View Profile: billd91 - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • billd91's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:12 PM
    Giants are a particularly odd case for the transition between 2e and 3e. Up close, thanks to the weapon bonus damage, crits, lots of hit points and Con bonuses, giants are generally more dangerous. But before Brutal Throw came out as a feat, they got a significant downgrade at range because their throwing was based on Dex, not their upgunned Strength.
    79 replies | 1798 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:23 PM
    I don't know about you but back when we were playing 1e, we were younger and dumber than when we were playing 2e. Eight years of player and life experiences made a difference.
    79 replies | 1798 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 05:27 PM
    Or the other answer - the survival (or other skill) is for lighting a fire under difficult circumstances. And this kind of thing - assumed skills - would cover everything else (non-difficult circumstance).
    88 replies | 3451 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 05:46 AM
    What job? I think Nick was actually on vacation.
    10 replies | 502 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 05:44 AM
    From Mutants and Masterminds - Alternative Effects: they're cheap variations on a power that can generally only be activated one at a time - most often for alternate means of attack from a broadly defined power - Extra Effort: for the cost of a bit of fatigue, a hero can push his powers, move farther, gain an extra action or, and perhaps most importantly, perform a power stunt which is an...
    34 replies | 1166 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 05:33 AM
    End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.
    171 replies | 11662 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 07:31 PM
    I'll be checking out PF2 but it will be with my regular Sunday Pathfinder group. I don't anticipate playing it with my Thursday Night group since we all like 5e. While I like Pathfinder for what it is and how it has modified the D&D rules, a major reason I switched to it was because WotC had made a D&D edition that I did not like to play, nor did most of my friends. The Sunday Pathfinder...
    23 replies | 1149 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 03:49 PM
    Iíd buy into argument b, but not a, at least, not within a setting agnostic set of core rules. The witchís importance to Golarion (which I donít necessarily agree with), should be of secondary importance.
    117 replies | 6731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:35 PM
    Thatís a pretty strong statement. Itís not many sequels that ruin the original like Highlander 2 does.
    171 replies | 11662 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:28 PM
    Moreover, the gunslinger monk wasn't exactly a concept you could make at the outset of PF1 either. That came 2 years in with Ultimate Combat.
    117 replies | 6731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 04:39 AM
    People know exactly what they're buying with these products. There nothing either deceptive or repugnant. Get a grip.
    117 replies | 6731 view(s)
    4 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 11:31 PM
    Yeah, I'd say so. Players/GM is directly testing that particular unknown (how the PC will react) with a defined way to make that decision.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 03:30 PM
    Now we get back to the age-old RPG discussion on how fiction written by a single author isn't like an RPG. In a novel, it's up to one person to determine if Galadriel connects with Gimli and how they do so. In an RPG, it's up to at least 2 people - the person playing Galadriel and the person playing Gimli. They don't have to agree on exactly what should happen and how. And so we need to have some...
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 02:53 PM
    I didn't buy any of the play test stuff for 2e because I was too busy with other things in my life to do much play testing. But I did buy the initial PF play test softcover for my convenience back in 2008. I don't regret it, nor was I super pissed that the final PF product was different. I expected it to be different. That expectation should be the case now. I seriously doubt the sale of 2e...
    117 replies | 6731 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 09:39 PM
    Here's a place to start: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/#close]How science is helping us understand gender
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 09:00 PM
    Turns out... that's wrong. There may be 2 major varying chromosomes, but it has become clear that, for a not insignificant number of people, there is variation. That's what you get with 23 chromosome pairs and all sorts of varying environmental conditions during development - complexity. Do you think that the relatively simple genetic model of ABO blood types and Rh factors gives you a...
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 04:02 PM
    It certainly has always been one of my annoyances with Forge-speak. It confuses when the labels chosen by Edwards and his disciples are easily and intuitably used to describe game mechanics and their trade-offs in designing a good game yet their meanings substantially contrast.
    171 replies | 11662 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 05:51 AM
    Yes, it should have applications outside of casting. But ultimately, I think just considering these 3 stats without also fixing issues with the physical stats is a mistake. Part of the problem with some of the D&D classes is it's too cheap to dump stats because they are so unevenly used. I think the 6 stats should boil down to 3 offensive stats, 3 defensive stats and matched in pairs. 4e...
    88 replies | 3451 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 09:39 PM
    It's older than Magic, really. It's a design philosophy voiced by Skip Williams that putting the rules in the hands of the players is empowering to them in making meaningful choices. "How far can I jump?" is a question answered by the 3e rules quite clearly compared to earlier editions. When faced by a 15' gap, a player can look at their jumping check modifier, apply the rule, and have a good...
    286 replies | 10795 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 08:58 PM
    Sounds like a win-win situation.
    117 replies | 6731 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 03:34 PM
    I don't know what does it for lowkey13, but there's quite a bit to give it a play feel much closer to 1e/2e than either 3e or 4e. Magic items mathematics not being baked into the system of character power-ups. Least tied to grid since 2e (which, while not technically 1e, was pretty much 99% compatible with 1e) Very flexible combat movement rules that match how many people played 1e (even if...
    171 replies | 11662 view(s)
    2 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 04:49 AM
    Now listen, son. He's making... I say, he's making a humorous statement. That's a joke, son.
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 02:29 AM
    Yeah, considering there's evidence of it being in use for centuries including by some of the titans of English Literature, and despite it being accepted in many if not most dictionaries and style manuals, to ignore all that and insist that the pronoun some people prefer for themselves is an infraction against grammar...that is a highly political statement made against those very people.
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    5 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 04:35 PM
    If you don't see the strong correlation, it probably has more to do with not being in touch with the common usage than anything else. I wouldn't say most cheaters are rule lawyers either. That's definitely just a subset of cheater. But the idea that a rules lawyer is someone who digs for exploits and interpretations that are "technically correct" but questionable to a layman's reading of the...
    95 replies | 3867 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 04:06 PM
    I started with the Holmes Basic set and used 3d6 in order for my first characters. That was supplanted soon afterward for our first long campaign by 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired. And that's the usual basic method for everything else. Other variations: One DM had us roll 4d6 drop low but if we got a 4 of a kind, we kept all 4 (whether all 6s or all 1s) One DM had us roll 4d6 drop...
    67 replies | 2006 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:49 PM
    Might as well just define a wizard's AC as 13+Dex then. Because, if mage armor were a ritual, that's exactly what it would be. And that's probably a major reason it is not a ritual. It's too dominating a strategy at that level. Making it a spell you can't have as a ritual imposes a balancing and necessary trade-off.
    108 replies | 3708 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 02:19 AM
    A mixture of both. The whole dice back into the bag after every roll thing is weird - very weird. Dice towers are also a bit of a weird affectation, but I've seen how people go for them to weed out some shady dice rolling techniques. Seems to me you should be able to ask them to dump all the dice involved in at once though. And the noise can be grating. So I can see banning them for that. ...
    22 replies | 1091 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 02:13 AM
    Yeah, I've seen players do that too and I find it peculiar. If you fail to get all the dice you need out once, then I can understand going back to fish for more. But putting them in the bag after every roll? It drives me a little batty.
    22 replies | 1091 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 08:54 PM
    Unless you consider it cultural appropriation to try to understand it by an inherently western European framework. So is it an enlightened position to take or an unenlightened position to take? Kind of depends on the reasons. (sort of like whether or not something is a lawful or chaotic action - as I free associate into the topic of another recent thread...)
    352 replies | 12381 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mark CMG's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 05:04 PM
    Gamer and designer Lee Garvin passed away. https://www.facebook.com/lee.garvin.3 https://www.patreon.com/LeeGarvin https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/334884471/killing-lee-garvin
    203 replies | 16264 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 07:06 PM
    I'd also say that the 1e version was a mess - full of inconsistencies (a shield's effect isn't consistent), no baseline (wearing no armor is often worse than... wearing no armor), and extremely punitive to monks. 2e's implementation as an optional weapon was much more cogent, though poorly described in the 2e DMG.
    95 replies | 3867 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 06:42 PM
    As long as that chowder isn't the tomato-based one that's a legacy of Portuguese cooking... that they blame Manhattan for despite it being native to New England as well.
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 05:57 PM
    I would generally agree. The whole their/there/they're issue is a question of sloppily writing the wrong homophone. My freakin' auto-correct does that on me.
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 04:01 PM
    There may be rules lawyers out there who think it's a badge of distinction honoring their encyclopedic understanding of the RAW without realizing it's considered bad.
    95 replies | 3867 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 09:25 PM
    Yeah, languages change. Hence, it's grammatically correct. And for the citation-minded ParanoydStyle in Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3: ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE Thereís not a man I meet but doth salute me As if I were their well-acquainted friend, The antecedent of the bolded their is singular "man".
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:58 PM
    You need to tell your inner grammarian to shut up on that - they has been used to refer to singular entities for centuries. It even appears in Shakespeare. It's really just a political weapon to use against people who don't want to stick with the binary he/she or use the masculine pronouns as generics.
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    6 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 06:13 PM
    That claim really tends to cheese me off. So taking out giants and various humanoids with a long sword better than anybody (thanks to the giant class humanoid bonus in 1e) isn't a cool thing to do? News to me. I thought that was pretty cool.
    352 replies | 12381 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:58 PM
    Twitter is such a :):);):(-hole.
    1012 replies | 71800 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:56 PM
    Maybe? Or is it a spell with a particular material component? In the Houses of Healing, his healing skills seem more than mere craft. "For Aragorn's face grew grey with weariness; and ever and anon he called the name of Faramir, bue each time more faintly to their hearing, as if Aragorn himself was removed from them, and walked afar in some dark vale, calling for one that was lost." And...
    352 replies | 12381 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 05:43 AM
    Tolkien's rangers - whether the Dķnedain or from Ithilien. Tough warriors operating in the wilderness to protect civilization from the things that would have normal people hiding under their beds if they knew they were so close by. They have to be woodcrafty and wily because they may be operating far from easy help or support.
    352 replies | 12381 view(s)
    3 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 04:43 PM
    In some ways, yes. PF2 does incorporate some 4e-isms like the increases in attacks/defenses moving in a constant rate as the PCs level AND those being matched by monster/NPC attacks/defenses. The treadmill. And that is one of the things that bothers me about PF2 considering I very much prefer 5e's bounded accuracy model. And it is definitely going to rub some players with deep stacks of...
    171 replies | 11662 view(s)
    3 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 04:29 PM
    Yeah, no. It was also never Coke's intent either.
    171 replies | 11662 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 07:35 PM
    Sometimes the "Peterson's Field Guide to Lovecraftian Horrors" comes in handy. I still have my copy...
    63 replies | 2079 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 04:58 PM
    I would accept either, but I would encourage a new player in particular to not talk about the sheet and talk about their character instead. So instead of, "My sheet says..." I'd encourage them to say "I've got decent survival skills, and I'd like to use those to acquire shelter..." But yeah, different people play with different levels of comfort in their role personification. And none of that...
    63 replies | 2079 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 25th June, 2019, 04:45 PM
    This kind of position generally irritates me. 5e is designed to facilitate rulings rather than fuss too much about RAW vs house rules. That may make for a lot of table variation, but that's fine as far as I'm concerned. As long as the DM isn't giving away a benefit that's reliably better than the ranger's, everything should be fine. For the OP, I'd rely on a Wisdom (Survival) check for most...
    63 replies | 2079 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 24th June, 2019, 03:59 PM
    Maybe - but I'd be tempted to describe it in terms of formal vs informal style. Ultimately, that's really a cosmetic difference, not one in essence. Whether formal or informal, it's narration if you're laying it out for your players. Conversation, as far as I'm concerned, would be defining it through back-and-forth discussion with players contributing elements - and even that would be started by...
    181 replies | 5757 view(s)
    3 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 02:05 PM
    If a module says something about a creature escaping (because it's losing or is left alone), that doesn't mean it needs to succeed - rather that it's motivation is to get the hell out of Dodge to survive another day. If it fails... well, things happen. There are some games and genres where escaping makes great sense, but there's usually a reason. Take a superhero game, for example, villains...
    59 replies | 2577 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 23rd June, 2019, 01:58 PM
    Do I miss it? No. Didn't particularly like it.
    35 replies | 1867 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 06:48 AM
    His right to cherrypick out of context with the best of them? The issue with the lizard men in the Saltmarsh series may be drawing the PCs into a misunderstanding (and may work against the colonialist narrative), but picking that one as if it refutes all really isn't dealing with the issues in Keep on the Borderlands, the name level privileges of some high level characters in 1e, and so on....
    350 replies | 13552 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 08:23 PM
    Shocked! Shocked I am that someone from somewhere east of Western Europe might have a different perspective of a work that treats nations that come from further east than the Men of the West as dupes of evil at best. Shocked some more(!) I am that someone might make a derivative work to rebut ideas in it.
    350 replies | 13552 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 05:20 PM
    You're not? You could roll up a red dragon encounter with 4 of them, the mated pair being on the larger size and ancient. That might not be survivable for 3 players depending on their levels. And the encounter tables... not really keyed to character level. Or, given your disdain for house rules in determining how a game should work, how exactly are you determining the game is designed around a...
    350 replies | 13552 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 01:55 PM
    Why not three players and a GM? That's even closer than 4 in this case! Honestly, you're reading way too much into that statement. It comes nowhere close to making the same statement about the number of players that 3e does with its 4 player design assumption.
    350 replies | 13552 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 19th June, 2019, 03:53 AM
    No you don't. Most casual players aren't going to bother with that kind of medium to long-term planning.
    109 replies | 6254 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About billd91

Basic Information

Date of Birth
December 31
About billd91
Location:
Verona, WI
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Yes
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Twitter:
billdunn91

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
10,778
Posts Per Day
1.70
Last Post
2e, the most lethal edition? Yesterday 08:12 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:37 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 6th March, 2002
Home Page
http://billsflix.blogspot.com/
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
3

4 Friends

  1. knasser knasser is offline

    Member

    knasser
  2. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
  3. MintMMs MintMMs is offline

    Member

    MintMMs
  4. Tovec Tovec is offline

    Member

    Tovec
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019


Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Tuesday, 9th July, 2019


Monday, 8th July, 2019


Sunday, 7th July, 2019


Saturday, 6th July, 2019


Thursday, 4th July, 2019


Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019


Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Monday, 24th June, 2019

  • 11:48 PM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?
    I am reacting to a situation, not narrating a scene. There is a HUGE difference Umm, where did the situation come from? Who initiated the situation? Who set the location, the opponents (or allies or whatever is being reacted to)? Now, there are games where the answer to that might be "anyone at the table", but, outside of those games, by and large, it's the GM/DM who is setting the stage so to speak. Sure, the PC's open the door, but, it's the DM who describes what's in the room. And, at that point, what are you reacting to? The opening of a door? That's a pretty fine line distinction. PC's are camping for the night in a D&D game. You roll a random encounter. At that point, you have to narrate the set up, it's unavoidable. Like billd91 said, the distinction is formal vs informal style. But, you're still narrating no matter what you do.
  • 01:29 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    billd91, I'd agree with that. I wonder if you were to draw a venn diagram of those who argue that chaotics are trustworthy and responsible and those who personally identify with political ideologies that emphasize personal rights and responsibility and personal liberty, if there wouldn't be a very high degree of overlap. I usually find that folks have a very difficult time separating their personal ideologies from their hobbies and any time one conflicts with the other, it always must be the other people who are wrong and just don't understand. Regardless of the amount of evidence brought forth. It's no different than when a beloved fictional character is changed and folks lose their cool. That character couldn't possibly change in that way, and it doesn't matter if the change is interesting or cool or even logical. It's not in keeping with their personal vision of that character, therefore everyone else must be wrong. Or if a beloved author is criticised and shown to be perfectly...

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 09:13 PM - Lanefan mentioned billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Sure, XPs has its 'negatives' too, although not everyone sees all of that as bad. Having read many of @Lanefan's posts about the table he and his group run, I'd say they're ok with much of it. They easily run disproportionate leveled characters at their table with no worries, and have a lot of fun doing so. The higher-leveled characters shielding the newbies, with character death being a certainty.:DIn fairness, I think Lylandra was referring to newbie players rather than characters. But yes, and back to the theme of system flexibility, 0-1-2e are far more flexible as regards in-party level variance than either 3e or 4e are; 5e has trended back towards this flexibility which is excellent. (EDIT: billd91 got to this ahead of me, upthread) And that brings up another issue I have with milestone levelling - lower level characters can never "catch up". Also, how does one ever introduce items or events that give an individual character a level - or take one away? What happens if a character gets a wish and wishes to go up a level - does the whole party get dragged along for the ride? In a long-term campaign things like this will happen, and level variance is thus inevitable unless the DM does some very arbitrary forcing of things.

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 02:38 PM - lowkey13 mentioned billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    ...as nothing I could have done with this, no way I could have seen, but it still happened on my watch and I feel responsible for it. We are all responsible, these are our shows, our people, we are all responsibleÖ We do not stand for behaviour like this, and Iím glad it made the national news, because anyone looking can see that not only did it happen, but that it was stamped on hard and that the community does not stand for it. A short while back, I did an interview with ENworld, the content of which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKilVWLdtQ with my comments on Harrassment policies being found around the 1:13 mark. This was how things were back then, they are still my comments now, we did what I said we would, and we did it fast. So, there was a quick (and thorough) investigation. The charges were not disputed. The Convention immediately removed him, but did not otherwise release his name. The person doing the investigation cautioned about social media (h/t billd91 !!!) What is there not be certain about? This is all at the link that @Riley37 provided to you.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 07:58 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Um... he was using liberal in the classical sense, not in the modern American polemic sense. I know because I'm usually nowhere near billd91 politically, but understand his point about liberal values. It's Enlightenment liberal, not politics liberal.

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 08:18 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Smells fishy to me. If the GM was going for an Inbetweeners kind of vibe in which the PCs start in a compromising position and hijinks ensue, he didn't get off to a good start. My guess, even if he did intend for the PCs to have sore asses because of the squirts, he probably just described them waking up naked in a van with sore asses and left it to the players to infer what that signified. I wouldn't be surprised if he did so deliberately knowing that players might interpret it as being anally raped. While a show like the Inbetweeners might be able to play some of that off with humor (particularly around a character like Jay), it isn't going to work for your average con game. And obviously so. Yeah, I pretty much have to go with billd91 here. His explanation leaves a lot more questions than answers, and, frankly, I'm having a pretty hard time believing that a player would be that disturbed by a depiction of rape that it was a simple "misunderstanding" and that he had no idea, not a single clue that anything was awry. IOW, he's trying to paint the player as fabricating the whole thing just for attention. I'm really not buying it.

Friday, 29th March, 2019

  • 02:12 AM - 77IM mentioned billd91 in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    ...cine, maybe Nature. Conversely, :):):):)ing PERCEPTION is rolled like every 5 minutes. Skills like Athletics and Arcana and Persuasion fall somewhere in the middle. Then there are oddballs like Stealth, which can be tremendously useful for certain characters and seldom used by others. Obviously, this varies somewhat by table and DMing style. Some DMs put a lot of effort into finding uses for all skills. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that in general the current skills are not really balanced. I'm not saying that this is a problem -- I personally find the skill list "balanced enough" that it's not worth house-ruling. But, twofalls, if you are going to expand the skill list in some way, this is something you should keep in mind. Splitting up a skill like Acrobatics into Climbing, Swimming, Running and Jumping sounds good, but now each of those skills is much less attractive than the consolidated Athletics. And even though I rag on Perception as overpowered, I agree with billd91 that you shouldn't split it up, because it becomes too confusing which one to use. (The fact that it is rolled frequently makes simplicity really important.) One potential solution here is to have skills cost different amount of "points." So maybe you have Nature proficiency cost 1 point, Climbing costs 2 points, Acrobatics costs 4 points, and Perception costs 8 points, or something like that. Give everybody 4 points per skill they used to have -- so 8 points for backgrounds, 8 points for most classes but 12 for bards/rangers and 16 for rogues, 8 bonus points for half-elves, etc. This way players who pick a really great skill like Perception have to pay for it, while the low cost would allow players to pick up tons of "flavorful" but minor skills like Nature, Animal Handling, Planar Lore, Riding, Ancient History, Modern History, etc. A related idea is to have skills and fractional skills. So maybe you can buy Athletics for 6 points, or you can buy Athletics/Climbing for 2 points, At...

Monday, 18th February, 2019


Wednesday, 6th February, 2019

  • 11:15 AM - Sadras mentioned billd91 in post Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
    To me that just suggests bad mechanics! I don't see how. Ah yes. The Mother-May-I One-True Wayist manifesto. I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to. Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not? I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant). You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd. Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll? Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction? EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok? I think that is the sort of thing the OP is trying to avoid when using the phrase "without forcing players to play the "Mother may I" game". Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs. :) Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight. DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair? Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient. DM: Cool, what do you say to her? Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often? DM: Is there something specific that you say? Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is rea...

Tuesday, 22nd January, 2019

  • 07:13 PM - Ralif Redhammer mentioned billd91 in post Would you invite this player?
    Iíve learned the hard way that good friends donít always make for good people to game with. I put up with a lot of nonsense from friends at the gaming table, until I didnít. But I suppose it depends on how much youíre willing to manage the potential difficulties. A lot of what you described could in theory be easily resolved. Stuff like, if he tries to steal from other PCS, ďIím sorry, but PCs arenít allowed to steal from the party and other PCs in my games;Ē and, for the spotlight hogging ďOkay, weíll get to you when your turn comes around, but PC#2 is currently doing something.Ē It is a gamble, but as billd91 said, we all had to start somewhere as players, probably somewhere near the bottom. (and good friend)

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 09:28 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that. As billd91 said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation. The players have to get lucky every time. The monsters only have to get lucky once. Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will. But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter. As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me. I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with. If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat. :D

Saturday, 20th October, 2018

  • 09:51 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned billd91 in post 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"
    ...than a +1. If you need a 2 you have a 95% to succeed normally, and 95% + 5% * 95% = 99.75%, agains slightly less than +1. This is the minimum. If you need an 11, you have a 50% normally, and a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% with advantage. That's the equivalent of +5. This is the maximum. Your +/-6 to +/-7 is outside the range of what is possible. That mean it is likely not the average. You may want to double check you math. One common mistake I've seen is working out to roll 2d20 and subtract the higher fromt he lower. That's really comparing advantage (best for 2d20) with disadvantage (worst of 2d20). It's clear if you work it out as percentages what it can be for every target. Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag. That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it Retreater, billd91. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

Tuesday, 16th October, 2018

  • 10:06 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    ...is is insistent on the point doesn't answer the point. The idea of the DL-style game is that at least the players provide a bit of colour and a few minor decision points. But if the GM is also establishing the most important bits of PC colour, telling me what decisions are and are not appropriate for a worshipper of XYZ, etc - well, what's left for the player to do? ut no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).But that's exactly my point. If the player's preference that the whole god/patron thing be "backgrounded" was respected then the god/patron would be happy. But for whatever reason the GM is inserting his/her own preference to decide that the god/patron is not happy. For what reason? If the GM thinks the player is just a wrecker - which eg was the implication of billd91's reference upthread to "murder-hoboing" - then as Aldarc has said, that's a social problem that can be resolved by a sensible conversation among participants. It's not an aspect of game play at all. But if the issue is not that the PC is wrecking things - eg if the PC was playing a wizard or a fighter or whatever no one would have any issues - then why is the GM needing to insert his/her conception of what the patron/god wants in favour of the player's conception of the same? How is that improving the experience? Telling me that we're not talking about story-now play doesn't help - even within the follow-the-GM's-trail paradigm, I dont understand what this is supposed to be adding to the play experience. In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.That seems to imply that you are interested in identifying and respecting the player's ...

Sunday, 14th October, 2018

  • 05:26 AM - Maxperson mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it. Are you deliberately misunderstanding billd91, or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron? We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.
  • 04:26 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    ...t of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway. This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. How many groups actually, consistently, track spell components? How many groups worry about paying the monthly living expenses? So on and so forth. Sure, you might do it from time to time, but, realistically, it just fades back and becomes a non-issue. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot? Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA. Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time? The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like billd91 and 5ekyu are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot. By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.
  • 12:25 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions. That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks. wow, you agree with billd91 in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things. :erm: What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?

Tuesday, 2nd October, 2018

  • 06:52 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 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.)

Monday, 18th June, 2018

  • 03:01 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    Lanefan, billd91 - Tony Vargas's reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm. As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration! As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds, and to be distinguishing AD&D or 3E from 4e on that basis. Also, someone upthread (maybe Sadras) mentioned tinkering - the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)

Sunday, 17th June, 2018

  • 09:31 AM - Lanefan mentioned billd91 in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    (1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic. billd91 already covered this one, so...what he said. (2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not. Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting. So to suggest someone repeatedly going to or below 0 within a short time "has had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her" is "nonsense narration" falls well below your usual standard, sir; and...

Thursday, 31st May, 2018

  • 01:42 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    I don't think its the minis themselves so much as a heavy rule dependence on the spatial reality of the game. The early edition rules about space and positioning were easily handwaved. Not so much with 3e or 4e.That's what I said! But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.Rounds in AD&D are 1 minute, movement rates as 10s of feet per minute, and there are no rules for actually positioning in melee - only for getting cut down when you try to disengage from it! So while weapon reach can matter (eg in establishing first strike in a charging situation; for establishing how many soldiers can work together or fight one another in a confined space; etc) I don't actually see how you need minis/tokesn to track the ways in which it matters. (And I see that billd91 has made much the same point.)


Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
No results to display...

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 09:20 PM - Tony Vargas quoted billd91 in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    Sure but dont you figure it actually didn't require as much skill or art because EL delivered..Yeah, that's a given. 4e DMing was phone-it-in easy. I felt like I'd almost forgotten how to run after a few years. ;) But it's like falling off a bicycle. (something else it turns out I'm good at) Giants are a particularly odd case for the transition between 2e and 3e. Up close, thanks to the weapon bonus damage, crits, lots of hit points and Con bonuses, giants are generally more dangerous.And armed ones using iterative attacks, that got brutal, too. I think, if you ask "Which edition was most lethal?" that really asks - what percentage of characters did each edition actually kill? It has nothing to do with whether a 2e fighter could beat a 1e fighter, or otherwise comparing their stats to each other. It asks what power level characters were, *with respect to the challenges they were given*. Unfortunately, the real numbers are lost to us. Your best bet for a real fair analy...
  • 03:33 AM - Janx quoted billd91 in post Spider-Man: Far From Home spoiler discussion
    What job? I think Nick was actually on vacation. In Tahiti it looks like. Just saw a video that floats the idea that Fury died in Winter Soldier, and that activated some stand-in plan for his Skrull buddy to take over. Extra evidence is that when Fury says he can't eat bread that's not been cut in half, there's movie footage of him doing just that, thus, he was a SKrull at that time.

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 09:41 PM - Tony Vargas quoted billd91 in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them. Precisely my point. 3.5 went out of print ("end of life," maybe I mistakenly mixed a tech term into a publishing discussion, there?), and Paizo kept selling PF1 to 3.5 fans for another 10 years. Because 3.5 had just established that kind of loyalty. In another sense than product cycles, 3.5 (in the form of open-source d20) is /immortal/. As long as anyone wants to buy it, it can be published.
  • 07:14 PM - Celebrim quoted billd91 in post Doing away with INT/WIS/CHA
    Or the other answer - the survival (or other skill) is for lighting a fire under difficult circumstances. Agreed. Having the proper tools and conditions for starting a file makes starting a fire trivially easy. However, this doesn't mean that starting a fire in the wilderness after a rain using only what is at hand is easy. And this kind of thing - assumed skills - would cover everything else (non-difficult circumstance). The way I view things is that there are a lot of things that have DC 0 or less. Walking across a broad level surface is for example like DC -5. Normally, if a character proposes to walk across a broad level surface there is no need to make a check to see if they succeed. What's really going on in the case of the fire starting example is that the character has tools which provide such large bonuses to lighting a fire that it renders what is actually a very difficult task into something which is so trivial it's not worth testing in most cases. It still migh...
  • 04:20 PM - Parmandur quoted billd91 in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them. Weeeeellll, a lot of that was, more or less, reinventing the wheel from 3.5, rehashing concepts covered in existing WotC books.

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 03:54 AM - Parmandur quoted billd91 in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Iíd buy into argument b, but not a, at least, not within a setting agnostic set of core rules. The witchís importance to Golarion (which I donít necessarily agree with), should be of secondary importance. The core rules for PF2 are not setting agnostic: Paizo is going all in on Golarion, and all PF2 books assume that setting is in play.

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 04:45 AM - MoonSong quoted billd91 in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Iíd buy into argument b, but not a, at least, not within a setting agnostic set of core rules. The witchís importance to Golarion (which I donít necessarily agree with), should be of secondary importance. RPGs live and die by their setting. Only D&D can afford to go "setting agnostic" (and that is barely) by virtue of its size and prominence. Without a strong setting a random RPG is but a set of bland mechanics, and if it's fantasy themed, it is just a heartbreaker. For identity purposes World of Darkness is Storyteller, Freedom City is M&M, and Golarion is Pathfinder. Yes, other settings can work with these games, but if these games stop working with these settings they stop being the same game.

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 05:52 PM - Mistwell quoted billd91 in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    That's rough. I don't think we can call it one way or another. That playtest just left such a bad taste though. Thatís a pretty strong statement. Itís not many sequels that ruin the original like Highlander 2 does. LOL it was a joke. I was trying to one-up the prior jokes. I think Pathfinder 2 will do fine.

Wednesday, 10th July, 2019

  • 04:46 PM - TwoSix quoted billd91 in post Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?
    Moreover, the gunslinger monk wasn't exactly a concept you could make at the outset of PF1 either. That came 2 years in with Ultimate Combat. I agree with that in principle, but it's a valid argument in terms of not wanting to make a switch in 2019, when one edition has the options already and one will only have them in the future. I mean, losing out on currently existing options is a pretty valid argument against making any almost any edition switch.

Sunday, 7th July, 2019

  • 03:56 PM - pemerton quoted billd91 in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    The wink doesn't pose a problem for me as a PC action, although generally there would also be a mechanic involved there but there doesn't have to be. As an NPC action with a dictated result it's ... wacky. Even if you could find a system that supported it I'd still be against it. Obviously the extent of the forced action plays a big role too. If the forced action just consists of telling the player they get swollen love nodes, which is more an invitation to action than forced action anyway, I'm fine with it. But as soon as the DM says something like "she beckons you with a finger and follow her out the door" then I'm firmly against, and will reiterate my earlier contention that this doesn't happen in RPGs generally so is probably a silly example. I don't really feel the need to explain how monster abilities with mechanics are a different class of example.I'm not sure what monster abilities you've got in mind. In Prince Valiant, for instance, Incite Lust is more likely to be found on a maiden t...

Saturday, 6th July, 2019

  • 09:27 PM - WayOfTheFourElements quoted billd91 in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    Turns out... that's wrong. There may be 2 major varying chromosomes, but it has become clear that, for a not insignificant number of people, there is variation. That's what you get with 23 chromosome pairs and all sorts of varying environmental conditions during development - complexity. Do you think that the relatively simple genetic model of ABO blood types and Rh factors gives you a complete picture? It makes for a good lesson in genetics for middle school biology, but it's incomplete because there are other factors in the' genome that are involved. There are also M, N, D+, K+, and more. 28 different antigens identified so far. So why would you think something as complex as sexual identity would be so simple? Why would you assert it absolutely has to be that simple? Why would you deny the complexity that other people assert is real and part of their life experiences? Why must you assert that they are wrong? Interesting, but I'm not sure I entirely understand. Where can I go to learn mor...

Thursday, 4th July, 2019

  • 02:52 PM - Jay Verkuilen quoted billd91 in post TSR's Amazing Accounting Department
    I'm not sure that was the prevailing idea back in the late 1980s. I suspect that it wasn't, at least not explicitly. How many other games had gone through a massive rewrite at that point? I know Villains and Vigilantes did from 1e to 2e (which much improved the game), but I also know of others like Call of Cthulhu where the changes were incremental and served to incorporate new ideas developed in supplements into the core. Actually D&D had. Recall that AD&D was a pretty heavy revision itself, and D&D had been "forked" into two versions which coexisted since around 1980. A lot of the fear, I suspect, was about the fact that this was the first version with Gygax out of the picture.
  • 12:31 PM - Aldarc quoted billd91 in post Doing away with INT/WIS/CHA
    Yes, it should have applications outside of casting. But ultimately, I think just considering these 3 stats without also fixing issues with the physical stats is a mistake. Part of the problem with some of the D&D classes is it's too cheap to dump stats because they are so unevenly used.I like your basic idea, but I think that trying to preserve the six main stats is a bit of a fool's errand here. Part of the problem, IMHO, is that three mental stats are effectively doing a variety of things stretched between them: Intelligence: knowledge/wits Wisdom: willpower, knowledge/wits, perception Charisma: willpower, social You could reduce the stats to about four: Strength/Brawn/Physique/Might: physical power/resistance Dexterity/Finesse/Agility: physical finesse Intelligence/Wisdom/Wits: mental finesse Willpower/Resolve/Presence: mental power/resistance If you wanted, you could also include a 5th stat - Perception - that represents the hybrid interaction between p...
  • 06:31 AM - Tony Vargas quoted billd91 in post Doing away with INT/WIS/CHA
    Yes, it should have applications outside of casting. Thus dropping the names, as well. To avoid any confusion with qualities that will be provided by the player. with the higher stat picked for defense, all the player had to do was pick a class that used those same stats for offense The reverse of the usual process, but, yeah. <offense/defense stat pairs>... It's only Dex and Intelligence that are tricky. Planning vs reacting. While the former could offer defense in the form of preparedness, it makes sense for offense, and reflexes make perfect sense for a defense.

Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019

  • 02:25 PM - Maxperson quoted billd91 in post What Method(s) did you use to roll ability score when you first started D&D?
    Other variations: One DM had us roll 4d6 drop low but if we got a 4 of a kind, we kept all 4 (whether all 6s or all 1s) Wow! That reminded me about something I had completely forgotten. I did play with one DM who would give you a 19 if you rolled 4 6s.
  • 03:45 AM - Sacrosanct quoted billd91 in post Why Rules Lawyering Is a Negative Term
    If you don't see the strong correlation, it probably has more to do with not being in touch with the common usage than anything else. I wouldn't say most cheaters are rule lawyers either. That's definitely just a subset of cheater. But the idea that a rules lawyer is someone who digs for exploits and interpretations that are "technically correct" but questionable to a layman's reading of the rule (just like lawyers finding technical loopholes in the law) is very widespread in the hobby and has been for well over 20 years. All you have to do is look at the long-running Knights of the Dinner Table as a standalone comic and back in its early days in Shadis Magazine to see how long the idea has been around. Theyíve been around when I started in 1981, and I suspect since 1974. I donít think any DM has all of the rules memorized. And with a username like mine, you might be shocked to learn Iíve made mistakes in the past as a DM as well ;) I donít think anyone is calling someone who reminds ...
  • 03:37 AM - Parmandur quoted billd91 in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    Yeah, considering there's evidence of it being in use for centuries including by some of the titans of English Literature, and despite it being accepted in many if not most dictionaries and style manuals, to ignore all that and insist that the pronoun some people prefer for themselves is an infraction against grammar...that is a highly political statement made against those very people. I use singular "they" when filling out reports at work all the time, because I don't often know the gender of a customer based on a name from a language with which I am unfamiliar. I don't do that to score political points of some sort, it's so there isn't weirdness if the customer reads the report and finds I guessed wrong. It's extremely natural.

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 05:43 PM - Tony Vargas quoted billd91 in post What is the Ranger to you?
    Unless you consider it cultural appropriation to try to understand it by an inherently western European framework. Arguably, sticking a Samurai or Ninja in otherwise-nominally-medieval-European D&D /is/ cultural appropriation, or "Orientalism." Conversely, a set of mechanics able to model an armored, mounted warrior, that could be used to construct a Knight of the Angevin Empire or a Samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, at the option of the gamers using it, would not be.
  • 04:21 PM - 77IM quoted billd91 in post What spells should have had the ritual tag, but don't?
    Might as well just define a wizard's AC as 13+Dex then. Because, if mage armor were a ritual, that's exactly what it would be. And that's probably a major reason it is not a ritual. It's too dominating a strategy at that level. Making it a spell you can't have as a ritual imposes a balancing and necessary trade-off. This is why I wish the rituals had varying requirements. For example: - Mage armor could have a material component that costs 2,000 gp (a mithril amulet of a shield studded with small diamonds) so it's slightly more expensive than plate armor. In other words, once you're able to afford such a component, you probably aren't that worried about 1st-level slots any more anyway. - Cure wounds could consume a material component that costs 50 gp (a drop of quicksilver) so you're better off with a potion of healing. It can't be cast at higher levels (there's no point; just cast it repeatedly at 1st level). - Knock could increase the casting time by 1 hour. Honestly, if you have an...
  • 04:21 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted billd91 in post What spells should have had the ritual tag, but don't?
    Might as well just define a wizard's AC as 13+Dex then. Because, if mage armor were a ritual, that's exactly what it would be. And that's probably a major reason it is not a ritual. It's too dominating a strategy at that level. Making it a spell you can't have as a ritual imposes a balancing and necessary trade-off. Again, wizards arenít the only ones with that spell. The trade off isnít necessary, as well. Letting casters have decent armor that can be dispelled is fine. Making it a ritual spell means that any ritual caster can have it, which is exactly what Iím aiming for. Yaarel Iím unconvinced. Those feats are among the least worthwhile feats in the game. They should have been folded into other feats, with no loss to the other feat. the fact that they wildly overvalued those feats isnít going to impact how I view a new option.


billd91's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites