View Profile: dco - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • dco's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 07:39 PM
    This is a great adventure, I really liked it.
    10 replies | 6134 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Friday, 26th October, 2018, 09:42 PM
    We are talking about how to explain or narrate what happens with armor. The armor reduces damage in the real world and in the game it makes you difficult to hit, the effect is less damage in both cases but how you get there is different. In this game a standing person not moving has more chances to avoid a hit from a titan with a two handed sword using a leather armor, or the armor has the same...
    138 replies | 4979 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Friday, 26th October, 2018, 07:33 PM
    They should also get past the clothes to hit/touch you if that is your point and clothes don't get AC bonus.
    138 replies | 4979 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th October, 2018, 11:24 AM
    No, armour doesn't act like fictional power fields. To avoid being hit a person has to parry, dodge, take cover, etc. The effect in the game is the same, you avoid damage or HPs, but the narrative could have the same problems as the barkskin narrative. It can also bring other problems for touching rules. Camo armour gives you camouflage.
    138 replies | 4979 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th October, 2018, 12:11 PM
    1- This implementation is pure filler for me, super generic on your background, super specific on what you receive and a lot of space wasted on a perk and character ideas. For that you don't need to waste pages and pages, you can ask players what they do and let them choose some related skills. At least if they had lots of professions like WFR and some skills for them that you can choose... 2-...
    253 replies | 10263 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th October, 2018, 12:42 AM
    Who cares, in this game you don an armor and suddenly enemies have more difficulty to hit you. The important thing is the effect.
    138 replies | 4979 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 12:44 AM
    If I call a fight then I'm doing something wrong.
    13 replies | 683 view(s)
    0 XP
  • dco's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 08:36 PM
    Did the rules change from the document they released some time ago?
    1 replies | 203 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About dco

Basic Information

Date of Birth
May 10, 1976 (42)
About dco
Location:
Basque Country
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Yes
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

State:
Basque Country
Country:
Spain

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
335
Posts Per Day
0.22
Last Post
John Wick Presents Lays Off 7th Sea Staff Thursday, 8th November, 2018 07:44 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Thursday, 8th November, 2018 07:57 PM
Join Date
Monday, 15th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
State:
Basque Country
Country:
Spain

Wednesday, 24th October, 2018


Sunday, 7th May, 2017

  • 04:14 PM - MoonSong mentioned dco in post This is a directory of posters who think the sorcerer needs fixing
    ...of each other. I used to be alone like a mad Cassandra way back during the open playtest when I predicted that Neo-Vancian would mean balance problems for sorcerers, but over time I've noticed there is more and more posters who think the class could use a little help and recently that number has exploded. Just a beg, please, please pretty please with sugar on top, if you think the sorcerer class is not underpowered, or doesn't lack options, or overall doesn't need adjustment. (Or worse you don't want a sorcerer class at all), please refrain from posting here or being confrontational if you can't help it. This thread doesn't seek to prove a point or disprove yours. It just wants to be a hub for like-minded players and DMs to make acquaintance of each other. Double so for newcomers to the forum. The Directory so far. If you want to be included (or removed), edit this post to add or remove your name (and only your name, no vandalism plz). @Tony Vargas, @Hawk Diesel, @RangerWickett, @dco @Gwarok, @LapBandit @Sword of Spirit, @Gradine, @gyor, @Xeviat, @Yunru, @Jago, @flametitan, @Ketser, @cbwjm, @Immoralkickass @ScuroNotte , @Irda Ranger @dropbear8mybaby, Ilbranteloth Gradine's treatise on the sorcerer A brief(?) treatise on the plight of Sorcerer The fundamental problem with the Sorcerer in 5e is that the reason the class was created in the first place was to create a mechanical distinction that no longer exists in 5e. 4e solved the problem by creating a new mechanical distinction, but that no longer exists in 5e either. See, the 3rd edition Sorcerer was basically worse than the Wizard in all but a handful of ways (more spells per day being the big one, also they had slightly better weapon proficiencies and were more fun at parties). In exchange they had slower spell progression and no bonus feats, because WotC overestimated the power of spontaneous casting Monte Cooke hated sorcerers reasons. Pretty much everyone agreed that simply on the basis of the slower spel...

Thursday, 4th May, 2017

  • 01:16 AM - Quickleaf mentioned dco in post The Fighter Problem
    Also dco I'm curious about your thoughts about the cleric and wizard getting lots of subclasses in the PHB, and the fighter and rogue getting three subclasses in comparison. I see a double standard, but I'm suspecting you (and others) see it differently. How do you see it?

Thursday, 20th April, 2017

  • 09:08 PM - CapnZapp mentioned dco in post Nerfing Great Weapon Master
    Ilbranteloth, Tony Vargas and dco: Thanks for your replies. I guess I owe y'all an apology - I didn't mean to appear undecided on the question of disadvantage compared to −5: I know disadvantage is a penalty that varies from −1 to −5 so obviously disadvantage can only be better. The reason I asked (but apparently failed to carry across) is that in the actual playtested scenario, players heavily rely on having advantage to wring the most out of the feat. And so I was wondering what the removal of advantage does to the analysis. (Imposing disadvantage doesn't mean the feat will get used with actual disadvantage; it means the feat can now never be used with advantage). So I didn't mean to ask the basic question of whether disadvantage or −5 is preferable. We've already established that the analysis at this basic stage (applying advantage to the raw feat), the feat still looks fairly reasonable, because the miss chance seems decently high. And so the conclusion is that the feat isn't too badly ...
  • 06:28 PM - Ilbranteloth mentioned dco in post Nerfing Great Weapon Master
    I still don't immediately see how you arrive at "Disadvantage would make the feat more powerful". Perhaps you can walk me through it. Disadvantage is generally stated to be equal to -5, but mathematically that's incorrect. See here: http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/ or here: http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd-next-the-math/ among many other places. In general, the +5/-5 for advantage/disadvantage is in the middle of the curve. The closer you get to the ends the curve you get, the less of a bonus of penalty it imposes. The math that dco posted was to show you that when you're trying to hit an AC of less than 5, then you hit 64% of the time with disadvantage, but only 55% of the time with a -5 penalty. On the other end, when the target is an AC 15 or higher, disadvantage hits 9% of the time, but with a -1 penalty you only hit 5% of the time (when you roll a 20). This is assuming no other modifiers to the roll, of course. But basically it's an acknowledgement that disadvantage is only -5 when your target number is around 10 or 11. Otherwise it's less of a penalty than -5. In addition, by using a numerical penalty, there are potential situations where you can have disadvantage and the -5 penalty. RAW, that can't happen with reckless attack, but it does take away the advantage so it still an additional penalty. Another irony of the D&D combat system is that once you need to roll a natural 20 in order to hit at all, none of the other penalties aside from disadvantage matter. Disadvantage is the only way, RAW, ...
  • 11:48 AM - CapnZapp mentioned dco in post Nerfing Great Weapon Master
    ...are close to hitting. Finally, Lucky helps considerably when perhaps only a roll of 1-4 will be deemed bad enough that you will accept a miss (and not spend a superiority dice). It cuts down misses by a whopping 25%. If only 1 or 2 is such a bad result, misses are reduced by 50%! Anyway, the probability of rolling 2, 3, or 4 on advantage is certainly less than 20%, which is what I charitably use as the assumed miss chance when I arrive at my figure of +40 bonus damage per round on average. --- Back to the disadvantage proposal. Once you no longer can achieve actual advantage, as opposed to merely negating disadvantage, you will burn through your superiority dice much faster and Lucky is no longer nearly as attractive. And you need these to truly abuse the feat. I have not done the calculations to back up this hunch, though. My point is that once you see the whole minmaxing picture, perhaps you are hurt more by the lack of advantage than your initial numbers suggest, dco?

Tuesday, 7th February, 2017

  • 11:50 PM - Helldritch mentioned dco in post When Fiends Attack: Are Balors, Pit Fiends and Ultraloths too weak?
    dco Strahd will never ever fight the pc head on. He will ambush. He will retreat. He will come back with help. He will enforce the 6 to 8 encounters per day so that your players will have to spend ressources. Your players should never be able to fight Strahd fresh from rest. Once they try to take on him, he will not allow them to rest. He will harrass them through out their rest where ever it might be. Strahd through his spies will know the PCs' strength and weaknesses and he will use that against them. He will know if they have the sunsword or the symbol or Ravenkind. He will not allow the players to choose the battle ground, he will choose it himself. P239 of the CoS book says that whenever Strahd is encountered outside the Tarroka reading he will be accompanied minions. Only on a 19-20 will you see no minions. That leaves us with many many possible fights/reinforcement. Fighting Strahd is a war of attrition. There will be no glorious charge, no duel to death, no clear cut way ...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Friday, 26th October, 2018

  • 08:14 PM - Stalker0 quoted dco in post Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
    They should also get past the clothes to hit/touch you if that is your point and clothes don't get AC bonus. That is simply the scale of how AC works. I like to think that clothes provide ".2 AC", but it gets rounded down. Aka it provides some protection, but in the scale of what we are dealing with, not enough to matter.

Wednesday, 24th October, 2018


Saturday, 20th October, 2018

  • 08:42 AM - Yunru quoted dco in post Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
    Who cares, in this game you don an armor and suddenly enemies have more difficulty to hit you. The important thing is the effect. Well armour also does that in real life... (since if the armour absorbed it, they haven't really hit you, and if it deflects it, well... they still haven't hit you.) Not to mention camo armour.

Friday, 19th October, 2018

  • 05:53 PM - Doctor Futurity quoted dco in post The New Savage Worlds Is Storming Kickstarter
    Looks more of the same to me, from art to small rules tweaks that you could do yourself, but more expensive. It seems the things I dislike will continue there: - The wild die and its quirks, 63% for a d4 and 88% for d12 and sometimes a better die is worse. - Open rolls that make the game very swingy and slower. - Lack of uniformity or consistency, I have the sensation of playing minigames for some rules and others are disjointed. - It claims to be fast but it isn't. Will check it when it is released, perhaps it surprises me improving a lot of little things but the last edition had some negatives compared to the previous one. You should find an experienced group to try it with. None of the problems you identify manifest at my table, and the game is definitely fast (and furious).
  • 03:43 PM - Azgulor quoted dco in post The New Savage Worlds Is Storming Kickstarter
    Looks more of the same to me, from art to small rules tweaks that you could do yourself, but more expensive. It seems the things I dislike will continue there: - The wild die and its quirks, 63% for a d4 and 88% for d12 and sometimes a better die is worse. - Open rolls that make the game very swingy and slower. - Lack of uniformity or consistency, I have the sensation of playing minigames for some rules and others are disjointed. - It claims to be fast but it isn't. Will check it when it is released, perhaps it surprises me improving a lot of little things but the last edition had some negatives compared to the previous one. Different strokes, different tastes, etc. Savage Worlds isn't for everyone, so no worries if you don't like it. However, the game plays fast. If you're saying it doesn't, I'd say that's a user issue rather than a system issue.

Monday, 3rd September, 2018

  • 11:25 PM - Asgorath quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    All can attack at range, a melee ranger without spells compared to a monk or barbarian will only do 1d8 more to that flying dragon in the case he chose colossus slayer. I don't know what is a gloomstalker as I never buy extra books, it looks good but doesn't change the other subclasses, in any case food for thought for homebrews and works differently than an extra attack, thanks for pointing it out, will try it substituting volley and whirlwind attack. Hide is good but you need somewhere to hide and in combat a GM that lets you hide in front of an enemy unless you have surprise. Not our group. The things out of combat are not very good, I can be a rogue with more skills, double proficiency on them, take a 10, hide, dash and disengage as a bonus action, don't need to specialize in melee or ranged combat, better damage unless you use hunter's mark and damage focused on one enemy which is usually better. Uncanny dodge and evasion sooner, if I go arcane trickster I have access to illusions ...
  • 07:55 PM - Asgorath quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    We don't use feats and they are optional, practically on 1/3 hits hunter's mark will go down without a feat. If you use them and want damage the best feats are GWF, Polearm master and sharpshooter and other classes can have hex, the gap with other classes will be bigger. I also find a bit disgusting that you need that one spell to try to keep up with other classes, if it is so important they should have designed the class better. 1d8 is good, but beyond the second attack that's all the extra reliable damage you get till you reach level 20. At that level other classes have some good powers, monk can have two more unarmed attacks, the berserker another attack, the battlemaster has his maneuvers, the paladin can make his weapon magical with +CHA to hit, or have advantage against one enemy, etc. At level 11 a champion will have 3 attacks which can be also used at range, more initiative, general durability, better saves, action surge, etc, that makes him far better at combat. The melee ra...
  • 03:04 AM - Chaosmancer quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    Well, you asked why I found the melee ranger bad, the general class features are part of the melee ranger and a great reason of why I don't like the class, lots of features wasted to make the class better in some specific circumstances. We don't use feats and they are optional, practically on 1/3 hits hunter's mark will go down without a feat. If you use them and want damage the best feats are GWF, Polearm master and sharpshooter and other classes can have hex, the gap with other classes will be bigger. I also find a bit disgusting that you need that one spell to try to keep up with other classes, if it is so important they should have designed the class better. 1d8 is good, but beyond the second attack that's all the extra reliable damage you get till you reach level 20. At that level other classes have some good powers, monk can have two more unarmed attacks, the berserker another attack, the battlemaster has his maneuvers, the paladin can make his weapon magical with +CHA to hit, ...

Sunday, 2nd September, 2018

  • 06:48 PM - Mistwell quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    I can play the same game, the number of people playing a class doesn't mean it's balanced, someone not having trouble doesn't mean it is balanced, people saying it is balanced doesn't mean it is balanced. There is no evidence of it being balanced, as you are so eager to ask for evidence why don't you offer some evidence? Yes there is. They did a lengthy extensive playtest to measure balance, tested it internally, then with a smaller paid consultant group of third party objective creators from a wide array of experience, then with with many surveys both to a smaller professional group of playtesters, then to a much larger audience in the largest public playtest of any RPG ever, and got as much data as any company has ever gotten to measure balance perspectives on the class. It came out balanced. Once you get that, the burden is on those claiming it's not balanced to provide any evidence that is the case. We've seen none. We're 5 years in, the class is no longer ranking at the bottom...
  • 04:53 PM - UngeheuerLich quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    I can play the same game, the number of people playing a class doesn't mean it's balanced, someone not having trouble doesn't mean it is balanced, people saying it is balanced doesn't mean it is balanced. There is no evidence of it being balanced, as you are so eager to ask for evidence why don't you offer some evidence? That is not how it works. You need to show that something needs an overhaul. It is wasted time to prove that something has to stay as is. The work hypothesis should be everything is ok if it does not interrupt the game. Otherwise you don't get anywhere. Look at 4e. The constant revision because some people abused rules that worked in 99 percent of all cases and only broke if you interpreted rules in a very twisted way.
  • 02:39 PM - Mistwell quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    Seriously? You only have to read the first pages of this thread. And if it was balanced what was the point all the discusions and people talking about tweaks?, they want to make the class unbalanced? From the UA: Do I need to explain what means balance? Weak relative to other classes is not the same as unbalanced. SOMETHING will be the weakest compared to the other classes by definition. It could be perfectly balanced and still rank lowest, because something must rank lowest when you do a ranking. So yes, there is no evidence anything is unbalanced. People want it to do more in a certain aspect of the game, hence suggesting some additions. That's also not the same as people claiming it's not balanced.

Saturday, 25th August, 2018

  • 07:00 PM - Chaosmancer quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    There. Any questions? Yeah, can you please cool the rage a bit man? Look, I get the frustration and anger, but you've pretty much just tossed around insults for the last two weeks. You obviously aren't helping the case, and it is getting to be a bit much. Given the evidence that tens of thousands of people are able to play a Beastmaster Ranger successfully, I can only conclude that CapnZapp lacks the skill necessary to do so, and wishes WotC to produce an easier version of the class more in line with his abilities. First of all, unnecessary jab man. Secondly, do you actually have evidence of "Tens of Thousands" of players who are playing the PHB Beastmaster with no houserules what so ever, and that they are completely satisfied? All I've heard from WoTC is that people are satisfied with "The Ranger" and that is a completely different statement, considering there are so many different versions of the Ranger officially and unofficially. - Any class can be a...

Friday, 24th August, 2018

  • 08:17 PM - Mistwell quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    Not sure why do you insist or what is so difficult to grasp, I find it unbalanced because of reasons and I don't like the class as it is, don't need and don't want to try it because I'm not a masochist, I play for fun. You can search this forum, use google, meet more people or read the revised ranger UA specially the first paragraphs. I have, and I find nobody saying anything about the Hunter Ranger being unbalanced. You made a claim, I've tried to back up your own claim and found nothing, so where are you seeing this? If it's all over this forum and Google and the UA (which it's not in that UA by the way - I just checked and it says nothing even vaguely like that as all it talks about is unpopularity and the weakness of some powers, not an unbalanced nature of the class or that subclass in particular) then it should be pretty easy go link to ... but it's not. WHO says the Hunter Ranger is unbalanced?
  • 07:47 PM - ehren37 quoted dco in post Thoughts on a Shillelagh Magic Item for a Cleric
    I find it a bit unreasonable, as Zardnaar said if you use feats the player has that option and if he wanted shillelagh the nature cleric is the choice. Probably it is not problematic but as this is a class system I don't like when differences between them are diluted. I don't see how it's an issue if there's no nature cleric in the group. Who cares if you step on hypothetical toes? A character no one made doesn't need niche protection.
  • 06:26 PM - Mistwell quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    I don't have anything to consider, a lot of people have experiences I don't want to experience because of reasons What reasons would apply here where you've come to a judgement about something without trying it out first, your judgement seems to run counter to the judgement of those who have tried it, and it's something fun in a game so not some undesirable experience? I am genuinely curious what "reasons" means in these circumstance? someone enjoying the ranger class is not a good reason for me to try it It is though. That's pretty much the primary reason to try most new things in life - other people like it and encourage you to try it before deciding what to think about it. It's not like people are offering you an addictive drug here (I mean beyond the addictive nature of D&D itself). when I have my own reasons of why I don't like it and the experience is not an argument about balance, some people have played it and also find the class unbalanced and with problems. Who...

Monday, 20th August, 2018

  • 04:49 AM - Mistwell quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    Try one with two swords. Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear. I find the melee hunter also extremely bad. I don't need experience playing the class to see its problems. I didn't bash anyone. If you are "seeing" problems with the Hunter Ranger without having played it, and you see a large number of people here who have actually had experience playing it and find it to be fine, then you should probably consider playing it first before deciding it's bad. You might be wrong. It's not "extremely bad" in the opinions of many, many people who have actually played it.

Sunday, 19th August, 2018

  • 06:02 AM - Chaosmancer quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    Try one with two swords. Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear. I find the melee hunter also extremely bad. Why do you find the melee hunter bad? Sure, Hunter's Mark interfering with making the bonus action attack is aggravating, but if you pull it off you can get 2d6+2d6+1d8+modx2 by third level. That makes them a blender of death. 4th level (or v. Human) you can turn that into 2d8+2d6+1d8+modx2 and +1 AC. Get Warcaster for advantage on concentration checks and you are sitting relatively pretty They have little spell support, but I'd argue the Archer ranger doesn't get a lot of spell support either once they hit mid-levels, since most of the "arrow" spells are kind of underwhelming, and most of the best ranger spells are non-specific. In fact, I'd say the only really major loss is Swift Quiver, and the fact that Volley is superior to Whirlwind attack in most battlefields. Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad ma...
  • 01:53 AM - smbakeresq quoted dco in post Missing Rules
    You have some guidelines in the book, the rest is up to you, personally I give more penalties to people with armor, heavy weight, etc and use the xtreme difficulty (25) for world recor distances. In any case my advice is to adjudicate difficulties fast and keep going, don't lose time with that. Thatís why I use the 4e rule I mentioned before, itís fast and easy and once your players know it they just do it for you without asking for a DC.

Thursday, 16th August, 2018

  • 09:22 PM - Mistwell quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it? The Beastmaster Ranger is playable because people play it. The Ranger as a class seems to be well balanced and fine, but it's really the Beastmaster sub-class that people tend to question. I'd like a few additions to the Beastmaster, like a new fighting style, and some new spells, to shore up the use of the animal companion. But I don't think people are speaking about the Ranger class in general "because people play it". I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group. So you have zero experience with the class and have judged it based on white room basic reading of the pages? OK then why were you bashing people who have played it - at least they tried it before making a judgement.
  • 08:04 PM - Yunru quoted dco in post Revised Ranger update
    So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it? I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group. The Hunter's fine, if slightly weak.


Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

dco's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites