View Profile: Saelorn - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Today, 12:37 AM
    I played in a Pathfinder adventure path, where I was eventually allowed access to the Scepter of Ages, on the strict condition that I only go back one month in order to buy enough time for everyone to recover from their negative levels. That worked out well enough. Later, I ran a 5E campaign where the BBEG acquired the Scepter of Ages at some point during her infinite wish scheme, and used it...
    34 replies | 758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:41 PM
    Access to terrible heavy armor is an innate right of every person. If nothing else, I should be able to weigh myself down with animal pelts to the point that my Dexterity is irrelevant!
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:06 PM
    Yes. Eldritch Knight is a very stat-dependent sub-class, and it would have gone against the character concept to put that 5 into Charisma; nor did it seem like a good idea to dump Wisdom. That's why I say that it would become the new Constitution, because everyone would need it at least above-average. Nobody could get away with low Dexterity, because everyone would need it to calculate their...
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:45 PM
    My level 1 fighter equipped with medium armor and a shield would have AC 14 after considering Dexterity modifiers.
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:14 PM
    That seems a bit extreme. Heavy armor is incredibly vital to certain character concepts. Denying all heavy armor to a level 1 character means that those characters would never last long enough to acquire heavy armor. You can't be a tank with an AC of 14 (including shield). It would make Dexterity significantly more important than it already is. It would basically become the new Constitution,...
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:41 AM
    You could do +1 AC for 1000gp across the board, but that's a slippery slope toward complexity. That alone would double the amount of armors available. It was just a point of interest, I guess, that fighters traditionally looked forward to one day affording plate. The most consistent solution would probably be to go the 4E route for this, and just say that plate armor is a well-established...
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:44 AM
    The numbers are fine. Heavy armor is better than medium armor is better than light armor, under ideal circumstances. My concern is that plate armor has always been a prestige item, in the game and historically. Every fighter wants plate, because it's amazing; but not everyone can have plate, because it's expensive. Under this change, the most expensive plate armor is not any more effective...
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 19th June, 2018, 10:58 PM
    And the knight has Strength 16, so that's covered. The only one in the basic document who looks like they would be in trouble is the priest, who is wearing a chain shirt with a Strength 10. You could address that either by saying that it's a light chain shirt, giving it AC 12 (only one point off); or by giving them some other form of armor. You would also have to go through and recalculate the...
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 19th June, 2018, 10:35 PM
    It's practical for PCs, because PCs tend to have above-average stats, and anyone with Strength less than 13 is intentionally dumping it. I'm not sure if it makes sense for the rest of the world, unless you want basic training for a town guard to include getting their Strength to 13 (which seems reasonable enough to me). At that point, it would serve well as a differentiator between trained...
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 19th June, 2018, 10:21 PM
    It sounds about right. If you used these rules, instead of the ones in the book, the game would not suffer significantly for it. It does raise the question of why anyone would buy plate armor, if scale armor was just as effective and also cheaper (or easier to make), but I'm sure you have a reasonable answer for that.
    50 replies | 1088 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 19th June, 2018, 07:38 PM
    In my experience, any rule which specifically targets one particular type of character (squishies, in this case) will instantly result in players choosing to play other character types. If you have a rule that makes concentration easier to break, then nobody is going to play a character who focuses on concentration spells. If you make it easier for a paladin to fall, then nobody is going to play...
    21 replies | 682 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 19th June, 2018, 01:45 AM
    Hi everyone, I was having a discussion with someone else on another forum, concerning the topic of Pathfinder 2 (Electric Boogaloo), and a comparison came up between that game and D&D 4E. It was suggested that the two appear quite similar in many ways, because combat is very tactical (Theater-of-the-Mind being neither practical nor encouraged), and every character has a new choice to make at...
    2 replies | 170 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 18th June, 2018, 10:33 PM
    It's a difficult design goal, because there are conflicting priorities. It's hard to make a feat that grants proficiency, and also make it appeal to someone who already has proficiency, without conceding mathematically that proficiency is inherently without value. Neither Great-Weapon Master nor Sharp-Shooter grant automatic proficiency, do they? They require you to gain proficiency somewhere...
    33 replies | 817 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 18th June, 2018, 09:17 PM
    Different people have fun in different ways. If I can take a feat that lets my wizard wear heavy armor in a meaningful way, then that changes everything about how looks and acts and perceives himself, even if the only mechanical benefit is having a high AC. I thought the fun of feats was that they let you customize your character in interesting ways, not necessarily that they add great...
    33 replies | 817 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 18th June, 2018, 08:48 PM
    I feel that there should be a reason for using different mechanics, or else you're just adding complexity for the sake of complexity. Much has been said in the past, of the value in rolling under a stat for making stat checks rather than rolling d20 and adding the stat bonus, but even that is unnecessary complexity. If you already have the concept of DCs in place for things like attack rolls...
    22 replies | 422 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 16th June, 2018, 10:53 AM
    I hate Gamma World as much as anyone else in the world does, probably moreso, but even I recognize that a choice between a generic one-handed weapon (1d8 damage, and you can use a shield) and a generic two-handed weapon (1d12 damage) is still a meaningful choice. Even if it's balanced so that neither option is truly better over-all, one or the other will be better for any given character, based...
    42 replies | 1541 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 15th June, 2018, 11:01 PM
    If orcs were experienced at combat, then they would know to never use the Help action, unless they couldn't otherwise make their own attack. It's always preferable for them to make two attacks, rather than making one attack at advantage. In a mixed group of orcs and ogres, though, the orcs might know well enough that they should Help their ogre allies.
    405 replies | 16094 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 15th June, 2018, 05:46 AM
    That happened to me in a Pathfinder module, once. We arrived in a new locale, so I did a quick fly around the area in wind form (because there's no reason to not cast Wind Walk on the party every day), and flying over one particular building triggered an encounter with a monster that was consuming the remains of a plot-relevant NPC. Apparently, the "script" called for us to rescue the NPC's...
    68 replies | 2735 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 15th June, 2018, 05:32 AM
    Sure, with the caveat that inconsistent and unpredictable spellcasting, in a world where PCs understand that magic is inconsistent and unpredictable, makes for a setting which I find silly. I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief that far. That sounds a lot like there's an intelligent entity in charge of distributing magic to mortals, and that the actual laws governing magic may well be...
    68 replies | 2735 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 15th June, 2018, 04:22 AM
    For me, the biggest break is when magic is portrayed is magical - unknowable and unpredictable - rather than just part of the alternate natural laws of the fantasy world. The idea that someone can do jazz hands and bellow an incantation in order to create a fireball is fine; it just requires alternate energy planes that you can access through scientifically-repeatable methods to produce...
    68 replies | 2735 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 14th June, 2018, 11:03 PM
    You could also have a Dexterity higher than your casting stat, depending on which spells you pick, and other factors. Likewise, whether or not cover is a frequent concern, is something that will vary alongside a number of factors. Your melee friends only provide cover to your enemies if they are actually between you and them; and even then, you can often solve that problem by moving to get a...
    52 replies | 1802 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 14th June, 2018, 08:49 PM
    Actually, they hold up pretty well until around level 10. Crossbows let you add your Dexterity modifier to damage, and not all spellcasters gain an equivalent class ability. If you're choosing between 1d8+4 and 2d8, then only one of those is guaranteed to kill a goblin.
    52 replies | 1802 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 14th June, 2018, 01:21 AM
    Would it be fair to say that 5E has broader access to magic, but that the magical effects are less overwhelming on the high end? Like the whole game is more Eberron-y?
    52 replies | 1802 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 14th June, 2018, 01:05 AM
    Interestingly, a significant majority of your examples are non-core. That could be indicative of magic creep, with the game starting out less magical and becoming more magical over time.
    52 replies | 1802 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 14th June, 2018, 12:26 AM
    I really wouldn't go that far. Many of the most egregious issues with 3E were not evident from reading, and didn't really become noticeable until you had played most of a campaign. From just a simple read through the two PHBs, without any practical experience for what to look out for, the two games would look extremely similar in terms of content and scale.
    52 replies | 1802 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 10:59 PM
    More generally, each class gains a different amount of its power from its subclass. A wizard might only get 6% of its total utility from its subclass features, while a barbarian or warlock gets 20%, such that the latter classes gain more of a bonus from having multiple subclasses.
    12 replies | 289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 10:26 PM
    There are a couple of ways in which 5E characters are less magical and/or less powerful than earlier editions: 1) Spellcasters have significantly fewer spell slots, especially at high levels. You don't get more spell slots for having a high ability score, and you basically never get more than one per day of any level 6+ spell. 2) Most non-instantaneous spells require concentration, and you...
    52 replies | 1802 view(s)
    8 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 09:08 PM
    That's a good point, but if you don't have anyone who especially wants to play a healer, you could edit the setting such that magical healing wasn't a thing. Just get rid of healing spells entirely. That's (effectively) how we played in AD&D, and it worked out well enough. Even if you get into a fight every now and then, you'll mostly be okay by the time you get to the next town.
    37 replies | 915 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 07:22 PM
    Slow healing would solve your problem. Throw out every mention of Hit Dice, and set the heal rate to 1-3 points per night. Change the Life domain channel divinity (and other sources of easy healing) to grant temporary hit points. Make it so that getting stabbed once will put a damper on your whole day, because every hit brings you closer to death via HP loss. That's why Hit Points exist in the...
    37 replies | 915 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 07:16 PM
    It adds a bunch of new action conditions, which trigger a saving throw that has a dynamic difficulty and needs to be calculated on-the-fly, in order to invoke the chart of fatigue conditions which is otherwise only referenced in extremely dramatic out-of-combat situations (and is detailed appropriately). It's just not as straight-forward as the existing alternative. I don't mean that it's...
    37 replies | 915 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 05:59 AM
    Wrong article. Try this one: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCharacterClasses "The Barbarian: Other Names: Berserker, Gladiator, Viking. The Barbarian is a breed of Fighter focused more on damage than defense." I'm not the one making it up. My player was the one who brought it up, and before that point, I hadn't even thought of it. (I honestly hadn't considered the...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 01:45 AM
    I agree that feats are optional. I don't use them in my game. That's why I think it's weird that they buried such an important ability in there. That's not just my opinion. That's the opinion over on tvtropes, which is the source for pop-culture tropes. A barbarian class is supposed to deal a lot of damage. Strength 16 is irrelevant next to the size of the damage die. Power Attack roughly...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 13th June, 2018, 12:07 AM
    It seems pretty complicated. I'm not sure that the benefit of additional granularity within the "downed" condition would outweigh the complexity cost. I'm also not a fan of using the fatigue system as a measurement of how close to dying you are. It ties a lot of importance into a subsystem that is designed for other tasks, and makes those other tasks unnecessarily punishing since they bring...
    37 replies | 915 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 12th June, 2018, 10:52 PM
    From a balance standpoint, how would it be if GWM replaced Frenzy, and three levels of barbarian was the only way to gain the benefit of that feat? Because off hand, it seems like it would easily solve the identity crisis of the class, creating a very strong distinction between offensive barbarians and defensive ones.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 12th June, 2018, 07:57 PM
    Reckless attack is designed to work with Power Attack. That's why they have it. If they don't have Power Attack, then the class just has extremely high durability and accuracy; it doesn't actually hit harder. Barbarians aren't generally know for the extreme precision of their strikes. They're supposed to hit hard.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 12th June, 2018, 07:17 PM
    It's not just balance, either. I would also argue that GWM is fundamental to class identity. In the big core game that I ran, the Barbarian player was somewhat disappointed to find out that his class was actually an extremely durable tank, rather than an offensive powerhouse. The Power Attack portion of GWM appears to be designed specifically to address that issue, except they buried it over...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 11th June, 2018, 09:35 PM
    I guess, if you're going with that definition, then you could say it fits. It's not how I interpret the question, but you could go with that. Is a mere level 20 rogue actually even famous within Golarion, though? There's certainly no requirement that you must do anything noteworthy in order to reach level 20. And if your big trick is the ability to fall out of a tower without getting hurt,...
    35 replies | 948 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 11th June, 2018, 08:48 PM
    Reality is the part of the game world that isn't magic. I probably chose the wrong word for it, because magic is a part of the game world as well, but the distinction still exists. The game world has a part that's magic, and a part that isn't magic, and a rogue is definitely not-magic. Legends aren't a part of the reality of the game world, though. Legends are just stories, which means anything...
    35 replies | 948 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 11th June, 2018, 08:08 PM
    The difference is not significant. If something's legendary, then that implies it isn't actually true. You can tell legends about anything. Maybe a legendary rogue can fall out of the sky and take no damage, but a legendary rogue can also walk along clouds in the first place, and climb smoke to get up there. It's a legend. It didn't actually happen. Legends don't apply to things that are...
    35 replies | 948 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 11th June, 2018, 08:54 AM
    It only requires a +9 bonus for most concentration saves to be automatic, and the Bless spell itself provides +1d4 to that. You are not describing an unusual situation at all.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 8th June, 2018, 07:51 PM
    My favorite version of Cleave is that surplus damage after dropping a foe can be applied to another enemy within reach. It's not quite as useful against small groups of large enemies, but it's great against large groups of chumps, and it doesn't require any extra dice to be rolled.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 8th June, 2018, 07:47 PM
    True, but if they were going to cast that spell anyway, then the added cost associated with your ability is zero. Bless is a great spell regardless, and one of the go-to actions for any cleric who doesn't have something better to do at the start of a fight. Not necessarily true, since it's possible to have a Con save bonus high enough that most concentration checks are automatic.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th June, 2018, 07:56 PM
    It goes back to the decision-making process for monsters. They prefer targets that are easy to hit, and targets that are causing more trouble for them. The fancy magic sword made him better at his job, which made him seem like a bigger threat. (The sword itself, being very magical, also made him look more threatening. Imagine your own party in that place, facing one foe in plate armor with a...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th June, 2018, 09:44 AM
    Melee enemies will target whoever they can reach without provoking an opportunity attack, favoring easy targets and effective (high damage, or spellcasting) targets.Bounded Accuracy means that goblins and orcs remain a viable threat at almost any level, and groups of enemies are common at any level.It's not like a warlock has many alternatives. There's very little point in focusing on defense...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th June, 2018, 06:25 AM
    It's not a specific scenario, though. It's the aggregate of hundreds of hours of play, where defense consistently wins over offense. And sure, that aggregate is made up of several dozen specific scenarios, but when it happens consistently, I start to notice a trend. And maybe you're in a different game, where that doesn't happen, and you start to notice your own trend. At this point, we don't...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 7th June, 2018, 03:02 AM
    Okay, but how would you go about actually proving it - either way - without resorting to specific-case scenarios that may never occur during play? If I play through an entire campaign where the greatsword fighter routinely goes down in the first round, and the paladin is the star of every major encounter due to sheer defensive prowess, then your generalization is going to seem unfounded.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 6th June, 2018, 10:22 PM
    It's going to vary from encounter to encounter, and DM to DM. In some campaigns, the available options for increasing defense will give better results than investing an equivalent amount of resources into offense. There's simply no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty.
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 6th June, 2018, 08:24 PM
    Again, I don't think you have enough information to say that for certain. This is D&D. There is no 'totality of cases' because the DM can always introduce a new case. There is no finite number of monsters you might fight, or finite combination of them. One area where offense probably beats defense is when it comes to solo boss fights. If your DM has a lot of those, then offense is probably the...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 6th June, 2018, 03:07 AM
    Not a ranger, per se, but Artemis Entreri was known for dual-wielding. That's halfway to being a Ranger. Actually, according to a quick Google search, his 3E write-up does give him one level of Ranger, and one level of Assassin, alongside his normal Fighter and Rogue levels.
    11 replies | 462 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 5th June, 2018, 11:08 PM
    Not without making unfounded assumptions about the nature of your opponents. There are simply too many variables involved. Even if you're fighting HP16 orcs, and this feat is the difference between killing an orc in one attack and killing an orc in three attacks, the value of a +1 bonus to AC scales with the number of enemies you're fighting. Specific cases may favor offense more frequently...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 5th June, 2018, 07:57 PM
    You don't speak for most DMs. Nobody here does. Most DMs aren't represented on these boards. In order to play 5E as it was intended, screening content is explicitly the job of the DM. If you don't want to do the job they give you, then you have no right to complain about the game not working. The game works as the designers want it to work, even if it doesn't work as you (or I) want it to...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 5th June, 2018, 07:41 PM
    Honestly, the assumptions probably come at the player level. Someone coming at 5E from Pathfinder is going to have different assumptions than someone coming at it from AD&D. And yes, the willingness to allow those options probably has to do with which edition the DM is most comfortable with. I just feel it necessary to remind people, particularly in threads like this, that the design intent...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 4th June, 2018, 10:24 PM
    Agreed. When in doubt about how a fictional entity would behave, it's often appropriate to draw upon its most significant representation. It's one of the major benefits of using established tropes in the first place. If they hadn't intended us to think about Stargate, then they wouldn't have referenced a sigil sequence.
    17 replies | 491 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 4th June, 2018, 09:19 PM
    Possibly, but I'm not sure they would have gotten much out of it, except a new chance to roll the dice. As broken as some of the kits may have been, there's not much that a level 1 bladesinger could do to compare against a level 10 fighter with loads of magical gear. Third edition presented a major shift because of its expected-wealth-by-level guidelines, and the opportunity to make new...
    32 replies | 1060 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 4th June, 2018, 08:35 PM
    One aspect of character progression, which has been unfairly maligned by those who don't understand it, is that new characters should start at level one. When characters progress visibly through play, and death means losing all of that progress, players will become even more invested in their own characters. Player investment in their characters is one of the most important aspects of an RPG, so...
    32 replies | 1060 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 4th June, 2018, 07:45 PM
    What's wrong with a one-off book? You have the setting, you can play there, end of story. What kind of further support would you even need?
    35 replies | 1232 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 4th June, 2018, 07:34 PM
    Minor notational issue, but no DM should ever have to worry about removing a feat, unless they're in the middle of a campaign where someone already has it. The default state for any new campaign is to not allow feats or multi-classing at all. In order for a specific feat to present itself as an issue, the DM has to go out of their way to allow feats and to allow that specific feat. The only...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 3rd June, 2018, 05:45 AM
    Not only that, but the degree of imbalance is directly proportional to the number of meaningful choices. It's the main thing that a class-and-level system (like D&D) has over a point-based system (like GURPS), is that most of the variables are tied to a small handful of decision points, so there's very little you can do to break the power curve.
    405 replies | 16094 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 2nd June, 2018, 09:45 AM
    While the general rule is that you should only roll when the outcome is uncertain, and it wouldn't be uncertain in this case, a sensible DM may not be aware that you would fail on a 20. One of the easiest ways that a DM can stay impartial is if they never ask for the PC stats. On a practical note, I think that a player could probably make a safe guess that re-rolling a save at -1 against a...
    50 replies | 1447 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 1st June, 2018, 11:58 PM
    If you ever get to a point where you stop and think that it's an acceptable risk to leave yourself open in combat, because getting stabbed is a minor inconvenience and seriously you'll be fine it's no big deal, then that indicates a severe deficiency in the rule-set. That's a dis-connect on roughly the same level as, "I'll just jump off the cliff, because there's no way it can possibly kill me,...
    42 replies | 1685 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 1st June, 2018, 08:06 PM
    It's logically important for the purpose of determining relative value. Due to poor design in the underlying system math, there's no way for us to estimate the value of re-rolling a save. You could roll a 3, use a luck point, roll a 20, and still fail. That's even assuming that saving throws were predictable enough that you would know to save your luck points for them (your luck points are...
    50 replies | 1447 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 1st June, 2018, 03:08 AM
    The problem is when two characters ostensibly have the same niche, with the exception that one is better. Two damage-dealing fighters, where one has this feat and the other tries dual-wielding, is very much a case of one being strictly superior to the other. It also outpaces everything else in difficult fights against monsters that have HP and damage-output, but low AC; which, because of...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 1st June, 2018, 02:31 AM
    I like things that can be used, and which provide a useful effect when used. Longsword +1 is great. Mantle of Spell Resistance is fine. Boots of Levitation are great before level 5, but kind of lame after that. Wand of Fireballs is nice. I dislike things that are too situational, too limited in scope, or too limited in usage to ever be used. Brooch of Shielding is too situational. Boots of...
    48 replies | 1715 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 31st May, 2018, 11:04 PM
    My uncle works at Nintendo, and he told me that they were actually buying Palladium, because they want to make a Rifts MMO for the Switch and this is the only way to secure the rights after that whole N-Gage fiasco.
    10 replies | 631 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 31st May, 2018, 10:52 PM
    There really just aren't a lot of alternatives, in terms of what can compare. Each characters only has a handful of decision points over their entire career, and of the available options, these are among very few which provide a substantial bonus to damage. Fifth edition isn't like third edition, when it comes to availability of options. In third edition, you could take feats to increase your...
    348 replies | 10380 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 31st May, 2018, 09:00 PM
    I've never seen a skill check that was literally life or death, but it gives you the option, and options never make you weaker. If you ever fail a skill check which is less important than an attack roll, you can always just choose to not re-roll that.
    50 replies | 1447 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 31st May, 2018, 08:18 PM
    How many attack rolls do you attempt in an adventuring day? How many of those attack rolls fail by exactly one point? How many attacks rolls do you fail in an adventuring day? By my estimates, Lucky should statistically make a larger difference in accuracy than you would gain from improving your ability score. Two attack rolls per round, times three rounds per encounter, times six encounters...
    50 replies | 1447 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 29th May, 2018, 07:50 PM
    It's also possible to create a paladin and throw all of your stat boosts into Intelligence. The only balance in the game is a balance of opportunities, but once everyone has made their choices, it is no longer balanced. At best, we could say that a character with all feats would be in the same ballpark as a character who only boosts their prime stats, but in order to do so, we would have to...
    44 replies | 1645 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 27th May, 2018, 10:24 PM
    Saelorn replied to d20 vs 2d20
    I agree. They should have gone that route. The best explanation that I can think of is that they tried that, then someone looked at a character sheet that had a whole long list of calculated passive skill values, and thought it looked too intimidating. It doesn't seem like it should be a big deal, but in terms of appearance, it looks like it adds more complexity than it really does.
    30 replies | 924 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 27th May, 2018, 10:16 PM
    Saelorn replied to d20 vs 2d20
    The dice are an illusion. They only impact the game in as far as they determine the result of an action, and both types of action only have two possible results. Rule simplicity is also a factor, because they want the game to be easy to learn. Grapple checks are one of those weird exceptions to the normal flow of combat which is not supposed to ever really come up. They need a rule for it,...
    30 replies | 924 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 27th May, 2018, 10:08 PM
    Saelorn replied to d20 vs 2d20
    That's why I was talking about a flat d20 roll against DC 11, specifically. If you have a bonus to the roll, or if the DC is higher than 11, then rolling more dice will favor whichever result was already more probable... but probably not enough to worry about... I think...
    30 replies | 924 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 27th May, 2018, 08:09 AM
    I've thought about this, but I'm not sure if it justifies the extra bookkeeping. It would mean that potions are rare, and that nobody has a reason to keep more than one or two in stock, but that's not the worst thing in the world.
    40 replies | 1354 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 27th May, 2018, 08:02 AM
    As a player, I avoid using consumable whenever possible. I do my best to track them, but if the bag with ten potions in it gets crushed or something, it's no major loss. As an adventurer, you should never move faster than you can do sustainably, because anything faster than that is (obviously) unsustainable. If I get into a situation where I have to expend a resource, then I've already made a...
    40 replies | 1354 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 27th May, 2018, 07:45 AM
    Saelorn replied to d20 vs 2d20
    The distribution doesn't really matter, though, does it? If you're rolling a d20 to hit DC 11, or if you're rolling a d20 in order to beat another d20 roll, you're still as likely to succeed or fail. Rolling a 1 when someone else rolls a 20 is not inherently worse than rolling a 10 against a static DC 11. Rolling the extra die does provide some normalization, so if one side has a larger bonus,...
    30 replies | 924 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 25th May, 2018, 10:26 PM
    I'm imagining a "longsword of competence" which grants proficiency in longsword, sets your proficiency bonus to +4, and sets your max HP total to 100.
    15 replies | 548 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 24th May, 2018, 08:23 AM
    Not really. It's just setting the time requirement to an arbitrarily large value. Replace "between adventures" with "six months" if it would make you happy. They are equivalent values in any situation where a Bad End would happen if the party stopped adventuring for six months, which could cover any variety of scenarios. If you take six months off from chasing the apocalypse cults, then the world...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 24th May, 2018, 02:34 AM
    That sounds awfully meta-game-y, to be honest; it's like you're rewarding the player for contributing, rather than awarding the character based on what they experience. Why would the character learn the same amount about fighting from standing on a roof and mowing down zombies with fire bolt, as they would from getting down there and wading through the horde with their longsword? The latter would...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 24th May, 2018, 12:03 AM
    Saelorn replied to Core+1
    I'm not really sure what to make of that. If you think they've done a good job of keeping everything balanced so far, such that core+1 would be a superfluous restriction, then you and I have vastly different standards for balance.
    159 replies | 5685 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 11:41 PM
    That's simply not how the world works, though. You don't get better at casting fireball by casting fireball. You get better at casting fireball by hitting things with your staff (or casting cantrips, I guess), because you've run out of fireball for the day. If you think that feels artificial, then I don't know what to say. D&D has always been kind of weird about that. If it helps, you can...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 10:07 PM
    Saelorn replied to Core+1
    You could do it. I'm not sure that the added benefit of allowing more non-core options per character would outweigh the significant increase in complexity or the drama that would be associated with maintaining the restricted/banned lists, particularly from the perspective of appealing to new players.
    159 replies | 5685 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 09:56 PM
    What do you think is a meta-game reward, in this scenario? Because I'm positing that experience is an in-game reward, for the characters, which they earn as a result of taking actions which make sense to them. Fighting six encounters in a day is not like pulling an all-nighter in college. It's not about the quantity. It's about the objective difficulty, and how hard you need to overcome that...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 09:40 PM
    Saelorn replied to Core+1
    The way that they handle it with Magic is that anything older than a certain cut-off point is auto-banned unless re-printed, right? And the most recent core set is also legal? Applying that same approach to D&D would be like saying Core +1, and that +1 must always be the most recent supplement. It would be more restrictive than the current method.
    159 replies | 5685 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 09:14 PM
    One of the things I've been considering is that a Long Rest is something which takes place between adventures. It takes an indefinite amount of time, during which you can prepare all of your spells, and all of your injuries heal up, and that's just not something you can do while other events are in motion.
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 08:36 PM
    If your motivation is to stop the cult, and the cult is being led by a beholder, then you need to level up in order to stop that cult.
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 08:32 PM
    I'm fully on-board with motivating the PCs rather than the players. Meta-gaming is bad. Maybe I'm just not getting my point across. Trivial encounters are trivial. A level 1 character learns nothing from stepping on an ant, and a level 17 warlock learns (effectively) nothing by blasting four goblins before any of them get a chance to move. You learn more by challenging someone who has skill...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 07:50 PM
    Unless your trap is that a fireball IX spell goes off on the party, you'd be hard-pressed to have a non-combat encounter make an appreciable dent in party resources; even then, it's always possible that the party will find and remove (or evade) the trap, in which case they spend nothing on the encounter. The biggest resource that you need to work through every day is still Hit Points, and it's...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 10:40 AM
    Saelorn replied to Core+1
    You might be thinking of someone else. I'm the first one to admit that 5E is intrinsically flawed, because they simply didn't care, and the players deserve better from a company that's supposed to be professional. The difference is that I don't actually like 5E. It is... tolerable. It is worth discussing. Actually fixing it would require extensive house rules, and the one thing I'll say in...
    159 replies | 5685 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 09:15 AM
    Saelorn replied to Core+1
    To what end? It's been proven countless times that it is impossible to balance an ever-increasing list of options. Attempting such an impossible task would be a poor use of their limited resources. That's not even going into sheer amount of work it would require. I don't know if you've ever worked in testing, but there's a certain point where it simply becomes infeasible. Given the nature of...
    159 replies | 5685 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 08:13 AM
    Hypothetically, imagine a rule in the book where the first four encounters in a day were only worth a quarter of their listed XP, and all encounters after the first four were worth double the listed XP. On average, if you had seven encounters in a day, then you'd get XP equivalent to the listed XP for seven encounters; if you called out before that point, then you'd get much less, and if you went...
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018, 03:04 AM
    That assumes XP is a meta-game reward which doesn't correspond to anything within the game world. Alternatively, everyone is fully aware that you can only learn and grow by constantly testing your own limits.
    152 replies | 4458 view(s)
    1 XP
More Activity
About Saelorn

Basic Information

Date of Birth
August 23
About Saelorn
Location:
San Diego
Social Networking

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

Twitter:
Saelorn
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
San Diego
State:
California
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
5,574
Posts Per Day
3.53
Last Post
Time Travel in yourgame? Today 12:37 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
15
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:06 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 25th February, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
5

1 Friend

  1. Noctem Noctem is offline

    Member

    Noctem
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Town:
San Diego
State:
California
Country:
USA
Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Thursday, 21st June, 2018


Wednesday, 20th June, 2018


Tuesday, 19th June, 2018



Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 20th June, 2018


Monday, 18th June, 2018

  • 07:08 AM - Shasarak mentioned Saelorn in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    ...you're fine and dandy at 1 hp in AD&D, so that every injury in AD&D is one that causes death unless tended to in which case it lays you out for a week, causes no issues? I'm not the one who raised the AD&D zero hp rules as a marker of realism, precisely because the above is not very realistic! That is true, being almost dead and then being brought back to life and only having to rest for a week is not very realistic. But in any case it is simply not true that having 1 hp left in ADnD means that you are "just fine and dandy". It would mean that any injury is going to be the one that potentially kills you. As you yourself say, descrbing your 1hp character as "just fine and Dandy" is simply nonsense narration. Frankly Gary Gygax himself does a much better job of describing such a character in his explanation of hps. (Whereas death saves, for instance, are easily treated as a metagame mechanic rather than a marker of ingame status.) Which is exactly the Schrodinger approach that @Saelorn described, it does not make sense narratively in the moment. Only after you have resolved the scenario can you actually describe what happened.

Wednesday, 13th June, 2018

  • 04:05 PM - OB1 mentioned Saelorn in post Dropping to 0 HP - Alternate Rule
    ...ous. 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.

Monday, 11th June, 2018

  • 08:06 AM - Coroc mentioned Saelorn in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    Saelorn "Not necessarily true, since it's possible to have a Con save bonus high enough that most concentration checks are automatic." And now your GWM not only requires his cleric Buddy to cast bless for him, but also that the cleric has taken warcaster and invested in Con

Thursday, 7th June, 2018

  • 11:55 AM - Coroc mentioned Saelorn in post What makes Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter so good?
    Saelorn CapnZapp I think you both exagerate a bit, Saelorn, when you state that in your campaign the GWM got a good Magic greatsword, making him theoretically even better at what he should do best, but otoh stating that now the more a shield wearer would be more use of the Party, why is that so? Do you Count Magic weaponry as a + on secret intimmidation rolls? And Capn no one denounces the context! - related value of These feats. Still a +2 to your main Attribute is valuable also and it is of use in many more situations. Unless the Party always survives or has infinite methods of resurrection the GWM out dpr the rest of the gang but dying every Encounter is no gain for the Group. Otoh FrogReaver s table a few Posts up clearly Show the trend: GWM (and SS) the active -5/+10 part, it is best versus low AC. And that is relatively independant of mob Level because of BA (ok it will get shifted a bit with higher Levels) At Level 1 doing +10 vs a goblin who instantly perishes is impressiv...

Wednesday, 30th May, 2018

  • 09:01 AM - Coroc mentioned Saelorn in post No ASIs, only feats
    Saelorn well of corse there is truth to what you say, so let's just for simplicity agree we talk about characters optimized to some degree. Means not necessarily minmax, but also not a Pally with all ASI in Int.

Thursday, 17th May, 2018

  • 07:37 AM - pming mentioned Saelorn in post Thoughts on Proficiency and AC
    Hiya! Saelorn hmmm...I can see what you're saying and I'll take your word for it. In my campaign of 5e, nobody has managed to get a character past level 7, so I don't have first-hand experience with "high level" 5e play. That said, from what I see in the books, high-CR creatures tend to be solitary or at least not in groups of more than two or three. But again...no direct experience. I guess I'll deal with it all when/if anyone gets to 10th or more... ...and I'm not holding my breath. ;) ^_^ Paul L. Ming
  • 06:08 AM - Coroc mentioned Saelorn in post Character Advancement versus Pathfinder
    Saelorn Jester David #31 #32 #33 As far as i do it when i DM as well as the DM when i Play does is taking that skilled / unskilled into account via context. Example: A magical scroll is found, the wizard gets an arcana check as would some other arcane caster but surely not the idiot fighter. Another Situation: Something magic is inscribed on the wall, it seems to be elvish. The wizard would again get an arcana check, but the idiot fighter being a half elf can take his chances also, eventually with disadvantage. Would he be a dwarf not speaking elvish then no way.

Wednesday, 16th May, 2018

  • 11:05 AM - Coroc mentioned Saelorn in post Character Advancement versus Pathfinder
    Saelorn principally what TheSword also posted: As far as i can remember you cannot even try to use lockpicks or trap disarm without rogue or other class Levels in 3.5 style Systems . In 5e you can even try this unskilled. And if you look at #26 TheSword seems to have overseen that Backgrounds are more than pure flavor. My own PC is a Wood elf Archer ranger with 16 dex 16 wis. Atm. Level 5 he got prof in Deception +2, insight +6, nature +3, Perception +6, Stealth +6, Survival +6, thieves Tools +6, gaming dice +6, with sleight of Hand still being +3 due to dex. Ok he does not have sneak attack or cunning Action, but he got SS and can heal himself with cure wounds spells. Compared to a pure rogue he loses some on thieving skills but he is far more versatile and durable. So he opens locks and detects / disarms traps with +6 each. And that is purely due to Background (and race for perception).
  • 06:46 AM - Coroc mentioned Saelorn in post Character Advancement versus Pathfinder
    Saelorn #22 I disagree: 1. Your examples of cleric and wizard which normally have poor dex are obviously not the best choices for the replacement rogue in the Party Use a Ranger or a dex fighter and it is not much difference to a full fledged rogue. Perception is also needed for detecting of traps of course. 2. If you multiclass in a 3.5 like System you also have to distribute your skill ranks and attributes so you 3. will not be as skillful as a single class rogue in any of the two cases which is absolute fair game

Friday, 11th May, 2018

  • 10:00 AM - TheSword mentioned Saelorn in post Disadvantages of Advantage
    @Saelorn The block and tackle equipment allows you to lift four times your weight rather than give advantage on rolls. I get your point though. [Edit: We could easily replace the analogy with two people trying to break down a door though] What I like about advantage/disadvantage is that unlike +/- stacking it reduces the chances of autosuccess. Many builds in PF and 3rd ed were about stacking modifiers to skills, CMD, Saves, save DCs and attack rolls dramatically higher than the DCs expected. Pathfinder in particular allowed this to be taken to crazy degrees. The advantage mechanic is like a breath of fresh air after all this. People call it granularity but it wasnít used to reflect choice and realism it was used to build powerhouses.
  • 04:12 AM - MoonSong mentioned Saelorn in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    Gammadoodler maybe I'm extreme-picky in my likings, actually that is quite likely the case, but I don't think I'm alone. The paladin archetype predates RPGs and extends beyond gamers. There is nothing there about being the zealous puppet of a deity. It is all about justice, hope and capital good. And speaking of GOOD, I held it to be an objective force, independent of the wills of the so-called deities, I don't see it as a personification with its own will. And definitely not a god -unless you go pantheist on it-. In my view, paladins tap into it, and they manage to do it out of their own virtue and conviction. Why is their path harder than that of a cleric? because there are no shortcuts. If they falter, if they let evil taint their hearts, then they cannot tap into GOOD anymore. Anybody could tap into it if they had the purity of heart and strong desire to do good and fight for justice. Saelorn Exactly! I cannot buy any of the "good" gods being actually good in the Realms. The mere existence of the wall shows it. Any actual good god would have opposed it from the beginning. "Kelemvor, if you want to rebuild the wall, you'd rather start by killing and putting us on it. Cause we won't let you cause any harm to souls just for the sake of MOAR power to the gods". In my contributions to this thread I am not trying to argue for how Paizo should present their PF2 paladin class; nor for what is "the best" presentation of such a class in a RPG. Those are questions that have to be answered using knowledge about player preferences, market trends, etc, and I don't have that knowledge. I am talking about the archetype of the paladin. D&D didn't invent this archetype; nor did Poul Anderson. (Though clearly he was influential on the particular way D&D first operationalised it.) Sure he didn't. Applying this to the idea of alignment and code in the D&D context, the paladin should be ...

Friday, 4th May, 2018

  • 01:34 AM - Erechel mentioned Saelorn in post Dealing with spellcasters as a martial
    ... and the Disarm won't be as efficient if the Spell Focus is a shield. The game is already plenty interesting when the fighter has their sword and the wizard has their spells. That is the baseline level of interesting which the game advertises. By taking away the majority of the spells from the wizard, the resulting game is less interesting because of it. If this was still third edition, and spells actually were more useful than swords, then the ability for a fighter to shut off ninety-percent of the wizard's spell list would have made the game more interesting. Or you could go back to AD&D, when fighters really could shut down wizards from casting spells, and that was also fine. It's only fifth edition, with spell DCs and spell damage nerfed into the ground, where giving the fighter an ability to shut down a wizard would be bad design. (Or fourth edition, I suppose. From what I recall, you also didn't see nearly as many anti-magic zones in 4E as you did in earlier editions.) Saelorn, you and I have radically different concepts of "plenty interesting" if you claim that the fighter has his sword and the wizard his spells. As I've said now countless times, if all I can do is "I attack" without anything else I could try having any chance of success, in a game of imagination, cunning and agency, you are reducing a PC to a DPR machine and nothing else. His actions in game have no true meaning, he has not true choice. The only important thing is "the build", that is his actions as a player outside the game: maximizing DPR, and pray that the DM throws a magic weapon, or that his wizard friend grants him the ability to fly on him if the enemies are far above the ground. Yes, when multiple conditions are met (like melee range with non resistant creatures) his melee damage is better than the wizard on a DPR only standpoint. Everywhere else, he is way more limited. It is the old "Quadratic wizard, linear fighter" issue all over again. Heck, someone even claimed that "is alrea...

Thursday, 3rd May, 2018

  • 01:34 AM - Erechel mentioned Saelorn in post Dealing with spellcasters as a martial
    Go back and read the rules which you quoted. The Player decides what they want to do; the DM then says whether or not it is possible, and whether or not there's some sort of check required. It is perfectly reasonable and expected for the DM to say "No" to any request.That's why I explicitly called Disarm maneuvers, Saelorn, and Interact with an Object. And Material and Verbal components. And the fact that the spellcasters have plenty of options to avoid being in melee in the first place. You are triviallizing many rules because you can't conceive that the spellcaster could be limited in any way. Furthermore, you are triviallizing interesting options. You aren't even consider the tactical intricacies that such options allow. That part of "You disarmed the spellcaster. In his turn, he draws another arcane focus" is actually a great thing: you do something, then the caster does something else because of what you did it in the first place. The fighter could insist, or not, and in the meantime, both are alive, both have options. Other spells come into relevance, the wizard has to go away from melee with a Misty Step, or Levitate, or Fly. Ot it has to use a sub-optimal cantrip. The fighter isn't restricted to "I attack", the dynamics fly and you use all the rules in the book, instead of only to hit. How bo...

Tuesday, 1st May, 2018

  • 08:28 PM - Erechel mentioned Saelorn in post Dealing with spellcasters as a martial
    ...ge of magical weather to trap the fighter in an ethereal tornado. It doesn't matter if the fighter could theoretically escape by making an opposed Arcana check. It would invalidate the game that everyone else signed up to play, the same as if you let someone bypass hit points by taking a 'slit throat' action. Any action that is egregiously out of line with existing actions should be impossible. The fact is, there are spells that do something like that, and worse. Hold Person, that paralyzes and imposes a Saving Throw no martial has. Forcecage. Control Water to create a wave to knock a fighter. Tsunami, for a more gruesome way to do the same. And, as I've said earlier, this is in the same order of magnitude than a disarm. It doesn't disable a caster in every possible way, such as an ethereal tornado or a hold person. It just prevents certain spells with verbal components. Furthermore, it isn't impossible: it is a valid approach, using the existing rules. You could rule it otherwise, Saelorn, and increase the difficulty accordingly. I'm not complaining on that. This mechanic, specifically, could be flawed by being too easy, but not by intent. If the rogue would try to use its expertise in Sleight of Hands to steal the material components of a spell, such as a crystal that acts as an arcane focus, you would say the same? That it is an abuse? I'm taking advantage of an already existant ruleset (spells components), and using them in advantage. As for your specific example, Arcana checks aren't used for spellcasting, spellcasting has its own rules. Managing ethereal storms would fall under spellcasting, unless you are in the ethereal plane (in which I would allow an Arcana check to manage the storm against the martial). Even more, I could allow a Very Difficult arcana check, then expend a spell slot, and then renounce to half the movement and both hands to do something like what you said without being in the ethereal plane (I usually allow improvising with existing spells w...

Wednesday, 18th April, 2018

  • 10:22 AM - Doug McCrae mentioned Saelorn in post DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?
    Saelorn A purely "world-centric" approach to rpg-ing where nothing is tailored to the PCs is a perfectly valid way to run a rpg. But it's not the only or even the most common way to do it. D&D has always supported the tailored approach to some degree. The early modules all had recommended levels very clearly displayed on the front cover. All the WotC editions of D&D have provided mechanisms for balancing encounters. 3e is clear that both tailored and status quo encounters are reasonable tools for the DM to use. The relevant section is page 48 of the 3.5 DMG.
  • 08:45 AM - Sadras mentioned Saelorn in post Do you use skill challenges?
    ...ut who says they do not know the rules? I narrate something, the players decide how to overcome it using one of their skills. If there are options available on that specific skill check, I let them know before hand. Yes, I might be hiding the fact that they are in a SC but that is it. Have you ever made a character in a game where you hadn't read the rule book, and the GM wouldn't tell you what anything meant, so you were forced to guess? The situation you describe is a lot like that. If the DM doesn't tell you which resolution mechanic they are using, then any choice you make is meaningless, because you lack the necessary information to make a meaningful decision. Any DM who would engage in such chicanery is inherently untrustworthy. The whole reason for playing a game with codified rules in the first place, is so that everyone can be on the same page about how the world works, so the players can make meaningful decisions. I do not believe this fits the scenario's I'm proposing. @Saelorn imagine you and the rest of the party are investigating a murder scene. I as DM have secretly set up a SC. Should you succeed in the SC you catch the perpetrator before he murders someone else, should you fail the SC you are too late in stopping him perform the 2nd murder. I do not see how the PCs' actions in the murder investigation change whether they know they are part of a SC or not. How has their ability to make meaningful decisions been tampered with? I agree but furthermore I would also say that in order for someone to want to adopt the SC over another method (even just letting it play out) that value has to add to or surpass the value of the method they currently use. Good point! Ok but can I pose this question... why does it have to be either or? Why is it either a single roll or a skill challenge. For your example above I would play it out in an abstracted day by day form, with the PC's determining what they do each day and I resolving their actions as well as what...

Monday, 9th April, 2018

  • 10:52 PM - Blue mentioned Saelorn in post Do you multiclass for raw mechanical power or for character reasons?
    Saelorn, if I was designing the game, I wouldn't use a lot of mechanics even for the existing fluff. Why can a barbarian rage a certain amount of times per day, regardless if they are one right after each other or all spread out? These mechanics start with doing imperfect jobs of modelling the narrative already. But what they have going for them is that they are tested against all of the other rules and balanced. So, Assumption #1 is that using existing rules means a lot less work in generating and balancing rules. So, if we are introducing new fluff, and it's a reasonable match for the existing rules, regardless if there might be a slightly better rule out there somewhere that would need to be designed, tested, and balanced against other options, then Assumption #1 say use the pre-tested rules that were playtested and are used at a scope out of the reach of any individual table. In other words: A) Trying to hold new fluff to a higher threshold than existing fluff is a non-start...
  • 04:25 AM - MoonSong mentioned Saelorn in post Do you multiclass for raw mechanical power or for character reasons?
    Let me try to take you at your word, and put out a few examples that I think will show how crazy saying that book-fluff is the only right way to play. I'm not sure how you keep reading absolutes into my posts. (And if you are aware Saelorn and me are different posters) First, please let me know the definitive fluff for the Fighter. You know, the book-fluff that is the only type of fighter you'll allow. Already said fighter is a generic warrior and not likely an IC construct. I'm playing in an official 5e setting, Forgotten Realms. I have a character from Kara-Tur which is oriental themed. Am I playing the game wrong if I describe my character having a wakizashi instead of a short sword? A short sword could be any sword of such size and overall characteristics. So, no? (now if you wanted to refluff a gladius or a claymore...) Of course, it's lucky I'm playing a character from Kara-Tur because I wanted to play the Samurai fighter subclass from XGtE, and I understand you wouldn't allow it without Japanese fluff. Somehow I'm conditioned to consider plain disregard of flavor as a sign of munchkinism, but whatevs your PC, not mine. In my mind I would still keep considering your character as Japan...

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 08:23 PM - Yaarel mentioned Saelorn in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    Saelorn Shadowfell is the realm of the dead. A spirit realm of ghosts. They obviously have no bodies, because the bodies are back in the material decomposing in the ground. The shadowfell is completely devoid of matter. It is spirit only. When your character Ďvisitsí the spirit realm of the shadowfell − where physicality is nonexistent − what do you think is happening? No place has matter except the material plane. (And the elemental planes.) The spirit worlds of shadowfell and feywild, the ether, the spirit worlds of the celestial and infernal, the dreaming, and so on, are modes of existence without matter.


Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Wednesday, 20th June, 2018

  • 10:17 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    To be fair, your level 1 fighter with scale mail and shield would have AC 13 in the current rules, so I don't know what you are complaining about :)Corner cases, I tell ya! Access to terrible heavy armor is an innate right of every person. If nothing else, I should be able to weigh myself down with animal pelts to the point that my Dexterity is irrelevant!LOL When I think heavy hide armor I think more along the lines of dragon pelts.
  • 08:48 PM - jaelis quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    My level 1 fighter equipped with medium armor and a shield would have AC 14 after considering Dexterity modifiers. To be fair, your level 1 fighter with scale mail and shield would have AC 13 in the current rules, so I don't know what you are complaining about :)
  • 08:18 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    Yes. Eldritch Knight is a very stat-dependent sub-class, and it would have gone against the character concept to put that 5 into Charisma; nor did it seem like a good idea to dump Wisdom. That's why I say that it would become the new Constitution, because everyone would need it at least above-average. Nobody could get away with low Dexterity, because everyone would need it to calculate their AC.Let's stay super simple for the purposes of this exercise in super simplicity and assume the standard array. :) That being said, I've settled on not being at all concerned with cost as a differentiator, so the corner case of Dex 5 tanks are served just the same.
  • 07:50 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    My level 1 fighter equipped with medium armor and a shield would have AC 14 after considering Dexterity modifiers.Your level 1 fighter has a -3 Dex modifier?
  • 07:38 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    That seems a bit extreme. Heavy armor is incredibly vital to certain character concepts. Denying all heavy armor to a level 1 character means that those characters would never last long enough to acquire heavy armor. You can't be a tank with an AC of 14 (including shield).A level 1 fighter equipped with medium armor and shield would have AC 17 before considering Dexterity modifiers using my table. It would make Dexterity significantly more important than it already is. It would basically become the new Constitution, where everyone needs it at least above average, or else you will die.I don't think denying a level 1 character a single point of AC until they raise enough funds to access heavier armor is as extreme as you imply. There's a significant cost barrier to accessing heavy armor AC 18 in the present rules as they stand.
  • 07:22 PM - Satyrn quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    It's practical for PCs, because PCs tend to have above-average stats, and anyone with Strength less than 13 is intentionally dumping it. I'm not sure if it makes sense for the rest of the world, unless you want basic training for a town guard to include getting their Strength to 13 (which seems reasonable enough to me). At that point, it would serve well as a differentiator between trained soldiers and simple peasants. Also, not meeting the Strength requirement doesn't actually prevent the town guard from wearing the armor. They just move slower in it. This'll help the players pick out the donut eaters from the fitness freaks - or let criminals pick the location of their crimes based on how quickly the beat cops can move.
  • 04:27 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    I've thought about doing this my entire D&D life but have never had the guts. As a player it always annoys me when I SHOULD take an armor mathematically that doesn't match the aesthetic I am going for haha.I'm the same! Definitely interests me to just fold them all together and open up descriptive design space. I like it. But I would add that light armor is 13+dex(max 4) as for price: light armor 50gp medium 200gp heavy 1000gpIn my proposal max base AC with +5 Dex is 15, light armor nets a max base AC of 16, medium 17 and heavy 18. If we make light armor 13 + Dex (max 4) then light armor nets a max base of AC 17. I would like medium armor to be a meaningful differentiator for those who focus on Strength. It's ok, but why not just pick one PHB armor from each category, and say that everything else is not available on the market?I'm looking to offer more creative freedom instead of looking to minimize options. You could do +1 AC for 1000gp across the board, but ...
  • 10:09 AM - Dannyalcatraz quoted Saelorn in post What if there were no attacks of opportunity?
    In my experience, any rule which specifically targets one particular type of character (squishies, in this case) will instantly result in players choosing to play other character types. If you have a rule that makes concentration easier to break, then nobody is going to play a character who focuses on concentration spells. If you make it easier for a paladin to fall, then nobody is going to play a paladin in that campaign. Instead of a sorcerer, that player will choose a cleric, or they'll be a dwarf for the armor proficiency and Con bonus. A player will do anything in their power to make a targeted restriction irrelevant to them. Well, maybe your NORMAL gamers...
  • 03:54 AM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    The numbers are fine. Heavy armor is better than medium armor is better than light armor, under ideal circumstances. My concern is that plate armor has always been a prestige item, in the game and historically. Every fighter wants plate, because it's amazing; but not everyone can have plate, because it's expensive. Under this change, the most expensive plate armor is not any more effective than the ring mail that any chump can afford. So does that mean plate armor is just cosmetic, for rich people to show off how rich they are? And everyone knows that it's a waste of money?I see what you're saying. I'm amenable to something binary like masterwork that offers a cost differentiator making more expensive armors more attractive in terms of their benefit. What might that look like? +1 or +2 AC for masterwork? Do the base numbers shift?
  • 03:31 AM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    It sounds about right. If you used these rules, instead of the ones in the book, the game would not suffer significantly for it. It does raise the question of why anyone would buy plate armor, if scale armor was just as effective and also cheaper (or easier to make), but I'm sure you have a reasonable answer for that.I missed the rest of your post! Scale armor is a medium armor so would net you a max AC 17, and plate armor is a heavy armor so would net you a max AC 18 (notice light armor nets you a max AC 16). I cost the only concern, or are the AC numbers too close?
  • 03:06 AM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    The logic makes sense to me. But I don't think that rogues are particularly strong in melee now, and this will make them worse. (Same for bards, really.) So as a practical matter, this will push rogues more towards ranged weapons, which is a little disappointing to me because I like melee rogues :) You could houserule a new rogue ability at level 2 or something that gives them a +1 to AC when wearing light or no armor.I support melee rogues! -- Do you think losing 1 point of armor class "nerfs" them in light of all of Dexterity's bounty? And the knight has Strength 16, so that's covered. The only one in the basic document who looks like they would be in trouble is the priest, who is wearing a chain shirt with a Strength 10. You could address that either by saying that it's a light chain shirt, giving it AC 12 (only one point off); or by giving them some other form of armor. You would also have to go through and recalculate the AC for almost everyone in the book, but only by a point o...

Tuesday, 19th June, 2018

  • 10:38 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    It's practical for PCs, because PCs tend to have above-average stats, and anyone with Strength less than 13 is intentionally dumping it. I'm not sure if it makes sense for the rest of the world, unless you want basic training for a town guard to include getting their Strength to 13 (which seems reasonable enough to me). At that point, it would serve well as a differentiator between trained soldiers and simple peasants.Guards have Strength 13 in the standard nonplayer character stat block! :)
  • 10:28 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    It sounds about right. If you used these rules, instead of the ones in the book, the game would not suffer significantly for it. It does raise the question of why anyone would buy plate armor, if scale armor was just as effective and also cheaper (or easier to make), but I'm sure you have a reasonable answer for that.I feel like armor types are aesthetic choices more than anything. You wear scale because it's cultural or what have you. That's story stuff, not mechanics stuff (too me).
  • 10:25 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    That sounds about right.Yeah? :) I felt like a Dex modifier max on light made sense. Is the Strength modifier requirement for medium armor sensible?
  • 02:08 AM - darkbard quoted Saelorn in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    That's not possible, though. You can't have a world where such a thing would be the case. Reality always operates in straightforward causal processes. Not just our reality, but any conceivable reality. Look, I'm not a physicist, but it's my, admittedly incomplete, understanding of quantum physics that the things you claim are inconceivable are not only conceivable but so. Even things like cause and effect don't necessarily work temporally, sequentially according to what we expect. I'm sure any particle physicists in the audience will correct me if my understanding is wrong. Unless the rules only describe a game, and don't describe any underlying reality whatsoever, in which case why all the rigamarole? We don't need 300 pages of rules, if none of those rules actually mean anything. You, sir, have nailed it precisely. the rules only describe a game, and we need them only as a means of consensus for playing that game. The narration of what rules mean in the fiction can be infinit...
  • 01:45 AM - darkbard quoted Saelorn in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    Of course there are movies where the hero appears to get shot but does not just as there are movies where the hero does not look like they were shot but turns out that they were. That is the whole point of Schrodinger, two events are possible and you dont know which one actually happened until afterwards. I guess the bit that is particularly stupid to me is if the person in your example narrates that, rather then the bullet being stopped by the lead game token, he was not actually shot at all. Well, individual aesthetic tastes are, notoriously, individual. I reckon, though, that there are instances where narration that "he was not actually shot at all" might work best. But, again, YMMV. There's a substantial difference between such false-deaths being a thing that could happen, and being a thing that must happen in every instance. Only the former is well-founded in both fiction and reality. More to the point, the idea that reality could be inherently unfixed until the time of obs...

Monday, 18th June, 2018

  • 11:03 PM - mrpopstar quoted Saelorn in post Improving the armor proficiency feats
    It's a difficult design goal, because there are conflicting priorities. It's hard to make a feat that grants proficiency, and also make it appeal to someone who already has proficiency, without conceding mathematically that proficiency is inherently without value. Neither Great-Weapon Master nor Sharp-Shooter grant automatic proficiency, do they? They require you to gain proficiency somewhere else, before you can benefit from them, if I recall. And the feats which do grant proficiency, tend to offer little to anyone who already has proficiency. So that sets a precedent that feats should exist in two stages, where one stage grants proficiency and another stage makes them complicated. I know that this is likely to get me pilloried, but has anyone considered bringing back 4E-style multi-classing feats? They were probably my favorite aspect of 4E. Instead of having a feat the only granted proficiencies, you could have a feat that granted proficiencies with all weapons and armors and one skil...
  • 09:58 PM - Hawk Diesel quoted Saelorn in post Improving the armor proficiency feats
    Different people have fun in different ways. If I can take a feat that lets my wizard wear heavy armor in a meaningful way, then that changes everything about how looks and acts and perceives himself, even if the only mechanical benefit is having a high AC. I thought the fun of feats was that they let you customize your character in interesting ways, not necessarily that they add great complexity or make the character more difficult to play. I'm already juggling enough actions on a round-by-round basis. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not judging how different people use or find enjoyment in the game. I'm simply providing my perspective on what I find fun and my table experience. And from that, passive or purely mechanical abilities have provided less fun or enjoyment than abilities that are more active and flashy. That's not to say passive abilities can't be or aren't fun, but in general that is my preference. But I also think as they are currently designed, a 2-3 feat tax for a w...

Saturday, 16th June, 2018

  • 02:05 AM - Manbearcat quoted Saelorn in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    While I agree with you, and I don't think it's been mentioned yet, there's also a similar similarity to certain card games. In fact, 4E was the first time I'd ever seen anyone print out power cards to keep in their hand for quick reference, and it instantly made me feel like I was playing Magic when I was at the table. Saelorn, This is a little weird. I brought this up in significant detail. My post regarding 4e and MtG was actually the genesis to this conversation angle. You either responded to that post directly or responded/XPed posts that were in response to it. I think that it is quite interesting that two people can look at the same data and not only draw the opposite conclusions but also accuse the other of being disingenuous. Its not that interesting... Me edition warriors who had contempt for one or both games and were ignorant of one or both paradigms because it could be easily weaponized to call 4e shallow and get like-minded ignorant and angry edition warriors to disingenuously repeat the meme. ...that you misconstrued or mischaracterized what I wrote. I didn't accuse Saelorn (or anyone else I've been conversing with) of being disingenuous. Yes, I did lay out the factually correct information that he was confused over (thereby revealing ignorance of continuity and paradigm...

Friday, 15th June, 2018

  • 11:42 AM - Riley37 quoted Saelorn in post Your Suspension of Disbelief: SHATTERED!
    Sure, with the caveat that inconsistent and unpredictable spellcasting, in a world where PCs understand that magic is inconsistent and unpredictable, makes for a setting which I find silly. I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief that far. On one hand, the extent of your willingness is up to you. On another hand, I see room for shades of nuance. In 5E, casting a spell is often the action with the *most* consistent and predictable outcome. If you shoot arrows, they'll follow Newtonian principles of motion, and other factors such as friction; they'll fly in parabolic paths, with kinetic energy you could calculate to multiple significant figures; but you can still miss. If you cast Magic Missile, there's no check to see whether you managed to successfully shape arcane forces in accordance your intent. You cast the spell, and you hit. If you cast Detect Magic, you will learn whether the sword was enchanted with Evocation or Abjuration; there is zero chance that you will mistake one for the o...


0 Badges

Saelorn's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites