View Profile: Raith5 - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About Raith5

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 1, 1970 (48)
About Raith5
Introduction:
4th ed D and D, 5th ed D and D
Location:
Melbourne
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,206
Posts Per Day
0.28
Last Post
Are you moving from 5E to PF2? Monday, 15th July, 2019 02:06 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:35 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 4th October, 2007
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019


Thursday, 11th July, 2019


Wednesday, 10th July, 2019


Tuesday, 9th July, 2019


Thursday, 4th July, 2019


Sunday, 30th June, 2019


Saturday, 29th June, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Thursday, 20th June, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 17th March, 2019

  • 06:45 PM - Harzel mentioned Raith5 in post Back after about 29 years
    ... that emerged organically from the primordial soup of wargaming and fantasy literature. So while it would probably be an overstatement to say that 5e has design principles (as in design rules that were strictly adhered to), it does have systems that are intended to hang together in fairly specific ways. Unfortunately, any explication of these considerations/guidelines is pretty much entirely absent from the books, even the DMG. The upshot is that mods can have ripple effects that actually do degrade things that were working well, as opposed to 1e where the interaction of different systems was so idiosyncratic that all you could say about most changes was, "Well, that's different." Anyway, even though you will see it said that 5e is very modifiable, my advice is to spend significant time playing RAW before you start tweaking. And don't worry, there are still plenty of holes and edge cases that you will have to fill in with rulings, so your creativity will not be stifled. Finally, Raith5 made a humorous reference to studying the intervening D&D editions. While it is by no means critical or a prerequisite, I have found learning a bit about 3e and 4e instructive. Elements of those games have influenced aspects of 5e. * Though I did not play 3e or 4e, from what I have gathered, 5e does seem to be more reminiscent of 1e than 3e or 4e were, but that also seems to be a low bar.

Friday, 10th August, 2018

  • 02:28 PM - TwoSix mentioned Raith5 in post Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?
    ...ntage on dex saves, the ability to gain advantage on an attack, picking up a feat, gaining an extra attack, moving faster, being able to act during a surprise round, taking half damage from all damage that isn't psychic, and doubling your carrying capacity and gaining advantage on feats of of strength isn't significantly different from level 1? The other 7th level barbarian types also have profound differences than a level 1 barbarian has. I get wanting to have more choices, but that's a far cry from 7th level being the same as 1st level other than hit points. Those are all good things to gain, but the majority of those features are passive bonuses. The only features gained that enable choices are Reckless Attack and Extra Attack, and even those choices are slightly different modes of attacking. You're certainly better at running up and attacking, but you're still running up and attacking, just like you were at level 1. I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think you and Raith5 might have differing definitions of "significantly changed".

Wednesday, 30th May, 2018


Monday, 13th March, 2017

  • 08:11 AM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?
    ...got another attack. But before that I got all kinds of other cool things I could do.Optimisation (and strong, etc) seems to be being used to mean good at combat. If your rogue/monk/warlock could do invaluable things that no one else in the group could do, then that doesn't sound like a weak character. Nor - just on the strength of this description - a particularly sub-optimal one. Just one that brings some non-combat (I assume) capabilities to the table, or perhaps some degree of combat specialisation (eg stunning). So it seems a bit orthogonal to the main issue, which is something like "How steep is the gradient of the curve for a 5e PC that plots mechanical effectiveness against prospects of mechanical success". I guess I thought it was uncontroversial that the answer to that question is "Not very steep." Whether that's a good or bad thing is a further question. It seems good for including players with varying levels of skill/experience/inclination at the same table, eg per Raith5's post. But maybe it's less good for a player-driven game, if it makes player choices less significant to outcomes in play?

Monday, 2nd January, 2017

  • 11:13 AM - jacktannery mentioned Raith5 in post Seeking advice for new 4E game inspired by Pemerton
    @Manbearcat, thanks for the advice. Iíve been GMing 4E as PbP online for about eight years now so Iím pretty handy with the logistics of battle map (google docs drawing), hp/combat tracking (google docs spreadsheet) and managing combat rounds (off-turn actions banned; initiative streamlined). I totally agree with the importance of making everything transparent. Thanks for reinforcing (5) Ė Iím going to try this. Iím especially grateful for (6) and (7): itís very clear advice that I will be sure to follow. Iím really looking forward to this! @pemerton, thanks for the links to the kickers. These concrete examples of stuff like this in action are so useful to me! @Raith5, good insight about different motives, Iíll take that on board. I am really depending on the players to be providing impetus to push the story forward (which would be a huge change in my games, which have also relied on the GM for story up to this point). @Derulbaskul, that's much better! I'll see if I can change it.

Tuesday, 1st November, 2016

  • 02:23 PM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post What is the "role" in roleplaying
    ...no one can remember the characters' names or, in a couple months, whether James played a rogue or a ranger? Did they succeed at role playing or did they do a sub-par job?There's an assumption here, though, that good functional play is not memorable. But in my experience it often is - and part of remembering it also involves remembering what the players' character did, and hence what/who s/he was. For instance, when you get people to post about memories of "creative casting", they don't forget the class of the character because, in remembering what the situation was and what the spell was that was used, they also remember the details of the character. As to whether a party played badly if they didn't "beat" the adventure - doesn't that depend on the dynamics and expectations of play? If you're playing a Gygaxian dungeon, then failing to beat the dungeon (eg all the PCs get killed, or none gets enough treasure to earn a level, etc) is playing badly. If, along the lines suggseted by Raith5 upthread, you see roleplaying as being about the player pursuing character goals, then failing to achieve those goals might be a sign of bad play. Conversely, if you think that the main point of RPGing is to create an entertaining and fun personality - as per the quotes upthread from the 2nd ed PHB - then you probably think that "beating" the dungeon, or achieving goals, is irrelevant. These different approaches are what I am hoping the thread can explore.

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Raith5 in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...; @JediGamemaster ; @JeffB ; @Jester Canuck ; @jgsugden ; @jodyjohnson; @Joe Liker ; @JohnLynch ; @Johnny3D3D ; @KarinsDad ; @kerbarian ; @kerleth ; @Kinak; @KingsRule77 ; @Kirfalas ; @Kobold Stew ; @koga305 ; @Lanefan ; @Lanliss ; @Leatherhead; @Libramarian ; @Li Shenron ; @LuisCarlos17f ; @lowkey13 ; @Manbearcat ; @MarkB; @MechaPilot ; @Mecheon ; @mellored ; @Mephista ; @Mercule ; @MG.0 ; @MichaelSomething; @Miladoon ; @Minigiant ; @Mishihari Lord ; @Mistwell ; @MoogleEmpMog ; @Mon @MonkeezOnFire ; @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) ; @MostlyDm ; @Mouseferatu ; @MoutonRustique; @Nemesis Destiny ; @neobolts ; @Neonchameleon ; @Nifft ; @nightspaladin ; @nomotog; @n00bdragon ; @Obryn ; @Ohillion ; @oknazevad ; @Olgar Shiverstone ; @Orlax ; @Otterscrubber ; @Pandamonium87 ; @Paraxis ; @PaulO. ; @Pauln6 ; @Pauper ; @payn; @pemerton ; @peterka99 ;@ Pickles III ; @Pickles JG ; @pkt77242 ; @pming ; @pogre; @PopeYodaI ; @Prickly ; @procproc ; @Psikerlord ; @Psikerlord# ; @(Psi)SeveredHead; @Quickleaf ; @Raith5 ; @raleel ; @Ralif Redhammer ; @Raloc ; @Ranes ; @RangerWickett; @Ratskinner ; @redrick ; @Rejuvenator ; @Remathilis ; @Ristamar ; @RolenArcher; @Roland55 ; @RPG_Tweaker ; @Rune ; @Rygar ; @Sacrosanct ; @Saelorn ; @Saeviomagy; @sailor-Moon ; @SailorNash ; @Saplatt ; @Satyrn ; @Shades of Eternity ; @shadowmane; @sheadunne ; @Shasarak ; @shidaku ; @shintashi ; @Shiroiken ; @SigmaOne ; @sleypy; @sleypy01 ; @SpiderMonkey ; @Staccat0 ; @Staffan ; @steeldragons ; @steenan @STeveC ; @strider13x ; @Strider1973 ; @Sword of Spirit ; @Talmek ; @TerraDave; @TheCosmicKid ; @The_Gneech ; @TheHobgoblin ; @The Human Target ; @the Jester; @The Mirrorball Man ; @The Myopic Sniper ; @ThirdWizard ; @Tia Nadiezja ; @Tinker-TDC; @Tonguez ; @Tony Vargas ; @Tormyr ; @TrippyHippy ; @tsadkiel ; @tuxgeo ; @twigglythe Gnome ; @TwoSix ; @Uchawi ; @Ulorian ; @UnadvisedGoose445 ; @UngeheuerLich; @Us ; @Valmarius ; @Warbringer ; @was ; @wedgeski ; @Wednesday Boy ; @Wik ; @WillDoyle ; @Winterthorn ; @Wuzzard ; @Xevia...

Tuesday, 12th August, 2014

  • 12:08 AM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?
    ...her movie on TV (was it released cinematically?). I personally also think the Ang Lee Hulk movie was pretty bad, although Rotten Tomatoes doesn't agree. I think this shows it's possible to come back from bad movies and other media pretty quickly. The evidence doesn't suggest that a character or "franchise" will be permanently weighed down by its past associations. As I said up-thread, I'm not just talking about initial (or even only long-term) financial success, but creative and community success which should but doesn't always translate into financial success. As far as I can tell, 5E is showing signs of being a stronger success in the community than 4E was at the same point. <snip> it is more palatable to a wider range of D&D players, especially the long-time people that were turned off by the "Warcrafty" qualities of 4E.This is the sort of analysis that I think has very limited explanatory value. I mean, on this thread alone we have multiple long-time D&D players - Raith5, SteveC, for instance - expressing a degree of doubt over whether 5e is a game they want to play. And there are plenty of other long-time D&D players who post regularly on ENworld who expres similar concerns. But you seem to be discounting that, for whatever reason. Similarly references to the "Warcrafty" quaities of 4e. That's like referring to the "Diablo-y" qualities of 3E ie basically meaningless. If an issue with 4e was mechanically rationed abilities for martial characters, let's describe it more accurately so we can actually identify the relevant design issues. Or, if the issue with 4e was that powers were laid out in coloured boxes, rather than the traditional black-on-white text of a D&D spell or magic item description, then let's describe it more accurately so we can discuss the relevant layout issue.

Saturday, 21st June, 2014

  • 11:28 PM - Ichneumon mentioned Raith5 in post What Do You Need From The DMG?
    One important option I missed was alternative magic systems, such as spell points or low-magic. So if that's important to you, come talk about it here. :) Raith5, I don't know exactly what a 1e/2e module would include. But I predict that the edition-emulation modules will include sets of options mentioned elsewhere. So the 4e module will definitely refer to the tactical combat option, and the 1e/2e modules (I grouped them because the rules for these editions are quite similar) is likely to include true-Vancian and low-healing options, among others.

Tuesday, 5th November, 2013

  • 01:38 AM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post "Damage on a miss" poll.
    ...ign, at least in this context, has to do with RPGs? The whole point of an RPG is that the fiction is collectively created by the choices of the participants. If they are curious as to what is happening when damage results from a roll that the mechanics do not define as a hit, they can make it up in their imaginations. Your right to enjoy a mechanic is preserved if that mechanic is put in a magical class, but it must have that label if is it otherwise impossible. It effectively means a 1st level fighter cannot miss.(1) The language of "rights" has no work to do here that I can see. We're talking about a commercial publishing venture. (2) If I want to play a relentless fighter, why are you telling me I have to play a magic-user? (3) A 1st level fighter built with this class feature does not fail to drive their enemy towards defeat in the course of 6 seconds of engagement. That does not mean that the fighter "cannot miss". I refer you back to the Muhammad Ali video posted by Raith5. Some of us want, in the course of the game's evolution, for it to make more sense, rather than less.I have been accused of hating D&D, and of want to turn it into something it's not. But I'm not the one posting in these threads saying that the mechanics of D&D don't make sense. So let me turn a phrase back on you - why do you want to make D&D into something it's not and hasn't been? There are plenty of terrific sim games out there - why don't you try one of them? If your response to that is that you're a legitimate D&D player too, then I invite you to consider that other are also, and they like this mechanic and want it (or things like it) in the game.

Monday, 4th November, 2013

  • 03:41 PM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".
    ... if you roll a 1 and miss automatically, does that mean that (1) you swung wildly like a drunken trainee, or (2) struck the most awesome blow ever, but were parried by the most awesome defensive manoeuvre ever, or (3) something else? My claim is that the D&D mechanics don't tell us. There is no correlation between the quality of the roll and the quality of the swordplay. (Contrast, say, Runequest, which distinguishes the roll to hit from the roll to parry/dodge, and hence does provide information about the quality of the swordplay via the mechanical resolution.) Now personally I think this is a strength of D&D. (Which is not to say there's anything wrong with RQ. But it makes a lot of other changes too.) The system should play to that strength. Damage on a miss is one way of doing that - it leverages the fact that no particular fiction is connected to any particular attack roll, in order to enable a "dreadnought" fighter who simply will not let his/her enemy escape unscathed. As Raith5 suggested on one of these thread, the great weapon fighter is the Muhammad Ali of D&D.
  • 10:17 AM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post Do We Need Another "Damage On A Miss" Poll?
    I didn't realise that this was a necro until I read Raith5's post. My only complaint about the more polls poll is that it isn't a multi-option poll, so I could only vote yes for 1 of my many reasons for wanting more damage-on-a-miss polls!

Tuesday, 24th September, 2013

  • 06:00 AM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post L&L The Next Phase
    ...esn't look much like C&T for a reason), and one of the modules appears to be the return of Skills and Powers.I played a C&T-using game back in the late 90s, but my memory is pretty hazy, I never read the rules at the time, and I have a feeling my GM got OAs wrong. I picked up a copy cheaply a year or three ago, and read it earlier this year. I didn't do the maths on the crit system and so have no idea how it would work out in play. Otherwise there was nothing too inspiring. I certainly think it's a mistake to look at 4e and see nothing but the precision of a wargame grid as the difference between its combat resolution and Next's "theatre of the mind". Other fantasy games - d20 and non-d20 - show that you can have 4e-style visceral combat, in which PC build sets the framework of resources that will then feed into significant choices (significant both in mechanical and story terms) within the context of action resolution, without requiring a grid. In other words, I'm agreeing with Raith5 upthread.

Monday, 5th August, 2013

  • 07:31 AM - Warbringer mentioned Raith5 in post Playtest Fatigue?
    Raith5 Ok, my optimism is misplaced :). The skill challenges loss and encounter vs. day pacing will create challenges that may not be bridged with modules. Inspiration gives some hope for token exchange for pacing control. Re the vs. defenses, tbh, I think that was an option in UA 3e, but either way, we've been laying that since 2003 I think, we just call it Active Story so players roll all the dice vs target numbers. This an easy houserule :)

Thursday, 4th April, 2013

  • 06:52 AM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post Mearls interview
    Vancian magic is easier to balance against the fighter than most of the magic systems you find in fiction, particularly if you want magic to be able to do grand things.This interview has been discussed on the "Going the wrong way for everyone thread". Over on that thread I made the same point as Raith5. In particular, the tying of power to an ingame unit of time ("the day") does no balancing work at all until we work out (i) whether or not that ingame unit of time is a resource, and (ii) who has control over how much of it is available, when a day finishes and a new day begins, etc. Not since Gygax's quirky treatment of time in his DMG - which I could never make sense of until MerricB on these boards pointed out that Gygax was running games every evening, and on that basis was correlating ingame time, real time, and the availability of a given player's PC for an expedition - has D&D made time a meaningful resource. And with spells like Rope Trick, Teleport etc it has a tendency to put control over time into the hands of the very players on whom it's meant to operate as a balancing factor, namely, the magic-users. With a system like that, the only way to achieve balance is via huge amounts of GM force in respect of pacing, "living breathing worlds where the bad guys never st...

Sunday, 13th January, 2013

  • 11:50 PM - pemerton mentioned Raith5 in post 4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.
    ...ir best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice. I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice. <snip> if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.I think Victim is completely correct here. The purpose of level scaling in 4e is to ensure that other dimensions of play - the tactical decision making Raith5 referred to upthread, and also the desire to spare a bear's life, that mattered in the example I've just given - become the focus of play. One result is that 4e is not the best RPG for a world exploration game. But world exploration is not the only thing that can be done with an RPG.

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

Sunday, 9th June, 2019


Tuesday, 21st May, 2019

  • 02:34 PM - lowkey13 quoted Raith5 in post Magic Items Preference: flavor, or mechanical bonus?
    As a player I would rather survive than be cool, so give me a bonus. But is that really life? Is that worth living? Of all the Monk subclasses, I prefer The Way of Cool, whose tiny and exclusive monastery is hidden in a really amazing and laid-back valley. The Way of Cool has a passing-out test for initiates at the third level. The third level monk is taken into a room full of all types of clothing and asked: Yo, which of these is the most stylish thing to wear? And the correct answer is: Hey, whatever I select. ;) (h/t Pratchett)

Thursday, 9th May, 2019

  • 02:13 AM - Beleriphon quoted Raith5 in post Survivor: D&D cover artists
    Daniel Horne -- 21 Keith Parkinson -- 21 Jeff Easley -- 20 Larry Elmore -- 22 + 1 = 24 Lets be honest, this one is probably going to win. Clyde Caldwell -- 19 Erol Otus -- 18 Wayne Reynolds -- 10-2=8 No, no, no, no, no. No. Todd Lockwood -- 19 Tyler Jacobson -- 20 David Trampier -- 22 Emmanuel -- 16

Monday, 25th February, 2019

  • 12:56 AM - dnd4vr quoted Raith5 in post Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong
    Non issue for me. I think their ability comes from overall perception to see weak spots and vulnerability, not just their knowledge of anatomy. I suppose maybe a better way to think of it would be a timing issue. Like the rogue knows when to strike at the right moment to try to deal the most damage, which is why sneak attack is limited to finesse weapons which can strike quickly when the opportunity presents itself... At least your argument is more than just "they need to have it to be effective."

Sunday, 10th February, 2019

  • 06:24 PM - Quickleaf quoted Raith5 in post 90% of D&D Games Stop By Level 10; Wizards More Popular At Higher Levels
    Is there any data there about how many people play WOTC adventures vs homebrewed adventures? If most people use WOTC adventures, then this data is not surprising at all - it is simple product of the adventures they supply (which seem to all top off at 15th level). I am trying to get my head around whether this is a issue of the supply of adventures specific to 5e or something mechanical with 5e. I stopped playing 3e about 14th because the game more or less broke down because of the imbalance between casters and non-casters, I played 4e to 30th and that worked well at all levels, I have not played high level 5e yet. Chris Perkins spoke at GameHole Con 2015 and mentioned this topic, referring to internal WotC data... A great bulk of those who play D&D run homebrew settings. But of those home-brew campaigns, over half of those homebrewers do pillage from other settings ... 15% or 50% of the world they've created has hawked stuff from other worlds. They're comfortable pillaging our prod...

Wednesday, 6th February, 2019

  • 05:07 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Raith5 in post 4E Redux
    I agree with your premises and goals but wouldnt it be easier to spice up 5e rather than totally transform 4e? As I see if you revamp the battlemaster or give at will attacks to all martial classes, give monsters some further abilities/attacks you will go a long way to your goals with far less work. IMHO no. I don't like 5e's numbers that much, the design of its combat system, skill system, 6 defenses (dumb), and various other things. By the time I tweaked all those things, I might as well just run a hacked 4e derivative instead! So that's what I do... TBH, what I LIKE about 5e is mostly the way classes are more straightforward and builds are accomplished in a more straightforward fashion with less decisions needed. It thus seems much easier to design HoML with an eye towards making an improved 4e, which will naturally have some things in common with changes that are in 5e, though not too many necessarily!

Tuesday, 5th February, 2019

  • 04:09 PM - Ralif Redhammer quoted Raith5 in post Mike Mearls Talks Greyhawk in Lore You Should Know
    If I recall correctly, there arenít even that many real rules or references to the rules in the Greyhawk Folio, so it could easily be used with 5e. Heck, even the 3e Gazetteer is also pretty rules-light. For my part, I wouldnít mind another advance to the timeline of Greyhawk, but really, any sort of Greyhawk official release for 5e would be a validation and endorsement of that classic setting. Not necessary, but pretty awesome if it does happen. I really like Greyhawk because it was my first campaign world back in the days of 1e. However, I dont quite understand the desire to just more or less reprint the original setting. I already have a copy of that. I quite liked some of ideas I saw in From the Ashes (but I never played in that iteration). I dont want to get burnt on a stake (!), but I hope it gets thoughtfully updated to fit with the new classes, races and themes of 5e.

Sunday, 3rd February, 2019

  • 06:33 PM - Xeviat quoted Raith5 in post 4E Redux
    I agree with your premises and goals but wouldnt it be easier to spice up 5e rather than totally transform 4e? As I see if you revamp the battlemaster or give at will attacks to all martial classes, give monsters some further abilities/attacks you will go a long way to your goals with far less work. That's been the back and forth in my head. Changing the monsters would require "CHANGING THE MONSTERS", and for some reason I feel like altering the class/feat chapters of 4E feels like less work than altering an entire Monster Manual. Then again, altering the monster manual would mostly be creating a new monster by level table and then applying it to monsters based on their CR. It's still a lot of work, and adjusting the classes feels more entertaining. Though representing the 5E classes in the AEDU structure of 4E would be fun, because I think less people would like it. I firmly believe 4E's failing among the pathfinder players was presentation.

Saturday, 2nd February, 2019

  • 08:03 AM - Elfcrusher quoted Raith5 in post The Fiddly Bits (That Still Get My Newer Players)
    We tend to ignore concentration for damage. I have to admit that sometimes in my group we often forget to make the Con saves. But on a number of occasions (when we remember) it's added a lot of fun to encounters. I'm now in the camp of not just being ok with concentration for balance reasons, but actually liking it for its wildcard effect. The #1 problem with concentration, imo, is that most people "save" it for something really important and then eventually forget they have it. It's "oh I've been carrying this potion of X around for 6 levels, waiting for the PERFECT moment to use it" syndrome. The simple fix is to allow concentration to be used for a re-roll (similar to the Luck feat) instead of for advantage. That way it gets used for the first mildly important roll that fails.

Sunday, 27th January, 2019

  • 06:52 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Raith5 in post Guns in D&D - A Hot Take
    I am not sure where the idea plate armour was designed to stop bullets came from. Sure accuracy was a problem, but even early guns had considerable stopping power at short and medium ranges. This video may be useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEPG98tTIlU Plate wasnít designed to stop bullets because it existed long before bullets were on the battlefield so obviously it was designed to stop other weapons. Some advanced plate could stop period bullets, but by then the cost to do so was so prohibitively expensive only the extreme wealthy could afford it. It certainly wasnít an option for the infantry who was facing increased firearm useage In battle. Doesnít mean it completely disappeared. IIRC, people were still using plated body armor in WWII in rare occasions. I know aircrews used plated armor much later, but Iím talking armor for the average soldier that was worn AND the soldier was expected to be mobile.

Saturday, 15th December, 2018

  • 04:56 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Raith5 in post Iconic Bard?
    I think inspiring word and strong lore/knowledge skills are the defining mechanics of Bards. I like the 5e bard and am content with it being a full caster - I think it works well thematically - I just wish it had its own spells. The 5e Bard, IMO, just needs a series of spells, starting at level 1, that inspire the whole team as long as you keep concentration on them, with effects like the 3/.5e Inspire Courage. And a college that harkens to the old Druid association for people that want that back. I do wish the Bard got less spellcasting, while remaining a full caster, and more Bard stuff. Replace magic secrets with the ability to inspire the whole team with a BI usage, for instance.

Wednesday, 12th December, 2018

  • 05:05 AM - Zardnaar quoted Raith5 in post Iconic Bard?
    I think inspiring word and strong lore/knowledge skills are the defining mechanics of Bards. I like the 5e bard and am content with it being a full caster - I think it works well thematically - I just wish it had its own spells. Yeah my home brew D&D bard has inspiring word back but adding in some 4E and 5E elements while returning the old level 1-6 spell table a'la 2E to Pathfinder. The Druid tie in is basically adding some of those spells to the Bard list andor letting it steal spells form other classes a'la 5E. It will level up slightly slower than the 2E Bard (same speed as Thief), so I gave it the cleric xp table. A tweaked version could be added to 5E (more powerful bard stuff, half caster like Paladin/Ranger). The 1E PHB Bard didn't stick with me I look more towards the 2E, 3E, 3.5 and Pathfinder Bards and its kind of what the Bard player prefers as well (and I married her so yeah).

Monday, 3rd December, 2018

  • 09:40 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Raith5 in post Nentir Vale Coming to Dungeons and Dragons
    My preferences are for about a further 20% detail;) I like 4e and POL (despite not playing in Nentir vale - we played in POL version of Mystara). But I have two slight issues with POL and Nentir vale as written. One is a question of realism - where do the people in Fallcrest get their food and survive if kobold colonies are 10 miles away? Another is the the stakes in POL - I think the 'lights' have to really shine and be worth the PCs frighting for. I am not sure they do in Nentir vale setting. Would anybody miss Fallcrest if it fell? So yeah I think a good campaign in a POL mind set is great - but I think Mearls takes pushes it away from what I prefer form POL setting. This is a problem that comes up a lot for me in "psuedo-dark ages means life should be super dangerous" games. The actual dark ages weren't nearly as dark as such games want to be, but they don't account for the difference in terms of how people actually life their daily lives. You would. You were born there. You grew up...

Friday, 30th November, 2018

  • 12:02 PM - Aldarc quoted Raith5 in post Nentir Vale Coming to Dungeons and Dragons
    Fair point. I just mean that I would like for Fallcrest to be a touch more noteworthy and distinct - which means fleshing it out a touch more - it just feels too generic to me.Perhaps. But so did Sandpoint in Golarion, and yet it is considered one of the classic starting towns in Pathfinder. So is the iconic Village of Hommlet or Phandalin for that matter. Or Tristram in the Diablo series. Not every starting location needs to be as catchy as Sigil, Sharn, or Waterdeep.
  • 10:28 AM - Aldarc quoted Raith5 in post Nentir Vale Coming to Dungeons and Dragons
    Another is the the stakes in POL - I think the 'lights' have to really shine and be worth the PCs frighting for. I am not sure they do in Nentir vale setting. Would anybody miss Fallcrest if it fell? You would. You were born there. You grew up there. You have family and loved ones there. Who else will save your home town on the frontier borders of a dead, back-broken empire if not you?
  • 07:01 AM - Charlaquin quoted Raith5 in post Nentir Vale Coming to Dungeons and Dragons
    My preferences are for about a further 20% detail;) Is that a 20% cooler reference? Another is the the stakes in POL - I think the 'lights' have to really shine and be worth the PCs frighting for. I am not sure they do in Nentir vale setting. Would anybody miss Fallcrest if it fell? I think Nentir Vale works better for campaigns that are more about surviving in a harsh environment than for campaigns about saving the realm. Which could seem like a strange fit for 4th Edition, what with its focus on playing Big Damn Hroes and its 10 epic levels baked right into the core. But the thing is, Nentir Vale was conceived as an introductory setting. The game fully expected you to move on past the Vale after youíd gotten a few levels under your belt. It didnít matter that no one would miss Fallcrest, because by the time you were powerful enough to be saving a town, you probably werenít bumming around Fallcrest any more. So yeah I think a good campaign in a POL mind set is great - but I think Mear...

Monday, 27th August, 2018

  • 05:28 PM - billd91 quoted Raith5 in post Long or short rests? What is better?
    I would like to see what 5e looks like with no long rests. I have never really understood the whole vancian thing that you run out of magical power or divine power. As a player i do feel like the long rests are just so good that they intrude on the way the players think about resources and thus the slow and distort pacing of the game. . If you get rid of long rests and balance around short rests, you just trade one recharge mechanism for another and then it will be the short rest that will slow and distort the pacing of the game.

Monday, 13th August, 2018

  • 04:20 PM - TwoSix quoted Raith5 in post PF2E POLL
    I found this review very useful. I am coming at PF2 from the perspective of liking 4e and being interested in a well developed alternative to 5e. I would like to see a game that has more space for PC customization (especially for martial PCs), more dynamic monsters and a wider range of tactical options in combat than 5e. Having looked at the playtest I seem some potential on these fronts - but I still think the basic mechanics have a layer of unnecessary legacy or needless complexity - things like touch AC, raising shields, etc. I rather like the concept of the shield rules (take action to gain AC), but combined with the hardness and dent rules and shields breaking it gets to be a little much. If I want my equipment to keep breaking, I'll play Breath of the Wild. :)
  • 03:36 PM - Jester David quoted Raith5 in post PF2E POLL
    I found this review very useful. I am coming at PF2 from the perspective of liking 4e and being interested in a well developed alternative to 5e. I would like to see a game that has more space for PC customization (especially for martial PCs), more dynamic monsters and a wider range of tactical options in combat than 5e. Having looked at the playtest I seem some potential on these fronts - but I still think the basic mechanics have a layer of unnecessary legacy or needless complexity - things like touch AC, raising shields, etc. You could get rid of touch AC with some pretty quick house ruling (spellcasters make spell attacks using their casting stat rather than Dexterity, but hit regular AC). Shields... that seems like it would be beneficial to fans of tactical combat. Each round fighters get that extra action option with baked in reaction. They can choose better AC or to take another action. Feels like a nice, meaningful tactical choice.

Sunday, 12th August, 2018

  • 04:52 AM - Maxperson quoted Raith5 in post Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?
    Fair point. Yes some of these passive bonuses are significant. I was thinking about decisions and choices in combat. I just mean that in combat I make two decisions - rage or not rage and reckless attack or not. A few more choices and depth in building archetypes would be nice IMO. And I agree with wanting more options. On the other hand, having a really simple class is in my opinion, necessary to the game. I've had many players who just didn't want to play spellcasters or other complex classes because there was too much to think about. They played fighters a whole lot. Perhaps a path with more choices can be developed.


Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Raith5's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites