View Profile: plisnithus8 - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About plisnithus8

Basic Information

About plisnithus8
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
284
Posts Per Day
0.32
Last Post
Help Me with Fey Masquerade Monday, 8th April, 2019 05:39 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
16
General Information
Last Activity
Monday, 8th April, 2019 05:39 PM
Join Date
Monday, 19th December, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Thursday, 17th May, 2018

  • 02:18 AM - Ilbranteloth mentioned plisnithus8 in post Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs
    ...etween a mythic perspective and a more modern "sci-fi" perspective. When you consider "monsters" from a mythic perspective, they are usually violent and evil and must be destroyed to protect the village. But in modern sci-fi, we have all sorts of monstrous-appearing races that are just different kinds of sentient beings, people, and should be treated as such. And of course, we can have both perspectives at the same time. In your campaign, minotaurs, tieflings, and dragonborn can be people, sentient beings deserving of respect, no more-or-less inherently evil than any other race of people. But at the same time, mind flayers might be corruptions from the Far Realm that are intelligent and sentient, but not truly "people", rather a corruption of beings that used to be "people". We are all going to handle that divide a bit differently in our games, but I think it's worthwhile to do so mindfully and not use the game as an excuse to act out in ways we wouldn't in the real world. Actually, plisnithus8 specifically stated "evil creatures with any kind of intelligence" although not in his original post. Also, horns don't grow back, antlers do. I sort of agree with your commentary on mythic vs. sci-fi. It's an interesting way to look at it that I hadn't thought of. I do like what you call the "mythic" view better for D&D myself, but I like a bit of grey area too. For example, goblinkin (goblins, orcs, etc.) are truly vile and evil creatures, much like a virus/plague across the land. Elves and dwarves have no qualms killing them without a thought, regardless of the circumstances. But they have enough of a "human" character that it's easy to play that against the humans of the world, who often want to believe that even such vile creatures can be "saved" or good, under the right circumstances. Part of this perspective is possibly due to the fact that the dwarves, and particularly the elves, often question if humans are really above such monstrous races, because their acts are often mor...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Sunday, 10th March, 2019

  • 09:27 AM - Leatherhead quoted plisnithus8 in post Artificer accessories
    Whatís your take? I like how the barrels look like a pair of cannons someone just ripped off of a ship. However, the legs are far too small and should be attached closer to the sides, if not on the sides themselves. This thing is supposed to climb up walls somehow. It's basically described as a Spider Tank, and I would imagine it's look to vary wildly depending on who is crating it. My expected aesthetics range would start with the sleek Sentry Turret from Portal, pass by the Da Vinci Tank (with enough legs to make The Luggage envious), and end up near a Clockwork Spider with a Jacob's Ladder on the back.. Also, how big do you imagine a Many-handed Pouch to be? As big as a normal pouch. Around the size of a decent dice-bag.

Saturday, 24th November, 2018

  • 01:26 AM - Charlaquin quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    Actually, just this week on The Happy Fun Hour, he admits that his Bonus Action issue is just with Teo Weapon Fighting. Finally. It was pretty obvious that was his real bugbear and that in trying to fix TWF he was throwing a perfectly useful piece of design tech out with the bathwater. I agree with him that TWF shouldn't use the bonus action, but the idea that bonus actions on the whole were "hacky" was just rubbish.

Friday, 23rd November, 2018

  • 10:49 PM - Blue quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    Players ask, what can I do as a bonus action? Nothing. It doesn't exist. Unless, of course, you have something that grants you one. And then it's clearly defined. This isn't like a earlier editions where the bonus action is part of your action economy. It literally does not exist. It's something you do while something else, not a little slice of time you can do something in. Having generic bonus actions muddies thewaters and makes it seem like another type of action you get in your action economy. Mearls has gone on record several times how he'd remove it completely if he was making 5e today (or last year).
  • 09:51 PM - Satyrn quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    I'll have to think about how the changing object reaction would work, worth thinking about. I think the way 77IM worded it should work well. Well, I'd edit it one word so it reads "When an object within 5 feet of you changes state, you can use your reaction to interact with that object " Sure, there might be the occasional time you have to do a bit of adjudication about whether or not the object's "state" actually changed but it'll probably be rare enough not to disrupt the moment (especially if your players trust you).
  • 09:34 PM - the Jester quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    1. What do you think of this concept in general? No thanks. A bonus action is just that- a bonus action. Not everyone should have one. 4e had a much more robust action economy; it led to a much slower game, with everyone spending agonizing amounts of time each turn trying to optimize the use of standard, move, and minor actions. I am not at all interested in returning to a game like that, and if I was, frankly, 4e does it very well. I think one of the biggest improvements that 5e has over 4e is that it's fast and sleek. What you propose significantly lessens that fast and sleekness.
  • 09:30 PM - Charlaquin quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    I must say the DMG has been the book I still keep realizing there is more to discover. I'll have to go look at those. Thanks Yeah, the 5e DMG is less of a guidebook for dungeon masters and more of a poorly organized mess of optional and alternative rules.
  • 09:17 PM - Satyrn quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    1. For my groups, and especially since we rarely play beyond 7th level, adding another option of something to do on a turn makes allows a player like a bard who misses on their 1 attack have something they can do, may allow some creativity. Yeah. I'm certainly not telling you not to do this. I'm not even trying to persuade you not to. I only told you I wouldn't do it because you asked me my opinion :p
  • 09:12 PM - quoted plisnithus8 in post Generic Bonus Actions and Reactions
    Some generic Reactions could be: - you can fall prone after being targeted by an attack or being moved against your will, - you can drop an object after being the target of an attack or being moved against your will. Do you have to choose to fall prone before the outcome of the attack is announced? If so, that could be pretty powerful for characters with high Dex or Alertness. "Oh, what, the guy hit me? Well, I'll fall prone so he misses and since I'll probably go first on the next round. Then I'll stand up as my move and attack. If he hits me again, I'll just fall down again!" I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea. If it adds versatility and enjoyment to your game, go for it. :)

Monday, 29th October, 2018

  • 07:28 AM - clearstream quoted plisnithus8 in post Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
    https://twitter.com/mikemearls?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1054975769586421761&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F Mike Mearls on Twitter: "So hereís the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule. Note that at this stage Iím ignoring the effect of feats, will get to those later: If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack. All your attacks on your turn take a -4 penalty. Penalty drops to -2 if you have the Extra Attack feature, -1 if that feature gives you 2 more attacks, 0 if it gives you 3. You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty. I feel like dual wielding aims for flexibility, and thatís what Iím aiming at here. Itís a little more complex but lets the player feel like they have a lot of options. Itís at the cost of a light weapon, so youíre dealing less damage than if you went longsword and shield. TWF is *super* good at low levels, setting aside feats and clas...

Thursday, 18th October, 2018

  • 02:49 PM - delericho quoted plisnithus8 in post Dinosaurs On The Streets of Ravnica In This Art Preview
    Yeah, I actually like it better if there are no dinosaurs... I'm surprised to find that I agree. Not sure why, but there it is. :)
  • 02:25 PM - Baldurs_Underdark quoted plisnithus8 in post Dinosaurs On The Streets of Ravnica In This Art Preview
    But are they dinosaurs? It looks more like mammals resembling a camel/giraffe and a bull/longhorn. So what if these are mammals? That only means that there exist infants the size of elephants who are still clumsy but also strong enough to tear down a house. Even more terrifying! Also, the dairy industry would look dramatically different. You might as well put your cheese factory on top of the animal because you only need one such a cow to supply a town with cheese. Many many fascinating things. :)

Monday, 3rd September, 2018

  • 04:30 PM - Blue quoted plisnithus8 in post Zero-level Adventuring
    I don't think you'd have to be younger than 13 before you start taking a class (and that seems to ignore the various lifespans of races.), especially since 5e uses backgrounds such as Gladiator or Pirate. If those are your backgrounds before taking a class, you probably weren't preteen. Page126 states, "Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?" If an apprentice adventurer starts at level 1 with 0 xp, then she could have been a Mercenary Veteran. I agree with you, I was generalizing to pre-teen because by 13 in a medieval society you're likely already either apprenticed or doing your family's work. It was a cut-off that after that it wasn't likely for the general populous. Of course, any setting could differ, or there could be people who are exceptions. As a side note in regards to racial lifespan, if you read the age descriptions in the PHB, for the most part the races have been normalized for how fast they physically mature (unlike previous editions). ...
  • 12:51 PM - Li Shenron quoted plisnithus8 in post Zero-level Adventuring
    1. How do you start a zero-level campaign? 2. How does your no-level campaign run? 3. How do characters get to 1st level? 4. What are the pros, cons, and/or caveats? Well I always start at level 1 but it should be fine to give starting PCs something less. Race + background is a nice idea but I would still start with +2 proficiency bonus so that the background fully matters. 3. Start at negative XP, for example -500 or whatever, depending on how long you want to stay at level 0. 4. The only real drawback IMO is low HP. I don't usually feel safe until level 3 or so, therefore I would not want to start with even less HP. Maybe go with 4+Con or 6+Con, but not 1d4.

Saturday, 1st September, 2018

  • 01:04 PM - Li Shenron quoted plisnithus8 in post Would you allow an extra background instead of Feat?
    Player wants to be a human opera singer (1st level). If she is an entertainer but asks to also be a noble (variant so she has a little extra money plus servants), would you allow noble to replace her human variant feat? Is it balanced? Obviously the request is for role-play more than combat. I now checked the 2 specific backgrounds to have an opinion on the specific combination. The noble background is particularly bogus. None of the granted proficiencies is particularly essential to represent a Noble. So I think the best solutions for this PC is either: 1) to simply have the Entertainer background, and a narrative history of nobility 2) considering the specific role of opera singer, to mix the two backgrounds by dropping Acrobatics and Musical Instrument (she doesn't need them) and gaining the noble's Persuasion and extra language ( the latter is very fitting with opera singers who often sing in other languages ). I'd also favour the noble's feature rather than the Entertainer'...
  • 11:58 AM - 5ekyu quoted plisnithus8 in post Would you allow an extra background instead of Feat?
    Player wants to be a human opera singer (1st level). If she is an entertainer but asks to also be a noble (variant so she has a little extra money plus servants), would you allow noble to replace her human variant feat? Is it balanced? Obviously the request is for role-play more than combat. I would have no problem with a feat granting a background. If you look at a feat like skilled - add three skills proficiencies and the others like linguist etc - i see little to worry me about such a choice. If it were to be a choice made during play not at first, there would have to be (as with all feats) reasonable circumstances to allow it to fit the narrative. A prolonged stay in a culture or an apprenticeship.
  • 08:50 AM - Li Shenron quoted plisnithus8 in post Would you allow an extra background instead of Feat?
    Player wants to be a human opera singer (1st level). If she is an entertainer but asks to also be a noble (variant so she has a little extra money plus servants), would you allow noble to replace her human variant feat? Is it balanced? Obviously the request is for role-play more than combat. On second thoughts I would not allow it. There is already a core feat to represent the same thing, Skilled which grants a combination of 3 skills or tools proficiencies. Apparently this is the amount of benefits that the designers decided to be appropriate for a feat. A background grants 1 more proficiency (although only 2 can be skills) and a downtime benefit, so getting a background instead of a feat is effectively cheating, because it us absolutely not required for roleplay. The traits / bonds / etc are not mechanical benefits so everyone is free to have as many as they wish. Is one more proficiency a big deal? Does it break the game? NO. But then if you allow this, I want an extra weapon pr...
  • 07:56 AM - Harzel quoted plisnithus8 in post Would you allow an extra background instead of Feat?
    The point - for us at least - is that playing level zero is fun. We run into a single orc and run away because he has a bow and we are unarmed since we are only using what backgrounds give us. We have to role-play and talk our way through almost every situation, and we don't have much skill at anything. It's a great contrast to a higher level character with multiple attacks or buckets of spell slots. It brings a party together in many ways. Why would going from level zero to level to level take 10 years and then going up from there be almost instantaneous? Ten years seems like an incredibly long time to get to first level anyway, and gaining levels (and all that goes with that) without additional training seems to bend logic anyway. We don't skip level 1, not sure why that would happen. Well, first-level characters are already assumed to have some experience under their belt and, in most settings, are already more skilled and powerful than most people in the world. Zero level is pre-class....

Friday, 31st August, 2018

  • 12:55 PM - Sadras quoted plisnithus8 in post Would you allow an extra background instead of Feat?
    Player wants to be a human opera singer (1st level). If she is an entertainer but asks to also be a noble (variant so she has a little extra money plus servants), would you allow noble to replace her human variant feat? Is it balanced? Obviously the request is for role-play more than combat. Great character concept, would totally allow it.
  • 07:12 AM - Charlaquin quoted plisnithus8 in post Would you allow an extra background instead of Feat?
    Player wants to be a human opera singer (1st level). If she is an entertainer but asks to also be a noble (variant so she has a little extra money plus servants), would you allow noble to replace her human variant feat? Is it balanced? Obviously the request is for role-play more than combat. Absolutely! Two skills and two languages/tool proficiencies is right on par for a Feat, and the feature is a nice roleplaying ribbon. Iím less keen on the bonus starting equipment, but eh. Itís all stuff youíd be able to afford very early on, so no big deal.

Wednesday, 22nd August, 2018

  • 05:22 AM - MPA2000 quoted plisnithus8 in post 5e Guide to the Abyss and 9 Hells?
    With all of the fiends in Mordenkainen's, I'd really like to have a guide to their home planes. Are there any published 3rd party products that have maps or descriptions of what these are like? or maybe something from a previous edition? I'd like my players to have the option to go through a portal that was opened, but I really don't have time to home-brew it all now. I know there are pieces of this type of stuff in the WotC books, but I was hoping to find something more substantial with some NPCs and maps, and "town" descriptions. Any suggestions? Unfortunately we only have the campaign setting for the Abyss, and nothing for the nine hells. Tiamat rules(d) the first layer of the nine hells but not much in specifics.


Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

plisnithus8's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites