloads section. Please use this thread for comments.
  • 03:38 AM - Kobold Boots mentioned Yaarel in post Skill Feats In Pathfinder 2
    Yaarel Thanks for the lesson - Funny thing is we're on the same side insofar as Paizo is concerned. If I don't like what they've done after I read the rules I'm just going to not allow things at my table. However, I'll remind myself never to say anything norse again, other than aetterstup, on these forums for fear of being taught something interesting at the risk of it being inaccurate. I do appreciate it though.
  • 03:04 AM - doctorhook mentioned Yaarel in post Skill Feats In Pathfinder 2
    Yaarel, are you the same person who used to post detailed essays on the WotC forums a decade ago about how Barbarians should be a psionic class, because vikings used "mindforce" all the time?

Thursday, 7th June, 2018

  • 06:54 AM - MonsterEnvy mentioned Yaarel in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    @Yaarel, it seems you are offended by polytheism in particular, yes? Or at least dislike WotC using it as the default theological assumption, and feel that it overly flavors the rulebook for you? In that regard, you are a very small minority (afaik), and from a publishing perspective I think the benefits of "hard-baking" flavor--which I see less as hard-baking and more as offering examples as possible defaults--as far out-weighing the cons. The main benefit is that it brings the rules to life and provides those folks who don't want to or have the time to flesh out a new setting and flavor for their game with something pre-made; the only con that I can think of is for the 1 in 100 (or less) such as yourself that finds it distasteful for personal, perhaps religious, reasons. If that is the case, I don't understand why you are so bummed out that WotC is not serving your particular and rather rare proclivities. Also @Yaarel is overly obsessed with Elves and won't be happy with them if they are ...
  • 06:42 AM - Mercurius mentioned Yaarel in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    Yaarel, it seems you are offended by polytheism in particular, yes? Or at least dislike WotC using it as the default theological assumption, and feel that it overly flavors the rulebook for you? In that regard, you are a very small minority (afaik), and from a publishing perspective I think the benefits of "hard-baking" flavor--which I see less as hard-baking and more as offering examples as possible defaults--as far out-weighing the cons. The main benefit is that it brings the rules to life and provides those folks who don't want to or have the time to flesh out a new setting and flavor for their game with something pre-made; the only con that I can think of is for the 1 in 100 (or less) such as yourself that finds it distasteful for personal, perhaps religious, reasons. If that is the case, I don't understand why you are so bummed out that WotC is not serving your particular and rather rare proclivities.

Wednesday, 6th June, 2018

  • 03:13 PM - TwoSix mentioned Yaarel in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    That's the thing. Generic medieval. That's what is stale and boring: Pseudo-medieval and pseudo-European. It doesn't matter how you try to make the elves mysterious or add more blood and mud, it's all been done to death. It's always been recognised that D&D doesn't need to be pseudo-medieval or pseudo-European, even before Dark Sun was first published we had adventures set in Hyperboria, Atlantis, Wonderland and Blackmoor (post apocalypse with remains of advanced tech). But in the last few years we have been served and endless diet of pseudo-medievalism. That's fine, but being in the same general genre doesn't make two things the same. I understanding you're being intentionally hyperbolic, but you're watering down your point by doing so, in the same way that Yaarel is by saying every polytheistic setting is Forgotten Realms.
  • 10:41 AM - CapnZapp mentioned Yaarel in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    As someone who is rather familiar with FR (2e and 3.x) as well as Planescape, your comment completely baffles me. It seems likely we are all misinterpreting good Mr Yaarel Either that or he's retracting his wildly hyperbolic claims?

Monday, 4th June, 2018


Sunday, 3rd June, 2018

  • 10:51 PM - pukunui mentioned Yaarel in post ‘Advanced’ Dungeons & Dragons
    Yaarel: Perhaps, but 4e did have a "one and done" setting book model of sorts. FR and Eberron each got a player's guide and a campaign guide and that was it. Dark Sun got a campaign guide and a monster manual and that was it. Adventures not included.

Tuesday, 29th May, 2018

  • 11:21 AM - Hussar mentioned Yaarel in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    I'm coming in rather late into this debate and I have not read the entire thread - but @Hussar to be fair to @Yaarel don't you argue along similar lines when it comes to D&D cosmology as presented in the books? How do you differentiate between yours and his argument? Heh, I never said I was consistent. :) But, be that as it may, my complaint is that Planescape is a specific setting in the game that has largely taken over every part of the cosmology. So, yeah, I don't like it very much. OTOH, I'm not the one saying that D&D is destroyed because of it, nor am I making up facts in order to support my rant. Complaining that elves aren't mechanically the best wizards in D&D is a bit misleading considering that elves have NEVER been the best wizards in D&D. Complaining that clerics are tied to deities in the PHB is pretty misleading considering that that's been the baseline presumption of the game since day 1. The difference here is that Planescape has been added to baseline D&D over the years to the point where we cannot actually separate out the two and, since I loathe Planescape, that ha...
  • 10:41 AM - Sadras mentioned Yaarel in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    I really don't get these arguments. I guess I'm too selfish. I look at it like this: Does this new lore cost me anything? Is it going to make me do any more work or impact my game? No, it isn't. A player who wants to use these rules is free to do so and it's his or her character. They can fill their boots and good on them. Which brings me to the second question - does it make other people happy? Yup, apparently it does. So, since it costs me nothing and makes other folks happy, what's the problem here? The mechanics are such that any world builder can easily ignore it - it is a rare trait after all. It doesn't cost you a single thing to add this to the game. And it makes other folks happy. What's in it for me to oppose that? What am I gaining? Or, better yet, what are you gaining by opposing this? @Yaarel talks quite extensively about the change in elven lore. Thing is, it's not really a change. 1e limited elves to 12th level magic users. Until 3e, elves were NEVER the greatest wizards in the game. In 3e, baseline elves didn't gain an Int or Cha bonus at all, so, nope, other than some campaign specific variants, elves were not the greatest wizards in the game. It wasn't until 4e with Eladrin that the lore and the mechanics actually matched - eladrin wizards were among the best in the game. But, we don't HAVE eladrin in 5e. Not in core anyway. Core 5e elves fit best with 1e to 3e elves. So, his entire complaint ignores what's actually written in the game. So, I'll ask again, what is the cost to you to have this in the game? I'm coming in rather late into this debate and I have not read the entire thread - but @Hussar to be fair to @Yaarel don't you argue along similar lines when it comes to D&D cosmology as presented in the books? How do you differentiate between yours and his...
  • 03:34 AM - Mistwell mentioned Yaarel in post Core+1
    Yes, you have to pick an AL-approved deity before you can play a cleric. Yes, it's the Yaarel rule. :)

Monday, 28th May, 2018

  • 03:56 AM - Enevhar Aldarion mentioned Yaarel in post Core+1
    Heresy you say? So this monotheistic deity would employ say, a fanatical legion of all-female Vengeance paladins? I am starting to think that some people, Yaarel included, do not know what the definition of monotheism is. It is not that a person follows and worships only one god, it is that a person not only worships only one god, but also believes on their god is real. In a fantasy setting, like the Realms or other standard fantasy settings, where multiple gods exist and their powers are manifest in the world, a monotheistic person would have to be mentally ill or completely delusional to believe their chosen god is the only god that exists. For a monotheistic character to work, and be believable, the setting would have to be made specifically for it.
  • 02:34 AM - Hussar mentioned Yaarel in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    I really don't get these arguments. I guess I'm too selfish. I look at it like this: Does this new lore cost me anything? Is it going to make me do any more work or impact my game? No, it isn't. A player who wants to use these rules is free to do so and it's his or her character. They can fill their boots and good on them. Which brings me to the second question - does it make other people happy? Yup, apparently it does. So, since it costs me nothing and makes other folks happy, what's the problem here? The mechanics are such that any world builder can easily ignore it - it is a rare trait after all. It doesn't cost you a single thing to add this to the game. And it makes other folks happy. What's in it for me to oppose that? What am I gaining? Or, better yet, what are you gaining by opposing this? Yaarel talks quite extensively about the change in elven lore. Thing is, it's not really a change. 1e limited elves to 12th level magic users. Until 3e, elves were NEVER the greatest wizards in the game. In 3e, baseline elves didn't gain an Int or Cha bonus at all, so, nope, other than some campaign specific variants, elves were not the greatest wizards in the game. It wasn't until 4e with Eladrin that the lore and the mechanics actually matched - eladrin wizards were among the best in the game. But, we don't HAVE eladrin in 5e. Not in core anyway. Core 5e elves fit best with 1e to 3e elves. So, his entire complaint ignores what's actually written in the game. So, I'll ask again, what is the cost to you to have this in the game?

Sunday, 27th May, 2018

  • 05:44 PM - Sunseeker mentioned Yaarel in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    Furthermore, for what it's worth, it turns out they are less idyllic than they have gotten a reputation for. Violence, including sexual violence, is well within their observed capabilities. Who suggested early human life was idyllic? Yaarel's argument wasn't to suggest life was better, only that it was less structured. I know that among some anthropologists/sociologists/political theorists misanthropy is a common trend, and it often expresses itsself in "If only the agricultural revolution never happened!" But I don't think that particular argument was the one Yaarel was making.

Thursday, 24th May, 2018

  • 10:18 PM - Parmandur mentioned Yaarel in post Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class
    [QUOTE=zztong;7427830]I don't know about 5E. Sorry, I must have missed some part of the conversation. I've not played it since the playtest.[/QUOTE Yaarel had stated that it was impossible to remove polytheism from 5E. Now, 5E hardly requires a tool to track stats, so it is fairly easy to reflavor, no harm, no goul.

Thursday, 17th May, 2018



Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 87 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Monday, 16th July, 2018

  • 12:11 AM - RatzGoids quoted Yaarel in post Open Up New Worlds Of Gaming With The Open Legend RPG
    I am interested in Open Legend. Is it too late to rethink the given attributes? The attributes are fundamental, and need to work better. For example. Agility needs to split into two attributes: Agility (gross-motor skills, gymnastics, locomoting) versus Dexterity (fine-motor skills, aiming, precise movements). Might needs to incorporate size. Give melee accuracy to Agility, but melee damage to Might. Similarly, correlate Fortitude with size. And so on. I see, there is a homebrew section. But because the attributes are so fundamental to all other rules that will come into existence, the only possibility of adopting the system is if the attributes work extremely well, in the first place. Considering that the books have been printed and shipped, I'd say, with some certainty, that the rules are quite set, so attributes won't change from here on out. I would be interested to hear your reasons on why these changes need to happen, because I think it's the first time I've read such a proposition ...

Thursday, 5th July, 2018

  • 08:56 PM - Grainger quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    It is appropriate if the rapier has no place on a standard weapons table. If creating a renaissance setting, the DM can easily add it as a special weapon as part of the special setting features. Yeah, rapier is one that really bugs me. It just doesn't belong in a medieval setting. If DMs want to throw it into their world, then fine, but it really shouldn't be in a standard table, as you say.

Monday, 2nd July, 2018

  • 06:18 PM - Jester David quoted Yaarel in post Psion class (Mearls, Happy Fun Hour)
    Also, people who are talented in many different areas often need some moments to switch their modes of cognition, from one category of information to refresh the new category of information. Good design skills require someone who is good at navigating information, as opposed to reciting information. As someone who writes a lot of homebrew content, every time I make a horrible option that does not work, it’s because I assumed I remembered how the rules worked and did not check.

Friday, 29th June, 2018

  • 06:11 AM - Ath-kethin quoted Yaarel in post The Most Useful D&D Features, Essays, & Interviews Selection Ever
    Looking for a game? Currently, there is no way to know if the listed gamers are still active, or contactable. Is there someway to protect privacy while signaling that messages will get thru? You can click on a user's name and it will show you their most recent post. That might not necessarily indicate active vs. not, but if their last post was five years ago it's a decent bet they won't respond to any message you send them. I recommend checking that BEFORE sending them a message, incidentally, not that I did the exact opposite several times before thinking to check it myself or anything.

Thursday, 28th June, 2018

  • 11:13 PM - Abstruse quoted Yaarel in post News Digest: Roll20 Gets Big Update, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Pathfinder 2nd Ed Previews, and more!
    Who doesnt use the word ‘Yeah’ many, many times? That was difficult to word to make it fit within the forum rules. I also just realized the link got auto-censored because it uses that word in the title of the link, so I used a URL shortener. It should be working now. Just be warned, the link contains NSFW language if that wasn't obvious from the number of times I said it had NSFW language.
  • 04:00 AM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    @mrpopstar Personally, I am leaning toward ‘Standard’, ‘Light’ and ‘Heavy’. For both weapons and armors. The weapons already have the keywords ‘light’ and ‘heavy’, like armor does. These keywords describe every member of the respective group exactly. Also, referring to ‘heavy weapons’ and ‘light weapons’ sounds normal enough for categories. Even light ammo and heavy ammo. Technically, the heavy weapons (great weapons) are martial as well. So ‘martial’ and ‘simple’ become keywords, rather than category names. ‘Standard’, because ‘medium’ sounds awkward. A longsword is standard, chain armor is standard. And so on."Ammo" makes me cringe, but standard does work!

Wednesday, 27th June, 2018

  • 04:07 PM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    It occurs to me. The super simple armor organizes by ‘light’, ‘medium’, and ‘heavy’ armors. It makes sense to divide super simple weapons similarly. Weapons • Light d6 finesse, light, versatile, simple, throw 30 feet • Medium d8 versatile, martial • Heavy d10 heavy, two-handed, reach, martial Ammunitions • Light d6, light, shoot 30 feet • Medium d8, two-hand, shoot 300 feet • Heavy d10, heavy, two-hand, loading, shoot 300 feet Alternatively, refer to armors as ‘simple armor’, ‘martial armor’, ‘great armor’. Armors • Simple AC 11 + full Dex • Martial AC 14 + max Dex 2 • Great AC 16 + no DexInteresting! I keep wracking my brain for good weapon terms (hand, battle, short, long, simple, martial, great, reach, etc.). This adds another angle to approach things from. :)
  • 12:33 AM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    Simple d6 light/versatile, finesse, thrown Martial d8 versatile Great d10 heavy, two-handed, reach Note, the simple weapon is either light (can use off-hand, like shortsword) or versatile (can use two-hand, like staff).I was toying with this same thing! ;) (Without the divide between light and versatile. Easiest for 1d6 to represent a broad range of useful application at the “simple” level. Nothing breaks.) I like that (although I still miss that 1d10 2-handed loading crossbow, the "great weapon" equivalent to ranged weapons). If I may add to the simplicity, keep to two range bands; a short/thrown range and a bow/crossbow range. I'd suggest 30/60 and 60/240. Nice round numbers matching the average speed that a creature can cover in one round of 6 seconds. I you want something closer to RAW, use 20/60 and 80/320 or 100/400.I do like the idea of only two (thrown and ammunition) range bands.

Tuesday, 26th June, 2018

  • 07:45 PM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    Yeah, the staff is finesse. This arrangement looks good. It makes sense to call the standard weapon a ‘martial’ weapon. I am less sure about a ‘simple’ weapon. The stats of ‘1d6 finesse versatile’ is how I stat the katana. It is hard to refer to a katana as simple. Maybe call the category ‘finesse’ weapon? Calling daggers ‘hand’ weapons, works.The trouble with finesse weapon is the fact that the finesse property is shared by two weapons. I thought about it a lot, and I think it has to be an unshared term to avoid all confusion. (I really like finesse weapon as a name for it, though!) Weird weapons. Some weapons are weird, rapier is one of them. I would stat rapier as ‘1d4 finesse reach’. Its blade is very thin but very long, about a meter, and has ‘reach’, same length as a reallife longsword, like a claymore. The rapier is nearly useless versus armor, or at least is at a disadvantage, but the low damage helps to represent that. It qualifies as light, since wielding two rapie...

Monday, 25th June, 2018

  • 07:50 PM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    Possible to go simpler? Remove the distinction between simple and martial. Moreover, part of the goal is to use a simple weapon effectively, such as a dagger. All the more reason to remove the distinction between martial and simple. Tiny 1d4 (light, finesse, throw) Small 1d6 (light, finesse) Medium 1d8 (versatile) Large 1d10 (heavy, two-hand, reach) Huge 1d12 (heavy, two-hand) This makes sense to me, because Strength-based character classes already have martial weapon proficiency anyway. The reason why wizards would use a dagger rather than a greataxe is because wizards have higher Dexterity than they have Strength. Plus, it would kill off the ridiculous notion of a Dexterity-based paladin, once and for all.YES! How do you two (and others!) feel about... Name Damage Properties Simple Melee Weapons - Tiny weapon 1d4 Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60) - Small weapon 1d6 Finesse, light - Medium...
  • 07:45 PM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    Possible to go simpler? Remove the distinction between simple and martial. Moreover, part of the goal is to use a simple weapon effectively, such as a dagger. All the more reason to remove the distinction between martial and simple. Tiny 1d4 (light, finesse, throw) Small 1d6 (light, finesse) Medium 1d8 (versatile) Large 1d10 (heavy, two-hand, reach) Huge 1d12 (heavy, two-hand)I wouldn't remove the simple and martial distinctions because it's still meaningful for non-martial classes to be limited to the lower end of the damage spectrum. It's important to me also that all of the reference points within the game (e.g. terms like simple and martial) remain intact. — Super simple without reinvention! I'm trying to understand the motivation for simplifying all things martial in your games. Weapons and armor are already quite simplified compared to past editions but are different enough from each other to have roles. Maybe spears did get the shaft a little but it's a tiny differen...
  • 07:19 PM - Saelorn quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    Possible to go simpler? Remove the distinction between simple and martial. Moreover, part of the goal is to use a simple weapon effectively, such as a dagger. All the more reason to remove the distinction between martial and simple. Tiny 1d4 (light, finesse, throw) Small 1d6 (light, finesse) Medium 1d8 (versatile) Large 1d10 (heavy, two-hand, reach) Huge 1d12 (heavy, two-hand)This makes sense to me, because Strength-based character classes already have martial weapon proficiency anyway. The reason why wizards would use a dagger rather than a greataxe is because wizards have higher Dexterity than they have Strength. Plus, it would kill off the ridiculous notion of a Dexterity-based paladin, once and for all.
  • 12:29 AM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    Weapon size • agile (finesse) • one-hand (medium) • hand-and-half (versatile) • two-hand (heavy, reach) Technically, modern archeological nomenclature for the type of grip. But works better for the size of blade (or other cold weapon), since the same hand-and-half sword blade can be made with either or a one-hand grip or a two-hand grip, depending on the preferred fighting style of the user.Interesting! Hand-and-half is useful to know. Initially, I labeled the simple small weapon "finesse weapon." For my stripped down D&D I play with the kids I have simplified weapons even further. Thrown weapons 1d6 damage, light, finesse, thrown Light melee weapons 1d8 damage, finesse Heavy melee weapons 1d10 damage, heavy, versatile Two handed weapons 1d12 damage, two-handed When using a two-handed or versatile weapons with two hands then you get a +1 added to damage (so yes, two handed weapons always get this). One-handed ranged 1d6 damage Light two-handed ranged 1d8 Heavy ...

Sunday, 24th June, 2018

  • 03:42 AM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    When looking into the traditions referring to ‘elven chain’, I ended up deciding. Elven chain isnt a magic item. Rather. Elven chain is the high elf race trait to cast the Mage Armor spell as a choice of cantrip. This elven-chain-equals-spell, solved so many problems. It synergizes well with high Dexterity and wizard/fighter flavor.Nice! Characters who use a shield need to toggle AC anyway, depending on whether they need both hands for something or not. So, a shield incurring max Dex 2 helps verisimilitude and is simple enough. BUCKLER By the way, there is such a thing as a ‘light shield’, meaning a ‘buckler’, which one holds in ones hand fist-like, to punch weapons out of the way. This kind of shield relies on Dexterity, granting +1 AC. It makes sense for the buckler to be the shield of choice for Dex 3 and higher. In addition to defense, the buckler is also designed to function as an offhand weapon. It would deal about 1d4 bludgeoning damage, same amount as a dagger. With...
  • 03:36 AM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Weapons
    A flying rapier! Edit: Scratch that. A chakram. It should always be a chakram.Y E S I'm starting to think you put more thought into this idea than I did. I really like your solution for the two-handed/two weapon attacks. I guess another option would be to have a two-handed attack move up one die size and two-weapon fighting move down one die size (so a fighter attacking two-handed with a battleaxe would roll a d12 for damage, and a fighter wielding two short swords or whatever would roll d8s for damage), but that seems unnecessarily fiddle compared to your solution. Especially since barbarians are SOL if they wield a weapon two-handed. So yeah, yours works better.I've thought long and hard about how I'd make things crazy simple. LOL Using class hit dice for weapon damage dice has made a lot of sense to me for a long time. It's two-weapon and two-handed fighting that present complications. I think a marriage of our two ideas makes the most sense. :) Martial cl...

Friday, 22nd June, 2018

  • 11:02 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Yaarel in post What if there were no attacks of opportunity?
    For theater of the mind style, the game is better without OAs. With TotM, your life gets a little easier if the combat is 'static' - that is if melee types tend to engage and fight and not try to switch targets or run past eachother too much. You get a sort of de-facto 'front line' 'melee range' and everyone else can stand as far back from that as works for them. AoOs encintivize the static front line, FWIW, but you can also just put convenient choke points in most battles, or... You don't actually need AoO to play a sword-and-board protector type and keep the squishies safe. All you really need is a rule that says that if you want to stop someone from moving past you to get to someone behind you, you can force them to engage with you instead of whoever you're protecting. No free attacks, just a "if you want the little guy you're going to have to go through me" sort of rule. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this anymore, but: Hey, 13th Age already did that. It's called Interce...
  • 04:50 PM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    I'm tempted to lower the STR requirement to 11 because I think that 13 is too penalizing and most medium armor in real life isn't that heavy. I've worn modern body armor that's about as heavy as medium armor and it's not really restricting.The more I've thought about it, the more it seems like the Dex max 2 is enough of a control factor in terms of who would elect to don medium armor. Coupled with Str 11, it would still succeed at the same outcome. (Definitely thinking about it.) I'm sorry to hear that. The 5E rules are really working against you there. Do you have some sort of house rules, to combat the fact that it's impossible for anyone to survive losing more blood in a fight than they are capable of regenerating overnight? Personally, I prefer players to really feel it when they get hurt. When your fighter gets stabbed, you should know that something terrible has happened, and the player should start panicking. That generally means that the PCs shouldn't be getting hit in every ...
  • 12:27 AM - mrpopstar quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    Probably a shield deserves max Dex 4 as well, similar to light armor. Otherwise, it feels weird for rogues to be slipping about with a shield in their hand. This also makes the awkwardness of Mage Armor + real shield, less optimal. Simply one shield is slightly less optimal than medium metal armor. Maximum AC Possible • AC 15 = unarmored 10 + (full Dex 5) • AC 16 = unarmored 10 + shield 2 + (max Dex 4) • AC 16 = light armor 12 + (max Dex 4) • AC 17 = medium armor 15 + (max Dex 2) • AC 18 = light armor 12 + shield 2 + (max Dex 4) • AC 18 = heavy armor 18 + (no Dex) • AC 18 = Mage Armor 13 + (full Dex 5) • AC 19 = Mage Armor 13 + shield 2 + (max Dex 4) • AC 19 = medium armor 15 + shield 2 + (max Dex 2) • AC 20 = heavy armor 18 + shield 2 + (no Dex)I strongly considered making the shield +1 so that only those with Defensive fighting style would net the coveted AC 20.

Thursday, 21st June, 2018

  • 11:06 PM - Saelorn quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    In reallife, most full plate suit warriors stopped using a shield, because it was mostly redundant, and preferred using two-handed swords. But you are right. Looking at historical suits of armor, enough of them have shields that there must have been some benefit, even if it was worth trading it for a more damaging sword.If your opponent was also wearing plate armor, then you might have trouble making them feel a hit if you didn't have two hands behind your blow. And the shield would have been mostly redundant, since the armor was sufficient protection against pretty much anything you were likely to face. At least, that's how I understand it. I know that most of the old pictures of knights in plate armor featured them with a sword in both hands instead of with a shield, unless they were jousting. Mechanically speaking, shields make it less likely that you'll be hit in the first place, and plate armor reduces the amount of damage from those hits you don't intercept. In a more-detailed ga...
  • 10:07 PM - jaelis quoted Yaarel in post Super Simple Armor
    So far, the progression for AC totals is 16/17/18 + shield 2. To make plate armor ‘special’ (technologically advanced, renaissance era), make it AC 20, but unable to stack with a shield. Essentially plate armor (encasing the entire body in solid metal) is getting shield for free, while leaving both hands free. Why (in game) would you not be able to benefit from a shield while wearing plate? That seems pretty strange. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Erik_XIVs_rustning_fr%C3%A5n_1562_-_Livrustkammaren_-_73817.tif/lossy-page1-220px-Erik_XIVs_rustning_fr%C3%A5n_1562_-_Livrustkammaren_-_73817.tif.jpg


Page 1 of 87 123456789101151 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Yaarel's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites