View Profile: Saelorn - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Today, 12:41 AM
    If you had one, sure, but warlords don't actually exist. They are pure fantasy, without any basis in reality. Unlike clerics (?)
    18 replies | 431 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 07:40 PM
    Well, I'll give you this: That's an entirely new argument. It's not a good argument, by any means, but it's new. An ogre can't choose to become susceptible to instant death, in exchange for increasing its accuracy. Even if it's assuming a reckless fighting style (which is represented through other mechanics, and doesn't change your HP total directly), that wouldn't make them susceptible to...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 11:22 PM
    This is a topic for another thread, but suffice it to say, you can play it that way if you want to. While someone with 1hp may technically suffer no penalties on their skill checks, it's highly unlikely that they'll attempt a marathon in that condition, since they could easily suffer fatal damage from tripping. I'm perfectly fine with the game doing a less-than-stellar job of modeling tasks that...
    171 replies | 5039 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 10:53 PM
    If they aren't talking about the fighter's basic attack with a longbow, then they aren't addressing the issue I'd raised. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. You're not saying anything new here. A high-level minion will die the first time it's impacted by a single arrow, and a lower-level standard enemy will not. A fighter at level 12 (or 22, or 30) can kill a level 16 ogre bludgeoneer...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 09:08 PM
    You're talking about strikers, though. I'm talking about characters of that level, in general. The assertion was that any arrow from a level 16 character would deal enough damage to kill a level 1 goblin, which is why it should be fair to model them as a minion, since they're dead in one hit either way. Rogues and Rangers aren't the only ones capable of firing a bow, and my fighter can definitely...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 08:27 PM
    1. Lots of character customization options, if you're into that sort of thing. 2. Unified character creation and advancement rules, which make it just as easy to build an NPC or a monster as it does to make a PC. 3. The possibility of describing damage as largely physical, such that you can still feel it the next day.
    171 replies | 5039 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 18th May, 2019, 12:21 AM
    Healing Spirit is, by a wide margin, the most broken spell to ever exist. If your goal is power, then you should take that. You say that you can cast other spells, which aren't on the list, so it's hard to say what the other spell should be. Lightning Bolt is a very powerful spell, but Fireball isn't on the list, and obviously you don't need both of them.
    11 replies | 467 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 17th May, 2019, 09:15 PM
    Tangential to the usual point, I miss being able to cast a cure spell that felt like it had a tangible effect. It just doesn't feel satisfying to heal damage, when you know the damage is going to heal quickly anyway if you just ignore it.
    71 replies | 3623 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 16th May, 2019, 11:09 PM
    The consistency is that the Hill Giant has 9hp, whether it's facing a level 1 party or a level 20 party, or a band of hobgoblins. Those 9ph represent an objective fact about that creature, which is that it can survive an impact of a given quantifiable force, and falls to anything greater than that. Of course, 9hp is significantly on the low side for a hill giant, but the rules tell us that...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 16th May, 2019, 09:03 PM
    What you consider to be common sense, may be a radical idea to someone else. I am surely feeling the effects of that, on these boards, with some people seeming to go out of their way to resist obvious concepts. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, that their experience is radically different from my own, but it's still exhausting. My game doesn't award XP for slaying creatures which...
    20 replies | 572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 16th May, 2019, 08:12 PM
    That wasn't how the rule was presented, in the opening post. There was no caveat about "only the GM decides when you roll" or "only when failure would have a consequence". While adding such caveats can address the issue, I've found that it turns the game into one of manipulating the GM rather than manipulating the rules, which is not a good thing. If you can only roll when the GM tells you to,...
    20 replies | 572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 15th May, 2019, 10:33 PM
    So the adventure "starts", and then everyone spends a month in their basement to max out all of their skills. This sort of system has been done many times in the past, and this is always a sticking point. The optimal path of advancement is to avoid adventure as much as possible. You would need some sort of caveat in order to keep everyone moving forward, instead of just grinding, and that's...
    20 replies | 572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 15th May, 2019, 10:12 PM
    I'm not a fan of any system where the optimal path of advancement involves sitting around and practicing your skills instead of having adventures. If the world really worked this way, then anyone would start their heroic career by grinding in their basement for a month until they could no longer fail.
    20 replies | 572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 14th May, 2019, 08:06 PM
    Put an ogre and a goblin in the same room. How much force does it take to KO the ogre? Is it more or less than the amount of force carried by a single arrow? How much force to KO the goblin? It should take less force to KO the goblin than it does to KO the ogre, right? That's what I mean by consistency. In every earlier edition, we knew how hard you would have to hit the ogre in order to make...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 13th May, 2019, 11:08 PM
    None of the rules of the game are actually changed, when you decide to bring out the map or put it away. You still provoke an opportunity attack, when you leave someone's reach. The only difference is how much time you spend setting it up, and how easy it is for everyone to visualize. If your players are bad at visualizing, or you are bad at describing things as the DM, then you'll probably want...
    46 replies | 1419 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 13th May, 2019, 09:29 PM
    If we take as a given that HP objectively measure the ability of a creature to withstand a violent impact without falling, the way HP were actually used at many tables throughout every earlier edition, then it means any minion has absolutely zero tolerance for injury. It means a level 11 ogre minion has a much lower tolerance for injury than a level 1 non-minion goblin. If you objectively test...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 12th May, 2019, 07:45 PM
    I said that you can explain HP and damage consistently by saying that a given amount of damage represents an objectively quantifiable amount of force, which is true. An arrow that imparts 8 units of force, will impart that same amount of force whether it hits someone with 6hp or 600hp. The only difference is whether or not the impact causes the victim to drop. You can say that's how it is, but...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 12th May, 2019, 03:28 AM
    Any serious idea can be presented comically, but that's just a matter of presentation, and says nothing about the idea itself. In this case, nobody said anything about longbow arrows piercing a body. And even if they did, there's no reason why that has to be inherently silly. I've seen stories where a sufficiently powerful fighter continues to fight, even with three or four arrows sticking out of...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 10:45 PM
    My view on this is fairly traditional: The point of an RPG is to role-play, and in order for the players to stay in the character mindset, a GM needs to be there to handle the back-end (playing NPCs, and adjudicating uncertainty in action resolution).
    46 replies | 1743 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 10:28 PM
    The magnitude of the effect is too small, compared to the spell slot cost. If you have a bonus of +1, then that will only change one-in-twenty failures into a success, and it's fairly unlikely that the party will fail twenty skill checks over the course of an hour. Even if they do, randomly converting one failure into a success is fairly insignificant, because it's random and you've already...
    16 replies | 693 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 08:01 PM
    It looks good to me. Giving someone a different Proficiency value to track seems kind of weird, but it's not more weird than Barkskin. I can't really imagine anyone using this new version of Guidance, but there are plenty of dud spells out there, and it's better to be under-powered than over-powered. Have you given any thought into upcastability? If you cast Bless in a level 3 spell slot, does...
    16 replies | 693 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 9th May, 2019, 09:56 PM
    What I can't do is explain how much punishment a creature can really take, because that explanation doesn't actually exist. The only possible explanation of how to use minions is to deny that numbers have inherent meaning, and that's a line I'm not willing to cross. That's not something that any other edition has asked of me, and I'm honestly a bit offended that the designers would do such a...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 9th May, 2019, 07:30 PM
    Believe it or not, people have been describing HP damage as objectively quantifiable for as long as the game has been around. It actually works pretty well, as long as you ignore Gygax's flawed explanation of what he was trying to do, and just take everything at face value. In any other edition, you can assign a consistent value to 48 damage, whether in terms of force applied or severity of...
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 9th May, 2019, 12:10 AM
    Yes, if you're trying to fulfill a literary trope, then you need to give your characters some literary consideration. That is to say, as the designated protagonist, they should be rolling 1d6+12 for each stat. Low stats are for chumps. If you're rolling randomly, then the warrior hero is the fighter who happened to roll well in Charisma. If you aren't rolling randomly, then the closest you can...
    74 replies | 3307 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 8th May, 2019, 11:51 PM
    These requirements are almost mutually exclusive. The warrior hero archetype doesn't rely on magic to do their dirty work. Battle Master wins by default.
    74 replies | 3307 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 8th May, 2019, 02:48 AM
    I agree that it is a challenge, and it is an unnecessary challenge at that. There's very little reason why we should play a game where we are challenged to interpret the mechanics on a simple narrative level, when there are so many other games out there that are more straightforward in the narrative meaning of their mechanics.
    179 replies | 14511 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 09:09 PM
    What's a hero? What's a "dramatic instance"? If you can't answer those questions without meta-gaming, then the game has failed as any sort of objective model for how a fantastic world could possibly work. At that point, the rules would be worthless as anything aside from a story guide; things happen because the writer wants them to happen, and nothing actually means anything. But we know that's...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 07:47 PM
    Based on your previous post, I thought you were actually being reasonable on this, and that I had misinterpreted you. I guess I was wrong about that. I will continue to address the real flaws with this system, whether mathematical or conceptual. Recognizing these flaws is the only way to improve the game. I don't think it's nearly as bad as you seem to be describing, though. This isn't some...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 07:31 PM
    Not our real world, but a believable world. A place where meaningful things could really happen. Not just a story, where anything happens because the writer doesn't care. An internally-consistent world, where things happen according to natural law. If the rules only apply to PCs, then we have far worse problems than unintuitive success probabilities. If that were really the case, then not only...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 07:13 PM
    The tool which lets you decide something is impossible is just that you can set the DC to an impossible value, but then you're adding a rule that makes any impossibility achievable on a 20. You could add an extra rule, that says a 20 won't succeed on otherwise-impossible checks when you arbitrarily say so, but that's very sloppy from a design standpoint. The rules should be clear for the player...
    27 replies | 1081 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 01:02 AM
    It's a +1 weapon, with a couple of ribbons. The extra action surge barely puts it on par with a +2 weapon, unless it somehow confers that ability to someone who doesn't already have the ability, in which case it could be very useful to a paladin. Since it seems to require attunement, though, I would still consider it to be worse than a +2 sword.
    23 replies | 900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 09:33 PM
    The basic premise behind Bounded Accuracy is that anyone can attempt any task, and a bonus can only help you. (As contrasted with 3E, where you had a minimum bonus required before you could even participate.) The fundamental flaw behind Bounded Accuracy is that a world where anyone can do anything would be silly. As an example, consider the manacles in the equipment section, which require a...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 08:43 PM
    In retrospect, I think we are probably in agreement. I had initially read your condemnation of assigning DC 15 to mean that the DM should just arbitrate the outcome since it's not important, but now it seems more likely that you were condemning the act of going through the motions for a task whose outcome is inevitable.
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 08:33 PM
    I can see this as prone to abuse and shenanigans. After all, the only reason why you can't convince the king to abdicate the throne on the grounds that you are The Moon, is because that's a DC 90 check. The reason you can't knock down a solid adamantium door is because it's DC 70. When the DM steps in and just says that something is impossible, it's supposed to be because they figured out the...
    27 replies | 1081 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 5th May, 2019, 07:29 PM
    Any person who declares success or failure without first determining the DC does not understand the 5E ruleset in my opinion. How could anyone possibly know that you would eventually succeed at something, unless they first figured out the DC of the check? Just saying "eventually you succeed" is identical to assigning a DC that is within the functional range of the d20, as long as there is no...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 5th May, 2019, 06:58 PM
    Sure, why not? From a narrative standpoint, it makes sense that you didn't actually cast a spell yet, so there's nothing for you to be concentrating on. I'd also be down for expanding the concentration system to cover any activity that requires your focused attention, so you couldn't concentrate on a spell while picking a lock (for example), and I'd also be fine with expanding that definition...
    25 replies | 799 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 5th May, 2019, 03:28 AM
    Best of both worlds: All spells should be condensable enough to fit into an enemy stat block.
    158 replies | 9320 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 3rd May, 2019, 12:49 AM
    It's the equivalent of -5, if you're operating at the middle of the die range, but who does that? Characters don't often take actions that have an even chance of success or failure. Most gameplay involves specialists doing the thing that they're specialized in, or using abilities that target someone's worst save.
    79 replies | 35828 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 3rd May, 2019, 12:41 AM
    The DM often wears multiple hats. Some DMs also build their own world, in which to run their adventures. They are still two very distinct jobs, though. Even though one person may be acting as both DM and world-builder, they have different rules to follow when they're acting as the DM than they do when they're acting as the world-builder. The world-builder's job is literally to set the stage,...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 09:38 PM
    Don't conflate the DM with the world-builder. The world-builder is the one who sets up the world and populates it with interesting NPCs, such that the players have goals and challenges will arise in their pursuit of those goals. The DM is the one who actually role-plays those NPCs, and figures out the DC required for any task. The DM is obligated to play fairly. The world-builder isn't even...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 12:30 AM
    Yes, I consider the actions of the world-builder to be distinct from the actions of the DM-at-the-table, for the same reason that I consider character creation to be distinct from role-playing your character at the table. Frequently, both tasks are performed by the same person; but they need not be, and even if they are, they are governed by different principles and restrictions. The...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 11:48 PM
    I'm all for making the game your own, but as a baseline default until someone says otherwise, everyone at the table will have the most fun if the DM remains impartial. That's what you're signing up for, when you agree to play D&D rather than some other game. If that's not why you're playing, then you need to discuss that with your DM.
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 09:50 PM
    It seems unnecessarily complicated. It would be much easier to just say that the spell energy is not expended in the first place, if you don't actually cast the spell. The action economy should be enough to make sure that nobody abuses it.
    25 replies | 799 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 09:12 PM
    For the sake of brevity, I'm just quoting this part of your post, because it allows me to address the entire topic more succinctly. It applies in equal measure to placing NPCs within the world. One of the goals of the DM is to remain impartial in their adjudication. You're not supposed to care, whether or not they pick the lock. If you wanted them to pick the lock, then you have the power to...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 11:45 PM
    These changes are fairly small and well-considered. I don't think they would hurt anything, and have the potential to improve play significantly (particularly Counterspell). The only change that might be going too far is the Geas one, but I have no idea how that spell is used at your table. Fatigue is deadly in this edition.
    30 replies | 1134 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 11:34 PM
    In my opinion, it's verging on too complicated to bother tracking. It's annoying enough to micro-manage positioning such that you're within 10 feet of the paladin, but for a +4 bonus to all saves, it feels worthwhile. If you drop that down to a +2 bonus, then it's harder to see that as justifying the effort. Honestly, a +1 bonus to AC with a +2 bonus to saves when standing within 10' of the...
    2 replies | 188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 08:45 PM
    If the DM just decides that the NPC does a thing, then that's injecting bias into the resolution - the NPC succeeds, because the DM wants them to. Likewise, if the DM decides that they have a 5/6 chance, then they are injecting bias by arbitrarily assigning that probability - the DM wants the NPC to probably succeed, with 5/6 probability. The DM isn't supposed to be biased, or else there would be...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 02:21 AM
    As I said, there are a lot of contradictory and missing rules in the the book. Bounded Accuracy is a bad concept for a game, and even beyond that, the concept was poorly executed. If the DC was much lower than 30, then PCs would be able to craft amazing masterwork items at level 1, and that's simply not sustainable from a setting standpoint. If it's supposed to be impressive at all, then it...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 11:34 PM
    Are you asking how I do crafting rules, in general? At the end of an appropriate time period, the character spends the reagents and makes a check. To make a basic sword requires DC 20. To make something that looks nice, and is suitable for enchanting, you need a 30. Failure on the check ruins half of the reagents. That's what I came up with, based on what's in the book. It's what makes...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 07:30 PM
    When I'm acting as world-builder, one of the jobs is to populate the world with NPCs. One town might have a smith of moderate skill, but nothing special. The big city probably has one or more experts. If it's the capital city of the dwarven empire, then they probably have some of the best smiths in the world. If the PCs go to one of these places, then they will find the people who are there. ...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 02:18 AM
    My job as the DM is to remain impartial and unbiased. I don't want anything. I have no preference for whether the NPC has +7 or +17. I only interpret the rules provided by the game. The rules are supposed say whether an expert smith has a +7, or some other number.
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Sunday, 28th April, 2019, 07:42 PM
    It's designed to be easy to play, by making certain basic assumptions, such as that the shark is fighting one or more of the PC races. In most cases, the shark isn't fighting a golem or skeleton, and it won't be fighting someone who has only suffered psychic damage. That's fair. If the basic assumptions don't hold, for whatever reason, then the DM is there to adjudicate that. That being said,...
    106 replies | 3787 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 02:32 AM
    Although both the PHB and the Basic Rules suggest that these details will vary according to the DM's preference, the Monster Manual states clearly that sharks frenzy against any creature that doesn't have full HP. The distinction between HP and actual wounds has never been clear, in any edition, but the fact that HP damage necessarily draws blood in 5E is irrefutable.
    106 replies | 3787 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 07:10 PM
    Unless it's a duel to first blood, of course, where your capacity to withstand injury is irrelevant (since we know for a fact that 1hp of damage is sufficient to draw blood). In that case, the only relevant factors are initiative and the chance of landing at least one hit on your turn. And in that case, which is only slightly contrived, a high-Dex wizard has a decent chance of besting a...
    106 replies | 3787 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 12:24 AM
    Generally speaking, 5E is a complete mess when it comes to consistency. They started with a solid baseline, back under the 3E rules, but almost everything good about that system was lost in the translation. So, while we can look at a character's total bonus and try to analyze which part represents trained skill and which part is natural talent, it's unlikely that the designers intended for it to...
    106 replies | 3787 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Thursday, 25th April, 2019, 11:19 PM
    I went with the second option (10-15 percent), because you aren't accounting for stats in this. I think the untrained character should still have a 5% chance, even if their ability modifier is slightly lower, but not if it's their dump stat. Edit: I just noticed the specific wording. Are you asking about attack rolls, or skill checks? Because there's a huge difference in "ultimate skill level"...
    106 replies | 3787 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 08:15 PM
    Nothing about the sub-section on ammunition changes the basic rule for magic weapons. A magic bow applies its enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls when used in combat. Fifty attacks is the expected life of a magic weapon, from the time you create it to the time you find a new one. If you have a choice between creating a magic bow, or fifty magic arrows, then it's not inherently better...
    4 replies | 273 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 12:55 AM
    How do you reconcile that with something like the druid, though, whose identity is easily replicated with a nature cleric? Do you not use them in your game? Or is it grandfathered in, even though it shouldn't rightfully qualify?
    53 replies | 2747 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019, 08:48 PM
    While I agree with the basic premise, that adventurers and non-adventurers should use different rules for how their skills improve over time, the big problem is that we have no idea what Bob's bonus should be. We have very detailed formulas for how good an adventurer with smithing proficiency should be, and we have nothing for how good a non-adventuring smith should be. So does Bob get a +5 to...
    118 replies | 3967 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Saelorn's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019, 01:22 AM
    That makes it sound like you can't play 5E using the free rules which were provided to let you play 5E, just because it hard-codes each class to one sub-class. As they explain elsewhere, the concept of classes and sub-classes is a fundamental aspect of 5E, but none of the individual classes or sub-classes is fundamental. It's still 5E, even if the DM's setting only allows for human...
    53 replies | 2747 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
6,722
Posts Per Day
3.51
Last Post
How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules Today 12:41 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
15
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:36 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 5 12345 LastLast

Tuesday, 21st May, 2019


Monday, 20th May, 2019


Saturday, 18th May, 2019


Friday, 17th May, 2019



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Page 1 of 15 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 20th May, 2019

  • 11:51 PM - Yaarel mentioned Saelorn in post Favourite D&D edition thatís not 5E
    ...s fans? Thanks for doubling down on the reasons why I shouldn't even bother discussing this with you, and ironically proving your initial post wrong about how 4e fans react. The fact that you think me pointing out how 4e fans reacted (that you deny despite the evidence) is me gravedancing on 4e tells me all I need to know about your biases and disingenuous argument. Nothing in my post remotely was celebratory about 4e ending. I am a 4e fan. I never slandered 5e. I felt Ďbetrayedí by the loss of 4e, especially because 4e failed to provide an OGL. But I pretty much immediately understood that 4e was over, and spent my energy constructively during the 5e playtests. And even now, spend my time constructively with 5e. I have to agree with Tony. Where 3e fans launched a tidal way of negativity against 4e (and now apparently a tidal wave against Pathfinder 2), the 4e fans are largely innocent of this. 3e has its good guys. For example, I have never perceived spiteful negativity from Saelorn, and others. But 3e sure has its share of reactionaries.

Wednesday, 1st May, 2019

  • 10:58 PM - ParanoydStyle mentioned Saelorn in post Shadowrun Sixth Edition Announced!
    ...e. Kinda sucks because I haven't even had a chance to put together a Shadowrun: Anarchy game yet. How and why would this stop you? Shadowrun and Shadowrun: Anarchy are designed to scratch two very different itches. The former is a very crunchy simulationist tactical RPG. The latter is a Story First storygame. I don't see how one precludes the other. I played a lot of 1st and 2nd edition SR. Tried 5e and it was just to crunchy for me. Not sure I will buy this, but I like the idea they are simplifying it. I'd recommend trying 4E if you can find it free, cheap, or on sale. I can't compare it to 6E obviously because I haven't seen 6E but of the five editions of Shadowrun that ARE out on the market, I'm firmly of the opinion that 4E is the best. 4E is less crunchy and better than 5E so if you like 4E you might like 6E because it looks like it's aiming to be less crunchy and better than 5E. Typing numbers followed by the letter E is losing all meaning. I'd offer the same advice to @Saelorn. Our former Shadowrun GM was re-writing the setting for use with Genesys. I guess these are good indications a simplified system is needed. I don't know what Genesys is, but nonetheless ding!ding!ding! we got a winner! You're absolutely right. I was a huge, huge, huge 1e to 3e fan. 4e lost me and 5e turned me off as it was a bloated 4e (so it seemed to me). While this seems like a step in the right direction, I'm not sure... Emphasis mine. Speaking as an author of Shadowrun Fifth Edition? 5E WAS a bloated 4E. How did 4E lose you, if you don't mind my asking? It's my favorite edition, with third being a close second. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Ha! Fraggin' Ha! The Laughing Man strikes again? Oh man! All y'all saying that 5th was "too" crunchy?!?!?!?!?! LOLOLOLOLOL 4th and 5th were both farther steps away from crunch and towards rules "lighter" editions... If you thought 5th was too complex then you are showing you never played 2nd. I played 2nd. I WROTE 5th (not all of...

Tuesday, 30th April, 2019

  • 11:50 PM - TwoSix mentioned Saelorn in post Houserule: A change to the Paladin's Aura
    Yea, I agree with Saelorn. (That was weird to say. :) ) The paladin aura is great, but a +3-4 bonus makes it just worthwhile to accept the tradeoffs of having to stay within 10' of the paladin. Even a +5 is very far from an automatic save, and the best way to save against an area effect is not to be in the target area, which clustering around the paladin tends to inhibit. I also rarely see paladins raising Charisma past an initial 16, since they still need to have a good melee attack stat. So I don't see many paladins giving a +4-5 bonus.

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019

  • 08:15 PM - Satyrn mentioned Saelorn in post [5e] Rakshasas cannot be counterspelled (mostly)? Is that how you would play it
    The wording of counterspell seems to target the caster not the spell "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell..." Jeremy Crawford has confirmed this. As such, Rakshasas would be immune to counterspelling (unless the counterspell was cast at 7th level+) This seems to make the monster (which has some decent spell casting ability) a bit more nasty. Is this widely accepted? counterpoints? Just a thought. PS. As I can't seem to apply any kind of tags in the mobile app - this is referring to 5e. I wouldn't rule that way based on the wording. As Saelorn says, it feels like a technicality and I just refuse to read 5e that way. However, I'd totally rule that way now because it sounds like a fun exception for this creature.

Tuesday, 9th April, 2019

  • 06:27 PM - OB1 mentioned Saelorn in post Help! Whatís the best place in the multiverse to hide from the Inevitables?
    First off there have been a ton of fantastic ideas already, and I just want to thank everyone for the inspiration! I can always count on the EnWorld community! Why do they have to be hiding out? Maybe the only way they can stay out of the reach of the inevitables is to keep running. If they're jumping randomly from plane to plane, the inevitables might be tracking them but haven't caught them yet. That means you could have the PCs meet them pretty much anywhere. I like this idea a lot. The PCs in this campaign are Mission: Impossible type agents, and I can see them tracking the Inevitables tracking the NPCs and trying to find a way to get one step ahead of them. Combined with the NPCs using Mordekaninís Private Sanctum (thanks Saelorn ) to rest and hide out between portal jumps, I think Iíve got a winner!! Once they catch up with the NPCs, itís just a matter of getting them to Nirvana in Mechanus, where they can be released from their contracts.

Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019

  • 01:17 AM - Zhaleskra mentioned Saelorn in post How to deal with death in RPG?
    Part of me is tempted to reply to Saelorn sarcastically. Instead, I'll be serious. Monsters from mythology lose a lot of their bite if they lose their defining trait. Did Perseus win because Zeus fudged the dice? No, he won because he used his brain and worked against what he knew Medusa would use against him. Would Perseus turning to stone have been random? No, because he knew what he was going against. And you know, a garden of statues in creepy poses would be a dead giveaway. That said, the idea of the "dungeon theme park" ride adventure has crossed my mind.

Saturday, 2nd March, 2019

  • 10:35 PM - Satyrn mentioned Saelorn in post In Defense of Milestone Leveling
    I think @Saelorn was essentially just suggesting a way to explain how "XP for fighting" can be viewed to make it palatable if you think it works weird. He could probably just as readily offer a way to explain milestone XP if someone thought that was the system that worked weird. I have no preference for an XP system. It's all just game mechanics to me, and I've never found that different XP systems improve or detract from my fun, so I just don't care. I'm not saying I don't care about gaining XP, if it's there to be gained, though. I would totally be chasing that carrot as part of playing the game, doing all the things that netted me that sweet level-up like @iserith suggests would happen.
  • 08:03 PM - CleverNickName mentioned Saelorn in post In Defense of Milestone Leveling
    ...for an unarmed civilian character as Ingrid Knudsen (Brigitte Nielsen) but Marion "Cobra" Cobretti (Sylvester Stallone) could kill all the cult of "the new world". With the right weapon you can kill a dinosaur and only a shot is enough. With remote-control drones you can kill enemies from other town, or country. You could drive a truck to run over horde of zombies. Buffy the vampire slayer only needed a RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) to kill the judge (season 2 episode 14) and the Mayor was tricked to go to a zone with lots of explosives. How should be the XP reward and the challenge rating when the monster is too hard, or easy? To which I replied: I don't mind experience points, but the way they are assigned has always seemed silly to me., and slanted toward violence. Why do we get experience for combat, but not for anything else? It's a little bit off-topic, but to answer your question: I plan to do milestone leveling in this campaign instead of handing out XP. And Saelorn joined the discussion. Experience Points are slanted toward violence, because levels primarily reflect your capacity for violence. Fighting is how you get better at taking a punch, which is the only stat that goes up with every level. If you're not going around and fighting everything, then it doesn't really matter what level you are. So I kicked it over here with this response: That's certainly true for some games. However, exploration scales with level just as combat does. With a higher level comes greater skill proficiency in things like Perception and Investigation, and better access to magic items (sorry, I mean "technology" and "computers"), vehicles, and other gear. You unlock class features and spells that let you move more easily, travel farther, carry more, and find things more quickly. Same for the social interaction pillar, as well. The higher your level is, the more proficient you have become in things like Deception and Persuasion, you've acquired items ...

Tuesday, 19th February, 2019

  • 10:52 PM - dave2008 mentioned Saelorn in post Epic Monsters: Cerberus (5E)
    Fluffy is not referred to as "a cerberus" or "the cerberus". He is referred to very specifically as a "three-headed dog." The name "Cerberus" is not used in either the book or the movie. That is what I thought, but @Saelorn seems to disagree with you. Now I have to go and try to find the book.

Wednesday, 13th February, 2019

  • 10:49 PM - Oofta mentioned Saelorn in post Ranged Options for All Classes
    He is correct in the example that is being discussed: of the character with multiple attacks. The character is not throwing a second javelin as a bonus action, they are throwing it as part of their Attack action. No two-weapon fighting required. Ah, I misread. Apologies. But as Saelorn pointed out it assumes you know you're going into a particular type of combat and doesn't make a difference after the second round.

Tuesday, 12th February, 2019

  • 01:00 AM - Oofta mentioned Saelorn in post Ranged Options for All Classes
    True dat. (EDIT: exception for Dual Wielder, I suppose... 3 each round for two rounds, then 2 for 3rd round and beyond... but anyway jeez that's a lot of thrown weapons to carry...) Saelorn beat me to it. I had a character that did that - two weapon fighting, etc. My DM also (house?) ruled that I could attack with my primary multiple times once I got a dwarven thrower. But that was the exception to the rule.

Monday, 11th February, 2019

  • 09:03 PM - Oofta mentioned Saelorn in post Ranged Options for All Classes
    Except for rage damage, and reckless attack, and the bigger weapons... The +2 to damage is nice (for the levels most people actually play), but hardly earth-shattering. I had forgotten about reckless attack since I don't have the PHB memorized yet. Assuming that at least some of your stats are average or below not getting reckless would hardly be the end of the world. As far as bigger weapons, going dual weapon with rapiers does just about as much if not more damage than other options for the levels most people play. In addition none of that addresses anyone that wants to run any number of archetypes that wear heavy armor and that should be perfectly fine with an average dexterity. As Saelorn said: if nobody can dump dexterity, it's a problem.

Saturday, 2nd February, 2019

  • 11:10 PM - Satyrn mentioned Saelorn in post JC Tweets: How Close to official rulings do you consider them to be?
    I see. So then would you agree that in absence of a wotc rule clarification in sage advice on something that what JC tweets about it is the next best clarification we have? No, I don't agree with that. I place no value in what WotC says. I have gotten a far better understanding of how to play 5e "by the rules" from iserith. I have learned how to present encounters better thanks to Saelorn ( I ignore anything he says about metagaming, though!). I have learned the glory that is the gnome paladin from Oofta. I could go on, but my point is that my game is better without listening to WotC.

Friday, 1st February, 2019


Friday, 25th January, 2019

  • 06:50 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned Saelorn in post Skill Checks (non time sensitive) homebrew fixes
    In the example, you've answered your own question - no one should make manacles that can be broken easily or quickly. Think about trying that in RL with handcuffs. Without a manufacturing defect, that shouldn't work the first time or the 20th. So it's the DC that's wrong, not that it's harder in later ones. ..... Maybe manacles need to have a DC so they can't be popped open by 10 STR people regardless if it's their first try. Doesn't the average person have -1 str? So, they shouldn't be able to get free even with a 20. But I don't think it's the DC that's wrong here....see below. Saelorn: I think 1 round (6 seconds)is too short a time span for most out of combat activities. I'd allow an attempt every 10 minutes or, maybe longer. It takes time to wriggle out of stuff. Doing a Strength check over and over will make noise. Given long enough increments, people come back and check on prisoners to make sure their bonds are secure. It shouldn't be that easy to get out of manacles. In short: Out of combat 'turns' are not 6 seconds. 'Turns' take as long as what's reasonable for the activity. I don't know what 5e rules say on this subject but I just go with whatever feels realistic. CleverNickName: Having the players give you a different way of tackling the problem is a great justification for another roll. I like that a lot. But some things just take time and patience. A puzzle, for example, just requires you to work at it until you figure it out.

Wednesday, 23rd January, 2019

  • 05:30 PM - dave2008 mentioned Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    I never found RP in 4e difficult. I think they key is to ignore the printed adventures or liberally hack them, and to just play how you want. The game is extremely robust. The only problem youíll run into is slow combat, and we found that we could just halve all monster HP values and it works fine. I agree with you in general, but that is not what Saelorn is talking about. He/she has an issue with what he/she feels the mechanics are telling him/her about the game world. When he/she sees a minion at 1HP it makes no sense to him/her - he/she doesn't know what that means and thus cannot role play it. And there several more mechanics that create the same problem for him/her. These are not issue I or my group had, but they ones for him/her.

Wednesday, 16th January, 2019

  • 02:55 AM - Maxperson mentioned Saelorn in post yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
    I think this gets metagaming completely backwards. Metagaming is using OOC knowledge for IC decisions. IC the characters due not know the rules of the game they inhabit. The rules of the game are an intentionally hyper-simplified abstraction of their reality. The characters are presumed to live in a 'real' fantasy world that is vastly more complex and 'noisy' than the simulation, and basically like our world, except magic. Saying "I have a +5 and you only have a +3, so I should make the check" is exactly what metagaming is. Saying "I am a renowned warrior, I will deal with this leader, he will not respect a scrawny dealer in dark secrets like yourself", is the opposite of metagaming, i.e. acting like your character, irrespective of what the 'best' result is in the outer game model. Correct. What Saelorn is doing is metagaming.

Saturday, 12th January, 2019

  • 08:19 PM - Satyrn mentioned Saelorn in post The Fighter: tweaking Indomitable to work in all the Pillars.
    Is there anything which would break or work unusually if we simply added some battle master superiority dice options for out of combat functions? Seems like you could add a die to an ability check pretty easily. In fact, adding advantage to someone else's check AND adding the die seems balanced given the other manuevers available. I had the thought that we could tie that into the maneuvers the battle master selects. Like, add a note to Menacing Attack let's the fighter spend a Superiority Die to add it to an Intimation check. Pick appropriate skills for each maneuver. And to address Saelorn's point that limited resources maybe shouldn't compete for combat and noncombat uses, we can give the fighter a few Skill Dice to use for that purpose. This also let's us reduce the skill bonus to 1d6, and not have the Skill Dice get bigger at higher levels if we think that would be too much.

Thursday, 20th December, 2018

  • 08:17 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Saelorn in post 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience
    ...in creating a false history to give us the illusion of making a decision! Our brains our truly amazing. :) But we are also *piss poor* when it comes to statistics. When it comes to abstract probabilities. Even the most basic understandings, and even in our modern age. You can look anywhere at the studies - it is embarrassing; to use the common example, if you flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads 10 times in a row, the majority of people believe it will come up tails on the next flip. Seriously- look at this evidence on this board, alone. If the claim had been, "The people in this made up world are really in tune with the seasons, and are likely to know when to plant their crops" I would have no issue with that. That's the type of lore and knowledge that gets passed down. Same with edible herbs (and efficacious ones- although that was trial and error and death, not statistics, and many of them were just wrong). But it is interesting, as I had assumed that the premises behind Saelorn were idiosyncratic to him (her?). Apparently, I was mistaken! So I have learned something. :)

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...


Page 1 of 15 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Tuesday, 21st May, 2019

  • 03:53 AM - MwaO quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    Again, your quantum ogre is being very inconsistent with its abilities. Can it reliably hit the fighter, or not? The difference between an ogre hitting you, and an ogre not hitting you, is significant. Those narratives are not equivalent at all. What you're describing as quantum, I consider realistic? If you're an Ogre fighting an 8th level PC, you fight differently than if you're fighting a 16th level one. Just as a highly trained fighter fights another highly trained fighter much differently than a world class one or a beginner. Watch an out-classed boxer fight Mike Tyson ó he had 9 fights against opponents lasting less than a minute, all of which involved his opponents trying to rush in and land a big blow before he took them down. The ones at his level that caused longer fights where he couldn't just smack them. If the ogre swings its club, how likely is it to injure the fighter? Does it hit on a 12, or does it need a 20? Can the fighter approach this ogre with a reasonable expectat...

Monday, 20th May, 2019

  • 11:15 PM - Yaarel quoted Saelorn in post Favourite D&D edition thatís not 5E
    1. Lots of character customization options, if you're into that sort of thing. 2. Unified character creation and advancement rules, which make it just as easy to build an NPC or a monster as it does to make a PC. 3. The possibility of describing damage as largely physical, such that you can still feel it the next day. 3. I am unconvinced that 3e describes physical damage. There are no consequences for being Ďseverely woundedí. A person with 1 hp can still run a marathon, no difference from an athlete in top shape. Personally, I subscribe to the serious injury happening at 0 hp. I impose a level of exhaustion each time a person reaches 0 hp. To represent the injury that occurred, and describe the nature of injury, and sometimes modify the exhaustion to represent it. 1. I love character optimization, and this is part of 3e that I like. At the same time, because I care about balance, I consider subpar options to be nonoptions. So sometimes, it is difficult to build an effective characte...
  • 10:15 PM - MwaO quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    You're talking about strikers, though. I'm talking about characters of that level, in general. The assertion was that any arrow from a level 16 character would deal enough damage to kill a level 1 goblin, which is why it should be fair to model them as a minion, since they're dead in one hit either way. Rogues and Rangers aren't the only ones capable of firing a bow, and my fighter can definitely kill a level 16 minion far more easily than a level 1 standard goblin. That's even more true of wizards. Err, that's not exactly what the person was talking about. Basically, if you're using an at-will, you should be able to defeat low level creatures really fast. That's what happens in real life when a martial arts sensei goes up against someone with minimal combat training. The martial artist takes them down really fast, because they don't even know what's going on. In any case... Whether you model a creature as a high-level minion or low-level standard becomes something that players need to...

Sunday, 19th May, 2019

  • 02:09 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    The consistency is that the Hill Giant has 9hp, whether it's facing a level 1 party or a level 20 party, or a band of hobgoblins. Those 9ph represent an objective fact about that creature, which is that it can survive an impact of a given quantifiable force, and falls to anything greater than that. Of course, 9hp is significantly on the low side for a hill giant, but the rules tell us that these do exist. This one is just significantly less tough than its brethren. It probably doesn't get in a lot of fights. Likewise, it's possible for a goblin chieftain to have more than 9hp. It's possible for the world's toughest goblin to be tougher than the world's weakest giant. But in every case, that HP total still represents its ability to withstand an impact of given force. Or, alternatively, and still well within the bounds of HP as explained by Mr. Gygax, this particular giant, while just as tough as other giants, simply lacks the connections to fate and luck needed to avoid a particularly ...

Saturday, 18th May, 2019

  • 06:10 PM - DMMike quoted Saelorn in post Thinking about an advancement system
    There needed to be? Doesn't common sense apply at this stage? Nope. This is the Internet. If you can only roll when the GM tells you to, then the method of play becomes convincing the GM that you should be allowed to roll. If you can only advance when there would be a consequence for failure, then your job is to convince the GM that the consequences would be meaningful. The rules put the GM in the position of playing the bad guy, who resists your attempts at having fun. There is a good point here, although I'm about as happy with the packaging as Umbran is. Advancement by (conflict resolution) failure means there's no advancement if the GM doesn't ask for conflict rolls. In such a situation, yes, the player has an incentive to try and roll. Which is bass ackwards to me, since it drives me nuts when players roll before they role. Percentile system. Everything is a skill. You improve with failure. Every time you fail a skill check, the skill improves by 1%. Technically they c...
  • 03:00 AM - MwaO quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    You are factually incorrect on this point. I played at level 16, and nothing was going down from one hit, unless it was a minion. A level 1 (non-minion) goblin has between 25 and 29 HP. As a level 16 character, my at-will arrows still only deal 1d8+10 (or so). Even my encounter powers could fail to break 25, if I rolled low. Here's the general rule of thumb about at-will damage: If you're a striker in 4e, you ought to be doing your level*2 damage. Creatures gain 8 hp per level, so if you gain 2 every level, you kill an at-level standard in the same number of hits. So if you're a striker, you ought to be doing about 32 damage with your at-wills at 16th. As an example, a Rogue starting with an 18 Dex/16 Cha would end up with a 22 Dex/20 Cha at 16th. Sly Flourish does 1d4+Str+Cha as a baseline because of that. You ought to have a +4 weapon at 16th. You do +3d6 sneak attack damage. That's 1d4+15+3d6 or 28 right there. A Ranger doing Twin Strike with a 22 Dex & Quarry ought to do 2d10+8+2d6 ...

Friday, 17th May, 2019

  • 05:06 PM - CapnZapp quoted Saelorn in post If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be?
    (Feel free to answer "none") In my case, however, it would be rpgs about Conan. I can't help it - I know Howard's Conan is sexist (and racist), and yet, that's (part of) what draws me to that universe and those stories. Does that make me a sexist or racist in real-life? No, not more than killing monsters makes me a murderer in real-life, but whatever - that's not the point, so if it makes you feel better let's say my answer is "yep; now moving on". Yes, I consider Frazetta-like imagery (in text as well as actual images) an important value-adder to the prospect of playing in the Hyborian Age. Note: in many games (including 5E D&D) you can play a straight-up Fighter with no Strength at all. In other words, this isn't about restricting access to particular classes. For a significant period in the eighties and nineties, it was not uncommon for a game to present stat modifiers based on the gender of the character. More often then not, men would have a bonus to Strength and women wo...

Thursday, 16th May, 2019

  • 08:33 PM - Umbran quoted Saelorn in post Thinking about an advancement system
    That wasn't how the rule was presented, in the opening post. Dude. Give some slack for it being an *idea*, not a polished work for publication, hm? There was no caveat about "only the GM decides when you roll" or "only when failure would have a consequence". There needed to be? Doesn't common sense apply at this stage? I mean, in your game, do the players say, "Okay, before we begin, I spend a month hunting down (checks calculations) 432 rats, which pose no physical threat to me. I slay them, and go up a level,"? If not, suggesting that would be allowed here seems... a bit like you think the author is kind of stupid. If you can only roll when the GM tells you to, then the method of play becomes convincing the GM that you should be allowed to roll. Wow. Who do you play with? Do your sessions look like this: Player: "I attack (*rolls dice*) and kill the orc!" GM: What orc? I didn't say there was an orc here. Player: Well, I don't have to wait for you to tell me ...
  • 06:47 PM - Staffan quoted Saelorn in post Shadowrun Sixth World Beginner Box Review
    My big concern is that Edge feels a lot more like a game mechanic, and less like something that makes sense with how the world works. Sure, 3E had a lot of fiddly modifiers, but they all made sense from an in-character perspective. I'm afraid that I'll be placed in a position to take particular actions "because it generates Edge" rather than because it makes sense on its own. If the mechanic is well-implemented, things work the other way around. You don't do things because they generate Edge. You do things because they put you at an advantage, and that advantage is reflected by gaining Edge.
  • 03:53 PM - Umbran quoted Saelorn in post Thinking about an advancement system
    So the adventure "starts", and then everyone spends a month in their basement to max out all of their skills. That image is based on flawed (or mis-represented) versions of the concept. Specifically - in such a scenario, the player does not get to claim they may make die rolls sequestered in a basement. The GM says when a skill check is called for, and should only call for a skill check when failure would have a narrative consequence in the scenario. Sitting in your safe, isolated basement far from anything like meaningful action does not put you in a situation where failure will change the narrative, so you can't earn experience that way. On the general method: I, personally, prefer to not have to consider my character advancement during the action of play. I find it either distracts from the action, or gets forgotten in the midst of the action. A variant that allows me to deal with the advancement *after* the action scenes would be preferable.

Wednesday, 15th May, 2019

  • 10:34 PM - Morrus quoted Saelorn in post Deleted Posts
  • 10:15 PM - Morrus quoted Saelorn in post Thinking about an advancement system
    I'm not a fan of any system where the optimal path of advancement involves sitting around and practicing your skills instead of having adventures. If the world really worked this way, then anyone would start their heroic career by grinding in their basement for a month until they could no longer fail. One can reasonably assume that XP is only gained during the course of an adventure. Otherwise itís not really a game.
  • 03:58 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    Put an ogre and a goblin in the same room. How much force does it take to KO the ogre? Is it more or less than the amount of force carried by a single arrow? How much force to KO the goblin? It should take less force to KO the goblin than it does to KO the ogre, right? That's what I mean by consistency. In every earlier edition, we knew how hard you would have to hit the ogre in order to make it stop moving, and we knew the same in regards to the goblin. It was a consistent HP value. One hit from an arrow would kill a goblin, but not an ogre. Actually, this is nonsense. In my old 2e campaign I had a setup where the party would almost immediately run into a Hill Giant. How many hit points did this Hill Giant have? 9! Perfectly legal Hill Giant right out of the MM. It was pretty amusing, because here's this monstrous and terrifying creature, but on average a fighter with a bastard sword (2-16 damage vs large IIRC) will kill it in 1-2 blows, tops. Now, the giant was still DANGEROUS, but exactly...

Tuesday, 14th May, 2019

  • 10:22 PM - Abstruse quoted Saelorn in post Shadowrun Sixth World Beginner Box Review
    My big concern is that Edge feels a lot more like a game mechanic, and less like something that makes sense with how the world works. Sure, 3E had a lot of fiddly modifiers, but they all made sense from an in-character perspective. I'm afraid that I'll be placed in a position to take particular actions "because it generates Edge" rather than because it makes sense on its own. Do you know whether all of those Edge-related factors also have a direct impact, aside from the Edge? If I have thermographic vision in a dark room, do I also negate the darkness penalty to hit, or is it all rolled up into the Edge mechanic? I mean, it is a game mechanic. But it's a single mechanic that replaces a bunch of other mechanics. Edge is an expression of one side having an advantage - you know, an "edge" - on the other side. So there is no darkness penalty to hit. Because such a penalty only really matters if it affects one side but not the other. If you're in a dark room and both sides have low light or thermo...
  • 06:08 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    If we take as a given that HP objectively measure the ability of a creature to withstand a violent impact without falling, the way HP were actually used at many tables throughout every earlier edition, then it means any minion has absolutely zero tolerance for injury. It means a level 11 ogre minion has a much lower tolerance for injury than a level 1 non-minion goblin. If you objectively test their ability to survive a minor nuisance - have a level 1 fighter throw a dagger at each - then the ogre will die from the first hit, every time, while the goblin survives multiple hits. That's setting aside the nonsense about using different stat blocks to represent the same creature, based on party level, which so many 4E-defenders endorse. At least the designers don't come right out and suggest that technique, in the book. They probably realized how idiotic it would sound. It isn't idiotic or absurd at all, it is simply practical, and it makes perfectly good narrative sense. There is, in world term...

Monday, 13th May, 2019

  • 12:46 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    I said that you can explain HP and damage consistently by saying that a given amount of damage represents an objectively quantifiable amount of force, which is true. An arrow that imparts 8 units of force, will impart that same amount of force whether it hits someone with 6hp or 600hp. The only difference is whether or not the impact causes the victim to drop. OK, so how does this not fit with 4e? I don't get it. Not saying I buy this as a viable way to reason about this kind of thing, but if we're going to work with it, then how does 4e not do this the same? You can say that's how it is, but you're wrong; that's how it is at your table. Your table is no more representative of the collective experience than mine is. We'll never come to any peace here unless we accept that other people played differently. OK, then give me the fiction that works for both of them. I'm not interested in being told that something can or cannot be done, SHOW ME. If a game wants to call itself an RPG, rather ...

Sunday, 12th May, 2019

  • 04:41 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    Any serious idea can be presented comically, but that's just a matter of presentation, and says nothing about the idea itself. In this case, nobody said anything about longbow arrows piercing a body. And even if they did, there's no reason why that has to be inherently silly. I've seen stories where a sufficiently powerful fighter continues to fight, even with three or four arrows sticking out of his back, and those characters were never presented as the almighty warrior-god that a level 11 ranger might be. (Seriously, you're talking about a level 11 character, in a game where level 6 is already incredibly impressive.) Is it? And if so, doesn't that mean that there's a point at which you cannot say, in 1e in this case, that a fixed amount of damage still represents a specific fiction. Its unavoidable, and what you're saying is just admitting it! Now, I used my 11th level PC with a lot of hit points as an example, but your average 5th level fighter with a 15 CON has an average of 32 hit points...

Saturday, 11th May, 2019

  • 11:13 PM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    Believe it or not, people have been describing HP damage as objectively quantifiable for as long as the game has been around. It actually works pretty well, as long as you ignore Gygax's flawed explanation of what he was trying to do, and just take everything at face value. In any other edition, you can assign a consistent value to 48 damage, whether in terms of force applied or severity of injury, and it makes sense. Fourth Edition is the only edition where a creature's HP total can change depending on who is attacking it. It's the only edition where an ogre might have different stat blocks, depending on whether you approach it when you are level 1 or level 21. That uniquely divorces the game mechanics from any sort of consistent meaning within the narrative. That is why 4E is being singled out here. It's the one edition where you can't ascribe consistent meaning to the mechanics, or else you're stuck trying to explain how any minion survived into adulthood with only 1hp. So, my 96 hit poi...

Thursday, 9th May, 2019

  • 10:32 PM - Atlictoatl quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    What I can't do is explain how much punishment a creature can really take, because that explanation doesn't actually exist. The only possible explanation of how to use minions is to deny that numbers have inherent meaning, and that's a line I'm not willing to cross. That's not something that any other edition has asked of me, and I'm honestly a bit offended that the designers would do such a thing; I thought I knew what I was buying, when I chose to buy those rulebooks, but they tricked me. That's why 4E is different (to answer the reply from the other poster). I get it. Some people don't ascribe objective meaning to game mechanics. Those people can play 4E as easily as they could play 1E or 3E. Not everyone falls into that category, though. If the designers were really intent on crossing that line, then the least they should have done was to warn people. That's all I have to say on the topic. I thought I'd already made that clear, before you decided to drag me back in here.Fair enough. And...
  • 09:30 PM - Atlictoatl quoted Saelorn in post In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective
    Fourth Edition is the only edition where a creature's HP total can change depending on who is attacking it. It's the only edition where an ogre might have different stat blocks, depending on whether you approach it when you are level 1 or level 21. That uniquely divorces the game mechanics from any sort of consistent meaning within the narrative. That is why 4E is being singled out here. It's the one edition where you can't ascribe consistent meaning to the mechanics, or else you're stuck trying to explain how any minion survived into adulthood with only 1hp.Are you belaboring the bolded section to make a rhetorical point, or do you legitimately not understand how to explain minions at your table? Because we understand your rhetoric, and have pointed out why it's flawed and rhetorical. To continue picking at it implies either an inability to engage beyond what you've already said on the subject, or some other agenda. In the assumption that the conceptual intent of minions in 4e escapes you (t...


Saelorn's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites