View Profile: Parmandur - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
More Activity
About Parmandur

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 30

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,503
Posts Per Day
2.60
Last Post
Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class Today 12:03 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
15
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:08 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 16th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 33 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 27th May, 2018


Saturday, 26th May, 2018



Page 1 of 33 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 12th May, 2018

  • 11:36 PM - Demetrios1453 mentioned Parmandur in post List of monsters confirmed in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
    Via Twitter we now have the Monsters by challenge rating. And also the answer to which Lords of the Nine are in this book. Heavy spoilers. 97430 So the answer to how many lords of the Nine is one. Only Zariel is in the book. Also a few strange things like one of the monsters being an Oinoloth. Edit Source: https://twitter.com/fistfullofdice/status/995054993328820224 Very interesting! Definitely leaked far before we had surmised - usually we would have a few more days yet! Besides that surprising news on the lack of Lords of the Nine (which indicates they are holding most of them back for a later book - unless @Parmandur is right, and there are some at the top of the next page), some other observations: White and black abishai have maintained their previous power level, but green, blue, and red are much higher. We had a hint of this from the Roll 20 preview showing the blue abishai CR, but we didn't know they would split them this way. Derro made it in, like I assumed they would. There's a nice range of duergar, and even more drow variants than we knew about. Really, running a drow-centric campaign from 1 - 20 would easily be possible with little in the way of any CR gaps. I, too, wonder what an "oinoloth" is. If it were the traditional Oinoloth, it should have a much higher CR, as being lord of the Wasting Tower traditionally gave one almost god-like powers. Beyond that, pretty much all the yugoloths I assumed would appear do show up, other than, oddly, the piscoloth. Same with the demons and devils, those I felt were missing from the MM have pretty much all made appearances here. Sadly, other t...

Wednesday, 9th May, 2018


Sunday, 21st January, 2018

  • 05:18 PM - Corpsetaker mentioned Parmandur in post Kate Welch is WotC's New D&D Designer
    Parmandur You do realize the laugh button doesn't work in that way anymore. You look silly trying to "laugh with" a post that the original author wasn't laughing to begin with. You are giving me XP and making yourself look silly.

Thursday, 23rd November, 2017

  • 09:47 PM - pukunui mentioned Parmandur in post Marathon, Broadway, and Catacomb: Upcoming D&D Products?
    Assuming the information about Broadway and Labyrinth both being big adventures and released only two months apart is true, it would sound likely that they're a two-part adventure much like Hoard of the Dragon Queen + Rise of Tiamat. I think it's kind of useless to speculate on the contents of a product based on a single word that may or may not be related in hindsight. I mean, sure, Cloak = Vampire and Dagger = Shakespearean giants... you can make sense of it after the fact, but that's some Law of Fives-level justification.Indeed. I mean, it's entirely possible that they codenamed SKT "Dagger" simply because they'd codenamed the previous one "Cloak" so they could have a little chuckle about "cloak and dagger". Parmandur: Could you please get back to me regarding the PMs I've sent you pertaining to comments you've made in this thread?
  • 02:05 AM - Hussar mentioned Parmandur in post So Was That Z Fellow right?
    While I'm not about to defend Parmandur about the head hunting thing, I think he's gone too far, he does make a point. This is a one trick pony that adds nothing else to the group. I LOVE characters like this because it's so easy to challenge them. Drop them in a pit filled with water - watch that dump stat Str try to swim and climb. Use the rules for buying magic items as a downtime activity and watch them fail every time because they have no social skills. Fun. Or, heck, the Ravenloft module has no magic pistol crossbows at all, and no magic bolts. At least, none that we found. Watch Mr. Specialist whine and complain because he's doing half damage to every single major opponent in the entire module, that, after all, only goes to about 10th level, so, this build actually only comes into play in the very, very tail end.

Wednesday, 15th November, 2017

  • 06:58 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Why D&D is not (just) Tolkien
    when do we start seeing non-human protagonists in fantasy? In the pulps, the first one I can think of is Elric and that's pretty recent. There are many complaints about the "Cantina Scene" thing in D&D where the local tavern has a mix of different species all drinking together, but, that concept is pretty much straight from Tolkien. No disagreement at all on this score. I'm pretty sure my first (or near-to-first) post in both the Tolkien threads has been to say that the whole idea of non-human fantasy races which are basically human cultures in funny suits - and hence which lend themselves to literary treatments, and RPing, just as if they were human - comes from JRRT. To my mind, it's the most obvious thing that D&D owes to Tolkien. EDIT: This is why I said you and Parmandur are both right. GH owes its non-humans to JRRT. But everything else about GH seems to me closer to the Hyborian Age than to Middle Earth. Also, for what it's worth, I'm currently GMing a Burning Wheel game using GH as the setting, and the tensions between the S&S aspects of GH (which the BW rules for humans support well) and the Tolkien-esque aspects of GH (which the BW rules for elves and dwarves support better than any other RPG system I know) is one source of challenge in GMing that game.

Monday, 13th November, 2017

  • 09:23 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Why D&D is not (just) Tolkien
    The Hyborian Age is a narrative device, for telling pseudo-historical stories without having to worry about the history or geography. Middle Earth is, notionally at least, our earth. I find the World of Greyhawk closer to REH - it is a narrative device for telling pseudo-historical stories, with the same sorts of pseudo-nations and cultures as found in the Hyborian Age. With the exception of the Tolkien-esque elves and dwarves. So I think Hussar and Parmandur are both right on this one.

Sunday, 5th November, 2017

  • 02:08 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Why D&D is not (just) Tolkien
    Denying that the existing archetype was a major impetus behind the ranger, not denying that it predated Tolkien...The reason are denying that is because everyone knows, by way of direct report from the originators, that the ranger was brought into the game because a player wanted to play Aragorn. As Parmandur and others have posted. Parmandur also deals with the point about parties. Conan doesn't operate in the context of a party. Sometimes he has a sidekick/cohort. Tower of the Elephant is an exception to that - the two meet more as peers - but then the second one dies pretty quickly. I don't know the Lankhmar stories anywhere near as well, but they seem much closer to a party style (albeit a duo rather than a team).

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

  • 03:44 AM - Azzy mentioned Parmandur in post Xanathar's War Mage is Gandalf, Dr Strange, and Elric
    Is there a reason why the Wizard only got one subclass, but apparently there was enough room for most classes to get three subclasses and the Rogue to get four?!? Yes, because the Wizard has more subclasses in the PHB than any other class (aside from the cleric), while most of the other classes have three or fewer subclasses. This brings all the classes (except for the druid) to at least five subclasses (counting both the PHB and Xanathar's). Here's the totals for each class (by way of Parmandur): Barbarian: 5 Bard: 5 Cleric: 9 Druid: 4 Fighter: 6 Monk: 6 Ranger: 5 Rogue: 7 Paladin: 5 Sorcerer: 5 Warlock: 5 Wizard: 9

Friday, 13th October, 2017


Saturday, 25th February, 2017

  • 04:13 AM - Manbearcat mentioned Parmandur in post Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
    ...ean "more complex choices and consequences in combat than simple attacks and damage", but what we like about those powers isn't that they support tactical combat. It is everything you said in that other post that mentioned me, except we never examined it in those terms or that much detail. We just talk about how nice it is to know about how a given choice will go if it succeeds, how cool it is to have so many options both when building a character and leveling them, and in a given encounter (combat or not), etc. we don't even play tactically that often. I do DM tactically, but that has been true since 2e, and has nothing to do with mechanics. I don't like the "glom onto a single target till it's dead, then move to the next" gameplay, so as a DM I discourage it by running monsters more tactically than the players are running their character, to push them to engage with the entire enemy force. Just one quick (lol?) response that is a bit of the above and a bit of your exchange with @Parmandur. I completely understand your sense of being trolled when folks start talking about "tactical 4e". We dealt with so much "not an RPG" rubbish related to shallow understanding and/or outright malicious hit-pieces masquerading as informed and objective analysis. I get it. That being said, I don't think folks who play 4e as actual "tactical combat linked by freeform roleplay" have anything to apologize about. Going further still, I don't think folks that run it as just a series of cinematic set-piece combats (where campy barbs are exchanged between players and between players and GM) with just a very stray interlude in a tavern, shop, or a campsite (or whatever) for mere color have anything to apologize about. Torchbearer is a game inspired by Moldvay Basic. It is about a truly grimdark PoL setting where deadend adventurers dare to go beyond the stone walls that hold back the encroaching darkness. Maybe pull some modest treasure from the inhospitable wilds and the ruins within? M...

Friday, 24th February, 2017

  • 02:35 AM - Manbearcat mentioned Parmandur in post Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
    Originally Posted by Parmandur View Post Well, you listed elements that sounded like they were grounded in tactical situations, like "reliable abilities"? That literally doesn't have anything to do with tactics. At all. @Parmandur , after witnessing your continued exchange with doctorbadwolf (and some of your other posts that are a bit confused on how 4e comes together), I figured I'd analyze a power so you understand precisely what it makes manifest in play. @Ilbranteloth , you may find this illuminating as well (given your most recent posts). Take the level 6 Fighter Utility below: Strong Focus Encounter Martial Minor Action Personal Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain a power bonus to Athletics checks and Strength ability checks equal to your Wisdom modifier. 1) 4e is a scene-based game. The (pretty much) exclusive locus of action is the encounter (combat or non-combat). The above is an Encounter power. That means it is available every scene for the Fighter who has it. 2...

Monday, 20th February, 2017

  • 11:50 PM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e
    ...l be true; and I think they are. IIRC/FWIW, WotC, said that's what they were doing... ...not necessarily what they did. They told us what they were doing in Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters. That has several pages laying out the setting conceits ("points of light"); it explains why they have a default pantheon (without one, how do they write modules with clerics or draw pictures/sculpt minis with holy symbols?); it outlines the history (Dawn War, empires, fall of Nerath under gnoll attack, etc). They delivered exactly what they promised! The closest I can see to reconciling the basic contradiction is that the proper-noun elements they threw in were mostly either in the over-arching cosmology (shared to a degree by all settings, so not setting-specific) or in the past, where they could be inserted into the litany of fallen empires in a variety of settings. <snip> Whatever the intent, fans treated the Nentir Vale like it was part of an official settingI agree with Parmandur - the proper names, implied history etc are similar to the hints of GH in the artefact section of Gygax's DMG. The Nentir Vale - as in, the final chapter of the DMG - is a separate thing, in that one can completely ignore that (I didn't read it until a couple of years after starting my 4e campaign) yet use the default cosmology. In my case, I use the map/geography in the B/X module Night's Dark Terror for the details of the setting.

Wednesday, 15th February, 2017

  • 01:11 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
    I disagree, for a subtly-shaded value of 'disagree.' It's easier to just override the system and cut to the intuitive stipulation in 5e because (a) the players have been conditioned to accept rulings since the rules require them constantly and (b) trigonometry* is not fun for everyone, and while 4e reduces everything to the simplistic geometry of squares (cubes if you go 3D), 5e leaves you with circles/spheres, triangles/cones, and Pythagorean diagonal movement. I'm not 100% sure I follow the trigonometry point: it it that, if the maths to do it "objectively" gets hard enough, everyone becomes more relaxed about just punting it all to GM fiat? As far as player attitudes go, that might be true as a sociological generalisation (I've got no strong opinion either way), but doesn't seem to explain anything about Parmandur's group. If they were happy with GM fudging of the geometry in 3E, and are happy with it in 5e, I don't see that 4e did anything magical to make it suddenly untenable for them.

Tuesday, 14th February, 2017

  • 04:53 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Parmandur in post Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
    ...Wandering Monsters + Encounters + Reaction Adjustment. And all related. Action Scenes charged with PC-centered conflict (from combat to parley to rooftop chase to escape from crumbling complex to infiltration/espionage to esoteric research to perilous journey, etc etc) + dynamic decision-points + universal narrative authority + scene resolution mechanics + failure isn't an endpoint. Play snowballs naturally and premise-coherently in both systems. But the "feelz" are rather different due to divergent premise. Nonetheless, they're still both very much D&D. And they both diverge in certain key ways from AD&D and 3.x (process-modeling rather than outcome-based design is a big area where they diverge from 3.x...universal narrative authority vs spellcaster exclusively, go to the action vs serial exploration, and scene resolution are areas where 4e diverges from both). Resultantly, I would put Moldvay Basic MUCH CLOSER in the D&D family tree to 4e than to the others. One final note to @Parmandur. I think when you're trying to compare the D&D board games to 4e, you're rather showing your lack of familiarity. See my above. If anything, it's probably closer to a Moldvay Basic dungeon generator (where the map and key are generated at the moment of play). It has the basic exploration procedures (less Reaction) of Moldvay at its core. The only thing I can see it shares with actual 4e is VERY rough combat action economy, vanilla class features, and everyone has Dailies. If anything, it is an extraordinarily shallow mash-up of the two (which it isn't...sooo). And of course, most importantly, MB and 4e aren't board games. They're both actual RPGs where the shared, evolving fiction is the primary input for expansive play/action declaration & resolution (hat tip @pemerton for robust, concise definition).

Wednesday, 18th January, 2017


Thursday, 3rd November, 2016

  • 03:13 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Parmandur in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    ...s here. Pretty sure it has the same impact as if they clicked XP, so you can at least enjoy that little bit of irony when folks do that. So, this thread seems to be quickly spiralling downward, so I figure what's the harm. Ever since the first post about general releases and wanting more classes, I've been wracking my brain for what those classes could be. Psionics is obvious, and potentially things like the 4e Battlemind or Ardent could be subclasses in this. Warlord is probably on people's lists Artificer could work as a wizard, but I could see them getting their own class. And... that's about all I can think of that couldn't get covered by subclasses. Now, the list could include rules for prestige classes and Epic destinies (I honestly loved that concept in 4e) but, I can't come up with enough things to fill a full book, let alone multiples. I'm relatively new to DnD, so what are the classes that everyone is pining away for that are going to fill multiple releases? As Parmandur said, the Warlord is likely to be a subclass, which makes sense. Honestly, I think subclasses were designed to address any such need, preventing the creation of additional classes. The mystic/psion does indeed seem the most likely option. Other than that, there aren't a whole lot of areas I can think of that need a class. Not any concepts that can't easily be done as subclasses instead.

Wednesday, 2nd November, 2016


Friday, 28th October, 2016


Friday, 21st October, 2016

  • 04:02 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    Parmandur, I think your two recent posts are getting to the heart of this issue - really trying to make sense of what Hussar called "ownership" upthread. there is a certain pleasure from a shared creative process, that people enjoy; this can be seen in many collaborative artforms. RPG world building has emerged as this sort of weird form, where the users (DMs) also contribute somewhat, even if they make up many details (you wizards cloak might be a different color), but it has been an oddly consistant phenomenon in the past 40 years for people to get all tied in a knot when a company decides to take setting ina new direction (Travller New Era, World of Darkness 2E, D&D 4E). It does seem that "breaking" that creator-consumer creative floe can be commercially deadly, more so than any gain from new stories. I would suggest that world-building can be a work of art, and I'm the context of a RPG a work that the tables participate in, or at least feel that they are somehow participating in; if ...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 93 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Sunday, 27th May, 2018

  • 10:16 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    Dragonborn are draconic, after all: D&D Dragons are not necessarily Reptiles, they have Mammalian and Avian features as well. And dragonborn have more mammalian features than true dragons. Because, y'know, they're humanoids.
  • 01:20 AM - shidaku quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    That is...what is in the book...? I was referring to the Lolth lore video WOTC did a while ago.
  • 12:21 AM - Yaarel quoted Parmandur in post Core+1
    What? There is no rule change in Xanathar's related to theism. I had the following text in mind. But on rereading it now. 5e core rules continue to push polytheism in the most heavy-handed way possible. Xanathars Guide to Everything (p. 18) " Serving a Pantheon, Philosophy, or Force In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force such as life or death, or a philosophy or concept, such as love, peace, or one of the nine alignments. Chapter 1 of the Dungeon Masters Guide explores options like these. Talk with you DM about the divine options available in your campaign, whether they're gods, pantheons, philosophies, or cosmic forces. Whatever being or thing your cleric ends up serving, choose a Divine Domain that is appropriate for it, and if it doesnt have a holy symbol work with your DM to design one. The cleric's class features often refer to your Ďdeityí. If you are devoted to a pantheon, cosmic force, or philosophy, your cleric features still work for you as written, ...
  • 12:19 AM - Eltab quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    No, the Drow are children of Corellion, and as such some Drow have this Blessing. This makes them Anathema to the Llolth worshippers, so Drow with Blessing are offered as a good PC "Drow on the surface" hook for players. Oh terrific, you just had to being Drizzt into this. :p More seriously... With a few thousand years to behave like, well, clerics of a CE goddess, some Llolth worshippers could decide to exterminate the Blessing of Corellon drow. Just to get rid of potential competitors (maybe they felt provoked by an 'interloper'). Or perhaps it was Llolth's idea and all her clerics began hatching suitable plots. "We know it will specially please Llolth if this one is sacrificed."

Saturday, 26th May, 2018

  • 11:41 PM - shidaku quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    No, the Drow are children of Corellion, and as such some Drow have this Blessing. This makes them Anathema to the Llolth worshippers, so Drow with Blessing are offered as a good PC "Drow on the surface" hook for players. That is...not what I recall.
  • 09:33 PM - shidaku quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    Well, the rules are there to facilitate narrative, not world simulation. The rules are there to balance the gameplay. You don't need rules or stats to tell a cooperative story.
  • 09:15 PM - dave2008 quoted Parmandur in post Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
    As somebody with some expertise with the literary, religious and historical scene...no, not really. It has more to do with original pulp creations and filling the grid, and pretty much nothing to do with anything Medieval or Catholic. I think perhaps you misunderstood me (or I wasn't clear), I was arguing against it being medieval or Catholic. Regarding the grid, I don't know if devils and demons (what we were discussing) were separated simply to fill the grid or not, but that was not what we were discussing.
  • 07:33 PM - Satyrn quoted Parmandur in post Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
    As somebody with some expertise with the literary, religious and historical scene...no, not really. It has more to do with original pulp creations and filling the grid, and pretty much nothing to do with anything Medieval or Catholic. What leads you to say that the creators of D&D took pretty much no influence from Dante in shaping the Nine Hells and its devils? It seems a likely source of inspiration to me.

Friday, 25th May, 2018

  • 06:43 PM - Li Shenron quoted Parmandur in post Do we still expect the Revised Ranger and Artificer this year?
    They have said the Mystic has taken a back-burner while they focus on the Artificer, though that probably remains fluid. Based on Mearls Twitch show, the Mystic seems to be back to the drawing board. When he told somebody to wait for new Artificer rules, somebody else asked about nee Mystic rules and Mearls advised that they don't wait for new rules anytime too soon. I missed that announcement. It sounds a bit odd to me considering they've done 2 rounds of design for the Mystic along similar lines, and I thought I heard more raves each time. On the contrary, the first Artificer as a Wizard's subclass was largely botched, in fact the second try was completely different as a standalone class, and with a lot less stuff than the Mystic. Well I don't know... it felt to me like the Mystic was going somewhere and the Artificer was still up in the air, but what do I know? :)
  • 04:33 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post D&D Beyond: Unearthed Arcana Centaurs and Minotaurs
    Yes, exactly, something like that. It strikes me that if they are willing to fundamentally depart from the MM standard for Minotaur and Centaurs, and they already know from polling that playable Gnolls are desired...maybe we will get that finally. I hope so! Alot of the fun happy hour subclasses he's been working on are for special backers for his last charity event, they chose the subclasses, and he has said he plans to put the subclasses he's doing for them in a PDF to be sold for the next extra life charity event. Ill definately he grabbing it for the acrobat, if nothin else. Making up a new one would be cool. Sure, either way!
  • 02:18 AM - gyor quoted Parmandur in post D&D Beyond: Unearthed Arcana Centaurs and Minotaurs
    My money for another Extra Life would be playable Giff, partly because Mearls said on Twitter he would like to, and weird races are more niche than new Subclasses. My bet for the next crunchy book, based on what they have tested and hinted at, is a "Meta-Setting Campaign Guide," with variant setting fluff and crunch options. So, quirky Subclasses and variant versions of races (Medium Centaurs, non-Demonic Minotaurs). Alot of the fun happy hour subclasses he's been working on are for special backers for his last charity event, they chose the subclasses, and he has said he plans to put the subclasses he's doing for them in a PDF to be sold for the next extra life charity event.

Thursday, 24th May, 2018

  • 11:44 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post D&D Beyond: Unearthed Arcana Centaurs and Minotaurs
    My money for another Extra Life would be playable Giff, partly because Mearls said on Twitter he would like to, and weird races are more niche than new Subclasses. My bet for the next crunchy book, based on what they have tested and hinted at, is a "Meta-Setting Campaign Guide," with variant setting fluff and crunch options. So, quirky Subclasses and variant versions of races (Medium Centaurs, non-Demonic Minotaurs). Tasslehoffís Guide To The Multi-verse! Ok, maybe not Uncle Tass, maybe Raistlin or Dalamar. Or a female character for once, though the only ones appropriate that I know in published worlds either arenít of the right power level, never got up to world hopping, or I just donít know if theyíre still alive in publushed canon.
  • 03:46 PM - zztong quoted Parmandur in post Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class
    That's a fair point, hadn't considered that. Doesn't really seem to apply to 5E, though? I don't know about 5E. Sorry, I must have missed some part of the conversation. I've not played it since the playtest.

Wednesday, 23rd May, 2018

  • 10:36 PM - Ancalagon quoted Parmandur in post Looking At The Pathfinder 2 Wizard Class
    Personally speaking, I am a strict Monotheist, but I hardly see any problem with the D&D setup, nor do I feel any of the editions mentioned make it at all difficult to reflavor as needed. I fail to see anywhere in the 5E rules that make polytheism necessary.I concur. I'm startled by the notion that polytheism is so hard to remove that it ruined the game for him. It's as if someone said they refused play warhammer because they hate crossbows...
  • 10:28 PM - Chaosmancer quoted Parmandur in post Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs
    People are certainly objecting to the idea of a medium sized horse (pony) with a human torso still being, relative to most himans, quite big. There is also the "but the MM version!" complaints, but given that the whole UA is pretty clearly talking about variant settings (in Twitter, Crawford brought up Dragonlance and Al'Quadim, both of which traditionally have Medium Centaur races) this is trivial. These are variant Centaurs, not MM Centaurs. I think a big sticking point for some people was that they weren't called out as variant centaurs in the document. It is a clear fix and if they had just said so, it would have cut down a lot of the furor we're hearing about. Hindsight and all that.
  • 05:20 PM - Remathilis quoted Parmandur in post "Stream of Many Eyes" -- WotC To Announce New Storyline In June
    One dude on the forums here found an older edition magic item called "The Eye of the Beholder," a magical jewel harvested from an ancient super-Bsholder named...Many Eyes. Smart money is that #nostoneunturned is a dual reference to the old game Eye of the Beholder, and the magic item Eye of the Beholder playing a McGuffin role in Waterdeep somehow.THAT is a deep cut! Kudos.
  • 05:07 PM - SkidAce quoted Parmandur in post Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs
    He also used the example that a Large PC can block a wide corridor singlehandedly. I don't see that as a problem. The large monsters/NPCs get to do it after all.
  • 04:33 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted Parmandur in post Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs
    Ponies are Medium, and if a Medium mount is good enough for Ghengis Khan, it is good enough for a Centaur. Seriously, anybody who objects to a Medium sized horse body, look up the Mongol horse breed: a Mongol horse fits well within the five foot square, and when combined with a Human torso would be eye to eye with the Goliath and Firbolg. I don't think that anyone is reasonably objecting to the concept of medium-sized centaurs. I think most of the objections concern the current existence of the Large-sized (or at least large-sized-space occupying) centaurs already in the game from the MM.
  • 03:11 PM - vincegetorix quoted Parmandur in post Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs
    Ponies are Medium, and if a Medium mount is good enough for Ghengis Khan, it is good enough for a Centaur. Seriously, anybody who objects to a Medium sized horse body, look up the Mongol horse breed: a Mongol horse fits well within the five foot square, and when combined with a Human torso would be eye to eye with the Goliath and Firbolg. I agree with you. I dont understand why people want to argue that ''medium centaurs are ridiculous, they dont make sense'' when we play D&D. I mean, its not the first thing that would be farfetched in that game; medium dwarves, vancian magic, non-magic healing etc. We grown accustomed to them and after a time we can even argue that they make sense because X-Y-Z. I feel that every time WotC comes up with a new thing its ''OMG, what are they thinking, that's stupid, broken, yada yada'' then, after a time, nobody really cares at their table. Last few months was Hexblade and Healing Spirit, before that it was the UA playtests (mainly Mystic and Lore Wiza...

Tuesday, 22nd May, 2018



Page 1 of 93 123456789101151 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Parmandur's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites