View Profile: Eric V - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:09 AM
    Can't decide if its 2e or 3.5. To me 2e will always have a mystique that nothing can compare with. If it had the sorcerer it would be perfect to me. On the other hand 3.5 is the whole opposite, it has the sorcerer and I feel comfortable with it.
    134 replies | 3495 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 03:36 AM
    This is a cool guide. Just a couple of precisions: Remember to include a link to the free Elemental Evil Player's Guide. That one has cool cantrips and races. Sorcerers can be damage dealers, but that way lies quick resource depletion and nova damage. Another -better (IMO)-way to play them is focusing on buffing/debuffing. They are the only full caster proficient at Concentration saves and the...
    15 replies | 613 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Thursday, 9th May, 2019, 11:07 AM
    Ahhh now I have to get the thing.
    44 replies | 2741 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 11:54 PM
    This is immersion breaking. I mean unless you allow your PCs to get their hands on the NPCs spellbook?
    30 replies | 1128 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 10:20 PM
    Cross quoting form another thread: That's a funny thing. While the sorcerer sorely needs more obvious subclasses -limited by the release schedule, the designers had to choose, even if the other four or five proposed subclasses had made the cut, that's but the tip of the iceberg- the designers kept scrapping the bottom of the barrel to give the wizard a token archetype in the same book. We...
    76 replies | 5022 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 04:18 AM
    Maybe, but quoting an old book on my father's library "The more general something is, the least appropriate it is to do anything". A generic Mage class would indeed be able to cover the three classes, but only so much. It would either fail to cover what makes the D&D wizard iconic, or it would do a poor job covering sorcerer and warlock.(As was the case during the playtest, the Mage was tailored...
    53 replies | 2736 view(s)
    2 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 09:52 PM
    The thing is, the sorcerer is still necessary despite the mechanical improvements on the wizard. Something that is easy to miss is that things are as defined by what is in them as are by what isn't. The Magic User of old was a very specific type of spellcaster regardless of the actual mechanics. That class saw magic as a goal all by itself, and always as something acquired and desired by the...
    53 replies | 2736 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 03:41 AM
    Well, the playtest was extremely 4eish. Everybody on the same schedule with feats to account for difference, lots of hp at first level, round by round tracking of effects that could end without even getting a benefit, overly punishing math that demands feat taxes, feat based multiclassing with hard limits, class dictating gear and combat style, pushing paladins into tank role, poor utility for...
    158 replies | 9261 view(s)
    3 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Sunday, 28th April, 2019, 05:00 PM
    I will support PF2. As long as it does sorcerers justice -I mean if my sorceress can still cast spells while bound and gagged- I expect to at least get the core book and the bestiary. I could even get that book with houserules and tinkering guidelines. I can handle a lot of stuff, I don't care too much for complexity, and I could live without organic multiclassing. But as long as I get that...
    158 replies | 9261 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Thursday, 25th April, 2019, 01:59 PM
    And a third bot... At least this one took Garthanos post instead of mine
    33 replies | 2896 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019, 02:12 PM
    What's the deal with bots and my post?
    33 replies | 2896 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Eric V

Basic Information

Date of Birth
December 31, 1974 (44)
About Eric V
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
710
Posts Per Day
0.41
Last Post
D&D storylines for a movie? Saturday, 23rd March, 2019 01:35 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
16
General Information
Last Activity
Sunday, 28th April, 2019 03:29 PM
Join Date
Thursday, 4th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. MoonSong MoonSong is offline

    Member

    MoonSong
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to show...

Wednesday, 26th September, 2018

  • 08:32 PM - Sadras mentioned Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Charlaquin and Eric V I think another factor in this discussion and why there might be a divide is, frequency of play. The more frequently one plays, getting through the material and roleplaying various class, then the greater the likelihood one will be asking for something like an Advanced Player's Guide for more variation.

Wednesday, 29th August, 2018

  • 10:12 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Eric V in post Revised Ranger update
    ...ff from earlier posts, but, is the issue on the table right now pet survivability? Is that right? So, here are three solutions: 1. Give pets max HP. 2. Give pets Resistance to all forms of damage. The bonding of the ranger and the pet makes the pet more durable. 3. The pet and the ranger share a single pool of HP. Yes, that means that a Beast Master ranger gets a bunch more HP, but, he's also twice as vulnerable to attacks. Keeps the pet alive and done. What more do we really need? I'm liking the 3rd option the more I think about it. May end up fiddling around with it, but it adds more to the story that the ability to revive the beast has for the Beastmaster and gets that mystic bond I want pretty dead on. As discussed extensively in this thread, using the pet the way the designers intended. Now, did they make a misstep with theit intention versus player expectations? Probably. Doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work. Eric V If you don't want to look back through the thread, I believe Parmandur is talking about the expectation that the Beast master's companion is disposable and dies very often, only to be replaced by another disposable beast that will die very quickly. So you don't have a companion, you have a missile you send after your enemies (reference to a story where someone was told not to act like a missile in a fight by flying in head-first "because you don't reuse a missile") Why is it a contradiction? Why can’t my pet help me for most of combat to control the battlefield, then go in for the kill at the end? Just because you get the 11th level feature doesn’t mean it has to be used every round. The Beastmaster Ranger is designed as a controller. And you designate control as "stand there and look threatening if they try and leave?" Beastmaster Ranger would then be designed as one of the worst controllers, who generally can shape the battlefield by affec...
  • 02:40 AM - TheCosmicKid mentioned Eric V in post Revised Ranger update
    Which is what new spells or feats would do at the cost of a bit of power elsewhere. Why is that not a fair trade off? The UA Ranger is popular because it is straight up power creep. But I’ve offered a set of feats and spells that will increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of your companion at the cost of being able to do other Ranger spell related things or of an ASI or other feat. And I’m hearing, no, that’s not okay, I want my concept and what the other Rangers already have. That’s an increase in power level. These spells and feats aren’t taxes, they are trade offs. And if having your animal companion be a DPR boosting meat shield is what you want out of it, you should have to pay for that with other class features. There's some truth to what you say, but also some truth to what Eric V says. Some things l may merit trading off for, like how many hit points the companion has. But other elements of the companion, like being able to act independently, are pretty essential on a conceptual level, and requiring a spell or feat for it would indeed constitute a tax (and be kind of bizarre). Fixing that kind of stuff may be "power creep", but it's only creeping the class' power to the point where it should have been in the first place.

Friday, 1st December, 2017

  • 03:08 AM - Hussar mentioned Eric V in post Running D&D 5e for Levels 10+
    ...y DPS. 3. Tap in 3 levels of Bear Totem Barbarian to any solo monster. ((Thus increasing it's HP, effectively doubling its HP as well (except to psychic damage) and granting attack, skill and damage bonuses)) 4. Actually follow the 6-8 encounter/day guidelines. 5. Remove the +5/-10 feats. 6. Design encounters so that they do not directly challenge PC strengths or, if you want to directly challenge PC strengths, accept that these encounters will be far easier than expected. 7. Use terrain and scenario design features to challenge PC's. Lighting, unstable footing, choke points, whatever. 8. Add in character levels to any monster to greatly increase monster options. Imagine a demon with a few levels of warlock, being able to see clearly in 120 feet of darkness, and using spells like Hunger of Hadar. There. Surely any or all of those options, which took me all of 5 minutes to come up with, would solve 99% of your problems. The only issue now is YOU (not you Eric V, but the general you) have to do the work. Easy peasy.

Tuesday, 5th September, 2017

  • 05:59 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Eric V in post How viable is 5E to play at high levels?
    Sounds good. But good rarely sells to D&Ders... ;P :D My ideas are taking hold! Including these two with @TwoSix and @Eric V , that is at least 4!!! Probably The catch being WotC doesn't make many books anymore, so something like that won't be coming soon. My guess is a magic item book in 2018 and psionics in 2019. So the earliest for something like that would be 2020. It's really the kind of product that might work better as a series of En5ider articles or a 3rd Party product. I agree with the first two parts. Don't agree with the last part. My guess is folks like the 4 mentioned above (except maybe Tony) and others like them are looking for design and implementation backed by an intimate understanding of system maths and knock-on effects. Balancing (even roughly) something like the ability I mentioned above (for the Marilith) requires a lot of consideration and depth of understanding of system maths/action economy ramifications/CR and encounter budget ramifications, and multiple iteration capacity. I think folks looking not just for interesting thematics, but also systemitized balance and tactical...

Sunday, 27th November, 2016

  • 04:30 PM - OB1 mentioned Eric V in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    All those lend themselves naturally towards a small number (maybe one) of encounters rather than a drip drip of smaller ones. I'm starting to find (and others including yourself are backing me up on this conclusion) that this doesn't work very well out of the box. Knasser - this is the heart of the argument. You are correct that 5e does not support this style out of the box. 5e is designed around adventurers facing several smaller challenges throughout the day rather than one large one. Additionally, 5e is designed so that the challenge is appropriate for casual players and therefore does not require system mastery. Asking for more detail in monster stat blocks is reasonable (though it might come at a cost of fewer monsters or a more expensive book, since it would take up more room), but changing the adventuring day or system mastery assumptions, as you, Eric V, and CapnZapp are arguing for, is not directly compatible and would require massive changes in assumptions to the game. You can't have a monster that, out of the box, is both an acceptable challenge at the end of a 5-6 encounter adventuring day and at the start of one. You can't have a monster that requires system mastery for a party of 4 to defeat and can also be taken down by a party of first time players with 15's in their combat stats and the linguist feat. So the designers created a rule set that skews heavily to new and casual players, and gave the tools necessary to challenge veteran and system mastery players to the DM of such a group. And even here, as long as you are willing to follow the encounter guidelines, challenging a group with system mastery requires nothing more than adding a few encounters straight out of the box until you get to the level of challenge necessary. Thanks to the emphasis on narrative combat, adding encounters is much simpler in 5e than some previo...

Wednesday, 9th December, 2015


Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Eric V in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...r(zzzzzzzzzz…) @3e4ever ; @77IM @Aaron Of Barbaria; @AbdulAlhazred ; @admcewen ; @Aenghus ; @Ahrimon ; @Ainulindalion ; @airwalkrr; @Aldarc ; @akr71 ; @AmerginLiath ; @Andor ; @AntiStateQuixote ; @aramis erak; @Aribar ; @Arnwolf ; @Ashkelon ; @Ashrym ; @Athinar ; @AtomicPope ; @Azurewraith; @Azzy ; @Bawylie ; @bedir than ; @Bedrockgames ; @bert1000 ; @billd91 ; @Blackbrrd; @Blackwarder ; @Blue ; @Bluenose ; @brehobit ; @BryonD ; @Bupp ; @Campbell ; @CapnZapp; @CaptainConundrum ; @CaptainGemini ; @Carlsen Chris ; @casterblaster ; @CasvalRemDeikun; @cbwjm ; @ccooke ; @Celebrim ; @Celondon @ChameleonX ; @Charles Wright ; ChrisCarlson; @CM ; @cmad1977 ; @costermonger ; @Creamsteak ; @Crothian ; @Cybit ; @Dausuul; @Dayte ; @dd.stevenson ; @DEFCON 1 ; @Delazar ; @DersitePhantom ; @Diffan ; @discosoc; @D'karr ; @Doc Klueless ; @doctorbadwolf ; @DonAdam ; @Dragoslav ; @Duganson; @EdL ; @EditorBFG ; @Edwin Suijkerbuijk ; @Eejit ; @ehren37 ; @Elfcrusher ; @El Mahdi ; @epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ; @Gimul; @GMforPowergamers ; @Gnashtooth ; @Green1 ; @GreenKarl ; @Greg K ; @GreyLord; @Grimmjow ; @Grydan ; @GX.Sigma ; @Halivar ; @HEEGZ ; @Hemlock ; @Henry ; @Herobizkit; @Hussar; @IchneumonWasp ; @I'm A Banana ; @Imaro ; @Iosue ; @Irennan ; @JackOfAllTirades; @jacktannery ; @jadrax ; @Jaelommiss ; @JamesTheLion ; @JamesonCourage ; @JasonZZ; @jayoungr ; @JediGamemaster ; @JeffB ; @Jester Canuck ; @jgsugden ; @jodyjohnson; @Joe Liker ; @JohnLynch ; @Johnny3D3D ; @KarinsDad ; @kerbarian ; @kerleth ; @Kinak; @KingsRule77 ; @Kirfalas ; @Kobold Stew ; @koga305 ; @Lanefan ; @Lanliss ; @Leatherhead; @Libramarian ; @Li Shenron ; @LuisCarlos17f ; @lowkey13 ; @Manbearcat ; @MarkB; @MechaPilot ; @Mecheon...

Wednesday, 2nd September, 2015

  • 12:07 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Eric V in post Warlording the fighter
    ...antage to checks for fatigue due to a forced march, etc.) …look at mass combat rules… Rally the Troops Once per long rest, a Warlord can motivate and focus their group with a stirring speech (whatever group they are leading at the time, be it their adventuring group, a company, or a whole army). Doing so either allows all members of the group to recover hit points equivalent to the Warlord’s Wisdom or Charisma modifier times ½ the allies level (minimum of 1), or free all members of the group from non-magical fear (the Frightened condition), or reduce any effects due to exhaustion by one level. The group must be within hearing range of the Warlord, and only affects members not at 0 hit points. Command Actions (in-work) Individual tactics or maneuvers - based on Battlemaster maneuvers, 4E Warlord powers, etc. @fuindordm @Tony Vargas @GMforPowergamers @Hussar @cbwjm @epithet @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) @bert1000 EzekielRaiden @Manbearcat @Uchawi @Ashkelon @Eric V @pemerton @Jester Canuck @Bluenose @Minigiant @I'm A Banana @aramis erak @Warbringer @Leatherhead @ehren37 @Winterthorn @TheHobgoblin @Neonchameleon @Obryn @Imaro @nomotog @Ashrym @The_Gneech @Remathilis @Olgar Shiverstone @Sacrosanct @Gimul @Twiggly the Gnome @CapnZapp @MechaPilot @kerbarian @Psikerlord# @jgsugden @DEFCON 1

Tuesday, 25th August, 2015

  • 10:29 PM - Quickleaf mentioned Eric V in post Night Below 5E Conversion
    Eric V Thanks! Derro should be easy, probably need 3 types: a base Derro, a lieutenant type who is the child of a derro leader with better HP & gear, and a Derro Savant. The Ixitxachitl /Ixtan (?) will take a bit more thought. EDIT: And sometime the work is done for you! http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2851-OU-OF-THE-ABYSS-Has-Derro-Check-Them-Out!#.Vd2OWNNViko

Tuesday, 30th June, 2015

  • 02:00 AM - Manbearcat mentioned Eric V in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    ...non that I invoked quite a bit in the "Best of 4e" thread as 5e being very vulnerable to the phenomenon due to its construct and its ethos. It is the phenomenon that you're seeing Tony Vargas not just saying 5e is vulnerable to, but advocating the technique as the best/required way to run 5e. Force is a technique that subordinates player agency or player authorship rights over their thematic, strategic, or tactical decision-making and/or the authentic/legitimate output of the resolution mechanics when they are consulted "to find out what happens." Suspension, abridgment or fudging of the action resolution mechanics or their results is the classic example of Force. Done by the GM it is GM Force. Done covertly (without knowledge or consent by the players) it is called Illusionism. Done prolifically and outside of the established social contract, it is called Railroading. Players consenting to such a scenario is called Participationism. It is the reason that you're seeing Eric V protesting and crying foul. There are a few assumptions built into this. One is that retries are permitted. 4e is a bit ambiguous on this, but there was a Save My Game column some years ago now advocating "Let it Ride" for 4e, and that is pretty clearly how a skill challenge works, because every retry costs you a failure, and three failures bring the challenge to an end. Also true and addressing one of the aspects of KM's posts that I have a problem with. The only thing I'll add here is that I don't think 4e is ambiguous on it at all. 1) Mutliple of those Save My Game articles and Skill Challenge articles advocated for: a) Let It Ride with the situation dynamically changing after each resolution b) Success with Complications c) Failing Forward 2) The advice in the DMGs, especially DMG 2, were stoutly in the corner of the situation changing dynamically post-resolution. People brought (utterly incoherent) process-sim carry-over for Extended Contests from 3.x...

Friday, 26th June, 2015

  • 11:09 PM - Quickleaf mentioned Eric V in post How are you all finding the encounter building rules working out at higher levels?
    Eric V Thanks for the shout-out :) Always happy to see my homebrew work get put to use. As for your question: What sort of challenge would a demilich (CR 20) be for a party of six 12th level PCs? First, there is the by-the-book answer (DMG pg. 82): Your party's Hard XP threshold is 18,000 and their Deadly XP threshold is 27,000. So strictly by the XP numbers your encounter is Hard. But you need to know more than just the XP numbers. However, the DMG warns you to use caution when using a much higher CR than your party's level. And CR 20 vs. 12th levels certainly qualifies. Second, you need to do the work comparing the proposed monster (demilich) to your PCs stats and abilities. I don't know your party's composition, but here is an example of the sort of pre-game work you need to do if you want to use an excessively higher CR monster. My litmus test if a monster is over-powered is if they could theoretically drop the party cleric on the first round of combat. Let's say your par...

Wednesday, 3rd December, 2014

  • 02:55 AM - pemerton mentioned Eric V in post On the healing options in the 5e DMG
    Well, no need to be shy I'm fairly aware I'm quite quirky anyway so no surprise here, maybe I'm just a little weird for not always wanting to kill things and take their stuff. I think "not wanting to kill things and take their stuff" is completely orthogonal here. In any edition of D&D, non-combat resolution is not constrained by a tight action economy, and so whether healing is a "minor" action or a "standard" action has no bearing on its efficacy. My main point of agreement with Eric V is in respect of the "healing to death" - what you're actually describing is an inability to manage action surges (presumably due to inexperience). It seems to me to be similar to an AD&D player complaining that s/he was "healed to death" because the cleric spent all his/her Cure Light Wounds spells healing 1 hp or 2 hp injuries, and hence had none left when a character suffered a 10 hp injury and hence was dropped to negatives and dying. As far as providing support in combat is concerned, I can only assume you weren't making robust use of the "standard action to trigger a saving throw" option, nor (presumably) did your GM put you in situations in which there were interesting things to do with your standard action while your friends beat up on things. (Despite there being plenty of GMing advice to this effect in the 4e DMGs.) Which actually connects to the other strand of discussion on this thread.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 28 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 30th November, 2018

  • 12:32 AM - Mercurius quoted Eric V in post 4.33 Years in: What Now for 5E? (and have we reached "Peak Edition?")
    I paid $50 for all three core rulebooks in 2003. $100 for 4e in 2008. And $150 in 2014. So having them do an "inflation bump" of the books in a year or two wouldn't be beyond reason. Maybe to to $65 per book. But I imagine the digital price will grow as well. But that's a bit deceptive, because you could have paid $90 for all three in 2014, but you (presumably)bought from an FLGS. If I remember correctly, the MSRPs of the PHB by edition were: 1E (1978): I think it started at $9.95 in the 70s but was $12.95 (?) by the time the orange spine version came out in 1983. I know this went up to $15 by 1987. 2E (1989): $20.00 3E (2000): $19.95 3.5E (2003): $29.95 4E (2008): $34.95 5E (2014): $49.95 Interesting to note that the MSRP of the 2E and 3E PHBs were the same, 11 years apart. Presumably printing costs went down? Or maybe the rise of the internet? 3.5 is partially inflated because it became a bigger book, or maybe 3.x was too cheaply priced. That 4E to 5E jump is the most worrisome - t...

Thursday, 29th November, 2018

  • 11:38 PM - Mercurius quoted Eric V in post 4.33 Years in: What Now for 5E? (and have we reached "Peak Edition?")
    I think the last bit is right, just like film fanatics can find a few theatres that still show movies in 35mm, but 99% of moviegoers see films projected digitally. When that $30/$50 hardcover becomes $90/$150 in a couple of years, it will make digital very attractive, and an absolute requirement for the hobby to continue to grow. Do you really think print costs will triple "in a couple of years?" A couple is two...or are you being less literal and mean something like 5-20?
  • 09:06 PM - Umbran quoted Eric V in post 4.33 Years in: What Now for 5E? (and have we reached "Peak Edition?")
    There are quite a few things that 5e could use improvement upon from a (long-time) gamer perspective, and from the point of view of game theory, mechanics, etc. Doesn't mean these things are completely broken or whatnot, just that they exist in the game for reasons other than pure game design. And, it is important to note that D&D is not pure game, in the game theory or mechanics design sense. Pure game doesn't care about this pesky narrative stuff. The lean to have more rulings, rather than rules, is a strong acceptance of that fact.
  • 06:07 PM - Aldarc quoted Eric V in post 4.33 Years in: What Now for 5E? (and have we reached "Peak Edition?")
    D&D (why even bother using the "5e" tag?) as it is now is how it will be. Some style variants? Sure (LotR Risk, for example). Slight changes (through errata like the slightly different versions of Fury of Dracula)? Sure. But sweeping changes like 3e to 4e? 2e to 3e? Even 3e to 3.5? Nah. No money in it. Not now, and not for the conceivable future.I personally find this difficult to believe. The idea that there will not be any major changes to D&D in the future just because it is presently riding high in popularity seems somewhat short-sighted. It's inevitable. Popularity and tastes of the game will change. Many of the edition changes in D&D often represent these changes of tastes and game design philosophies. Personally, I know from my own track record in this hobby that I would and will lose prolonged interest in D&D without those rule upheavals. It undeniably kept my interest fresh and renewed my sense of experiencing the game anew. It's why I jumped from 3 to 3.5e. It's why ...
  • 02:48 PM - Aebir-Toril quoted Eric V in post 4.33 Years in: What Now for 5E? (and have we reached "Peak Edition?")
    There are quite a few things that 5e could use improvement upon from a (long-time) gamer perspective, and from the point of view of game theory, mechanics, etc. Doesn't mean these things are completely broken or whatnot, just that they exist in the game for reasons other than pure game design. Note: None of these issues seem to have affected its popularity. D&D is more popular than ever. In the old days, with a much smaller market of long-time gamers, there would be good reason to re-vamp the game now and then. The audience is waaay beyond that now, though; just as board games made a resurgence a few years ago to a higher degree of popularity than before, D&D has done the same. And done so following the board game model. There won't be a Catan 2e. Monopoly hasn't changed, nor has Risk...this is it. D&D (why even bother using the "5e" tag?) as it is now is how it will be. Some style variants? Sure (LotR Risk, for example). Slight changes (through errata like the slightly diff...

Friday, 23rd November, 2018

  • 07:29 PM - clearstream quoted Eric V in post What are the 3 best cantrips a Tomelock can choose?
    For their Book of Shadows, I should clarify. I was thinking Guidance, Message and Resistance. Any other opinions? Guidance is one of the strongest cantrips. On par with Eldritch Blast (but obviously in the exploration and social pillars, not combat). Other damage-dealing cantrips won't match Eldritch Blast of course, so it is their secondary effects that are of any interest. With that in mind - Frostbite? Resistance is good but uses your concentration, which I believe can be problematic. Blade Ward is occasionally useful. I like Mending and Message, but when it comes to utility I think Mage Hand is pretty... handy...

Saturday, 6th October, 2018

  • 08:02 PM - Jay Verkuilen quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Part of the reason it's not done is the reason I mentioned upthread about how people want "official" products only: Another reason many folks go "official only" or at least "WotC only" is that it helps broker peace at the table. In 3.X especially there was a lot of OP third party content (or even WotC published content) and more potentially broken combos. Even if the content wasn't broken it could be hard for the DM or other players to keep track of it all. "We're only using WotC-published material" just cuts all that short. All these people who do this in their spare time (unless they have a TON of that...) who think they can produce better work...man, I don't know. Sounds like hubris to me, especially since WotC can bring more resources to bear on the idea than I can (playtesting, for example). Maybe but in many cases a home designer isn't constrained the way the pros are. For example, the 2E designers were instructed to maintain as much backwards compatibility with 1E material. Thus...

Sunday, 30th September, 2018

  • 01:41 PM - CapnZapp quoted Eric V in post The Only Thing I Don't Like About 5e! (Hint- ASIs)
    I don't think it's up for debate that in terms of bang for your buck, ASIs in your primary stat are better than feats. Having said that, if your DM runs encounters using the CR system as presented (especially with the modifiers for additional creatures), you won't miss the extra plusses that come from the ASI. In this, CapnZapp s assertion that D&D is too easy can be made to work for the game; go ahead and take Keen Mind or Actor, it won't affect the math in combat and skills overmuch. There are corner cases, of course, but a game where no ASIs existed wouldn't need to be tweaked at all as far as things like encounter-building are concerned, I suspect. Why was I summoned to this thread? I'm not advocating a "since the game is too easy, you don't need to minmax" argument. I'm not saying that line of reasoning is false, just unsatisfying. I'm much more interested in us fans applying pressure on WotC to improve the game so a) the game is not too easy when feats and multiclassing is used, a...

Friday, 28th September, 2018

  • 02:50 PM - TwoSix quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    In a lot of ways, I feel too much was designed into the base class, leaving too little to differentiate in the various subclasses. The reason the Urban Ranger is hard to design as a subclass is an example of this, and I feel paladins have too many of their abilities baked into the core class as well (e.g a Vengeance Paladin doesn't really need Lay on Hands thematically; would have been nice to see that as an option, with something more vengeful to replace it). Lots of classes would differentiate nicely with more options moved from base to sub-. I swear I remember some of the Next design in late 2012, maybe into 2013 experimenting in that direction. There were only 4 classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), with a very loose skeleton, and most of the differentiation was within the subclass. Like sorcerer and warlock were wizard subclasses, and druid was a cleric subclass. I actually like that design direction, Shadow of the Demon Lord does something very similar and that's one of ...
  • 02:24 PM - Parmandur quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    In a lot of ways, I feel too much was designed into the base class, leaving too little to differentiate in the various subclasses. The reason the Urban Ranger is hard to design as a subclass is an example of this, and I feel paladins have too many of their abilities baked into the core class as well (e.g a Vengeance Paladin doesn't really need Lay on Hands thematically; would have been nice to see that as an option, with something more vengeful to replace it). Lots of classes would differentiate nicely with more options moved from base to sub-. What's interesting there, to me, is that the Classes in 5E that fall under that rubric, we're introduced in the 70's as Subclasses themselves...

Thursday, 27th September, 2018

  • 06:15 PM - Satyrn quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to? :) No. My idea of an advanced players handbook with a lot less mechanical bits would be a reflection of Charlaquin's with lots more. It's not really about sheer number of choices of character building option, but the number of choice points. I'm talking about a version of D&D where I choose my race and class, gain a couple features at 1st level and then never have to make another character building choice again. The Basic rules don't give me that. Even with the champion, I have ASIs to allocate, for example, and all the classes still gain too many features overall. In a nutshell, I want more classes to choose from than the Basic Rules give, but I want each of those classes to have fewer features than the PH gives them.
  • 07:00 AM - UngeheuerLich quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Yeah, I'm sure sometimes that's true. I agree. Not when I look at the Sorcerer, though (just as an example). That really seems mailed-in to me. I respect that you might see that differently, even if I'm not sure how. I don't remember it from the playtest packets, to be honest. I think the sorcerer could need a little overhaul. As do most classes. But that is not the point. We had a very successful sorcerer in the group and the design has valies in a game without feats especially that are easy to overlook. That said, inspired by a different thread I just want to ask you a question. Do you have board games? Do you have kids or a job? When I was studiying I really loved complex games and those were in at the time of the early 2000s. Game of thrones board game comes to my mind, arkham horror. Problem today: it takes hours to even explain the game to bew players. I and players I met even after playing the game several times we noticed that we interpreted the rules wrong... after year...

Wednesday, 26th September, 2018

  • 10:56 PM - BookBarbarian quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to? :) I love the basic rules. I really would like to run or play in a game with just those options. Just to see what concepts I can explore with so few choices. Can I express an enjoyable Barbarian or Ranger as a Fighter? Probably not, but I bet I could learn a thing or two by how close I can get.
  • 08:38 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters. 5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though? Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change." And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it. I get it. It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems. All in all, it's forced me to look at other systems, and some are pretty exciting though. This is a reasoned statement about 5E. However, I have a question about the nee...
  • 08:34 PM - Satyrn quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems. Maybe we should join forces and petition WotC for two Advanced Player's Handbooks: 1) An AD&D for players who want lots more mechanical choices than we have right now, and 2) an AD&D for those who want lots less.
  • 08:20 PM - Charlaquin quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters. 5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though? Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change." And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it. I get it. It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems. All of this is very true. However, anyone who thinks there will never be a 6e is fooling themselves, and as someone who has an interest in seeing D&D continue to improve w...
  • 12:06 PM - UngeheuerLich quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    So, I am referring to the 3rd sentence of your first paragraph when I say 'lazy design,' with 'design' being the end product. The possible motives for such? You might have it right when you type: "They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts." I am not sure about the use of the word "had," though; did they have to work in such tight restraints? Or is that a choice? If they choose to never examine changing/eliminating x,y, and z, then that's design work that never needs get done, yes? I am certain that going through the surveys and such, collating data, etc. was a lot of work. I've said before that I am sure the process involved a lot of work. In coming up with test packets? Design work, for sure. Going through data and noting what people liked and didn't like isn't design work though; there are companies who do data analysis. How they deal with that data in putting it into the final game is design work, and some of that seems lazy to m...
  • 10:27 AM - UngeheuerLich quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Again, without saying anything about the designers as people (because we simply don't have access to that), let me ask this: In your own life, in an effort to please people, has that always entailed a lot of work? Or have people's wishes sometimes been so easy to fulfill that it wasn't a lot of effort at all, even if you had originally braced yourself to work a lot. IOW, does pleasing the greatest number of people necessarily mean more work than not? Or is it possible that accomplishing the former may not require as much work as coming up with something improved? 2e, 3e, and 4e didn't just give me what I wanted...their innovations gave me something I never knew I wanted. And so, despite their flaws, I really appreciate them as systems, even if I don't play them anymore. The game was evolving...but 5e really does feel like a step back (to be popular, and it worked!), hence the "greatest hits" feel. Not saying Mearls and all are not motivated or innovative (Iron Heroes seems to show si...
  • 09:29 AM - pemerton quoted Eric V in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Of course not. Apparently, the rules are different when talking about game design though...Unless its 4e, I think.

Tuesday, 25th September, 2018

  • 10:10 PM - Oofta quoted Eric V in post Tell Me About Your Experiences With High Level 5E
    That's probably true, but this: "this adventure is made for 45 DPR 20 AC 90 hp heroes" is much more directly useful than a metaphorical "turn the dial to 11" no? Some old 2e mods, in addition to saying what level they were for, on the cover, would include, on the inside, additional DM information for the type of group they would be most successful at it (I'm thinking the type of advice found in City of Skulls for the DM, for example). I mean, why not include that? That would be really helpful. I get where you're coming from and philosophically I agree. I just don't think it's that simple. Most people wouldn't know how to calculate DPR, or know what the DPR of their party is. Personally I only have cursory understanding of my player's character's capabilities. Yes, my wife's barbarian can do a ludicrous amount of damage, but how many encounters will she be raging? Tim's assassin does massive damage the first round, how does that average out over the course of the typical encounter? ...


Page 1 of 28 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Eric V's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites