View Profile: Shasarak - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 13th November, 2018, 11:10 PM
    I dont really get it, $50 US and then I still have to buy the book? I will just wait to see how this plays out I guess.
    5 replies | 231 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 03:07 AM
    It was obvious that he did not understand what you were talking about with making difficult choices with significant consequences. I think one good example that I have seen in this thread was the player who spent all their money to rebuild their destroyed town as opposed to lowkeys example of spending all their money to make themselves better at adventuring.
    778 replies | 84791 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 8th November, 2018, 12:18 AM
    If it is an exact quote then why does yours have spelling mistakes that his does not? o_O Good bye!
    778 replies | 84791 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 7th November, 2018, 11:45 PM
    I can see how that does not make any sense as it is exactly the opposite of what he said.
    778 replies | 84791 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 05:22 AM
    Of course the mechanical power of the PC is the result of building the PC. If you were to translate Captain America into your DnD game then his power would result from the building of the PC (or monster stat block I suppose) plus his magical shield Would we expect a 1st level PC to have the same power as a 5th level PC or a 10th level PC? Or in other words, do we ever see a story about a 1st...
    930 replies | 12855 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 05:10 AM
    I think that neatly sums it up for me.
    778 replies | 84791 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 04:10 AM
    Why would you complain that a ADnD Fighter needs to use a magical item to emulate a comic book hero who gets his strength after being injected with magical strength serum?
    930 replies | 12855 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 5th November, 2018, 04:08 AM
    How many times does Mike want to redo 4e?
    930 replies | 12855 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 3rd November, 2018, 06:55 AM
    I have seen at least one post in this thread giving as an example of a bad DM someone who gave special treatment to their wife/girlfriend.
    1795 replies | 57730 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 31st October, 2018, 08:32 PM
    The main thing with experiments is that it is hard to discus the results before running the experiment. Although it would be cool to be able to lag out the entire universe.
    58 replies | 1295 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 31st October, 2018, 05:39 AM
    I would probably reverse the question and ask, why would you bring a sword to a sling fight?
    1795 replies | 57730 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 31st October, 2018, 05:18 AM
    One way that I have seen being suggested is to try an experiment doing something fast enough that you can essentially see if the simulation lags trying to process the data. Kind of like the deja vu cat.
    58 replies | 1295 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th October, 2018, 04:31 AM
    Come on, you have to give the Reptilians more credit then that. How would the Torileans even know about the implanted microchips?
    58 replies | 1295 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018, 10:23 PM
    I thought that you could get XP in DnD by getting Gold. So that means you have to pay your Champion a lot to make sure they are a high level.
    1795 replies | 57730 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 19th October, 2018, 10:23 AM
    That is a fair description. A cartoonish game lives and dies on its cartoonish villains and DnD has certainly has some scenery chewing ones over the years. I love Lord Soth and there is no way you can classify him as misguided. He would probably crush your throat if he heard you make the suggestion. The creators of Strahd have been clear that they view him as a monster with no...
    91 replies | 2705 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 11:46 PM
    I would say that they both rationalise. If I had to put it in DnD terms Thanos would be more LE compared to Steppenwolfs NE.
    91 replies | 2705 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 11:26 PM
    No, he is pretty much just Evil.
    91 replies | 2705 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 09:09 PM
    I can not think of any famous iconic DnD villain that is just a misguided good person.
    91 replies | 2705 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 07:45 AM
    In your sleep you are visited by your Gawds Angel. As you prostate yourself before its glory you hear its majestic proclamation. "You have not been tithing enough to the Church. It is 10% of the Gross not Net, you knew the rules when you signed up. No more spells until you pay."
    1795 replies | 57730 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 05:46 AM
    You know the old saying of 30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of play? Well that does not happen by itself, someone has to work hard to pad out the game that much.
    1795 replies | 57730 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th October, 2018, 03:36 AM
    I really do not see how you could play real life political views in a DnD game. I mean for a start you have Villains who really are Evil rather then merely crooked and illegal aliens that really are Alien.
    91 replies | 2705 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Shasarak

Basic Information

About Shasarak
Location:
Auckland, New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,346
Posts Per Day
1.11
Last Post
Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked Today 09:46 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:50 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 21st August, 2010
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Saturday, 17th November, 2018


Thursday, 15th November, 2018


Wednesday, 14th November, 2018


Tuesday, 13th November, 2018



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Monday, 17th September, 2018

  • 02:09 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post How do you like your published settings? Static or evolving? And through what medium?
    ...er it's worth the hassle. Even worse is when players own different versions of the setting and expect to be able to use what they own...and by extension expect you-as-DM to accommodate that. My surprise was more about the amount of “setting police” players that seem to be out there, according to many posts in this and similar threads. If I want to use the 1e gray-box version of Forgotten Realms (maybe with some additions of my own), and one player is expecting the 3e version because that's what she's used to, while another player is looking for the post-apocalypse 4e version - yeah, there's going to be some mismatched expectations up front followed inevitably by erroneous assumptions during play. The only way to avoid this is to not use FR as a setting.... On the other hand instead of not using FR as a setting you could say that the campaign is starting in Year 1357 DR and run from there. In 40 years of running all types of campaigns I've never run into a problem like those. Shasarak's solution has always worked for me and I've never made a big deal about it and I don't remember a single player ever complaining or even asking about it. Again, I don't see why a timeline doesn't work. It has always worked for me. I guess I'm just special.

Tuesday, 24th July, 2018

  • 05:51 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    Why would you leave out the official quote I provided for you that a dragon being magical in combination with the wing strength is how it flies. It makes it appear that you argue disingenuously when you do things like this. (1) I was replying to Shasarak, who I thought was suggesting that flying dragons are physically possible. (2) That is inlcuded in my (iii): it doesn't really make sense to think of the world of D&D using such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics. A world in which beings have "innate magic" that combines with their muscualture to let them fly is not a world in which scientific categories such as gravity and fluid mechanics have application. (Whichi was TwoSix's point some way upthread.) I also think it is worth nothing that in 3E (at least according to the d20srd) a dragon's flight is not SU. Of course they are biomechanically possible. That is what the physics says. What kind of respiratory system does a DnD Arthrod have? Maybe you are imagining the wrong sort.I'm talking about the real world. Are you asserting that D&D giants are biomechanically possible in the real world? If you are, that's interesting because I thought the general opinion was that, with the possible exception of fi...

Monday, 23rd July, 2018

  • 04:03 PM - Kobold Boots mentioned Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    @pemerton, Shasarak The gravity conversation interests me if only for the two points that immediately come to mind. 1. Gravitational forces assuming 1G constant will not prevent really large things from flying given enough lift and thrust. Similarly it will not prevent large bone and muscle mass creatures from evolving given the right circumstances. 2. Whether or not something is magical or not really depends on whether or not your sensibilities allow for something to exist in a conventional physics sense or not. (e.g. This huge dragon isn't airflow optimized and his wings aren't large enough to provide lift or gliding control so it has to be magic.. ) Note that where physics ends and magic begins in any person's world is a personal thing and may actually vary depending on the subject. The huge dragon may require magic to fly (and may have learned enough to do so) whereas the smaller one may not require it to fly (and as such may have developed its own tricks instead.) Regardless, the physics/magi...

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

  • 10:22 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post RPG Combat: Sport or War?
    I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate letha...

Friday, 7th July, 2017

  • 05:02 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Shasarak in post Mearls on other settings
    ...terest them. This way, DMs can easily keep unwanted assumptions 100% out of their rulebooks and their games. In my own case, if the Great Wheel of Planescape and all of its polytheism was a separate expansion pack, while the Players Handbook made no mention to it, then I would be at peace and able to enjoy the game better. Different DMs are sensitive to different things, but we can all benefit from compartmentalizing the options. I disagree that it's WotC's responsibility to cater to the sensitivities of DMs and players. I think it's up to the DMs and players themselves to decide what material to use or not. I mean, I get the appeal of rule books written exactly to my personal preference...but it's simply not a realistic expectation. So Ravenloft was never meant to be a living setting in its own.? It's only visited from others? That's where my lack of history trips me up :) I thought it was a fully fledged setting that could host campaigns without needing outside support? As Shasarak said, the many realms that made up the Demiplane of Dread, the setting for the Ravenloft game, were each made for a particular dark lord. These realms were the domain of a dark lord, but also their prison as well. Each of these dark lords was taken from another world...Toril, Oerth, Krynn, or any number of unnamed worlds. Typically, the PCs in Ravenloft adventures are drawn through the misty barriwrs from their world and into the demiplane of dread. So the setting was its own, but it was conmected to the other worlds and interacted with them.

Friday, 23rd June, 2017

  • 05:32 AM - Yaarel mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    @Shasarak and @Azzy You are kinda proving my point about ‘D&D peer pressure’ to pretend to ‘worship’ ‘gods’. If I told you, I hate Kobolds. I imagine your response would be something like. Thats nice. I dont care. But when I say, I hate polytheism. You guys seem as if unable to stop yourself from launching into some kind of reallife culture war about issues that I couldnt care less about. I enjoy D&D without ‘gods’. I watch televisions shows where polytheism is irrelevant. I want to play games where it is irrelevant too.

Monday, 12th June, 2017

  • 02:30 AM - Hussar mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    It's interesting that you bring up Caderly Shasarak. That's one of the few FR books I actually have read. Although, it was a LONG time ago and I don't think I read all of them. Wasn't there something about a killer yo-yo in those books? Anyway, think about what you just said though. Cadderly is the exception. Most of the priests don't adventure, and never did. Yet, funnily enough, there were higher level clerics than Cadderly at his temple. How did they gain levels? They specifically weren't adventurers, so, what did they kill or loot in order to gain several thousand xp points to go from 1st to, say, 3rd level. Just to roll this back to the idea of NPC's using PC rules. Lanefan spells it out pretty well. In AD&D, sure, you could use NPC rules for a humanoid (and only a humanoid - sorry, no class levels for your beholder), or, you could kinda sorta just bolt on some PC abilities onto an NPC, or, as was the much more common case, you could use a unique stat block. 3e changed all that. Not only did you have the option of...

Friday, 19th May, 2017

  • 12:34 AM - robus mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Something that is being ignored is fair use. I'm not saying that this is a case of that (I'm not a copyright lawyer) but it certainly sounds like the work is transformative (by recontextualizing the works) and there is certainly no impact on the "market" as the works have already been freely shared on the Internet. So the legality and the ethics are not as cut and dried as they may appear. And Shasarak is correct that an awful lot of stuff on the internet would be illegal if including others work was the only criteria.
  • 12:00 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Shasarak, I know where you are going with this. And I'm not going to have a debate with you about it. Suffice it to say in your country and mine what you are suggesting is illegal. In almost every ethical system what you are suggesting is unethical.

Saturday, 15th April, 2017

  • 01:41 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post We're Finally Mainstream! Now What?
    Shasarak, I simply can't follow your arguments. It seems like you are taking comments and arguments from anyone that doesn't side with you as being all in one pool, or something. But anyways, it doesn't matter. Labels are only as good as people are willing to agree upon them and use them consistantly. Which isn't happening here.

Tuesday, 14th February, 2017

  • 03:28 PM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for. Here is the thing though Max, doesn't a Onetruewayism zealot also state their opinion? It becomes increasingly messy to differentiate which unfavourable opinion of one's game is tolerable and which one is not. This might all just be a simple matter of etiquette. @Shasarak did the exact same thing with me in the other thread, calling me a lazy DM because I don't allow every character concept under the sun at my table when I DM. It ain't right either way. His style and my style are clearly different, but we shouldn't go around making disparaging remarks of each others preferences. Hiding behind it just an opinion doesn't give it a free pass. Sorry. EDIT: We cross-posted. Just saw your post above. ;)

Sunday, 12th February, 2017

  • 01:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Imaro, Maxperson, Shasarak: Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62: [T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies. The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious. Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book: Some of the existing good-aligned monsters did incorporate neeat designs that we wanted to preserve and improve upon. Most of the eladrins fell into that category. . . . [W]e noted their generally fey appearance, and this led to a natural association with the Feywild. . . . Eladrins were already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role, but as mysterious lords and ladies of the Feywild. When they a...

Saturday, 4th February, 2017

  • 04:20 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    what inherent value would you say it has for you to hew as closely as possible to what feels like the structural essence or foundation of the setting? I asked (a version of) this question on the other thread. Shasarak answered - roughly (but I hope not too loose a paraphrase) the answer was that the setting is a work of art, and departure from canon is a type of "affront" to the artwork. ("Affront" is my word, not Shasarak's - it's not quite right, becuase the artwork doesn't itself have feelings, but for present purposes hopefully it conveys the general idea in a comprehensible fashion.) Respect for my players. If I tell them I'm going to run Darksun, I feel obligated to give them Darksun, not some bastardized version.This seems to imply that one of the reasons you think that my decision to include the WoHS in my GH game was that it disrespected my players. If that is correct, it makes it even more odd to me that you haven't made any inquiries about the circumstances of the case. Is it relevant, for instance, that I started GMing that group as the outcome of a "revolt" against a prior GM whom the rest of us all agreed was terrible - and that it was on the basis of an offer to run a game ...
  • 04:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    ...s there are? Maybe they liked the extra magic sub system?Well they clearly liked the magic system, given that they engaged with it via PC building when they were under no obligation to do so. They also liked the story. (I think it's a fairly compelling one. That's why I put it into my game!) But some of them were certainly quite familiar with GH. And even those who didn't know it very well would have seen the well-known cover of Unearthed Arcana with its two moons. I think they simply realised that two visible moons doesn't preclude a third invisible one. I'm not saying that the 3rd moon is canon - of course it's not. I'm saying that adding it doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game. Any RPGing will mean that the setting takes on non-canonical features/elements.I think most Greyhawk GMs would agree with you there.Maybe. That said, this thread consists of a significant number of posts - from Maxperson, Imaro and maybe some other posters (eg I'm less clear about Shasarak on this poiint) - stating that my GH game is not really a GH game precisely because of addditional elements - like the 3rd moon, and the WoHS to go with it - that I have introduced. there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation.This is not in dispute either. In my case, the WoHS are dropped largely whole-cloth into GH, with only as many changes made (Suel origins, astronomical details, relationships to other sorcerous traditions) as are needed to have them fit into their new home. My claim is that such a whole-cloth drop (with such slight modifications as are needed to make it work) doesn't make the game cease to be a GH one. as more material got published for campaign settings as well as in Dragon Magazine and in novels, there were a lot more players cropping up with passing familiarity in the se...

Tuesday, 31st January, 2017

  • 03:02 AM - Maxperson mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    But the only reason you have given for it being "alternative GH" rathwr than GH per se is that you, Maxperson, would have certain expectations disappointed. You have expressly eschewed offering any reason that is not individual and particular to you. Pretty much everyone has a line where settings stop being that setting. It varies from person to person, so of course I can't speak to anyone but myself. My line isn't your line. Your line isn't Shasarak's line. His line isn't Imaro's, and so on. The line does exist for everyone, though. How is that a reason for judging whether or not it is really a GH game (as oppposed to, say, a game that you want to play in).I didn't say I wouldn't want to play in it. I said I wouldn't view it as Greyhawk.

Saturday, 28th January, 2017

  • 08:01 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ... if you're playing canon, the setting of Krynn doesn't cater for those races, however we have a PHB and now Volo's Guide riddled with additional races and classes which do not have a history in that setting. Now If the intention of the DM is to create a game within the parameters of setting are you saying that is not allowable? Similarly, I have my own limitation for my setting, I don't permit monks at my table for whatever reason for my Mystara game. The players know this beforehand. We have been playing within this setting for the last 20 years and they're very much aware of this ruling. It is not as if they are coming every week to my table with a character sheet and I'm going "No, not happening" Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what @Shasarak called "lazy". Sorry no you're very much misrepresenting him. @Shasarak has very much outed his intentions by neither responding to my post or @Caliban's. He firmly said that all should be allowed otherwise it's lazy DMing. I'm assuming this is because he still carries the scars of a bad DM or his players have limited (lazy) imaginations and can only play one-trick ponies.
  • 07:49 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    [MENTION=6701872]Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn.Unless you have anecdotes of those two refusing to work something out with a player wanting to play one of those things, you've created a false equivalence. Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what Shasarak called "lazy".
  • 06:58 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM. AaronOfBarbaria doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend Shasarak. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy. Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!
  • 02:38 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    I also don't like to eat liver. It tastes horrible to me.Using your analogy, and attempting to explain what appears to be Shasarak's view that you just don't seem to be getting: Not eating liver because you don't like the taste makes perfect sense. I don't eat liver either, interestingly enough. But when you say "No dragonborn at my table." it doesn't sound like you are saying "No liver for me, thanks." so much as it sounds like "No liver for anyone eating at the same table as me."

Thursday, 19th January, 2017

  • 09:56 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ...au trope, and it makes the ancient empire trope carried by the Suel pick up stupid backage. All the Suel and the Scarlet Brotherhood have going for them is that they are workings out of these pulp tropes, so once you dilute them you just get less compelling stuff. *The inclusion of a cult of Chauntea in module OA7 - which introduces needless and distracting FR-isms into an otherwise very good module that, more than any other OA module except perhaps OA3, actually makes tropes around the Celestial Bureaucracy, immortality, peachling children, etc central to play. Look, this thread is 163 pages of people mostly trying to explain to you why canon is important to them. At some point you just need to accept that it is a concept you don't understand. I think you're misunderstanding me, or underestimating me, or both. I can read the posts. I can draw inferences from what is said. I'm inviting posters, though, to actually articulate the value that is moving them to care about canon. Shasarak has done this not too far upthread. But some other posters seem to shy away from it: eg they feel like they need to advance instrumental reasons (eg "players will get confused if canon changes") when it seems transparently clear that their concern is not instrumental; or they try and defend blanket claims about the importance of adherence to canon, yet in doing so put forward examples where canon has changed rather markedly (eg what, if anything, differentiates D&D orcs from JRRT's, or D&D orcs from D&D hobgoblins). I think some notion of "integrity of a body of work" is probably in the right neighbourhood for a number of posters other than just Shasarak, but the criteria by which integrity is judged could probably bear more elaboration. For instance, what sorts of trade-offs between thematic integrity and "factual" integrity are permissible (eg can we get rid of earthbergs to get something that is more fitting to the themes of Norse mythology - ie foster thematic integrity - even t...


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

Saturday, 17th November, 2018

  • 09:20 AM - Lanefan quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    In the Harry Potter world you never see a Muggle, I mean Fighter participating at all so I am not sure that it would balance magic in the way that someone like Gar would enjoy at all!That baker guy in Fantastic Beasts might beg to differ re the Muggle/Nomaj participation bit...
  • 07:41 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them." Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now. and the obligatory Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules" And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine. Sure. The needless symetry of all classes having the exact same number of powers, recharge, and format of powers bugged me. Give martials more At-will and spellcasters more and Dailies. Do...
  • 07:05 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them." Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now. and the obligatory Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules" And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine. I had the same reaction to the idea of different power acquisition schedules. I would have loved to see the option of passive abilities in place of powers, but they should be balanced for their...
  • 02:05 AM - Garthanos quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    In the Harry Potter world you never see a Muggle, I mean Fighter participating at all so I am not sure that it would balance magic in the way that someone like Gar would enjoy at all! If you are playing a Game of Wizards are the only hero class character and everyone else is at best a sidekick better be in the mood for playing a Wizard (Insert Ars Magica where everyone made both with the awareness the one could literally kick realities tush and the companion usually got along better with normal folk )
  • 12:14 AM - Jay Verkuilen quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    In the Harry Potter world you never see a Muggle, I mean Fighter participating at all so I am not sure that it would balance magic in the way that someone like Gar would enjoy at all! Yeah, I think that that's an important point. Balancing between non-casters and casters isn't important in a game where everybody is a caster. However, I do think that there are ways of balancing Vancian spellcasting. Spell interruption with casting time, for instance, turns out to work nicely. Higher level spells with longer casting times are hard to get off. I still run a heavily house ruled 2E game. Two of the PCs are fighters and they are really crucial for defending the wizard, who has to work hard to avoid spell interruption. If he's strongly pressed he ends up casting lower level spells or using a device and, of course, he's got to worry about getting his tail end beat up.

Thursday, 15th November, 2018

  • 11:53 PM - Ratskinner quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    So your argument is that 13 year old children learning how to cast spells with broken wands cant cast spells? Ah huh. Well its true that they aren't the kind of people who would go on adventures to thwart and eventually destroy a powerful dark wizard like D&D characters would....oh wait, they do. And of course you have some spells that some wizards can not cast, that is why you have a percentage chance to learn spells afterall. And when Harry learns to cast his Patronus he never fails to cast his Patronus. Not correct. When defending his brother in the tunnel, he fails once (at least) before getting it right. I don't have a real problem with a chance to learn spells. Yes, some people are weak minded and can be mind controlled. Some people are not and cant be. It was not the Force that failed. Luke can not levitate his XWing before he was trained in the force and then after he was trained he levitated his XWing. I find in Starwars that its only the Mary Sue characte...
  • 08:10 AM - Aldarc quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I think that Gilderoy is probably the perfect example to illustrate the point. In the Harry Potter universe, magic is always reliable and never fails unless you are obviously incompetent and/or for comedic effect. Someone pointed out the Hogwarts Infirmary and I never saw any character who ended up in the Infirmary ending up being adversely affected even after being petrified by the Basilisk! Madam Pomfrey must be a master Wizard indeed.In general, yes, but I would say that spells in the Potterverse are more cantrip-like than D&D's magic system. Magic is meant to be rote, ordinary, and ubiquitous on a level greater than most settings in D&D. Everyone is a wizard apart from infants and squibs. So Madam Pomfrey represents what a school nurse would be like in such a magical world.
  • 02:33 AM - Garthanos quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Come on man, you cant just say it. What the heck. 4e is as much D&D as every other edition and every bloody edition plays different in some fashion this is just more garbage from you so you can giggle.
  • 01:42 AM - Garthanos quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I thought that you were not allowed to say that 4e plays differently then DnD. I mean obviously it does but you are not allowed to say it. edition warrior you remain
  • 01:08 AM - Aldarc quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I think Gilderoy was just a fraud. I dont know how they could have telegraphed that any better. I dont remember him teaching his class any spells at all.No, he really didn't. He was primarily concerned with making his exploits known. (Though that was also something of a frequent occurrence: only a few teachers actually taught anything in that class.) But that does not mean that Lockhart was incapable as a wizard (even his non-memory charms) or that his spells didn't fail. By J.K. Rowling's own account on Pottermore, he was talented as a wizard. He was just a vain one who desired to garner more attention. Probably the best summation: Sorted into Ravenclaw house, Lockhart was soon achieving good marks in his schoolwork, but there was always a kink in his nature that made him increasingly unsatisfied. If he was not first and best, he would rather not participate at all. Increasingly, he directed his talents towards short cuts and dodges. He valued learning not for its own sake, but for the at...

Wednesday, 14th November, 2018

  • 10:31 PM - cbwjm quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I think Gilderoy was just a fraud. I dont know how they could have telegraphed that any better. I dont remember him teaching his class any spells at all.I've only seen the movie, but from watching it that guy was totally a fraud. It was like he failed to learn any spell other than enchantments which is what he used to mind wipe and steal the credit of others. I'd describe him as an enchanter specialist in 2e terms since they had a bonus to learn enchantment spells and penalties to learn any others that weren't prohibited. I'd probably give him a fairly low intelligence as well, maybe not 9 but probably no more than a 13.
  • 12:42 PM - Aldarc quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Some of those I dont recognise but, Harry Potter? Their spells never fail and are also ridiculously easy to cast.Their spells do fail. Their magic is generally more reliable, especially given that it is an entire culture and society built around magical wizardry, but their spells can and do fail. Sometimes this is the result of verbal failures, technical failures (e.g., wands), mental failures, or as a result of other magic. We do often see this, however, from the perspective of trainees, which may represent the sort of expected failures for young wizards-in-training. Ron was injured for a large swath of Book 7 because his botched Apportation spell caused him physical injury. (If we were playing in Fate, we may say that Ron's PC failed their Overcome check when attempting Apportation. As getting out of the Ministry of Magic was critical for the story, the PC chose "Success on a Failure" and accepted - in a consultation with the GM - an appropriate Consequence that required multiple session...
  • 07:45 AM - Ratskinner quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Some of those I dont recognise but, Harry Potter? Their spells never fail and are also ridiculously easy to cast. Star Wars? When did a force power ever not succeed and Darth Vader hilariously fail to force choke someone. Discworld? The only Wizzard that cant cast is Rincewind but that is the whole point of the character carrying around one of the worlds most powerful spells. Conan? Just finished the Tower of the Elephant and there were no miscast spells in that. Ron Weasley, Neville Longbottom (especially their freshmen and sophomore years) and the fact that there is a well-used nurse's ward in Hogwarts would argue with your "never fail" appraisal of magic in Harry Potter. Many full-fledged wizards can't successfully cast the Patronus charm and other magics, potions class was regularly depicted as a circus of failure. (Although I agree that the spells are often depicted as simple and swift actions, especially in the movies.) And that's not to count the number of spells that simply ...
  • 06:55 AM - Manbearcat quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    So Martial characters were at disadvantage on their attacks and ability checks and you wonder why they were struggling? That is your well-considered takeaway from the play report above? That is your genuine, objective analysis? Its this sort of stuff that utterly kills conversation on these boards and has driven away so many excellent posters (who are more interested in exploring and evaluating game design than point-scoring) over the last several years. Ok, I'll do the analysis for you. How about: 1) The Fighter didn't have Disadvantage on anything because the Diviner made it so (he would have had Advantage on everything because of Foresight, and did at the end). The Fighter failed on his Athletics check to destroy The Time Reaper without Disadvantage. 2) All 3 of the Rogue's consequential contributions to changing the gamestate worked; the 1st because of the Diviner's ability made it so through his 1st use of Portent, the 2nd because he succeeded on both of his Thievery rolls, the ...
  • 04:07 AM - Ratskinner quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I dont know though. Is there a lot of fiction? I can not think of anything off the top of my head about unreliable magic. Certainly mythologically you do not have unreliable magic. OTTOMH: Harry Potter, Star Wars, Willow, Discworld, Earthsea, Conan (at least the movies), the Sorcerer's Apprentice tale, there are others I read back in the day whose titles I have forgotten. Any source where magic is the result of demon/outsider compact. Mythologically, magic is usually an act of a God, not a wizard. When it is a wizard, its usually not combat magic, but either complicated ritual, artifice, or slow. Consider Merlin (mythology? probably close enough) all deception, divination, artifice, and compacts (depending on the source you're looking at). D&D wizards more resemble some strange superhero with a really oddly-specific set of powers than they do the typical wizards of myth and legend. (Although source material varies widely, some wizard-y culture heroes do some pretty wild stuff.) ...
  • 03:48 AM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    I think you're confusing what happens at the table with what happens in the fiction. Does a Fighter or Rogue have 10 sword blows that they can use per day? A Fighter missing an attack seems to be a completely different situation. darkbard's point is completely apposite here too. The fighter's "sword blows per day" are limited by mechanics and play: how many fights will be played before, at the table, the wizard player is allowed to replenish his/her resource list? how many hit points does a fighter lose per sword blow, and what player-side resources are needed to recover them, and how does replenishment of those/I] resources correlate to the wizard player's replenishment of his/hers? Etc. The 5e team seem to think that the system is balanced at 6 to 8 encounters per day; and received wisdom seems to be that each encounter lasts 3 to 4 rounds. 3.5 * 7 = approx 25, so that seems to be the answer to your question. Chuck in 3 rounds of action surge and a bit of OA and maybe its 30. (In this c...
  • 02:22 AM - Ratskinner quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    The concerns that I would have with inconsistant spell casting is that narratively it is not accurate and mechanically it is not fun leaving you with a pretty niche solution. What does "narratively it is not accurate" mean? There's lots of relevant fiction with unreliable spellcasting, and plenty of fantasy lit where casting in combat is not even an option (or at least, doesn't happen). The D&D version of a magic wielder (almost any of them) has become so much of its own thing that it seems to be warping what people see and write in the genre. As far as "not fun" goes...well I suppose it wouldn't be for the caster players who are expecting to have everything work automatically, but...a) I've run other games where this was not the case with no problems and b) how is it any more disappointing than when a Fighter or Rogue rolls low damage or misses?

Tuesday, 13th November, 2018

  • 09:47 PM - darkbard quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    My concern is when the Fighter has to spend 30 minutes pondering which of their 30 spells is most appropriate to the situation. I think you're confusing what happens at the table with what happens in the fiction.

Monday, 12th November, 2018

  • 06:54 AM - Hussar quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Just thinking about this point a little. Can you force the DM into doing anything? Maybe. Your Magic User gets the spell Fireball and then, by coincidence, all of a sudden no two enemies are ever positioned close enough together to hit more then 2 or 3 at a time. Wotc releases a book that has Gnomes and Monks and then, by coincidence, all of a sudden all the Gnomes and Monks get eaten by the DM Grudge Monster. Frankly it would be easier to just get a good DM then trying to rules lawyer a bad DM into throwing some crumbs. No. This has absolutely nothing to do with good/bad DM. It's that caster classes get to tell the DM, "Ok, this fantastic thing is happening right now" and the good DM says, "Yup. That's what happens". But, if a non-caster tries to do EXACTLY the same thing, suddenly it's a multi-session quest involving planar travel (which the fighter can't actually DO). I don't care how good of a DM you are. This is just not going to happen. Has nothing to do with bad DMin...
  • 06:49 AM - Hussar quoted Shasarak in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    No, my assumption is that sounds like a cool idea how can we narratively tie that into the story. Then the immediate push back from you that I get is that "you dont want to faff about" actually doing it. In contrast the feedback from Garthanos is that it would be perfect. So what is it? Do you want to do Epic stuff or do you just want to say that you do Epic stuff. If the DM did not want to change their adventure then they should have thought through the consequences of killing off a PC. It sounds like it would have to be a real railroad for the DM to keep trying to push through after a character death. Ok, it looks like later on, you got the point. Raise Dead has been (more or less) trivial forever. Or, to put it another way, are you saying that caster characters can never be heroic? Or that they can only be heroic when they aren't casting spells?


Shasarak's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites