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

Basic Information

About Harzel
Location:
Portland, OR, USA
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Portland
State:
OR
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,225
Posts Per Day
1.87
Last Post
Survivor the Good, the Bad, and the Fey- THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! Yesterday 11:29 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
9
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:00 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 29th September, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Portland
State:
OR
Country:
USA

Sunday, 15th July, 2018


Friday, 13th July, 2018


Sunday, 8th July, 2018


Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018


Monday, 2nd July, 2018


Sunday, 1st July, 2018


Saturday, 30th June, 2018


Friday, 29th June, 2018


Wednesday, 27th June, 2018


Tuesday, 26th June, 2018


Saturday, 23rd June, 2018


Friday, 22nd June, 2018


Thursday, 21st June, 2018


Monday, 18th June, 2018


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 6th May, 2018

  • 10:56 AM - TheSword mentioned Harzel in post Is my DM being fair?
    Harzel I agree with pretty much everything youíve said, so perhaps I should clarify. The phaser to a knife fight analogy is a really good one. Iím all for adventures with higher power levels and I have no issue flexing challenges to abilities. My issue is when one PC has a phaser and all the other PCs bring knives. In my experience this isnít because of a lack of knowledge on the other PCs. Itís becausr they arenít looking to play the game that way. 5e is relatively balanced, at least compared to Pathfinder but there are still issues which result in unbalanced builds. The assassin/alert combo getting to go first is an example. The assassin already gets to act in the surprise round, and with +5 initiative will almost certainly get to go before other PCs. That means the rogue is getting 2 rounds of actions before anyone else gets to go. 4 attacks, 2 of which sneak, is easily 40+ points of damage without crits which with 4 attacks will be 1/5 chance. This happens every time or near enou...

Friday, 27th April, 2018

  • 02:45 AM - iserith mentioned Harzel in post 6-8 Encounters a long rest is, actually, a pretty problematic idea.
    I think Harzel pointed out in another thread recently, the DMG states that 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters are what the PCs can handle per adventuring day, not that they should necessarily be doing this many encounters per day. As for the concerns presented in your points 1 and 2, I would say that comes down to how the DM presents things in my experience.

Saturday, 20th January, 2018


Wednesday, 29th November, 2017

  • 05:46 AM - Ilbranteloth mentioned Harzel in post How do you rule multiple damage types versus reductions
    ...DM argues that a flame tongue sword is the same thing: Two separate instances of damage dealing and you have to pick one to shield against. Based on how such hits are typically described in the rules, I'm inclined to disagree; I think a flame tongue hit is a single event and you can apply Spirit Shield to both the slashing and the fire damage. But the RAW is not 100% clear and the passage you quoted does nothing to clarify it. You've found a very nice hammer; but this question ain't a nail. And there remains the secondary question: Say your troll buddy is hit for 5 slashing and 4 fire (total 9), and you reduce the total by 7. We agree that you can apply the reduction to the entire hit. So the troll will take 2 damage. That's all well and good, but the question is: Of the 2 points of damage that get through, is any of it fire damage? If yes, the troll can't regenerate. If no, it can regenerate as normal. So far as I can tell, RAW doesn't even hint at an answer to this one. First, Harzel - not harsh at all. Do I think it's nonsensical? Perhaps on a first glance. But then the way that you can move 30 feet, attack, and in many cases do something else while everybody else stands still is nonsensical to me too. If there's something that bothers me enough (like the combat thing), then I'll change it. Having said that, (and in part in response to CapnZapp and others), I'll try to clarify why I'm generally OK with this in a single post. I think the spirit of 5e is tilted towards simplicity, but also making things mean something. So the attack is meaningful - a successful attack almost always causes some damage - and the resistance is meaningful too. That's why there's advantage/disadvantage instead of a bunch of +1 modifiers, why the proficiency bonus starts at +2, and why it's usually resistance instead of damage reduction. So let's look at it from a different perspective. If your barbarian is using Spirit Shield, and is attacked by a flame tongue, does the damage ...

Tuesday, 28th November, 2017


Saturday, 11th November, 2017

  • 04:06 AM - Hriston mentioned Harzel in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    ...mpetition play. :D I'd forgotten about that method. It's a fine method and one many DMs use for any NPCs to which they wish to give ability scores. Personally, I set scores for any NPCs that need them by using either a rolling method or an array appropriate to their power level, or if I think they need a particular score, by balancing that score through a point-buy of a number of points appropriate to the character. Although we can quibble about the specifics of how flat or not the bell curve is, no-one here has denied that the reality of populations is modeled by bell curves; how loose or how tight is up for debate, but the bell curve itself is not. So we can have a bell curve of 3d6, a skewed curve of 4d6k3, a tight curve from 15d2-12(!), and so on, and they will be 'realistic' to a greater or lesser extent by simply using a bell curve. Technically, a bell curve follows a normal distribution, which 3d6 does not. (15d2)-12 is much closer to a true bell curve because, as Harzel pointed out, the more dice you roll, the more normal the distribution becomes, which is the same reason we expect to see populations conforming to a normal distribution in the natural world. But imagine a method which says, "Toss a coin for each ability: heads it's 18, tails it's 3, and if it lands on its edge then it's 10". This is not a bell curve! It is absurd, and as a method of character creation it is totally unrealistic (where 'realism' = 'verisimilitude'). I agree it's a crap method, but the resulting character fits just fine on the 3d6 "bell curve", so if you think 3d6 is realistic enough, then how come that character seems unrealistic to you? If I use point-buy, and choose three 15s (and en passant also 'choosing' three 8s) then this is not a bell curve either. It is just as absurd as the 3 or 18 coin toss just mentioned. Unlike your coin-toss method, point-buy doesn't establish a distribution of scores, curved or otherwise, but all of its results fit nicely on...

Monday, 6th November, 2017

  • 06:44 PM - Gradine mentioned Harzel in post North Texas RPG Convention Refuses To Listen To Harassment Concerns
    ...n the misleading headline hysteria. It remains an eminently accurate headline; if not value-neutral, which if we're all being honest is the real issue of concern here. There's this belief that in order for a work of journalism to have integrity or even just be considered "good" it must remain as impartial as possible, even in situations where one (or both) sides are objectively wrong. Taken to extremes you wind up with weasily non-journalism that provides no information or context outside of carefully crafted quotes on all sides. You wind up with what are essentially non-headlines like "[Neo-nazi Speaker] makes remarks some critics find racist" which is completely asinine. Sometimes journalistic integrity requires more than just regurgitating what people on both sides are saying; it requires cutting through the nonsense and reporting the actual truth. And the truth is exactly what the headline says. There seems to be some quibbling over the definition of the term "listening" but Harzel hit the nail on the head in terms of what should be commonly understood by the use of the phrase in this context: As I understand the term to be used in this sort of context, "listening" generally means making a concerted effort to put yourself in the speaker's place and understand what they are trying to communicate at more than a superficial level. And if you want to be given credit for listening, since we can't see inside your head, you have to demonstrate that understanding in your response. So when people say he didn't listen, I think they mean he failed in his response to demonstrate an understanding of the concerns of the people to whom he was responding. Moreover, in this case, beyond failing to demonstrate that he did understand, he also gave notable evidence that he did not understand. To me the first piece of evidence that he probably did not understand was the amount of his RPG.net post that was about himself and self-congratulation. If you are thinking first of ...

Thursday, 2nd November, 2017

  • 08:26 AM - Hussar mentioned Harzel in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    Thanks for the math check Harzel. :thumbu: Oh, and I was in no way trying to imply that there was a right or wrong answer to whether or not you like rules as physics. It's entirely a personal choice. For me, the potential wonkiness just outweighs the benefits. Obviously that's not true for others. I wonder if group size has any impact here as well. In a fairly small group, say 3 PC's, most of the time those three PC's will be within fairly close tolerances. Sure, one might be a bit higher or lower, but, there likely won't be large disparities most of the time. But, the larger the group gets, the larger the chances become of a greater disparity between high and low, simply because you're rolling more dice. I play in large groups. We've had 6 PC's pretty consistently for a long time. With that many PC's, having PC's with consistently higher stats really skews game balance. And it becomes more and more difficult to create encounters when you have to account for the fact that the group has so many act...

Friday, 27th October, 2017

  • 01:05 PM - Hussar mentioned Harzel in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    I think Harzel has the right of it. As I understand it, the idea is that since a person cannot control his or her own gross physical and mental characteristics, die rolling better reflects the random chances of birth. And, to be fair, I get the appeal. We all want our games to be somewhat grounded in believability. Fair enough. To me though, I find the argument far too self serving. There's apparently no problems with choosing background, choosing where to place those die rolled stats (arrange to taste is apparently fine), choosing class and pretty much every other element of the character, none of which a person really has control over. But, apparently, while it's perfectly fine to declare that my character is part of the nobility, it's not acceptable to claim that I have a 14 Strength. :uhoh: Again, to me, this is where the self serving element comes in. Because, if it's not true that die rolling is more realistic, then, well, there's nothing really else to recommend it. It's pretty m...

Thursday, 26th October, 2017


Monday, 23rd October, 2017

  • 10:05 AM - Lanefan mentioned Harzel in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    Harzel, in the last line of the table in post 1534 (just above this one) I think it wants to say "Some < 8; Some > 15" - you have an extra '=' in there. Otherwise, good stuff; and I'm curious as to what your further number-crunching will show. Lanefan

Monday, 16th October, 2017

  • 02:18 PM - Nevvur mentioned Harzel in post Forced Movement in 5e ?
    Harzel Thanks for clarifying your point. I did misunderstand, but I see what you're getting at now (I hope). I look at forced movement over ledges roughly the same way I look at some features and spell effects with special conditions. Disintegrate causes 75 HP of normal damage. If the condition exists where there's no more HP, an additional effect comes into play - the target is reduced to ash. Forced movement across a flat surface causes normal forced movement. If the condition exists where there's no more surface, an additional effect comes into play - make a Dex save to arrest horizontal movement, as you put it. I don't think the sort of consistency you're driving at is required because, as I see things, the different conditions imply the need for different treatment.

Monday, 9th October, 2017

  • 08:08 AM - Sadras mentioned Harzel in post Counterspell - Do I know my foes' spell before I counter?
    @Harzel, no sarcasm intended in previous post. Apologies if it came out that way. Yes, just one of the many instances in which a DM has to adjudicate what an NPC with limited knowledge would do. Again, phrasing these as questions leaves your point in doubt. For me, these would both be legitimate options (amongst others). The choice would depend on the situation and the NPC. Do you think these are not legitimate options? The 50/50 die roll option reflects the DM/NPC is not fit to decide and wants to play fair by leaving it to fate (a die roll). The other option can be misapplied and might taste (to the players) of unfair DM knowledge should he counterspell it. You see why should the DM know the spells because he can be trusted to be objective but the players cannot be trusted to play their characters correctly/fairly and therefore are not allowed to know the spell?

Wednesday, 20th September, 2017


Friday, 11th August, 2017


Wednesday, 24th May, 2017

  • 06:01 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Harzel in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    It all boils down to the practical conclusion: the game needs to work without these story-based time constraints, or it simply is an inflexible less-open edition of D&D. @Harzel posted this link, which may have gotten lost, and seems more relevant and timely than the original link: http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/ I recommend reading it. Essentially, the issue is, and always has been in D&D, time. This isn't something new to 5e. You can argue that 5e makes it "worse" with the short/long rest and healing, but it has existed in all editions. Fundamentally, the problem is the divide between the fictional character and the player. It is easy for a player to say, "It takes six months of time and I gain a skill? SURE!" Or, to use more common examples- "I search for secret doors. None? Again. None? Again. None? Again. None? Again ...." "Welp, I just nova'd on that baby orc at 9am, time for a long rest!" Time, in the real world, sucks. It is our most precious resource. Really. You can't buy it. And it's finite (EXCEPT FOR ME! I WILL NOT DIE!). But for fictional D&D character, it's ... you know ... whatever. Consider the difference- you get imprisoned...

Friday, 19th May, 2017

  • 02:31 AM - Mephista mentioned Harzel in post Spells: the Good, the Bad, and the Downright Orcish Grandmother
    Harzel Domo arigato gozaimasu. So, I can see where most of those are considered bad in that list, but what's wrong with Jump? Or Weird- too small of an area, maybe? I presume the dislike of Color Spray is because Blind is a weaker condition than Sleep? Not sure about Melf's Acid Arrow, why that's considered poor? Just not enough damage? Gadget - why do you dislike Crown of Madness. I know that I'm disappointed it doesn't scale with level (making it fall behind for a warlock), but other than that? Seems solid. And the Ray of Enfeeblement?

Tuesday, 16th May, 2017

  • 04:17 AM - Oofta mentioned Harzel in post What Rules do you see people mistake or misapply?
    Almost fifty posts with but a single possible rule to add to the discussion. Anyway, regarding the invisibility debate, is it possible that all creatures are objects, but only living objects are creatures? I haven't delved into the rules on this one, but was wondering. I agree with Harzel, and would just add that basically anything that shows up in the monster or is an NPC is a creature. It gets a little bit gray when you're talking about things like animated armor or golems who are powered by magic and don't have an innate life on their own, but they are still considered creatures for purposes of the game. It does get a little bit odd when a Magic Missile can target a creature but not an object (unless your DM overrules that which is fine), but generally spells that target creatures are targeting intellect or life force itself. So ... yes. If it has a life force (and even undead ghosts or vampires have something powering them) it's a creature.

Thursday, 23rd February, 2017

  • 02:48 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Harzel in post How to deal with Metagaming as a player?
    ...tions for metagaming (which can include ignoring metagaming and/or offering post-hoc narrative justifications), but imposing their belief that metagaming is everyone else's problem exception for the metagamer. Which seems contrary to the vast majority of experience I have had, and my experience is in accord with the information and advice I can find elsewhere. Reasonable debates can be had about the way everyone needs to accept and use the metagame (for example, at most tables, the party tends to stick together and help each other, because the PLAYERS want to have a fun and cooperative game*). There are reasonable debates about the extent of character knowledge (in your world, how common is the "trolls and fire" thing). There are reasonable discussions that can be had over the best way to handle metagaming, and how individual tables chose to deal with it; to extremes would be Aaron's (permissive) and Max's (not permissive). But fundamentally, people are talking past each other, as @Harzel points out. *Notice this is about table etiquette. For example, my primary table seriously frowns on "metagaming," as the term is commonly employed. On the other hand, we have a strict no PvP policy, so we would equally be against a "Roleplayer" who acted against the party; in essence, the metagame (no PvP) must be observed regardless of what the player believes the character would want in terms of PvP.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 22 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 16th July, 2018


Thursday, 12th July, 2018

  • 05:08 AM - Salthorae quoted Harzel in post Level Advancement and In-Campaign Time
    I'm not sure what you mean by "logical" here. A chain of reasoning can be logical (or not), but that quote is just a series of assertions. Do you mean that you can imagine a (D&D) world in which those particular assertions are true. I'm sure that's the case, but that seems like faint praise. What strikes me is that those assertions are wildly inconsistent with the other tidbits of economic assumptions scattered in the PHB and DMG. There are enough people that can afford 75 gp for a horse, but not enough who can afford between 100-500 for a +1 sword?? Yes, you would have to be somewhat better off to go for the luxury of that sword, but in order for the to be "no market", you have to whittle potential buyers down to a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. So sure, magic items might be effectively priceless, but a bunch of other things are going to have to change to make that plausible. And? That accurately reflects the buying power relative to populace in medieval Europe which is the ...

Wednesday, 11th July, 2018

  • 05:07 AM - iserith quoted Harzel in post Level Advancement and In-Campaign Time
    I'm not sure what you mean by "logical" here. A chain of reasoning can be logical (or not), but that quote is just a series of assertions. Do you mean that you can imagine a (D&D) world in which those particular assertions are true. I'm sure that's the case, but that seems like faint praise. What strikes me is that those assertions are wildly inconsistent with the other tidbits of economic assumptions scattered in the PHB and DMG. There are enough people that can afford 75 gp for a horse, but not enough who can afford between 100-500 for a +1 sword?? Yes, you would have to be somewhat better off to go for the luxury of that sword, but in order for the to be "no market", you have to whittle potential buyers down to a tiny fraction of 1% of the population. So sure, magic items might be effectively priceless, but a bunch of other things are going to have to change to make that plausible. The value by rarity only applies IF the campaign allows for trade in magic items. The default as ...

Tuesday, 3rd July, 2018


Sunday, 1st July, 2018

  • 09:50 PM - neogod22 quoted Harzel in post Quasits, Imps and Pseudo Dragons as familiars
    You may be able to control those creatures in those ways, but they certainly won't function as familiars (at my table).I agree. A familiar is a partner to a wizard, not a slave. Trying to cast planar binding creates it's own problems. You have to capture the creature and be able to hold it long enough to cast the spell.

Saturday, 30th June, 2018

  • 07:03 PM - TheCosmicKid quoted Harzel in post 4th level party vs CR5 Catoblepas
    In the particular case of the catoblepas, as others have noted, there is a simple tactic that completely nerfs the monster, but if the tactic is not employed there is a significant chance of PC deaths (though a TPK is still quite unlikely). That seems way too swingy for my taste. To be useful as a solo monster, the catoblepas needs a) to be less vulnerable to kiting, b) have less damage per attack, c) be more survivable (mostly likely via higher AC and/or more HP). I would not use it as is. This is what I'd call a "puzzle monster", and I think if the PCs can crack it correctly, it will come across as a rewarding teamwork experience rather than a boring fight.

Tuesday, 26th June, 2018

  • 11:22 AM - 5ekyu quoted Harzel in post "Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?
    Perhaps not intended, but that seems rather condescending. Your version of roleplaying is not the only one that is valid. In particular, there is (literally) a world of knowledge that PCs have that the players do not. It is quite possible to envision most improvements in player skill as improved understanding of how the PCs' world works - things that virtually every PC would know.* Certainly that's not the only way to look at it, but IMO it is a reasonable one. It's fine to play low level characters as naive greenhorns, but I think it is also fine to assume that most really stupid or foolish characters would be washed out of the adventuring life very early (probably prior to level 1) via death, dismemberment, or just a recognition that they were just not cut out for that demanding a way of life. It is possible to reasonably reflect a low mental stat, or incorporate other interesting flaws or foibles without having the character behave in ways that frequently threaten their and/or the pa...
  • 10:52 AM - Lanefan quoted Harzel in post "Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?
    When I restarted DMing a couple of years ago, the idea of players referencing the Monster Manual gave me conniptions. But in the intervening time, I've decided that the players' decisions are a lot more interesting if they are informed, and that is head and shoulders more important than mystery. The Monster Manual is, IMO, an acceptable proxy for the lore that PCs would know. It's definitely not ideal that is comprehensive, and it's kind of lazy on my part, but I still think it's better than leaving players with a dearth of information.After the first time they've met a particular monster (other than the most common of pests e.g. orcs, koblds, goblins, etc. that they'd likely know all about) then maybe - with a lot of persuasion, much of it involving beer - I could get behind this. Before or during that first encounter, though? Not a chance.
  • 10:49 AM - Lanefan quoted Harzel in post "Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?
    Well, I suppose, if you really think your character is naive and uneducated. Personally, I find most "flawed" characters to be implausible and just a self-indulgence on the part of the player. The buffers and concessions that a DM has to use to keep such characters alive are annoyingly immersion-breaking. That's on the DM. Instead, she should let the dice fall where they may and if the flawed character (or any character, for all that) gets killed off, so be it. But if the flawed character beats the odds and actually goes on to a good or even great career - that's the stuff legends are made of! :) Lanefan
  • 10:22 AM - Lanefan quoted Harzel in post "Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?
    It's fine to play low level characters as naive greenhorns, but I think it is also fine to assume that most really stupid or foolish characters would be washed out of the adventuring life very early (probably prior to level 1) via death, dismemberment, or ... I always thought level 1 was supposed to be the start of the adventuring life. Anything prior to that was merely parade-ground training of some sort. It is possible to reasonably reflect a low mental stat, or incorporate other interesting flaws or foibles without having the character behave in ways that frequently threaten their and/or the party's survival. Low intellgence, yes. Low wisdom, not so much. As noted, no 'mind meld' is needed to explain the player having learned things that every PC would already know. This is about to get into an argument that's raged through here several times before, regarding player knowledge vs. character knowledge. The simplest answer, if it's something a PC might have heard about during tr...

Saturday, 23rd June, 2018


Thursday, 21st June, 2018

  • 04:23 PM - Gradine quoted Harzel in post Survivor Blood War- DEMOGORGON WINS!
    Wait. You downvoted Orcus for having a stupid name, but you upvoted Zuggtmoy? At least her name isn't one letter removed from an iconic group of D&D baddies that don't even have anything to do with her. I swear, Orcus is lazy naming even by Gygaxian standards. (And yes, I know Orcus was a Roman god of the underworld and death and that, etymologically speaking, Tolkein's Orcs descended from the Italian word for demon (Fun Fact: So was the Ogre!) which was derived from Orcus, but I'm just saying that maybe, to avoid confusion, he could have used some other obscure Roman underworld god, like Dis Pater-heywaitaminute!)

Tuesday, 19th June, 2018

  • 03:29 AM - MechaPilot quoted Harzel in post DRAGONS, An Alternate Take on a Classic Foe
    Most dragons' breath weapons are conical. Although (as usual) the PHB is sloppy about some of the associated terminology, I have always taken that to be a 3D effect. Did you envision the persistence for conical breath weapons to be taking place in three dimensions, or just in a triangular* area on "the ground"? If the latter, what happens if the breath effect does not intersect some solid surface? The conic(al) section seems to me like a natural way to envision the persistence of fire, and maybe cold, but the gas attacks might more naturally persist as an actual 3D cone. For the sake of having fewer cases, I myself might go with the 3D persistence. Not a criticism, just a thought. *Although this brings up the point that technically the triangle is actually a special case in which the dragon has his chin on the ground**; the more general case is either an ellipse or a parabola, depending on height and angle. Perhaps this is what you meant by "conical section"? That would be close to pr...

Monday, 11th June, 2018

  • 10:54 PM - 5ekyu quoted Harzel in post How can players counter Mass Suggestion?
    Do remember that the suggestion has to sound reasonable to the potential victim. While 'reasonable' will obviously be judged differently by different DMs, at least in my world that is a fairly severe constraint on this spell. Unless the caster is known to and trusted by the potential victim, the suggestion can't just sound neutral, it has to sound like it is clearly in the victim's best interest. Rule of thumb: if the potential victim might reasonably reply, "Why?", then the suggestion was not reasonable. Are you sure your villain can fashion a suggestion that will both sound reasonable and be as disabling to the PCs as you fear? On a different note: to the OP - admittedly, we don't know much about the complete circumstance, but your insistence that your story precludes the PCs knowing that this might be coming seems tenuous. In the absence of additional information, I would say rethinking that would be your best first course of action.When I adjudicate suggestion i use the boundaries l...

Thursday, 7th June, 2018

  • 03:12 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Harzel in post DM Best Traits
    1) lowkey13, ironically the first to respond to your thread, has more XP than you. Did he not mention it because he is gracious or just oblivious? Inquiring minds want to know. 2) I don't believe you're kidding. (Just kidding. :)) He has more laughs (by a huge margin. Must be that people like to laugh at his anguish over paladins and gnomes ;) ) . But I have more XP. In fact, I'm almost ready to overtake Morrus, but there is no way I'd ever catch up to Gary any time soon. 98209 3) *musing to self* So now that he has made an issue of it, do I give Sacrosanct XP because being nearby I may bask in his reflected glory, or do I withhold, hoping to someday catch up and be King of the Neighborhood? Choices, choices... You're in Portland. That makes you awesome by default, regardless of any other awesomeness you may be around ;)

Monday, 4th June, 2018

  • 01:50 AM - MonsterEnvy quoted Harzel in post ĎAdvancedí Dungeons & Dragons
    @Yaarel, what problem are you trying to solve (and/or what are the benefits of your proposal)? I imagine they are still mad about elves, and that they have a +1 instead of a 2. Then the game is no longer the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game. It's the Forgotten Realms roleplaying game with pretenses of being something else. No it's not. Plus Forgotten Realms even uses most default D&D stuff.

Thursday, 31st May, 2018

  • 01:00 PM - Blue quoted Harzel in post Spectral weapon and similar - who is the attacker
    Another odd case is an automated mechanism making an attack, such as an arrow trap. You could evade (haha) the issue by using a saving throw instead of an attack roll, but if you do go with an attack roll, is the "attacker" visible? If the trap has a listed +X to hit, it's the attacker. Is it visible? Depends on the circumstances. A big blade that comes down and slices is visible when attacking, so that seems obvious. Contact poison coating a door handle probably isn't - though that's a poor example since that's probably a save. Except for extenuating circumstances (invisible blades, certain spell attacks, etc.) I'd default to a trap that makes an attack roll being visible while making the attack.

Wednesday, 30th May, 2018

  • 09:48 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Harzel in post SURVIVOR Supplement Edition--Volo's Guide Wins!
    That is a good and pertinent question. "The Magic Encyclopedia" was published first, and was just a listing with no descriptions. "Encyclopedia Magica" followed a couple of years later and contained descriptions. The difference would certainly affect my votes. lowkey13, which did you intend to include in the list? Encyclopedia Magica. Can't believe I did that. My brain memory might be slipping lol http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/em4bookset.jpg
  • 08:51 PM - lowkey13 quoted Harzel in post SURVIVOR Supplement Edition--Volo's Guide Wins!
    That is a good and pertinent question. "The Magic Encyclopedia" was published first, and was just a listing with no descriptions. "Encyclopedia Magica" followed a couple of years later and contained descriptions. The difference would certainly affect my votes. lowkey13, which did you intend to include in the list? Not my list. :) Sacrosanct
  • 02:21 PM - Skyscraper quoted Harzel in post Optional Facing Rule: do you use it?
    FWIW, I use a facing rule, but not the one in the DMG. We use miniatures, which naturally makes it appear that each creature is facing a certain direction, and my players seemed to want a bonus for attacking from behind, so I decided to grant +1 from the side and +2 from behind. (Advantage just seemed like too much to me.) Each creature gets to change its facing once per turn for free. At least so far, it seems to work ok (as measured by my players seem satisfied with it). Interesting idea. One thing I particularly like about this, is allowing one free facing change per turn (I assume you mean, per round?). Perhaps creatures could be allowed to change facing during their own turn as much as they want; and then one free facing change per round, out of the creature's turn. This would at least address the problem of the OA vs the enemy passing by: the creature can change facing without spending a reaction to OA the enemy with its reaction as it leaves the square that was in the rear arc b...


Page 1 of 22 1234567891011 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Harzel's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites