View Profile: CapnZapp - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:34 PM
    Yes the devs failed to see how the abundance of Darkvision makes it too easy to create an all-Darkvision party. Forest races (Elves, Half-Elves and Gnomes) should have low-light vision, not Darkvision.
    188 replies | 6515 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:28 PM
    It is saying something when you look at the Ranger and see how it requires the bonus action for no less than TWO archetypal abilities (dual wielding and Hunter's Mark). Never mind keeping it for use by a nice feat... or a magic item... 🤪
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:23 PM
    I'm not overlooking anything. I am just defining where the design work of this thread must end up at to be truly satisfactory. I'm basically trying to save y'all some time and effort, so you don't end up with a solution that still sells TWFers short when it comes to high-end powers by committing the bonus action earlier than for the GWFer.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:18 PM
    Then I gotta ask you why you are even in this discussion? You can't seriously be here only to tell us a little imbalance is nothing to worry about? This entire thread is based on the premise dual wielding is just not good enough and needs an upgrade.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:50 AM
    Simplifying vision into only Darkvision was something WotC did anxious to avoid 5E being a failure. It was not necessary. It is a mistake. I can understand why they did it, but low-light vision needs to be readded to the game.
    188 replies | 6515 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:46 AM
    Not sure where you're going with this. I mean, the absolute priority is to avoid Boring, right? If the only way to make a fight sufficiently challenging to avoid Boring is to make it take a long time, then your core game is too involved. I believe that is the fundamental flaw of 4E. I think that shows why there is a limit to the lengths a game should and can go to avoid anti-climactic...
    201 replies | 7872 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:29 AM
    First off, if you seriously intend to dismiss balanced rules design with "players just choose anyway" then we are done and I have nothing to tell you. Still here? Good. Then my answer is: the ONLY strength characters I see, are the ones using two-handed weapons. This is not so much a balance concern as an aesthetic one. I don't think the benefits of Dex in 5E should be taken for...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:24 AM
    Two-Six: High levels offer increasingly better options for your Bonus Action. Any fighting style that hogs it just to keep up is inherently worse off. That is, relying on a fighting style whose enabling feat claims your BA is bad, but relying on a fighting style that claims it already from the start is worse. Especially if you're a class whose core features require it. The only real...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 06:49 PM
    MMearls does make great waffles!
    65 replies | 1814 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 06:44 PM
    It's a game set in Baldur's Gate. A case can be made it is the third such game. The rest can be explained by the devs desire to capitalize on the goodwill of the series.
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 06:40 PM
    You use one of my arguments to shoot down the other, and vice versa... One of the reasons GWF is so good is that it leaves your BA open for other options. Choosing PM or CE locks down your BA, for good but also for bad. TWF is unique in how the BA is locked down already from the beginning. This is not an advantage, even though newbs think it is. Since you can readily find a use for your...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 09:19 AM
    (My bracketed sentence ending inserted) Yep, that's for sure. Then again, encounter guidelines are easily ignored so this is a small price to pay :) (In my mind this is similar to complaints about leveling is too fast, or too slow. My response? Give out less, or more, XP, and problem solved - no real rule changes necessary!)
    201 replies | 7872 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 11:31 PM
    Okay. So let's come up with another abbreviation if you don't feel 5E manages to avoid LFQW. Let's say 5E only manages to avoid WTFBBQ. Now reread my every post and every time I write "I hope Paizo avoids LFQW" or similar, in your mind replace it with "I hope Paizo avoids WTFBBQ" In other words, I don't care what you call it. 5E takes great strides toward caster-martial equality that...
    74 replies | 4106 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 11:20 PM
    The first comment on that page: "Personally, I absolutely hate the way AL does treasure and magic items."
    56 replies | 4864 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 11:18 PM
    Isn't the straight-forward answer "no". That is, the player characters are children. Nothing about that suggest the players are intended to be children. If anything, the intended audience is grown-ups that were children in the eighties. You can use this game with children the same way you can use any ttrpg with children, that is to say "probably not a good idea".
    7 replies | 167 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 09:30 PM
    Again, please consider using these two features as the base: 1. The TWF fix is offered thru a feat. (Feat-less games unaffected; no cascade effects) 2. The TWF fix allows you to use your Bonus Action on other things. (No minmaxer choose TWF since it makes you unable to later utilize any of may magic effects and items) Ideally from the get go but at level 11+ at the very least.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 02:04 PM
    No. Being able to combine excitement and reasonably fast play is not an unreasonably impossible goal, no matter how you try to twist it. For us, 4E failed. That doesn't mean WotC can't do it right. In this aspect, both 3E and 5E works much better.
    201 replies | 7872 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 08:13 PM
    No, just ignore "every Wizard is based in Altdorf" other silly details and you should be fine.
    44 replies | 1747 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 08:10 PM
    What does? Sorry, what are you saying?
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 06:13 PM
    Given how even official adventures eschew the xp guidelines, and basically level up after specific chapters, I am having trouble seeing what the problem is. Or hand out twice the default monster xp, or whatever. What I'm really interested in is, didn't those old AD&D games, including Baldur's Gate, follow the official xp amounts? I can't recall ever hearing this complaint against 5E...
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:18 PM
    Exactly. If somebody looked at 1/2E WFRP and went "it seems promising... but it needs to add Pathfinder levels of extra cruft" then 4E is for you. Everyone else should definitely try before they buy.
    44 replies | 1747 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 03:16 PM
    And yet, none of that change any of the facts I stated :)
    44 replies | 1747 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:21 AM
    I'm not saying they can't pull it off, but when your audience isn't asking for it, and given Paizo's record, I remain dubious. After all, adding these restrictions mean nothing unless they then have the courage to actually add them to nearly every spell. Take 5E as an example. Imagine removing the Concentration requirement from as few as a dozen spells, carefully selected. Boom! You've...
    74 replies | 4106 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:10 AM
    Please gate whatever TWF fix you're gunning for behind a feat. You can thank me later.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 11:07 AM
    Unfortunately it's a complete mess. Every condition has its own special rules, and nothing works the same. They all have various modifiers to keep in mind that might or not be conditional. You might get -10% to all tests, but your opponent might also get +1 SL on their tests against you. They all require further die rolls at the end of turn, except when it's at the end of every other turn. ...
    44 replies | 1747 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 10:35 AM
    Having the PHB content is the obvious goal here. They wouldn't want to exclude any PHB character option unless they have to for technical reasons. But expecting more than the PHB (in the basic start offering) comes across as wildly unrealistic. I can't come up with a single reason why they would want to give away for free when it's an easy sell if the game does well. And the game...
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 11:18 AM
    Thank you. Yes, this is the root of all those "it isn't D&D" complaints. Because if you find that you must choose between easy combats and long combats, then the game does fail at the core. Choose easy, and you do have time for story. On the other hand, the game gets this "plastic" feeling, somewhat like a superhero movie, since there is little challenge and few consequences. Choose...
    201 replies | 7872 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 10:57 AM
    Then we have LFQW. I got a PM saying essentially that nobody is asking Paizo about it. This scares me the most. I can totally see the Pathfinder die-hards actually liking the d20 level of magic power, easily sacrificing fighters and what not, simply because it's never them that is playing those, always their friends. But believe me, it would be a colossal mistake to not heed 5E here. That...
    74 replies | 4106 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 10:46 AM
    Lighter DM workload as regards monsters? Yes please. But what Paizo means by "simplified" might still amount to nothing, if they don't make a truly fundamental change, like 5E did: monsters using different and much streamlined creation rules and not requiring gear to function. Valuable gear with bonuses, that is. This latter part took me a year to appreciate, but now I see that it is not worth...
    74 replies | 4106 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 10:37 AM
    Our group is very experienced, but unfortunately it was far too much. Everything has niggling special rules. There are modifiers and extra dice rolls everywhere. As I see it, the developers lost oversight and just added stuff everywhere.
    44 replies | 1747 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 10:34 AM
    Yes, it is significantly more detailed and laden with special rules than 2E.
    44 replies | 1747 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:39 PM
    ? I didn't realize I was on the pitch, tending the goal.. I was only responding to a poster taking an approach suitable for feat-enabled games and predicting doom and gloom for the feat-less game.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:55 PM
    My point regarding races is that any 2019 Baldur's Gate would be a 5E Baldur's Gate, complete with Dragonborn and Tieflings always having lived there. I can't make sense of the idea they would repeat the AD&D Baldur's Gate. (I can understand why you could *hope* or *want* that, but not that you'd actually *believe* it would happen.)
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:46 PM
    I really hope they abandon the presentation where each class just little more than a soup of feats. You can have flexibility and options and still paint a strong clear picture of what each class is supposed to be.
    74 replies | 4106 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:43 PM
    I can only speak for myself but to me it is obvious that fixes intended for feat-enabled games are best implemented using feats. That is, I see no reason to change the basic game at all. Any fix that begins with removing the BA from two-weapon fighting would do so through a feat. Yes, that would likely make that feat a must have for TWFers, but that battle was lost a long time ago.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:36 PM
    Let me stop you right there Now you're assuming a clumsy fix that basically just removes the bonus action usage. And besides, nobody will argue Rangers become overpowered just because they, you know, get to actually use their trademark class abilities! A thing like Hex is balanced in isolation. Not being able to use your chosen fighting style is NOT a required balancer. At higher levels...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:31 PM
    There are too many desirable things you might want to do with your bonus action. It would still mean TWFers would be barred from, say, a magic item that lets you take the Dash action as a bonus action. I would never take TWF except in the most magic-light of campaigns, and probably only in a feat-less game as well. (My own games are the polar opposite of that) Making a choice at level 1...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:25 PM
    This.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:24 PM
    The -5/+10 mechanism is definitely two too many already. Meaning the game is better off removing it entirely, both from GWF and CE.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:22 PM
    I'm okay with that. Remember that in 2E and 3E you always added Strength to damage. In fact 5E removed or lessened maybe nine different limitations on Dex, which is definitely way too many. I really go find the old post where I enumerated the long long list of things WotC did to appease the demand for svelte lithe action heroes with no need for brawn, despite D&D not being a kung-fu...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 01:13 PM
    What is "D&D’s new ‘Devil Deals’"? (Unless that was just the reporter's personal wish list...)
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:59 PM
    I don't live in America but I believe that's easier said than done...
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:58 PM
    I don't see that either. Hoping for non-core character build options in the basic offering is... unwise in my opinion.
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:57 PM
    That is likely because you're not a content owner. The notion of being able to rent out content again without having to sell it or otherwise transfer any rights, so you can charge a fee each and every time said content is accessed, and withdraw it at any time for any reason, is a corporate wet dream!
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:54 PM
    Counting down to three! 1, 2... *please check your connection*
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:53 PM
    That potential market is seldom deemed big enough to be worth the hassle of a Mac implementation.
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:52 PM
    Except offering cloud gaming is very different than show streaming. But if you by "basically" mean you subscribe to a service over the Internet, then yes. Then Stadia is basically the EN World of video games, assuming you're a community supporter.
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:49 PM
    Yes. Everyone is all doom and gloom when it comes to Stadia, but that is not our concern
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:47 PM
    Yes. I see no reason for them to encroach upon other content like that. There are plenty opportunities closer to the Baldur's Gate city that allows them to carve out their own playground. If they ever revisit other content, it feels much much more likely they will sail to Chult than add Waterdeep or Neverwinter, each of which is an established property in itself that would threaten to...
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 12:42 PM
    You have a point. Still, expecting full PHB support isn't mindless fangushing or idealistic naivete. Assuming we are really talking 5E rules (and not "5E rules") I don't see how they could have negotiated themselves out of supporting the full PHB. The only real alternative would be to support the Basic SRD only and that's so limited I would expect them to already at launch commit to a...
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 08:19 AM
    Let's focus on the core reason for con 'ventures being poor: their incredibly short length. That does not mean it is impossible to tell a good story quickly, only that it is very hard to do so. Con scenarios are usually repetitive and not novel because the writer needs to have a moment of brilliance to come up with something that works in such a limited format. If you play at home, you...
    26 replies | 1042 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 08:06 AM
    Believe it or not, drbadwolf, a DM ruling out a certain build option is not alien or disagreeable in any way. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable. Given the players are informed well in advance of signing up for play, of course.
    36 replies | 1227 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 07:59 AM
    PS. I for one do not dispute the supremacy of Dex. (Just about the only reason to use Strength is to use a heavy weapon) Last time I checked (years ago) I believe I counted to nine ways restrictions on Dex combat and range and mobility had been lifted or voided (from 3E to 5E). To this day, I maintain it was (at least) one bridge too many.
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 9th June, 2019, 07:56 AM
    No, now you went ahead and forgot that I only used haste as an example of bonus action usage. Okay, so I have to be brutally clear: The fact TWF hogs the bonus action is a significant disadvantage. You want that "slot" to be open for use by the myriad cool effects that become available at mid to high levels, where Haste is far from the only effect, assuming of course the DM isn't running...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 10:48 PM
    Not sure what you mean. Yes of course TWF is good. That does not mean it should be "unupgradeable". That is, once you get your hands on a magical effect that utilizes the bonus action, the current implementation of TWF loses its steam. I hope we agree this is less than ideal. Not a huge deal breaker, but enough to validate having this conversation, no?
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 10:44 PM
    Sure. Absolutely. The design challenge is to achieve mechanical distinction while maintaining this lofty goal a) without feats b) with a feat c) with, say, Haste
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 10:39 PM
    I see various speculation. What I don't understand is why it isn't obvious to more than me that of course every PHB option will be included. There is no reason this game will follow the world of AD&D Baldur's Gate... It will be an updated 5E Baldur's Gate world. Expect Warlocks and Dragonborn and what not as the new canon.
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 10:36 PM
    Since I believe you could double the sneak attack damage (d6 every level instead of every other) and the Rogue would still only be reasonably balanced I feel you can do pretty much what you want with your suggestion.
    36 replies | 1227 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 11:11 AM
    2nd thread on this
    7 replies | 391 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 11:09 AM
    Not sure which suggested rule you're thinking of here. The biggest problem with TWF from a game optimization standpoint is how it monopolizes the bonus action. A fair chunk of minmaxing as you level out of the low levels is putting the bonus action to good use. For everybody except level 11+ fighters that takes you from 2 to 3 attacks; a whopping 50% potential you can't afford not to...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 10:52 AM
    How about you reassuring me then, instead of merely trying to dismiss my concerns by clumsily trying to paint them as FUD?
    74 replies | 4106 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 10:49 AM
    Unless we're seeing actual game footage I don't see the relevance.
    247 replies | 10188 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 10:45 AM
    Seconded. App works fine, though.
    76 replies | 3226 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:21 AM
    Yep, today's thread necromancy
    27 replies | 23878 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:17 AM
    The rule from Dominia targets the biggest rules hole still in D&D - that the players can always game the difficulty level by choosing more or less rests, essentially trivializing any challenge if they want to. They're given plenty tricks that negate every obstacle to resting except for one "you're running out of time". Any DM dead tired of that trope (not to mention how time crunches in 99% of...
    143 replies | 5470 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 09:06 AM
    Warlord
    29 replies | 1111 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 09:28 AM
    Ever heard of this little thing called nostalgia? 80's role-players are middle-aged and well-off now. They can easily afford to indulge, so nope, no scam.
    60 replies | 988 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 09:20 AM
    Lol
    124 replies | 7399 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:08 PM
    Not entirely on topic but the biggest flaw of the Sorcerer isn't what you get but what you don't get. Just think about it for a minute - what cool archetypal characters do you think of when you imagine sorcery? In actual play, it basically boils down to this: any choice that isn't inspired by having a red dragon as ancestor carries a penalty of being a mechanically inferior one. The PHB class...
    124 replies | 7399 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:01 PM
    Sorry but it is time to cut to the chase here - all that means is that the base Sorcerer class is powerful. Implying that the subclass itself brings much to the table is not going to impress anyone. No minmaxer ever would give up what Draconic gives you just to get what Wild mage gives you.
    124 replies | 7399 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:56 PM
    Yes, of course the wizard is significantly more flexible than the sorcerer; trying to argue otherwise is absurd when the wizard can replace his entire list every long rest. Even considering the abstract argument that sorcerers do get to replace their entire spell list (if they want), players have much more influence over when long rests happen than when level-ups happen.
    124 replies | 7399 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:44 PM
    Absolutely. Any class can be plenty of fun. But we weren't discussing fun.
    124 replies | 7399 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:39 PM
    Regarding metamagic: Yes, the implementation is boring since you take Quicken and Twin and then you basically couldn't care less about the rest. But the notion you have too few metamagic points is entirely based on low-level play. Once you reach the higher levels, the number of Sorcery points explode. Why? Since you have a load of low-level slots you convert into SPs. You have more...
    124 replies | 7399 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 11:45 AM
    Not sure I see the point of mentioning me. The only adventures I find worthy of my time are the lavishly detailed ones. Just because they come with flesh and skin doesn't mean I can't change things around. What I can't get inspired by, though, is "adventure seeds". The bone cannot be bare, or the idea is useless. To me. So you see, I've been invoked in a thread that's discussing the...
    8 replies | 388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 07:31 PM
    Ask the Soulless of Barovia.
    44 replies | 1199 view(s)
    1 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 06:01 PM
    Alrighty then.
    60 replies | 988 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 06:00 PM
    This would help insofar that at any con rated PG (which would be all of them unless you know otherwise) the use of the M card would be prohibited. Just a reminder that the core issue is having M-rated content at all, unless you're certain everybody in the audience has buy-in to a more restricted rating. Otherwise put, a card ain't gonna save you.
    419 replies | 16481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 05:54 PM
    If you must add abilities to your BBEGs for them not to be trivially shut down by hero abilities something's broken alright.
    157 replies | 157758 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 01:32 PM
    Please link to the other thread.
    1 replies | 157 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 01:27 PM
    When you have rando walk-ins you don't do rapey themes period.
    419 replies | 16481 view(s)
    4 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 09:51 AM
    I've been to 'cons, and even had a few fun times. But in all those cases the scenario runs overtime. I'd say anything less than 8 hours and you're kidding yourself.
    26 replies | 1042 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 09:37 AM
    I would argue caution. Once you scratch the surface you might find the rules very cluttery if not outright broken. 4E is at any rate much MUCH more crunchy than any preceding edition. I would definitely recommend try-before-buy.
    60 replies | 988 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 02:29 PM
    Saying "I don't think TWF is so poor it needs improvement" is fine. Saying "since you get to use your bonus action with TWF, it's actually fine" is, on the other hand complete nonsense of course. If TWF can only match other styles by using up the bonus action, it is trivial to conclude it is actually far worse than those other styles. After all, finding a good use for your bonus action...
    185 replies | 4539 view(s)
    2 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 08:27 AM
    This reveals a very rudimentary insight into combat tactics. Getting the big bad shunted away while you kill the rest (a task now considerably easier) is a big win. Killing the lone monster later with no lieutenants or mooks is usually trivial. Per DMG guidelines, 1500 gp is indeed trivial. The real limitation of this spell is size.
    157 replies | 157758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 08:22 AM
    First level characters die easily. Spells that kill them are not broken.
    157 replies | 157758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 10:02 AM
    You really need a new insurance company
    60 replies | 988 view(s)
    0 XP
  • CapnZapp's Avatar
    Wednesday, 29th May, 2019, 12:29 PM
    How does that matter? (Whether you use the 3e or 5e ogl to make a 4e:ish game I mean)
    320 replies | 10632 view(s)
    1 XP
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
12,752
Posts Per Day
2.19
Last Post
Ridding Elves and Half-Elves of Darkvision Yesterday 04:34 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
90
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 09:59 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 25th June, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
1
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Sunday, 16th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Thursday, 13th June, 2019


Wednesday, 12th June, 2019


Tuesday, 11th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019


Sunday, 9th June, 2019


Friday, 7th June, 2019



Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 05:41 PM - TwoSix mentioned CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    ...hit effects remains the same. A 5th level fighter with the Dual Wielder, Crossbow Expert, or Polearm Master all have the same number of possible hits. I'm not sure that this should be in the DW Feat - it doesn't fit. I do like the idea of extra damage and I think you might channel the Two Weapon Rend feat from 3E - something like "When you hit a target with two non-ranged weapons with which you are proficient in the same round and are using Strength as the modifier you do +5 damage." Only +5 damage and not +10 because there's no negative modifier (and you're getting double stat bonus damage anyway). And round, not turn as the Bonus Action from TWF can be separate from the Action, plus it allows the PC to get the bonus damage from using a Reaction. Again, nah. Assuming a world in which martials have access to GWM and SS, the -X/+X mechanic is necessary. It lets attacks scale better with both accuracy and on-hit effects. (You could of course do a complete redux of feats, like CapnZapp did a few years ago, but one of my criteria was to keep the design as parsimonious as possible. So no GWM/SS fixes here.) And +5 on a disadvantaged attack (since it requires two different attacks to hit) is absurdly weak. Assuming roughly standard hit rates, that's maybe a +2 damage bump per turn that doesn't scale with Extra Attack. Totally defeats the point of the design. One of my main criteria is that the feat redesign should sit on the safe shelf as GWM or PAM or SS. It needs to be competitive without blowing them away (<10% delta in either direction, ideally). Now, running some numbers, I have some concerns about Tier 1 deltas for strong Tier 1 builds like VHuman Fighter 1/Barb2. The delta is about 1.6 DPR between someone taking Dual Wielder and GWM at level 3 (23.3 to 21.7, assuming point buy, Reckless/Rage, and a 1 in 3 proc rate on GWM). GWM/PAM pull ahead at level 6, though, even with the Dual Wielder bumping Str to 18. (42.2 to 40.7). I might need to make a li...

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 12:09 PM - robus mentioned CapnZapp in post Would campaign skeletons address the lack of adventures for minor settings?
    CapnZapp raised an interesting point in the Expanse thread on the lack of adventures for settings once the rulebook is published. Now we all know writing a comprehensive adventure path/campaign is hard (and frequently fails to please everyone all of the time). But is there an opportunity for something simpler (a campaign skeleton say?) which GMs could flesh out as they go? I frequently find that I like the general idea of a campaign and then get frustrated with the details provided. (Often the details seem confusing or at odds with the campaign, or just included to for funsies and not really contributing anything). A campaign skeleton would basically act as an adventure outline identifying the villain and major antagonists and the general structure (hooks to get into the adventure and the major plot points). I'm thinking something like a 5 or 10 page outline? Adventures are generally easy to conjure on short notice: you know the party and their level, so throwing obstacles at them isn't too...

Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019

  • 07:34 PM - Mercurius mentioned CapnZapp in post Game of Thrones Spin-offs: News & Speculation
    CapnZapp, good thoughts but I'd go further and say in an ideal world we'd get a Malazan series, or a proper attempt at Earthsea, or something else entirely. But you know how the biz works: you leverage a brand that works, and HBO is going to try to make as much money as possible off "Game of Thrones" as they can...and GRRM will laugh all the way to the bank, even if it veers further and further from his original vision.

Tuesday, 21st May, 2019

  • 05:00 AM - pemerton mentioned CapnZapp in post If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be?
    I'm far more interested in the value he feels this adds to the game.By this you're meaning not just gendered roles/classes/playbooks, but sex-based stat penalties? My guess - from the discussion of Conan in the OP - is that CapnZapp wants the play experience that would result from gendered classes/playbooks, but (1) isn't too familar with a wide range of RPGs beyond a certain sort of D&D, and (2) has a certain sort of "simulationist" sensibility that leads to a preference for process-driven mechanics (men are stronger, so give them a stat mod) rather than just cutting to the chase and having gendered classes/playbooks.
  • 04:28 AM - pemerton mentioned CapnZapp in post If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be?
    you've framed it in the context of wanting to make a game where "men are from mars" because you think that's how "things are IRL" CapnZapp didn't say that's how things are iRL. To the contrary, The point isn't to moralize or repress someone's real-life gender identity. The point is that in this world, and in particular my take on it, "men come from Mars, women come from Venus".The phrase this world referst to the imagined world of the RPG, not real life. I doubt I would play the game that CapnZapp posits. I do play RPGs which, as part of their presentation of mediaeval life, note the significance of certain gender distinctions (Burning Wheel has some lifepaths that are women only; Prince Valiant has a discussion of assumed gender roles, and how this might bear on the incorporation of women PCs into the game). I agree with the suggestion by you and steenan that what CapnZapp is looking for would probably be better achieved by having gendered lifepaths or gendered "playbooks" (to use the PbtA terminology). In a D&D-type game, this would be gendered classes. Mazes and Minotaurs is a semi-spoofy OSR-ish RPG that do...

Monday, 20th May, 2019

  • 12:00 PM - Aldarc mentioned CapnZapp in post State of the mystic
    Having a Psion class is a good call. I agree with CapnZapp that a lot of past psionic archetypes could easily be ported to subclasses of preexisting classes: * Psychic Warrior: Fighter Subclass * Soul Knife: Monk or Rogue Subclass * Wilder: Sorcerer Subclass * Ardent: Bard or Cleric Subclass

Sunday, 5th May, 2019

  • 08:30 PM - Aldarc mentioned CapnZapp in post Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!
    CapnZapp, you seem to be sending mixed messages. On the one hand, you seem to think that Paizo missed their opportunity to make products adapted directly for 5E as is. On the other, you bemoan that Paizo is not making "5E Advanced." But I suspect that if Paizo made either then their profits would fizzle out even faster. Why would the market bother with Paizo if they did either especially when many tables do not allow 3pp materials? By producing materials for 5e, Paizo would be making themselves niche among niche rather than carving out a more unique niche for themselves.
  • 03:50 PM - Hussar mentioned CapnZapp in post Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!
    I think the point that CapnZapp was trying to make is that Pathfinder is a pretty small slice of the RPG market. Considering that the RPG market without WotC producing any new books is about 15 million dollars (and that included 3e and 4e at the time), it's not really too much of a stretch to think that Pathfinder's market share isn't really large. I realize that the common wisdom is that WotC is the 600 pound gorilla, but, really, we don't know how the market slices up.

Friday, 3rd May, 2019

  • 05:09 PM - Oofta mentioned CapnZapp in post "straight" rolls in D&D
    If you have a sub-plot of removing the alignment change aspect, consider an alternative. Make it an incredibly difficult task. Make it a quadruple deadly encounter if you have to. If the party fails, it's not a TPK, the only long term result is that they missed their one shot to "fix" the item. They can't even destroy it if they wanted to. At that point they have a dilemma. Continue to use the item risking becoming evil NPCs or never use it again, but that risks the item calling out to a more amenable party. Let them know ahead of time what's going to happen. There's a McGuffin that can be used to destroy the item once they know what's happening but it might, maybe, just possibly be able to change it as well. As far as LE being allowed in the party, I agree with CapnZapp. Just because a person is lawful doesn't mean they won't (or shouldn't) sooner or later kill off other PCs. It's just that when they do it they'll let you know that "it's nothing personal".

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019

  • 01:54 PM - Sadras mentioned CapnZapp in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    Look, @CapnZapp, I get what you are looking for, but, frankly, it's just not feasible in the 5e ruleset. It really isn't. The fact that no game system or designer has pulled it off or done any better than Gygax kind of indicates it can't be done. How good any magic item is depends on to many intangibles. Despite me not 100% agreeing with @CapnZapp regarding rarity, I don't believe the above statements are quite true. I mean what you need is a base for the cost of magic, it should not be so difficult to tabulate. Then what you need are (1) multipliers for high and low magic campaigns, (2) Consumable or Permanent enchantments, (3) Utility and (4) Rarity (Tiered - perhaps as per @S'mon's post). It just requires some work which I think WotC would rather not invest but I think it would be worthwhile in the long run, but that is just me. @CapnZapp, funny enough despite all the negative feedback you endure on this board for the issues regarding Rests, Feats and Magical Items I certainly appreciate...
  • 09:31 AM - Hussar mentioned CapnZapp in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    Look, CapnZapp, I get what you are looking for, but, frankly, it's just not feasible in the 5e ruleset. It really isn't. 3e and 4e both took their mechanics from how earlier editions of the game were being played. If you played AD&D, you were absolutely dripping in magic items. Either from playing AD&D modules, or using the random treasure charts, AD&D presumed a huge number of magic items in the group. They might not have been powerful items, but, you did have a bunch of them. I mean, all you have to do is look at the 1e paladin who was limited to only ten magic items. 4 weapons, a suit of armor, a shield and 4 more magic items. That was the hard limit for paladins. Yikes! That's about what you'd expect on a 10th or 12th level 3e character in a very high magic campaign. So, 3e and 4e welded the magic items into the character building rules. You were presumed to use magic items to build your character. The problem is, players being the pragmatists that they were, spent their cash o...

Sunday, 14th April, 2019

  • 04:02 PM - Maxperson mentioned CapnZapp in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    That's a good thing. Giving PCs easy access to magic items was a bad idea in 3E and 4E. Note WoTC barely follows their own rules for items, money and encounters. Whether it's good or bad is entirely opinion based. For you and I it's bad, and for CapnZapp it's good. He has rules in Xanthar's for buying magic items now, and if he doesn't like that brand of strawberry ice cream, he has the ingredients for the strawberry ice cream he wants, so he can make his own.

Friday, 29th March, 2019

  • 12:54 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned CapnZapp in post What is a "Reputation Comment"
    Before I say something negative, I try to put myself in someone else's shoes. In this case, I would try to remember that Morrus has to respond to a lot of stuff, moderate comments, deal with extraneous stuff on the board, and have a life too. Especially when other people (like Nagol, for example) can also fill in details. :) OTOH, I also remember that I don't always practice what I preach, so there's that. And that's more important than responding to CapnZapp?! Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

Saturday, 16th February, 2019

  • 04:55 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned CapnZapp in post Variants/Subclass for a DPR Rogue
    CapnZapp thanks for the comments. The issue I have is, I’m not convinced of the severity of damage output gap that you’re referencing. I do see a gap in combat optimized feat heavy games, but not one that merits doubling SA damage per round. I also don’t have much trouble in such games keeping my rogue alive in melee. My level 12 thief isn’t DPR king, because I chose to make him an untouchably slippery eel of a skirmisher. The rogue is better at using skillful movement than anyone else. I’ve got expertise in acrobatics, athletics, stealth, and deception, and use them all in nearly every fight. Frequency descends from “every fight” to “many fights”, in roughly the listed order. As a Lightfoot halfling, I can hide in plain sight, though, which helps. Anyway, I think that increasing crit frequency, or adding a flat damage bonus to all attacks that qualify for SA (so, you’re nearly always getting 2-5 extra damage, even when you’ve already used your SA as a dual wielded) A thrown weapons...

Friday, 15th February, 2019

  • 09:56 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned CapnZapp in post Variants/Subclass for a DPR Rogue
    So, some folks are disappointed that the 5e rogue is not focused on DPR, while others are happy that the Rogue basically auto-wins at skill stuff, and are satisfied with moderate damage output. I am in a third camp. I love the 5e Rogue as it is, but would also love to see a DPR focused subclass and perhaps some options for variant class features that support a more 4e style "kill stuff like a rad killing machine" rogue. I'm not interested in adding class features, unless it's going to be a ribbon or something like that. In general, let's keep a similar total power level to the PHB. CapnZapp I know you're more in the "the rogue just isn't good, overall" camp, but I'd love to hear any thoughts you have that are within the scope of the brief above. My preliminary thoughts, in very rough draft, are: Subclass: There is room, here, for a strength rogue. Expanded weapon list that works with Sneak Attack, including glaive, longsword, any one handed weapon or versatile weapon. Your attacks that qualify for Sneak Attack deal extra damage equal to your Strength mod. Once per short rest, you can deal Sneak Attack damage a second time per turn. Level 9, gain Extra Attack 13th, add Str mod as a bonus on all Dex checks and saves? too much for 13? 13 tends to be more utility, rather than power. 17th, gotta be big. SA on every attack for 1 minute, 1/rest? Auto-crit 1/rest? Max SA damage when you crit? Expanded Crit Range? Alternatively, what about a swordsman subclass that is about ruthless efficacy rather than flair and panache? Maneuver dice, or expanded crit range an...

Wednesday, 13th February, 2019

  • 05:49 PM - OB1 mentioned CapnZapp in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop. And it can be both a feature for me and a bug for CapnZapp at the same time. There is no right or wrong about this, just a preference. Being called a corporate tool who can’t see through the lies and laziness of WoTC for expressing my preference is just lame.
  • 05:27 PM - DEFCON 1 mentioned CapnZapp in post Artificer UA to be released in February
    There's nothing wrong with CapnZapp or DQDesign believing a snail's pace release schedule sucks for getting new "official" game mechanics (if that matters to you). But I also think we can't deny that their pace has not made their business suffer. And I'd be reticent to put forth the idea that D&D would be "stronger" than they are right now had they been putting out books of game mechanics at the rate they did for 3E and 4E. Expectation for what's coming up has kept interest going for D&D even to us cynics on ENWorld. The fact that we have 100 post threads about trying to divine what two pages of a book might mean and represent is indicative of that. So while some folks want more faster (and there's nothing wrong with that), all of us can understand and accept why we don't get it.

Friday, 25th January, 2019

  • 02:19 PM - TaranTheWanderer mentioned CapnZapp in post Unearthed Arcana: Sidekicks - the simpler approach
    CapnZapp If you want to use this thread as a resource, could you summarize the rules (as discussed and refined) on the OP? It would make it easier to reference. Thanks! (unless you've already done so, in which case, disregard!)
  • 03:30 AM - CleverNickName mentioned CapnZapp in post The help action is not broken, but Working together is
    ...gain it will keep going in?Another attack roll, now with movement. I have no problem with how combat works. Sorry... Thats not how doing stuff works.You're forgiven. Also, this is how combat works, and combat is a different animal. To presume the same result will occur on retry after retry is to presume the same performance level which is not how it works for most things.Except when it does. Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is a popular definition for insanity. Even non-physical things. Especially non-physical things. (Just ask my wife.) Anyhoo. I tried my best to explain how I do things at my table, and I must have failed because I keep getting asked for clarification. I've tried explaining from different angles, using examples, cracking jokes, but I can't seem to roll higher than a 2. Now I'm out of ideas, and I've wasted enough of everyone's time with my multiple failures. I'm going to embrace my fate and move on. :-) CapnZapp: sorry I let this get so far off-topic. This post was about the Working Together rules, not about repeating failed skill checks ad infinitum. That was my bad.

Wednesday, 23rd January, 2019

  • 04:34 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned CapnZapp in post The help action is not broken, but Working together is
    @CapnZapp I think this is a case where most folks here just aren’t experiencing the thing you are experiencing. IME, most people aren’t running the modules nearly as much as just making adventures on their own, most of their gameplay doesn’t feature rogues with reliable talent, their exploration challenges are more complex than “don’t get lost or starve to death”, and they don’t actually always have someone with +7 in more than a couple skills at low level, and their players aren’t optimizing enough to assume that +7 is in “the right” skills. edit: heck, I’ve seen groups with no bars or rogue, and no low level maxed out stats, meaning no one has a +7 on anything.


Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 07:06 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Should I play 4e?
    In short, yes 4E has been much discussed. But seldom has its fundamentally overwrought design complexity been questioned. The edition war rarely reached the intellectual level of a discussion or debate, it was characterized by fallacies, especially personal attacks, intellectual dishonesty, questionable agendas, and many persistent factual errors & misrepresentations. Actual discussion of 4e, itself, rather than the straw man effigies of it being attacked, was rare by comparison. The game has been dead & burried for 7 years now, and it's still not possible to have an honest discussion of its actual qualities. 4e being overly complex and hard to learn/play has been an edition-war accusation very nearly as long as the accusation that it was dumbed-down and simplistic. Both were equally valid. Of course, RPGing is a complex activity, and there are many ways to manage, conceal, or otherwise render that complexity acceptable. Rules Lite games - including no version of D&D ever - cope wit...
  • 05:56 PM - FrogReaver quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I'm not overlooking anything.. Then you are flat out ignoring it. I am just defining where the design work of this thread must end up at to be truly satisfactory. No you are attmpting to declare a specific implementation as the only true way despite others pointing out that such an implementation is nearly impossible to balance around without changing way to many things already in the game. If I were building 5e from the ground up I like your suggestion. I’m not. The implementation of a TWF fix should never require changing specific abilities to work or not work with it. I'm basically trying to save y'all some time and effort, so you don't end up with a solution that still sells TWFers short when it comes to high-end powers by committing the bonus action earlier than for the GWFer. Why is it a problem to commit to the bonus action earlier? Why can’t the TWF have the choice of doing less damage now for more damage later so long as it’s sufficiently more damage later to make up the g...
  • 04:44 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    It is saying something when you look at the Ranger and see how it requires the bonus action for no less than TWO archetypal abilities (dual wielding and Hunter's Mark). Never mind keeping it for use by a nice feat... or a magic item... 浪 Hunter’s Mark isn’t being used every round. Choosing which ability to use in a round is a good part of the game. Some rounds, you sacrifice a bonus attack in order to move Hunter’s Mark to a new target. What feats even even interfere with TWF that aren’t focused on a different fighting style? You’re not PAM Dual Wielding, generally, and you’re never combining it wth Shield Master or Crossbow Expert. If you do PAM dual wield with spears, great! But like, you’re not losing anything. Theres nothing wrong with not not being able to do a thing every single round. This is not why TWF is lacking. It’s lacking because the fighting style feels like it “fixes” a rule created in order to give it something to do, and the feat provides significantly less benefi...
  • 04:32 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I'll tell you what, your next game, allow a 2d6 dex based great weapon and a cool 1d8 dex based one handed weapon (call it a katana or something) and see how many fighters choose strength ever again. I mean one of those is the Rapier. I still get longsword, Battleaxe, and even shortsword wielders who could be using a rapier. As for a 2d6 option, IME no great weapon fighters are gonna switch to a dex based build, because I’ve tested that with a d8 reach finesse weapon, as well as a versatile d6 version of the whip (spiked chain), and no one went from wanting to play a tough beefcake to a lithe acrobat to grab them. I would see more people who would already make dex builds doing so with more damage. But those guys only ever play dex characters regardless of edition. Then I gotta ask you why you are even in this discussion? You can't seriously be here only to tell us a little imbalance is nothing to worry about? This entire thread is based on the premise dual wielding is just not good enough...
  • 03:07 PM - FrogReaver quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Two-Six: High levels offer increasingly better options for your Bonus Action. Any fighting style that hogs it just to keep up is inherently worse off. That is, relying on a fighting style whose enabling feat claims your BA is bad, but relying on a fighting style that claims it already from the start is worse. Especially if you're a class whose core features require it. The only real solution is to remove the BA from twfing, from Hunter's Mark, the lot. Otherwise the inescapable conclusion is that only fighters with greatweapons can unlock the full potential of the game: getting the best base damage, the best feat AND still have their BA for the eventual magic weapon or spell. I guess I'm repeating myself, but that's only because I couldn't see where you adress this. The issue you seem to be overlooking is that most of the bonus action abilities that scale damage scale by number of attacks. Both Hunter's mark and GWM/SS do. So if you keep the extra attack but remove the bonus action cost:...
  • 02:56 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    First off, if you seriously intend to dismiss balanced rules design with "players just choose anyway" then we are done and I have nothing to tell you. Still here? Good. Then my answer is: the ONLY strength characters I see, are the ones using two-handed weapons. This is not so much a balance concern as an aesthetic one. I don't think the benefits of Dex in 5E should be taken for granted. I believe it is very instructive to look at just how far 5E has deviated from previous editions (read 3E) when it comes to Strength vs Dexterity. I really need to find that old thread now... That’s odd. I’ve seen plenty of strength sword and board characters, and a handful of dual wielders. My point is that if players are generally choosing something in spite of a forum goer perception that it is “weak”, it is probably actually pretty balanced. We here are much more sensitive to the fine power level differences than the vast majority of players. The game doesn't need to be so balanced that there is ne...
  • 06:34 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    I'm okay with that. Remember that in 2E and 3E you always added Strength to damage. In fact 5E removed or lessened maybe nine different limitations on Dex, which is definitely way too many. I really go find the old post where I enumerated the long long list of things WotC did to appease the demand for svelte lithe action heroes with no need for brawn, despite D&D not being a kung-fu movie... Are you really seeing a shortage of strength characters in your games? IME, the overwhelming majority of characters are built on a story concept, not on an analysis of CharOp forum consensus about making the most powerfully SAD character possible for average DPR wiith the fewest possible weaknesses. Most Dex characters don't have as high AC as the plate guy, and people who want to play a beefcake who weilds a huge hammer just...do that. Including in the games I've run that were set in Kung Fu movie style settings.

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 08:04 PM - Aldarc quoted CapnZapp in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    My concern is that LFQW will basically remain. Thank you for agreeing to the basic premise, by the way - that it has no place in a 2019 game.I haven't agreed with that though. Me saying that I prefer LFQW does not mean that I agree "that it has no place in a 2019 game." The important question is if any limitations can be circumvented by canny players. The two hot-spots will be high-level wizard (or equivalent, such as "prestige" class) abilities (look out for anything resembling "you may cast this spell without adhering to [X limitation]") and individual spell descriptions (can this spell be cast without [Y limitation], perhaps using a higher-levelled slot?) In other words, we need to know the entire system before we can tell whether Paizo pulled it off. Loud cries of "my wizard is underpowered!!" is a good sign. It likely isn't underpowered - it's a frikkin' wizard after all - but that the route to OP is not obvious is good.But as I already showed, 5e also has ways to circumvent some ...
  • 07:49 PM - Saelorn quoted CapnZapp in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    "A game published in 2019 needs at least the same level of caster-martial equality as 5th Edition has proven can be done while still keeping the Dungeons & Dragons experience or its reception will consider it out of date".That assumes D&D 5E is keeping in the D&D experience, which is not an opinion that's universally held. It also assumes that D&D 5E has casters and non-casters that are roughly comparable in their abilities, which is equally contentious. Granted, the balance of 5E is much better than the balance of PF1; and 5E feels more like D&D than 4E or PF2 (playtest) does; and it would be a mis-step if PF2 was much worse than 5E in either of those categories. But saying that PF2 needs to match or beat 5E in those categories is setting the bar absurdly low.
  • 07:44 PM - Gradine quoted CapnZapp in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    It's a game set in Baldur's Gate. A case can be made it is the third such game. The rest can be explained by the devs desire to capitalize on the goodwill of the series. Technically, Baldur's Gate 2 didn't feature the city of Baldur's Gate at all.
  • 07:37 PM - TwoSix quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    You use one of my arguments to shoot down the other, and vice versa... [emoji854] Well, yea. It's one of those cases where their multiple criteria that are valid considerations, but might be mutually exclusive. I'm mostly just trying to lay out all the relevant criteria and see how many of them can be addressed by any one set of fixes. One of the reasons GWF is so good is that it leaves your BA open for other options. Choosing PM or CE locks down your BA, for good but also for bad. TWF is unique in how the BA is locked down already from the beginning. This is not an advantage, even though newbs think it is. Since you can readily find a use for your BA in games with feats, why choose the fighting style that can't be augmented thusly? You will only exist for three levels without that feat, after all. I agree that GWM is the superior feat, both in terms of efficacy and in design (the proc-based BA is quite fun.) I think my issue is that where you see the BA from those feats as "l...
  • 05:57 PM - TwoSix quoted CapnZapp in post Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
    Again, please consider using these two features as the base: 1. The TWF fix is offered thru a feat. (Feat-less games unaffected; no cascade effects) 2. The TWF fix allows you to use your Bonus Action on other things. (No minmaxer choose TWF since it makes you unable to later utilize any of may magic effects and items) Ideally from the get go but at level 11+ at the very least. I'm a little torn on these. I value the idea of making just a single change to one feat to validate the concept. The cascading effect is certainly real. I don't think the balance of the current game is sacred (if a rule change makes rogues and monks a little better, or paladins a little worse, I'm not going to cry about it), but I don't want to invalidate already present rules content in my game (to say nothing of the copious amounts of homebrew I use). The second point is more interesting, and something I keep flip-flopping on. My major argument against removing the BA via feat is this. Every serious mar...
  • 03:48 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Should I play 4e?
    (My bracketed sentence ending inserted) I thought that was clear. Then again, encounter guidelines are easily ignored so this is a small price to pay Yeah, I'm not saying either complaint is valid, IMX, just that they're made. I have no problems with 5e being too easy, I just adjust encounter difficulty on the fly rather than coloring inside the guidelines (and don't run high level games), and none with 4e being too slow (even when I ran weekly in a 2-hr slot with a hard stop) because I could keep players engaged & pace sessions accordingly.
  • 12:25 PM - Aldarc quoted CapnZapp in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    Thank you for your reply. Of course it would. (Specifically: as I have said many times over, Paizo is free to accomplish this however they want. I certainly don't expect them to use the exact same mechanisms that WotC used)But what is the metric you are using? How close does the martial-caster balance in PF2 have to be for you to consider it sufficient? What if it is less than 5e but still far more than 3e?
  • 12:10 PM - Aldarc quoted CapnZapp in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    I believe you are misunderstanding me. I am not attempting to prove anything. I am positing the following theory, or argument, or opinion even: "A game published in 2019 needs at least the same level of caster-martial equality as 5th Edition has proven can be done while still keeping the Dungeons & Dragons experience or its reception will consider it out of date". So far, not a single poster have belied this. Of course, you have responded many many times, but as far as I can see only because you don't like that I have a point - not once have you (or anyone else) actually said anything like "no, Pathfinder 2 will do fine even if martials remain glorified bodyguards to casters, like in every d20 edition from 3.0 to PF1".Okay, but so far, you haven't actually argued effectively several key points of this thesis: (1) "a game published in 2019 needs at least the same level of caster-martial equality as 5th Edition has proven can be done," and (2) if not, that "its reception will conside...

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 05:44 PM - Tony Vargas quoted CapnZapp in post Should I play 4e?
    Being able to combine excitement and reasonably fast play is not an unreasonably impossible goal,That doesn't mean WotC can't do it right. In this aspect, both 3E and 5E works much better.Fast & Exciting sorta go together, sure. 3e definitely delivered short, high-stakes combats, both 3.0 scry/buff/teleport and 3.5 Rocket Tag. While 5e can be deadly at very low level, you have to reach beyond the encounter guidelines to get the same sorts of things going in it, and SoDs aren't what they were, either - the complaint from 3.x fans is often along the lines of 'too easy' rather than the 'too slow' leveled at 4e. Ironically, 4e didn't exactly have the slowest individual turns in D&D history, rather, most PCs took medium-ish length turns, rather than, as in most other eds, some classes tending to have very fast-resolving turns, and others taking much longer (especially if rules came into question). 5e relies on DM fiat to head off the latter issue - but the relative popularity of the fast-resol...
  • 12:51 PM - Aldarc quoted CapnZapp in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    So LFQW does matter to you? Interesting, because my entire argument is that I believe it matters to every PF2 customer that has experienced 5E.LFQW matters to me, but I still don't think that you have a solid argument here. You haven't actually demonstrated or provided any evidence that your assertion in this last clause has any factual basis. I don't think that we can make so puerile of a reductionist argument that people leaving PF1 for 5E is evidence for your claim either. There are many contributing factors for game choice. Laying this at the feet of LFQW is redonkulous. Many playtesters for 5e, for example, also did not express much care about LFQW balance either, though they did want the exesses of spellcasting from 3.X curbed. 5E also won over many Old School fans, and these are fans who largely don't give a shart's care about LFQW. It also won over many new fans who know jack shart about LFQW. Read ENWorld threads around 2014-2015, and people were still talking about how 5e reintrod...

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 08:13 PM - Staffan quoted CapnZapp in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    Given how even official adventures eschew the xp guidelines, and basically level up after specific chapters, I am having trouble seeing what the problem is. Or hand out twice the default monster xp, or whatever. What I'm really interested in is, didn't those old AD&D games, including Baldur's Gate, follow the official xp amounts? I can't recall ever hearing this complaint against 5E before. That you level up too slowly. Did you level up faster in AD&D? Not in the slightest. Though I guess it depends on how generous the DM was with story XP in 2e (1e was more objective in this manner, giving 1 XP per gp worth of treasure brought back home). But I think the tolerance for slow leveling was higher back in the day. The original Baldur's Gate had an XP cap of 89,000 XP, which translated to 7th level for single-classed fighters, paladins, rangers, wizards, and clerics, and 8th level for single-classed druids, thieves, and bards. That's for a game that takes 40-80 hours to play through. Today, I t...
  • 07:54 PM - gyor quoted CapnZapp in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    Given how even official adventures eschew the xp guidelines, and basically level up after specific chapters, I am having trouble seeing what the problem is. Or hand out twice the default monster xp, or whatever. What I'm really interested in is, didn't those old AD&D games, including Baldur's Gate, follow the official xp amounts? I can't recall ever hearing this complaint against 5E before. That you level up too slowly. Did you level up faster in AD&D? It lacks the constant gratification of frequent levej ups found in most video games.
  • 03:50 PM - Aldarc quoted CapnZapp in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    I'm not saying they can't pull it off, but when your audience isn't asking for it, and given Paizo's record, I remain dubious.When you're audience doesn't care, then why should Paizo care? Because CapnZapp thinks that it's the crisis of the ages? Look, I don't like LFQW either, but I think you are overblowing the issue, especially in terms of how many peoples (particularly new players) care about the issue. 5e actually rolls back the LFQW balance changes that WotC made. (4E is the edition that fixed it. 5E is the edition that back-tracked on it with concessions.) It's also important to keep in mind that 5e is far from having "ruthless enforcement of the restrictions." Spell foci circumvent material components. The Sorcerer's Subtle Spell circumvents verbal and somatic spell components. War Caster allows for cirumventing somatic components. Many tables in 5e kinda ignore the whole material, somatic, and verbal components thing with spellcasting anyway. (Again, 5e is far from ruthless: mostly lax in praxis apart from concentration.) Plus, one of the ways that 5e "balanced" things was by basically handing out magical subclasses like candy to martial classes. You can even find plenty of ...


CapnZapp's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated
High Level Shopping
High Level Shopping
224 0 1 Monday, 14th January, 2019, 06:37 PM Monday, 14th January, 2019, 06:37 PM
[ToA] The many and fabulous bazaars of Port Nyanzaru
The second iteration in convenient PDF form.

General discussion: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?595068-ToA-The-many-and-fabulous-bazaars-of-Port-Nyanzaru

Design discussion: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?627782-many-an...
768 0 1 Friday, 4th May, 2018, 06:50 PM Friday, 4th May, 2018, 06:50 PM

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites