View Profile: Parmandur - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Parmandur

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 30


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
Artificer UA to be released in February Today 06:00 PM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:47 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 16th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Monday, 18th February, 2019

Sunday, 17th February, 2019

Saturday, 16th February, 2019

Friday, 15th February, 2019

Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Monday, 28th January, 2019

  • 08:20 PM - flametitan mentioned Parmandur in post These Are DDB's Most Viewed D&D Adventures
    On a related note, has Ravnica killed Eberron and Planescape and stolen their stuff? The guilds look like a mix between factions and dragonmarked houses, huge metropolis with planar gateways, magi-tech, etc. What is there left to make Eberron and Planescape special? To add on to what Parmandur said, Ravnica as a setting has no planar elements; what happens is that Ravnica seems to be a popular meeting place for planeswalkers, the primary cast of Magic's storyline. Planeswalkers cannot take anyone else with them, and there's currently no other way to hop planes without a planeswalker (with the exception of one device the antagonist stole in a whole other world). Planescape, by contrast, is all about the planes. Now, theoretically, most of what planescape has to offer can be covered in a Manual of the Planes type book; however, such a generic manual of the planes would lack the "character" of the setting. This character is primarily based on the foundational principle that belief can cause actual change, and the resulting conflicts that it brews. The Blood war continues because both sides believe that their outlook on reality is correct, and because the those who haven't taken a side believe it better for the war to continue than for either side to win. The gods are in a ne...

Tuesday, 20th November, 2018

  • 12:14 AM - darkbard mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I have to admit, it's really, REALLY funny watching people who hate a game, hardly if ever played a game, trying to argue with people with hundreds if not thousands of hours of experience with the game. It really is amusing. Even though I awarded you XPs for this already, it's worth restating. Imaro, Parmandur, etc. seem to be here for the argument (for argument's sake) as they've proven over the course of many, many threads like this in the past (as well as this one) that they have no real interest in 4E ... other than to jump in on the hate.

Friday, 16th November, 2018

  • 11:40 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Two further comments: (1) If, as Parmandur suggested upthread is widespread according to Mearls, someone wants to have an RPG experience which is mostly about GM-mediated fiction and story revelation, then conflict resolution/closed scene resolution will be unnecessary, and task resolution with no system-established finality will be fine - the skill check in effect becomes an element of colour that the GM weaves into the unfolding narration of the ingame situation. This seems to me to be an assumption many modules from the mid-80s on make about how the game will proceed, at least out of combat. (Eg if the PCs fail to find the dirt in the safe because they fail their safecracking roll, then they'll find it in the waste paper bin or in a note on a dead henchman or whatever.) It's hard to see how the "path" in an AP would work without this sort of thing. (2) Contra Lanefan and maybe some others, it's simply not true that differential XP tables in AD&D made fighters stronger than wizards at mid-to-upper levels. A 6th level wi...
  • 09:07 AM - Hussar mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Hit dice, short rests, healing potions (assumed in the PHB) Cleric spell slots...did you notice the part where at Level 18 the Champion becomes Wolverine and will never be below half HP in a day, before considering Hit Dice...? Hit Dice are limited resources in 5e. You only replenish half on a long rest. Which means that after the first adventuring day, you're down resources. Cleric spell slots? Umm, so, you're adventuring day rests on the cleric's ability to recharge your resources? And, hey, 18th level, congratulations, you finally get to do half of what a caster has been able to do since about 4th level. :erm: Let's compare shall we Parmandur, since you've repeatedly talked about how epic it is for a 17th level fighter to shoot 12 arrows in 2 rounds. Let's not forget though, that it took you 12 levels just to catch up to the monk who has been getting 8 attacks over 2 rounds (12 over three, which equals a 16th level fighter) since 5th level. And, at the same time you get to shoot 12 arrows, that monk can instantly kill 5 opponents per short rest. How come your Hawkeye or Green Arrow cannot so much as slow down a monster with an arrow (something that the characters do in the comics all the time) yet our monk is instantly killing dragons? And you consider this to be equal? Or, let's wander over to the Ranger. At 11th level, the archer ranger has up to 25 attacks in a single round (every target within 5 feet of your original target builds a nice 5x5 square, you don't include the original target in the area of effect). Granted that's extremely rare, but, 5 or 6 attacks in a single round isn't. Congratulations, it onl...

Thursday, 15th November, 2018

  • 12:22 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Don't agree with your summary of what was expressed. the game provides tools to challenge high level spellcasters just like high level martials. If you choose not to employ all of said tools for challenging spellcasters you shouldn't be surprised that they are more powerful because of it. Parmandur was responding to Manbearcat mentioning some particular tools - anti-magic zones and spellbook issues. Here is Manbearcat's post: This is assuming a GM isn’t pulling out all kinds of the classic, shallow, obnoxious Anti-Magic blocks and adversarial, endless army of thieves stealing spellbooks moves. Assuming you aren’t transparently taking away their tools left and right as a kludge to deal with their cosmic power. And here is Parmandur's reply to those words: Your final assumption would be incorrect. That is literally the DMs job. There is only one possible reading of this: Parmandur things that it is literally the GM's job to deploy anti-magic zones and spellbook-stealing thieves and other similar devices that block the use of spells by the player of a high-level wizard. This is bull... ritual caster alone makes casters more effective than martial PC's in 4e.Is this based on your actual play experience? (1) Not all casters in 4e have ritual casting. (2) I...

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 04:42 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    in all editions casters have - or can have, depending on spells known - the advantage; and I've never claimed otherwise. Other posters (eg Imaro, Parmandur, Sadras) seemed to be disagreeing with me when I said that in this respect 4e differs from 5e (because what you say is not generally the case in 4e, at least as I have experienced it). If in fact they do agree with you that in 5e casters have the advantage in these non-combat, no-time-pressure situations, then most of the discussion is over. Because that's the whole difference I've been talking about with the discussion of DC-by-level, skill challenges and the like. I can't see how this would be any different in 4e than in 5e or 1e or 3e.Then reread some of my posts in this thread, some actual play reports, etc. Manbearcat has already rehearsed the bulk of it in a post not far upthread. It's not rocket science - this is RPG design tech that was pioneered over 20 years ago.
  • 03:39 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    ...ous Anti-Magic blocks and adversarial, endless army of thieves stealing spellbooks moves. Assuming you aren’t transparently taking away their tools left and right as a kludge to deal with their cosmic power. Your final assumption would be incorrect. That is literally the DMs job. I mean, yes, the game works best when played as intended. More on this at 11.OK, this is the first time in this thread that anyone has posted that the way 5e is "intended" to work is by having the GM block a high level wizard player's capabilities in various ways. Personally I don't enjoy that sort of play, either as GM and player. So let me note another strength of 4e not yet commented on in this thread: it preserves an intraparty balance of mechanical effectiveness even when every player is doing his/her thing in accordance with his/her resources resulting from PC build. EDIT: I saw this: in no-pressure situations the casters are likely to rule the roost. Fair enough With likes from Imaro and Parmandur. So just to be clear - is it now uncontroversial that in fact, in a whole suite of non-combat situations (which would include something "no pressure" like reforging a hammer at one's leisure) 5e spellcasters are more effective than martial PCs? Because that's certainly not true in 4e. But when I've been asserting that the two systems are different in this respect, I thought that was widely denied. So I'm confused.

Sunday, 11th November, 2018

  • 01:40 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Bounded Accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction" over a greater range of mechanical difficulty. If it's true that all DCs are set by GM fiat (as Parmandur said and you seemed to agree with) then what does it mean to say that bounded accuracy allows one to "influence the fiction". Eg if the GM decides that the DC for the holding the hammer in the forge is 15 for the 15th level fighter, but the 1st level fighter doesn't get to roll for it and automatically burns his/her hands off, what work was bounded accuracy doing? I'm not sure why pemerton you are trying to continually push it as having been stated as an all or nothing type thingI'm just trying to understand what is being said. Some posts say that bounded accuracy means that the DC is the same for the 1st and the 15th level PC. And other posts say that the GM can decide that the 1st level PC automatically fails while setting a DC for the 15th level PC which the player of the 1st level PC might succeed at if allowed to roll against it. That second approach does not seem to involve bounded accuracy; in fact it seems directly at odds with it!

Saturday, 10th November, 2018

  • 01:51 AM - pemerton mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked an immediate success whereas a lower level PC might be asked to make a roll.OK, that all may be true. It reinforces my view that it's not clearly the case that there are level appropriate DCs, or indeed a clear methodology for determining what might be possible for a 15h level fighter along the lines I've described upthread. To wit . . . I don't think that's true... I think your question was a little unclear. Mechanically there are certain DC's a first level fighter can never attain. However the first step of determining whether there is even the possibility of a check in 5e is in the hands of the DM. I assumed you were familiar with the play procedures of 5e so I didn't think it was relevant to rehash the fact that the DM decides what a 1st level fighter vs. a 15th level fighter is capable of making a check for... I assumed you were asking what DC range was attainable by a fighter at 15th level vs. one at 1st level.Upthread a number of posters - you in an earlier post, Parmandur, I think others too - have said that 5e uses bounded accuracy, in the sense that the DC for task X doesn't change across levels. (More than one poster has compared this to AC - the AC of a goblin is the same whether the to hit check is made by a 1st level or 15th level PC). If now you're saying that DCs are in fact "subjective" - for non-combat, at least, if not for combat - then the difference from 4e seems to be more about the absence of a clear framework for bundling a series of level-appropriate DCs into an overall resolution framework (ie the skill challenge). Anyway I've intended my claim to be clear: that 4e has a system that makes it straightforward for martial prowess to be displayed and resolved in a way that mitigates against tendencies in fantasy RPGing for playes of spellcasters to have a greater range of possibilities open to them, especially once we get into "epic" territory. I posted an actual play illustration. I think the range of responses that has generated...

Friday, 9th November, 2018

  • 08:24 PM - Imaro mentioned Parmandur in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Yeh I am calling it so far from being perfect as to be insulting. Note we arent discussing details like how to make it feel like the person has one "secret" vulnerable spot without making it ridiculously over powered. Even giving innate damage resistance would be hard pressed not to be. Takes extra damage from critical hits would not be a great off set but it would have the flavor. Well that's your call. For me 5e gets the feel close enough (while still maintaining playability of the game) using the methods Parmandur described above that it's not a concern for me.

Monday, 5th November, 2018

  • 10:51 AM - MechaPilot mentioned Parmandur in post WotC President Chris Cocks Talks Magic and D&D
    Granted that each edition is a separate product line, it is unheard of in D&D for year four to be the biggest year of an edition. 3.0 and 4E were already gone by the same point, and 5E is on Pace to surpass 3.5 timr in print in a matter of months. Did I say it wasn't impressive? Also, @bedir than, it's odd that you give @Parmandur XP for stating that each edition is a separate product line, while giving me a hard time about making that exact same statement. Is your real issue with my post that you don't think I'm impressed enough by their growth?

Saturday, 6th October, 2018

  • 05:33 AM - pukunui mentioned Parmandur in post Updated errata will be released within the next month!
    Parmandur: You do realize that now I have no choice but to go back and rewatch that part of the Dragon+ episode to see what exactly it was JC actually said ... sigh ... EDIT: OK, here's the episode: Dragon+ July 31st episode Around the 25-minute mark, Greg reads a question someone has posted about whether they will be putting out another UA on alternative class features. Jeremy replies that they don't want to proceed rapidly down that road until they do another overall game satisfaction survey, as it's been a while since the last one, and the old data might prove to be wrong (e.g. Enough people might actually be happy with the PHB ranger now that it won't be worth them spending any more time trying to fix it.) The pertinent bit is around the 27-minute mark: "I actually just approved errata for the three core books earlier today, and there will be some tweaks in a few places actually that I think people will be pleased with that will make it unnecessary to have any kind of alternative fe...

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 05:54 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Parmandur in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Why not? If my local bakery, that produces and sells my favorite bagels, decides to only sell donuts from now on, why can't I say "Hey, you guys stopped making my favorite bagels, what's up with that?" They are certainly within their rights to say "Well, donuts sell better, and we don't really like making bagels, so I guess you're out of luck." And I'm certainly within my rights to respond "Well, I only really liked your bagels, so if you start making them, I'll come back, but otherwise I'll just have to skip bagels." I think Parmandur and @Sacrosanct explained this already, but, to the extent you wish to make this analogy to design, it would be more like this: Your baker has decided to drop bagels, and only make donuts. So, every day, you come in and say, "Hey, you know how you could make those donuts better? By making a donut that has ... let's see ... poppy seed, sesame seeds, onion & garlic flakes, pretzel salt, and pepper on it, and then serving that donut with lox and cream cheese!" Again, you are perfectly within your rights to say the following: a. I don't like donuts, I want you to make bagels instead! b. I like donuts, but I think think you can make better donuts ... like, those crossaint donuts! Where it goes bad is if you ignore what they are doing, and instead insist that they make your donuts like bagels; that just makes everyone miserable. :)

Tuesday, 11th September, 2018

Saturday, 25th August, 2018

  • 05:46 PM - Kobold Stew mentioned Parmandur in post What races are left for D&D to do?
    Parmandur has a good list. Gnolls. Mearls has, I think, been clear that gnolls are not going to be officially playable in 5e (link). It seems arbitrary to me, but the presentation of the race in VGTM has to my eye ruled out the possibility of them walking this back. I'll note that the results of the survey Parmandur linked to (here) are not entirely conisistent with what Mearls says about Gnolls. Half-giants are excluded because the designers have worked not to allow any playable race larger than Medium sized. Pixies are excluded for the converse reason: there are not going to be any races smaller than Small.

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: 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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...

Saturday, 16th February, 2019

  • 08:01 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    Yup, their work seems delayed slightly: this is why they avoid promising specifics, life happens. And yet, we still somehow see regular complaints about them "breaking promises" that they never made. lol Yep. Not sure why they changed it. All the old pronunciation guides had sa-HWA-gin, as did the voice-overs in Dungeons & Dragons Online, which is where I learned how to pronounce it. Okay, but that guy also said "catacoombs", "gray-mah binder", and some other silly pronunciations! :D For years, we would ask eachother if we wanted to play DDO by yelling "WE HAVE TO SAVE GRAY-MAH BINDER [not bine-der, but bin-der] FROM THE SA-HWA-GIN IN THE CATACOOMBS!"
  • 01:24 AM - epithet quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    So, Chris Perkins walked to Bart Carroll's home office to record the Lore You Should Know segment all about the 'Sea Devils." Went over the U series modules, the ecological and sociological structure, where you might find them, etc. Discussed mutations, and some examples based on the MM entry. Talked about novels the Sahuagin appeared in, how to use them as a DM. Nothing too revelatory. Where are you seeing this? I'm not finding it on YouTube or among the twitch videos from today.

Friday, 15th February, 2019

  • 09:10 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    Follow-up question: does this apply if other posters are clearly wrong, and probably corporate shills? I mean, in that case, they’re just trying to make damn living, ya know? Don’t be mean to workin folks just doing what they can to survive in this late capitalist hellscape, am I right? :D
  • 08:35 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    Again: The fact there is no law or moral imperative to do this, does not in any way shape or form diminish our ability and right to complain about an obvious dearth of material. We literally all agree on that. Why do you keep propping up this fake stance in order to knock it down? If all fans were as ridiculously understanding as you seem to be, life would be good for corporate strategists, since hobby products would be like printing money. Luckily that is not the case. If WotC saves on staff by publishing only as little new crunch as they can possibly get away with, they will keep hearing about it in public forums. Like this one. Why do you keep belittling the stance of people who disagree with you? Why is it difficult for you to deal with the fact that your opinion on this isn't shared by everyone else? It's genuinely getting a bit concerning. I literally go on twitter and criticize/challenge wotc in general, and Mearls and Crawford in particular, on a semi-regular bas...
  • 07:22 PM - Azzy quoted Parmandur in post New "Stranger Things" D&D Starter Set Announced
    Stan! wrote this?? Nice. Might be premature to say it is Greyhawk, since they were playing with the boxed Basic set. Yeah, the 1983 Mentzer set didn't include a setting as such (the Expert set the begining town as Threshold in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos of the Known World—this setting originally appear in The Isle of Dread released earlier, though), so there could be either no setting, the Known World (what later became known as Mystara), or Greyhawk.
  • 04:14 PM - quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    Dude, it is a game companies publishing schedule. "Disrespect" is a strong word for "not publishing everything all at once." They have years to work with, no need to be hasty, harrooom. is it so difficult to understand that I care nothing about how much and when they publish what? the problem, for me, is the approach. wanna publish 'seasickness handbook'? that's fine, announce it within a reasonable time period, state clearly which the contents will be and strive to respect the deadline. you managed to do that? fine! you don't? apologize with the customers and go on. the company which is so lucky to manage something amazing like the dnd brand has no need at all of pointlessly teasing the customers or forbidding the amateur development of things in which they are clearly not interested at all.
  • 04:08 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Parmandur in post New "Stranger Things" D&D Starter Set Announced
    Stan! wrote this?? Nice. Might be premature to say it is Greyhawk, since they were playing with the boxed Basic set. I would think it will almost certainly not be setting specific, as most games where in 1983. Whilst The World of Greyhawk was published, I don't remember anyone actually using it. I owned it, it was dull as ditchwater and not really very useful. It had no "crunch", to use a modern term. City State of the Invincible Overlord was the only published setting I remember being actually used back then.
  • 03:49 PM - quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    WotC is not on life support, they are being careful and considerate with releases. repeatedly teasing at classic campaign settings and then publishing 'seasickness handbook' is neither careful nor considerate. it is just disrespectful towards fan of those settings who are waiting for their official 5E upgrades.

Thursday, 14th February, 2019

  • 11:27 AM - CapnZapp quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    And lo and behold, they have: there have been a number of Subclasses introduced, and Subclass design is the Thing for 5E, like Kits in 2E or Classes in 3.x. Actual Classes, which are expected to support 12+ Subclasses conceptually, are a long term proposition.And look and behold, that's not what I'm asking for. Most new subclasses are lazy rehashes of where exactly you gain Advantage. I'm talking about new classes. This thread is about a new class. Your post is irrelevant and likely meant only to dismiss my credibility.
  • 09:33 AM - orial quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    Another Tales from the Yawning Portal, at least: since the text is from U3, at least the whole U series seems likely. Indeed, the text on the preview page is the same as the text in U3. " There are 20 sahuagin warriors in here, all off duty but disinterested in the activities going on in the arena. They are talking, checking their equipment, sharpening their weapons or simply swimming lazily around. Most of their weapons have been laid aside, though easily within reach. Twelve are armed with trident, net and dagger, while the other eight have a heavy crossbow, six bolts and a dagger each, The warriors each have 2-12sp in a pouch."

Wednesday, 13th February, 2019

  • 09:15 PM - Satyrn quoted Parmandur in post New "Stranger Things" D&D Starter Set Announced
    Both Wizards and Hasbro's logo are on the box. I wouldn't be surprised if Hasbro is doing a big Stranger Things toy push this Summer, and this plays into that. Still, he's essentially right. It is interesting that the Hasbro logo is rather prominent.
  • 05:07 PM - Jer quoted Parmandur in post New "Stranger Things" D&D Starter Set Announced
    Yeah, probably? I'd expect, if anything, for this to be a limited edition item. I would expect so too. This is a niche product for fans of Stranger Things. And a nostalgia product designed to pull at the hearts of gamers of a certain age - look at how they've broken out the Metzner-era "red box" design again for it. I'm hopeful, though, that leads to them putting out more limited edition starter sets in the future. I think if they put out a Starter Set themed to work with the MtG Ravnica setting book they put out, that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. (And if they want my advice for a nostalgia product - put out a limited edition Starter Set with a 5e version of either Keep on the Borderlands or Village of Hommlet in it.)
  • 03:39 PM - Dausuul quoted Parmandur in post New "Stranger Things" D&D Starter Set Announced
    So, WotC is making a new Starter Set that includes what is ostensibly Mike Wheeler's adventure from "Stranger Things," with the kid's characters as pretend and 80's style dice, available for preorder now. I assume this will include variant rules for making an attack roll with a fireball. :) Jokes aside, though, that's pretty neat. I might have to pick up a copy.
  • 10:27 AM - CapnZapp quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    Good, caution is the better part of valor.If you aren't just trolling, and really believe five years between class additions is a reasonable development span, boy are you out of touch.
  • 02:31 AM - ad_hoc quoted Parmandur in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    Yeah, can't blame WotC for nature. Well we can blame Western civilization for that one.

Tuesday, 12th February, 2019

  • 03:28 AM - bedir than quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    Greg Tito said they would announce this book "in about a month" pretty close to a month ago, so I expect something will happen soon. Over the past week we've had the snowiest month in 50 years. Yes, one week but more snow than any month for 50 years. The next pass at the Artificer was delayed. A couple streaming shows were skipped. The Renton School District (home of WotC) hasn't had a full school day in a week and was cancelled several days in that stretch.
  • 03:23 AM - Demetrios1453 quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    Greg Tito said they would announce this book "in about a month" pretty close to a month ago, so I expect something will happen soon. Sneak peaks generally indicate that an announcement is relatively imminent.

Monday, 11th February, 2019

  • 10:23 AM - gyor quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    In 2017, the two adventure products had the same archvillain: still pretty different books. If this is an underwater Sahuagin-fest in the style of Aquaman, and the AP is a Sword Coast sandbox (as Perkins has laid hints towards in the past, the upcoming comic series, etc.), those can be even more different in terms of material. Another Swordcoast Sandbox, no thanks. Sea of Fallen Stars okay, but more Swordcoast, no deal.

Sunday, 10th February, 2019

  • 07:46 PM - vpuigdoller quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    More specifically, those rules were part of a larger batch of vehicle rules that include land and air vehicles. They decided, for reasons, that selecting ship rules out for early playtesting would make sense. And in the past week or so, Mearls said on Twitter they have started reworking them based on the positive feedback. As to the contents of this book...there was a Tier II series of Sahuagin adventures in 2E. What if this book reprints those, with U2-3, and a Volo's Guide style section on Sahuagin...? Oh I have never played those, do you mean GA1-2? The Murky Deep and Swamplight? That could be nice, are they related or stand alone? I think there was a GA 3 as well. Edit to add; The only other i can think of is Evil Tide trilogy by Bruce Cordell, but haven't played that one either.
  • 07:11 PM - vpuigdoller quoted Parmandur in post Pages From The Upcoming Nautical D&D Book!
    Considering that per Mearls, they just started revising the vehicle rules based on feedback, and this book is in layout, I doubt the seafaring UA was meant for this release. It was probably meant to be useful for playtesting with this book. Oh, this is a very interesting piece of information. In an earlier post, I mentioned that the original U3 module included some kind of guidelines for underwater adventures but there were none for seafaring or navigating ships or other water vehicles. If you are correct and the big AP from summer is also water-themed, that one might include then the seafaring rules that were playtested.

Parmandur's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites