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

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 30

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,098
Posts Per Day
2.74
Last Post
DnD Sports Changes Name To RPG Sports Today 04:16 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
17
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:18 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 16th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 19th October, 2018


Thursday, 18th October, 2018


Wednesday, 17th October, 2018


Tuesday, 16th October, 2018



Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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: 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



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

Friday, 19th October, 2018

  • 10:28 AM - gyor quoted Parmandur in post Lore You Should Know: Boros, Azorious, Gruul, Rakdos (Ravnica guilds)
    To be honest, I rather doubt it,beyond maybe references or sidebars in other books. One and done, open it up on the DMsGuild is my prediction for support. Maybe an AL series. Honestly I was refering mostly to side bars and mentions in general books, like maybe mentioned as one if the D&D worlds in a Spelljammer/Planescape setting guide. Maybe a chance of having some of its newer monsters from the current sets being added to Monster books in the future like VGTM type books.

Thursday, 18th October, 2018


Wednesday, 17th October, 2018

  • 09:26 PM - Charles Dunwoody quoted Parmandur in post Ravnica Update: Focus on Five Guilds
    From the chatter the WotC has been giving, it is the Background system mixed with the Faction Reknown system in the DMG. Nothing new, really. Looks like a way to move up in the ranks of the guilds. So a Boros Legion soldier might be able to sergeant and eventually run a garrison.

Tuesday, 16th October, 2018

  • 11:40 PM - gyor quoted Parmandur in post Ravnica: Broken Pact
    Will be interesting to see if they are Volo's reprints, or a more M:tG version, as Magic Goblins are a different thing entirely. Based on the Minotaur/Centaur rules, I'm hoping it is a unique take. MtG goblins are even between one plane and the next. Still VGTMs stats would do fine in my opinion as the Ravnica goblin race, nothing in it that would be out of line honestly.
  • 07:23 PM - TwoSix quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Well, no: WotC is releasing a new setting book in three weeks time, and has devoted about a third of a year so far in their UA pipeline towards playtesting Eberron material. Also, listening to Mearls during the Happy Fun Hour, it is pretty clear that they are actively thinking about Dark Sun (he laid out how they would do it at the end of the show last week, and it was clearly a developed and we'll discussed plan, not an off-the-cuff brainstorm as he often does, and he made "works with Dark Sun" as his Prime Directive design goal for the Psion Class and rules). Edit: Setting development of the kind the poster I quoted is looking for is dead. No big 320 page gazetteer of a brand new realm. I'm glad to see new Eberron stuff, but it's still a 15 year old setting. Ravnica is new for D&D, but not new. Dark Sun is about 25 years old, and any release would be its 3rd (or 4th, depending on how you view Revised) iteration. The poster I quoted needed a little dose of reality injected into their...
  • 06:19 PM - Davies quoted Parmandur in post What's Inside Goodman Games' Isle Of Dread Reincarnated?
    I'll wager that it is shorter, buuuut the 5E conversion could easily be much larger than the Into the Borderlands section. It's possible that many of the adventure seeds from the back of the module will be built up into actual encounters, or that the rest of the archipelago will be described in more detail.
  • 09:10 AM - pming quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Hiya! First impression: that is not a fair characterization of Hasbro, which scores very well on ethics watchdog reports. Second, these worries are otherwise groundless. TTRPG can't compete with CRPGs on that front if they tried. First...I'm going to err on the side of caution and just assume that roughly 20% to 25% of the CEO's and other 3-letter-acronym'ed suits running Hasbro are psychopaths/sociopaths. Maybe Hasbro is an anomaly with zero of these types...but the odd's are stacked against them. Second...then why is WotC trying? To me it looks like someone who wants more power/money saw the cash bring brought in by Computer RPG games (and CCG's, to be honest) and then the uptick in RPG'ing popularity and figured "Chocolate...Peanut Butter....PERFECT!". But that's just what it looks like from my perspective, on the outside of the board room. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but I guess we'll see over the next year or two. ^_^ Paul L. Ming
  • 07:33 AM - DQDesign quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Fair use, pretty much they can. The CEO was talking about streaming in general the CEO was explicitly talking about esports, you can check it here http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5449-D-D-s-Best-Year-Ever-But-Hasbro-s-Goal-Is-For-D-D-e-Sports
  • 07:17 AM - DQDesign quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Fair use, pretty much they can. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that a logo involving the 'DND' letters together with a d20 and a world-spanning broadcasting involving thousand-dollars prizes is all but fair use.
  • 06:21 AM - DQDesign quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    This isn't from WotC, at all. Entirely third party project, Nathan Stewart made that clear on Twitter. Yes, anyone in the world can do things like these, including using the dnd brand, without any previous involvement of the brand owner... And it is surely something wotc is not interested in, the Hasbro CEO just hinted to it by chance.
  • 12:39 AM - Charles Dunwoody quoted Parmandur in post Ravnica Update: Focus on Five Guilds
    Guild membership will be part of new Backgrounds, based on what they have said so far. Right. I'm just hoping guild membership is not better mechanically than a regular background.

Monday, 15th October, 2018

  • 08:30 PM - Satyrn quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    It's not clear yet what the rules will entail: I'm betting it is more conflicting goals of the two parties, not necessarily just combat. Though it will probably come to blows. The OP tells us "Each game is a best of 3 arena battle and played via Roll20."
  • 08:19 PM - DQDesign quoted Parmandur in post "DnDSports": Competitive Play With Prizes
    Last year, WotC ran Tomb of Horrors as a scored module at Cons with a monetary price? how much?
  • 08:04 PM - Gradine quoted Parmandur in post WOTC is hiring a new Game Designer for D&D
    The style guide handles more than just references, and is an overall solid professional standard. Yeah Chicago is more than just references and citations, it's also a style guide; much like Strunk & White's Elements of Style (which I think is frankly overrated compared to Chicago).

Sunday, 14th October, 2018

  • 02:14 AM - Slit518 quoted Parmandur in post WOTC is hiring a new Game Designer for D&D
    Last time they did this, Mearls stated that DMsGuild products counted, and they are fairly open minded about product credits in general. Not to double post, but does that mean self published products as well? If that is the case, puft, I can crap out crap! Note, it also mentions editing somebody else's work and it getting published.

Thursday, 11th October, 2018

  • 10:39 AM - UngeheuerLich quoted Parmandur in post Dragon+ Issue 22 w/ exclusive Dungeon of the Mad Mage Preview
    It gives a pretty detailed breakdown of the two Maps & Miscellany products. Of course it's a glorified ad, it's a magazine, and a free one to boot. And often a good one. I mean, we got some nice free adventures, some previews, some backdrops, some nice things. Some issues were disappointing, some were actually good.


Parmandur's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites