View Profile: Maxperson - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • OB1's Avatar
    Today, 06:16 PM
    Lol. That’s what I get for posting before coffee!
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 02:21 PM
    Sure, but we also know about draining and when something is drained to death, what is drained doesn't come back. Bringing a vampire/wight drained corpse back to life still leaves you at 0 max hit points due to the draining, which is the condition necessary for instant death.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Today, 02:05 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 25 Deck of Illusions 9 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 12 Dust of Dryness 17 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 4-2=0 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26 Folding Boat 24
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:44 PM
    On the other hand, if something says, "When all your walls are turned to jell-o, the house collapses.", it is expected to be ongoing. Nobody is going to think that the next day the walls on the collapsed house are no longer jell-o. You are going to have to fix those walls before the house can be rebuilt.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:30 PM
    The spells don't go away until they are cast. Well, in the books they eventually go stale, but that takes weeks at least, possibly months. A high level wizard would not need to spend hours daily unless they ran themselves out of spells. Also, in the books there didn't appear to be any limit to the number you could hang as long as you spent the time to do it, but of course that wouldn't work...
    13 replies | 403 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:18 PM
    Probably not, but the Pixie penchant for wood gave us the Pixie Stick.
    112 replies | 3319 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:11 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 25 Deck of Illusions 9 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 12 Dust of Dryness 17 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 4 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25 Folding Boat 24
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:09 PM
    You seem to have missed the part early in the thread where it appears like corpses are intended to count as creatures. You can remove curse on an object, but not cure diseases, yet Raise Dead states you need to cure the corpse of magical diseases before raising. Just cast greater restoration or something on the corpse before it comes back to life.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:39 AM
    In this case neither is general, though. The specific beats general section lists both monster abilities and spells as examples of specific rules. Both the vampire drain and raise spell are specific rules, and there's no rule about what happens when two specific rules collide. It's clearly a DM call on this one.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:34 AM
    The blood portion was pretty irrelevant, though, which I mentioned in a prior post. The max hit points hitting zero and dying is the important part. Whether from a wight or from a vampire, the effect is the effect. That said, the OP is very clear that it was death by Vampire. No wight was mentioned. I agree that it works. Then, because the hit point maximum is 0 and death happens at...
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    1 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:25 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 10 Dimensional Shackles 21 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 14 Dust of Dryness 16 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 5-2=3 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 10 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:17 PM
    Fine. I want my $0 back, and I'm charging 100% interest daily.
    112 replies | 3319 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:26 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 12 Dimensional Shackles 21 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 14 Dust of Dryness 16 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 7 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 9 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:13 PM
    The mechanic, "Dies when max hit points are 0 from the vampire bite." remains, though. The blood loss was just mentioned, because it's a freaking vampire that just drained you via a bite. It's pretty obvious that no blood is why the PC died from that mechanic. You would only survive if the DM believes that the Raise Dead spell restores the hit point maximum to normal. Me, I don't see the...
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:34 AM
    As I pointed out, RAW states that temporary hit points do not stabilize people or restore consciousness, so they wouldn't work in this case. The victim would just die again. Aid might work since it raises the hit point maximum for 8 hours, which would allow him to both survive and take a long rest. At least as long as the DM doesn't rule that the victim dies again before the spell can be cast.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:05 AM
    Coma isn't a condition, so I would think it would be death. They still meet all the necessary conditions to die. Drained to 0 max hit points by the bite. I can see that and I wouldn't argue such a ruling in a game. I'm just not sure if I would go that way or not as DM. I definitely would not allow temporary hit points to work. They specify that they don't stop unconsciousness or...
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:31 AM
    The rule is, though, that you die at 0 max hit points from the blood loss of the vampire bite. That 0 max hit points is still in effect the moment the Raise Dead is cast. The PC would just die again.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:11 AM
    Okay. Again, I was talking in the context social interactions, since that's what pretty much the entire thread has been about. None of those examples is a social interaction. The social aspect of a PC is inextricably intertwined with the player. You can't separate the two in order to challenge the PC, but not the player. It used to be the case that you could choose to fail saves. 5e...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:59 AM
    At was an attack and uncalled for. If you don't have a constructive response to my arguments, don't mention or respond to me.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:34 PM
    That seems reasonable, too.
    14 replies | 509 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:32 PM
    That seems very reasonable to me.
    14 replies | 509 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:15 PM
    My first thought was corpse seems like it should be an object, not a creature, so Greater Restoration wouldn't work. However, when I read Raise Dead, it mentioned needing to cure magical diseases on the target prior to being raised, so it does seem like a corpse can be the target of such spells.
    78 replies | 1621 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:15 PM
    This is where you go very wrong. Before the hard decision, I did not know X about my character. Until I made the decision, X was still unknown to me. After the decision, X is now known to me. That's a discovery about the character, which makes it something I learned. How many times over the years after someone ends up in a unique situation and makes a hard decision, have we heard, "So...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 04:28 PM
    Regardless of whether or not it was "semantics," and it wasn't, the two definitions of challenge are still of great importance to this thread. The claim that a challenge can't happen unless there is a win/loss scenario going on is outright false. You can in fact have a challenge of the difficult choice where there is no win/loss possibility. :yawn: Your Ad Hominems bore me. Either respond...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:57 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 22 Deck of Illusions 14 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 9 Dust of Disappearance 16 Dust of Dryness 15 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 10 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 12 Figurine of Wondrous Power 23
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:54 PM
    Nor is it one unless you falsely accuse me of semantics and engage in an Ad Hominem attack against me like this one. Semantics is not different ways to define something. It's saying the same thing in a different way, which I did not do. The distinctly different definitions of challenge do not end up at the same place. They are different kinds of challenges. Take your false semantics...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:45 PM
    All of those ARE valid responses and within the social contract depending what it is that the supper suggester is suggesting. If for example, he's suggesting that the paladin murder his own sister, that suggesting is going to fail no matter how persuasive the NPC(barring magic of course). It could also result in being ignored, combat or something else entirely. Without an actual scenario,...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:34 PM
    By one limited definition of challenge, sure. By other definitions of challenge that's simply wrong. You can in fact be challenged without a win/lose scenario happening. verb verb: challenge; 3rd person present: challenges; past tense: challenged; past participle: challenged; gerund or present participle: challenging 1. invite (someone) to engage in a contest. "he challenged one...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 01:32 PM
    This is what I have been saying. Something happens outside of the control of the player that can have a profound effect on the PC. Now the hard choice is happening. In this example, there is one difference from what I have been talking about, and one possible difference. The difference is the multiple scene aspect. I agree with that actually. Generally(not always) it will take multiple...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:43 AM
    I said that in the context of the social challenge, though. Socially, I don't believe it is possible. That depends. If the PC is going to take a shot and the NPC goes for a steal or block, then it would be an opposed challenge in my opinion. You could term it a mini-challenge if you want, but it's still a contest.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:21 AM
    But all that shared fiction is in the minds of the players and DM. Only the sheet, dice, etc. are independent of that. It might be possible to challenge the character purely mechanically, but not socially. The social construct of the character is entirely mental, and entirety of the character's personality is inside the player of that PC. Others can interact with the character in the shared...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:06 AM
    The character is really just a sheet of paper. It's the player inhabiting the idea of the character that gives it life. That's why I don't understand this idea that you can challenge the character socially, without challenging the player. When Umbran said that I was switching the challenge from the character to the player, I had a vision of Leslie Nielson in an interrogation room with a...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 02:05 PM
    There is always One Katana to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
    24 replies | 758 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:19 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 11 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 15 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 17 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 13 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 14 Figurine of Wondrous Power 21
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:06 PM
    By making the hard choice obviously. I you can't fail to pick a choice, but none of the choices may be what you want, so there is no success. Challenge has more than one definition and not of them are binary. Trying to limit a challenge to success or failure is a False Dichotomy.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:20 AM
    I've seen this mentioned twice now. I ask "why" all the time. Not in an effort to police the action, but to understand the action. If the player is getting from A to C and I don't understand how the PC got there, I'm going to ask why. The follow-up explanation sometimes helps me narrate the response properly or better. I also award bonus XP based on good roleplaying, and a lack of...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:14 AM
    It's probably a good thing for me, then, that success/fail challenges are just one type of challenge and I can indeed be challenged in ways that are not success/fail.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:07 AM
    I'm not changing anything. I AM the character, including its core. When I am in a roleplaying challenge, I'm viewing it from the point of view of my character and making a decision that my character would. The challenge is to the core of the character. I'm just making the decision, because I'm the one that best knows the circumstances and the PC himself. This isn't the same, though. ...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 06:39 PM
    That's simply untrue. I have been in a position where I can make the decision and I have been plenty challenged. I am frequently significantly challenged by situations that come up in game. Which way do I go with my character? It's not certain until the decision is made, which occurs after the challenge. The result of that challenge may be in my total control, but the challenge is there.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 02:13 PM
    I don't often get the chance to play other games, so when I do get that chance, I jump on it. The chance of pace is refreshing and I get to see how other games do things.
    80 replies | 2506 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 02:03 PM
    I agree. When you live in a world where you know for a certainty that the other religions are as real as yours, you are less likely to to ignore them. It's easy in the real world for someone to just discount the others as false and focus on the one true way.
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:42 PM
    Pics of monsters you've killed or it didn't happen buddy! I think I'll pass on that. I'm secure in my knowledge. :p
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:24 PM
    :eek: You're right.
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:23 PM
    Sure, but that applies to most of the things that he does have proficiency in. I've had fighters use one and only one type of weapon from level 1-20(not in 5e yet, but the 5e is no different), but he got better in all of them. The same with some of the skills. There's no reason he should get better in those things with proficiency that he's not practicing at all just by virtue of having...
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:18 PM
    I've known a number of Rabbis and Preachers who not only studied other religions, but enjoyed meeting with leaders of other religions and engaging them in discussions. It's really interesting to hear them talk about it.
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:15 PM
    Joe is a barbarian. Haven't you ever read Chalker?
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:11 PM
    Because you're still 1st level. ;) On on even a less serious note, I'm better today at dodging fireballs and lightning bolts than I was 27 years ago.
    224 replies | 5488 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:06 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 21 Deck of Illusions 15 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 16 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 18 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 14 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 15 Figurine of Wondrous Power 24
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:59 AM
    Sure, and the DM can just say all the PCs are dead, too. Being able to do something doesn't mean that it's playing by the social contract. There is an expectation that the DM is going to be fair and follow the way the game is laid out. Sure. Games can build such things in. I've already said that those games aren't for me. I didn't deny their existence. There are many RPGs were that...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:14 AM
    Look through the Monster Manual and tell me how many mental/emotion control powers there are that don't give a save. D&D does demonstrate quite clearly that the DM is supposed to make these sorts of things resistible. And the comment on the number of saves is just odd. What does that have to do with anything we've been saying?
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:09 AM
    Yes it absolutely can happen if I don't want it do. I can approve all kinds of things I don't want to happen. For instance, even though I really don't want you to try and argue your incorrect position, I approve of your right to that kind of speech. I've not argued otherwise. If those sorts of games appeal to you, I'm truly glad that they exist for you to play. :) Again, I've...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:49 AM
    You really can't just say, "Nah, this has no impact." or it's not core to the personality of the character. A challenge to the core will have an impact either way it goes
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:25 PM
    Considering that on an internet forum you probably can't get a consensus on what consensus means, I doubt it. ;)
    227 replies | 8941 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:18 PM
    In my experience, those aren't horses, and trying to get one to wear horseshoes is a very, very bad idea.
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:16 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 22 Deck of Illusions 15 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 17 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 17 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 18 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 16 Figurine of Wondrous Power 26
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 06:12 AM
    Cool, but you've moved the goalposts. The debate is between zero risk and risk, not more risk and less risk. That you've acknowledged that there is at least some risk with me deciding the outcomes is enough for me. Some risk is all I've argued.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 06:09 AM
    It isn't about "want." I may want to remain a paragon of knightly virtue, but if the circumstances warrant a fall, it's going to happen whether I want it to or not. I'm not going to play in bad faith and avoid something that is warranted, just because I don't want it to happen. There's more risk with the random method. There is still risk with you deciding things..........if you're...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:07 AM
    I have no control over what the DM does that might impact my character's character, though. As he challenges me, sooner or later things will happen that cause my character to deviate that I have no control over. But you have no control over if or when an orc attacks. Going outside is a risk, because you might be attacked and sooner or later, playing with swords causes someone to lose...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 03:09 AM
    I can't think of any of my concepts that survived from conception to the end of the campaign without changes, often significant ones. People evolve and so do my characters.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:59 AM
    Yeah. I understand that there are some significant differences, but there are a lot of similarities as well. I also don't think, in fact I know, that you don't have to know how much of a challenge the tower is. It's a name on a map and as soon as the PCs express interest in finding out, you can improv it, roll it, or determine what challenge level it is while they are doing their research or...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:55 AM
    Nah. You just somehow don't understand what it is that I do. You see, if my knight whose concept is a knightly paragon of virtue gets put into that situation, he may or may not succumb to the maiden's wiles. His character is indeed at risk, as if he does succumb, his concept is dead or dying. Not only that, but if he succumbs, I then have to struggle with he reacts to his fall. Does he do...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:32 PM
    I never said that there was no risk or real failure. Don't put your assumptions onto me like that. There are consequences for almost everything. If you don't understand something, ask me. Spurning a maiden's love can also bit them in the ass, as can pissing off her father, not completing the quest or many other things that happen with what I am saying. You need to stop assuming that...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:26 PM
    Sure, it's a complication, just like finding a dead body in your PC's room is a complication. I was just pointing out that it wasn't the test of character he was portraying it as. Nobody can detail out a whole world. It will just be outlines of stuff for the most part with a few things detailed out. Most of the time the party chooses where it wants to go and the sand(details) is filled...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:10 PM
    Daern's Instant Fortress 7 Decanter of Endless Water 20 Deck of Illusions 15 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 16 Dust of Disappearance 22 Dust of Dryness 18 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 18 Efreeti Bottle 21 Eversmoking Bottle 18
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:08 PM
    My concept is always at risk. I don't need a mechanic for that. Maybe others do. I don't.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:46 PM
    Which is fully accomplished by, "The beautiful maiden winks at you, clearly favoring you with her affections." I don't need you to melt my PCs heart in order to put me in a position where I have to decide between possible love and the quest. Swearing a vow doesn't make my PC immune to love, so we will learn something about my character this way as well. I'm also not seeing how in your...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:36 PM
    You don't NEED an mechanic for that sort of risk, and in my experience mechanics detract from it. The drama comes from me being put in the hard choice and deciding how my character reacts to the hard choice, not from a boring die roll or DM deciding if I'm good or bad this time around. I don't play perfect characters, because 1) perfect characters are boring, and 2) perfection doesn't exist in...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:25 PM
    Er. It didn't miss the point of the OP, because it wasn't about the OP. The discussion has moved on in some parts of the thread. That's how threads work.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:21 PM
    If it's left to a die roll or the DM's decision, there is no real test of character. The test comes from the player in the role of the PC being caught in a situation which tests his PC's character. He and the others at the table are only really going to learn what the PC is made of if the player makes the decision. If it's left to the die roll or DM to decide, the drama virtually vanishes. ...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 06:17 AM
    So to answer the first question, there will be some sort of save, so it will be apparent in the moment if something unusual is happening. However, the group I've played with has been together for 15 years, and a few of us go back more than twice that. If they pulled something like that without save or way to know right then, yes I'd extend the trust, because we're all similar enough in...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:54 AM
    Sure, but one of the things about the battlemaster ability is that very few can actually do it. Lots of people can pick up a sword, but only a few very highly trained individuals can instill fear that way. I'd expect the same sort of in-fiction explanation for some sort of kiss warms the heart ability in this particular maiden. And it would have to allow a save.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 04:57 AM
    Special abilities with saves are okay. They are in the magic/supernatural/mental/etc. that I've been talking about. That's not the DM just telling me that my PC is frightened because the green hag winked at him.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 03:02 AM
    There is no such rule. The DM has a rule that allows him to narrate MY actions, but he cannot alter those actions. If I declare that my PC is running across the courtyard, he cannot narrate it as, "You run across the courtyard jumping and skipping while singing a little ditty about Jack and Dianne." He can alter things through in game fiction though, such as "While you run across the...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 09:48 PM
    LEFTCOLOR=#333333FONT=VerdanaDaern's Instant Fortress 9/FONT/COLOR Does anyone know how to get rid of all this when quote replying in the app? Such a pain to delete letter by letter on my phone. Edited to remove brackets to show what I’m talking about
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 02:21 PM
    Yeah, I was surprised to see that as well. I figured the alchemy jug would take the top spot.
    413 replies | 14036 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 01:21 PM
    Daern's Instant Fortress 11 Decanter of Endless Water 20 Deck of Illusions 17 Deck of Many Things 3 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 20 Dust of Disappearance 21 Dust of Dryness 17 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 20 Efreeti Bottle 21
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 01:17 PM
    I disagree. Remember, aramis erak is assuming a valid social contract, "Part of the implicit social contract of play is that you have to cede control over some aspects of the character over to either dice or the GM (or both) in order to play." That means that the DM isn't going to be using that fiat to cause an attempt that has a chance to succeed to auto fail, as that would violate the social...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 01:12 PM
    I haven't lost control of the character's action in that circumstance. I simply do not control the result. My character still takes the action I desire, and the DM states the action failed. I've never argued that I should have control over the result of the action. No, that's not what I'm expressing. You're just confusing the result of the action with the action itself. They are two...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 04:42 AM
    Soooo, that's not a rule that says the DM can run my character. At all. That's a rule that says that the DM can create house rules, and nobody is disputing that the DM can create house rules. House rules, though, have no place in a discussion about rules, and there are no rules that say the DM can run my character.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 03:04 AM
    I don't bother. Sometimes the players do something and skip a large portion. Other times they putz around in an area for 5 sessions longer than I figured. I just roll with it until the campaign ends. My estimation here was based on the range of time my campaigns have historically lasted. They rarely go less than a year and we lose a few sessions due to life, so 48 on the low end, and rarely...
    47 replies | 2066 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 02:57 AM
    My campaigns typically run about 48-70, 4-5 hour sessions.
    47 replies | 2066 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 12:32 AM
    Right. Some modules explicitly add some rules. THOSE are rules, but the rest of the story is just adventure creation per the DMG. Sure, in highly limited amounts. The inclusion of naval combat rules doesn't suddenly mean that just because the module including(making this up since I've never seen it) 2 ogres, that the rules of D&D is now that 2 ogres have to be in adventures as a rule. ...
    960 replies | 46135 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 10:34 PM
    Why do you think that people here are saying that emotional life of the PC should be excluded from testing? I find such tests to often be more engaging than the physical ones.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 10:29 PM
    I read about that sort of thing happening on pretty much an annual basis, often multiple times. Maybe not 7 times, but black widows aren't a crazy example. There are also other things that can influence reactions. I was working retail in a corporate store many years ago. One of the models came down to the department I was working in and was flirting with me. While the flirting was going on a...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 09:04 PM
    Daern's Instant Fortress 11 Decanter of Endless Water 19 Deck of Illusions 19 Deck of Many Things 4 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 20 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 19
    164 replies | 3458 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 09:03 PM
    No. I'm talking about having the PC engage in an action(not the mechanical term related to combat), which has absolutely nothing to do with conditions. It was an absurd comment, as is your response here. So you guys have been saying that if the DM says, "The woman winks at you and melts your heart," I can just say, "No she doesn't, it has no effect on me at all?" If that's the case,...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 08:58 PM
    All of them are. Trust is necessary with any game. I have yet to see a game where cheating can't happen. Which is fine. I'm all for rewards and other encouragement to engage in that sort of roleplay. If you're playing in good faith, it runs quite well and is not a flawed system. If you have someone who is playing in bad faith, the system still is not flawed. The person playing...
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 07:13 PM
    Well, Adam IS the Antichrist. If they don't know you from Adam, that might be where the trust issues come in. ;)
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 07:09 PM
    Why?
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 07:08 PM
    Seriously? You don't see that it's dictating the response of warming the heart? That precludes greater and lesser responses that I might want to give for my PC.
    638 replies | 15998 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Maxperson

Basic Information

Date of Birth
April 19, 1970 (49)
About Maxperson
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
9,369
Posts Per Day
1.73
Last Post
Death and 0 Max HP Today 02:21 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:22 PM
Join Date
Friday, 3rd September, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. OB1 OB1 is offline

    Member

    OB1
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

Monday, 17th June, 2019




Monday, 15th October, 2018

  • 01:40 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    This dialog on NPCs that come out of player choices for their pcs started with literally backstory parents iirc. No. It came out of me saying that I ended a game which involved the GM having the PCs' patron betray them upon completing their mission. Lanefan and one or two other posters - I thought you were one of them - said that I was wrong to criticise the GM on this basis. And then someone seemed to assume that reference to a "patron" meant reference to a warlock's supernatural patron. EDIT because I saw this: You left out "play non-clerics, non-warlocks etc"What's in the scope of the "etc"? Maxperson has mentioned paladins. You've mentioned guildmembers. What about family members? Are you saying that the player either play "The Man with No Name" or else - in virtue of playing a PC who actually has some sort of social grounding in the setting, is giving the GM unrestrained licence to do as s/he wishes with that backstory? How far does it go? Is the GM at liberty to decide that the PC's beloved brother is really a serial killer? That the PC's spouse is having an affair? That the PC's child has been possessed by a demon? All unilaterally, without reference to player preference for the game or the outcomes of action resolution in which the player actually stakes these sorts of things? If that's the dichotomy you're offering, I think I've made it pretty clear what I think of it - as a player I would walk.

Wednesday, 10th October, 2018

  • 03:30 PM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    Maxperson, your Corellon wanting a message delivered was an excellent one for acceptable small obligations. There is a lot of potential flavor there. It's a nice reminder for the player(s) about the patron, and that could lead to a lot of interesting plot hooks. And without knowing more about what Hussar describes in this Background system, that may apply as Background. However, I would say that the underlying problems within this warlock/patron discussion pertain to two interrelated issues: (1) PC-GM Cognitive Dissonance, and (2) Player Micromanagement. In the case of (1), the player may have come to the table with a particular conception of who their patron is, the nature of their patron/protegé relationship, and what their patron means to them. (And they may be under the impression that the GM understands this as well.) In play, however, the GM may then dictate/impose a completely different understanding of that relationship or patron on the player. It may defy the PC's backstory. It ...

Monday, 8th October, 2018

  • 01:10 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    And since we're still flogging this equine - Maxperson, are you seriously claiming that if 2 people tried to hold a door against one opponent, it would not be a contest since a contest can ONLY be 2 actors? Or if three people tried to grab a ring, 5e D&D has no mechanics to support resolving the outcome, but, only houserules? Seriously?I already flagged those examples uprhread. Maxperson answered yes, it is houseruling. Likewise a footrace needs a houserule, but if there is a ring to grab at the end of it and only two participants than it is a RAW contest. (I don't understand why trying to be the first to break the ribbon at the finish line doesn't count as a contest, but maybe Maxperson will explain.)
  • 06:22 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Me: The rules allow for simultaneous surprise, so attacks haven't necessarily happened when initiative is rolled. You: Well, I used to run combat like the rules say, but then I decided to change them and run it differently. So you run encounters differently than the game says. How is that relevant to a discussion on how to run encounters per RAW? Attacks might not have happened, but combat has. Attacks =/= combat. Heck even without surprise, you can have a round of combat with no attacks quite easily - baddies go invisible and move away would be one example. And since we're still flogging this equine - Maxperson, are you seriously claiming that if 2 people tried to hold a door against one opponent, it would not be a contest since a contest can ONLY be 2 actors? Or if three people tried to grab a ring, 5e D&D has no mechanics to support resolving the outcome, but, only houserules? Seriously?

Saturday, 6th October, 2018

  • 08:01 PM - iserith mentioned Maxperson in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    ...ng your approach and I asserted you're creating the very "metagaming" you claim you don't want in your games in this post. I make a similar comment here. In this post, you respond with how you deal with the "metagaming" I assert you're creating via your approach. You don't deny that you are creating it. You just have a kludge to deal with it - additional rolls to obscure the roll that actually matters. As Kobold Boots points out, that is an old technique. He also points out where the players might "metagame" for advantage with your degrees of success/failure narrations. Your approach encourages it. These are from recent discussions and I'm almost certain we've had these sorts of exchanges before. I've certainly had them with others who decry "metagaming." You all seem to be playing more or less from the same playbook: You run the game a particular way that sets the stage for and practically encourages "metagaming." Then you come up with techniques to offset it in addition to, as Maxperson addresses, a social contract to keep people from doing it. Why not just change the approach to avoid the "metagaming" in the first place? I mean, I don't even care about "metagaming," but my approaches don't really encourage it like yours do. In fact, I straight up tell my players in my Table Rules document that I don't care if they do it, since it's none of my business how they make decisions for their characters. I just warn them that making assumptions is risky.

Thursday, 4th October, 2018

  • 02:50 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    ...ou rewrite Contests so it literally entailed that creatures could make progress toward a goal of crossing a finish line, and end up with a tie?The current text is "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." I don't actually think that needs rewriting - the situation as I understand it refers to the narrative situation, the situation of contest or opposition, not just or even primarily the details of the fiction. The rewrites I would suggest to future editors would be to refer to "two or more contestants". While it would be possible to spell out what "situation" means in more detail, I assume this is another instance of studied ambiguity in the 5e rules: the current wording allows those who eschew all metagaming, and who don't like to think about the process whereby playing a RPG generates a compelling fiction, to interpret "situation" as referring purely or at least primarily to the infiction state of affairs. (I think this is how Maxperson reads it, for instance.) Of course on that reading you will get puzzles or incomplete rules, like needing to "house rule" to resolve a footrace. But that again seems to be part of the deliberate ambiguity in the way the 5e rules are written.
  • 03:55 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I think this is true. Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules. (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.) If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking. I would hardly characterize it as predominant. You've got one or two people who are playing silly buggers semantic games and the rest of us who could resolve that using the existing rules without much worry. The only reason that there is an argument at all is because Maxperson refuses to accept that just because the book says a contest uses two opposed characters it cannot then be used for more than two. I would not say that this is a predominant view. Loud maybe, but, not predominant.
  • 02:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    The thing is, it's not a "house rule". Well, Maxperson and other posters in this thread seem to think it is.

Tuesday, 2nd October, 2018

  • 07:29 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Hussar, obviously I agree with you: it makes zero sense to me that the resolution of a foot race changes in any fundamental way because in one race the aim is to the first to cross the line and in the other the aim is to be the one to pick up the widget sitting on the finish line. (And does being the one who breaks the ribbon count as "direct opposition" in Maxperson's terms or not?)
  • 06:51 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins... Say this is what happens A beats B A beats C A loses to D A loses to E Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but... D loses to C E loses to B No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...I think the assumption that billd91 has made is probably the same as the one that Hriston has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about. The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

Sunday, 30th September, 2018

  • 06:21 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Maxperson - I have to admit, I'm kinda disappointed here. You've argued, at considerable length, in other threads that dictionary definitions trump game definitions - most recently about an urchin barbarian being impossible. Yet, here you are, ignoring the dictionary and insisting that RAW readings trump. That's a tad convenient, no? It boils down to this. A contest in 5e D&D is any time 2 or more actors are trying to do something. End of story. Initiative is a kind of contest, because we are determining who goes first. Note, ties are determined by the DM which can be rolled off. All that means is specific trumps general. In general, contests resulting in ties simply leave the status quo. In initiative, ties are broken. That doesn't make it "not a contest". But, hey, feel free to continue this pedantic wank. It's entertaining if nothing else.

Saturday, 29th September, 2018

  • 05:28 PM - clearstream mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Yeah.. I gotta say that who wins the Initiative contest at the beginning of the fight can sometimes make a big difference. So I would definitely call it a contest, an opposed roll. I think Maxperson isn't discussing what one could call it informally, but how concretely it is defined in RAW. In RAW, Initiative is not a "Contest" because there are mechanical differences between an Initiative check, and a Contest check, in terms of outcomes. They're similar, but not identical. For me, it's worthwhile going for formal application of keywords in RAW because it means everyone means the same thing when they use those words. For instance I could say someone was paralysed with fear, but unless they have the "Paralysed" condition, they are not paralysed... it's easy to see the ambiguities that can arise when switching between the informal and formal usages.

Wednesday, 26th September, 2018

  • 03:09 PM - Oofta mentioned Maxperson in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    TwoSix, Maxperson, Two observations. First, I agree that not all build combinations would make sense. But just taking sub classes times races, we get 2,960 (assuming I counted right) alternatives. Even if 90% of those don't make sense for some reason, that leaves close to 300 options. Heck, make it 99% and throw in a smidgeon of feat/build/multi-class choices (i.e. champion fighter with dex vs strength, sword and board vs great weapon) and I think there are more builds than I could ever personally play. Second is just a general observation that may or may not apply to any specific individual that posts here. I played/judged a lot of living campaigns in 3.x and 4E. In my experience with those campaigns and editions, most people that cared about optimization gravitated to a handful of builds. In other words, to many people the multitude of options in previous editions was an illusion. I get the desire for more options and especially more significant choices at higher levels. I guess the diffe...

Wednesday, 19th September, 2018

  • 11:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    ...ding (especially all the equipment and spell descriptions), and would contradict all the rules in the sections on ability checks and combat. So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which all results of declared actions are narrated only by the GM. Here's just one example: GM: You see an owlbear. Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile. GM: OK, roll for damage. I reckon stuff like that happens all the time at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice". Maxperson's claim that it is "houseruling" and "non-traditional" for a player to narrate results is without foundation.

Tuesday, 18th September, 2018

  • 01:39 PM - Elfcrusher mentioned Maxperson in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Saelorn and Maxperson: I'm distinguishing between asking the question "What would this character do?", which I think is totally fine, and stating, "Action X is what the character would do," as if it's the one action among all the possibilities which is the most likely. It's the latter that I think is nonsense. People do unexpected, improbable, irrational things all the time.

Monday, 17th September, 2018

  • 07:20 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player. Maxperson is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are. The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion. But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find: ... You fought fiercely over food and kept a constant watch out for other desperate souls who might want to steal from you. You slept on rooftops and in alleyways, exposed to the elements, and endured sickness without the advantage of medicine or a place to recuperate. You survived despite all odds, and did so through cunning, strength, speed or some combination of each. Huh, sounds like a high Str and Con barbarian would fit this background perfectly. Surviving the elements, constantly fighting, and surviving through strength. Sounds like a barbarian to me. See, this is why I have such a problem with the argument that DM's put forth that "X doesn't fit in my setting". Because, most of the time,...

Thursday, 13th September, 2018

  • 03:13 PM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    ...ter at avoiding getting smacked with lumpy metal things. Unless you're insisting that Unarmored Defense somehow actually makes the skin of the barbarian tougher. :uhoh: Fast Movement - whodathunk that someone who spends most of their time running around the city dodging guards and other dangers might be a bit fleet of foot. Brutal Critical - Umm, considering that the power actually comes with zero fluff attached to it, you can flavor this however you like. Maybe after years of mugging people, he just got really good at smacking people about the head and shoulders. Indomitable Might - well, he's tough as nails, he's 18th level, so hardly a street urchin anymore - he's the survivor of masses of bloodshed and danger. Again, the power has zero flavor attached to it, so, how can you complain when the player attaches any flavor to it that the player fancies? Primal Champion - dude, he's a 20th level character. There's a million and one ways you could easily justify this. Maxperson, are you seriously going to try to argue that powers that have zero flavor attached to them can never have any flavor attached to them?
  • 02:41 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Maxperson in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    ... Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.) ... Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them. Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class. These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion. That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different. There are usually abilities that don't fit. You didn't really answer the question posed by Xetheral directly Maxperson. Where are you getting your definition of barbarian? Regardless of whether you choose to answer that question or not, is it right to assume that in your game the only true Barbarian is one with the Outlander background? No wiggle room on that? And to get back to the OP, how would you feel about a multiclass Barbarian/Paladin?

Tuesday, 4th September, 2018

  • 05:36 PM - Oofta mentioned Maxperson in post 5e invisibility and Detect Magic
    The rules aren't deficient here. If you decide your golems are absolutely still and silent, don't roll. If you roll, don't decide the golem is perfectly still and silent before you see the result. The deficiency here is deciding your golem is silent, then rolling, and then having to reconcile a failed roll against your undectable golem decision. Let's assume a highly unlikely scenario for a moment. Well, nearly as unlikely as the invisible iron golem. A creature is invisible and in an area of silence (which doesn't include the PCs and doesn't block enough noise to be noticed). It can't be seen or heard. As a DM, I don't like auto-surprise though so I want the PCs to have a chance to notice it. There's some interaction with the environment that can be perceived. Cobwebs, a bird sitting on something that can't be seen, footprints in the mud, something. How would you handle it? Because I agree with Maxperson. I'd decide on a DC unrelated to stealth because the hide rules don't really apply to the situation.

Monday, 27th August, 2018

  • 12:47 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned Maxperson in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ...sing. Why he is missing will get established in play, as the players declare actions and succeed or not. Frex, the next bit of play could involve a PC with a background as a river pirate announcing that it's common for pirates to kidnap for ransom (now established fact in game) and declare he's looking for a ransom demand. Success makes this true, failure means that's not the case; it's something else. In ganes with partial successes, it would be true but with a complication -- perhaps the ex-pirate discovers it's his old crew that he was tossed from on pain of death doing the kidnapping? The point is, if you are looking only from a prepared scenario/story mode of play, where the players have no authorial control over the plot, you're going to have a very narrow view of play and make incorrect assumptions. What you provide above is plenty sufficient for play for a number of systems. This view is also why your analysis doesn't work (also why you keep becoming frustrated with me, Maxperson, and pemerton). Lots of games develop pretty much everything in play.


No results to display...

Wednesday, 26th June, 2019

  • 01:50 PM - lowkey13 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Wait. Seriously? Every last one of them sat down at session 0 and hashed out that druids have to be played X way with no deviation? Because that's what I just said I never saw. No, as already gone through, all of us understood the rule perfectly well- Druids don't wear metal armor. When we were young, back during 1e, we superficially stopped at the word "can't" and didn't go any further, so we never tried to put on metal armor. So your experience is the same as all of the other dumb olds. Good. I mean- that's why DMs didn't have to iron out an agreement, no more than they would have to with Fighter and the hit points. "But I want d20 hp per level. MAH PLAYA AGENCY! STOP RAILROADING ME!" Carry on.
  • 01:38 PM - lowkey13 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it. FYI- uh, what? I posted another thread seeking input from the olds who had played in the 70s and 80s, and not a single one of us stupid olds who don't understand rules agrees with you. I mean, let's be fair- there are rules, and there are rules, in OD&D and AD&D; I tend to think of them as Venn Diagrams in terms of play. IOW, there are three general categories of rules- A. Those rules that almost everyone plays with (in other words, not to play with it would constitute a severe desparture or "house rule"). B. Those rules some people played with. C. Those rules that few people played with. Example- A. Fighters get d10 hp. Clerics don't use edged weapons (they use the weapons specified in Character Class Table II). B. Item saving throws, character training for levels. C...
  • 05:28 AM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    It's not that important of a rule. The penalties for breaking it are spelled out. No need to hash out something that already fixed.So, well, yeah, if the players and GM are on the same page about the rules, then you dont get these issues. That much kinda goes without sayin'.
  • 05:26 AM - oreofox quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Most people assume a druid wouldn't put on metal armor because it is explicitly stated in the class that it is against the druid's ethos to do so. In all my experiences (I know, anecdotal, the horror), I have never come across a no-win situation for a druid and metal armor, unlike the myriad of such situations for a paladin. Because for some idiotic reason, forcing a paladin to make a decision that no matter what, would make him fall, was all the rage during the 3rd edition (and Pathfinder) years. The whole orc baby situation. I never came across any sort of discussion about how to force a druid to wear metal armor, mainly because the penalties weren't as severe (the entire time worn + 24 hours, as opposed to "permanent" until attoned as a paladin).
  • 05:25 AM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    LOL Happily, this was not one of those times. The druid could put on armor and they can get through it. Putting on armor is within the rules. Taboo is not binding. The rules specify(at least in 1e and 3e) what the consequence of putting on armor is. It's losing access to the druids magical abilities. That line is no different, other than size, than the descriptions in the monk and paladin sections about what happens when you break the "rule." Both monk and paladin use language that's even stronger than can't. The paladin "fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain awful good..." Always. Not sometimes. Not here and there and then I can break it. Always. As in every single time. The portion after that can never possibly come into effect under your interpretation of the 1e rules. Since the paladin has to always be LG, he cannot ever get to the "or" section and lose his powers. The monk is similarly stuck with being lawful. He MUS...
  • 04:51 AM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I've been playing since 1983 and never have I heard a DM at the outset iron out an agreement not to wear metal under any circumstances. I mean, I suppose the corner case has happened somewhere, but I haven't seen it.I generally assumed that if a rule is important for controversial, then the one who wants it to be clear that it's not used as RAW should bring it up. I mean, if you dont want to play with s given tule as is, by RAW, specific yo the class you choose, doesnt it seem like z good thing to do ? I mean, a lot of the discussions about sorcerer and wild magic start with "talk to your GM about how they run the "can call for" rule.
  • 04:41 AM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    So, apparently you're unfamiliar with sandbox play. Encounters are not build with the druid in mind, or the paladin, or the fighter, or anyone in the party. They are just built. Solutions are not pre-planned by me. It's up to the players to come up with solutions. If the only solution they can think of, and there may be others, is for the druid to put on metal armor and do something, that's not a trap or any kind of DM violation. What's more, if the druid is willing to compromise his morals to save the forest from destruction, that's freaking awesome roleplay. Druids are people, too, and people very often compromise their beliefs and morals to accomplish what they view as a greater good. A DM who stops that from happening doesn't deserve the job.And if the solution they players decided they needed was to cast invisibility on all four PCs but they only had three slots left, do they get to cast three or four invisibility? If you are familiar with sandbox play, at all even a smidge or a ta...
  • 04:16 AM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    This is a False Equivalence. There is no such agreement when choosing to play a druid. Aberrant class behavior is a common happening. Paladins fall. Clerics used to lose their powers from straying from the faith. Druids used to lose their powers when they donned metal armor. There is nothing inherent in a class that says that I can never, ever, under any circumstance, deviate from the class norms. Here's another example from 1e that shows it. "Monks are monastic aesthetics who practice rigorous mental and physical training and discipline in order to become superior. Therefore they must always be lawful in alignment, although they can be evil, good, or neutral with respect to their approach to lawfulness. A monk who for any reason loses this lawful alignment loses all monk abilities and must begin again as a first level character." "Must always be lawful" is no less a restriction than "can't wear metal armor" or "won't wear metal armor." Yet the monk can in fact choose to go against th...
  • 04:06 AM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Things change during gameplay, though. A druid might be willing to put on metal armor in order to save a forest or something else important to the character. When choosing druid, the player does not agree to let the character's character die in order to maintain no armor. If the only option to stay true to the character is to don metal armor briefly, the player can have his druid do that. A DM who says no doesn't deserve the job.Nope. **if** the gm setup a druid trap situation so that the only way to survive was for the dtuidnplayer to violate the rule they agreed to play, then thats on the GM. His failing was sgreringbthst druids in this campaign will not wear nrtsl armor and then setting up an "'only way" trap against that. Thsts the GM violating the rule. On the other hand, if there were/are multiple options and due to failure or choices the players have driven thfmsrlve to " no opyionsvthry like better than violating the rules" then thsts on them and they cannot break the rule, any m...
  • 02:38 AM - lowkey13 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Are you saying that story = rules? I’m saying that I remember a certain other interminable thread about druids and rules; perhaps featuring more disintegration. And this seems as fruitful, albeit with the added bonus of someone calling all the old players stupid and incapable of understanding the rules. So, there’s that!
  • 02:19 AM - lowkey13 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Except that the word rule never appears in that paragraph. It deliberately uses the word story, because it's a fluff "restriction." You do you. You can’t cure .... um, wrong.

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 02:57 PM - lowkey13 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I can lead a horse to water... You are incorrect on this. I already went through this for the PHB. As I am guessing you missed this, I will repeat my prior post- What you mean is the Weapon Proficiency Table on p. 36. So go through this, assuming some knowledge of 1e: Let's use the Druid as an example: You start with a number of proficiencies, for a Druid, 2. That means you get to choose 2 of your allowed weapons - for a Druid, you can choose between club, dagger, dart, hammer, scimitar, sling, spear, and staff. A total of eight (8) weapons. Every five additional levels, you get an additional proficiency. So at eleventh level, the Druid is PROFICIENT IN FOUR OF HIS EIGHT WEAPONS. If the Druid attempts to use a "Druid Weapon" that the Druid is NOT PROFICIENT IN, then there is a -4 penalty. This is not a catch-all table to allow, inter alia, Clerics to use swords with a penalty. So, how do we know this? Let's read the rules in pari materia. First, the table shows that you kno...
  • 02:40 PM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other way around. Especially in a rulings over rules edition.Since I am talking about the players agreeing to the rules they chose to play with, this reply seems to make no sense. We agreed to normal shortswords doing d6 damage with noted exceptions for specific changes too, but if Joe decides that to solve problem ABC on the fly his shortsword now does 10d15 then hey, there is an issue. Now, of course, maybe we added to our table rules something like plot points and gave them the ability to suspend certain restrictions for short time or enabling 10d15 damage weapons - that is obviously different.
  • 02:35 PM - JonnyP71 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I can lead a horse to water... Yep. Specific cases like druids wearing metal armor and thieves using two-handed swords. Still waiting..... Probably best to just walk away now. Let me know if you find something relevant, even a snippet of evidence...
  • 02:34 PM - Oofta quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    And again, a choice isn't a rule. You can keep repeating rule until you are blue in the face, but it's not going to magically change that one fluff line into a rule. And you can keep repeating that "will not" doesn't really mean they will not wear metal armor an it's still not a rule. Some random person on the internet does not get to decide what is a rule and what isn't. I don't see why a proficiency that restricts access is any less of a rule that allows access. Well, if the game is 5e, we know that there are no penalties for a vegetarian chowing down and there are no rules that cause him cease to be vegetarian, so yes he would still be vegetarian in a 5e game. Unless there's a house rule of course. So a vegetarian that regularly eats meat is still a vegetarian? Can't argue with logic like that. Literally. There's no point because it defies all logic and definitions. And you seem to fail to understand is that the rules are subservient to those playing the game, not the other w...
  • 02:06 PM - JonnyP71 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Having trouble understanding what, "any given weapon" means? Here's a hint, it includes two-handed swords. We've already pointed you to it in the DMG. It clearly allows engaging in behavior that is aberrational to the class. Wearing metal armor is aberrant behavior for druids, just as using a two-handed sword would be aberrant behavior for thieves. Pull your head out of the sand. I'm still waiting for the quote I asked for? Neither of the above are applicable. Find me something that CLEARLY states they CAN. Point 1 - you are the one misunderstanding that passage and its context, not me. You are the one adding a meaning that is neither there, nor is it even implied. The notes under the armour/weapons table on page 19 are also very clear. Point 2 - is much more general. It can be applied to specific cases, but was generally for fighters who refused to fight, mages who charged onto the frontline frequently, or thieves who refused to put their class skills to good use. It looks like you...
  • 02:05 PM - 5ekyu quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    And again, a choice isn't a rule. You can keep repeating rule until you are blue in the face, but it's not going to magically change that one fluff line into a rule.Again, your personal decision to not treat the whole text of the druid proficiency section as a rule is amusing but carries no weight beyond your table. You own personal feeling that using the eord's will not makes something "'not a rule" is not gonna carry the day.
  • 12:36 PM - FarBeyondC quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    It's against the spirit of the game for a druid to wear full plate long enough to sneak into a castle? I don't think so. The game has always been about ingenuity. That action is entirely within the spirit of the game. I know there's a principle thing going on here (one I don't agree with), but I'm thoroughly confused as to why people keep trying to get the druid to get into the metal armor to sneak into the castle. Like, why not turn into a rat or some other innocuous little creature and ride in another player's pack or something? What about if a druid decides they don't want to be a druid any more and becomes a fighter? According to 5e rules multiclass characters retain all the abilities from both classes. If a character decides they don't want to be of a given class anymore, you wouldn't use the multi-class rules for that. You know, because those rules don't actually remove the class in question? However the player and DM decides to mechanically and narratively enable the ch...
  • 11:05 AM - JonnyP71 quoted Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Maybe you should have read further to proficiencies. "At the start, your character will be able to employ but a limited number of weapons. The number is determined by class. When the character moves up in levels of experience to the next higher combat melee table, he or she is assumed to have acquired proficiency in an additional weapon. The new weapon is of his or her choice. Note that proficiency with a normal weapon is subsumed in using a magical weapon of the same type. If proficiency with any given weapon is not held by the character it is used at a penalty as shown on the table which follows." The bolded portion says that he can use it with a penalty if he is not proficient. In 1e can't did not mean "impossible" no matter how much you wish it did. No, the bolded section does not says anything of the sort. And to claim it does is wrong. You're clutching at straws. I'm still waiting for any text specifically stated a Druid CAN wear metal if they choose to in 1E, or a Thief CAN wield a...
  • 08:47 AM - CapnZapp quoted Maxperson in post Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
    Before post #6? No it hasn't sailed. YOU may not want to engage in that discussion, but others might and apparently do, as I also don't think it should be a character option. Why the hostility? Didn't you get your morning coffee...? I haven't shut any discussion down. Feel free to discuss whatever you want. I don't believe it will become a character feature and I don't believe it will "steal" your Extra Attacks. But since that's probably not what the OP wanted to talk about, I merely noted that the feature was likely "renamed" (from "hireling" or "retainer") because it *will* be offered as an simpler character option for players. For players, not for other characters.


Maxperson's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites