View Profile: Saelorn - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Today, 12:57 AM
    Whether or not Dodging is useful is something that's likely to vary, depending on things like party composition and the abundance of short rests. I can say that I made significant use of the Dodge action while I was playing a low-level Eldritch Knight, because I was the tank, and we spent a lot of time in narrow corridors. Various design decisions in 5E mean that AC is unreliable, unless you...
    4 replies | 82 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:43 PM
    It usually stands for "Random Number Generator". If that's the case, then in this context, it might refer to the degree by which the randomness of the dice can make the game fall apart. D&D 5E was designed so that the randomness of the dice are unlikely to ruin anything, because characters have stats in a very small and predictable range, and no single die roll is going to kill anyone. Over...
    4 replies | 123 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:09 PM
    Abstraction is a matter of degrees, and D&D has always been somewhere in the middle of the pack, being more simulationist than (for example) Everway but more abstract than (for example) GURPS. Prior to 4E, the rules supported a wide range of interpretations, and you were perfectly justified whether or not you wanted to say that a successful attack roll necessarily correlated to a physical impact...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:30 PM
    If it's nonsensical to imagine that a dagger can harm an iron golem, but then someone with a dagger stabs an iron golem to death, then something has gone horribly wrong with the system. This point is related to the original topic, because the original topic is that the basic combat rules don't make a lot of sense, and I'm more-or-less agreeing with that. You need to make some concessions to...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:12 PM
    What counts as magic, though? Spells and magic items, sure, but what about class features? Does it depend on how the class feature is described, or is it just a "class" bonus either way? From a practical, administrative standpoint, I'm not sure how to make sure that everyone is on the same page with what stacks and what doesn't, unless you go back to naming bonuses.
    70 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:13 AM
    The other obvious solution would be to change what +X items do. For example, under my own set of house rules, +X weapons only deal extra damage, and +X armor increases your DR; but I also converted armor into DR as baseline, so it might be kind of weird outside of that context.
    70 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:41 AM
    It could just be that bless is too good, given the normalization effect of rolling an extra die. Are there other spells or effects that you're having a problem with? It could be as simple as getting rid of that one spell.
    70 replies | 1218 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:26 AM
    If you're trapped behind a wooden wall that has 30hp, then a finesse dagger hits as hard as a brute force dagger, because the metric for force is the HP. The only time when finesse damage makes any sense whatsoever is if you're attacking something that has weak points. It's a reasonable(ish) assumption when you're talking about humans or dragons, but less so when you're talking about golems or...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 12th November, 2018, 10:44 PM
    It's not so bad, if you assume that a level 1 fighter with zero experience hasn't actually been training for years. Granted, it goes against the description from earlier editions, but it's fairly consistent for what it is. Both characters are barely trained in the use of a dagger, and have the same amount of natural talent, so they're both equally skilled with that dagger. They both have training...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 12th November, 2018, 12:45 AM
    Yeah, you would hope. On the plus side, they did stick in a line about how different DMs describe HP damage differently. If you want to say that every "hit" involves some physical impact with a weapon, then that's entirely supported, and nobody can tell you otherwise. Really, the strength of 5E is that it's easy to mod... within certain parameters. If you want to say that everyone adds half of...
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 11th November, 2018, 09:15 PM
    That is an accurate assessment of the design choice. While it's clear that 5E took the former route, though, I'm struggling to think of a d20-style game that took the latter. Most games that put advancement into accuracy/evasion, rather than damage/HP, are games that don't even use levels.
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 11th November, 2018, 05:50 AM
    It was a conscious design decision that characters (both PCs and monsters) scale by damage output and HP, rather than by hit bonuses and AC bonuses. The idea is that it's really boring if both sides keep missing each other every round, so you should pretty much always be hitting. Missing entirely is something that you do at low levels, when things have so few HP that one good hit will drop them....
    118 replies | 3831 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 11th November, 2018, 04:42 AM
    As long as those "parts" are Expertise and Reliable Talent, you can use Rogue as your generic skillmonkey class. You can do a Ranger as a Rogue with Expertise in Nature and Survival, just as easily as an Artificer can be a Rogue with Expertise in the skills relevant to that. You could also do it as a universal subclass, that any class could take to be a little more skillful. Or at least, you...
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 9th November, 2018, 09:36 PM
    I ran a game from 1-20, with no feats or optional rules, and the balance between classes was basically fine. Melee hits slightly harder than ranged, and has slightly higher AC, at the cost of being terrible against flying enemies. Casters are great against groups, or against bosses where they can go all-out, but fall short for sustained damage in easier fights. Seriously, if you don't worry...
    3 replies | 297 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 11:44 PM
    I wouldn't classify a complete inability to even attempt a saving throw as "struggling"; it's a breakdown of the basic math. If a weak character had a 10% chance to resist an effect, then I would classify that as struggling, compared to someone else who had a 30% or 60% chance. Characters should have weaknesses, but if their chance ever becomes zero, then that's an issue. There's no disagreement...
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 10:58 PM
    First of all, it's pretty unreasonable to ask someone to spend two of their boosts before they can even begin to participate in the game mechanic, when the alternative is investing in things that they might actually want to use. That's just not a good investment, to sacrifice (for example) 40hp and +2 to Con saves, in exchange for having a 5% chance of making the occasional Charisma saving throw....
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 12:01 AM
    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.
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 11:43 PM
    I remember it in regards to picking locks, and how the +2 bonus from proficiency was enough to matter, because you would never need a specialist in order to have a chance of succeeding. I thought there was a general statement about everyone having a chance at any task, which would have been applicable to saving throws, but the website is apparently down right now. In any case, there are rules...
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 10:30 PM
    The thing is, +16 is just about the highest that a save can reasonably get, and even that has a chance of failure against at-level challenges. A paladin with +16 to save, +1d4 from bless, with Advantage on the roll, still has a chance to fail against DC 20. A fighter without paladin assistance, making a Charisma save with their barely-below-average Charisma, does not have a chance to succeed or...
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 08:49 PM
    There's a difference between "always a threat" and something that is literally impossible for a legendary hero to achieve. A level 20 fighter is supposed to be the most powerful fighter in the world, heralded across the world, fully capable of beating up a titan before breakfast. Literally impossible is supposed to be off-the-table for things like this. That was the whole point of Bounded...
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 07:58 PM
    The last campaign I ran spent a lot of time at high levels, and a CR 17 adult red dragon has DC 21 on its dragon breath. Even a 20 is out of range for anyone with a single stat below average, though, let alone anyone with an actual weakness.
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 01:43 AM
    Just because every spellcaster can be represented as belonging to one of the character classes in the book (in some worlds), that still doesn't mean anyone else ever gets beyond level nine. Or level three.
    39 replies | 1125 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 6th November, 2018, 11:30 PM
    The closest thing that I can recall is the Hag from 3E (and possibly other editions), which gained extra abilities when in a group of three. Most Hags weren't really spellcasters, by default, but a ritual group of Hags could cast some more powerful spells, including animate dead and control weather.
    11 replies | 348 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 6th November, 2018, 10:06 PM
    It's mostly there to protect the integrity of the assumed fantasy setting. If rich people can buy immortality, then the world starts looking like a very different place, and the DM has to spend time extrapolating on the greater ramifications of that.
    39 replies | 1125 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 09:28 PM
    I've seen games where this sort of thing encourages players to avoid wearing armor. After all, HP recover automatically, but armor needs to be fixed or replaced. The option to sacrifice valuable equipment would be more meaningful in a game where HP didn't recover as quickly.
    42 replies | 1584 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 08:10 PM
    That's not how the dying rules work. The DM isn't supposed to artificially invoke Instant Death, unless it's reasonably certain that the dying creature will receive no assistance. It's a fair call for monsters that you've just eradicated, but it's not a fair call for party members or pets. That aura is a band-aid on the broken saving throw rules, where normal characters would otherwise fall off...
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 3rd November, 2018, 06:41 PM
    Adding an extra attack for nine damage every round would push the beastmaster way out ahead of both fighter and paladin, in terms of sustained damage, at least for levels 3-5. Paladins are only broken when it comes to burst damage, due to multi-smite. Breaking the game in Standard Play is not a good balance for the game already being broken in Boss Rush.
    69 replies | 3349 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 08:34 PM
    Okay, so you're saying that the beast isn't always in a state of being commanded, and is otherwise an NPC. I could buy that, even though it goes against my own interpretation. In that case, though, whether or not the new "Dodge only" provision transcends the state of being not-commanded should depend entirely on the exact phrasing. Without actually seeing the words on the page, it seems...
    75 replies | 3459 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 08:08 PM
    I thought there was a trade-off involved, like maybe give up Exceptional Training. If a magical natural attack was only presented as an alternative to an existing class feature, then it wouldn't constitute a change to how the existing class feature worked, in much the same way that introducing a 2d4 broadsword would not constitute a change to the existing 1d8 longsword.
    75 replies | 3459 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 08:05 PM
    It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that "it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to" could mean "it does whatever the animal would normally do, like maybe attack or something". It's much less of a stretch to say that "it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to" could mean "it just stands there and defends itself". If the DM wanted the animal to behave naturally, then they were...
    75 replies | 3459 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 12:58 AM
    D&D is a resource-management game. If you're spending a spell slot when you don't need to, then you're doing something wrong.
    12 replies | 481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 2nd November, 2018, 12:57 AM
    As the DM, I interpreted it to include situations where your attack roll fails to hit their AC. The basic class feature of the basic wizard subclass should work with their basic form of attack.
    12 replies | 481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 1st November, 2018, 11:24 PM
    Going by this thread, I was under the impression that it was a new option, akin to a new choice being presented. Adding a new option wouldn't change the functionality of anything already in the book. If I was reading that incorrectly, and he's just sneaking in a new core feature of the Beastmaster so "at level 7, your animal companion counts as a magical weapon for the purposes of bypassing...
    75 replies | 3459 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 1st November, 2018, 10:46 PM
    Regarding the Dodge action, it was always a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a DM to make, that an animal without commands will choose to defend itself. It is supported exactly as much as the alternative, where it would just stand around doing nothing and getting stabbed in the face. (As far as I recall, "do nothing" was never a valid option in combat, and the rules do suggest taking the...
    75 replies | 3459 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 1st November, 2018, 10:11 PM
    If that was true, then many settings would collapse under the weight of their community-service druids, and the world would cease to resemble the sort of fantasy adventure setting that the books describe. So, that being the case, we know that it doesn't work for some reason. The world doesn't look like that, so something we believe must be false. In this case, it's probably that divine favor...
    36 replies | 852 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 1st November, 2018, 09:27 PM
    I'm a big fan of consistency, personally, but most of the problems can be resolved by just assuming that non-adventurers don't advance in any meaningful capacity. Only adventurers really care about how powerful they are, because being powerful doesn't put food on the table, and they have better things to do with their time. Sometimes it's fun to play as Robin rather than Superman, but it's hard...
    36 replies | 852 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 1st November, 2018, 08:30 PM
    In many settings, money is hard to come by, unless you're born rich. Adventuring is one of the very few opportunities which is open to everyone, regardless of social class. Besides, the level 3 wizard who works for a wealthy merchant, and doesn't go on adventures, is not a PC. Regardless of how the setting works, the only characters eligible to be PCs are the ones who are fun to play, so it...
    36 replies | 852 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th October, 2018, 11:10 PM
    The limited nature of the antimagic cone is one of the most important tactical aspects of a beholder fight. If the beholder was expected to shut down all magic, while also firing rays with impunity, then they would have just given it an aura or something. Instead, the beholder gets to decide who it wants to take out of the fight on any given round. If the wizard is annoying you, then you can...
    25 replies | 707 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th October, 2018, 09:24 AM
    It's really not that bad. It's just that there are a lot of moving parts, because there are a lot of options available, and sometimes they can have unexpected interactions. Powerful enchantments are supposed to be rare, and the cumulative chance of a catastrophic setback is the way they do that. But the game also covers genres where luck makes sense as a mechanic, and using luck to negate the...
    36 replies | 852 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th October, 2018, 02:40 AM
    Much of 5E is balanced around the concept of several encounters in a day. That's why spellcasters have so many spell slots, and that's why Lucky isn't the be-all and end-all of feats. During downtime, you might be pressed to make a single d20 roll every day, which means Lucky can safely apply to everything you do. That seems a bit extreme, doesn't it? The only real catch is that downtime...
    36 replies | 852 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 26th October, 2018, 10:02 PM
    I don't see how that could possibly be anything other than simple preference. You could resolve the conflict equally well either by changing the perspective at the table, or by changing the game rules.
    1794 replies | 57193 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 26th October, 2018, 08:11 PM
    Give them a check to identify and understand the phenomenon before they engage with it. Playing around with magic that you don't understand is stupid in any world, meta-game assurances or not, so remove the uncertainty if you want them to use it.
    18 replies | 643 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 11:50 PM
    If the original attack only rolls one die, then the damage die is not a significant contribution to the damage, so rolling it again does not offer much of a change. While it could potentially turn a 1 into a 12, it's more likely to turn a 3 into a 9, which really only matters at very low levels. If the original attack rolls multiple dice, and your Advantage would let them re-roll all of those...
    39 replies | 1278 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 10:23 PM
    Of the ones in the survey, I went with Cthulhutech, because it feels more like a real world and less like a cheap horror movie. There are certain conventions of the genre which just don't lend themselves to long-format serious campaign play, and this sidesteps most of them.
    22 replies | 575 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th October, 2018, 01:45 AM
    No, overcoming the obstacle is not a possible result of failing to meet the DC. Overcoming the obstacle means you succeeded on the check. Progress with setback is one of the two possibilities for adjudicating a failed check. The thing is, simply taking the third option doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not the case that a DM who chooses to resolve the check as progress-with-setback has...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 07:47 PM
    I really expected to hate the Dis/Advantage mechanic, since most modifiers would be too small to use it, but I've found that it works well in practice. If you're only making one die roll, then a +2 bonus only has a 10% chance of changing the outcome, which means it's statistically irrelevant. One of the basic tenets of game design is to not include modifiers that are so small and obscure that...
    253 replies | 10281 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 04:59 PM
    Outside of your interpretation of "progress with setback", that very much describes the 5E ruleset. It's all about binary states. There's not even an example, anywhere, of them using anything like what you suggest. It's more like an afterthought, attached to the basic rules, for the purpose of governing unusual situations. There might be a situation, somewhere, where the logical consequence of...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 08:57 AM
    Not exactly. What did you loosen? Your goal is to bust out of the manacles, and I'm not sure that you've described making progress toward that goal. If you've "loosened" the manacles to the tune of reducing the DC by 1 on subsequent checks, but injured yourself to the point of Disadvantage on that check, then you're definitely not making progress. Besides, being bound in manacles is normally a...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 04:14 AM
    If manacles don't work unless the DM has a particularly clever idea about how to adjudicate failure in such a way that they would work, then manacles don't work. The same goes for every other check in the game. The ability of the DM to change the outcome does not excuse rules that give a nonsensical outcome to begin with. Besides, you aren't describing a progress with setback. A progress with...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 03:59 AM
    Not really. Take 10 is about modeling an in-game reality. It tells us how the world works. If nobody is shooting you, then you can perform certain feats reliably. The in-game reality is that a moderately-trained individual can perform with a moderate degree of competence. No consequences is just about managing game time. The in-game reality is that your performance is all over the place....
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 03:29 AM
    I'm less concerned with people who know how, and more concerned with any random chump walking down the street. If 40% of the population can break free from standard manacles within two minutes, just based on random talent without accounting needing to know any specific tricks, then those manacles are not worth the cost to produce. Nobody would buy them.
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 01:22 AM
    In 3.5, the rule about Taking 10 is that you couldn't be threatened or distracted. It wasn't a matter of time spent, so much as whether you're actively dodging arrows right now. If 5E had the same rule, then you could reasonably have a professional locksmith with +5 to the check, and they would be able to pick easy (DC 15) locks 100% of the time, even though they would only be able to pick a...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th October, 2018, 10:25 PM
    Whether or not the passage of time counts as a meaningful consequence is something that would vary wildly depending on the circumstances. If the minotaur will get to you within three rounds, then needing to spend an extra round would be a major inconvenience that's worth rolling for. If nobody is chasing you, then the DM can handwave it as you eventually succeeding. At least, that's my...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th October, 2018, 07:43 PM
    If you get rid of the circumstantial prerequisites, and also make it a declared action on your turn (rather than a rider on other attacks), that should simplify the ability while retaining some semblance of balance and also curtailing off-turn shenanigans. (Or rather, for new players, it will avoid distracting them by setting up unreasonable expectations for off-turn exploits.) The only reason...
    39 replies | 1214 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th October, 2018, 08:30 PM
    Basic doesn't have a skill system, so if you want to do something, the player just has to convince the DM that their plan makes sense. In essence, the character inherits their skills from the player, so the character isn't good at finding clues unless the player is good at guessing where to look; and the character isn't good at talking their way past a guard, unless the player is good at thinking...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th October, 2018, 07:20 PM
    That's another issue entirely. If the skill of the player supersedes the skill of the character, then it doesn't matter which character has the higher bonus. You might as well be playing Basic, at that point.
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th October, 2018, 07:16 PM
    Does 5E have a "taking 10" rule? Because if so, then that would solve it. If not, then it depends entirely on how the DM interprets the concepts of "uncertainty" and "consequences for failure".
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 09:24 PM
    Unless the wizard's head is invisible, anyone looking through the door will see him before he has line of sight. If he sticks a mirror around the corner, and tries to aim with that, then they'll be alerted as soon as the mirror comes into their view. If he can see them, then they can see him, unless he's invisible or they are not looking in that direction.
    57 replies | 1795 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 08:41 PM
    It's against the spirit of Fourth Edition, because Fourth Edition was all about mutable fluff and mathematically-balanced crunch. In Fifth Edition, the fluff and the crunch are just two ways of talking about the same reality. You're free to make up new fluff, of course; but you're equally free to make up new crunch, to go along with the new fluff. (Subject to DM discretion, of course.) That is...
    1794 replies | 57193 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 08:23 PM
    Which is the fundamental flaw of Bounded Accuracy, and there's no good way of resolving it within a d20 resolution system. The Advantage mechanic, which can help here, only does so by temporarily shifting the game from d20-resolution to dice-pool resolution. That gives me an idea for a system hack, where everything was just down to an ability check, but proficiency and expertise each added...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 08:03 PM
    There's some debate on it. To the best of my interpretation, it should be impossible to sneak past someone who is looking at the open space you are trying to pass through. If the BBEG is in a room that only has one entrance, and someone is looking at that entrance, then surprise is ruined when anyone tries to enter the room. Out of combat, the rules for surprise are supposed to model sneaking...
    57 replies | 1795 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 05:00 PM
    If I had to pick one real problem in the 5E skill system, this would be it. For all the noble goals of Bounded Accuracy, and a fighter actually having a chance to succeed on a skill check if they simply had proficiency, they're still so far behind anyone with a high stat that they'll never get to roll. For much of the game, the un-trained wizard has a higher bonus to Investigate than the trained...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 03:53 AM
    It's still "less likely to fail easy checks, and more likely to succeed on hard checks"; they both do that, so it's just a matter of degree and consistency. By setting your argument around level 9, it takes Reliable Talent out of the equation, which has been consistently cited in this thread as part of the big problem. Without Reliable Talent, a level 20 rogue would still be able to fail DC 20...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 15th October, 2018, 01:56 AM
    That's no different than having a +2 bonus, or a +6 or whatever - you're unlikely to fail easy checks, and more likely to succeed at hard ones. And since being an expert is a persistent condition, it doesn't make sense to lump it in with the same mechanic used to model temporary circumstantial variables. Except that it (arguably) messes up the math. As we've seen in this thread, some people...
    193 replies | 5964 view(s)
    2 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
6,080
Posts Per Day
3.53
Last Post
How useful is the Dodge action? Today 12:57 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
15
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:10 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 7 1234567 LastLast

Tuesday, 13th November, 2018


Monday, 12th November, 2018


Sunday, 11th November, 2018


Saturday, 10th November, 2018


Friday, 9th November, 2018


Thursday, 8th November, 2018



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

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.

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 won’t 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 I’m missing something or not articulating the rule correctly. Again, appreciate the feedback everyone! I know this isn’t to everyone’s 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


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

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 03:13 AM - FrogReaver quoted Saelorn in post How useful is the Dodge action?
    Whether or not Dodging is useful is something that's likely to vary, depending on things like party composition and the abundance of short rests. I can't think of a party composition it's not going to be useful for. I can say that I made significant use of the Dodge action while I was playing a low-level Eldritch Knight, because I was the tank, and we spent a lot of time in narrow corridors. Various design decisions in 5E mean that AC is unreliable, unless you have some way to also impose Disadvantage on the attack roll. Yep, that's one of the most effective places for dodge, tight corridors and doorways. But dodge is still useful, even in a wide open field.

Tuesday, 13th November, 2018

  • 11:56 PM - Morrus quoted Saelorn in post Shadow of the Demon Lord: Occult Philosophy KS
    It usually stands for "Random Number Generator". Oh, I see! What we in the hobby like to call "dice"! :D
  • 09:32 PM - dave2008 quoted Saelorn in post Breaking Bounded Accuracy: Proposed Fix
    What counts as magic, though? Spells and magic items, sure, but what about class features? Does it depend on how the class feature is described, or is it just a "class" bonus either way? From a practical, administrative standpoint, I'm not sure how to make sure that everyone is on the same page with what stacks and what doesn't, unless you go back to naming bonuses. If a class feature is magic it would be affected. If the feature is described as magical specifically or it is (and here is the issue) easily , and universally (by our group) inferred to be magical. I have come to realize that a lot of issues people have with this concept are because you (general - not you specifically) are worried about how anyone would view the rule change with respect to all possible combinations. However, we only worry about how we view the change and how it affects our characters. As a DM I am interested in the broader perspective, but I really only have to concern myself with the narrow perspectiv...
  • 08:39 PM - cfmcdonald quoted Saelorn in post Brand new DM to 5E and many concerns...
    If it's nonsensical to imagine that a dagger can harm an iron golem, but then someone with a dagger stabs an iron golem to death, then something has gone horribly wrong with the system. This point is related to the original topic, because the original topic is that the basic combat rules don't make a lot of sense, and I'm more-or-less agreeing with that. You need to make some concessions to common sense, if you want to play 5E as written. Between the original point and this related one, I want to help the OP decide whether they should give 5E a chance as written, or incorporate more thorough house rules, or give up and play something else entirely. Okay, but then it sounds like you want some other simulationist combat model. No version of D&D has ever been that, though 3e maybe came closest. That has nothing to do with concerns about 5e specifically.
  • 11:02 AM - dave2008 quoted Saelorn in post Breaking Bounded Accuracy: Proposed Fix
    The other obvious solution would be to change what +X items do. For example, under my own set of house rules, +X weapons only deal extra damage, and +X armor increases your DR; but I also converted armor into DR as baseline, so it might be kind of weird outside of that context. Yes, that is an option and I have tried something like that. I think I need to update the OP and clarify that I am not really looking for other options, but wondering if the option I am looking has ramifications that I am missing. The last sentence of the OP doesn't seem to resonate with anyone.
  • 05:20 AM - cfmcdonald quoted Saelorn in post Brand new DM to 5E and many concerns...
    If you're trapped behind a wooden wall that has 30hp, then a finesse dagger hits as hard as a brute force dagger, because the metric for force is the HP. The only time when finesse damage makes any sense whatsoever is if you're attacking something that has weak points. It's a reasonable(ish) assumption when you're talking about humans or dragons, but less so when you're talking about golems or elementals. You're moving the argument up a level of abstraction, from whether wizards hit harder than fighters, to the entire hit point abstraction and what it represents vis-a-vis finesse weapons vs. strength weapons. The abstractions of D&D are built around combat, not attacking walls. Its obviously nonsensical to even imagine that a dagger could significantly harm a wall or a golem made of solid steel. So you either accept the abstractions that D&D is trying to sell and handwave away the places where the abstractions 'leak' (like sneak-attacking a being of pure fire with a dagger) or you don't....
  • 03:55 AM - dave2008 quoted Saelorn in post Breaking Bounded Accuracy: Proposed Fix
    It could just be that bless is too good, given the normalization effect of rolling an extra die. Are there other spells or effects that you're having a problem with? It could be as simple as getting rid of that one spell. Yes, that could be a solution. But I was also trying to find a solution without using the ban hammer. I am also looking for a solution that would work for spells I don't know about or future spells (or magic items) that do similar things.
  • 01:26 AM - dragoner quoted Saelorn in post Worlds of Design: Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi Part 2
    The big problem with delineating science and magic as natural/supernatural is that most magic in fiction is just a local variation on physics. Wizards understand how magic works, because magic is a natural force in their world, and it can be understood scientifically. Worlds where magic exist outside of the local natural law, and can't be understood because no deeper explanation exists, are exceptionally rare. Moreover, a world where magic can't be understood makes for a poor game setting, since anything can happen and the players have no way to meaningfully account for it. Traditionally it was from a god or god-like beings as the source of magic, a miracle of sorts, and thus beyond simple nature. I don't think it was understood in the times when people still did believe in magic, other than as superstition. It is probably more of a modernistic viewpoint that magic has taken on the trappings of science, probably for modern people to more connect with it.

Monday, 12th November, 2018

  • 11:07 PM - cfmcdonald quoted Saelorn in post Brand new DM to 5E and many concerns...
    It's not so bad, if you assume that a level 1 fighter with zero experience hasn't actually been training for years. Granted, it goes against the description from earlier editions, but it's fairly consistent for what it is. Both characters are barely trained in the use of a dagger, and have the same amount of natural talent, so they're both equally skilled with that dagger. They both have training in other stuff, too, but that's irrelevant to their dagger skill. For me, it's much worse to consider the Fighter with Strength 14 and Dex 12 against the Wizard with Strength 8 and Dex 14. If you give them each a dagger, they're equally likely to land a blow (which is tolerable), but the Wizard will hit exactly as hard as the Fighter does, in spite of the significant Strength deficit. That was the point which put me on the road to considering more serious house rules, and alternative game systems. But they don't hit just as hard, because the Wizard isn't trying to hit hard at all. By using fines...
  • 04:28 AM - Umbran quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    When legitimate criticism is met with derision, I can only return the sentiment that I receive. @Saelorn - That's enough. You were asked to drop it. Do not post in this thread again. You will not get another warning. Everyone else - please do not engage with Saelorn any further on this issue. Continue on with discussion of other aspects of the system as you will. Thank you.
  • 01:19 AM - Skywalker quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    The number of people who want to play a game with variant rules is necessarily going to be smaller than the number who would play by the base rules, and in this case, Esper Genesis is the limiting factor. If a player is willing to use a DMG variant rule in a D&D5e game, but not in an Esper Genesis game which is designed so you can use D&D5e rules without effort or impediment, then the limiting factor is the player.
  • 12:44 AM - MarkB quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    From a practical perspective, I can find a 5E group easily enough. And 5E has enough players that I could even find a group that wants to use the official variant healing. Finding enough players for Esper Genesis would be more difficult, but not undoable. Finding enough players willing to play Esper Genesis, using house rules that aren't even suggested in the book, would be improbable. Sounds like there really aren't very many players who are interested in such variant rules then, let alone clamouring for them and likely to reject a system which doesn't explicitly endorse them.
  • 12:38 AM - Skywalker quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    D&D does. Esper Genesis does not. For whatever the faults of WotC, they at least understand the benefit of presenting official variants, toward getting people to actually use them. That is not yet known. Esper Genesis has only released its Core Manual, which is the PHB equivalent. Even D&D does not include the variants you refer to in the PHB. Esper Genesis's Master Technician Guide is due early next year and may well include variants. In addition, given that Esper Genesis is so close to D&D5e mechanically, any DMG variant you are referring to can be used without any impediment at all, to such a degree that I think you could say its encouraged. The fact that you are spinning the above situation to be some kind of insult by Alligator Alley suggests that you either have a bigger issue here with D&D5e but have to take this out on EG as the DMG variants prevent you from making a valid criticism, or you have an ulterior agenda to discourage people of Esper Genesis regardless of the truth ...

Sunday, 11th November, 2018

  • 10:38 PM - Umbran quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    That doesn't account for potential players who gave up on playing because they couldn't reconcile basic actions into a narrative that made any sense. Which really doesn't have anything to do with Esper Genesis, and should be in a separate thread if you want to talk about it. As far as this system is concerned, your point is made - you don't like fast healing, and you feel a large number of players are "alienated" by the choice. We got it. Going beyond this steps from critique into belaboring and badgering, and is getting in the way of other discussion and questions of the system. So, please let it go. Thanks.
  • 10:25 PM - MarkB quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    The reason I went with that particular example is because I recently went through to watch the series again, and there's an early episode (season 2 or 3) where Picard catches an arrow to the arm, and the next day he's wearing a sling. And that's why I said "generally speaking". In Star Trek, they have advanced sci fi healing, so they don't usually need to wait around for anything to heal naturally; but in the absence of medical treatment, people heal normally. (Likewise in a fantasy setting with magical healing, there's no need to handwave the normal healing rate, because there's convenient magic to let you bypass that.) The only thing that fast healing does, in the presence of healing nanites and medical drones and whatnot, is to make the latter less impressive by comparison, and to force ambiguity into the combat narrative. That's not the only thing it does. The main thing it does is to de-emphasise injury management in the game, in favour of allowing heroic characters to quickly retur...
  • 01:53 PM - dave2008 quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    You have no idea, how many people really want to give the ruleset another try, if only it stopped presenting itself as a joke. I don't know if it is intend, but that is insulting. Also, with the apparent success of the ruleset as is, it seems highly unlikely that WotC believes the group of people you are describing as being very large really is very large (statistically speaking). That doesn't make them correct, but I am guessing they access to more information on the subject than you are I. This isn't a question of gritty realism. That's a strawman. It's a question of whether the heroic, non-debilitating injuries that you pick up as a result of being shot, even persist within the narrative beyond taking a nap. When Captain Picard gets shot in the arm, it doesn't really slow him down, but the wound is still there the next day. Doesn't 5e have rules for slow healing and lingering injuries? How do those not fulfill the needs your looking for?
  • 12:37 PM - MarkB quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    You have no idea, how many people really want to give the ruleset another try, if only it stopped presenting itself as a joke. No, I don't. Do you? This isn't a question of gritty realism. That's a strawman. It's a question of whether the heroic, non-debilitating injuries that you pick up as a result of being shot, even persist within the narrative beyond taking a nap. When Captain Picard gets shot in the arm, it doesn't really slow him down, but the wound is still there the next day. Generally speaking, no it isn't. With Star Trek levels of healing, a wound that doesn't cripple a character's limb can almost certainly be fully treated in sickbay with a few minutes' work - maybe an hour if it's really bad. And even a crippled limb can be repaired or replaced with fully-functional cybernetics.
  • 09:05 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    That doesn't account for potential players who gave up on playing because they couldn't reconcile basic actions into a narrative that made any sense. The sasquatch?
  • 06:08 AM - Azzy quoted Saelorn in post Esper Genesis: Sci-Fantasy for 5E
    You have no idea, how many people really want to give the ruleset another try, if only it stopped presenting itself as a joke. It doesn't. That's just your bias as work. This isn't a question of gritty realism. That's a strawman. It's a question of whether the heroic, non-debilitating injuries that you pick up as a result of being shot, even persist within the narrative beyond taking a nap. When Captain Picard gets shot in the arm, it doesn't really slow him down, but the wound is still there the next day. Using your example, Picard's wound has no mechanical effect the next day and, thus, wouldn't require any mechanical expression in a game attempting to simulate the genre. If you want something to be reflected in the narrative, then look to the narrative (roleplay it) not to the game mechanics (which already simulate the wounds not slowing characters down—just like in your example).
  • 12:10 AM - Savevsdeath quoted Saelorn in post Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!
    That's not how the dying rules work. The DM isn't supposed to artificially invoke Instant Death, unless it's reasonably certain that the dying creature will receive no assistance. It's a fair call for monsters that you've just eradicated, but it's not a fair call for party members or pets. That aura is a band-aid on the broken saving throw rules, where normal characters would otherwise fall off the bottom of the d20 roll. because making a DC 21 save would be impossible. It's not an elegant fix, by any means, but it's the only thing that keeps the promise of Bounded Accuracy alive. Wisdom governs both Perception and Survival, which are the two most important aspects of exploration. I would say that a ranger contributes to exploration as well as a paladin contributes to socialization, except the ranger also has a lot of other class features that put them way out ahead. Rangers are amazing out of combat. It's possibly the one thing that they have, which puts them ahead of a fighter in any way. ...


Saelorn's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites