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


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E? Today 03:41 AM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:04 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 16th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
Page 1 of 24 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 22nd April, 2018

Saturday, 21st April, 2018

Page 1 of 24 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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 ...

Friday, 9th January, 2015

  • 09:44 AM - Sadras mentioned Parmandur in post Why is Hoard of the Dragon Queen such a bad adventure?
    I don't see how this is special to 5e. You can "play your concept" and ignore the bigger picture (mechanical and/or story) in any edition. Just elaborating on what @doctorhook replied above...there is no necessary feat tax (3e), there is no necessary ability improvement that needs to scale with the monsters AC (4e). But as @Parmandur mentioned which I agree with, they improved 4e's +1/2 levels by introducing bounded accuracy. Funny enough, half my playgroup wishes to introduce the 2e ability scaling where the "plusses" were even lower. I'm not sure if this is only my playgroup, but a few of my players really want to incorporate quite a few of 2e's concepts such as action declaration and initiative every round. I'm not sure where this sudden resurgence has sprung from as they never voiced such concerns during our 3e and 4e playing years, not that I'm against it, I'm just surprised.

Monday, 15th December, 2014

  • 04:57 AM - howandwhy99 mentioned Parmandur in post With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E
    It's the holiday season and this is getting tiresome. You don't understand, I understand. I've gone to great lengths to help you understand. If you have any further questions I will try and answer them, but let's go to PM and quit bloating this thread which is quite clearly not about the topics you've been asking about. pemerton, gauchi, Parmandur, I don't have the time at this point in the holiday to spend trying to help you understand. Especially when the intent is simply to demand "You're wrong", "This is not actual D&D" (it is), and "you can't actually do that anyways". It's time to be nice to each other. Parmandur gives a quality summary of the most recent material we've been discussing, but we have covered so much. Have a happy holidays and enjoy the rest of the thread.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 85 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Sunday, 22nd April, 2018

  • 03:55 AM - pemerton quoted Parmandur in post What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E?
    I think you get it about right in your self-quite, coming at it from a different playstyle. One of my great shicks from the 5E playtest results is that my college group was fairly normal, not as weird as I thought based on forum talk and WotC products in 3.5 and 4E.I've just made another post - I'm curious if you agree with it also. As far as 3E/PF is concerned, I think as a system it is extremely different from 4e, and is the culmination of the mechanical strand of the 2nd ed AD&D system design ethos. The issues that can emerge from this system are well-known. 4e adresses them through treating the encounter as the site of action resolution, and establishing mechanical parity of builds about the encounter. Essentials departs from the default 4e approach, with some PC builds that have healing surges as their only daily resource. 5e and 13th Age extend this model, using N encounters per day as their balancing method. In 13th Age this is hardcoded; in 5e it's built into the encounter-desig...

Saturday, 21st April, 2018

  • 06:14 PM - Ancalagon quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    Looks like Paizo era Dragon magazine. Sexualized toddler sized people are...sauiggy. Issue 285 to be exact ... I don't know what sauiggy means
  • 02:02 AM - Demetrios1453 quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    Yeah, I think we will see a looooot of Fiends in this here book. The Bestiary will probably be somewhat truncated by the 20 pages of random name tables and the appendix if Halfling art, which is fine by me (though seriously, I reckon there will be some Appendix surprises, it's how WotC rolls). Thinking a bit more on it, demodands would be in that section as well (assuming they use that name instead of gehreleth, which seems to be confined to 2e), which would also fit the fiend theme admirably. But then again, there are canonically only three types of demodand, so they won't be taking up many pages either (likely 3 - 4 or so) should they be in the book.
  • 01:43 AM - Demetrios1453 quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    That may be misleading: there over 230 digital objects for Roll20, but if I recall correctly Volo's got slight inflated by things like multiplying Kobold stat blocks by six (for each Draconic type) when translated to Roll20. Still, interesting. Also, full printable handouts for the Lord's of the Nine Hells, veeeery interesting. Good point. For example, given what they said about devilish and demonic cults being detailed, we might have templates for each archdevil and demon prince to apply to the generic MM cultists. But even so, I imagine we have a good chance of being closer to 200 monster stat blocks (if not still above) than 100 with that statement. Which takes me to the page numbers. Moloch is in the "D" section (for "Devil" obviously, and the "D" is helpfully shown on each page), and is on pages 176 - 177. I hadn't looked previously for some reason (which is odd, since I always check for page numbers in previews so I can get as much info as possible on what an upcoming book contains), ...

Friday, 20th April, 2018

  • 09:49 PM - Blue quoted Parmandur in post New class concepts
    Well, yeah, multiclassing is a broken trap, and not in a favorable way. Avoiding the variant rules is a good start for 5E system mastery, such as it is. A multiclassing character will still contribute, but it is not a path to greatness by and large. I disagree with this end of the spectrum as well. As I mentioned, there are time multiclassing characters can fulfill their concepts while not falling behind. Some guidelines (not hard and fast rules) would be wait until after 5th, if you're near an ASI, take another level and get it, and have an eye on what you're giving up - but for some classes at higher levels that's not much as long as you never expect to hit 20th so you can ignore the capstone. System mastery isn't ignoring options out of hand, it's knowing when to dismiss them and when to use them.
  • 02:17 PM - Vanveen quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    Wouldn't be that odd, insofar as the Displacer Beast is one of the handful of distinct product identity monsters. It would be odd indeed, given that the displacer beast was shamelessly stolen from A.E. Van Vogt. Identity theft maybe?!?
  • 12:51 PM - Mercule quoted Parmandur in post Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
    I don't think the Paladin and Ranger have super strong reasons to exist. With the 5E backgrounds, I think you could easily just roll Ranger into a woodsy background + Fighter class. I'd miss some of the "spec ops" bits, but not so much I'd have an internet rage quit over it. The Paladin could really just be a divine flavored Eldritch Knight knock-off. I see no reason why we need a bunch of variants for Paladin, anyway. The PHB sub-classes are mostly fine, but I don't think there have been any expanded options that don't seem pointless, to me. Since I've only seen two paladins played since 1983, I can't say I'd really miss it. Regardless, I'd happily give up both of those to put a stake in the heart of the Barbarian. If there was ever a class that should be a sub class of another, it's Barbarian. Just make an "angry Fighter" subclass and call it a day. Totem warrior stuff could be a sub-class of Druid or, if inclined to keep the Ranger, a subclass of that -- just without the "I'm angry" bi...
  • 05:53 AM - Jester David quoted Parmandur in post Marathon, Broadway, and Catacomb: Upcoming D&D Products?
    Well, whatever it turns out to be, it would be something that Kate Welch could edit, so no dice. It could also be a board game or a card game. Or referring to the Drizzt book due this September. Or she could have misspoke and was thinking of the spring 2019 book. But she did say it was something she did not work on, since she only worked on two of the three. So dice would fit. Heck, so would Dungeon Tiles or a map pack. Design work is design work, and doing art orders would be part of her job. Four would surprise me, but you do know that Broadway and Catacomb have already been written? The commissioned the art for it a couple months ago according to one of the artists. Right. And they’ve already begun work on the spring 2019 book. (But they were working on editing the May 2018 book as late as a couple months ago, so the fall books aren’t finished yet.) The point is they would be hard pressed to get three books written within four months. Because whether they wrote it right now or six mont...
  • 04:44 AM - Demetrios1453 quoted Parmandur in post Archdevil Moloch (Mordenkainen's tome of foes preview from Dragon+)
    I appreciate the nod to the 1E PHB art. If I'm not mistaken, that is the 1e art. I also like how they are again reconciling disparate things from previous editions to make a coherent story. Moloch was mentioned in a couple of 3e products as being nothing more than an imp; here, they take that and make it so that, yes, that's true, but he's also able to appear in his normal, powerful form.

Thursday, 19th April, 2018

  • 11:48 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Parmandur in post Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
    Well, but the traditions in the book are Traditional. ;) The Witch is older than 1e. OK, it was pretty warlock-y back then, but still. Thing is, I can cook up a witch with multiple Class/Background combos from the PHB. You could do the same to get a Paladin or Ranger, and they're full classes. One fun way to go would be to pull a Druidish "Mystic Theurge" and give a Wizard the Circle of the Land abilities from the Druid subclass.Interesting thought.
  • 11:12 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    Are people taking the other characters "seriously" now...? The Halfling art isn't the standout in the PHB (I like the Guild Artisan image, and the raccous musician piece), but it isn't any more or less "cartoon character" than the Elves or Dragonborn, say. It’s vastly more cartoonish than either. Neither elf image, nor the DB image, is cartoonish at all. At the closest. They just look like fantasy art.
  • 10:48 PM - Staffan quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    Is it, though? I know the style isn't to everybody's tastes, but I've never heard anybody outside if a form who objected to the current D&D Halfling style. Well, now you have. The best D&D halflings are, of course, Dark Sun halflings. They live in the jungle and are likely to eat you if you trespass on their territory (contrary to popular belief, they are not​ cannibals - they never eat other halflings). The second-best halflings are Eberron halflings. They are plains nomads who ride on dinosaurs. After that, it's the regular semi-nomadic/river-rat 3e/4e halflings - they're OK, but nothing special. Old-school/Tolkien halflings? Meh. They're boring. They should stay in Middle-Earth where they belong.
  • 10:36 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Parmandur in post Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
    Well, in four years, we've seen all of two new traditions: so, yeah, they are holding it to a fairly picky standard. Most of that could be done with a Background... Standards can be picky, but a standard that'd exclude something already in the PH is too picky.
  • 09:45 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Parmandur in post Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
    Right, I meant what is there to a "witch" that wouldn't fit in the already present archetypes? If we held every tradition to that standard, we wouldn't need any traditions. I mean evokers go around blowing enemies away with spells that say 'evocation' on the tin, they do it a little better, but they don't do it particularly differently, nor do anything else that screams 'evoker' that's not just casting evocation spells. The last witch got a familiar and the ability to swap out one known spell each day with it's help, and had an association with the moon that determined some of it's powers. And, of course, it added Witch Bolt to the game. ;) Part of the flavor was that witches were an ancient tradition that played a role in society closer to that of a priest or shaman, in spite of being arcanists - might be able to work that in somehow, as well.
  • 09:16 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Parmandur in post Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
    I could personally see a Wizard subclass, but I'm not sure what would be missing already from a (say) Divination Wizard with the desired background? There's nothing in particular missing from the abilities of any one tradition relative to any other, they're really pretty minor compared to spell choice. An illusionist can blow away enemies with fireballs; an invoker can cast Foresight.
  • 06:15 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Parmandur in post Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?
    Is it, though? I know the style isn't to everybody's tastes, but I've never heard anybody outside if a form who objected to the current D&D Halfling style. It’s terrible, and I’ve encountered several new players who are reluctant to play halflings because the art looks so stupid. It’s like a silly cartoon character in a book of characters you’re supposed to be able to take seriously.

Wednesday, 18th April, 2018

  • 04:24 PM - Ancalagon quoted Parmandur in post PF2: Spells!
    Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules? . What's the value of a new ruleset? It could be better. I had stopped running 3.x games (too time consuming) and I didn't like 4e. 5e brought me back to d&d. For my needs and tastes, 5e is better. PF2 may be better for other people.
  • 04:05 PM - Aldarc quoted Parmandur in post PF2: Spells!
    Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules?Presumably new gaming experiences under the auspices of a potentially better gaming system that is more conducive to consumer preferences. From a 5E perspective, I don't see much value in a system that does the same thing I already have (heroic fantasy), but without the best parts (Bounded Accuracy, for instance) and more math and paperwork.From what I gather from Paizo's statements, this is a different flavor of "heroic fantasy" than what 5E caters to. Similar, but distinct. Pathfinder 2 appears more oriented towards "epic heroic fantasy" with more larger-than-life characters capable of fantastic physical feats of dashing and daring, such as the high level fighter who jumps 6 meters up in the air or cutting through an army of orcs. Bounded Accuracy is the "best part" of 5E if you want the game aesthetic that Bounded Accuracy fosters, but that ...
  • 03:36 PM - Kobold Boots quoted Parmandur in post PF2: Spells!
    Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules? Then again, the fully bought-in crowd for Pathfinder 1E is probably not a growth market at this stage, from a business sense. Which is what the same folks were more or less told by WotC in 2008, so #triggered. People age out of playing these games. It's the rare crowd (probably aligns well with those on this forum) that feel the pain of new editions. Still, I think that this rare crowd can be and may likely be the bridge between generations insofar as that provides value. From a 5E perspective, I don't see much value in a system that does the same thing I already have (heroic fantasy), but without the best parts (Bounded Accuracy, for instance) and more math and paperwork. It seems to be alienating the 3.x purists, while maintaining some of the least enjoyable parts of 3.x. Time will tell how that works out in the market. Sure. I can d...

Tuesday, 17th April, 2018

  • 09:28 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Parmandur in post 5e & PF2 - Why Choose the Same Approach?
    Which is why they mad ethe product It's why they cloned the cover of the Red Box for Essential, too, but that went over like a lead balloon. Timing is everything. And, with a nerd-beloved franchise like D&D, walking that tight-rope between fan-acceptable and mainstream-accessible is critical. 5e erred on the side of acceptability, with good results. the Keep on the Shadowfell set and the Essentials box, too, and those did not have the staying power of the Lost Mines of Phandelver. You mean the starter set, since the module in question was just in it, not being sold separately. I don't even recall if KotSf was physically in a starter set, or not (again, having not cracked open a starter set since 1980), but the Essentials Red Box was prettymuch redundant to the other Essentials offerings (which, heck, had a certain level of redundancy in HotFL/HotFK, which shared a lot more than just the first 4 letters of their goofy-sounding acronyms). Starter Sets just weren't that necessary, the game...

Page 1 of 85 123456789101151 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Parmandur's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites