View Profile: Corwin - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:03 PM
    Can't we all just live and let...er...unlive...with the ghoul population?
    73 replies | 13793 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:31 PM
    I disagree, but let me provide some background for other people reading this before I state my disagreement. BACKGROUND A little over a decade ago (around April 2009) WOTC mentioned piracy as one of the major reasons for them pulling PDFs that year. That policy was real, and was part of a crew at WOTC which isn't there anymore. Literally almost a complete turnover in personnel, from the...
    49 replies | 1113 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:49 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    I use the Chase Rules a fair amount and I also see nothing against the rules about bonus action Dash under that system. The limiting factor for the rogue is Constitution here and burning out twice as fast. This is really only a problem though if the rogue is the pursuer rather than the quarry since, unless there is no chance of hiding, the rogue has often successfully escaped at the end of the...
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:41 PM
    Here is the full quote about digital and PDF vs Hardcopy (I skip parts between about the international aspects): According to Wizards, the future doesn’t lie in virtual reality...Adam Bradford, general manager of D&D Beyond — a digital toolkit for players — says “the biggest roadblock” to D&D augmented and virtual reality is “availability of the technology.” “That’s not a tree we’re barking up...
    49 replies | 1113 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:33 PM
    I find it very interesting. I'm fine you don't. But, I am not ignoring the rest as opposed to just focusing on the thing I found interesting.
    49 replies | 1113 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:36 AM
    That is a very interesting comment. I agree with it, but it's a very controversial thing to say. At least around here :)
    49 replies | 1113 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 07:22 PM
    Mistwell replied to Double Dash
    Uh what? It doesn't work like that. It's one bonus action, and one regular action. Just like always.
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 06:00 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    For what it's worth, the rules also specifically call out a character's or monster's speed as being "short bursts of energetic movement in the midst of a life-threatening situation."
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:14 PM
    You're right and it drives me crazy when I turn up in a game where a DM rolls individual initiative for monsters. Though it's still the same amount of actions to resolve, it really does slow things down because the initiative rolling takes longer and then, if those monsters are interspersed with PCs or other monsters, there's a "gear-changing" that eats up additional time. It really adds up!
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:53 PM
    The RAW is that like creatures share initiative anyway. It's still 10 creatures on one initiative count, but it's not like you're rolling 10 different initiatives for them, if that's a concern. As for your swarm, it seems a sound idea, but someone better at math than me will have to say if it has parity with the spell as written. But anyway, players have an obligation to pursue the goals of...
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 02:36 PM
    What Hriston said - most monsters' stuff is just junk. There are some exceptions that I will make an effort to describe, such as a hobgoblin in plate armor or the like. Sometimes I'll describe something resplendent a monster wears that would be damaged in combat and made less valuable in order to set up a challenge for the players to take out the monster without damaging their loot. It makes them...
    20 replies | 633 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 06:27 AM
    That's basically what my players do. They police themselves for speed and that includes just keeping them on a single target. It's not really about banning the spell BlivetWidget. It's just players realizing that it can slow down play and taking reasonable steps to mitigate that.
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 11:13 PM
    The mob rules worked fine, but also working in my favor is that the table rule is that if you're the sort of player who can't manage this sort of spell without bogging down the turn, you simply don't cast it. The player has a responsibility here in my view. (Same for summons, pets, etc.)
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 09:20 PM
    iserith replied to Double Dash
    Yes on the double-dash. There tends to be a LOT of movement in my games due to terrain, so it comes up quite a bit.
    84 replies | 2159 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 07:41 PM
    You can resolve by applying the mob rules in the DMG (pg. 250) which foregoes any attack rolls, saving time. Then use average damage.
    13 replies | 455 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 03:15 PM
    It doesn't matter if you keep track, really. The PCs should be counterspelling everything anyway.
    21 replies | 745 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 07:42 PM
    I'd allow gentle repose to extend the time to cast revivify, yes.
    14 replies | 557 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:05 PM
    Wow. You have misread what happened. Here was my initial response: I never implied any level of dishonesty nor did I disagree with the premise. I have no idea where you got the impression I agreed with you on the premise that there should be something there. Maybe you have me confused with some other poster, or maybe you made assumptions based on opinions from the past, but that is not...
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:13 AM
    Why wouldn't allowing any Wizard cantrip be a lead-in to EK?
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:13 AM
    How is my saying, "I agree you need something there, I just think it should be this other broader thing" not engaging with the premise? In fact earlier in this very thread you were more sympathetic to the concept of a cantrip until I said I'd choose one that isn't an attack cantrip and then all of a sudden you were saying how that can't possibly fit your concept.
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 12:53 AM
    You absolutely are. There is no "style" to adding energy damage to attacks. That's not a type of fighting like dual wielding or being more effective with a one handed weapon or being better at dodging attacks. All the others are mundane skills people learn as actual melee fighting tactics. You've completely altered the purpose with your suggestion. Why are you not owning it?
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 06:01 PM
    Except you're attempting to use the tool of "fighting style" for something it was not originally intended to represent, "subclass type". If you're going to use the tool for a new application, then it makes less rational sense to restrict it to the original theme of "fighting style" as you've already ditched that restriction. Eldritch Knights are magical fighters who start with no magic and all...
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:52 PM
    LOL it was a joke. I was trying to one-up the prior jokes. I think Pathfinder 2 will do fine.
    173 replies | 11745 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 07:29 AM
    You're combat obsessed man. I know number crunching is fun and all, but I didn't say a word about an attack cantrip. I said ANY wizard cantrip. Personally I'd grab Minor Illusion or Prestidigitation. Far more utility and spell casting flavor than "add more or different damage".
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:33 AM
    Not a fan of your Eldritch Knight option. I agree they could use something though. Maybe choose one wizard cantrip, and you're able to cast it a number of times a day equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum one)?
    106 replies | 2350 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 10:45 PM
    Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.
    173 replies | 11745 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 12:55 AM
    That is a fiddly-bit too far.
    224 replies | 5839 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 10:44 PM
    This is how a lot of those conversations go in our game: DM: There is an eerie glow around the chalice which is decorated with a stag symbol. Player 1: Hey didn't we hear something about a stag chalice from some wizard dude in that town a while back? Player 2: Maybe? That was, like, last March in real time. Four character sheets ago for me. Players shrug to DM DM sighs DM: OK just go...
    224 replies | 5839 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:54 PM
    So reward a bonus to a specific check based on something which happened in the game. The rules do allow for that. You don't need to alter the base generic check.
    224 replies | 5839 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:36 PM
    My barbarian is simply never going to get better at arcana checks. His answer at level 1 and at level 20 is likely the same - I dunno, maybe poke it with something and see what happens?
    224 replies | 5839 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 06:23 PM
    iserith replied to Languages
    The DMG also has a section on languages in the campaign world planning section that basically tells the DM to figure this out on his or her own according to the kind of setting he or she wants to present.
    9 replies | 371 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:40 PM
    It seems to me all that really matters is whether the player thinks it's fun. If he or she does, carry on, I say. If not, then you can either jointly tinker with the rules to make it less certain, create conditions in the game that accomplish the same effect without tinkering with the rules, or the player can just choose not to have the character hide all the time.
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 09:25 PM
    iserith replied to OSR Gripes
    I played Lamentations of the Flame Princess which is one of these old school D&D-esque games. I lost 5 characters in one session. No exaggeration. That's just how it goes.
    231 replies | 8072 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 08:55 PM
    No insult is intended. Certain of your specific objections seem rooted in issues of spotlight management and other issues that are not the fault of the game. I make no judgment as to what you should or shouldn't do in your own game, only that some of your objections are easily solved without modifying the rules.
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:54 PM
    Like I said, house rules are fine. Personally, I don't actually care how the player makes the decision in the face of the NPC's attempt to persuade (to continue with that example), but I'm not calling for a roll here as DM. That breaks the rule of players determining what their characters do. The player is free to roll a die to figure out what the character does if he or she wants. Or flip a...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:27 PM
    Magic is the difference. House rules are fine, but the issue in this situation for me is that the players always determine how their characters think and what they do and say. That means there is never uncertainty as to the outcome of the NPC's attempt to persuade and thus no ability check. The outcome is whatever the player says it is. I might, in some circumstances.
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 07:12 PM
    iserith replied to Languages
    There is no call-out in the rules for dialects other than Primordial. So as far as I am concerned, PCs that speak Common can't speak Undercommon, nor can creatures that speak Undercommon speak Common. Personally, I prefer it that way as it gives choice of language relevance and sets the PCs up for needing resources such as spells or NPCs to assist with communication. It's another problem for the...
    9 replies | 371 view(s)
    4 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:58 PM
    I use it and it works well enough. For those unfamiliar with it, it basically splits the challenge into what I call "The 'Tude," "The Chat," and "The Ask." In "The 'Tude," the DM frames the NPC's disposition toward the PCs and establishes the context of the challenge (what's at stake). This is also when players might try to have their characters recall lore about the NPC to garner useful...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:04 PM
    I think they're okay for D&D standards. But almost nobody uses them in my experience because I don't think many DMs actually read the DMG. The rogue isn't being skipped and it isn't really planned though - at least no more than combat where everyone gets a turn. If that doesn't bother you (does it?), why should what amounts to taking turns in a social interaction challenge be bothersome?...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:46 AM
    It just sounds to me like the argument is not so much "Expertise is problematic..." but "Expertise is problematic when I chop away two of the three pillars underpinning the game and things get wobbly." Which doesn't so much sound like a problem with Expertise per se, but the choices the DM has made. I think we agree here? Also there does seem to be an underlying assumption in your post that...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:19 AM
    Really that just argues for the DM to balance the pillars of the game as much as he or she can in my view and to incentivize play to that end via XP and treasure. If the DM is leaning too heavily on any one pillar or incentivizing particular play to the exclusion of others, it's reasonable behavior for players to create and advance characters with particular skill proficiencies and other features...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:09 AM
    "Party balance" in what sense? Why is it bad that this character can do a thing well and others can't? Wouldn't it be the case that this expert won't be able to do other things as well in this or the other two pillars? Also, how is "deception in the hands of a creative player" troublesome? Setting aside that the DM decides whether there is a roll or not in the first place, what's the actual...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:05 AM
    I'm not really "going" anywhere, only checking to see if there's a rough correlation between people who have some kind of issue with the ability check system and playing the game in the very common way I described upthread wherein the players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks. Without taking anything away from your perception of the problem you outline above, could you...
    43 replies | 1367 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:53 AM
    Why do you think that is a problem?
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:48 AM
    As opposed to the DM deciding whether there is a roll at all, then what ability check to make and any skill proficiency that applies (per the rules). And in this case I'm not referring to a paradigm where the DM can decide a player-proposed roll is not necessary (e.g. Player: "Can I make an Investigation check to..." DM: "Nah, you just figure it out...").
    43 replies | 1367 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:42 AM
    Out of curiosity, if you have a problem with expertise, do you also play the game such that players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks?
    43 replies | 1367 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 11:24 PM
    In a practical sense, this means that the rogue will almost always surprise monsters (unless he's traveling with other, less stealthy people) and will almost always have advantage on the attack roll if there's a place to hide in combat. If the rogue is on his or her own, it will also mean that scouting around without being detected will almost always succeed. Personally, if a rogue tries to...
    104 replies | 2892 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 08:52 PM
    It works. My entire game is run like that, almost as a one-on-one between myself and one other player (when they're not talking among themselves) for a minute before switching to someone else. If a combat ends without finishing the round, I'll mentally stick to initiative order and call on the people who haven't gone that round to kick off whatever activity is next so that they aren't shorted on...
    31 replies | 1328 view(s)
    4 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 04:32 PM
    How long are people taking on their turns? One thing I've noticed at other tables is that players are planning what to do on their turn instead of acting, which is a huge no-no at my table. Your turn is for acting, not for planning or stalling by asking 20 Questions (another common player tactic when they haven't planned off-turn). I think a turn is 30 seconds or less, ideally, which means your...
    31 replies | 1328 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:20 PM
    First, ask for them to pay attention, then ask them what about the game isn't holding their attention. From your own observation, what parts of the game are they tuning out on? What can you do to minimize those parts of the game or make them more interesting?
    31 replies | 1328 view(s)
    6 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 06:08 PM
    Yes, that's technically a choice.
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 04:54 PM
    I think what gets left off in the last few assertions that are floating about is that, in a game where the DM isn't concerned with any particular conclusion so long as it's fun, exciting, and memorable (even if it's bad for the characters), then said DM isn't also putting them into situations where they have no chance of success. In such games, the players choose to get themselves into those...
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    3 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 05:01 PM
    Can they take short rests? If so, they should be able to do 6 to 8 medium or hard challenges with a couple of short rests. If the villain challenge is deadly, then reduce the number of preceding encounters accordingly, perhaps setting it to 4 to 6 medium or hard challenges followed by a deadly encounter. If the players are experienced, this seems doable.
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 04:26 PM
    It's not. It's normal for a lot of games. Most games take place in hostile territory. A dungeon, a hostile controlled wilderness area, a hostile city, the underdark, whatever. At a lot of people's tables, foes are looking to kill you. If you've killed some of them already, they're actively searching you out, rallying alies, coordinating a search, preparing defenses, etc.. In addition, there...
    108 replies | 3713 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 04:24 PM
    Make clear the risks and trade-offs inherent in the challenge, then let the players make their own decisions. Err on the side of giving "too much" information rather than too little. Use whatever contrivances you can think of to impart that info in a way that makes sense in context. Perhaps a grizzled veteran adventurer faced such a challenge before and made the mistake of doing battle with the...
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 02:52 PM
    Time is an important resource in my adventures. It's yours to waste, but much like wasting hit points or spells, there may be consequences. In many cases, the longer you give the villain to prepare or complete his or her goals, the harder things get. To some extent, that may be desirable from the player's perspective as it potentially means more XP, but that must be weighed against the likelihood...
    50 replies | 1921 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 06:33 AM
    And your foes are never out looking for a fight when you're doing something else?
    108 replies | 3713 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 03:06 AM
    It sooooo does not. If combat only happens conveniently in the 1/3 of the day where you happen to have a spell up to protect from attacks, that's not verisimilitude. I know of no kind of setting where that just happens to work out that way because it's more believable. It's far less believable than the randomness of life causing some encounters when you're not expecting them. If you're somehow...
    108 replies | 3713 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 03:00 AM
    Wizards are not typically walking around with a 20 Dex. First priority for a Wizard is Int, because spellcasting is their thing. Second priority is their concentration checks, because concentration spells are their best spells. Which means a feat (War Caster, Lucky, whatever) and/or boost to Con (and you cannot dump Con). Which means your THIRD priority is Dex. You're not maxing your third...
    108 replies | 3713 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 02:19 AM
    It's really, truly not "always on". It can be easily dispelled (it's so low level it's auto-dispelled by dispel magic). And it only lasts for 1/3 of the day. If somehow you are never getting challenges for 2/3rd of every day, I suspect your DM is going very easy on you. There are entire spell categories (of good spells) which are specifically just to manage 1/3 of the day to get a long rest in...
    108 replies | 3713 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 01:04 AM
    It's not that it's complicated - it's just that it's more transactions per turn or round which necessarily takes longer than just the one, even with very capable players. Turn after turn, combat after combat, it adds up. An important part of DMing in my view is sharing the spotlight, that is, making sure that the PCs have more or less the same time in the spotlight over the course of the session....
    22 replies | 930 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 12:36 AM
    I think the biggest concern above all is: How much are your minions going to bog down the game? Because, frankly, they will, at least to some degree. In a game like mine which runs fast, it's very noticeable. When a player in my game wanted to play a necromancer, he had the good sense to ask me for my opinion on how many undead he could have at one time. I told him "When the game slows down...
    22 replies | 930 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 04:21 PM
    It's one of the better feats in the game, because of the type of ritual caster (which is the better type which most actual casters do not get). There are no "must have" feats in this game.
    108 replies | 3713 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 06:38 AM
    Oh my god. That was...wow. I think I failed my san check.
    1012 replies | 71828 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 06:07 PM
    XGtE has a section on awarding magic items over the course of a campaign. There's a sidebar in that section that reveals the expected number of Treasure Hoards the PCs will uncover. You could perhaps base Individual Treasure rolls on those numbers, either following them exactly or by multiplying by some factor then seeding them among your NPCs and monsters. There are a number of random...
    18 replies | 897 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 06:29 AM
    3d6, in order. Str Int Wis Dex Con Chr.
    67 replies | 2009 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 04:20 AM
    There there, now. It's going to be OK. :)
    1012 replies | 71828 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 03:29 AM
    1. It's not shillagh. It's shillelagh. Pronounced Shil Lay Lee. 2. It's a video. Which you have not even watched. But you're dismissing it without watching. Which puts us at a standstill as you're hand waiving my rebuttal without seeing it. You should watch it and then reply.
    101 replies | 3092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 03:10 AM
    I got tired of linguistics discussions so I jumped 5 pages ahead to find...the same linguistic discussion with the same arguments being made. Is this discussion going anywhere other than people just repeating their same points hoping the other person just lets them have the last word?
    1012 replies | 71828 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 02:04 AM
    With one caveat. You MUST play with polytheism. No exceptions.* *I kid I kid! I know you run some alternative religious systems, and some day I would like to hear more about it.
    286 replies | 10803 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 11:46 PM
    You used the bonus feat to get essentially the thing they already have. One less bonus stat, and they move at the same speed because you're wearing heavy armor, remember? For melee using heavy armor and a shield? Naw, strength is the better stat there. But you could start with 13 str if you want, since they don't get harmed by heavy armor even without it.
    101 replies | 3092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 07:31 PM
    I don't even understand the objection that is being voiced. The play loop and adjudication process is for all and sundry to see right there in the rules of the game. It's not like we made it up. If there's an objection to it, take it up with Wizards of the Coast, I guess.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:21 PM
    Interesting that I've noted at least one responder who has said ranged attacking is overpowered in the past who also house ruled ranged attacking to make it much easier on the ranged attacker due to not having to deal with cover provided by an ally.
    28 replies | 1095 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:12 PM
    That out of combat d4 breaking games for you?
    132 replies | 65385 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 06:58 AM
    What does this sentence even mean? If you mean divine smite, Forge Clerics get that as well, AND they get Searing Smite. And at 6th level they get +1 to AC (and resistance to fire). And the get better domain spells, like Heat Metal. I'm telling yah, a Hill Dwarf Forge Cleric is a better build than your Variant Human Nature Cleric.
    101 replies | 3092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 06:38 AM
    That's the point, it does not scale via cleric level. It never scales. Meanwhile Primal Savagery scales up to 4d10 and thorn whip scaled up to 4d6 with a 30 foot reach and the ability to move a foe (and neither requires your hand to be full with a stick all the time). Shillelagh will never scale and will always be stuck at a max of 1d8+stat, which is already outclassed at level 5 by Primal...
    101 replies | 3092 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 02:04 AM
    Why did some ShadyCharacter cast raise dead on a thread that died three years ago for this?
    132 replies | 65385 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 01:57 AM
    I don't think so. I do think it would be fair to say with your first attack in each round, you may attack a second time with an off-hand weapon. Just get rid of it requiring a bonus action.
    232 replies | 9960 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 11:23 PM
    The determination of whether a task has an uncertain outcome and the meaningful consequence of failure, which precedes the introduction and use of the game mechanics (ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, etc.), is DM fiat which is enshrined in the rules via the play loop and adjudication process. Fiat is inescapable in this rules system. It is the first resort.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 07:35 PM
    Change "should" to "could" and I think you got it.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:38 PM
    I just say when a target has cover and what kind and the player says "Okay" and acts accordingly. I do my best to make that apparent well before the attack is declared by working it into my description of the environment. That way, there's no surprises.
    28 replies | 1095 view(s)
    5 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:18 PM
    As I mentioned upthread, many DMs in my experience jump to the mechanics before they give much consideration to the play loop and adjudication process which comes first. If someone draws a blade - initiative! If someone tells a lie - deception! But this is skipping an important part of the DM's role and, frankly, it shows in their resulting play experience.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 04:43 PM
    I think Forge Cleric still makes your best melee cleric. You don't need shillelagh. It's an overrated spell. It does not hold up well beyond low levels, because that d8 never goes up, and that just cannot keep up with expected damage outputs at higher levels regardless of your Wisdom. You will need strength, but it doesn't need to be maxed because you can make a magic weapon. And by 4th or...
    101 replies | 3092 view(s)
    2 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 04:19 PM
    Right. That section specifically says the play loop applies to all situations in D&D 5e and does call out combat as being a bit more structured but otherwise follows the same pattern. See also DMG page 237 wherein the specific process the DM follows to determine if some kind of roll is appropriate is laid out. That being, the task's outcome has to fall somewhere between impossible and...
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 04:05 PM
    That sounds like something a chaotic neutral potion maker might brew up on a Tuesday.
    1012 replies | 71828 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 02:23 PM
    Harzel: What Ovinomancer said.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    0 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:53 AM
    I don't have experience with public games, but I have run a lot of pickup games with random players on Roll20. As well, my regular group and some other groups in which I play each have a pool of players they use to fill five seats per session. This is actually a very good setup because it means fewer scheduling hassles. If the DM can run the game, there's enough players in the pool to fill out at...
    11 replies | 480 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mistwell's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:58 AM

    352 replies | 12418 view(s)
    1 XP
  • iserith's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 06:36 PM
    On the lava bit, the "improvising damage" rules in the DMG pegs "wading through a lava stream" as 10d10 damage and "being submerged in lava" as 18d10 damage. The latter seems appropriate for a fall into a lava pit.
    178 replies | 5663 view(s)
    2 XP
More Activity
About Corwin

Basic Information

About Corwin
About Me:
Married, 3 kids (one an aspiring gamer)
Location:
Los Angeles, CA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,865
Posts Per Day
0.29
Last Post
The Tortle Package Coming Soon... Thursday, 14th September, 2017 10:07 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
3
General Information
Join Date
Tuesday, 22nd January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

3 Friends

  1. AaronOfBarbaria AaronOfBarbaria is offline

    Member

    AaronOfBarbaria
  2. iserith iserith is offline

    Member

    iserith
  3. Mistwell Mistwell is offline

    Member

    Mistwell
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3
No results to show...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 6th May, 2017

  • 05:05 AM - Quickleaf mentioned Corwin in post The Fighter Problem
    ...like reading 'Cleric' and thinking of clerical work...), and the abilities of the class deliver on the basic commonalities of that implied range of archetypes to a degree. Yet the class also works as a building block, adding martial skill to a character that needs more than it's current class(es) provide. It's got issues, like Extra Attack, but they're not a function of trying to present a recognizable archetype. Even the PDK sub-class has an option to scrub it off its Comyrean origins and 'membership' fluff and make it a more build-tool-appropriate 'banneret.' If anything, the impediments to using 5e (sub)-classes as build tools are more mechanical (sub-classes kicking in at different levels, the attendant inability to combine features locked away in two different subs of the same class, ASI's being linked to class rather than character level, etc) than in-support-of-archetype. Mhmm. There's a school of thought being promulgated in the discussion by Cap'n Kobold and *I think* Corwin, probably others as well, that a subclass is really entirely (or vastly predominantly) a mechanistic thing. They use subclass as a build tool, nothing more, and furthermore want the game designed to support that kind of approach. I would describe the Fighter subclasses as being born from that school of thought. My thinking is more similar to yours, that a subclass (or any game element) should be a balanced combo of narrative and mechanics, but that the origin point, the conception of that subclass (or game element) needs to be narrative first – speaking of D&D here (not, for example, GURPS) – and then the mechanics are born out of that narrative second. Btw Corwin that's what I mean when I say "story first."

Thursday, 27th April, 2017

  • 05:48 PM - Oofta mentioned Corwin in post Menacing and Diplomat from UA Skill Feats
    Corwin, I'm done. To summarize: The feat is clear. The player can do an intimidate check opposed by an insight check instead of an attack action. The DM calls for a dice roll if the result of a skill check is uncertain. During a combat A player declares an action, that they are using their attack action to intimidate. You are not allowing that action, or you are telling the player that it automatically fails.
  • 05:15 PM - Oofta mentioned Corwin in post Menacing and Diplomat from UA Skill Feats
    Corwin, I'm tired of this. You keep stating that the DM can just ignore the stated action of the player, I think that's a very adversarial role. As far as "the DM decides when", all I can think of is that you're referring to the ability checks section of the rules. Page 58 basic rules: Ability Checks An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. The only reason the outcome of an intimidate check would be certain is because you've decided that it will automatically fail, even if the target is not immune to fear. You've decided that because of the plot, the target cannot be intimidated. That's no different than saying "you can't attempt a grapple attack because it's important to the plot that they escape." It's...

Wednesday, 26th April, 2017

  • 07:53 PM - robus mentioned Corwin in post Magic Missile vs. Mirror Image
    "Hits" refers to a successful attack roll? I dint know that. I am actually interested on the source for that if you have one Arial? Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. Given that the targeting is based on vision it seems amazing to me that the caster can choose the right target from 4 identical images (one of which is real)? Thanks for the reminder on how tightly packed these mirror images are Corwin - that does seem a ridiculously close - nothing like I've ever seen in a movie!
  • 03:14 PM - SkidAce mentioned Corwin in post Nonstandard Races You Love And Want Back
    ...but thats a pretty nice looking monstor Corwin.

Friday, 21st April, 2017

  • 10:40 PM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Corwin in post Mike Mearls interview - states that they may be getting off of the 2 AP/year train.
    I don't recall blocking you or anyone else. That's weird. I know I didn't block you, because I only block people who are outright jerks/abusive/etc, and at worst you're snarky, but I could only see your posts when other's quoted you. Same with Corwin, who I also didn't block. Did you block me, corwin? Until today, I couldn't see your posts unless someone else quoted you, and I don't even remember having an interaction with you that I would normally expect to end in blocking.

Thursday, 20th April, 2017

  • 10:24 PM - Satyrn mentioned Corwin in post Unearthed Arcana: Get Better At Skills With These Feats
    So you are starting an arms race. Power escalation is one of the things that killed 3.x, I'd rather not see it in 5E. Corwin's actually pushing for disarmament there :p He's saying that keeping a melee bruiser at bay is weak. I disagree with him. From my experience, it has been a win button, for my gnome battlemaster using menacing strike - although it's only worked out so very well once; but then the save DC is only 13! If It was jacked up high my gnome would be a fearsome beast, all would tremble in fear at his approach . . . so long as his superiority dice last. But regardless, I'll say it again for those who missed it: The feat looks far better than taking Martial Adept for Menacing Strike and its one! use per rest (if you don't spend the SD on Parry for a bit of healing instead).
  • 07:45 PM - Lanliss mentioned Corwin in post Unearthed Arcana: Get Better At Skills With These Feats
    All I can say is that I can guarantee that some players I've DMed for would be upset if the feat does not work as written. That may not be your experience, I don't know your players. In my experience (I've judged many, many, tables in AL type games over the years) I would say that 10-20% of players would be upset if I told them their target of a successful check was not frightened. Heck, I would disagree with a DM that told me that the attack action I just used to knock someone prone had no effect simply because the DM decided it shouldn't be possible. Many people would not see this feat any differently. Corwin is pointing out that there shouldn't be a check. You are assuming the player has made a check, which is only supposed to happen if the DM says "OK make an intimidation check". If the DM says there is no check, how can the player get mad about a "Successful check" if there was never one in the first place to be successful or unsuccessful? If they get mad about something completely reasonable, like some random Adventurer being unable to strike Terror into the heart of the Right Hand of Terror, then you have bigger problems than a poorly written ability. The way you are describing these players, they follow Corwin's second scenario above. Player declares they are rolling a check, rolls, and asks for the result. The way it is meant to be played, by raw, is that the Player declares an action (I want to try and intimidate him), and the dm decides if that is even possible. Otherwise, why wouldn't the player just say "I pick up the mountain and THROW it. *rolls Nat 20*". If the action is im...

Saturday, 11th March, 2017

  • 05:11 PM - Imaro mentioned Corwin in post What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
    Welcome to officially being a warlord hater. Oh, what's that? You didn't think you were one? Don't worry, someone will be along any minute to 'splain it to you and assure you that you are. It's h4ter @Corwin... if you don't spell it like that you are disrespecting those who gave up their lives during the great edition war and denying that the great edition war ever existed... :p

Wednesday, 22nd February, 2017

  • 11:50 PM - Lanefan mentioned Corwin in post Balance of Power Problems in 5e: Self created?
    Well, I did use the phrase "not universally popular solution". But just to be clear - are you suggesting that the best typical solution to the problem of an "imbalanced" or "expertise-gap" build of PCs by the players is to recruit another player? Perhaps on condition the player play a PC of a certain class (eg burglar)?Caution caution caution! Before this goes right down the rabbit hole, Corwin are you using the term "player" to mean "character" (as so many mistakenly do) or do you in fact mean a new real-world person actually sitting at the table? Lanefan

Friday, 17th February, 2017

  • 11:33 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Corwin in post How to deal with Metagaming as a player?
    ...ampfire instead of their sword to fight the unknown creature attacking while they were tending the fire at camp one night? 2) Assuming the answer to the above is the "Yes" that I am positive it will be, why can't I role-play the same thing? And I wouldn't want a person like that in my games because that's super annoying.I agree that someone playing not in good faith is super annoying. I just don't agree with the idea that an experienced player such as myself playing their character in a way that any inexperienced player could is a valid example of playing not in good faith. You're the kind of player who...I'll stop you right there. Anything I've mentioned in these discussions which I have not explicitly said is an actual example of me playing a character is not an actual example of me playing a character or how I would play a character. So you really don't know enough to be making determinations as to what kind of player I am. It reeks of cheatingI think this touches back on what Corwin said about the people stressing over metagaming often being the ones that are trying to inflict "gotcha" style game-play on their players. Water breathing at a character's precautions whim seems like cheating because the DM is thinking "Hey, no fair! Now my super lethal surprise that I made sure your characters couldn't possibly counter is ruined." Where-as in my game, it just seems like someone being cautious... but then, there would also be clues for the characters to have picked up on like the smell of mildew, or damp surfaces, or muffled sounds of water, that indicate what upcoming challenges might involve. But that is a play-style thing, as I prefer traps to be a thing players interact with, rather than spots on the map that functionally do auto-damage when someone passes them. ...and the excuses as to why it wasn't the use of meta-game knowledge sound shady, as well as not-convincing.Trying to phrase this thought in as many ways as possible so that it might actually click for...

Wednesday, 28th December, 2016

  • 10:21 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Corwin in post Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
    ...wn to DPR and only DPR. There is the Shield Master feat, which is pretty cool. It allows you to use a bonus action to shove a creature when you attack, which either knocks them back 5 feet or knocks them prone. That's a pretty solid option since all your attacks after that would have advantage on that target as long as the shove worked. Then it also allows you to add your shield's AC bonus to Dex saves. And it also allows you to use your reaction to take no damage on a successful Dex save when you would otherwise take half damage (like a fireball or lightning bolt). The sad thing is that such a feat may be a great option for a melee combatant. But because we can't easily calculate the increase in the amount of damage that it may lead to, it won't even be considered in these discussions. But even so, opportunity attacks are still being overvalued here. I don't think they are at all. I don't think that you're realizing or at least acknowledging how they actually affect play. Corwin summarizes it pretty well. Keeping enemies at bay and helping dictate who they focus their attacks on is a huge factor. And yes, the melee warrior still will carry a ranged weapon, but he is far more penalized for fighting at range than the ranged warrior is for fighting in melee. I agree with you there, if specific feats are taken by the archer. I would expect that the melee fighter would have other feats that will boost his performance in another aspect of play. DPR isn't everything. But yes, archers are not as limited in melee as melee is limited at range, assuming certain feats, in a comparison of DPR. However, let's say that the melee fighter has taken the Heavy Armor Master and Tough feats. So he's taking 3 points less damage per hit than the archer is taking (assuming non-magic weapons), and has more HP to spare. He is more capable of taking damage than the ranged specialist, and therefore, at less risk while in melee. Comparing the amount of damage each can take instead...

Thursday, 1st December, 2016

  • 07:57 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Corwin in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    I've explained my position...but when someone jumps in and makes a claim (i.e. the lore for Eladrin has been the same throughout all editions) then it's not on me to support said claim by spoonfeeding them the very lore they claim hasn't changed and thus they should be aware of....it's on them to show the lore hasn't changed. I've given 2 pretty big differences (Celestials & a species as opposed to subrace of elves) I've read through all this thread, and all I understand is that you and @Corwin strongly disagree about something involving the Celestial Medicated Elf thingies and/or lore changes (or not lore changes!) in 4e, and that you both are quite good at various ways at saying, "Nope, you don't get it. Read what I already wrote." IME, you spend less time if you just explain your position than if you continue saying the other person is wrong and should be able to figure it out themselves. YMMV! So, here's a template! I don't like the changes to the Elfadrin. As originally presented in 2e, they were natives of Arborea, and Celestial beings. For example, see this snippet from the webpage- https://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-570498.html The idea that they were celestials continued until 4e. At the point, although some of their extraplanar nature continued (with the Fey connection), they really became just another elf. Now, the thread I pointed to has some reasons for that, but this change in 4e impacted lore because {insert reasons, such as changing Elfadrins, chang...
  • 07:35 PM - Imaro mentioned Corwin in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    @Imaro, @Corwin, Guys- I have often found it productive, when there is a disagreement, to try and articulate my position and see if I can explain my position a little better, or at least find out where the real disagreement is. Otherwise, I end up in that whole, "Arguing about arguing," cycle that ends in tears, heartache, and eventually being blocked. Or get a room! Who am I to judge? After all, some of our finest romcoms are based on bickering. I've explained my position...but when someone jumps in and makes a claim (i.e. the lore for Eladrin has been the same throughout all editions) then it's not on me to support said claim by spoonfeeding them the very lore they claim hasn't changed and thus they should be aware of....it's on them to show the lore hasn't changed. I've given 2 pretty big differences (Celestials & a species as opposed to subrace of elves) already which Corwin didn't address... I'm not going to spend the time listing out more. Edit: Just for reference... Nope. Eladrin lore ...
  • 07:25 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Corwin in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    Imaro, @Corwin, Guys- I have often found it productive, when there is a disagreement, to try and articulate my position and see if I can explain my position a little better, or at least find out where the real disagreement is. Otherwise, I end up in that whole, "Arguing about arguing," cycle that ends in tears, heartache, and eventually being blocked. Or get a room! Who am I to judge? After all, some of our finest romcoms are based on bickering.

Wednesday, 16th November, 2016


Tuesday, 8th November, 2016

  • 12:31 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Corwin in post UA to Become Weekly! Pendleton Ward Helped On New AP!
    So what, we are supposed to like everything they come up with?No, and no one said that you are either. What Corwin was getting at is that some folks (note: that doesn't necessarily mean you specifically) refuse to count anything WotC has released that A) they didn't want, or B) they wanted but not in the way that WotC chose to do it as being actual options - i.e. someone saying that WotC has released no new player options between the PHB because the Elemental Evil Player's Guide doesn't count because you have to buy it online, and the SCAG doesn't count because it says "Sword Coast" even though the character options in the book are usable in any campaign setting.

Friday, 4th November, 2016

  • 12:14 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Corwin in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    Sure sounds that way. Again, you were. Quit saying things you don't mean, and maybe the thread velocity will get back under control. ;P With a very few exceptions, like the EK & AT (3.5 DMG), the character options in the 5e PH were pulled from prior ed PH1s. I believe that Corwin is talking more about character possibilities given combinations of class, subclass, class options, background, and feats as provided in the 5E PHB. Those options can be used to achieve many character concepts that were added later on in prior editions as classes unto themselves. So, for instance, do we need a Swashbuckler class released in a splat book when you can very clearly create a Swadhbucklet type of character with just the options in the PHB? He's saying that many of the options added later inprior editions have already been taken into consideration, even if not in class for class manner. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, necessarily, but I think that there is at least some truth to the idea.

Thursday, 3rd November, 2016

  • 09:53 PM - jayoungr mentioned Corwin in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    The ongoing discussion between Tony Vargas and Corwin about whether 5E has more character options than ever or is fewer than ever looks like a disagreement about what sort sorts of 5E character options should be counted in the tally. Full classes only? Classes and subclasses? Classes plus subclasses plus backgrounds? Classes plus subclasses plus backgrounds plus racial features? All of the above plus feats?
  • 04:49 PM - Xeviat mentioned Corwin in post Battle Master vs. Eldritch Knight
    Corwin, yeah, some threads got crossed there. Reading and posting on my phone makes it hard to keep track of everyone. They still have a limited number of spells per day, though. Any utility function will eat into their combat. My games use the full Daily XP guidelines of the DMG's encounter building section. Perhaps that makes me more sensitive to combat imbalances. Really, my main objection is that lower level BM. It makes the Champion look dismal and the EK look bad. Someone here said that maneuvers were reasonably comparable to first level spells. If that's so, they have way too many to start. As for what balance means, it's when people don't overshadow other people in their niche. I suppose a BM and an EK in the same party could and would probably have different niches. Balance is also when one choice doesn't overwhelm all others at its time, becoming the only choice. Perhaps the difference between EK and BM keeps that from happening, even if the BM is a combat monster for a few lev...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 59 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Thursday, 14th September, 2017

  • 10:52 PM - darjr quoted Corwin in post The Tortle Package Coming Soon...
    Gawd, I hope this will be AL legal! I can already hear all the hard eye-rolling at all the tables as so many players invariably bring out their tortle monks. Please yes... It's legal.

Thursday, 6th July, 2017

  • 10:07 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Corwin in post Hidden
  • 02:35 PM - Ovinomancer quoted Corwin in post the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
    Considering your last two posts are so indicative of your posting style, I'm not certain how you can hope to be seen as taking any kind of high road. Between my last two posts and your last two posts, guess which ones are in violation of the forum rules... And I applaud your skill at dancing the line.

Wednesday, 5th July, 2017

  • 11:50 PM - shoak1 quoted Corwin in post What does balance mean to you?
    Are you saying you disagree with my theory that there are some systems/editions better suited for certain types of individuals? And that maybe the same can be said of game forums? no and no....But I suspect you weren't really interested in discussing that point, but rather your intent was to tell me that if I don't like this edition I should play another, and if I don't like this forum I can go to another. And THAT is not cool imo. Of course maybe I'm wrong - apologies if I misunderstood your intent there....
  • 10:26 PM - Ovinomancer quoted Corwin in post the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
    I don't see the issue with raising up old threads, if the topic is something you wish to contribute something to. Heck, sometimes its even fun, or enlightening, to stroll down memory lane. IMX, I've noticed people sometimes get the most upset about such things when it contains unflattering posts they rather not be brought back to the surface and hoped they'd've stayed buried and forgotten... Ah, good old Corwin, doing the vaguely insulting comments about unspecified posters bit, hoping someone's gonna bite. Don't change, mang.
  • 10:23 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Corwin in post What does balance mean to you?
    Given that as true, what do you think *is* the primary reason some people find little-to-no imbalance issues with some of these things you find so egregiously troubling? That's a question as old as imbalanced games, and the answers haven't changed: You don't find them because they don't directly affect you, or because you don't look for them, or because you can't see them, or because you take uncovered faults personally so deny them even to yourself, or because you're making good use of them & don't want to lose that, or because you like to argue and the 'there's a problem' side is taken.... ...or because they're not there... ...they're still not very comfortable answers, either. I think many of you are quick to assume that perceived imbalances are due to people not playing the game as intended - and that really couldn't be farther from the truth (in my case at least, but I think in the case of many/most such complaints by others). Nailing down what's 'intended' isn't as cut & dr...
  • 07:58 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Corwin in post What does balance mean to you?
    Absolutely correct. Once this expectation is internalized, then it becomes easy to see what must be done in my view. And it's why I find complaints about "balance" to be, as I put it and shoak1 quotes as an example of me being mean (I guess), laughable and demonstrative of the poster's misunderstanding. In order to internalize that fixing balance issues is the DM's responsibility, and especially, in order to actually do so successfully, we must also acknowledge that those issues exist, and are in no way laughable. You have perfectly valid positions here - but you just present them as fact rather than as a position - without a nod to other perspectives or even any qualifying adjectives. Well, I do say 'should' rather than 'is' in the first case, so it's clearly a value I hold rather than a fact. In the second, case, though, it's a fact of how 5e was designed & presented, and 5e is (and WotC has been), I think, quite open about that - I'm not sure how it could be interpreted as being oth...
  • 07:04 PM - shoak1 quoted Corwin in post What does balance mean to you?
    You've insulted people who don't agree with you, said your way is the only right way and others' just don't get it while accusing others of One True Wayism, and then try to play the victim by saying you're being attacked and treated as unwelcome. After reading your cherry-picked snippets from "my side," I decided to do a little cherry-picking of snippets from "your side.": This is why I find complaints about "balance" in D&D 5e to be laughable. The people doing the complaining reveal their misunderstanding with every post. I think 5e's direction has been very clear. Stop trying to get hung up on analysis paralysis by trying to balance everything when most gamers really couldn't care less. Incredible. I was just going to tell Sacrosanct the same thing. How did you know? "A game without balance?! All is chaos...there can be no meaning to anything...it ends up in nihilism" That there, my friend, is what we who deal in logic like to call reductio ad absurdum. Nope, not a Harry Potter incan...
  • 04:08 PM - shoak1 quoted Corwin in post What does balance mean to you?
    Hippie! ?!?!? Buuuuuuut I don't even own any granola ! And I like to leave my big fat carbon boot print everywhere I go !!! Fine! Whatever !!!!!!.... (Steve storms off to sulk, using his best impression of his 13 yr old daughter)
  • 03:48 PM - shoak1 quoted Corwin in post What does balance mean to you?
    Just as there are some systems/editions better suited for certain types of individuals, maybe the same can be said of game forums? Just a wild theory... "I know right? But then again, maybe all forums (like all systems/editions) should be accommodating of diversity? Just a wild theory of mine......."

Friday, 30th June, 2017

  • 05:19 PM - Soul Stigma quoted Corwin in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    (yawn) You're just further reassuring me that 5e isn't for you. Evidently hyperbolic complaining is, though. So keep doing what you're doing, I guess. (shrug) Board games perhaps.
  • 01:54 PM - clearstream quoted Corwin in post Is my DM being fair?
    Only if I'm allowed to voluntarily lower my initiative to 12 or less if I roll higher. The last thing I'd want to do is roll a 13 initiative. That would basically mean I'm going "last". That's a good point: we don't want to make fast reflexes a bad thing! Due to concerns of that kind, the alternative we're playtesting is simply moving the instigator to the top of the initiative order.
  • 10:33 AM - shoak1 quoted Corwin in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    Not every system is designed to cater to every player or their preferences. Have you considered a more robust ruleset/edition? One better suited to your table's preferences? LOL perhaps you are trying to be helpful but it seems whenever anyone doesn't like something about 5e, the wagons get circled and we get tossed dozens of variations of these suggestions: 1) "If you perceive a problem, relax - just have the DM change the rule to suit your table. D and D is soooo awesome that way!" (big smile) 2) "Perhaps you should try a different game more suited to your (cough) "preferences""? 3) "Why get worked up over something as trivial as combat or balance?" (confused look) "Don't you know D and D is an rpg, not a wargame?" If you hardcore rpgers started seeing giant stat blocks and multi page encounter diagrams replacing your yummy background, history, and motivations in modules, you would be crying foul too. And odds are you wouldn't find the above 3 suggestions "helpful." "Gee why you gettin...
  • 03:50 AM - Lanefan quoted Corwin in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    I'm willing to put hard earned dollars there are a lot of modules, released over D&D's long life, that you haven't read. Yet you are willing to speak to them all and what they should have in them. But since you haven't read them all, hard to say for sure...You might be a bit surprised by just how many I have read - and own, particularly from the 0e-1e era: what's missing from my collection is a quite short list. I've also read a fair number from the 2e era, some from the 3e/d20 era, some from 4e, and some from 5e. That's the official TSR-WotC stuff, mind you. I've also read (and own) some 3rd-party stuff for all editions except 4e (including some truly awful 3rd-party dreck from the d20 era that discouraged me from wanting to read more) though it's nigh impossible to keep up with all of it particularly now the DM's Guild is going. In any case, I think I've read enough to have given myself half a clue what makes a good module and what doesn't. :) Lanefan

Thursday, 29th June, 2017

  • 08:06 PM - Lanefan quoted Corwin in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    Just to be clear, is your reply to me a refutation that complaints, such as the example I provided, would occur?In general, while there'll always be those who complain about anything, I think adding this sort of thing in would reduce the complaints overall rather than increase them. By your own admission, modules have been doing this throughout D&D's long, illustrious history.SOME modules have. Not all, and by no means enough. So I'm not sure what's all that "new" about your ideas here. Heck, CoS does this exact thing.Good to hear. I haven't read it and thus didn't realize this. Are you basically suggesting that every module would be served by such an if-then outline? IMX, very few things are universally a good idea.Offhand I can't think of any module that would be made worse by having an if-then outline or a development track; though as I noted before such things would be more beneficial to some modules than others. Lanefan
  • 08:19 AM - Lanefan quoted Corwin in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    ...Followed immediately by a great many cries of, [I]"This module was terrible! The timeline was useless! My players didn't do anything the writer projected.The timeline is what happens only if the PCs (in effect) do nothing. The point isn't to project what the PCs will do, or how they'll do it, but instead to give a suggested sequence of events (if any) that'll reasonably happen if the PCs take too long. It could also be used - and has been, in some modules - as a guideline for 'what' happens 'when' even if the PCs get bang at it; even if it's someting so simple as "At any mealtimes the BBEG will be in area 6; at night she sleeps in area 15; otherwise on day 1 she will be found in areas 13-15, on Day 2 she'll be surveying the final construction of the UberWeapon in area 18, and on Day 3 she'll be in areas 13-15 until noon after which she'll proceed to area 18 to oversee the initial test procedure..." Lanefan

Wednesday, 21st June, 2017

  • 07:44 PM - FormerlyHemlock quoted Corwin in post the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
    Is it fun to feign the high ground? Irregardless, when are you going to get around to explaining what any of what you've said so far has to do with my original post you quoted? It's the Internet. Sometimes people go off on wild tangents of free-association.
  • 07:43 PM - FormerlyHemlock quoted Corwin in post the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
    Is it fun to feign the high ground? Irregardless, when are you going to get around to explaining what any of what you've said so far has to do with my original post you quoted? It's the Internet. Sometimes people go off on wild tangents of free-association.
  • 06:26 PM - Ovinomancer quoted Corwin in post the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
    Oh, I see now. You weren't actually addressing my posts or points. Just quoting me seemingly at random then going off on tangents. Copy that. Heh, the old 'don't quote stealth response' paired with the 'nuh-uh, YOU are!' You're a fun bag of trick, Corwin, don't change!
  • 03:45 PM - Ovinomancer quoted Corwin in post the dex warrior - why make a strength based one?
    Wait. How is a fighter get 3-shots-per-round at only 3rd level? Are you sure you are familiar enough with how 5e works to be having this conversation? You do realize that even if you have crossbow expert, for variant human, the extra attack from the feat takes your bonus action, right? And that you only get one bonus action per turn? And that you need a free hand to load a crossbow, even with the feat removing the load property? So dual-wielding them is still out there too. Maybe you are saying the fighter is using his action surge to get the third shot in? Sure, I guess. But that's only once per short rest. Not reliably every round, as my example noted. Also, that you consider bags of holding, portable holes, and quivers of Elhonna are common in your 3rd-level games, I'm even more sure you aren't speaking to the baseline assumptions of 5e. Sure, you can play it that way. More power to you. But I'd caution you not to presume others are playing it like that. Again, it's okay that you sel...


Page 1 of 59 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Corwin's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites