View Profile: Parmandur - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Parmandur

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 30

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,556
Posts Per Day
2.54
Last Post
WotC: Stop sitting on Rich Burlew's setting (you own the rights!) - publish it for 5E too! Wednesday, 11th July, 2018 10:04 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
15
General Information
Last Activity
Thursday, 12th July, 2018 04:26 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 16th September, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Sunday, 15th July, 2018


Friday, 13th July, 2018


Thursday, 12th July, 2018


Wednesday, 11th July, 2018


Saturday, 7th July, 2018


Friday, 6th July, 2018


Tuesday, 26th June, 2018


Monday, 25th June, 2018


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 12th May, 2018

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

Wednesday, 9th May, 2018


Sunday, 21st January, 2018

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

Thursday, 23rd November, 2017

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

Wednesday, 15th November, 2017

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

Monday, 13th November, 2017

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

Sunday, 5th November, 2017

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

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

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

Friday, 13th October, 2017


Saturday, 25th February, 2017

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

Friday, 24th February, 2017

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

Monday, 20th February, 2017

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

Wednesday, 15th February, 2017

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

Tuesday, 14th February, 2017

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

Wednesday, 18th January, 2017


Thursday, 3rd November, 2016

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

Wednesday, 2nd November, 2016


Friday, 28th October, 2016


Friday, 21st October, 2016

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


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 94 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Thursday, 12th July, 2018

  • 02:56 AM - Polyhedral Columbia quoted Parmandur in post WotC: Stop sitting on Rich Burlew's setting (you own the rights!) - publish it for 5E too!
    ...pped up in various 3.5 sourcebooks after the setting search that originated from my world. And that's not even counting more subtle influences. The one thing I can say, because WOTC employee James Wyatt already let it out of the bag years ago: The death-worshipping elves of Arenal were a suggestion WOTC staff made to Keith Baker to add into Eberron after the contest was won but before the book was published. The core idea, however—death-worshipping elves—was lifted by WOTC from my setting. (Note that Keith did not know this at the time, and his elves are still VERY different from mine.) So, they have been getting their money's worth out of the purchase all along; it hasn't so much been sitting in a drawer as cannibalized, at least while 3.5 was still going. I daresay that if my setting were released today, a lot of it would seem very been-there, done-that as a result.” http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?202413-Rich-Burlew-s-Campaign-setting/page4 Thanks for the info Parmandur. Still, "a dozen or so ideas (and at least one recurring mechanic)" do not exhaust a setting. I mean, even "Burlew's World" shares those features with Eberron, it'd still have its own world map, place names, gods, species, and cultures. So what if it has some similarities with Eberron. So does Mystara (airships). That doesn't mean Mystara should be shot down. If WotC would get a world-hopping meta-setting in place ("Chrono-plane-jammer"), then they'd be in position to release all of worlds (and more!) as one-shot books (or web-only PDFs) or chapters in a multi-setting sampler book. Just keep the Adventurers League coming back to FR after world-hopping, and you've kept FR as the central home base. Voila!

Friday, 6th July, 2018

  • 09:45 PM - Salthorae quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    His goal was to get people to watch, certainly. Yeah but it’s like killing the sheep for the wool. Now I, and I’m sure others, who might have tuned in on the regular with a good worthwhile stream are never going to watch. How is that helpful?

Saturday, 23rd June, 2018


Thursday, 14th June, 2018


Tuesday, 12th June, 2018

  • 04:46 AM - Jester David quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    Don't see as it is all that unlikely, given that they have been dipping their toes in the M:tG waters bit by bit for two years now, and have been surveying M:tG fans for their reactions and what they would like to see in a paid product almost as long. 5E M:tG sooner or latter is probable, we'll see soon enough if that related to their 3018 product plans. People have been predicting a crossover of MtG and D&D pretty much since WotC bought the company. They've done the fun little PDFs (which likely exist because a former D&D team member got moved to MtG and got creative). I can't imagine the fan reaction will be positive if they do a MtG campaign setting hardcover in place of any of the other classic settings...
  • 04:04 AM - Jester David quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    So, trawling the thread on the Giant in the Playground forums about the same article, somebody reported on "good authority" that he heard the next thing is a full-blown Magic: The Gathering RPG product. He wasn't happy about this, but add that to the rumor pile. It's highly unlikely. But probably just as valid as any of the other rumours going around...
  • 01:09 AM - gyor quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    So, trawling the thread on the Giant in the Playground forums about the same article, somebody reported on "good authority" that he heard the next thing is a full-blown Magic: The Gathering RPG product. He wasn't happy about this, but add that to the rumor pile. This is a possiblity. It will anger alot of Traditional D&D fans if Magics settings get support before traditional none FR settings. Maybe both will see support. Honestly one of the products is D&D: Magic the Gathering, which I do support, how do they fit the Magic the Gathering multiverse within the D&D multiverse and will the relationship be reciperical, say D&D or Forgotten Realms decks for Magic the Gathering? (D&D power sources being linked to colours perhaps, Black=Shadow, Red=Arcane, White=Divine, Blue=Psionic, Green=Primal).

Sunday, 10th June, 2018

  • 11:46 PM - Jester David quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    My impression from the original article and the author's comments on Reddit was that the two "summer products" mentioned were Dragon Heist and Dungeon of the Mad Mage, as the reported conversation took place before the AP product reveals. Which seems like a stretch. As the two Dragon Heist products are coming out in September (which is arguably more Autumn than Summer) and November (which is Winter). It really seems like there's two additional settings coming. The article does quote Stewart as saying "Next month we're going to talk about a couple of different settings that people can start playing as early as this year," And also: "We have two surprises that I think hardcore D&D fans are really going to love coming this summer," Stewart said. "And then I think we got one surprise that's going to release later this year that we've not told anyone about. We're going to announce it in July." Which would make ZERO sense if he were talking about Dragon Heist. Not just because—as mentioned—tho...
  • 11:02 PM - Jester David quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    Is there any reason to believe this surprise is anything more than WotC saying “We’re unlocking X and Y settings - have at it” and maybe a couple PDF guides? I mean, I love the idea of setting books but it seems people are jumping the gun and potentially dooming themselves to nerdrage disappointment. Now I’m not saying we won’t see a setting book, just that it seems a lot of folks are reading a lot into some relatively innocuous comments. There’s pretty much nothing solid. Case and point: Stewart said there was a product, specifically, coming, and Mearls did retweet the story in this original post in a teasing manner. They have dropped hints several times if a fourth gaming product this year previously, as well. I think the next couple of UA articles, which are properly timed for testing before a late December release, might reveal a bit of their plans. The thing is... PDF is still a product. They still need to write it, edit it, commission art, and put it through layout. From their...
  • 04:58 PM - TiwazTyrsfist quoted Parmandur in post What year is it?
    I don't see what the business case for a metaplot returning would be: any value added seems minimal, whereas it would actively alienate people setting their game in another timeframe. I doubt the current approach to RPG timelines will change, even if other elements get changed. The fact of the mater is, presence of meta-plot and a living timelined campaign setting (or multiple settings), is a pure mater of personal taste. My view is that the the divide is 33/33/33. -1/3rd HATE setting meta-plot, they tend to say things like "This robs us of agency, it's railroading the game on the highest level, it can really screw characters in living campaigns (Divine caster who's god dies)". They consider it ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS when tie in novels effect the setting meta plot. These players tend to vomit blood when someone nearby mentions Dragonlance. -1/3rd LOVE setting meta-plot, they tend to say things like "It keeps the setting fresh, by running these adventures players get to be involved in...

Saturday, 9th June, 2018

  • 08:56 PM - TheSword quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    Perfectly comfortable, which is handy, because that is what will be happening moving forwards, it seems. Note that there is a major distinction between "accessible" and "easily accessible." You can have a story telling about events in 12th century Mexico, that are not easily accessible to 12th century European characters in another story. Doesn't mean they take place in different universes. Yeah, sorry it doesn’t work for me. If gold, iron, water etc can be ported in from beyond then ecological disaster becomes irrelevant. Athas is hell, if things could leave for less sunny climes, they would. In a place where gold is worth 100 times its normal price then 1,000 go becomes 100,000 gp. Apparently the designers/editors or the setting felt so to. I’m not going to bother arguing with you any more because you’re clearly choosing to ignore the official writings that don’t support your view. Do what you like with the setting. It’s old edition at this point so technically it’s all homebrew.
  • 06:32 PM - TheSword quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    A Johnny Come Lately retcon can, itself, be retconned with no shame. The 4E material rolled back a lot of latter day Dark Sun, and doubtless 5E will do aimilar. For example, see the presence of the Arhasian Half-Fiant in Faerun alongside a Tal'Dorei Goliath in recent times. So you’re comfortable with Athas being accessible to all and sundry as normal with simple plane shifting magic?
  • 03:22 PM - TiwazTyrsfist quoted Parmandur in post What year is it?
    Fair enough: WotC has nothing to gain by establishing an ongoing chronological Canon, but plenty to lose. Doubt they ever will again. Contrarily, I believe they will, but not in 5e. Wobbly Timeline vs Definite Timeline is a very thematic sort of thing IMO, and it seems like the sort of thing that will get changed with an edition change, especially if the Edition change involves the design team heads being changed. So, I can totally see 6th or 7th edition eventually switching back to a very rigidly kept and followed timeline. Possibly to the extent of League adventures tracking in world month and date relative to real world month and date. But, again, almost certainly not during 5e.

Friday, 8th June, 2018

  • 05:07 PM - GarrettKP quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    A likely story. I swear it on all my D&D products. I have no insight, tho I do wish I did. I’ve always been the kinda of person who enjoys logic puzzles and treasure hunts, and that’s what I think D&D has become. The devs intentionally let small things slip to keep fans guessing but this time they overstepped and let too much go. And it isn’t just this time really, remember someone here figured out Tomb of Annihilation before the announcement because a Acquisitions Inc game and Drizzt Novel both mentioned Acererak, Chult and the Soul Monger months in advance. WotC has been leaving clues for a while now. All you have to do is pay attention and you’ll find the pieces of the puzzles.
  • 03:29 PM - Echohawk quoted Parmandur in post What year is it?
    "Canonically" there is no precise year: the APs have no metaplot impact, and there is no advancing timeline at all any more. Just some suggestions that a DM can take or leave. Sure, I get that. For me this is just a fun exercise to see if we can narrow down the date despite WotC's apparent reluctance to commit. I know we could probably quibble about what counts as FR canon in 5th Edition, but assuming we treat recent WotC-published material as any sort of authority, it does seem like 1491 DR is a strong candidate for the current year.
  • 03:19 PM - GarrettKP quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    You could have done what several playtesters did on the sly this year in regards to the Waterdeep one-two punch, and just tell us what is coming but pretend that it is a guess. ;) I'd like to point out I am not a playtester but was one of the first to guess Waterdeep and Undermountain. Frankly, WotC doesn't need people to leak things, they are very heavy-handed in their hints and teases. Waterdeep and Undermountain were not hard guesses based on the codenames, content of live shows like DCA, and the monthly Nathan Stewart Fireside Chat. It is almost like WotC wanted people to know. With that said, I really do think Darksun and Eberron are the summer releases and that this "something new" book is coming at the end of the year and if I had to guess right now I would say it is a modern setting, maybe even futuristic. That is the only thing I think would feel truly new!

Thursday, 7th June, 2018

  • 10:09 PM - neogod22 quoted Parmandur in post Two New Settings For D&D This Year
    You could have done what several playtesters did on the sly this year in regards to the Waterdeep one-two punch, and just tell us what is coming but pretend that it is a guess. ;)That could've worked for the Waterdeep books, the other one... the one, is different. Something new.

Wednesday, 30th May, 2018

  • 05:43 AM - Riley37 quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    The relevant portion, wherein the question of "why not?" can be inferred: D&D has not joined this "revolution" for the simple reason that the D&D customer base does not want this separation, radically so. Doesn't mean that wanting it is wrong, but it hasn't and won't happen for that basic reason. I pointed out that others have created games with rules-setting separation. I didn't ask any questions about TSR or WotC, nor about Shadowrun, nor about FATAL. When I mention that Toyota makes hybrid-engine cars, that is NOT a question asking why General Motors does not make such cars. Your declaration that you are intentionally trolling me can be inferred. Stop.
  • 04:42 AM - Dannyalcatraz quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    The relevant portion, wherein the question of "why not?" can be inferred: D&D has not joined this "revolution" for the simple reason that the D&D customer base does not want this separation, radically so. Doesn't mean that wanting it is wrong, but it hasn't and won't happen for that basic reason. Agreed. HERO is my favorite rpg system, bar none. But I don’t want D&D to be HERO, I want it to be D&D. It’s mean...I love ribeye steaks and I love lox. But I don’t want my ribeye to be more like lox, nor my lox more like ribeyes.
  • 03:37 AM - Riley37 quoted Parmandur in post MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it
    OK, you asked why D&D doesn't follow the path of setting-beutral systems: the answer is "People (who pay money for D&D) don't want that, so they don't make it." When and where did I ask that? Why are you providing answers, to questions I never asked? Are you doing something other than trolling me? If so, what exactly are you doing?


Page 1 of 94 123456789101151 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Parmandur's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites