View Profile: Sorcerers Apprentice - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No More Results
About Sorcerers Apprentice

Basic Information

Date of Birth
May 5, 1998 (20)
About Sorcerers Apprentice
Location:
Castle Fantasia
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Rather not say
Age Group:
19-24

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
595
Posts Per Day
0.56
Last Post
Can Sharpshooter be used with a Net? Saturday, 23rd March, 2019 01:44 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
1
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 10:09 PM
Join Date
Friday, 6th May, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Saturday, 23rd March, 2019


Friday, 22nd March, 2019


Thursday, 21st March, 2019


Wednesday, 20th March, 2019


Sunday, 17th March, 2019


Friday, 15th March, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thursday, 5th April, 2018

  • 03:10 AM - Mistwell mentioned Sorcerers Apprentice in post Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"
    THIS. Also THIS. To expand upon my point earlier, I understand that 5E has moved away from the very gamist 4E (that's not an insult folks, it was, and I loved it) and the much more gamist but less overtly so 3.5, with their "natural language" and "rulings not rules" approaches (among other things). But fundamentally, they are making a game. It often feels like what the Designers talk about and what we play at the table are two different things. Like, this thing that they're looking at is not a game, and this thing we're playing is a game, and somehow the Designers are unaware of this thing we're playing, like a DM who just doesn't get why his players are "missing it." And I think all four of you (the other three being I think Sorcerers Apprentice, Schmoe, and CubicsRube) have misinterpreted what he said. Read MarkB's post. This is the sentence, "If this phrase [action economy] comes up as part of the design process, we have probably done something wrong. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resource that are being spent, I think we've made the game too complicated." This is how I read that sentence, "If the phrase action economy comes up as part of the design process, we have probably come dangerously close to messing with a balanced element of the game that's working well. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resources that are being spent such that we are about to change what it's spent on, I think we've made the game too complicated and run the risk of messing up what was working well." I don't think he's referring to what the players are thinking about the action economy (he never mentions players). I think he's thinking about the designers playing around with the existing action economy (he doe...

Sunday, 24th December, 2017

  • 12:15 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned Sorcerers Apprentice in post At my table: Hexblade removed, Pact of the Blade enhanced
    "Théoden, Son of Théngel. Too long have you sat in the shadows." RAW is RAW. If you wanna make it different, its your call, but RAWly the target is Charmed. That's it. No edition of D&D since maybe 1st or 2nd edition has made it a point to state that RAW is not the end all be all as 5th edition has. Go ahead and look at the Sage Advice Compendium, and right there in front they discuss RAI and RAF right alongside RAW. Also, this is D&D. It's not a video game. If you want hard mechanics, go play a video game. I guarantee there's not a single table in the entire world that adheres strictly to RAW, especially when it 1) Doesn't make sense and 2) Subtracts from the fun. But focus on this misses a bigger point. The 3 original PHB Patrons are all fairly balanced against one another. Sorcerers Apprentice You can throw up as many smokescreens as you want. I'm done trying to engage in discussion with you, as it is clear you prefer to troll and avoid providing any evidence to further your argument. Instead you belittle and act in condescension to those who disagree with you, and focus on small and irrelevant details in an attempt to derail the discussion. Also this is getting way off-topic from the original point. And so to bring things back, the Hexblade as written seems to me to be very problematic as it is broken in comparison to what every other Patron offers.

Saturday, 18th March, 2017


Monday, 3rd October, 2016

  • 08:34 AM - TheCosmicKid mentioned Sorcerers Apprentice in post Legal Ready action triggers and order of resolution
    A lot of the issues that arise come from using the Ready action to avoid an attack, such as trying to move yourself out of range, out of line-of-sight, or out of the area of effect of a spell or spell-like ability Attacks of Opportunity are reaction, same as the Ready action, and they trigger right when a character attempts to move out of melee range of an opponent, so there is precedent that reactions can fire in the middle of an opponents action. I'm looking for what would be the most legal ruling, such as what I could expect to see at a convention game. Like @Sorcerers Apprentice said, I don't think you're going to get a hard-and-fast ruling, and are going to have to use your discretion. This is pretty much how 5E is intended to work. Even at convention games, the rulings are going to vary somewhat from table to table. (If you watch WotC's liveplays at all, you may have noticed that Chris Perkins flagrantly disregards rules whenever it would be more interesting to do so or when they just slip his mind.) But as far as my discretion is concerned, none of the effects you've described under the "yes" alternative strike me as unreasonable. The characters are spending their actions on their turn to pull these things off; they're not exactly free or easy to do. You've already noted that opportunity attacks require the premise that reactions can interrupt other characters' actions, and I can offer you another big example in disrupting spells. Counterspell, like an opportunity attack, explicitly requires an interrupt. And for characters without access to that spell, ...

Friday, 30th September, 2016

  • 09:39 PM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Sorcerers Apprentice in post Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image
    Therefore, casting a spell from a magic item is never the Cast a Spell action.You missed the important part of what Sorcerers Apprentice said. It isn't that you break invisibility by using the Cast a Spell action - it is that you break invisibility by casting a spell, and while using a magic item doesn't necessitate the former (for some reason) it says right in the description of the item that it does involve the later when it says something like "you can use an action to read the scroll and cast its spell" (emphasis added).

Friday, 6th May, 2016

  • 10:10 PM - Imaro mentioned Sorcerers Apprentice in post Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, & Revenant
    The 4E figther must have had hundreds of powers to choose from at the end, so the desing space is definitely there. However, further research into such potent martial powers are prohibited under the terms of the 2013 Treaty of Seattle, which put an end to the Edition Wars. Well, yes and no. (Necessary caveat: I am a fan of all editions. This is not meant as a slam on any of them. :p ) 4E did, indeed, have a lot of martial powers. But a huge number of them boiled down to "hit more or hit harder" and "do some sort of individual foe control--pushing, knocking prone, dazing, etc.--in addition to hitting." That's a lot less design space than it looks like, because it's a lot of powers to do various combinations of the same thing, or even exactly the same thing just at higher potency. Sorcerers Apprentice ... that logic doesn't really hold Mouseferatu touches on what I was getting at... But also the specific powers that were required for different builds... like the later 2-weapon fighter (who needed a whole new range of powers because none of the original facilitated fighting with 2 weapons (yet all BM maneuvers already incorporate that style), or the specific weapon powers that did similar things but one was for a sword and one was for a mace or something like that (again the only distinction in BM maneuvers as far as weapons go is ranged or melee).

No results to display...
Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 25th March, 2019


Thursday, 21st March, 2019


Friday, 15th March, 2019

  • 01:46 AM - Harzel quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Command: Flee
    Of course. But you don't need to be fully conversational in Goblin to know that "Rarka!" is a command to flee. Uh-huh, but that would be "Rarka!" with falling pitch. Unfortunately, not being fully conversational in Goblin, you just told Squeedle the goblin to "Rarka!" with rising pitch, so now let me explain what you actually told them to do...

Saturday, 9th March, 2019

  • 08:16 PM - Satyrn quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Command: Flee
    In fact, the "one word" limit on commands means that the language you're speaking in will affect what commands you can give. In some languages it's possible to express quite complicated orders in a single word, in others it can be very hard to give a meaningful command in less than two words. You could probably write legislation with one word of German.

Sunday, 17th February, 2019

  • 05:23 PM - Ilbranteloth quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Half-Dragons and Dragonborn: What's the difference?
    In the 2E PHB, the only place I've seen half-elven genetics discussed in any kind of detail, it says that elves only have elven ancestors, while half-elves are those with 50% or more elven blood. So a half-elf that has children with an elf will have half-elf children, and human children with a human. Does anyone know if this lore has been explicitly changed in a later edition, or is it simply not discussed at all? Interesting... I had to dig. My statement come from the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting (the original gray box from 1e). I had forgotten about the difference in the 2e PHB. I’m sure at the time we noted it, and said, “no, we’re not changing it,” since by then we already had characters and stories with that established. Realms elves were different than the core 1e elves, and it was one of those many things that helped differentiate the Realms from our other campaigns. This was really the case with all settings at that time except Greyhawk. That was the setting that followed the PHB. ...
  • 05:13 PM - Ilbranteloth quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Half-Dragons and Dragonborn: What's the difference?
    In the 2E PHB, the only place I've seen half-elven genetics discussed in any kind of detail, it says that elves only have elven ancestors, while half-elves are those with 50% or more elven blood. So a half-elf that has children with an elf will have half-elf children, and human children with a human. Does anyone know if this lore has been explicitly changed in a later edition, or is it simply not discussed at all? Interesting... I had to dig. My statement come from the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting (the original gray box from 1e). I had forgotten about the difference in the 2e PHB. I’m sure at the time we noted it, and said, “no, we’re not changing it,” since by then we already had characters and stories with that established. Realms elves were different than the core 1e elves, and it was one of those many things that helped differentiate the Realms from our other campaigns. This was really the case with all settings at that time except Greyhawk. That was the setting that followed the PHB. ...

Wednesday, 13th February, 2019

  • 01:56 AM - Leatherhead quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Half-Dragons and Dragonborn: What's the difference?
    Dragonborn are basically overgrown Kobolds, who lack tails for some reason. Half-Dragons are the first step in getting Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers, and are typically significantly more powerful than a Dragonborn. I just realized that Half-Dragon/Half-Dragonborn is a valid combo! Wonder how they would look. Like an Abishai, probably.

Friday, 11th January, 2019


Wednesday, 9th January, 2019


Tuesday, 8th January, 2019

  • 07:32 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Spring's D&D Release Will Be Ship-Themed
    Superheroes are on an entirely different level of silliness than anything that isn't comedy or made for preschoolers ;) LOL nah Pretending to be an elf wizard with a pet that can talk to you telepathically is MUCH sillier than a Black Panther comic book. DnD isn’t higher art than comics. To think it is requires an ignorance of one or both mediums.
  • 07:00 PM - Reynard quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Spring's D&D Release Will Be Ship-Themed
    Superheroes are on an entirely different level of silliness than anything that isn't comedy or made for preschoolers ;) Wow. That's some harshly judgemental stuff right there from someone who likes to pretend to be an elf.
  • 01:38 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post Spring's D&D Release Will Be Ship-Themed
    For the purpose of D&D I'd much rather they'd be inspired by real world African empires like Mali, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia than superhero nonsense like Wakanda. Those places were on par with European and Asian countries in the late medieval period that most closely aligns with the D&D technology and societal level. I’m fine with any of those, or much better, a mix of them and some new stuff, written by people steeped in the lore of the people of those regions. I don’t know why you’re calling Wakanda “superhero nonsense”, though. You don’t...you don’t think that what we’re doing here in DnD land is above superheroes in the hierarchy of serious creative media, do you? Because it ain’t. It’s all silly nonsense we do for fun. Elves and wizards aren’t any less silly than Black Panther and Storm.

Monday, 7th January, 2019


Thursday, 3rd January, 2019

  • 02:20 AM - Charlaquin quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post "How do I beat the Matt Mercer effect?"
    All real anime fans watch it in Japanese. Possibly with subtitles. I know you’re probably joking, but this is a pet peeve of mine. The most dedicated anime fans appreciate that subs and dubs are just different adaptations of the same source material, and often watch both (and probably read the manga too), the better to appreciate the text from a multifaceted perspective. But all anime fans are real anime fans, and people who squabble about subs vs dubs are just insecure in their own legitimacy as fans.

Monday, 31st December, 2018

  • 11:54 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Sorcerers Apprentice in post (Yet another) D&D Movie Speculation thread.
    Um what? The Ptolemaic dynasty were Greeks, where did you get this idea that they were black? It's controversial and unclear (and can be Googled), but she was certainly darker skinned than the average Italian, who are darker skinned than the average Liz Taylor. But my point was that historical figures are no more cast by matching ethnicity than fictional characters. And maybe that is as it should be, if people are as happy with a black Elizabeth I as they are with a white Cleopatra.


Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sorcerers Apprentice's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites