View Profile: Saelorn - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:20 PM
    If by "fairly and consistently" you mean "impartially", then this is a good example of the problem I encountered. When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I can turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or...
    47 replies | 1362 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 17th December, 2018, 10:35 PM
    If I intended for the adventure to continue during a long rest, I would probably interpret the restrictions to be "you must get at least seven hours of sleep each night" rather than "you cannot walk for more than one hour, during each eight hour period"; it's going to take some interpretation, either way, so I would interpret in such a way that the adventure can keep going. More likely, if I...
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 17th December, 2018, 10:08 PM
    There are two basic approaches to immersion, when you're designing game mechanics: 1) You can try to design a bespoke mechanic for every situation, which best approximates how that specific situation would resolve in the real world. The idea is that the player can just forget the game mechanics, imagine themself to really be in that situation, and do what "makes sense" to them. The danger with...
    47 replies | 1362 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 17th December, 2018, 08:42 PM
    For some reason, I always assumed that changing the length of a rest would probably entail changing some of the other parameters as well. If nothing else, you should be able to stand watch for 2 hours each night, no matter how many nights were involved with the rest. I don't think that the rules in the book explicitly address it anywhere, but someone willing to make such a substantive change...
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 17th December, 2018, 08:20 PM
    Not every campaign asks every character to make a mechanical check every week. Sometimes, it's two or three weeks (in-game) before you're asked to roll anything. That may or may not correspond to more than one session.
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 17th December, 2018, 08:11 PM
    I dunno, it might seem cool if they only did it once in a while, but it stops being remotely cool or interesting when they've done it three times in the last minute. At that point, anyone who still makes a performance of it is just trying to be dramatic.
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 17th December, 2018, 12:29 AM
    YMMV, but I feel pretty much the opposite. From my perspective, they ditched the good ideas (uniform class resources, flat math), and kept most of the bad ones (free healing, infinite magic).
    57 replies | 2532 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th December, 2018, 09:39 PM
    To be fair, it makes about as much sense as Sneak Attack does. Also to be fair, the last time I played a rogue, everyone at the table commented repeatedly that my crossbow was actually an arbalest. It would be somewhat disingenuous of me to complain about one, but not the other; but I'm also not sure how to keep rogues viable, if you take away their core class feature. Extra attacks? Honestly,...
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th December, 2018, 02:00 AM
    I was unaware that anyone thought negatively of sorcerers. Sure, the lack of spell variety hurts, but you can get around that by picking spells that are widely applicable. And whatever else the classes have going for them, at the end of the day, a Fireball is still a Fireball. One major trick that sorcerers have over wizards, though, is that they can win any wizard's duel. By applying the...
    52 replies | 1778 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 15th December, 2018, 01:07 AM
    Saelorn replied to Iconic Bard?
    The iconic bard is Edward Chris von Muir, aka Gilbert, from Final Fantasy IV. He would be almost entirely useless, if the game engine didn't allow him to deal damage by playing music at people. In any case, the iconic aspect of the bard - the reason why Edward is so iconic - is that he wields his instrument during combat. He's the one playing the harp, while dragons are breathing fire on the...
    15 replies | 403 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 14th December, 2018, 10:21 PM
    Speak for yourself. When I play a rogue, I want an evasive striker, and the lack of Cunning Action or Uncanny Dodge would render the class into a second-rate glass cannon.
    355 replies | 21720 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 14th December, 2018, 10:14 PM
    It may be designed to cover a variety of things in addition to physical injury, but it is also supposed to cover physical injury, and it's impossible for anyone to accumulate any amount of physical injury if it all heals when you take a nap. There are lots of ways that you can narrate an archer's successful attack roll and the damage inflicted, but if you're using the default healing rules,...
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 14th December, 2018, 10:08 PM
    When I played 2E, we never had a healer, and we were just fine. If you got in one combat over here, and it takes a week of travel before you have another combat, then you were mostly fine by the time you got there. You only need a healer if you absolutely must face several dangerous encounters in the same day, which the variant rule pre-supposes is not happening. Encounters don't "suck your...
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 14th December, 2018, 08:17 PM
    Most activities in the game are based around actions that don't require a roll because they would succeed regardless of the outcome. As an example, hearing an explosion on the other side of a wall might have a DC of -5, and the reason why the DM is allowed to skip the roll is because anyone would succeed on a 1. Walking down a street might have a DC of -2, which most people wouldn't need to roll...
    329 replies | 28315 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 14th December, 2018, 03:23 AM
    I must have missed the part where you said this was a Dex check. That's the sort of detail which is likely to further skew the distribution of stats within the world, away from longswords and toward rapiers. In my experience, fighters (and paladins) tend to wind up with either 20 Dexterity or 8 Dexterity, depending on their weapon of choice. My last fighter had a Dexterity of 5, and suffered...
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 10:50 PM
    I don't remember those rules particularly well. Can anyone learn a new language during down time, as they can with tools?
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 10:44 PM
    While we're on the topic of language formatting, I'll suggest the quirk where every single ability that refreshes on a short rest, has "or long rest" appended to the end of it. The could have saved so much space, by including one sentence in the description of long rests to remind everyone that they also include the benefits of a short rest. Definitely, the half-baked Tool proficiencies are just...
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 09:42 PM
    Personally, I would consider that more of a "game-breaking flaw" than a "frustrating quirk"; but that's just me. If I keep my complaints to the one-point level, I would probably go with Dexterity-to-damage. I can buy that an air elemental's windy pseudo-pod is as accurate as a an earth elemental's club-arm, but I can't buy that it hits as hard. Further along that same note, it bugs me how much...
    191 replies | 6801 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 09:29 PM
    It might also make sense to have it as a Tool proficiency, so that anyone can learn if they put in a little work, but it's not generally assumed that everyone in the world can do it.
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 08:37 PM
    I think that any spell cast from a level 9 spell slot should be as powerful as a level 9 spell. Burning Hands should hit as hard as Meteor Swarm, as long as you're putting the same amount of energy into it. The thing is, it's hard to interpret what that means, for something like Grease or Shield. Making the entire world into difficult terrain, and knocking everyone in the world prone, is not...
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 09:39 AM
    Ah, I think I see where we're talking past each other! When you talk of scaling, you're talking about the magnitude of the effect increasing over time (as compared to the magnitude staying constant). To you, auto-scaling means that Grease would affect more targets, or Shield would prevent a larger percentage of incoming damage. When I talk of scaling, I'm talking about the magnitude of the...
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th December, 2018, 03:27 AM
    Right, you get the same benefit from casting Shield (in a first level slot), whether you are level 1 or level 10. That means a first level slot has the same value to a level 1 character as it does to a level 10 character, because it gives you the same benefit as long as you use that slot to cast Shield (or Grease, whatever). So what's the justification for retaining a constant degree of benefit...
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th December, 2018, 08:52 PM
    The deleted sentence was redundant, and could have been confusing. Improved Divine Smite lets you add +1d8 radiant damage to all of your melee attacks, regardless of whether you spend a spell slot, and that hasn't changed. The deleted sentence said that the extra damage was added to your Divine Smite, when you spent a spell slot, which could have been mis-interpreted to say that you got the...
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th December, 2018, 08:43 PM
    Spells that don't deal damage, like Grease, scale automatically with the enemy that you're fighting. If you're level 1, casting Grease in a first level slot will cause a goblin to fall prone. If you're level 10, casting Grease in a first level slot will cause a frost giant to fall prone. (Grease is actually more effective in the latter case, because frost giants have worse Dexterity saves than...
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th December, 2018, 02:29 AM
    I get that. There were a lot of changes, both qualitative and quantitative. It was a bigger change than the difference between 3.0 and 3.5, I think. What I don't get is, how did those changes influence your play? What sort of situation would you find yourself in, which would play out differently in a 1E game as compared to a 2E game? Or is it that you would find yourself in different sorts of...
    36 replies | 1095 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th December, 2018, 12:57 AM
    I don't use any of the extra flanking rules, but it's already incorporated into the narrative, for situations where it's necessary. When the rogue gets Sneak Attack, from having an ally threaten the target, that's flanking. When a wolf or thug gains Advantage from Pack Tactics, that's flanking.
    33 replies | 8484 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th December, 2018, 11:49 PM
    By my perspective, the issue is less about auto-scaling cantrips, and more about auto-scaling utility spells. At low levels, you can cast Burning Hands or Shield from your level one spell slot, and they both give a level-appropriate effect. At high levels, you still get a level-appropriate effect from casting Shield in a level one spell slot, but casting Burning Hands in that spell slot is...
    242 replies | 6071 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th December, 2018, 09:03 PM
    I don't quite follow. In what way did the changes to the game (class, race, rules) influence how you played the game? I get that the specific rules for ranger favored enemy and elven level limits changed, but how did those changes influence what you did with the character?
    36 replies | 1095 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th December, 2018, 12:09 AM
    At least when I played 2E, you didn't automatically learn any new spells when you gained a level. If you were a level 5 wizard, but you never found any scrolls or captured any spellbooks, then you were still casting level 1 spells. The ability to learn a spell automatically was restricted to specialist wizards, and was the primary benefit of specializing.
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 10th December, 2018, 10:04 PM
    I remember reading through an older edition - something older than 2E, at the very least - which gave a distinct impression that recovering spells was something which happened in between dungeons. It was definitely not the case where you could just hold up in one room, and sleep until morning, as overnight resting so-often devolves into.
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 10th December, 2018, 05:26 PM
    This should be basically fine, and it's one of the suggested optional rules, but keep in mind that the classes are balanced around the concept of six encounters between long rests, with two short rests at equal intervals (two fights, then a short rest, two fights, then a short rest, two fights, then a long rest). If you change the length of the rests, then warlocks are probably going to end up...
    110 replies | 2996 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th December, 2018, 10:33 PM
    A simpler rule to the same end would be that healing someone at zero does not automatically revive them. If someone becomes a noncombatant as soon as they're unconscious, then players will heal them before they get to that point. It's like giving them a buffer to remain conscious when they're about to die, except the buffer is measured in your last few HP instead of as additional death saves.
    30 replies | 509 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th December, 2018, 09:14 PM
    I figure, there's a reason why most independent hacks end up looking a lot like Basic, while serious attempts to copy 4E require larger companies. It also explains why the D&D hack I'm currently writing looks so little like the ideal version I just described.
    104 replies | 1764 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th December, 2018, 12:53 AM
    YMMV, but based purely on personal experience, 3E/Pathfinder/4E gives me a vastly different experience with magic items than either 2E or 5E does. In 2E or 5E, since enchanting is difficult/impossible, my first thought upon finding a magic item is to wonder what we can do with it. If we find a Circlet of Blasting, then we'll question whether the paladin or the rogue can make better use of it,...
    104 replies | 1764 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 7th December, 2018, 01:30 AM
    Assuming I was building my own D&D remix, and I didn't actually have to do the work involved: I would start with the race and class framework from 4E, but I'd frontload the classes so that you get most of your powers at first level, like in older editions. I would also nix any powers that were substantially redundant or narratively unclear, to make them more distinct. I'd remove the...
    104 replies | 1764 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th December, 2018, 08:38 PM
    I think the issue is that the "natural" way goes counter to the "correct" way. Which way can be considered "normal" will depend entirely on the individual, and whether they spent a lot of time quoting the original text, or whether they automatically flipped everything in order to make sense in conversation at the table. I'm having trouble in following this thread, because every time someone...
    61 replies | 2077 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th December, 2018, 12:41 AM
    I nominate System Mastery. They review an RPG every other week, and have maintained that schedule for years now, which is pretty impressive given the sheer number of pages involved.
    148 replies | 5968 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd December, 2018, 08:09 PM
    I was thinking more about strong healing potions, or other things that are too good to use. With things like potions and scrolls that don't do anything useful, I default to selling for cheap. The Potion of Climbing, for example, is not useful enough to warrant using. In a party of four people, giving one of them a climb speed for an hour is unlikely to help at any point before reaching level...
    24 replies | 989 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 30th November, 2018, 03:51 AM
    I've seen a couple of different approaches to this sort of thing, but I struggle to adapt them to the tabletop. The first is to put a hard limit on how many you can carry. If enemies commonly drop healing potions, but you can only carry 15 of them, then you're going to start using them in order to make space. If you can only carry 5 elixirs, and you're already up to 4, then you might use one...
    24 replies | 989 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 29th November, 2018, 03:31 AM
    A game doesn't need to be sustainable, for it to be successful. If you put out one book, and people are still using that book twenty years later, then that sounds pretty successful to me.
    22 replies | 907 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 28th November, 2018, 10:17 PM
    Put me in the camp of players who hate finite-use items. Unless that item has the ability to permanently alter the status quo, it's effectively worthless. Given that challenges will only increase in difficulty over time, using an item in order to get through these lesser trials now, will mean that I have no chance of surviving the greater threats later on; especially since I will no longer have...
    24 replies | 989 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 27th November, 2018, 02:01 AM
    That's not scary at all. I will follow the footprints until I find the Tarrasque, where I will beat it to death with my sword, because I know with 100% certainty that it is physically incapable of inflicting lasting harm on me.
    38 replies | 1319 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 26th November, 2018, 01:57 AM
    I think that's pretty much it. Early editions were such a kludge of mish-mashed mechanics that it was hard to consider the whole as a cohesive system. When it was clearly already a patchwork design, it didn't seem weird to patch more bits into it or out of it. Third edition was a cohesive system, with clear and consistent mechanics. Patching in something from AD&D would seem out of place. ...
    61 replies | 2077 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 24th November, 2018, 03:19 AM
    Not that I've ever played it, or would ever play it, but MAID is a good example a rules-light game. You have six stats, a health track, a method of advancement, and everything else is up to interpretation. I don't know that it's possible to come up with an objective definition for rules-light or rules-heavy, because it's all relative. Shadowrun is rules-light, compared to Living Steel....
    22 replies | 907 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 24th November, 2018, 02:12 AM
    Fair enough, although I think they have something weird with half-elves, and divine magic is supposed to be different in Eberron. I'm not sure how the whole "silver flame" thing maps onto the domain structure, for example. That's the kind of thing that I would want a document to support. The most important part of a setting is in the (setting-agnostic) definition, though, which tells us which...
    34 replies | 942 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 24th November, 2018, 01:20 AM
    I consider a setting to be supported if it is playable with the rules provided. Forgotten Realms is supported, because the rules in the PHB are all consistent with how things work in that world. Eberron is not supported in the PHB, because things work differently there. Supporting a setting is a different thing than defining a setting, by my perspective. You need things like a map, and notes...
    34 replies | 942 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 23rd November, 2018, 11:35 PM
    I suspect that, against a party of four level 13 characters, a group of four banshees would hit substantially harder than their CR would suggest. If you had four such encounters in a day, as the XP guidelines suggest, there's a fairly high chance of TPK. I mean, I already know that a level 5 monk can punch way above its level, when it comes to disabling bosses; and the most common reason why...
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 23rd November, 2018, 08:31 PM
    I don't consider it a problem, if a high-level party is almost immune to a banshee's wail. It's kind of a balance issue already, that non-HP abilities are equally effective across levels. A banshee shouldn't have an identical chance to kill someone who is level 5 or level 20, any more than a level 5 monk should have an equal chance of stunning someone who is level 5 or level 20 (which they do)....
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 11:00 PM
    And what, you're going to ready an action to dive behind cover when you expect the dragon is going to breathe on you? If you're going to spend the whole time cowering in the background, instead of up in the dragon's face, then you might as well not show up. Remember that your Dex modifier is -1, so you're not doing anything with a bow. It's not feasible to add new party members, as preparation....
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 09:53 PM
    If you're a level 17 fighter, and your Dex save is at -1, then you would need to find +12 worth of bonuses to turn an impossible DC 21 save into a probable one. Advantage is meaningless if you still fail on a 20, but might tip the scales if you can also find +8 worth of bonuses elsewhere. I'm not too familiar with everything on your list, but from what I do recognize, there's not much that you...
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 09:22 PM
    Right, but how does it help for the saving throws to be literally unmake-able, rather than being 90% or 95% unmake-able? Would you have acted any differently, in preparation or during the fight, if you'd known that it was theoretically possible for you to resist some of his abilities? Or would you still focus on ways to alleviate the effects, under the assumption that you'll probably still fail...
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 08:54 PM
    That would be a reasonable argument, if it was true, but it's not. Preparation gives very little ability to change the odds (since you'll never turn an impossible save into a probable one, the tools simply don't exist); and impossible saves are more-or-less irrelevant to the necessity of running away. If a cosmic dragon walks up to you and hits you with a DC 45 breath weapon, then you just...
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 07:29 PM
    I would argue that it's less about short encounter days, and more about having too many resources available. The design expectation of six encounters in a day is an unreasonable one, so players end up with more resources than they need, even if their encounter day is of a reasonable length. In my experience with running high-level campaigns, characters have a lot more resources than they can...
    39 replies | 1004 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 07:05 PM
    As I understand it, if someone survives a blow and can still fight back, then the wound won't seriously impede them in the short term. If the wound they take is so bad that it would impede them, then they're probably out of the fight. All-or-nothing is actually a pretty good way of looking at someone, in terms of combat efficacy. A high-level character who has been hit but isn't out of the fight,...
    38 replies | 1319 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 02:28 AM
    From my experience, players are unlikely to go nova in situations where they can't reliably rest afterwards. The effect of limited resources is that they don't nova in the first place, because they don't want to run out of resources later. At least in the games I've played and run, it's pretty obvious when it's safe to go all-out. The boss fights usually come after the fodder, rather than the...
    39 replies | 1004 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 12:40 AM
    That only makes sense if you assume anything with HP can be felled by a single blow. While it might be a reasonable assumption for puny humans (although I would argue that point, as well), it doesn't even begin to cover something like a dire bear or kraken. Nevertheless, the most common situation which fails to be scary is combat, because an orc with a giant axe can only do so much to your...
    38 replies | 1319 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 21st November, 2018, 12:13 AM
    Deadliness is not synonymous with difficulty. You can have a difficult fight with low stakes, or an easy fight with a (small) chance of TPK.
    42 replies | 1141 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 20th November, 2018, 08:13 PM
    I guess that depends on what the player expects to get out of the action. Personally, when I take the Dodge action, my expectation is that enemies may choose to not attack me. If the player is expecting to still be attacked, and looking forward to imposing Disadvantage on the attack roll, then I could see why they might feel disappointed. A similar situation happened in my first 5E campaign....
    60 replies | 1761 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 19th November, 2018, 11:33 PM
    The most important factor, to me, is the certainty with which an unwinnable fight can be escaped. If a monster just comes out of nowhere, and ambush webs the party before they can do anything, then that's a bad lethal encounter. If the party is walking along, and an ancient dragon appears a couple of miles off but they could probably engage it if they tried, then that's the opposite extreme. ...
    29 replies | 858 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 19th November, 2018, 09:07 PM
    The point of play is to figure out what happens. The heroes should overcome the villains, if they are stronger and/or more clever. If you want every encounter to be difficult, then you are essentially putting everything into the second category ("if they are more clever"), and you're ignoring the first category ("if they are stronger"). The thing is, cleverness in combat is not the only...
    42 replies | 1141 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 19th November, 2018, 08:14 PM
    The difference is that guessing a god's personal password is a crazy plan that nobody should expect to work, while trying to dodge a breath weapon is the primary way that characters are expected to interact with breath weapons. It's fine if the party has zero chance at the former, because the designers can't anticipate it as a probable course of action, but they anticipate the latter with such...
    139 replies | 6475 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
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
6,172
Posts Per Day
3.51
Last Post
Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks Yesterday 11:48 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
15
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:48 PM
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 7 1234567 LastLast

Tuesday, 18th December, 2018


Monday, 17th December, 2018


Sunday, 16th December, 2018


Saturday, 15th December, 2018



Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 14th December, 2018

  • 03:15 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Saelorn in post On the Differences Between 1e and 2e (Not all AD&D Is the Same)
    Manbearcat Garthanos Zardnaar Lanefan Saelorn So I was trying to get at a slightly different point that had been bugging me for a while (much more subtle than the continued banes of my existence; e.g, Paladins, Gnomes, and Rapiers). We (and I include myself in this) often treat 1e and 2e interchangeably (I often use the 1e/2e descriptor). In many ways, that is fair- there is a great amount of overlap between them! Certainly more, IMO, than between any two other "numbered" editions. But here's the thing- while most of us normally easily differentiate between the other old compatible editions (OD&D, B/X, BECMI), we don't often think about or see the differences between 1e and 2e. And I think that's a topic worth thinking and talking about. 1e was around from 1977 (PHB) until 1989 (2e).* 2e was around from 1989 until 2000. I mean .... it's kind of insane when you think about it. And both editions had controversial publications that (arguably) created their own separate demi-mondes (1985, UA, leading the way to 2e ... 1995 a...

Monday, 19th November, 2018

  • 06:32 PM - Laurefindel mentioned Saelorn in post Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!
    I must say that I agree with @Saelorn too, I believe in the gaming principle that dice are to be rolled only if the outcome of a challenge is uncertain, and that if a player is allowed/enforced to roll, there should always be a chance, however small that is, to succeed on the task at hand. I was very happy that D&D 5e (at last!) embraced that principle but somewhat disappointed that there wasn't a blanket "1 is always a failure and 20 is always a success" underlying rule. Let one peasant out of twenty resist the full scale of the magical effect, and let the hero have its 5% chance of escaping the bad guy's "gotcha!" button. It's not going to break the game and IMO, it's one instance when simplicity and consistency win over complexity and diversity. I don't see how the game is much better with the possibility to auto-fail on a save, or auto-succeed on a skill check.

Thursday, 8th November, 2018

  • 05:35 AM - OB1 mentioned Saelorn in post Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!
    Not on saving throws, which is one of the main reasons why I believe they didn't anticipate the situation. I don't know that there's ever been an edition where saving throws were literally unmake-able, let alone on as-consistent a basis as they are in 5E. Saelorn, let me start by saying that I understand that this is a pet peeve of yours, but it really got me thinking about the reality of the situation and I just wanted to bring some hard data to it. I get the fact that you don't like that a PC can encounter threats that they may not be able to overcome on their own, but for me, it's an incredible feature of 5e, not a bug. But beyond that, the actual issue of impossible saves isn't as large as you seem to imply. First of all, every character, by level 20, can achieve a minimum of +2 in all of their saves via their ASI choices, which means that that any PC can ensure they have a chance to make a saving throw up to DC22. Additionally, any PC may choose to be a fighter, and thereby achieve a minimum of +3 to all of their saves, but for the purposes of this argument, let's use the DC22 baseline, since it doesn't restrict you to a specific class (and since any PC choosing a Paladin can achieve a min of +8 in every save). The rules state tha...

Monday, 5th November, 2018

  • 09:47 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned Saelorn in post What variant rules should I add to my new campaign?
    Yup. It's a big sack of unintended consequences... what's the cheapest lightest weapon a wizard or anyone can carry to blow off crits? Might help TWF as you burn your dagger off-hand to stop the dragon crit then just draw another on your turn. I can imagine how many of their crits being eaten by enemy dagger breaks before my players balked... no wait... they would never approve it in the first place. You know it's a good rule when basic question prompt the "nobody forcing you" evasion. I mean, as a DM I wouldn't make PC crits meaningless by having wizards carry non-focus staves just for the purposes of not taking damage. I like to make my games cinematic and fun for the players. I'd hope that a DM using this rule would do the same. In all likelyhood, I could see an NPC use sacrifice something to avoid certain death but would give the PCs some kind of advantage. Saelorn I think in a more gritty setting, it would be more meaningful.

Thursday, 1st November, 2018

  • 10:49 PM - pukunui mentioned Saelorn in post Dragon+: Q&A with Jeremy Crawford, 10/30/18
    Saelorn: That one's OK. It's the one about adding a class feature that makes beast's attacks magical for the purposes of bypassing resistance. I don't care how JC tries to justify it to himself or spin it to us, that's a rules change. Not errata.

Tuesday, 18th September, 2018

  • 01:39 PM - Elfcrusher mentioned Saelorn in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Saelorn and Maxperson: I'm distinguishing between asking the question "What would this character do?", which I think is totally fine, and stating, "Action X is what the character would do," as if it's the one action among all the possibilities which is the most likely. It's the latter that I think is nonsense. People do unexpected, improbable, irrational things all the time.

Monday, 3rd September, 2018

  • 03:53 PM - Sadras mentioned Saelorn in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    What i found odd tho (unclear apparently) was the immediate juxtaposition of disallowing an expressly optional element and disallowing a core element to try and use that juxtaposition to paint the former with the latter. Odd was the ommission of consideration of optional per the rules vs core per the rules. True, but if the DM allows MC but disallows a pallock, then the juxtaposition made by @Arial Black stands. I could be mistaken, but that is what it seemed like in Saelorn's post - he/she was referring to a particular MC being disallowed.

Tuesday, 24th July, 2018

  • 04:23 PM - Elfcrusher mentioned Saelorn in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    And as it took 15-odd years to get things to this sad point, it'll probably take another 15 to get 'em back. 5e is merely a worthy start in that direction. It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots." Actually, because I'm curious, can you (or @Saelorn or anybody else) provide me with a specific quote from WotC that you think is evidence of a broken promise? (With full acknowledgement that the above quote is not evidence that you are in the camp; all it actually implies is that you are disappointed with 5e, not that you think they broke promises to get there. So apologies if I made incorrect assumptions.)

Monday, 23rd July, 2018

  • 09:38 PM - Kobold Boots mentioned Saelorn in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    ...n general I don't give much credence to the whole "WotC promised me the moon and all I got was this t-shirt" complaint. I know some fans of previous editions (or parts of previous editions) feel like WotC "betrayed" them for various reasons, but it seems to me that people interpret their "promises" with unreasonable expectations, and then feel like promises were broken when those hopeful interpretations turn out to be incorrect. And in cases where they really did say, "We're going to do X" and then failed to do X, I would assume it was more that they realized X was untenable and regretfully changed their minds, as opposed to having intentionally misled people with marketing hyperbole. Product development goes that way sometimes. I mean, just look at the reactions to the Ravnica announcement. You'd think the sky was falling. Personally I'm glad they try to give updates and previews, rather than keep it all secret until launch in order avoid accusations of betrayal. Saelorn - Regarding your betrayal comment due to WoTC focusing on the middle. I'd argue that your lack of acceptance (not the same as understanding - I think you understand very well) of how markets work is probably the cause of your strife and not WoTC. Once you're running a business, you're doing statistics on the market. Once you're doing statistics you're looking at the middle 50 and folks that are one standard deviation away from the middle 50 for whatever you're marketing because that's where you're going to make most of your money. If you're not in that grouping then it's not the company that's the problem. You need to find the product where you're in that middle 50 plus 1 stdev in order to be happy. Of course, from any marketers viewpoint by aiming at what they're aiming at, they're marketing "to everyone". Elfcrusher regarding the Ravnica thing. I just don't get the folks that hate the idea of using M:tG settings as fodder for D&D. While it's not my first choice of ...

Thursday, 19th July, 2018

  • 05:18 PM - DMMike mentioned Saelorn in post D&D Action Economy - Alternative
    ...something already that costs an action in exchange for boosted defense: Dodge. Adding to OP. I'd be leaving in passive AC (because who doesn't love finding out that their attack was worthless?), but the Defense action would be a choice between Dodging or Saving. Saelorn: so tanking hits would still be possible - just not tanking spells/saves. You might also want to check if you're sure you want the possibility of casting 2 spells of any kind in a round, or if this needs the same restriction as for bonus action spells. I hope that the stigma over this would be lessened, since the free action would give other characters the chance to act twice as well. Maybe characters with a higher initiative score can react, attempting to disrupt the spell? How about lifting a rule from the glorious Dragon Warriors? Shields: don’t add to your AC but if you’re hit, roll a d6. On a 6, no damage. Maybe give different quality of shields different amounts of hits (number of) or HP (worth of damage). Just a thought. Would it bust the game? Pretty harsh that a shield would work, however poorly, regardless of the attacker's skill. But I have to agree with you (DW?) that shields and armor should use separate rules. It would make sense for the shield bonus to ap...

Wednesday, 18th July, 2018

  • 12:39 AM - Satyrn mentioned Saelorn in post Sanctuary plus Spirit Guardians?
    Would you end sanctuary then if the caster insults and nonmagically goads an opponent? If you would, would you require a save if a character tried to verbally goad a creature protected by sanctuary? Yes, because an insult is an attack on emotions. And yes, obviously. Man, Saelorn's right. Sanctuary is so weak.

Sunday, 15th July, 2018

  • 12:23 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Saelorn in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    I'm not sure but at low levels probably not a lot but at higher levels it would keep you more cautious. I'm guessing. Assuming various powers that attack Harm 3 or Harm 4 come into play more at high levels, and the boxes don't change, then of course the threat of death would be high at any level. Perhaps unmanageably high but again I'd have to see an entire system to know for sure. I am happy enough with a moderately unrealistic system like hit points for a high fantasy super heroic game. I might also enjoy a less super heroic game. In such cases maybe WOIN or GURPS or even RQ would work. This is a totally different axis from metagame. I wouldn't want a metagame mechanic in any of those games if I had a choice. I think I could enjoy any of those games otherwise but I'd still favor the high fantasy game of D&D style the most. Emerikol (and Lanefan and perhaps Saelorn ), you (and Lanefan) answered my question with a response about the implications on the gameplay paradigm; eg “it would make it more lethal.” This thread is about “metagame mechanics” and players making decisions based exclusively on (what you perceive as) observable phenomenon (biological, physical) from the character’s perspective. I’m looking for your response in relation to that. So let me go a bit further and perhaps you can comment on this. A 10th level Fighter is challenging a trio of Stone Giants on the edge of their plateau which sits 70 feet above the ground. Situation 1: a) He has 100 HPs and the only chance the fall has to kill him is if he’s been significantly worn down in combat by interaction with the Stone Giants and their clubs (that are as big and weighty as him) and thrown boulders. b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of ap...

Friday, 6th July, 2018

  • 10:40 PM - TwoSix mentioned Saelorn in post Multi-classing: as good as it seems?
    ...That and +1 DC is a common ASI at 4th - both affecting more and doing more damage when you do. The other choice being a feat. If you'd like to say that a feat and no feat are about the same in power, I will have to disagree. Initial benefit of a subclass varies, but some are quite overwhelming. Do you feel like these are of no import? Bear Totem barbarian's expansion of Resistance to all damage but psychic? Moon druid's Combat Form? Battlemaster's Superiority dice? Paladin's oath with oath spells and channel divinity Warlock pact? Wizard's arcane traditions, like Arcane Ward from Abjuration or Portent for Divination? And that leaves off all the other features I listed that were not addressed: # of rages, spell points, action surge, ki, divine smite, sneak attack damage, and invocations. I can respect that you stand by your original statement. I'll leave my numeration of the benefits of levels 2-4 here so that others can make up their own minds. I feel Saelorn is somewhat understanding the importance of the 2-4 features, and you're somewhat overstating it. Level 2-4 features are quite useful, but so are plenty of level 1 features! Better armor, Con save proficiency for a caster, fighting style, more cantrips and low level spells known are all good things to have. And really, even in the worst case the delta between an optimized character and an unoptimized character at level 4 just isn't that large. The real pain point for a multiclass character is usually 5th-8th, when you're down a feat/ASI and missing the Extra Attack/3rd level spell boost. And even that can be mitigated if you're doing a part rogue build or cantrip build.

Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018

  • 01:37 PM - Maxperson mentioned Saelorn in post Would you allow this?
    Heh, if you google the definition of role-playing, both meanings are right there: Saelorn was using definition 1 and saying that's what he prefers. But that doesn't mean definition 2 is invalid, and I don't think anyone ever meant to imply differently. Saelorn already acknowledged that someone adding details is using the first definition as I argued, but that he didn't care for the additions and it wasn't this thing. I've never argued that the second definition is what I am using, as I wasn't using it.
  • 12:28 PM - TwoSix mentioned Saelorn in post What is the essence of 4E?
    And frankly give me Smash over Street Fighter any day - and I can't wait for Smash Ultimate to come out. I'm also a strong 4e fan. I wonder if the two are linked :) Or Young Linked, or Toon Linked. :) I bought a Switch the day after I saw the Smash Ultimate trailer. And I'm also a 4e fan, so I think Saelorn's original comparison is dead on.

Monday, 2nd July, 2018

  • 02:18 PM - Maxperson mentioned Saelorn in post Would you allow this?
    I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, it is pretty reasonable to define role playing specifically as "playing a role" in the normal sense. Saelorn's definition is probably what a non-gamer would expect the term to mean. On the other hand, the term has broadened in meaning to encompass all sorts of things you do when you play a role-playing game. There are many different but perfectly legitimate styles of play that fit into that category. But given the community we're all in, it's probably safer to assume people here will interpret the term broadly, so be careful how you use it. The meaning has broadened for sure, but even with his limited definition, the person narrating additional details is still roleplaying. Saelorn finally acknowledged that himself and stated that he prefers his way over the other, which is fine. We all have our preferences and I also prefer games without player narration of details as in the scarf example up thread.

Saturday, 23rd June, 2018

  • 02:40 AM - mrpopstar mentioned Saelorn in post Super Simple Armor
    jaelis this gives back to the rogue (because I don't truly harbor Dex any ill will), captures everything a boil down needs to capture for me, takes most everything offered for consideration in the thread into account, and gets buy-in from Saelorn, so, I'm feeling pretty good about it. :) I'll update the first post to reflect my thinking. Most burning question: Should things be listed as "light masterwork armor" or "masterwork light armor" ? Armor Armor Class (AC) Strength Stealth Light Armor 11 + Dex modifier -- Disadvantage Light Masterwork Armor 12 + Dex modifier -- -- Medium Armor 14 + Dex modifier (max 2) -- Disadvantage Medium Masterwork Armor 15 + Dex modifier (max 2) -- -- Heavy Armor 16 Str 13 Disadvantage Heavy Masterwork Armor 18 Str 15 Disadvantage Shield +2 -- --

Thursday, 21st June, 2018

  • 09:11 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Saelorn in post What is the essence of 4E?
    Saelorn The very first game I ran TPKed the very first fight. This was a game with 1 player who has played since the 70s, one that has played since the 80s and another noob to TTRPGs (but a Chemist and extremely good at puzzle solving and proficient at tactical and strategy games). They built a group that had absolutely 0 force multiplication and 0 synergy, virtually no control, no ability to Minion Sweep, and limited ability to dig into Healing Surges and rally. The didn’t interact with the environment/stunt for control (which is the primary impetus for Terrain Stunts) either. It was only a level + 2 combat, but it was a massacre. They learned pretty quickly after that!

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.


Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Wednesday, 19th December, 2018

  • 01:30 AM - KenNYC quoted Saelorn in post 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience
    If by "fairly and consistently" you mean "impartially", then this is a good example of the problem I encountered. When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I can turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or actually impossible). I would have to ask the DM what the chances of success are, based on observable and non-observable factors, and then trust that their assessment (based on what they know) is similar to what my own assessment would be if I had known what they know. In short, it's a huge hassle to make sure that the player and the DM are on the same page. Running through the same process, whenever a new mechanic comes into play, can be exhausting. It also prevents the player from planning for the future, since they don't know how the possibilities may play out at the next branch. If I'm cornered by t...
  • 12:09 AM - jamesstreissand quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    It's a bulk of an entire character, not any player character. The difference between a champion and a multi-caster is pretty significant, but there's no reason why any non-player character should approach even the complexity of a champion. We're literally talking about a character that doesn't have a player. Nobody benefits from it having more complexity than is absolutely necessary. Complexity only adds to the difficulty of the DM running the character, on top of everything else they have to do.I can see you're not listening (which is fine, this is a public forum), but since other people get to read this, I'll put it another way for their benefit. A champion fighter of any given level fits into a 3x5 card or less. There is no difference in complexity between running it, or a hobgoblin, for instance. The fact a champion can be played by someone at your table has zero weight gauging its complexity, much like any creature from the monster manual. You could easily have a table of players...

Tuesday, 18th December, 2018

  • 11:00 PM - jamesstreissand quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    The champion is the simplest of the PC classes, but it still represents the mechanical bulk of an entire player character. There's no reason why any non-player tag-along should be anywhere near that degree of complexity.No, it doesn't represent the mechanical bulk of an entire character. "Entire characters" range from multiclassed spellcasters to clerics to monks to whatever have you. There are worlds of difference between the champion and literally every player option in the game.
  • 10:29 PM - jamesstreissand quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how these classes are simplified in any way. The degree to which the Warrior looks like the Champion is very high. I was expecting these to be more in line with 3E-style simplified NPC classes, but these are just giving class levels to a monster.Considering the champion is the simplest subclass in the entirety of the game, that seems like an unfair example.
  • 10:10 PM - jmucchiello quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    The main reason why a two-player party doesn't just hire an NPC with actual class levels to accompany them is because that's an entire character sheet, with their own resources to track and manage. This approach doesn't solve that problem at all. Perhaps this is my disconnect with the folks who think this is too complex. I've never had a problem with players having two characters. It's not an issue at my tables. Unless the player is a complete noob, it's usually the role playing of two characters that makes having two characters an issue. Having to juggle the mechanics of two PCs is not twice as hard as using one. People do it all the time. What I like about this is these characters don't have the full complement of PC powers. It's obvious they aren't there to be in the limelight. (I do agree the spellcaster should not be a 9-level spellcaster. That's not an NPC. But that's easily tweaked. Besides, an NPC spellcaster is always more difficult to deal with no matter who is running it, DM o...
  • 07:55 PM - Lanefan quoted Saelorn in post 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience
    There are two basic approaches to immersion, when you're designing game mechanics: 1) You can try to design a bespoke mechanic for every situation, which best approximates how that specific situation would resolve in the real world. The idea is that the player can just forget the game mechanics, imagine themself to really be in that situation, and do what "makes sense" to them. The danger with this approach is that, what makes sense to the player, may not be what makes sense to the designer; the player may be left feeling helpless, or grasping at straws, because they don't understand how the world is supposed to work in any given situation. 2) You can design a universal mechanic, which applies in a consistent manner across a great deal of situations, even if it doesn't model any one situation with tremendous accuracy. The idea is that the player understands how the game mechanics work, in much the same way that the character understands how the game world works, so you're both making you...
  • 06:19 PM - Sorcerers Apprentice quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    It's not nearly as easy as it could be, though. If the goal was to make it easy to create these characters, then the rules fall short, because they still gain new features that you have to look up at every level. They could have vastly cut back on that, and maybe give them one class feature per tier. Adding one feature to the sidekick every time you level isn't exactly difficult... What these rules make "easy" is to upgrade your sidekick to an appropriate power level, without having to recalculate CR to see if it's too strong or weak.
  • 06:02 AM - jmucchiello quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    If turning a skeleton into a skeleton warrior was literally just a matter of adding HP per level and an extra attack at each tier, then we would have 90% of the functionality from adding all of the features on the chart, except I wouldn't need to look anything up because I've already memorized it. And all of your skeleton warriors are boring as hell. You take a few minutes more to do it and fighting against skeleton warriors is a challenge because they can do stuff.
  • 02:03 AM - jmucchiello quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    It's not nearly as easy as it could be, though. If the goal was to make it easy to create these characters, then the rules fall short, because they still gain new features that you have to look up at every level. They could have vastly cut back on that, and maybe give them one class feature per tier. Monsters don't generally advance after they are created. During the creation process, you pull out the monster, grab the PDF, list all the features from 1-9th (for a CR9) and you have created the leveled up monster. How is this more difficult than having tiers? Tiers require you to look at a chart of tiers. Levels mean you look at a chart of levels. Big deal. Also imagine the look on the players faces when the monster uses second wind. These monsters will also be less bland. Then a simpler system.

Monday, 17th December, 2018

  • 11:43 PM - Charlaquin quoted Saelorn in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how these classes are simplified in any way. The degree to which the Warrior looks like the Champion is very high. I was expecting these to be more in line with 3E-style simplified NPC classes, but these are just giving class levels to a monster. Pretty much just the lack of subclasses. In general, they seem to have fewer decisions to make when they gain levels than standard PC classes. Their gameplay isn't really any less complex, but generally you don't have to (and in fact, can't) think too much about a build. Even more so than other 5e classes, you just write down what you get at the new level, with little to no room to differentiate one example of the class from another. I do think that my feedback for this playtest would be that they could stand to be even more streamlined though. I'd get rid of any resource management at all apart from spells for the spellcaster, and I'd replace the Expert's second Expertise feature with something el...
  • 08:49 PM - Blue quoted Saelorn in post Most frustrating quirk of 5E?
    For some reason, I always assumed that changing the length of a rest would probably entail changing some of the other parameters as well. If nothing else, you should be able to stand watch for 2 hours each night, no matter how many nights were involved with the rest. I don't think that the rules in the book explicitly address it anywhere, but someone willing to make such a substantive change to the system is probably okay with playing that by ear. Oh, I agree with you. I'd have all of those limitations be "per day" for the 7 days. But still doing things like walking more than an hour a day will cause it to restart. What can be done during a long rest is very restrictive towards the rest of the party trying to continue an adventure. Actually, the other part that could be worrisome is that normally you can't take advantage of more than one long rest in a 24 hour period. If that is also extended the other party members may explicitly not want to take a long rest because they want to ...
  • 08:34 PM - Blue quoted Saelorn in post Most frustrating quirk of 5E?
    Not every campaign asks every character to make a mechanical check every week. Sometimes, it's two or three weeks (in-game) before you're asked to roll anything. That may or may not correspond to more than one session. A week of adventuring wouldn't count as a long rest. The comment I was answering talking about chaning the long rest to one week as well. A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least [1 week] long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it. I would say it's very likely that if you are in the middle of an adventure, getting a week of no strenuous activity would not be the most common. Sure there are corner cases - you ride in a wagon for a week of overlan...
  • 12:36 AM - Satyrn quoted Saelorn in post Sorry Folks, I just can't get into 5e
    YMMV, but I feel pretty much the opposite. From my perspective, they ditched the good ideas (uniform class resources, flat math), and kept most of the bad ones (free healing, infinite magic). Yeah, I get it. That's how I feel about the Star Trek reboot.:heh:

Saturday, 15th December, 2018

  • 01:38 PM - CapnZapp quoted Saelorn in post Reliable Talent. What the what?
    Most activities in the game are based around actions that don't require a roll because they would succeed regardless of the outcome. As an example, hearing an explosion on the other side of a wall might have a DC of -5, and the reason why the DM is allowed to skip the roll is because anyone would succeed on a 1. Walking down a street might have a DC of -2, which most people wouldn't need to roll for, even though a hypothetical Dwarf could fail it 5% of the time. Everyone in the world is capable enough at some thing, that they can succeed at certain tasks automatically, where a less-capable individual might fail. Whether a roll is necessary or not is one of those things which should vary wildly depending on the individual making the attempt. Sometimes people feel the need to explain the ultra-obvious to me. I have no clue why. At least I can't find any traces of disagreement in any of this, disagreement with my suggestions, that is. So my reply is: okay, whatevs. If the outcome of ...

Friday, 14th December, 2018

  • 10:40 PM - Henry quoted Saelorn in post Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?
    Speak for yourself. When I play a rogue, I want an evasive striker, and the lack of Cunning Action or Uncanny Dodge would render the class into a second-rate glass cannon. In every game I've played, even games with the Great Weapon Master Sharpshooter types running around, Rogues are among the top damage dealers in the party every time (not the top, but among the top, usually #2.) In my table experience, they don't need the extra damage. If they did, fighters would cease being played immediately, because then the rogue would have tons of damage evasion, high skills, AND the top damage in combat. In a recent arena-style combat between our party barbarian and party swashbuckler, the barbarian did win, but it came down to one unlucky roll from the rogue as to why he did so - he held his own quite handily. I have seen a rogue in nearly every table, and I expect I'll continue to do so, with happy players sitting behind them, and ultimately that's what matters to me.
  • 03:11 PM - lluewhyn quoted Saelorn in post Most frustrating quirk of 5E?
    Definitely, the half-baked Tool proficiencies are just inelegant along every possible metric. Why can't Thief Tools just be folded back into a Thievery skill? If they wanted to go the route they did, I think they should have used the 3E Profession (whatever) Skills. Either make Thievery its own skill again, or at least say Profession: Thief. I also think it's more intuitive to explain to a Newbie that they're proficiently trained in being an Alchemist or Baker rather than being proficient in Alchemist Tools or Baker's tools. The latter implies needing the tools on hand, whereas the former might inspire the player to try justify using a profession skill in situations where they're not sitting in their workshop.
  • 12:18 AM - Azzy quoted Saelorn in post Most frustrating quirk of 5E?
    Definitely, the half-baked Tool proficiencies are just inelegant along every possible metric. Why can't Thief Tools just be folded back into a Thievery skill? Yeah, the whole Tool proficiency thing was unnecessary and kludgey. Just let everything go back to being skills.

Thursday, 13th December, 2018

  • 11:32 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted Saelorn in post Trying to make 5e more oldish and want some people's opinions
    I don't remember those rules particularly well. Can anyone learn a new language during down time, as they can with tools? Yes. Using either the core rules or the streamlined Xanathar's system.
  • 10:51 PM - Stalker0 quoted Saelorn in post Most frustrating quirk of 5E?
    Definitely, the half-baked Tool proficiencies are just inelegant along every possible metric. Why can't Thief Tools just be folded back into a Thievery skill? Yep completely agree. Tool proficiencies are pretty silly in general.
  • 09:36 PM - Satyrn quoted Saelorn in post Trying to make 5e more oldish and want some people's opinions
    It might also make sense to have it as a Tool proficiency, so that anyone can learn if they put in a little work, but it's not generally assumed that everyone in the world can do it. I started suggesting the same thing right near the start of the thread, then halfway through my post I remembered that language proficiency is its own rule, too. It seems straightforwarder to have literacy a language instead of a tool.


Saelorn's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites