View Profile: Laurefindel - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th April, 2019, 03:42 PM
    Oooooh, I had forgotten about hit dice Blue Thereís is also a possibility to expand on the hit dice mechanics, like spending a hit dice to heal an exhaustion level on a short rest. Iím not looking for extra HD use for the sake of extra HD use only, but there is wiggle room in the system there IMO if I need it.
    6 replies | 205 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 15th April, 2019, 06:20 PM
    I am somewhat familiar with AiME, but far more familiar with its parent game The One Ring. AiME does a lot of things, including removing magic almost entirely, and that's not the way I want to go. It does serves as inspiration however.
    6 replies | 205 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 15th April, 2019, 05:32 PM
    Things I want: To make a slower-paced campaign emphasizing on the ordinary and mundane aspect of the world, making heroism extraordinary in courageous acts rather than powerful magic. To make wilderness travel still dangerous and significant past 3rd level. Ideally for the whole length of the campaign. To bring a mechanical aspect to the bonding and friendship of the characters. Even if...
    6 replies | 205 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 15th April, 2019, 05:31 PM
    Thinking out loud here, and Iíd love to have your feedback. (for a TL;DR version, skip to the second post) I have a new campaign in mind for D&D 5e. It's been cooking for years. For that campaign, I mean to put a bit more emphasis on the mundane and introduce a bit of realism. Before you all get your torches and pitchforks, let me explain what I mean by that. First, I donít mean to make...
    6 replies | 205 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 15th April, 2019, 03:47 PM
    I think there are many ways to justify "speed halved" with all kinds of injuries, including a broken nose. However, my beef with the second level of exhaustion (speed halved) is that it encourages a "fight to death" approach since you can't properly run away. In itself that is not an issue since D&D in general tends to be rather binary in terms of victory/defeat, but in my experience, games...
    12 replies | 487 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Friday, 12th April, 2019, 03:43 AM
    Whoa,,,, So much for thatÖ A voluntary choice between perfectly fine and perfectly dead isnít really a choice, voluntary or not. Iíll give you that. However, it does enable me as a DM to use hp with other stakes than death. Iím sure I would be able to do just that with damage-as-hp-lost too. For what itís worth, I apply the same philosophy with skill checks; failure doesnít...
    75 replies | 1878 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th April, 2019, 04:28 PM
    Mostly because players feel more entitled to imagine or narrate what they want - if they want anything at all - in a mindset where a resource is voluntarily spent rather than forcibly taken or lost. You may disagree with that premise too. I prefer to see the expenditure of hit points as a way to avoid a consequence rather than loss of hit points being the consequence in itself. It's mostly...
    75 replies | 1878 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th April, 2019, 02:17 PM
    Like @Hussar said, then your character suffers the full consequences of the attack or hazard. If your opponent wanted to kill you - the most frequent situation - then it succeeded and your character is dying, unstable, and you have to roll death saving throws. If the opponent just wanted to slap you behind the head, then you allowed it to do so, probably without further complications. The most...
    75 replies | 1878 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th April, 2019, 03:56 PM
    I prefer seeing hp as something you spend rather than something you lose. The default assumption is that if an opponent wants you dead and manages to overcome your defenses (with a successful attack roll or a failed save on your part); you're dead, (or dying to stay within D&D ruleset). If the opponent wants to incapacitate you; you're unconscious. If the opponent wants to slightly annoy you,...
    75 replies | 1878 view(s)
    6 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 8th April, 2019, 07:08 PM
    This is a personal vote for me - i'm sure plenty of people got good use of them - but I'm going with all of the Brithright's Player Domain books. I never even came close to use any of them, but really liked them. As a matter of fact, I still have them all. They have survived the multiple purges of unused RPG books along with my Planescape stuff. Which says a lot.
    62 replies | 2841 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019, 08:41 PM
    I'm not sure what you mean by that? That has always been our philosophy as well, and it is precisely because we do not assume that creatures stand stock still next to a threat that this whole issue arise in the first place. I'm sure that similar models or images can lead to different playstyles. By this time I get that you and I don't see eye to eye around the gaming table, but there is no...
    20 replies | 607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019, 03:07 PM
    My prefered approach as a DM has always been: to player; "I don't like because ". Then player goes; "what if we do instead". But I like to think of my perceived issues out loud beforehand, and either have a solution to propose or realise that the issue wasn't much of a problem in the first place. Typically, I'm confronted to realise that the issue, if still problematic, isn't as big as I...
    20 replies | 607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019, 01:36 PM
    I'm not sure what you mean by re-writing the rules. I'm looking for a refluff on a single spell, not on a way to change all spells. One of the many proposed solutions was to establish a physical link, like a leach or a thread, between the spiritual weapon and the caster. But that wasn't the only proposed solution, nor the one I'm going for. As you say, we can imagine all sort of solutions;...
    20 replies | 607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019, 02:45 AM
    Not quite. A creature wouldn't be utterly confused by a shield of faith, and who is the caster behind that spell has a limited impact on its behaviour. A creature getting confused by the spell, wasting attacks and actions on an immaterial effect because it doesn't (immediately) understand the nature of the spiritual weapon, or not being able to assess who the aggressor is, has a bigger...
    20 replies | 607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019, 07:55 PM
    Yes, presently I'm leaning toward something similar, whereas the cleric's held weapon is "spectrally projected" to the targeted area as he/she swings it. I'm considering changing the component to VSM; the material component being a weapon or holy symbol held in hand, and giving each bonus action attack a reach of 60ft and forget about the fixed area with 20ft movement. I'm less inclined to...
    20 replies | 607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 1st April, 2019, 07:05 PM
    Interesting. I'd consider that if I ever go 2d10. Even in a regular d20 skill checks, disadvantage on "untrained" checks could downplay the sudden competency of non-proficient characters and discourage the "I might as well try too, all I need is a lucky roll" effect of 5e skill checks, without artificially raising DCs to prevent random successes. That however is pretty cool. Having...
    74 replies | 2539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 1st April, 2019, 03:45 PM
    Magic is by definition supernatural, I get that. But I'd like to have your suggestions and opinions about re-fluffing the spiritual weapon spell. Mechanically speaking, I'm cool with the spell. What I don't like however, it's that spiritual weapon creates an entity that is not an entity; you are attacked by something you cannot fight back. There are a multitude of spells that do that, but for...
    20 replies | 607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th March, 2019, 03:00 PM
    To add to the "swingyness" of 5e skill checks, we, as players and often as DMs too, like to roll the dice. Rolling dice is fun; there is a certain thrill to know whether they will come up in your favour (heck, there are many casino games based solely on that principle). But technically - and 5e insists more on than point than any previous editions of D&D - a skill check should only be...
    74 replies | 2539 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Laurefindel's Avatar
    Monday, 25th March, 2019, 06:25 PM
    Similarly to many posters above... The themes of our games are pretty serious. Not too grim dark, but no forced humour from the scenario or "it would be funny if..." situations. The players are well able to bring it up on their own. The characters are seriously "made"; they may have their quirks, but no attempts to be deliberately cartoony, ridiculous, or blatantly inefficient....
    58 replies | 2181 view(s)
    1 XP
No More Results
About Laurefindel

Basic Information

Date of Birth
March 23, 1977 (42)
About Laurefindel
Introduction:
RPG, LEGO and Showbiz! Oh my!
Location:
somewhere in Canada...
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

State:
Quebec
Country:
Canada

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
254
Posts Per Day
0.06
Last Post
Musing on some variant and homebrewed rules: feedback and insight wanted Tuesday, 16th April, 2019 03:42 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
6
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:35 AM
Join Date
Monday, 26th May, 2008
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
State:
Quebec
Country:
Canada
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019


Monday, 15th April, 2019


Friday, 12th April, 2019


Thursday, 11th April, 2019


Wednesday, 10th April, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Friday, 12th April, 2019

  • 01:13 AM - ardoughter mentioned Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Man this thread brings back memories. I remember a blazing row with Raven Crowking and others on this topic that went on for 30 pages or so. I do like Laurefindel's approach to the topic. For the record, I almost never narrate hp loss, too tedious, other than indicating increasing fatigue on the part of NPCs as they HP drains away. I have come to view HP as plot protection. A resource that keeps you in the story and you stay there until you loose it. Then things become questionable. I did in my youth explore other options, simulationist systems have too much random death and yet not random enough. While very few people survive 10 stab wounds some have lived long enough to take out their attacker. Wound systems tend toward the death spiral, and while that might be realistic it is not much fun. So, I tend to not think too hard about hit points and go with, while you have them you are still in the game and when they are gone at the mercy of others.

Thursday, 11th April, 2019

  • 09:11 PM - robus mentioned Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Now, we could make some big changes to the game's rules so that you'd actually spend hit points as a resource, and combat was won in part (or in whole!) by bidding hit points against a foe's bid, but if we adopted that new process for mechanical resolution, it would be very notably not a traditional D&D/D20 rules set. I think simply making the player roll damage (now called "defense" or something) to find out how difficult it is to fend off the successful attack is all that's need to adjust to this definition of HP? The player is determining (randomly it's true) how much it costs them from their resource pool. But perhaps I'm thinking of some middle path between what you and Laurefindel are conceiving? But more likely I'm not fully grokking the issue? :)
  • 04:49 AM - Hussar mentioned Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    If you choose not to spend them, what happens? Well, going by the description Laurefindel provided, I'd say that the attacker gets to succeed. Meaning if the attacker is trying to kill you, you die. What a really fantastic way of modeling HP. Consider that yoinked. I LOVE that interpretation. It makes HP actually make sense. It's a player resource that they spend to avoid negative consequences. Which means that you could easily model just about anything you want to model. Such as, say, a duel where the goal isn't to kill the other, but, rather, to the first hit. Nobody actually scores a hit until someone runs out of HP. Or, if the PC falls off a cliff and doesn't die, it's because there was a tree sticking out that broke your fall, placed there by the expenditure of HP. Wow. I can see this being a fantastic way of running the game. And, as far as something like a poisoned weapon goes, well, sure, you can avoid the HP ablation of the weapon, but, the poison effect is separate, so, because of the poisoned weapon, you are somewhat constrained in how you ...

Wednesday, 19th December, 2018

  • 09:17 PM - dave2008 mentioned Laurefindel in post Encumbrance Variant (load vs equipment slots)
    In general I like the concept. Thank you for sharing. I am not sure if all the ratings are correct (I have looked at that closely). Also, I do think Laurefindel's simplification makes a lot of 5e since, but I could see your more detailed list as a variant.

Friday, 19th October, 2018

  • 10:46 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Laurefindel in post 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"
    ...g to your race or background, in addition to spending it to gain advantage on a roll. Advantage/disadvantage and bounded accuracy are my favourite addition to this edition. That being said, monsters do feel like bags of hp sometimes, and although i don't think it has anything to do with bounded accuracy, I think they could have gone further with small but distinctive monstrous abilities, like what the orcs and goblins have. I think there could have been more low-magic setting possibilities if some of the core features were set as variants. For what its worth, that's where i think the missed opportunity was. Indeed, but each of those situations has a calculatable probability of occurring within the set of all possible outcomes and the most likely results, even expected value, can also be calculated. It's actually kind of a fun exercise. That said, my calculations say the expected value of the bonus is more like +6/-6 than +5/-5 (in fact, it would round up to 7). This site supports Laurefindel's post: http://zerohitpoints.com/Articles/Advantage-in-DnD-5

Tuesday, 16th October, 2018

  • 02:46 AM - Grognerd mentioned Laurefindel in post High-Level Features for Mid-Level Campaigns?
    I think you're missing an obvious question: why do the campaigns stop there? There are plenty of adventures in Dungeon and elsewhere that can be used. Dude... he answered that in his OP, directly behind what you mentioned... Long story made short, my campaigns usually run until level 11th-13th. The sweet spot for me is between 5th and 9th level; after the PC have enough hp to withstand challenging encounters, but before their low-level abilities become irrelevant (and before the PC have enough hp to face all but the most outlandish opponents). And he also very politely requested... (please don't reply just to say how high levels aren't that difficult to play; that is a good discussion, but one we can have in another thread) I mean... c'mon. Just help the brother out! Laurefindel, I obviously haven't checked this out for balance and whatnot, but you could always parallel 1e. Normal progression up until level 10, then from levels 11+ instead of the normal HP progression, characters gain either +1 (1d6 Hit Die), +2 (1d8 HD), or +3 (1d10 or 1d12 HD) Hit Points with no Constitution modifier. That changes the paradigm for Fighters (for example) from gaining 60+CON Modifier/Level Hit Points - which could easily total 100 HP or more - to 30 HP flat rate. Then you get to keep the characters a bit more mortal, yet not have to rework the entire set-up. Similarly, you might (as you have already intimated) take a page from Basic D&D when they had Demihumans who could only rise to 12th Level or whatever, but every X additional XP gained an A, B, C, et al. feature. This would be done similarly to the Epic Boons but limited to the class features of the characters.

Sunday, 26th August, 2018

  • 08:15 PM - Satyrn mentioned Laurefindel in post Revised Ranger update
    I'm curious as to your reasoning. How could the Animal Handling rules have been made more clear and that helped the Beastmaster? Keeping in mind that Bard's and Rogues Expertise could mean they are far Superior with the Animal Handling skill if they desired to be. I made a comment similar to Laurefindel's I think it would improve the beastmaster because it would show the baseline power of the pet if it belonged to the party's rogue, and then we could all actually see how the beastmaster's pet-related features are improvements to the pet, and by just how much. Plus, it'd be clear that you don't have to be a beastmaster to have a pet.

Wednesday, 13th June, 2018

  • 04:05 PM - OB1 mentioned Laurefindel in post Dropping to 0 HP - Alternate Rule
    ...le. That said, for the next campaign Iím running, Iím looking for a slightly grittier style, with the heroes constantly pushed to their limits and having to constantly compromise their goals just to stay alive. To this end, Iím looking for rules that encourage finding other solutions to encounters than combat. Retreat from combat that isnít going overwhelmingly well except when the stakes are worth the risk. And when they do engage? Go hard and fast to minimize the chance of anyone dropping to zero. And make getting into the next combat all the more risky. I want to make combat feel risky and dangerous. At the same time, I hate the mechanic of unconsciousness, as the only lever I have to make that dangerous is to hit PCs when they are down. Which means not a death spiral, but pretty much instant death. I want this rule to allow players to take risks to be heroic when they want to or retreat when they need to. I want to give them increased agency over the zero HP condition. Laurefindel same rate of exhaustion recovery, though I was considering allowing a player to spend half their level in hit dice after a long rest to recover an additional level of exhaustion. Also, strongly thinking about making level 6 exhaustion unconsciousness, and if at 0HP requiring a death save every round and if above 0 a death save every hour to mimic the action trope of clinging to life with grievous injury. I probably wonít turn this into a Con save, to keep those proficient at a max of 75% success rate. I do like the idea that a barbarian or fighter can risk continuing to fight while at 0 HP. Saelorn - what do you see as the complicated part of this? Seems straightforward to me but perhaps Iím missing something or not articulating the rule correctly. Again, appreciate the feedback everyone! I know this isnít to everyoneís taste, but I think/hope it encourages a style of play and change in tactics that can be interesting for certain types of campaigns.

Friday, 18th May, 2018

  • 07:07 PM - Satyrn mentioned Laurefindel in post Inspiration & Hero Points Math
    Sorry, Lan, this isn't aimed at you at all, your post was just convenient rant fodder. I've mistaken Laurefindel for Lanefan before. Does this mean I'm not alone in doing so?

No results to display...
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Monday, 15th April, 2019

  • 04:36 PM - Yaarel quoted Laurefindel in post Injury / Exhaustion / Energy Drain
    However, my beef with the second level of exhaustion (speed halved) is that it encourages a "fight to death" approach since you can't properly run away. In itself that is not an issue since D&D in general tends to be rather binary in terms of victory/defeat, but in my experience, games that stress the use of the exhaustion table - or houserule the use of the exhaustion table as a health track to mimic injuries - are usually aiming at dialing the super-hero knob down a notch or two. And these are the games where players are most likely to run from a threat rather than stand and fight in all-or-nothing stakes. For me, I consider all of the Ďmoraleí possibilities, during the Ďbloodied conditioní when characters and monsters reduce to half hit points or less. This is when Intimidation checks to force surrender are possible, and especially when monsters decide whether to flee the fight or not. By this time, everyone has an idea of what the strength of the opponent is, and decides accordingly. Especi...

Friday, 12th April, 2019

  • 02:37 PM - Celebrim quoted Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Whoa,,,, So much for thatÖ Oh, I get it now, you meant you didn't want me hijacking this thread with a lengthy dissertation. ;) Sorry, it's me. Actually, while I admit to the whole lengthy dissertation thing, I don't admit to the hijacking. The meaning of a 'hit point' and how they are handled narratively is something that has been talked to death for years now, and for a while there was a topic that invariably got a thread closed. No one else was really saying anything that hadn't been said before, and you made by far the most original comment in this thread. So I'm quite happy to glom on to that idea and run with it like a 1e AD&D thief with a fat wallet. I think you'll find that most of the time during these conversations about GMing theory, both sides are exaggerating the differences in play style to a certain extent and that for the most part, were we the players at the table we wouldn't mind too much the slight differences. But thinking about different approaches to...

Thursday, 11th April, 2019

  • 06:46 PM - TaranTheWanderer quoted Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Like @Hussar said, then your character suffers the full consequences of the attack or hazard. If your opponent wanted to kill you - the most frequent situation - then it succeeded and your character is dying, unstable, and you have to roll death saving throws. If the opponent just wanted to slap you behind the head, then you allowed it to do so, probably without further complications. The most obvious muddy corner is whether you keep the hp you have when you can't spend enough to negate the attack (i.e. you have 4 hp left and receive 10 damage). We know by this interpretation that you couldn't avoid the consequence and become dying, but do you still have 4hp? That's where the DM needs to stay consequent with RAW and rule that if character with 0 hp is dying, a dying character has, by definition, 0 hp (otherwise it would be stable and conscious). A character that cannot spend enough hp to negate an attack becomes dying and drops to 0 hp. There might be some mental gymnastics to do with things...
  • 05:01 PM - Celebrim quoted Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Mostly because players feel more entitled to imagine or narrate what they want - if they want anything at all - in a mindset where a resource is voluntarily spent rather than forcibly taken or lost. You may disagree with that premise too. I prefer to see the expenditure of hit points as a way to avoid a consequence rather than loss of hit points being the consequence in itself. It's mostly semantics, but it's a semantic that I prefer, even if the end result comes out to be the same. It's far from being a revolutionary concept, but it has worked superbly for us. I'm not here to convince you of adopting my way of handling hit points, and I don't want to hijack this tread in a lengthy dissertation either. I'm just answering to the subject of the thread... I'm sure it does work for you, and as combative as this all seems, I'm not trying to dissuade you out of anything. I'm after all the guy that coined the claim that, "How you think about play, and how you prepare to play, has a bigger im...
  • 04:46 PM - billd91 quoted Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Mostly because players feel more entitled to imagine or narrate what they want - if they want anything at all - in a mindset where a resource is voluntarily spent rather than forcibly taken or lost. You may disagree with that premise too. I prefer to see the expenditure of hit points as a way to avoid a consequence rather than loss of hit points being the consequence in itself. It's mostly semantics, but it's a semantic that I prefer, even if the end result comes out to be the same. It's far from being a revolutionary concept, but it has worked superbly for us. I'm not here to convince you of adopting my way of handling hit points, and I don't want to hijack this tread in a lengthy dissertation either. I'm just answering to the subject of the thread... I think I get it. It's like someone rolling a saving throw to save themselves rather than an effect imposing a saving throw.
  • 03:32 PM - Celebrim quoted Laurefindel in post How do you handle hit points?
    Like @Hussar said, then your character suffers the full consequences of the attack or hazard. If your opponent wanted to kill you - the most frequent situation - then it succeeded and your character is dying, unstable, and you have to roll death saving throws. If the opponent just wanted to slap you behind the head, then you allowed it to do so, probably without further complications. Then you don't really spend them, do you. I mean, spending implies that they are a resource that you are voluntarily exchanging for something, in the way that in CoC 7e you might spend your luck points, or in a narrative game you might choose to spend some token of narrative influence. "Spend or die" is a false choice, and to the extent that it is not a false choice, the same choice can be made in D&D to stand helpless and unresisting against an attack and allow the attacker to kill you. That works I know in 1e and 3e, it's just not a choice we generally ever expect players to make (for obvious reasons). How...

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019


Monday, 8th April, 2019

  • 09:10 PM - Ralif Redhammer quoted Laurefindel in post D&D Products That Were Never Used By Anyone?
    You're talking about the "Player's Secrets Of" series, right? Because, I actually did use the Stjordvik one in a short-lived (though non-Birthright) campaign. It was a compact location and had the right viking-ish feel. I do keep thinking about running a throwback 2e Birthright campaign. I never got to play or run it back in the day, and I feel like it would create a dramatically different D&D experience. This is a personal vote for me - i'm sure plenty of people got good use of them - but I'm going with all of the Brithright's Player Domain books.

Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019

  • 11:07 PM - 5ekyu quoted Laurefindel in post [5e] (help wanted) Re-fluffing Spiritual Weapon
    I'm not sure what you mean by that? That has always been our philosophy as well, and it is precisely because we do not assume that creatures stand stock still next to a threat that this whole issue arise in the first place. I'm sure that similar models or images can lead to different playstyles. By this time I get that you and I don't see eye to eye around the gaming table, but there is no need to be condescending about it.What I meant was explained in the part of the post you snipped. Because we assume stuff and interactions are happening between "camera close-ups" (your actions on your turn) we have zero problem with intentionally non-deceptive spells revealing their nature to creatures during that off-camera scuffle. So, we dont have to push the "confused creature attacks spiritual weapon" into the creature's "on-camera" turn costing it actions. It's the spells where deception is intended by the spell, where they definexways to defeat it as part of the on-camera close-up "action economy" ...
  • 04:25 AM - 5ekyu quoted Laurefindel in post [5e] (help wanted) Re-fluffing Spiritual Weapon
    Not quite. A creature wouldn't be utterly confused by a shield of faith, and who is the caster behind that spell has a limited impact on its behaviour. A creature getting confused by the spell, wasting attacks and actions on an immaterial effect because it doesn't (immediately) understand the nature of the spiritual weapon, or not being able to assess who the aggressor is, has a bigger impact on the combat. I don't want to play spiritual weapon as a misdirection spell - and I don't think it was designed to be used that way - but as a combat spell. "Suddenly, you are attacked by an spectral-looking, slightly glowing animated, spear" can cause all kinds of reactions from players. It takes a certain mastery of D&D spells to immediately identify this as a spiritual weapon effect, and that the correct course of action is to ignore and outrun the spectral spear, and to zero-in on the cleric who cast it. An intelligent opponent might catch what's going on after one or two rounds or trials and observat...

Saturday, 16th March, 2019

  • 07:47 PM - DrMapzo quoted Laurefindel in post Color Maps for Virtual Tabletops by Me
    Those are really nice. I dig the cartoony feel, and it has just the right ratio of details vs legibility. Bonus point for using the often neglected element of height. VTT is not something I use, but I appreciate its artistic and playability value. Well done! Thank you very much, glad you like the maps :D. This week I made a bandit hideout located inside a cave. These bandits are very well equipped and have amassed a very large amount of gold (though it could also be fake gold which has been circulating in the neighboring cities and the players, after a thorough investigation, finally reach this place). There's also a box with lots of maps and documents, perhaps the bandits tracked down an important item that the players need. Like with most of my maps I tried to include some elevation for more strategic opportunities as well as lots of corners so everyone could easily use some cover or launch sneak attacks against their enemies. 105439

Monday, 4th March, 2019

  • 06:18 PM - Oofta quoted Laurefindel in post RAW: Can druids wear studded leather?
    Yes, youíve got a good point. D&D 5e is, well, the fifth edition of D&D (or more depending what youíre willing to count as an edition), so obviously each iteration builds on the previous one. But there are things that were dropped along the way, such as restricted classes for other races than human, level maximums, alignment prescriptions or prohibition for classes, hit dice limits around level 10, just to name a few. Iím not gonna argue about what should have stayed or what should have been dropped, not to mention what you like and what I donít, but D&D has dropped most cultural elements of classes and folded them in races instead. Taboos are cultural and it is a bit harder to justify why an elven Druid shares the same taboo as every single human or humanoid culture. Taboos could have been cool as a list of choice ŗ la warlock invocations, or described in an ethic code like the paladinís oaths but as it stands, this one appears out of place to me. Which is perfectly legit in a home campaign...
  • 02:34 PM - Oofta quoted Laurefindel in post RAW: Can druids wear studded leather?
    I for one see the druid's "no metal armor" restriction as a vestige of OD&D and AD&D. It was always presented as a taboo of a specific Celtic-like human religion (when other races apart from half elves couldn't play a Druid), alongside the promotion of true neutrality and a rigid hierarchy of druids and archdruids (IIRC, a Druid could not progress past 12th level - or get to 12th level? - without taking somebody else's place). druids were made as a sub-class of cleric, and in 2e AD&D an example of a priest of a specific mythos. Since cleric could wear heavy (metal) armor, the "no metal armor" taboo came to balance this "sub-cleric" class alongside other abilities. with the Druid now decoupled from humans of a pseudo-Celtic religion (or any religion for that matter), the "no metal armor" taboo becomes harder to justify. So what if it is "a vestige of OD&D and AD&D"*? Much of the rest of the game is as well has things we've carried over. Everything from vancian spell casting to HP to AC i...

Tuesday, 12th February, 2019

  • 03:54 PM - Elfcrusher quoted Laurefindel in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    I donít think the D&D beyond statistics are very representative of the tendencies of these forums, but then again, I donít think the tendencies of these forums are representative of the majority of D&D players. That could be a disclaimer attached to most of the threads here. Lots of interesting discussions, but too little recognition (in my opinion) that we are the outliers in this hobby. And maybe also too little recognition that our fanaticism, and our tenure*, do not give our opinions and preferences any elevated importance. *I always laugh when somebody "casually" tries to work into their arguments how long they've been playing D&D, as if that gives them some kind of authority.
  • 03:51 PM - FrogReaver quoted Laurefindel in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    The immediate breakdown that comes to my mind is that, taking your example: 10 levels out of 20 (50%) are fighter 1 level out of 20 (5%) is cleric 9 levels out of 20 (45%) are wizard Youíd need to compare for each character level (i.e. 20 times) so that a 10th level fighter doesnít ďweighĒ ten times as much as a 1st level fighter, but thatís not out of scope of what D&D beyond can do. . This is fantastic. I certainly have no issue with that methodology and I canít imagine anyone would. I find it amazing and unfortunate thatís not the way they handled multiclassing in the circle graph they gave us. It solves everything With multiclassing IMO.

Sunday, 10th February, 2019

  • 04:16 PM - FrogReaver quoted Laurefindel in post The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data
    Is the number of characters the common denominator, or is it levels in a class? Assuming the other poster was correct about the numerator where a fighter cleric gets counted as both a fighter and as a cleric, then the denominator cannot be the number of characters because that would yield a result over 100% every time. Instead it comes out to exactly 100% so the denominator must take the count of all characters with a level of X and the count of all characters with a level of Y and ADD those various counts together even though the same character may be counted for in the count of all characters with a fighter level and in the count of all characters with a cleric level. Thus that character is getting represented once in the cleric numberator, once in the fighter numberator and twice in the denominator.

Thursday, 7th February, 2019

  • 09:48 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Laurefindel in post Expanded Weapons List
    Yes. Actually, from my very own hay-making experience: an (unmodified) scythe is not a wieldy weapon at all. It looks cool, in a bad-ass grim reaper kind of way, but as peasant tools go, it's one of the worst to use as a weapon. Flip the blade upright and then we'll talk but as it is, I'd rather use a gardener's shovel or a wooden branch. Not that it will ever prevent me from using a scythe in fantasy R-P; it's too emblematic and looks way to cool to pass on! Same deal, for me at least, with spiked chains, and even fighting with two rapiers. It's cool, iconic in fiction, and I likes it, so I'm gonna do it.

Wednesday, 6th February, 2019

  • 11:33 PM - Quartz quoted Laurefindel in post Theorycrafting Versatile
    As mentioned before, your maths support even less use of the versatile quality than RaW, because 1d10-2 is inferior to 1d8 in every way. Yes. But the weapon can still be used one-handed. Unlike a greataxe or 2H sword. This is a fundamental change of perspective: currently in 5E a versatile weapon is a one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed whereas this is theorycrafting that a versatile weapon is a two-handed weapon that can be used one-handed.
  • 07:22 PM - jmartkdr quoted Laurefindel in post Theorycrafting Versatile
    However, stating that a longsword, for example, is a 1d10 two-handed weapon (versatile 1d8 when wielded one-handed) is not without merit since it opens the weapon to GWM. It does prevent small races from wielding them altogether however, leaving halflings and gnomes with a very limited selection of weapon usable two-handed. Only if you also add the heavy property; GWM doesn't refer to two-handedness at all. The only rules-interaction change would be making dual-wielding impossible.

Wednesday, 30th January, 2019

  • 02:54 AM - Maxperson quoted Laurefindel in post What is your way for doing Initiative?
    I disagree; the rules are clear in that case. Lets assume the following initiative order: (1) Player A (2) Monster (3) Player B On its turn, Monster attacks Player A. As a reaction, Player A casts shield, boosting their AC by 5 until the beginning of their next turn. RaI suggest that shield is a 1-round spell, and that the +5 AC will be off on Monster's next turn, since Player A will starts it turn before Monster. But if the initiative order changes to: (1) Monster (2) Player B (3) Player A The shield spell is still active on the monster's next turn (since Player A hasn't begun their next turn yet), so in a way, the same 1-round spell was active against Monster for two consecutive rounds. Many spells have similar wording, allowing for a spell to affect a creature (PC or NPC) twice before its own turn, or allowing a creature to evade an AoE twice before the caster has the chance of moving the AoE back on the creature, etc. Two things. First, with Shield the spell lasts...


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Laurefindel's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites