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

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 4
About ThirdWizard
I'm an easygoing guy who likes to play games.
About Me:
I'm a nerd, a geek, a dork, all that stuff.
Age Group:
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.



Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
One on One Dungeon World Friday, 8th June, 2018 04:21 PM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Monday, 20th May, 2019 04:08 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 20th May, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
My Game Details
No results to show...

Saturday, 5th March, 2016

  • 11:39 PM - Duan'duliir mentioned ThirdWizard in post Survivor Campaign Settings- Birthright Wins?
    Its all cool @ThirdWizard, I was just curious. Birthright 19 Blackmoor 19 Council of Wyrms 17 Dark Sun 18 Dragon Fist 15 Eberron 10 Ghostwalk 15 Greyhawk 5 Jakandor 17 Kingdoms of Kalamar 5 Lankhmar 18 - Because it is tied for highest Mahasarpa 14 Mystara 20 Nentir Vale 17 Pelinore 14 Planescape 20 Ravenloft 11 Spelljammer 16 Thunder Rift 18 Wilderlands of High Fantasy 21

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned ThirdWizard in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...@Ohillion ; @oknazevad ; @Olgar Shiverstone ; @Orlax ; @Otterscrubber ; @Pandamonium87 ; @Paraxis ; @PaulO. ; @Pauln6 ; @Pauper ; @payn; @pemerton ; @peterka99 ;@ Pickles III ; @Pickles JG ; @pkt77242 ; @pming ; @pogre; @PopeYodaI ; @Prickly ; @procproc ; @Psikerlord ; @Psikerlord# ; @(Psi)SeveredHead; @Quickleaf ; @Raith5 ; @raleel ; @Ralif Redhammer ; @Raloc ; @Ranes ; @RangerWickett; @Ratskinner ; @redrick ; @Rejuvenator ; @Remathilis ; @Ristamar ; @RolenArcher; @Roland55 ; @RPG_Tweaker ; @Rune ; @Rygar ; @Sacrosanct ; @Saelorn ; @Saeviomagy; @sailor-Moon ; @SailorNash ; @Saplatt ; @Satyrn ; @Shades of Eternity ; @shadowmane; @sheadunne ; @Shasarak ; @shidaku ; @shintashi ; @Shiroiken ; @SigmaOne ; @sleypy; @sleypy01 ; @SpiderMonkey ; @Staccat0 ; @Staffan ; @steeldragons ; @steenan @STeveC ; @strider13x ; @Strider1973 ; @Sword of Spirit ; @Talmek ; @TerraDave; @TheCosmicKid ; @The_Gneech ; @TheHobgoblin ; @The Human Target ; @the Jester; @The Mirrorball Man ; @The Myopic Sniper ; @ThirdWizard ; @Tia Nadiezja ; @Tinker-TDC; @Tonguez ; @Tony Vargas ; @Tormyr ; @TrippyHippy ; @tsadkiel ; @tuxgeo ; @twigglythe Gnome ; @TwoSix ; @Uchawi ; @Ulorian ; @UnadvisedGoose445 ; @UngeheuerLich; @Us ; @Valmarius ; @Warbringer ; @was ; @wedgeski ; @Wednesday Boy ; @Wik ; @WillDoyle ; @Winterthorn ; @Wuzzard ; @Xeviat ; @Yaarel ; @Yunru ; @Zalabim ; @Zansy; @Zardnaar ; @Zeuel ; @ZickZak ; @ZombieRoboNinja ; @ZzarkLinux

Saturday, 2nd May, 2015

  • 04:32 AM - pemerton mentioned ThirdWizard in post Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they? put under its umbrella.Yeah, that's what is swaying it in my mind. You could also imagine a character who works with rune magic falling under that umbrella. I don't see how this would be any sort of "breaking from the design" of 5e. I'm not really into artificers or alchemists, but I've always had a soft spot for rune-magic types. Much of the ranger's design was made with feedback from fans about what they wanted to see in the classAnd it seems to me that the feedback from most artificer fans is that the Eberron UA draft wasn't up to scratch, and they want something deeper and richer. I'm guessing that it is that feedback which is informing Mearls's thoughts. I should add - I say all this as someone who has never played an artificer or seen one in play. I'm just noticing that the argument that they should be a wizard sub-class seems to come predominantly from those who aren't artificer fans. While the predominant view of fans seems to be that, for the sorts of reasons ThirdWizard gave, they don't fit under the wizard's umbrella.
  • 03:39 AM - pemerton mentioned ThirdWizard in post Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
    ...rst upgrade of that.Sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who want WotC to design them an artificer class to have to either drop that request, or design the class themselves! It wasn't fans of the ranger as a separate class who designed the 5e ranger, after all: WotC did. All existing 5e classes have earned their place because they have more than proficiencies and spell lists to differentiate them. It's not much to ask that any proposed artificer/psion/warlord/whatnot has that, too. no one's proposing anything about what those unique class features should be(@Minigiant has a few ideas). There have been a lot of ideas posted. Staffan seems to me to have given the most detail, using bard as a model for the class design. You seem not to have responded to those posts. People have mostly given reasons why the artificer is not a wizard: no spell book, different spell list, different HD, different proficiencies, different class features (eg infusing items). ThirdWizard gave a pretty comprehensive list upthread. Given that 5e doesn't support "refluffing", and given that 5e sub-classes are additive but not subtractive, these are good reasons to think that the artificer is not a wizard subclass. The claim to be a bard sub-class is cleary stronger, but Remathilis and others have made a flavour-based case against this; and in 5e flavour is integral ("refluffing" is not part of the game). What would the class actually look like? That's for WotC to say, just as, knowing that fans wanted a ranger that wasn't just a fighter with Archery or TWF prof plus some nature profs, they provided a ranger that was its own thing. One option for 5th level, though potentially a bit reckless for reasons Staffan has given, would be the ability to place a Concentration spell in an item and hand it over to an ally. Though I'm not sure that this would entirely fill the roll of extra attack or fireball as the basic standards for 5th level power.

Thursday, 9th October, 2014

  • 12:47 PM - pemerton mentioned ThirdWizard in post The Multiverse is back....
    For my part I love setting material that is directly relevant to game play, leads to conflict, and provides players with a meaningful tools to make an impact. <snip> Where Planescape material fails to excite me is that it hides the meaningful content and realization of setting themes behind walls of text that are not directly relevant to play. <snip> Don't give me ecology - give me narrative material that is directly relevant to player interests.I agree with this. As I said quite a way upthread, even if I could find what I wanted in Planescape by sifting through it, I'm not going to put in that effort when there is other material that more readily and obviously gives me what I'm looking for. Of course others (eg Quickleaf, Viking Bastard, ThirdWizard) may have had different experiences - that's not all that unusual in literarary and similar aesthetic pursuits. Their campaigns sound like they were pretty interesting. I'm glad that they found something in Planescape that spoke to them, which they were able to run with: especially Viking Bastard's treatment of the "stability" issue as a fragile stasis disrupted by the PCs. The motif of "balance of forces disrupted by interlopers" is something I tend to associate more with westerns and other modern stories than with epic fantasy (it's found in REH, eg Red Nails, but REH is unstintingly modern), but it's a motif that I have now been led to think about more for my own gaming purposes. 4e was the most intrusive cosmological edition ever, yet that passes as acceptable?I don't think Hussar liked the 4e approach. But upthread, he said that he's not complaining about it, because 4e fans (unlike, in his view, Great Wheel/Planescape fans) are not up in arms about departures from the 4e cos...

Thursday, 28th August, 2014

  • 03:45 AM - pemerton mentioned ThirdWizard in post (More) ruminations on the future of D&D
    ... And something that will cause that type of upheaval in the community. Some of the story games people (Vincent Baker, Paul Czege, and Jason Morningstar in particular) are trying - but it's like trying to bottle lightning. Crunch heavy games (and yes, every version of D&D fits) are scary. <snip> Video games have a low barrier to entry. We're having a boardgame renaissance right now - there's no reason TTRPGs shouldn't also be joining in. <snip> Again this is incredibly insular. A lot of modern RPGs (Fiasco and the entire Apocalypse World family spring to mind) give you tools to invent adventures on the fly. This is another problem with the big bulky book presentation model. But the problem with such games is that you can sell the game, but then what do you sell next? You can't really sell a product line. You need to sell an entirely new game. Monetisation is a problem.I agree with Neonchameleon (and therefore, by implication, at least sympathise with ThirdWizard's points, though I have no real opinion on numbers of players). I'm GMing G2 - a classic AD&D module from the heyday - at the moment (mechanically adapted to 4e, though not in the same way that Chris Perkins adapted it). It's fun, but frankly comparing it to jazz is pretty ludicrous. It's a dice-rolling fest, and all about hacking up giants! (Just as the original tournament intended.) If I was going to look at games that do warrant comparison to jazz, in terms of elegance, support for improvisation, appealing to refined but slightly edgy taste, I would certainly be looking at Baker, Czege etc. 5e isn't jazz at all, any more than G2 was or is. Can their games be made wildly popular? I don't know - as Neonchameleon allues to, part of the problem is that mass penetration depends upon publication, which depends upon commerciality, which is a problem for games that support their players' imaginations and improvisation without needing to buy more stuff.

Thursday, 7th August, 2014

  • 06:27 PM - pemerton mentioned ThirdWizard in post The double standard for magical and mundane abilities
    The main limit on magic is availability. Surely the fact that non-magical skills can be employed at will weighs into the scales here. What started out as a discussion about verisimilitude now seems to have turned into a discussion of balance. But as ThirdWizard points out, once you bring balance in as the main consideration there's no clear reason to think that the sniping halfling who can hide at will (with a successful roll) is a problem. From the verisimilitude point of view, though, there is no reason why making spell casting require a check will cause any balance issues. The player can declare "I cast a spell" as an action at-will, provided that the character has at least one spell slot left; it's just that the declared action actually takes effect (and hence the slot is crossed off) if the check succeeds.

Thursday, 10th July, 2014

  • 06:02 PM - Blackbrrd mentioned ThirdWizard in post 5e Hobgoblin stat block
    ThirdWizard thanks for running the test. Not too surprising result. The hobgobling tactics were smart, and the PC's a bit shabbier, the spell selection was maybe a bit off. Something like Burning Hands which does damage to multiple targets might have done better. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that an encounter with 4 Hobgoblins at level 1 has a very high risk of death.

Wednesday, 25th June, 2014

  • 06:01 PM - Thaumaturge mentioned ThirdWizard in post Design Philosophy of 5e
    ...ultiple ways to look at this design ethos. I think we've had a couple of editions that were constructed very much with the rules lawyer and a careful, exact reading of the rules at their forefront. For this edition they chose, deliberately, to not design that way. To let real people make real rulings that impact their own play instead of trying to nail down a specific style of play through exact language. I think a benefit of this is it allows them to state things more plainly and use more natural language. A negative of this ethos is, certainly, that people trained by the previous two editions will see gaping holes in certain rules. And those people, myself included, will see various places for exploit potential. I mentioned in another thread, one Not to Be Named, that economists theorize people are good at maximizing their own enjoyment. I appreciate the 5e designers giving us the leeway to make rulings for our tables that maximize enjoyment to our own particular tastes. ThirdWizard made a good counter point: So, I play World of Warcraft. The WoW devs are pretty open about development and player incentives and all that good stuff that comes part and parcel for MMOs. And, one of the things they note is that many players of their game will do things that they absolutely hate for even a slight advancement or increase in productivity. And we're talking hours of misery here. And, they will feel as if they are required to do these things, even if the advantage is fairly small, even if it is a 1% increase in productivity. The game has had to start playing nanny, putting limits on acquisition of advantage through boring gameplay, in order to protect the players from themselves. Now, I'm going to surmise that there is quite some overlap in mentality from the MMO to some PnP RPG players. We're all nerds, after all, and the propensity to min/max started before the ability to do so in video games was a thing. What the takeaway here is that some people will play in a way ...

Monday, 27th January, 2014

  • 06:27 PM - Sword of Spirit mentioned ThirdWizard in post Will D&D Next qualify as "Rules Lite"?
    ThirdWizard We're definitely coming from the same perspective on rules-light, and I think your explanation fits my reasoning. I wouldn't let something go into rules-heavy as easily, but I recognize my standards for heavy are really high.

Wednesday, 11th December, 2013

  • 06:47 PM - Rune mentioned ThirdWizard in post One on One Dungeon World
    By the way, ThirdWizard, I think you should consider letting your player (and more players, if you get any in the future) create bonds with NPCs. I think you'll find that it makes the whole experience richer for both of you.

Wednesday, 4th December, 2013

  • 05:34 AM - Ratskinner mentioned ThirdWizard in post Game design has "moved on"
    EDIT: So ThirdWizard goes and writes a very concise version of my thoughts while I have this up and get distracted by the kids.... I see this phrase all the time: game design has moved on. Game design has progressed. The 'technology' of game design has improved. What does that mean to you? Kinda subtle, but basically I think it comes down to "we can do X better now." Where I think that gets confusing is when people have different ideas about whether "X" is desirable or not. Also, those ideas do change with time. I know that there are many things that I would have demanded out of any game in say...1992, that I've grown out of by now. Is game design a science or an art? Yes....:uhoh: What elements are "improvements" to you? I think the biggest thing is the recognition that different goals of play are often served by different rules. So now, if we want a story-focused, character driven game we can produce that. Alternatively, if we want a very challenge-oriented game with fine-grained tactical ...

Friday, 4th October, 2013

  • 09:55 AM - Herobizkit mentioned ThirdWizard in post Looking to brainstorm "better" plots
    ThirdWizard, your suggestion to ditch fantasy is most likely what I'm going to do. Our current game is in the vein of what you've suggested and I wouldn't want to 'double-up' on a theme already in play. To wit, I'm considering to give ICONS another try and run a light-hearted trope-filled anime extravaganza. My only concern is that one of the players is still in his 'grimdark' phase and might rail against it. I spoke at length with another player over FB this evening and he's all for it. He already wants to play the Cute Bookworm, an Asian 17-yr old female brainiac who may or may not have a scooter which is also a robot in disguise.

Sunday, 8th September, 2013

  • 01:57 AM - pemerton mentioned ThirdWizard in post Sneak Attack: optional or mandatory?
    So how often should rogues, and any other characters, be able to retrain, and how much can they change at each such increment?I don't have a definite answer to that question. But as I indicated to ThirdWizard upthread, more often than "never" would be a good start. If we are locking rogues into a certain sort of build because we're worried that other options will lead players into traps they can't get out of, let's tackle the real issue - rigidity in non-caster PC build rules - rather than accept the needless rigidity and on that basis exclude meaningful fantasy tropes from our fantasy RPG. The 1 minute wizard is a comparison to a rogue who trades away sneak attack for non-combat abilities. I oppose that. All rogues should have combat abilities beyond "stab it with one of my simple/light weapons". A rogue with flash grenades or social skills usable in combat has selected from a group of combat abilities of equivalent power, across the levels, of sneak attack. I support that over "all rogues have sneak attack". OK, to me, this [Expertise dice] is a great ability of the rogue. But it is a noncombat skill. How does he use it in combat to get a reliable, consistent benefit?How d...

Sunday, 16th December, 2012

  • 02:25 AM - Neonchameleon mentioned ThirdWizard in post From Adventure Game to Story Game?
    That the thread's definition for story game is way too broad to be useful. Except the thread gives a definition - and one that makes sense. If you the player have narrative control of the world outside your character's direct actions (rather than simply offering suggestions to the DM) it's a storygame. If the control you have is what your character can do it's an RPG. So action points are RPGs. Plot points are story game. If the players frame some of the scenes it's a story game. ThirdWizard, you might want a look at Leverage or MHRP's distinctions before adding in FATE aspects and compels. I'm not sure how to add those to D&D (+2/-2 and the latter offers a complication on a 3?) - but penalty invoked by the player I find even better than DM-Compel Bargain.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 8th June, 2018

  • 12:54 PM - Aldarc quoted ThirdWizard in post One on One Dungeon World
    Thanks! Wow, it's been almost 5 years since I wrote this. Dungeon World is perhaps still my favorite system to run. Good luck!Any other new and exciting adventures sense then? I have begun looking into DW myself.

Saturday, 15th July, 2017

  • 05:36 PM - Bupp quoted ThirdWizard in post Wild Magic Surge and Tides of Chaos in Your Campaign
    First, the player wanted to play a wild sorcerer. They want to see wild surges! Surges are fun! Exactly what I was thinking. I haven't DMed a wild sorcerer in 5e, but I did have a player with one back in 2e from the Tome of Magic. Had a lot of fun with him, and pretty much let him surge almost every time. To add more variety to surges, I pulled from a Dragon Magazine article (I forget the issue) "More Wands of Wonder". It had 4 variant tables for wands of wonder. When the wild sorcerer surged, I'd have him roll a d6 and the d%. The d6 determined which table he rolled on (surge chart, original wand of wonder, variant wand of wonder), and the d% the result on the table. A quick google search finds a bunch of variant wild surge tables. If I had one I'd probably start off with the standard list. Once a result was rolled, I'd remove it and replace it with another effect. Never the same result twice!

Friday, 22nd April, 2016

  • 04:16 PM - basilforth quoted ThirdWizard in post Question about Attacks of Opportunity
    As long as you stay within their reach, you're fine. That means it's actually easier to move around a creature with reach! It's only when you leave their reach that they get an opportunity attack on you. I think I would have to rule, that Opportunity Attacks would be provoked in the case where an opponent is crossing square (or hex) sides within the same reach length of an opponent. In other words, no, you can not run in circles around that Giant without it bashing at your repeatedly.

Wednesday, 9th March, 2016

  • 07:23 PM - Pandaemoni quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    Snip. Agree to disagree, I suppose. I don't recall anything about the PC making a very high Int check to value the armor, although perhaps I missed that (in a subsequent post??). If he did that at the time, I'd certainly be more forgiving...although I'd still be inclined to say "You begin to remove the Gauntlets and the embedded ring when the blacksmith says 'Whoa, whoa, you agreed to sell me this whole set, where do you think you're going with those? A deal is a deal and those are mine now, son.'" Were it my character, in any event, I'd have my character take the blame and play that for comedic effect--that the character made this awful deal because he was inattentive, and the blacksmith was cutting me no slack. It seems like that is how the bulk of the players are taking it, and rolling with the punch they aren't calling for a retcon, let alone an "apology." This is a game where we collaboratively make up a story to amuse ourselves. For all the work a DM puts in, how many "thanks you's"...
  • 10:59 AM - Pandaemoni quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    I'd personally apologies and retcon the situation, and then use this as a learning experience. I would never retcon a situation like this. First, I am not sure that this was an unfair gotcha. I might have called for a wisdom check or something, but the players were told that the armor, gauntlets and ring were an integrated set. I am uncertain why they thought they could sell the armor but keep those items in light of that. I feel quite certain that if a merchant sold my party armor that had integrated magic items...and then he later came back and claimed it was a mistake, we'd feel strongly that a deal is a deal. Second, and more importantly, rather than retcon, you can redirect. For example, have the blacksmith come to them in a panic and offer to give them the Gauntlets and rings if they will help him find his daughter, who's gone missing. Or, when the players go to steal the ring and guantlet, they find the blacksmith, dead, the armor (guantlets, rings and all) gone...and so now they...

Tuesday, 8th March, 2016

  • 09:01 PM - Ilbranteloth quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    The ring and suit of armor aren't completely unrelated items? Not when it's physically attached to the armor. Then it's largely a decoration, even if it has other intrinsic value. They attempted to remove it to start with. So they knew at that point it was part of the gauntlets. At least until they determine a way to remove it. Ilbranteloth
  • 08:08 PM - Ilbranteloth quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    I think it is incredibly important at this juncture to point out that as soon as the player sold the armor, the way they discovered that the other two items were gone was that they went "Now we're going to sell the gauntlet and ring." The players didn't "forget" that they bundled them together. They didn't expect them to be sold, because the player was just selling the armor. They were good natured and played along, but that doesn't mean that the DM was in the right. So, I don't understand this line of logic at all. The players didn't forget about the existence of the items, they didn't realize that by saying they were selling the armor that they would end up selling the things that they packaged along with the armor. Let me ask you this. Let's say you are playing D&D, and you find some 500 gp diamonds and five spell scrolls slipped through a magic ring, and you say you bundle it together. Then, you say you sell the spell scrolls. The DM describes the merchant as saying "All of it?" And, you...
  • 06:12 AM - Ilbranteloth quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    The character would have obviously looked at the armor he was selling and would have seen the gauntlet. The DM not reminding the player of the thing that his character is looking at right now is not the player's fault. This is 100% a failure on the DM's part. That isn't to say it's a terrible thing. It can be undone, the DM can learn and become better. But it is what it is. The problem with this is a part of the challenge of playing a game in your heads. If you remind them that there is a ring and a different pair of gauntlets, which you already described in detail, then you are also putting a big sign on them that says "don't sell these." There's a dilemma here in that the slightly unscrupulous smith is hoping to pull one over on the characters. That's a normal, expected, and interesting interaction. They should probably have a healthy distrust of almost any merchant that they are attempting to sell an item to. And it's entirely impossible if the DM has to remind them that the gauntlets ...

Saturday, 5th March, 2016

  • 08:46 PM - BoldItalic quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    I do think you're making the (rather dangerous) assumption that the giants won't follow out of the cave, or that they won't just lob rocks at you once in the open. What led you to believe that? If I were running this, trying to run would be a death sentence. I think it would turn this into a near TPK. I didn't say it was optimal to run away. I said it was optimal, in the context of the adventure goals, to resolve the encounter without expending resources to fight the giants. Exercise for the reader: how can the PCs achieve this optimal play?
  • 07:01 PM - Celtavian quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    I do think you're making the (rather dangerous) assumption that the giants won't follow out of the cave, or that they won't just lob rocks at you once in the open. What led you to believe that? If I were running this, trying to run would be a death sentence. I think it would turn this into a near TPK. You are correct. And 13th level characters should have fought giants more than a few times. They would know that they move fast and have powerful rock throwing abilities. If that didn't convince them, then Bedrock taking over half his hit points from one giant in the opening attacks should have said to him, "If they hit me that hard, they're going to destroy the others. And that was only one giant, what happens when both attack." When that second giant attacked, we would have been hammered. Unless the paladin gets lucky, he goes down. The paladin didn't even bother to bolster his AC.
  • 06:43 PM - hawkeyefan quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    I do think you're making the (rather dangerous) assumption that the giants won't follow out of the cave, or that they won't just lob rocks at you once in the open. What led you to believe that? If I were running this, trying to run would be a death sentence. I think it would turn this into a near TPK. I would think that moving toward the cave mouth would be smarter than further into the cave, actually. I'm not sure if the party could escape the cave before taking severe damage, but having the option to retreat if needed is always better than not having that option. If the PCs could gather toward the cave mouth, with the enemies all further into the cave, then a wall of force would pretty much put an end to the fight, or at least cut off the majority of enemy combatants in order to facilitate escape. However, having one PC run into the cave and one try to run out of the cave was a big mistake.
  • 05:34 PM - Azurewraith quoted ThirdWizard in post Survivor Campaign Settings- Birthright Wins?
    I'm colorblind and it's harder to tell the green/red apart. But, I did think I hit lime green or didn't I? That and yellow look very similar to me in any case so I might have made a mistake. It was a sort of orange/yellow colour, not that it really matters though. I knew what you voted and I'm sure everyone else did

Friday, 4th March, 2016

  • 11:55 PM - UngeheuerLich quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    This isn't a game. This is a test to see if an optimized party will have trouble with Medium-Hard encounters as outlined in the core rules. And, it is going very poorly right now. I'm with Celtavian on this one. I want to see a truly tactical party. This test proves absolutely nothing if the party isn't operating like a SWAT team. I mean, it's obvious that a disorganized party plays in a kick in the door style, with the PCs running every which way, the game will be difficult with even easy encounters. That's not the point, and nobody wants to sit through a 6 month play by post to learn what we already know. I thought they tried to prove the opposite, that optimized characters blow through medium-hard encounters without an effort. Does not look like that though and it needs good cooperation and smart use of resources to even live more than a few rounds.
  • 11:34 PM - BoldItalic quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    People disagree. This is a test to see why they disagree or see if some consensus can be made between those of differing opinions. Consensus does not seem probable at this point. I agree with all of that :) We have a party with some characters optimized mechanically and some optimized non-mechanically, each to their creator's satisfaction. Then we put them together, each played in their own way by their advocates, and see what happens. What happens is that, not only do the characters not co-operate well when the chips are down, but the players don't either. Without necessarily meaning to, we've tested the meta-game to destruction. We've demonstrated the importance of choosing players to play with who think on similar lines to you. We knew that anyway, but here we have a case study of things going wrong if you don't. So we have achieved something.
  • 11:16 PM - dave2008 quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    People disagree. This is a test to see why they disagree or see if some consensus can be made between those of differing opinions. Consensus does not seem probable at this point. So it appears.
  • 11:08 PM - dave2008 quoted ThirdWizard in post Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day
    This isn't a game. This is a test to see if an optimized party will have trouble with Medium-Hard encounters as outlined in the core rules. Why would you test something you know the answer to? The encounter guidelines in the DMG are not intended for optimized PCs/players/groups so of course they will not have trouble (I guess you have to define what trouble is though). If you want to challenge and optimized group you need optimized adversaries!
  • 08:28 AM - Neurotic quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    But, what's the point of telling them to change alignment? They write down Evil because you say so, and then...? They feel bad because you judge them silently behind the DM screen? I can understand if they constantly kill civilians, maybe they should admit that they're evil, but they stole that one thing one time from that blacksmith who cheated them? That's a strange place to have the "Hey, maybe your character is actually not what you think he is" conversation. What if they disagree? Then what? No lawful smuggler? What about a British privateer loyally serving his queen by taking East India Trading Company goods into Spanish lands without paying proper tariffs and fighting back the Spanish fleet should they try to interfere? Whether you follow the "law" is just a matter perspective and whose rules you think are the right ones to abide by. Now getting into why the alignment system isn't perfect :) The point of the change is that in D&D good, evil, law and chaos are measurable and known quan...
  • 06:17 AM - quoted ThirdWizard in post 6-8 encounters/day - how common is this?
    Anyway, this is to say that I love strict time limits, and I think they enhance the game tremendously. I don't see them as any kind of "gotcha" from the DM. They make for the best gameplay. The only way you could construe a time limit as a gotcha is if the players were earnestly interested in accomplishing the mission, but were given no information about the time frame in which to complete it. If you know Liverpool is 5 days away, and there's a terrible disease that you have been given the cure for and more people are dying every day, you get the idea that the sooner you get there the better and the longer it takes the more people die. Alternatively if you were only informed that you need to take a magic vial to Liverpool and given no reason why, so you take your time, explore a tomb on your way there (because the trip without distractions would be pointless), maybe do some side quests and get there in two weeks only to find everyone dead and the be narfed-out for not getting there fast e...

Thursday, 3rd March, 2016

  • 09:24 PM - Neurotic quoted ThirdWizard in post Was I in the wrong?
    A few things: [1]Changing someone's alignment isn't a "punishment" and should be done in good faith collaboratively with the players. Gone are the days of XP penalties for alignment changes. [2]Aren't you telling the player who you make evil to now play an evil character in your games? Why would that be a positive thing? What is the goal here? [3]If you do change someone's alignment for a single action don't be surprised when they no longer care about their alignment in your games as it is now fluid. [4]I think you're being a bit too literal with alignments. I play a lawful good smuggler who constantly breaks laws and has a bounty on his head. He works fine. [1]I consider it punishment as it means I didn't play the character as I intended him to be. [2]I think you got the alignment thing backward. If the player plays evil character I would change his alignment to match his play regardless of what he says his alignment is. I cannot see lawful whatever smuggler in context of D&D. If yo...

Tuesday, 1st March, 2016

  • 06:54 PM - zaratan quoted ThirdWizard in post 6-8 encounters/day - how common is this?
    I do rule that you can't concentrate during a rest. That seems to have solved all of those issues. yes, I think there is just a feel spells with 1h duration without concentration, like longstrider or freedom of movement. But there is some spells that you should keep the concentration with short rest, like suggestion or high lvl hex or hunter's mark. The important part is that work with your table.

Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

ThirdWizard's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites