View Profile: Greenstone.Walker - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:49 AM
    That's a good point. My first thought was that fighting with only one weapon gives you a free hand for throwing captrops or drinking potions or casting spells and so on, but the "free object interaction" rules mean that a free hand isn't really used. What would be the impact of limiting the free object interaction? At the moment you can pull shenanigans like dropping your weapon, drinking a...
    22 replies | 682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Monday, 16th July, 2018, 02:06 AM
    You could solve that by requiring training for levelling, the way OD&D required. GM: You have the XP for level 7? Excellent, now you need the 7 weeks of training. What are you training in? Warlock? Cool, that will cost you X gold.
    185 replies | 4607 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 12:53 AM
    I think this is a symptom of some classes being mechanical-only but other classes being mechanics and story. The idea of a fighter doesn't rely on any fluff. You know how to fight. There's no reliance in anything in the game world. A warlock or cleric, however, is bound up with something in the game - a patron or deity. D&D 5E has tried to remove the link between clerics and paladins and...
    185 replies | 4607 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 03:55 AM
    It is possible that braille-type writing came first. Dwarves were probably carving their words in stone before they were writing them on parchment. Elves were probably communicating by knots tied in pieces of string. Some races (Orcs for example) have no use for braille as those who are blinded are summarily killed or exiled from the tribe.
    30 replies | 566 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Wednesday, 4th July, 2018, 03:49 AM
    The goblin is using a finesse weapon.
    20 replies | 1212 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Wednesday, 4th July, 2018, 12:18 AM
    That's because how hard it hits has nothing dto do with size - it's determined by the Challenge Rating. Making an Ogre hit harder is fine, it just makes it a higher CR monster. Yep, item rarity certainly is wonky. Do a web search for "sane magic item prices". There are at least a couple of documents repricing items.
    20 replies | 1212 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th June, 2018, 11:29 PM
    PHB chapter 7. The rules do not use the term "willpower". The closest they come is "will to live" which is for Constitution. This question on RPG.STackExchange generated a lot of opinions without any clear answer.
    12 replies | 347 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Wednesday, 27th June, 2018, 04:40 AM
    Wisdom is not willpower; it is perception and awareness. In 5E, willpower is modelled by Constitution, which is why a concentration check is a CON save.
    12 replies | 347 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Wednesday, 20th June, 2018, 02:55 AM
    On the other hand, old fogies like me might say it's not "real d&D" unless the ability scores are SIWDCC.
    65 replies | 2700 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Greenstone.Walker's Avatar
    Tuesday, 19th June, 2018, 01:10 AM
    Sometimes players just wanna cast. My Thule game has a wizard, a druid, a cleric, and a warlock. Even after I've warned them multiple times bout the low magic the players still act surprised when they cast spells in town and people attack or flee. *sigh* One Idea I wish I had enforced is the "one caster rule" suggested in the book - the party is only allowed one spellcaster. ...
    65 replies | 2700 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Greenstone.Walker

Basic Information

Age
48
About Greenstone.Walker
About Me:
Started with the Metzger red books in 1983. Played and GMed AD&D 1 and 2, CyberPunk 2020, Dragon Quest (with the Adventurers' Guild of Seagate) and GURPS a lot. Played lots of other systems briefly.
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Christchurch
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
635
Posts Per Day
0.49
Last Post
A TWF revision? Yesterday 01:49 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
14
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 10:54 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 30th December, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
2
My Game Details
Town:
Christchurch
State:
Other (non-US)
Country:
New Zealand

Sunday, 15th July, 2018


Saturday, 14th July, 2018


Friday, 13th July, 2018


Tuesday, 10th July, 2018


Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018


Monday, 25th June, 2018


Wednesday, 20th June, 2018


Tuesday, 3rd October, 2017

  • 06:19 AM - Yaarel mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post [Homebrew] − Rethinking the Ability Scores
    @Greenstone.Walker I like the way FFG reduces the abilities, here down to three. But then dividing them back up to make six seems problematic. D&D has been using six abilities for 5 editions, and almost that many decades. The six abilities have never worked. Ever. They have always been wildly unequal in value. And muddled. They need rethinking. For example, FFG Intellect=D&D Intelligence: ‘raw mental power, your memory, your ability to store and recall information and to make long-term plans’. The problem is, this almost never happens in the game. When was the last time anyone rolled an Intelligence check to see if they could ‘make a plan’? It is a mechanically useless definition that has no place in gaming mechanics. Consider how often a person makes a Intelligence saves? Rare. And even these can be better explained using an ability other than Intelligence. Consider the ‘knowledge’ skills, being little more than asking the DM for a hint, which the DM might need to refuse to answer or be forced to div...

Thursday, 20th July, 2017

  • 05:34 PM - Miladoon mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post Gandalf Initiative...more Mearls Initiative Fallout
    I am a bit skeptic about the practicalities of this (as well as of Mearl's version), I'd have to see it work at the table in order to judge... I agree. I would also take a moment to reevaluate how the current system runs and make a comparison. You might be surprised how the current system is already favoring certain characters. It really boils down to table composition and round dynamics. (Who your players are, and rolling initiative every round over rolling once at the beginning of the encounter) .... If you care about a more realistic representation of the chaos and unpredictability of combat, gaming groups may want to consider a system like this. I just want to point out that gaming groups that keep to the current system are not entirely without those qualities when they play. I also wanted to say that I liked your input on the Greyhawk Initiative thread with @Greenstone.Walker. I am actually thinking of the Jon Snow Initiative based on your posts. I like the idea of naming the modes: Skirmish - Unrestricted move, action, bonus action - roll 1d6+DEX bonus Stand Fast - No movement, but you take an action and/or bonus action - roll 1d12+DEX Double Quick - Movement only plus Dash, Dodge, Disengage - roll 1d20+DEX EDIT: Pointing out that highest roll goes first. This is false. 1)Watch a tennis player. They do not move then strike the ball, it is one action. There are some that can make quick shots with bows I have not seen it done with a longbow. 2) The archer in your example has to lead the target unless they are closing with one another in a straight line. Thusly the archer is shooting at a square that is empty hoping that the arrow intercepts the target. Also arrows, while quicker than a sprinter, are having to cross the distance as well. The realism debates will rage on and that is ok. Ultimately, groups may try alternate initiative systems and compa...

Saturday, 8th July, 2017

  • 06:32 PM - Satyrn mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components
    But isn't the solution then one of the following? Tell people they need a free hand. If you want to use the weapon for the remainder of the turn or until the start of your next turn, don't use a shield or the the war caster feat. Change the rules so you can sheathe and draw your weapon on your turn Change the rule so they don't need a free hand (possibly with other restrictions). You can dress it up any way you like but if you don't want silliness (and I agree dropping/picking up a weapon is silliness) those are basically your options, right? At a certain point I'm not sure what the debate is any more. Choose one of the options and move on. Well of course. I was just trying to help Greenstone.Walker identify his ephemeral feeling of dislike for the scenario by telling him why I dislike it. My solution is not fit for print. (Well, not fit for print under Zapp's authoritarian rule)

Wednesday, 5th July, 2017

  • 04:27 PM - dave2008 mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components
    Oh, I agree that the rules as written are not good. I'm just saying that your proposed replacement for them is also not good. Arguing subjective degrees of not-goodness seems like a pointless semantic diversion, so I'll pass on that. Perhaps I missed it, but did you submit some better ideas? If so, can you point me to their location? Personally I am not in favor of stances and prefer something more like the intuitive rules approach that Greenstone.Walker proposed in post #63.
  • 04:41 AM - TheCosmicKid mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components
    ...attooed on your forehead, or whatever, surely that doesn't prevent you from also having the symbol emblazoned on your shield. In fact, if you're a cleric and you use a shield, it'd be kind of weird if you didn't, right? We should simply ask the players to describe what their character looks like when he or she does heroic stuff, and from that simply say what actions are restricted or outright impossible. You fight with two axes? Way cool... but you can't also carry the lantern or cast any spells. Fiddling about with "can't I shuck one of my axes and cast real quick and then draw the axe again" is micro-management. Within a single round that's a waste. Much better and more in the spirit of 5e to simply define what weapon/shield combos that are available for you if you want to cast a spell. All assuming "that round". Nothing stops you from choosing "I hold a single axe" the next round and cast your spell then.That makes sense to me. I'd suggest a system much like the one Greenstone.Walker just outlined, boiling down to "Just say what your hands are doing this round." I think doing it on a hand-by-hand basis would be simpler and more intuitive than the stance system you outlined -- you don't have to worry about defining every combination.

Friday, 2nd June, 2017

  • 11:46 PM - Ilbranteloth mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post No Combat Rounds?
    As for movement. Walking 3 mph is about 4.4 feet per second. So I think it's reasonable to say you can move 5 feet per second (count). Double that (Dash 1x) at 10 feet is a little less than 7mph Double-Dash (or 3x move speed) is 10 mph. Since the Usain Bolt has reached 28 mph I think that these amounts are reasonable. So if we are simply measuring seconds during combat, and assuming a base move of 30 feet then: Normal speed is 5 feet per second (3.4 mph) Dash is 10 feet per second (6.6 mph) Double-Dash is 15 feet per second (10 mph) Triple Dash is 20 feet per second (13.6 mph) That keeps it simple for folks using grids. The additional modifier to your initiative count (+2 is what I suggested) also has the effect of limiting the number of actions during the duration of a spell. As Greenstone.Walker noted, spells can just be a fixed amount of time. If we look at a spell that has a duration of 1 minute, it would account for 60 segments. Modifier +2, minimum 3 steps between actions, maximum 10 steps, means that there could be between 6 and 20 actions for a a given creature in that time. Modifier +3, minimum 4 steps, maximum 11, then it's 5 to 15 actions. Modifier +4, minimum 5 steps, maximum 12, then it's 5 to 12. That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. So initiative modifiers would be: D4 + 4 Attack with finesse, light, or ranged weapon. Grapple Ready Spellcasting (level 0-2) Unarmed Attack D6 + 4 Attack Spellcasting (level 3-5) D8 + 4 Attack with heavy or two-handed weapon Spellcasting (level 4-9) Ready works as normal - you specify a trigger, and you use your reaction instead of your action. The advantage being that you are interrupting their action (and potentially stopping it). For the folks that like to wait, my rules cover that very simply. They roll their regul...

Monday, 20th February, 2017

  • 04:14 PM - pming mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post Retrofitting SKT for a monstrous party (or, how Volo's guide ruined my campaign idea)
    Hiya. I opened the game to any of the main books out so far: PHB, SCAG, VGtM, and EEPG. UA playtest upon request with some heavy cavaets. We didn't have a session 0 per se, but we did discuss character ideas for the game. And that's when the wheels fell off. Actually, I think where the wheels fell off was with the sentence: "I opened the game to any of the main books out so far..." Y'see, you want to play through a pre-defined story via an AP. That's what they are, lets face it, a pre-written story outline that the players get to fill in some blanks...but the story is already done. Not my cup 'o joe (and definitely not my players), but they can be used as "adventure filler" for the more standard open-ended type campaigns. What I would do is go for your Option #2. As Greenstone.Walker said...choices have consequences. If you don't have the world react accordingly, then you may as well just say "everyones human, but you can pick a racial background and get all that stuff...but you're human". But if you do that, then every other monster out there is also, effectively, reduced to "just humans in funny suits" (as is the saying, I believe). So, yeah, Option 2. If/when the players get annoyed that they are fighting on two fronts (giants on one, civilized folk on the other), you'd probably get a lot of requests to 'change' PC's. Unless your players are into that kind of masochism... Anyway, you could take Option 2 and then just use the 'mechanical innerds' of the AP to build your own adventure(s)...it wouldn't be SKT anymore, but it has the potential to be much more rewarding and memorable! (hey, remember that time when we played almost all goblinoid bad guys and had to fight a bunch of giants who wanted to turn all our tribes into slaves to fight the humans?...man.....

Friday, 10th April, 2015

  • 05:02 PM - Fabio Andrea Rossi mentioned Greenstone.Walker in post Power Creep pitfalls in 5E
    Thank you all for your understanding. @Grakard yes, it’s a challenging but very fun table, that’s what’s keeping us all together in the face of real life issues. That, and relatively quick commuting times due to us living at an hour driving distance at most. @Greenstone.Walker this is very good advice and I may just do that…sparingly. To us, combat is a minigame in the role playing experience, one which we enjoy playing with not too many moral issues, more on the tactical side. But, out of combat this aspect is very present, actually the whole campaign world has strong morality/ambiguity elements, mainly in the form “destiny from the gods vs. individual will” which often challenge the players from this point, effectively I could insert more of this in the battlefield, good point. Just don’t want this as a permanent solution to offset power level aspects. @Celtavian & @Tormyr sorry for the confusion (and many thanks for your time and interest!): I refer to long rests. I should probably follow your advice and allow less resting and require more long term character sheet precision :eek: The point is that more you advance in levels, more things players have to track in the field of expended resources. With an ever shifting party I could not blame if somebody...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 16th July, 2018

  • 11:32 AM - pming quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    Hiya! You could solve that by requiring training for levelling, the way OD&D required. GM: You have the XP for level 7? Excellent, now you need the 7 weeks of training. What are you training in? Warlock? Cool, that will cost you X gold. You picked one of the things I never really liked in 1e/HM4...lol! We never used it because it felt too much like the PC's were going to "school". And, being around 12 years old or so when I started with AD&D back in '82...it rubbed us the wrong way. I did, however, work out a method for HM4 (that's Hackmaster 4th, not the "new" hackmaster) where the PC would have a tally of time and money that they had to spend before they got to next level. Sort of like "pre-spending" the time/money. I also had it be more or less self-trained and the expenses was based on the PC's race, class and social rank (e.g. a MMC human fighter would be spending money on eating better, changing up his daily workout, buying weapons and practicing with them, etc; a MUC human fighter wo...

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 10:26 AM - Li Shenron quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    I think this is a symptom of some classes being mechanical-only but other classes being mechanics and story. The idea of a fighter doesn't rely on any fluff. You know how to fight. There's no reliance in anything in the game world. A warlock or cleric, however, is bound up with something in the game - a patron or deity. D&D 5E has tried to remove the link between clerics and paladins and in-game deities, but most of us players ignore that. It is a failure of description, both designers' fault and players' fault. If you start seeing the Fighter more like a budoka or dedicated student of the martial arts as a way of life (whatever style, nothing to do with the oriental), it can be on par with all other classes. Instead people insists on thinking of the Fighter as a mere collector of useful techniques, and then blame it because is doesn't have a purpose. You have to try and think that the martial arts are the purpose for the Fighter, and no one else. I loved 4th Edition most because it explicitly...

Wednesday, 4th July, 2018

  • 07:28 AM - Saelorn quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Some random house rules for things that bothered me
    The goblin is using a finesse weapon.I am aware, and yet the damage inflicted is proportional to the severity of the wound. Somehow, a puny goblin is able to inflict as grievous an injury with its shortsword as a gnoll twice its size (and eight times its mass) can inflict with its spear. The game mechanics do a poor job of reflecting the inherent power of a much larger and stronger attacker. That's the issue at hand.

Thursday, 28th June, 2018

  • 04:08 AM - mrpopstar quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Using Wisdom to resist harm
    PHB chapter 7. The rules do not use the term "willpower". The closest they come is "will to live" which is for Constitution. This question on RPG.STackExchange generated a lot of opinions without any clear answer.According to the Saving Throws table on page 238 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, Wisdom is used for "resisting effects that charm, frighten, or otherwise assault your willpower."

Wednesday, 27th June, 2018

  • 04:29 PM - mrpopstar quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Using Wisdom to resist harm
    Wisdom is not willpower; it is perception and awareness. In 5E, willpower is modelled by Constitution, which is why a concentration check is a CON save.In 5th Edition, willpower is modeled by Wisdom as per the core rulebooks.

Tuesday, 19th June, 2018

  • 01:28 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Greenstone.Walker in post My Experiment with 5e - No Classes with Cantrips
    Also, have an AngryGM link Low Magic, No Problem. Oh, Wait, ProblemHilarious: The problem is that my usual answer is: you can’t. It’s like soy milk. You can CALL IT milk all you want, but it’s juice. Because soybeans don’t have nipples. You can try to run a low-magic D&D game, but you probably have to break D&D to do it. And it wouldn’t be D&D. And if you’re willing to break D&D that bad, just grab a copy of 4e! ;P I mean, if anyone still needed proof-positive that 4e was NOT D&D, just try running a 'low-' or even NO- magic game with it. 1) tell everyone to play one of the 4 martial classes. 2) turn on 'Inherent Bonuses.' 3) don't place too many magic items or magical-seeming enemies (though some, because there is a second S in S&S, and it's usually the bad guy). See, if you'd've actually been playing D&D, that'd've never worked! And it makes sense, too, because of the soybean reference, above - in 4e, even PC-race plant-creatures can have boobs! In short, if you want to have some so...

Thursday, 24th May, 2018

  • 05:54 AM - jgsugden quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Core+1
    What burden? An AL GM asks, "What is your +1?". The player tells them. It takes less than a minute at the start of play. No time burden. An AL player has to buy at most two books. No financial burden.How coud you possibly think I was arguing there was a time or finacial burden? The burden is that we cut out many different non-offesive character concepts. The burden is that a player that has happened to not take any options outside the PHB can choose to multiclass into something fun in a new book whil his friend that took one spell from a previously released book can't... unless that spell happens to be reprinted in the new book. It is a non-story limitation that limits the story. They used a cleaver to perform surgery on the game. They should have used something more precise in order to preserve the most otions for players.

Tuesday, 15th May, 2018

  • 12:17 AM - BookBarbarian quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Shield master on twitter
    Additionally, there were other things that competed with the bonus action (healing word, spiritual weapon). It also forced you to take the attack action on turns where you bonus action shoved. With all the sweet spells a Tempest Cleric gets that seems a steep cost to pay to remove disadvantage from the Warlock's EBs.
  • 12:06 AM - Oofta quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Shield master on twitter
    OK, here is an example that came up three or four times in the Out of the Abyss game I play in. I had a tempest cleric with shield master feat. Also in the game was a warlock with repelling blast. Quite often, foes would get next to the warlock and disturb her eldritch blast casting. Our tactic was for my character to push them 5 feet back and then retreat 5 or 10 feet. The warlock would then cast eldritch blast (no longer at disadvantage) and push the target back 10 feet. She would then retreat her full move behind the cleric. Now, the foe is out of melee range of the warlock. The feat meant I had two chances to push the foe (action and bonus action if the action was resisted). In that game, the second bullet of shield master came up a total of zero times (how many single-target DEX save spells are there, anyway?). The third bullet point only came up once or twice. I don't think I ever knocked a foe prone. That would have disadvantaged the two ranged damage dealers (the warlock and an archer)....

Monday, 14th May, 2018

  • 06:03 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Shield master on twitter
    Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon). I gave up. If someone wants to view a thing as useless, we could spend a year giving them a actual play examples, and it won’t change their mind.
  • 03:22 AM - Oofta quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Shield master on twitter
    Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon). A) my character is a dwarf, so it buys me nothing. B) you're assuming that even if I was faster that there's room to run away, which is frequently not the case. C) as I stated, and you conveniently ignore, it's rare in my game that there's not someone close enough for the opponent to get into combat with. D) in many if not most cases I have to move to get into position the first round. Conclusion? It's a pointless tactic that buys nothing. If I wanted to hit and run, I'd play a different class.

Wednesday, 9th May, 2018

  • 06:19 PM - Satyrn quoted Greenstone.Walker in post How strict are you with vision and illumination rules?
    When I run caving trips I always get people to turn off their lights at some point. In our modern world, we never actually encounter real darkness. Hey, now. Back when I did photography, I encountered real darkness every time I forgot to turn on my red lamps before flicking off the lights. It was horrifying.

Wednesday, 2nd May, 2018

  • 05:36 AM - Sword of Spirit quoted Greenstone.Walker in post High AC and encounters
    He got ringed by 6 goblins who gave three advantage. - Use the help action. 6 goblins surround the fighter but 3 of them help the others. Why would you do such a thing! :eek: Seriously though, it is completely disadvantageous for 3 of the goblins to give advantage to the identical 3 statblocks next to them, rather than just all 6 attacking without advantage (I'm assuming identical statblocks). Unless those were intended as ways of making it easier on the PC without a less experienced player picking up on it. Two identical actions without advantage are always superior to one of the exact same action with advantage.

Thursday, 26th April, 2018

  • 01:26 PM - Arial Black quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Criticals and double dice
    The rules do not use the word "belong" - they use the word "involves" which means something different. The 5e rules are written using natural language. The use of the apostrophe (the ' character) in a word, followed by an s, indicates the possessive case and differentiates it from the plural. So "the attack's damage dice" indicates that the damage dice are possessed by (belong to) the attack. If it was written "the attacks" it would mean more than one attack. It it is written "the attack's" then it possesses whatever follows. If it is written "the attacks'" then these multiple attacks would possess whatever follows. The punctuation used, the apostrophe followed by the s, indicates the possessive case in English. Therefore, the language used is already adequate to express that the damage dice belong to (are possessed by) the attack roll. No errata needed. All that is needed is sufficient understanding of written English.
  • 01:10 PM - BluejayJunior quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Criticals and double dice
    I would really like to see a definitive answer on this. I answered one of the Rpg.stackexchange questions but my answer got voted off the bottom, slightly unfairly, I thought. I feel that if the damage has a necessary condition of "this attack hits you" then it is "involved in the attack" and its dice should be doubled on a critical hit. If missing the attack means that there is no way to apply the damage then how can it not be considered involved? I have a particular issue with Crawford's tweet, "Any damage dice delivered by a critical hit—as opposed to a saving throw—are rolled twice." In the case of poison or arrow or slaying, the damage is not "opposed to" a hit; it is "in addition to" a hit. I don't think Mr Crawford understands the question. In other words, we all know that damage delivered by acid splash is not doubled and damage delivered by chill touch is doubled. What we want to know is what happens when there is both an attack roll and a saving throw, and I don't think anyone has answe...

Wednesday, 18th April, 2018

  • 07:19 PM - Satyrn quoted Greenstone.Walker in post Using a shield as a main weapon.
    I don't like the issues raised by treating something as armour and a weapon at the same time (disarming, for example). In my games, I rule that things you wear (armor, shields, jewellery, etc) are not weapons. Weapons are things you carry, not wear. You can pick them up using an object interaction, you can drop them for free, you can be disarmed of them. If you want to bash someone with your shield, I treat it exactly the same way as if you want to headbutt someone with your helm or kick someone with your armoured boots - make an unarmed attack. I did add a house rule that unarmed attacks do more damage if you are wearing medium or heavy armour or using a shield. A punch from a metal gauntlet should hurt more. That concern is pretty much why I was treating the "fighting shield" as a weapon. It just happens to look like a shield, and it has a weapon property that adds an AC bonus as a reaction. And were I to actually include this in the game, I'd call that property "Parry" and introduce a...

Sunday, 15th April, 2018


Friday, 13th April, 2018


Monday, 9th April, 2018

  • 05:57 AM - Caliburn101 quoted Greenstone.Walker in post A Crunchy Take On Conan From Modiphius Entertainment
    I think you are completely wrong there. If a Conan game is not binding players into the tropes of the Conan genre then it's not actually a Conan game - it's a generic game where the PCs happen to be called Conan, Juma and Bêlit. If you are going to stick "Conan" (or "Star Trek" or "Sherlock Holmes" or any other specific genre) on the front of your rules system then enforcing, or at least strongly encouraging, the tropes of the genre is the minimum you have to do. Unfortunately you have quoted a very specific comment I made about two pointed examples used and treated it as a general comment. It isn't. I was commenting directly to an individual who thought frequent weapon loss & swapping and the barbarian/civilised dichotomy as they put it should be somehow codified with a 'rule' rather than explored as narrative tropes. I made it clear that far from these things being missing or inappropriately dealt with, the game explores these subgenre elements perfectly well, but does not bind a GM to...
  • 04:17 AM - Elfcrusher quoted Greenstone.Walker in post A Crunchy Take On Conan From Modiphius Entertainment
    I think you are completely wrong there. If a Conan game is not binding players into the tropes of the Conan genre then it's not actually a Conan game - it's a generic game where the PCs happen to be called Conan, Juma and Bêlit. If you are going to stick "Conan" (or "Star Trek" or "Sherlock Holmes" or any other specific genre) on the front of your rules system then enforcing, or at least strongly encouraging, the tropes of the genre is the minimum you have to do. Exactly. Thank you.


Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Greenstone.Walker's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites