View Profile: Reynard - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • LostSoul's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 02:15 PM
    Weapon damage dice is outmoded; it works with 1-minute melee rounds, but not with 6-second ones. Let it be a judgement call.
    3 replies | 299 view(s)
    0 XP
  • LostSoul's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 02:10 PM
    G = Try to win. S = Fit in with the game world. N = Show what you'd do in a moral dilemma.
    144 replies | 9778 view(s)
    5 XP
  • LostSoul's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 01:55 PM
    1. The game must push the PCs so that players have to really wonder if now is the time to spend prowess points. 2. Thus recovery of PP should be a big deal. 3. How do the PCs change? (It should be tied into their decision making, so probably based on how they spend their PP.) You might want to incorporate "losing" oneself into the PP mechanics - when PCs spend PP they risk losing themselves...
    8 replies | 576 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 01:38 PM
    Help and Guidance are not mutually exclusive, of course, so in come cases you can double up. There are also lots of situations in which help doesn't apply. You can't help someone pick a lock, for example. But I think you are right about the impact: guidance does not break anything -- especially since almost all DCs in 5E are arbitrarily assigned by the DM anyway.
    132 replies | 65233 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 | 15837 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 02:02 AM
    In the rulebook, verbal components must be "chanted" which implies, IMO, something that cannot be whispered. Somatic components must be either forceful or intricate, either of which obviates hiding under a blanket or whatever. Spells, even cantrips, are powerful and they should come with cost. The constant concerns about casters outshining martials is based on, IMO, the continuous reduction and...
    132 replies | 65233 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 01:21 AM
    Remember that spellcasting is obvious. It is loud. It can't be done stealthily or subtly (barring a particular feature). That means that in court or in a place of business, people are going to know you are "cheating" by way of the spell. In the dungeon, that means those goblins know you're there and when the rogue does unlock the door, she's going to get a nasty surprise. Finally, if you play in...
    132 replies | 65233 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 03:00 PM
    It is difficult to argue with free beer, if not nigh impossible.
    11 replies | 456 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 01:25 PM
    Lots of good advice about types of games to run, so I won't rehash that. But I have run a lot of public D&D, at cons and game stores and bars, and here are some things to remember: Use your stage voice. Convention halls and breweries are LOUD places and you will want to be heard without having the scream the whole time. Speak from your diaphragm. If you have never used stage or public speaking...
    11 replies | 456 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 08:38 PM
    I'm not sure this is true. 5E isn't a narrative game by any stretch of the imagination. it still relies on mechanical systems and random number generators to determine outcomes. The DM is free to railroad in 5E, sure, but she was free to do that in 2E as well. In some ways, 5E is "wackier" than AD&D and so may even be better for, "This one time, at bard camp" type stories. I don't think any...
    196 replies | 11429 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Reynard's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 03:31 PM
    Yes, but the story is the result of play. it's the tale of what happened. And sometimes, what happened is that Dorf stepped into a pit and ended up bleeding out on kobold punji sticks while his friends argued about who got his boots. Sometimes, what happened is the party saves the princess, kills the dragon and then blows the hoard at the alehouse.
    196 replies | 11429 view(s)
    3 XP
No More Results
About Reynard

Basic Information

About Reynard
Introduction:
Writer and gamer.
Location:
Southwestern Connecticut
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

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

Twitter:
IanAsItWere
Facebook:
IanAsItWere

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,329
Posts Per Day
0.68
Last Post
[Guidance] What, +1d4 to every check ever? Sunday, 30th June, 2019 01:38 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
61
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 13th July, 2019 02:52 AM
Join Date
Friday, 18th January, 2002
Home Page
http://www.ianeller.com
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

4 Friends

  1. LostSoul LostSoul is offline

    Member

    LostSoul
  2. Mark Mark is offline

    CreativeMountainGames.com

    Mark
  3. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
  4. The Shaman The Shaman is offline

    Member

    The Shaman
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4

Sunday, 30th June, 2019


Thursday, 27th June, 2019


Wednesday, 26th June, 2019


Monday, 24th June, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Friday, 21st June, 2019


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 14th April, 2019

  • 03:57 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    ...t, in a game, what is taking place is not the search of a bedroom with bureaus but (say) the search of a workouse that was the site of arson; or the search of a town to see where some stolen horses are stabled; or the search of a library containing hundreds of feet of shelving holding many hundreds of volumes. None of these would be out of place in a D&D game. How is the bedroom search example to be extrapolated to those cases? What details is the GM obliged to narrate in framing the situation? What details is a player obliged to narrate in declaring an action? In the rulebook example, the GM doesn't seem to have described what clothes are in the bureau; does the GM have to describe what books are on the library shelves? Where the shelves are in the building? Whether the building has north or south facing windows? If so, which volumes are faded by the sun to what degree? I think framing this discussion as one of following vs disregarding the rules as opposed to, say, Hussar's and Reynard's dfferences of preference and playstyle, is actively unhelpful.

Tuesday, 26th March, 2019

  • 05:38 PM - lkj mentioned Reynard in post Arcana of The Ancients: 5E Sci-Fantasy From Monte Cook Games Launches On KS
    So how do the stretch goals work for this campaign, anyway? I'm used to stretch goals being included in addition to whatever is specified as the base reward level for a given tier. But this is the first time I've seen things like "All PDFs unlocked in this campaign" as a tier of its own. So do you only get those PDFs if you pledge at the proper tier, or do you get them with every tier? If you do get them at every tier, what's the purpose of the "All PDFs" tier? On the other hand, if you only get them when you pledge at a level that mentions unlocked PDFs, do they really count as stretch goals? I'm confused. You get precisely what they say you get in the given pledge tier. It's just that as the stretch goals are hit the value you get at a given tier increases. And that's it. So, as Reynard points out, currently, the $160 level is not really a good value. They seem confident that it will be by the end, based on their previous experience. I agree with Reynard though that I was disappointed that their next stretch goal after a monster book was a premium version of the main book. I mean, it's neat, and it's a nice bonus. But personally, I'd much rather have my 'third' book be new content, which means that it's basically not a value added for me. Here's hoping the campaign kicks into high gear after the next goal is hit, and they knock out a few more books. The company seems confident it will, and they have a lot of experience at this sort of thing. So, fingers crossed. AD

Monday, 18th March, 2019

  • 11:17 AM - Sadras mentioned Reynard in post Awards other than XP
    Coin (common or rare) and Gems Treasure (Art Works, Jewellery, Furniture/Fittings, Prize Horse...etc) Monstrous Pet (Griffon, Pegasus...etc) Land and Titles Advance in a hierarchical Organisation, Society, Guild or Faction (renown) - perhaps requiring reallocation of post (i.e. Archbishop) Acquisition of Vessels, Keeps, Caravans or Tavern/Inn, Smithy, Library ...etc Reputation and Prestige Languages and Tool Proficiencies Faith (per DMG) Contacts, Allies, Connections - i.e. Religious, Scholarly/Academic (Sages), Underworld, Royalty, Craftsmen, Navigators, Monsters (Dragons, Outer Realm Beings) Romance (Courtship, Beating of Suitor/s, Engagement, Marriage, Children) Spells Lore i.e. Research Material, Rare/Archaic Maps, Planar, Teleportation Circles Magical Item improvements i.e. A Ring of Jumping that may provide limited flight, weapon imbued with an additional minor property Acquisition of rare materials for spells or magical items Plot Points (per DMG) EDIT: @Reynard despite the above, my advice for your game is not a glacial advancement of 1 RL year = 1 Level up, unless of course if your players really buy into that style of game. Rather... Cap Hit Points based on size; Change up the Rest mechanic and tie it into the Exhaustion mechanic (I'm using this); Buff up monsters (that goes without saying); Require something extraordinary in the fiction to advance characters from level x to y. (For instance, in my campaign they destroyed a Beholder that had been feeding on the essence of a dead deity, once they destroyed the beholder that essence was released and the PCs were awash with it, allowing them to access level 10 and higher); Change up the setting from village to town to epic to cosmic. Do not be afraid to have the PCs be feared;

Sunday, 17th March, 2019

  • 12:30 AM - CubicsRube mentioned Reynard in post Removing Hit Points from the Game
    Reynard although hitpoint inflation doesn't bother me as ive never played past 11th level in 5e, i have run some numbers on where my sweet spot would be. Ultimately I decided on this: at level 0 use you CON score for hitpoints. At level 1 and every level thereafter, use the average hit points gained per level WITHOUT the CON modifier. This front loads some of the HP and most classes with a COn bonus will break even around 3rd to 5th level. It props up those with a low con slightly and brings down those with a high con score slightly, lessening the hp gap between classes. Note i would still use the con mod for hit dice recovery and for con saves of course, so it is still a useful stat. That may or may not work for you.

Saturday, 29th September, 2018

  • 03:51 PM - OB1 mentioned Reynard in post Tell Me About Your Experiences With High Level 5E
    Reynard - Thanks for the write up. Just curious as to what the level of the characters were and what you calculated the XP value of each fight as. Also, what if any magic items did the party have? I show the first fight as 29,700 XP and the second as a 33,100 XP base. If these were tier IV characters I probably wouldn't use a multiplier since all of the enemies are of a CR significantly below the party.

Thursday, 27th September, 2018

  • 01:56 AM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Reynard in post Sell me on D&D Beyond
    While there are various pros and cons, options to weigh, YMMV, etc., the decision to purchase content on D&D Beyond basically boils down to: Buy it because you would feel guilty about torrenting a PDF of the core rule books. OR, don't buy it because you don't feel guilty about torrenting a PDF of the core rule books. This would only seem true with a shallow understanding of what DDB provides. Having the PHB on DDB is strictly more valuable than having a PDF of the PHB. By far. Like, I can't even fathom how one could equate them. Reynard DDB is better than other digital versions of the books because of a few factors. 1, Indexed searching with in depth filters 2, hyperlinks 3, multiple ways to find information. You can either open the PHB via the Compendium tab, or go to Characters>Classes>Official>Wizard, and look there, or just type in Spellbook, and scroll down. 4, easy access to what is being playtested in unearthed arcana 5, great way to tinker with homebrew, and maintain a searchable collection of it, and then use it in conjuction with official material. 6, mobile app. it's still in beta, but it already has offline viewing of the books, and will eventually have the full functionality of the service. So, even if DDB goes away, you still have whatever books you downloaded to your devices from the app. Also, if you get the Legendary Bundle, it's all 15% down from normal amazon prices, including anything you ever buy on the service going forward. Also, if you just by the core books right now, and decided to...

Wednesday, 12th September, 2018

  • 07:45 PM - Satyrn mentioned Reynard in post Black Pudding split
    I think here original refers to the pudding being targeted but not their starting HP. Otherwise, you could theoretically be in an endless pudding feedback loop! So...it's the second option: That's totally how I read it, too . . . But I'm with Reynard. When I gave my homebrew demon the ability the split in half, I had it so that a Large one split into 2 Mediums, with the chance that those Mediums inherit the ability to split into Smalls. Even if the Large had 1 hit point when it split, each of those Smalls would start with their normal max (somewhere around 10 each). Mostly because it's meaner.

Thursday, 23rd August, 2018


Tuesday, 21st August, 2018

  • 12:41 PM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ...tomatically as part of movement by default" and "jump farther more recklessly knowing i can risk a lot of potential bad results aka setbacks" [Athletcis check, possible setbacks and other bad results.}I can see that. For my tastes, that's drilling down more than is needed - like we don't normally distinguish between different sorts of moves in melee combat - but that's just taste. Either way, the resolution comes out the same. My approach puts the p 64 rules more on the GM side, whereas your approach treats them as something (or as a model of something, like knowledge of their capacity for performing) that the characters engage with in their atheltic pursuits. The potentially different goals can be "jump a specific distance to a specific spot" (targeted jump at/to something) or just jump as far as i can in this direction" or quite a few others. likely others as well.Agreed, but again I think this sort of granularity isn't needed most of the time. I guess it becomes relevant for Reynard's scenario, though, where the PC has to not only jump from A but land on a reasonably small and wobbly B. One approach would be to up the DC for the STR (Athletics) check, and if it fails by no more than 5 allow a DEX (Acrobatics) check to hold on anyway.
  • 04:57 AM - iserith mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ...was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either. Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty. My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does. What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and @robus and I think @SkidAce, @5ekyu and @Reynard, on the one hand, and you and @Charlaquin on the other. I still think this comes down to approach. There are two goals here, you might say: Jumping Normally and Jumping An Unusually Long Distance. You can certainly achieve the second goal, in some circumstances, given a viable approach. This might mean interacting with the terrain in some fashion that is unusual, getting the assistance of an ally, or using a resource that reasonably helps. The resolution of that outcome may or may not involve a Strength (Athletics) check. What is a viable approach requires context and, even if we're all looking at the same context, we may rule differently as to its viability. Some might say it works, others that it doesn't - no roll. Some might say it's uncertain and call for a check. Among those latter folk, the DCs may vary. Do I think a character can jump an unusually long distance? Yes. The rules say it's possible. What matters is the approach they offer to achieve that goal.
  • 04:30 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ... was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either. Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty. My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does. What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and robus and I think SkidAce, 5ekyu and Reynard, on the one hand, and you and Charlaquin on the other.

Monday, 20th August, 2018

  • 03:15 PM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    ...ll allow the character to succeed. I prefer using "say 'yes'" as a device to manage dramatic pacing rather than as a response to tactical planning, and to use "fail forward" to manage the outcomes of failure. It's also the case that it's a long time since I've run a system with a "notoriously fickle" d20 (4e has the illusion of being such a system, but there are so many player-side resources for generating post hoc boosts, retries, etc that it really isn't) - BW and Prince Valiant are dice pools, Classic Traveller is mostly 2d6, and Cortex+ Heroic is very complicated dice pools with a lot of player-side manipulation as well. Because of the way 5e strongly demarcates "mundane" checks and "magical" spells and class abilities, I suspect it may be hard to play in the style I prefer, which is one reason why I don't play it. But on this particular issue of a character jumping further than s/he easily can, I think drifting it in that direction in the way that I've described (following Reynard's description) is not that hard at all. (And in lieu of any sophisticated "fail forward" in the event of failure, if the PC is 14th level as Reynard suggested then the hp mechanics will probably carry that load.)
  • 04:44 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    I would certainly allow a PC to exceed their normal jump distance with a successful Strength (Athletics) check. I just don't consider "I try to jump further than I can normally jump by jumping normally" an action with an uncertain outcome, and therefore wouldn't call for a Strength (Athletics) check to resolve it. If, on the other hand, the player offers a method of jumping further than they can normally, that may or may not require a check to resolve, and as per the rules, I would call for Strength (Athletics) to resolve it.Can you give an example of a method of jumping further than they can normally? I mean, are you envisaging the player describing the use of a pogo stick, or spring board? Or a ramp to gain extra height? It's not clear to me why those sorts of things would involve STR checks (using acrobatic equipment looks like DEX check territory to me). A STR check smacks to me of trying harder, which is what Reynard described. If a character tries harder, I also think it's fair game to impose costs eg in this sort of case, hp loss for strained/torn muscles. That works very well in 4e (in my experience), but may be it doesn't translate into 4e where hp are perhaps governed by tighter expectations for their loss and recovery?
  • 04:34 AM - pemerton mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    I'm with Reynard - taking a deep breath and giving it all you've got is an approach to jumping across a chasm. Because it takes time to take a deep breath, the GM might reasonably advance any "clocks" that are ticking in the situation.
  • 02:37 AM - Oofta mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    Unusually being the key there. If you are just going to say yes to every time they ask to jump farther, it's no longer unusual. Also, that rule does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within the context of Page 6. To declare an action you describe what your PC is doing and then the DM adjudicates it. "I use athletics to jump farther" is not a description of what your PC is doing. It's a statement of intent, sure, but a description it is not. So you are breaking the rule on Page 6 if you accept that. That's fine, but it's effectively a house rule to do so. Usually you jump feet equal to your strength. I never said I would allow it all the time and honestly, I don't use the jumping rules all that often in the first place. If I thought someone was abusing it, I'd discuss it with the player. But, if the character is being chased by zombies like in Reynard's scenario I'd allow it. I think it's more fun, realistic and a cleaner reading of the rules. As others have pointed out, you don't have the corner on the truth.

Sunday, 19th August, 2018

  • 08:23 PM - iserith mentioned Reynard in post Missing Rules
    We have probably exhausted the potential for worthwhile debate on the topic, especially given our very different readings of that paragraph in the DMG. But thank you! It was a fun discussion. Indeed. I'll leave you with this which gives an example of what the DMG is talking about in that section (page 239, for anyone who wants to see what Reynard was referencing). So here, from Basic Rules, page 2: Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles? Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations? DM: Make an Intelligence check. <--- Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply? <--- DM: Sure! Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven. DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge? In other words, "Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check."

Sunday, 5th August, 2018

  • 04:37 AM - Henry mentioned Reynard in post The playtest is here!!
    Critical Role was Pathfinder when it was a homegame, for the two years before the stream started. It was never streamed as Pathfinder. They switched to 5e for its faster play. CR has too good of a relationship with WotC to switch back now, and D&D Beyond is a major sponsor. Pathfinder has done a few attempts at streaming. Know Direction has one: http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/category/podcasts/kd-adventurous/ And there is an official Paizo Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/officialpaizo But few games are streamed there. They did apparently do a playtest game: https://twitter.com/JasonBulmahn/status/1025252371205697536 If a podcast of an hour or so is something Reynard is looking for, Glass Cannon Podcast is a very good one to check into, and it’s officially Paizo sponsored.

Monday, 8th January, 2018

  • 06:02 PM - Oofta mentioned Reynard in post Setting Party level vs an Ancient Red Dragon
    I've been busy and didn't respond before, but I do have to say that the party was given every possible advantage and then some. So Reynard, I wanted to give some feedback ... I don't think the system is necessarily broken, but you bent too far backwards to "help" the party. It happens to all DMs, I know it's happened to me more than once (and probably will again) and it has very little to do with 5E. Solos are never easy to run, have never worked very well and the CR guidelines aren't going to be much help when you gave them this much of an advantage and an additional 20th level character. Having said all that, I'm trying to give some helpful advice. But the big question is: did the players have fun? If they did, then the encounter was a success. Sometimes the players stomp on your encounters, it's part of the game. wish to create a simulacrum of a 20th level bard Did they have access to a 20th level bard for the 12 hours it takes to cast the spell? Also, note the part of the rules of Simulacrum where it gives the rules for repairing it. Specific beats general in this game and if there's a specific rule...

Thursday, 14th December, 2017

  • 05:37 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Reynard in post Setting Party level vs an Ancient Red Dragon
    Reynard As a rule of thumb, I'd add +2 to Hit and Damage rolls, and add a 1d6 to the fire damage from its attacks. I think the CR rules in the DMG would only indicate a +1 to attacks, but I'd go a little more. Raise its AC to 21, which won't make a huge difference, but will turn a few hits into misses Raise the DC for Frightful Presence, Breath Weapon, and Wing Attack by 1 (Wis DC 20, Dex DC 22, Dex DC 23, respectively). I'd also add a good amount of HP...probably about 100. Or give it some other means to help mitigate damage. A simple Potion of Invulnerability would allow it to take half damage from all of the PC attacks for 10 rounds. These increases put it somewhere between the CR 17 Adult and the CR 21 Ancient. However, I think the key to this will be to increase the number of Legendary Actions and uses of Legendary Resistance. I think you could double each, at least. And as Warmaster Horus suggested, maybe create a couple of unique Legendary Actions that you think woul...

Tuesday, 15th March, 2016

  • 05:55 PM - innerdude mentioned Reynard in post D&D comes to Middle Earth (from Cubicle 7)
    ...antra constantly on these forums, "Play what you like! It's okay to have your own preferences! No one has to tell you you're having badwrongfun!" But as soon as I talk about my dissatisfaction with the current One Ring product line, because I have personal preferences of what I enjoy in the Lord of the Rings fiction, somehow I'm now a bitter nerd-rager? To give some context: Faramir is BY FAR my favorite character in the Lord of the Rings fiction. (Peter Jackson's deplorable treatment of Faramir in the movies is worthy of much more nerd rage than Cubicle 7, but that's another debate entirely. :p;)) The entire backstory of Gondor, Numenor, Isildur and Anarion, the North and South Kingdoms of the Men of the West, etc., are by far my favorite parts of the Lord of the Rings lore, closely followed by the history of the Silmarils. I don't currently have any tattoos, but if I ever got one, it would be of exactly one thing --- the White Tree of Gondor. So yeah, I'm partial to Gondor. And @Reynard might be right; The One Ring isn't "made" just for me. They made a design decision to stick to one particular time period and locales for the system. And because of those choices, I have been unwilling to promote the system more, because that's not the Lord of the Rings RPG play experience I want. To me, The One Ring is missing what I consider to be some crucial, nay, vital pieces. Why the need to jump to Cubicle 7's defense? Do you work for them, or have some business interest? They made a choice to focus on what I see as particularly uninteresting aspects of Middle-Earth's Third Age. I'm not denigrating anyone who prefers what they've already produced; I'm simply saying I will be dissatisfied as a customer until I see support for Gondor characters. And this is somehow . . . offensive? As far as what Cubicle 7 posted on their web site, it's a lovely sentiment. Truly, I'm sure they mean it from the bottom of their hearts, and I'm sure they feel it when they say it. But the harsh real...


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 51 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019


Saturday, 29th June, 2019

  • 02:40 PM - jgsugden quoted Reynard in post [Guidance] What, +1d4 to every check ever?
    In the rulebook, verbal components must be "chanted" which implies, IMO, something that cannot be whispered. Most definitions of chant allow for words to be spoken *or* shouted. Somatic components must be either forceful or intricate, either of which obviates hiding under a blanket or whatever. Given the number of pervs masturbating on mass transit that get away with it, I think there is room for a wider range of options. Spells, even cantrips, are powerful and they should come with cost. The constant concerns about casters outshining martials is based on, IMO, the continuous reduction and removal of those costs. First, people stopped tracking components. Then they gave wizards bonus spells for high Int. Then they made cantrips endless. Then they complained that casters were too powerful and decided to up martial power. It's confounding.As a player active since the 70s, component tracking rarely gets more than a hand wave of attention, older editions have more bonus spells for high attri...

Friday, 28th June, 2019

  • 05:24 PM - jgsugden quoted Reynard in post [Guidance] What, +1d4 to every check ever?
    Remember that spellcasting is obvious. It is loud. It can't be done stealthily or subtly (barring a particular feature)... That is a bit of a question mark, even after Xanathar's guidance. Per the PHB, the combination of sounds, specifically including pitch and resonance - but not specifically including volume - are what is necessary for a verbal component. Somatic components are forceful gestures or intricate gestures. That creates a broad spectrum of possible motions required to cast a spell. Xanathar's reminds us that spellcasting is perceptible, but being perceptible does not inherently mean automatically perceived. It means there is something there to be seen and/or heard. There is still the chance, as determined by the DM, that it is seen or heard. Generally, under the rules this would be a DC that is compared to passive perception, although the DM might allow the perceiving entity to roll to try to improve their check above the passive score. In my game, I interpret t...

Thursday, 27th June, 2019


Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 11:13 PM - digitalelf quoted Reynard in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    My attitude is no one gets plot armor, not villains, not important NPCs and certainly not PCs. You want to live to see 20th level? Act accordingly? If that gets in the way of your conception of how your character's story is supposed to look, that's something we need to talk about. It's a conversation worth having. But generally speaking when it comes to D&D, you're going to find that my table is not the one you want to be at if you already know what your character's fate should be. This is pretty much how I run my games as well; having done so throughout all of the editions that I have run (i.e. BECMI - 3.5/PFRPG). I really dislike, bordering on hate the term "Character Build"... Just make a freaking character so we can play! So yeah, if you have plotted out your character's path from level 1 to level 20 or more, already having decided that you will require this or that magical sword or magical item by this or that level, then you will be very unhappy at my table to be sure.

Thursday, 6th June, 2019


Wednesday, 5th June, 2019

  • 04:19 PM - mortwatcher quoted Reynard in post Let's list the "broken" spells
    The DM is a player, too, and broken spells that one shot the Big Bad may not be fun for them. that is true and there are a few solutions to that: 1. you have infinite amount of big bads, they have spells like force-cage 1-2x/day 2. talk with your players, if it makes you that miserable, work with them to change their spell list I'm aware that high-level D&D experience can be more work for the DM, as the CR system gives up at that point, but by the time you get there, you should have enough experience under your belt to manage, or wrap up the campaign before you get to these problematic spells

Monday, 3rd June, 2019

  • 10:05 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Reynard in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    in games with lots of human or humanoid armored foes the weapon vs armor type rules are more impactful. I like systems like that, especially as they relate to making the "boring" fighter more interesting and making weapon choice about more than damage potential and the shield bonus trade off. Comrade! ;) I knew I wasn't quite alone in appreciating those obscure/maligned rules. You throw these out and your drastically reduce the capability of the fighter, because they are the ones that have weapon versatility. Instead every fighter walks around with a long sword. To be fair, they end up running around with two-handed swords (or maybe the odd bec de corbin or Lucerne hammer), until they realize the random treasure tables are dropping lots of longswords*, then they end up walking around with those, instead. But, by then, it's tool late to change their weapon specialization (especially in 2e, when going with double-specialization in a weapon you could dual-wield in pairs was the fighter's ki...
  • 05:55 PM - Satyrn quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    What about the little stuff? Like, you have previously established an ancient hero who was buried with his famed weapon. The players' adventures bring them to the tomb. Do you make sure the famed weapon is one your party can use, even if for whatever reason your players have chosen are or esoteric weapons? And if so does that player choice impact the historical context of the hero? I used to do that sort of thing in 3e. I don't anymore. I try to randomly generate everything . . . although the smart player could use divinations to help their cause. For example, if they pay a witch to tell them where a good battleaxe can be found, randomly generated weapons in that area will be heavily weighted towards battleaxes. Or if they use that spell that answers weal or woe, and ask "will I find a good gun in that hellhole?" the dice will get heavily weighted, too.
  • 02:25 PM - Xaelvaen quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    What do you think? Ooh, I do love a question with a great 'exception-oriented' answer. "It depends on the type of game we're playing." In a low fantasy setting, one where magic is rare, magic items even moreso, and the players are meant to feel on the edge of their seat, constantly challenged, and worried for the lives of their characters from even basic, rugged bandits... well then the world exists without regard to the players and their characters. It is a living, breathing world of which they are a part, and the stories rarely flow into the 'epic' category of Dungeons and Dragons. It is typically dark, fatal, and brutal - and the world persists even long after the players, and their characters, have moved on. No adventuring stores - the players need their own crafts, or to make connections to have gear created for them. No recognition of what an 'adventurer' even is - my group tends to find interesting things to do without anything being custom tailored to them and what they do...

Sunday, 2nd June, 2019

  • 08:46 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Reynard in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    In the context of an RPG, it becomes a matter of preference. Exactly. If you want to model an heroic story, you strap on heavy plot armor from the get go. If you want to have some hazing or dues-paying and some funny death stories, first, but eventually get to some heroic stories in, you issue it a bit later. 5e & 2e are pretty similar in that regard. You get a little leather plot-jerkin at first (5e the wizard and Rogue's are slightly less inadequate), and rapidly upgrade. About half way to 20th, your 2e full plate is at its best, while in 5e you keep upgrading through to the Tony Stark special by 20th. But, through the sweet spot, very similar.
  • 08:24 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Reynard in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    Or it means that players and their characters interact with the world under the working assumption that they are not safe. That's really an 'and' rather than an 'or' - If you're cautious enough to survive a campaign, you've managed to make yourself safe - possibly by taking up a career other than adventuring, possibly by using others - PC or NPC - as trap/monster fodder & curse lab rats to avoid the risks thereof. The difference is the appearance of safety, and thus heroism. Plot armor is invisible in the fiction so the 100hp PC looks like he's taking insane risks and surviving due to luck or skill or destiny and may be called a hero. Conversely, the guy who worked his way up to Archmage fabricating plate armor for the royal infantry, or the one who cleared Castle Taupe Falcon at the cost of only a few hundred patsies, might not be so regarded.
  • 03:33 PM - jgsugden quoted Reynard in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    You have a character you have been playing for hundreds of hours, with a deep backstory and the accumulated depth of character that comes with so much play. That's awesome. I'm inclined to wonder, though, why you are having such a valuable, beloved character amble mindlessly down a trap laden corridor? One of two things would seem to be true: either whatever reason put the character there is important, and therefore dying in that circumstance is inherently heroic; or, it isn't important and your beloved character has survived so long in spite of a career filled with foolish decisions and it's about time fate turned against them. People should play they want to play. For me, games without stakes are boring exercises. Uncertainty and consequence make the game worth playing. I absolutely do not want a character to ever be safe.Or, there wasn't a reason for that PC to expect the corridor to be trapped, rather than a trap it was an ambush, etc... you're attacking the minutia, not the core iss...
  • 06:41 AM - MGibster quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    A couple threads active right now got me wondering about this: in your opinion, does the world and its doings exist primarily for the benefit of the PCs, as opposed to it existing and going on despite (or even in spite of!) the PCs? I am in the camp that favors the world existing for the benefit of the PCs. Whenever I design a setting I think about the elements I'm adding and ask myself whether or not my players will care. Will they care about how the economy works? Will they care about the mythology I've created regarding the gods? Should I spend a lot of time coming up with distinctive kingdoms for the PCs to visit? Sadly the answer is usually no because they're not going to care unless it's something that's important to game play. I usually don't care of a campaign setting makes sense. My primary concern is that it's a fun place for the PCs to have adventures.
  • 01:59 AM - pemerton quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    A couple threads active right now got me wondering about this: in your opinion, does the world and its doings exist primarily for the benefit of the PCs, as opposed to it existing and going on despite (or even in spite of!) the PCs?The function of the gameworld is to support a game. So it exists for the participants - real people in the real world. In most RPGs - including D&D - the majority of the participants play the game by using their characters (the PCs) to engage the gameworld. What form that engagement takes, and how - in the fiction - the PCs fit into their world, will probably differ from table to table.

Saturday, 1st June, 2019

  • 11:12 PM - Brashnir2 quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    I think some of us would suggest your first mistake was planning an ending in the first place. I strongly believe that RPG play is NOT storytelling. We tell stories about play, and that's awesome, but we are playing a game. Sometimes, to some degree or another, that game borrows narrative tools as part of the play process. Who says I'm planning an ending? I think you're reading way, way to much into that statement. I plan for possibilities. When I put a villainous NPC in the world as a major player, I generally come up with a vague notion of what that encounter will look like once the players force an encounter. Sometimes the circumstances of the campaign change such that my original idea no longer makes any kind of sense once that encounter comes to pass.
  • 08:09 PM - Lanefan quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    I run a game for the players. The setting is part of what I run - and often the setting is tailored specifically to the type of campaign I want to run. The characters are the players avatars in the setting. But the setting doesn't cater to the characters, the setting caters to my needs as DM for telling the story and supporting the campaign. This brings up a related question: to what degree does the setting exist for the campaign? ... Other settings are intentionally broad and meant to be the place where any number of individual stories or adventures might occur. Both of these are true in my case: the setting is tailored to the type of campaign I want to run: broad, open-ended, where lots of things can happen but there's no guarantee that any or all of them will. Put another way perhaps, it's kind of a sandbox setting but set up for either sandbox play, story-based play, or (most of the time) a combination of these.
  • 06:43 PM - Blue quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    This brings up a related question: to what degree does the setting exist for the campaign? Some settings are tailored to tell a core story, a singular narrative and all the design choices support that one story. Other settings are intentionally broad and meant to be the place where any number of individual stories or adventures might occur. Great question. I tend to run homebrew, so my settings are tailored to the campaign. But with many of my recurring players I do travelogues - where the party is constantly on the move as opposed to a home base they always return to. And for that I need to keep up lots of interesting places in terms of culture, geography, etc. So there's a lot of places that I just do in broad strokes with hooks that I'll detail if it looks like the characters will go there, but I've already been able to lay information abut those places beforehand because I had the broad strokes. What that ends up with is that I have a world that is rich enough for multiple camp...
  • 10:25 AM - Lanefan quoted Reynard in post Does the world exist for the PCs?
    What about the little stuff? Like, you have previously established an ancient hero who was buried with his famed weapon. The players' adventures bring them to the tomb. Do you make sure the famed weapon is one your party can use, even if for whatever reason your players have chosen are or esoteric weapons? And if so does that player choice impact the historical context of the hero?No. The weapon is what it is (and if it's that famous the PCs will probably know what it is, or can easily find out) regardless of which if any PCs ever go looking for it or what their particular weapon proficiencies might be.
  • 08:34 AM - digitalelf quoted Reynard in post Returning to 2nd Edition
    Has anyone else returned to 2E since adopting 5E, or even since 3.x/Pathfinder? What was your experience? Is there more there than nostalgia? I dropped 3.5/Pathfinder RPG/d20 back in 2012. I got tired of there being a rule for every little thing, with more and more of those types of rules constantly being added with every new book that was released. Back in 2000 when 3rd edition came out, I made the switch from 2nd edition, and I was one that bought every new book/resource that came out... When 4e came out, part of the reason I did not make that switch, was that I did not want to re-buy everything all over again just to keep up with the newest ruleset. Starting about 2009, I started to feel frustrated with the d20 system (as a whole). And I started looking at my collection of 2nd edition stuff, and recalling that, while I enjoyed the games that used the d20 system, I recalled having "more" fun overall back when I used 2nd edition. At first, I thought it was just nostalgia I was fe...


Page 1 of 51 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Reynard's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites