View Profile: Yaarel - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Today, 06:31 AM
    Noted, and corrected.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Today, 06:28 AM
    I'm not really sure there is a specific way you're supposed to respond to what I said. You know, I think ultimately I was just waxing contemplative about the uselessness and the bile of edition warring, and about how some who've been through it have repeatedly heard certain inaccurate arguments in tandem such that it's hard to hear one without also hearing the other (even when it may not...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:17 AM
    "Yeah, edition warring sucks?"
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Bawylie's Avatar
    Today, 04:11 AM
    Seems like a character asked a DM to apply a rule and they did. So, fine whatever. I’d have said no, myself, if I were DM. As far as 5E goes (and if I’m your DM, pretty much any game), I choose if, when, and how to apply rules. Chiefly because the players role is the game is to decide how the character behaves, acts, and thinks. None of that includes applying rules or adjudicating...
    55 replies | 1034 view(s)
    2 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Today, 02:33 AM
    "What happened to morale?" Mine has been gone for many years now. I assumed that was how the world works.
    30 replies | 638 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Today, 02:26 AM
    I've seen more of the edition wars than I care to have seen. I've always tried to stay objective when edition war stuff comes up, because I've played and greatly enjoyed every edition of D&D from BECMI to 5e. Each has its own great parts, its own flaws and foibles, and its own missed opportunities. I've also tried my best to stay out of edition war discussions when they come up, because they...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:26 PM
    No special meaning, I just thought it would be fairly clear: if I want to say whether a class in a certain ed was using magic or not, how that ed defines "magic" would have to be considered. Whether that conflicted with 'magic' relative to another ed... well, only psionics has really varied much in that regard, from explicitly magic, to explicitly not, to DM's choice.... so were it not for the...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:10 PM
    It means in the context it came from. It's just English.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:08 PM
    Wouldn't it be apparent they're 'striking to subdue' from the beginning? I suppose you could declare 'non lethal' damage, and it'd blow through hps just as fast as regular? ...and needn't heal any faster, I suppose, so no really difference other than when it becomes apparent they're kidnappers rather than assassins... So down & dying is always faking? I do like the both of the...
    8 replies | 198 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:33 PM
    Thus "in native context." If you're playing 3e, you use it's definition of magic when discussing what is or is not magic in it. You can contrast to what magic is like in genre or legend or traditional belief systems, if you like, but it won't change what magic is in that game. (It might inform a fairly valid opinion about how well the game emulates genre.)
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:03 PM
    The "Down & bleeding out" and "left for dead" tropes are things the current system does - maybe too often, but it does them. Did I miss where you can be dropped by an enemy trying to kill you and 'left for dead' or where you can KO someone without inflicting massive 'real' damage on them by burning through all their vitality points? Aside from that, though, it seems well thought out &...
    8 replies | 198 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:53 PM
    I have not rejected a definition of magic w/in its native context: 3e had fairly clear lines about magic: what was (SU, spell-like abilities, spells, magic items) was not (EX abilities) and what was or was not at the DM's option (Psionics). 4e was equally clear, the Martial Source was not magical, only the Arcane source used 'spells,' etc. 5e is a bit more vague about it, but you can puzzle...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:42 PM
    It is a statement of fact about a past misapprehension. A thousand years ago, most people still thought the world was flat, is a pretty fair statement, but it doesn't mean the world is flat. Lack of threading strikes again: You're right. TheCosmicKid actually said that (in a broader form). I'm sorry for mis-attributing that to you. My mistake. You just jumped in to defend him: ...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:21 PM
    Not about opinions, yes, I believe I said that. You said that 4e fighters cast spells, that is misrepresenting rules text, which unambiguously gave fighters martial powers, inauspiciously named 'exploits,' not spells. Now you admit that they did not cast spells, but wish not to admit that you formerly said they did? Maybe I'm not following you ...but, in any case, as long as we get to the...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:07 PM
    Still not about opinions. You can lov4 or h4te 4e all you want. Whether to make it look better or worse, though, it's not constructive to say things about its content that do not match up with what's between the covers.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:09 PM
    I'm proceeding in this discussion in as calm and considerate a manner as possible. That includes not assuming that Oofta is trolling, and not leaping to conclusions about the fundamental whatever underlying a statement. So I'm engaging only with the statements, themselves. The irony is in blithely accepting the arbitrary definition of what is and is not magic in one case, but bitterly...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:52 PM
    hps were a per-day resource because healing spells were a per-day resource, if considered separately, it could take weeks to recover hps - it never did, it was a non-viable mode of play if any rival out there were burning spells every day. There were the odd 1/turn magic item or special ability, and a turn (at 10 minutes) usually encompassed an encounter, with the DMG assumption that the...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:25 PM
    Many powers did, such as wizard/warlock spells or Paladin's prayers (though some arguably didn't, in spite of being supernatural in nature - just like how a psychic can claim supernatural power, even though they don't have it, you can conceivably exercise supernatural power in a way that seem natural or even mundane). It's debatable that any exploits at all crossed that line (depending...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:08 PM
    5e is 'balanced' around no magic items, but if you're careful giving out items, you should be able to create some balance among the PCs. They will, however, be 'just better' than without items, so encounters will have to be ratchetted up to create encounter balance. That doesn't seem like it would be particularly harder than just establishing party & encounter balance in the first place. In...
    13 replies | 254 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:55 PM
    3e players would sometimes use a variant, E6, that capped most progress at 6th level, to retain a certain feel and avoid certain problems. IMX, 5e is plenty deadly at 1st level. You could come up with an E1 variant for 5e...
    30 replies | 638 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:54 PM
    To be fair, in the absence of anything like 3.5 Natural Spell, he'll have to resume his humanoid form to do so.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:36 PM
    Then you, and they are considering them to be something they are not. They are explicitly not spells, and not supernatural. Spell-like did not have a meaning in 4e, but in other editions it refers to magical powers (which exploits explicitly were not), which among other things, might have the exact same effects (both mechanical resolution & 'fluff') as a specific spell, but without...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:21 PM
    Is not something I have done. Opinion doesn't even enter into it. You made statements that were false, I corrected them, you backed up and claimed they were 'opinions' rather than just admitting your mistake. Now you're trying to paint the facts that disproved your statements as my opinions. They're facts, they're right there, in the book, in slightly smudged print. Anyone can check...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:14 PM
    IIRC/IMX, morale checks were a little-used feature even in 1e. (Possibly they were left over from Chainmail & the game's wargaming roots?) They mostly applied to Hirelings/Henchmen, and of course, to the unfortunate monsters that got in your way. Morale checks never applied to PCs. The groups I was in made little or no use of Henchmen & Hirelings - a generational thing, I think, older...
    30 replies | 638 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:06 PM
    PrCs were a great idea that was notoriously abused, though maybe to a degree that didn't deserve so much notoriety. Really, you could get just as OP a character as you liked prettymuch out of the PH. Three out of the 4 Tier 1 classes were right there. If your PrC juggling costs you even one caster level in whichever of those classes you're building off of, you've blown it. The concept of...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:56 PM
    No one speaking in the context of the game could call exploits 'spells' without being objectively wrong, yes, because they would be saying something explicitly contradicted by the facts. 'Martial' was not just a fluff label but a keyword, so whether a power was an exploit or a spell had real meaning within the game. How powers, feats & items interacted, for instance, could hinge on what...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:20 PM
    Yeah, sorry about that...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:18 PM
    And, if the designer isn't infallible, the mechanics he comes up with may not support & engender the intended sort of play. Pemerton was saying that you can't game a system, because taking full advantage of all it's little imbalances & loopholes and such would just be playing it as the designer intended. Whatever the designer intended to be the correct/popper/one-true-way/whatever, there'll...
    59 replies | 1447 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:06 PM
    Yes, definitely, no matter how plain you made it - but, the other players would talk them down.
    19 replies | 608 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:45 AM
    also serious thread drift going on here...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:37 AM
    WRT to that I think the point is that it is story shaping the character and players are part of creating that story so both depending on how "led" things are - however insert the concept of wish lists and they become story driving activities. Cuh Culain basically had a series of training adventures near career beginning where he went around finding masters to learn his feats... Some where...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:31 AM
    Though also a pretty unfortunate name. Extraordinary (EX) and 5e's 'maneuvers' are both much nicer names for the same things. "Exploit" had been used in the community for years to describe broken combos and abuse of mechanics.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:12 AM
    You've impressed me many times over the years, but that's brilliant. To what degree is the character shaped by the player as it levels vs having boons presented by the DM shaping the character?
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:11 AM
    Well, "I leap across the chasm to the extent of my remaining movement" is something the character can accomplish within the turn's constraints, as is "I continue my aerial movement across the chasm and land before doing _____" on the character's next turn. If "what you state must be accomplishable on your turn" is the standard, then it's really just a matter of phrasing your words so that you...
    143 replies | 3364 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:07 AM
    cool Not laughing at your proposal, BTW, which looks like brutal fun, but with bits like: And, of course, your handle.
    114 replies | 3227 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:03 AM
    And the 3e PHB says that Extraordinary (Ex) powers can break the laws of physics. That makes them magical, except that the book specifically says they're not. That's what 4e was conveying by saying that martial exploits aren't magic in the traditional sense. They're "magic" in that they break the laws of physics like 3e's Ex powers do, but they aren't magic because the book says they not. ...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:47 AM
    I've given it the occasional moment of thought over the years, and the obvious model is those occasional class powers that do something more/different for a given build. So you'd have powers by source, but many of them would do something extra/different based on Role. Maybe not every power for every role, but significant numbers. The other obvious point is class feature role support -...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:17 AM
    No, that was an oft-repeated willful misinterpretation by h4ters engaged in rampant, and intellectually dishoest edition warring. (Thankfully, the edition war is over, so anyone repeating such now can be charitably assumed to merely be misinformed or mis-remembering). Exploits were not magical in the 'conventional' sense* of supernatural, but the were capable of superhuman feats and...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:47 AM
    No one should have to. Factually false is factually false. No Pre-Essentials power created an aura, the power you're alluding to, Rain of Steel, was not an aura or a Zone - Dispel Magic would have had no effect on it. Anyone with stealth could gain the invisible tag. It just means you can't be seen, not that light is magically passing through you. He didn't have to actually say a...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:19 AM
    No, Max, you are inserting that step where it does not exist. Maybe you're still stuck in 3.0, when Spot & Listen were separate skills, but in 4e & 5e any senses can all fall under perception - probably the 6th sense EGG alluded to, also - so a successful Per check means you've located the Hidden creature, at which point you'll be able to see him if he's not got invisibility or heavy...
    199 replies | 6731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:33 AM
    We can guarantee that isn't an intentional... but it might not be a coincidence.
    41 replies | 1345 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mike Myler's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 10:44 PM
    It is. The vast majority of the time Cthulhu will make the save but occasionally it won't--I'm not buck wild on inner belly fights and figure that at least once a minute somebody that's been swallowed should be able to get out and participate in the battle again.
    12 replies | 301 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 10:38 PM
    More meandering thought on the Specialist: Savant (Specialist): A Savant is a member of a class with exceptional but erratic talent for the greatest feats of the class but no talent or patience for the more pedestrian applications. Meta: Savant is a template for players who want more of a challenge than a regular class represents. The player must manage tight resources and make...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 09:22 PM
    Much like MCing partially fixes it. Any choices you have in addition to class - Race(1e-5e), sub-class(1e-2e,Essentials,5e), Kit(2e only), Feats(3e,4e,~5e), PrCs (3e only), Backgrounds(4e & 5e), Theme(4e), Path(4e), Destiny(4e), or Archetype(PF) - are like quasi-classes that you can multi-class to without giving up anything from your main class. The more you introduce choices notwithstanding...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 09:13 PM
    Not a whole lot, prior to 4e, when it just became a way to set up a Skill Challenge. Rather, I'd use wildly-more-powerful monsters as backdrops (world painting) and railway signs (plot devices). "Oh, you can't go that way, that's the territory of a Huge/Ancient Red Dragon allied with an Arcanadaemon who makes Iron Golems for fun, everyone knows you never go /that/ way!" Y'know, not just...
    19 replies | 608 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 09:01 PM
    Still not true. Still not funny. Warlords did not cast spells. (Not unless they MC'd to Wizard or otherwise acquired a spell from some source other than their class... Hybrid Warlord|Artificer, for instance, could totally cast some spells.) Bard and McBard in 5e hard-fail as Warlord substitutes. It's just a category error. It's like if there were no wizard, but, hey, you could...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 08:48 PM
    Yes. When you receive a second set of temp hps, you can decide to take them, or to keep the ones you already have. Generally you take the higher, in this case you might not, to keep the spell running until the next hit.
    24 replies | 652 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 08:05 PM
    Warlords don't cast spells. It'd make an OK Skald, I guess - though, really, Valor Bard by itself makes an OK Skald.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 08:03 PM
    Incorrect, that success means the stealthy character /is no longer Hidden/, thus no longer Invisible, and, now, the successful creature knows where he is and can see him (as long as he doesn't have total concealment from some other source that is). Correct. Incorrect. You might picture it in the game world like this: A moves into a room full of, say, crates, and hides amongst...
    199 replies | 6731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 07:38 PM
    I ran one like that: the point of the challenge wasn't to convince an important NPC to help (she'd be downright committed to solving the problem the moment she got wind of it), it was just to get past all her handlers trying to preserve her privacy and interested third parties & conspirators trying to keep her in the dark. One thing I did a little differently was having several named NPCs that...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 07:18 PM
    I've never heard of a con having a problem with it. Some expect it, at least for certain sorts of games. No &, AFAIK no.
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mike Myler's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 03:38 PM
    Welcome to Epic Monsters, a complementary series to the Mythological Figures column! These are high challenge rating statblocks built to bring a grin to the faces of GMs and strike terror into the hearts of even the most experienced adventurers. Read on only if you have the mettle for it! What better way to kick off the series than with the greatest of the Great Old Ones: Cthulhu! Cthulhu...
    12 replies | 1179 view(s)
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 03:12 AM
    I picture the specialist as being darn-near unplayable, like a 3e NPC class. Though, the mostly-daily is pedantic, I think it would work better as an all-at-will like the Stalwart. Maybe Wild-something for the mostly-daily type...? The point, though, is intentional imbalance favoring the 'Hero.'
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 02:55 AM
    One of the 4e descendant threads has something very akin to that... on 4enclave.org however my experience has been it's way way too easy to yank the game into being all about the specialist mayaps the problem is they become a specialist in so many things as they level instead of staying a narrow solution.
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 01:41 AM
    Really? I thought Enterprise had a lot of good episodes. The cogenitor episode, the doctor's pen pals episode, the vulcan monastery episode, the Xindi arc (if you ignore or change the time travelers manipulating the war to start piece of it), etc.
    44 replies | 1936 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 01:21 AM
    Well, the point (at least in XGtE) was that falling takes more time than is available in a single round (if done from a great enough height), and that a character who can fly might reasonably have a chance to resume flying or control their descent before they hit the ground from a great height. But, at a fundamental level, those rules are talking about movement with a set direction and...
    143 replies | 3364 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 01:16 AM
    Thank you. I usually go with the standard 250 days. Although any increases to HP, HD and Proficiency Modifier are automatic on the first day. I'm also willing to credit days for certain things. For example, if you're proficient in the Arcana skill and MC into Wizard, I'll usually credit the character 50 days to represent their having some existing training in the fundamentals.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 01:09 AM
    In a linear adventure, where there is no adventure but through the door, /forward/ would be more litteral. But, sure, more broadly, point taken. I rather like that one. I suppose that, with 5e, the penduulum has swung back to more DM-directed styles...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 01:04 AM
    Add some formal downtime-day requirement and that sounds like a perfectly reasonable alternative to the stat preq.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 01:01 AM
    The rules do technically allow you to end your turn in the air. XGtE, the section on falling long distances. Whether one chooses to allow jumps beyond existing movement to do the same is certainly a judgement call. But, it's noteworthy that an in-print official source does allow for ending turns in mid-air.
    143 replies | 3364 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 12:53 AM
    And the first two Back to the Future movies. Everything else I've seen with time travel in it usually makes a mess of things. Just look at the Star Trek series Enterprise. They had a good idea there and some solid episodes, if only they didn't do that Temporal Cold War crap.
    44 replies | 1936 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 12:41 AM
    Depends how it's handled. I've never used 5e's MC ability requirements, but I do require finding a trainer, paying said trainer, and taking the time to learn from her to MC. If you can't get in all the training before the next adventure or session, you can get some features of the class based on how far you made it through the training. I agree about there being enough traps, but MCing...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 12:34 AM
    I suppose the idea is that you're not getting trained up in the class for a long period, like you presumably would be for your first 'Apprentice' level, but are cramming to master the new class more quickly, which requires greater raw talent? Not a terrible thing. There's enough 'traps' as it is before adding MCing to the mix...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 12:33 AM
    4e's biggest issue with multi-classing right from the book was the power swap feats. If a power is of the same level and on the same refresh cycle (i.e. at-will, encounter, daily) you should've been able to swap them if you pleased because they generally would be balanced for their level and frequency of use. When I DM'd 4e I gave players the power swap feats for free when they took the MC feat...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MechaPilot's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 12:30 AM
    I object to the Ability Score requirements for Multi-classing. Makes no sense story wise when there's no ability score requirements for being that class from level one. And, all it does is discourage sub-optimal MC choices. I mean, requiring a 13 or 15 in a class' main stat to MC into it just ensures that what you'll get from MC-ing is better than it would be if you did it with a lower stat.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, 12:15 AM
    But, at 15, it's not even 'Green' yet...?
    31 replies | 1055 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 08:36 PM
    "Judge?" They still call GM's 'judges' over there? I thought that was a 70s wargaming thing...? ...sorry... anyway... It depends on the con, and I suppose varies regionally, so my experience may have no bearing, but cons often schedule at least some time between the end of one session and the start of another, so generally, just not going over time should keep you from having the problem...
    9 replies | 195 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 08:17 PM
    Darn it, now I have to go and agree with you. And we were having such a nice argument. ;) Sub-classes are in essence a way of hiding class proliferation. Instead of admitting you have 40 classes, some of them really kinda redundant, you bundle them under a few classes and call them sub-classes. They can, and in 5e do, stand in for specific MC combos, presumably, the most popular ones -...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 08:09 PM
    I was trying to hold up a darkly sarcastic mirror to the (miss)use of those terms, yes.
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 07:47 PM
    Pretty sure it was clear that he was echoing things he knew were nonsense... but which seem to be "common use/understanding". It seems he also didn't get much out of them either but that seems different. (I kind of found Forge to be fun mental exercise of modelling those who model - LOL)
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 07:46 PM
    Further off on a tangent, maybe I should ask in your HoML thread, but, with regard to quasi-classes, things that act like classes but combine with them, I've often thought that you could leave Role & Source independently 'floating,' so you could just choose Martial & Defender, instead of Fighter, say... But, other threads about resource mixes have me thinking if it wouldn't be kosher to have a...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 06:33 PM
    That's certainly a thing that can happen. 3.x was big on rewarding system mastery, and 4e both invalidated that mastery and greatly reduced the relative rewards for gaining & applying mastery of it. I got less bent out of shape by that than I did when the 6th ed of Hero did the same sorta thing - though, to be fair, the challenge of acquiring system mastery was greater (and quite...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • mrpopstar's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 06:24 PM
    Nice! Did the stat blocks in Volo's Guide to Monsters bestiary influence your decision-making at all? I really like how the class write-ups turned out there. :)
    4 replies | 215 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 06:23 PM
    Though it varies with the group, D&D /is/ a social activity, and often a lot of play time is bled off in what is essentially socializing. What isn't bled off in rules debates, protracted planning sessions, or the table-top equivalent of 'pixel-bitching,' that is. So I'd say what you're experiencing is pretty normal, and what you're seeing is the result of video-editing, maybe awareness of being...
    21 replies | 953 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 05:52 PM
    It seems reasonably hostile to D&D, too, describing both as "incoherent." In this particular instance I was posting my impressions of how the boards tend to (miss)use Forge terminology. And, no, I have made a small effort, but never found much sense in the Forge. The Threefold Model made a little sense to me back in the day, but it still mainly came off as intellectualizing the essentially...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 05:32 PM
    It's assuming characters can do that. But, such is only optional in 5e, so when that option is exercised, the statement is "more true" in the sense that exclusivity is more pronounced and applies to more featuers. A lot of people balked at 1e MCing. Not that demi-humans could do it, but that they could do it with only certain class combos, and had level limits, and/or that humans couldn't...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 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.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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.
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 09:06 PM
    Princess Bride reference wins the thread. ;)
    114 replies | 3227 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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.
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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.
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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...
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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...
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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,...
    168 replies | 4019 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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...
    199 replies | 6731 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 04:28 PM
    In development Forerunner an OGL derivation of 4e concepts and core functionality without IP or copyright issues.
    331 replies | 10264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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.
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 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.
    45 replies | 1195 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 03:35 PM
    This post was removed from where I posted it in the first place so meh...
    6 replies | 368 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Yaarel

Basic Information

Date of Birth
September 14

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,028
Posts Per Day
0.78
Last Post
Open Up New Worlds Of Gaming With The Open Legend RPG Yesterday 07:17 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 offline

    Member

    Garthanos
  6. MechaPilot MechaPilot is offline

    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, 18th July, 2018


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



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