View Profile: Celtavian - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About Celtavian

Basic Information

Date of Birth
February 15, 1971 (48)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
5,734
Posts Per Day
0.93
Last Post
[CAMPAIGN] Out of the Abyss [SPOILERS] Thursday, 6th April, 2017 01:43 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
18
General Information
Last Activity
Sunday, 22nd July, 2018 11:26 PM
Join Date
Monday, 8th July, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Ohillion Ohillion is offline

    Member

    Ohillion
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

Monday, 24th June, 2019


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Friday, 21st April, 2017

  • 11:45 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Celtavian in post Nerfing Great Weapon Master
    ...ign encounters, anyway, and it's not like the existing guidelines are a huge help in the first place. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable approach, to design encounters to fit the play style & system mastery of your players and evoke the tone you want in your campaign, seems like business as usual, really. What are you talking about here....? The original design is the published campaign books I have bought in order to not to have to come up with adventures and encounters from scratch. Tweaking them to suit my players party - fine. Having to ditch them entirely and replace them with a completely different encounter - hell no. Please don't try to paint this huge failure as something expected, not that bad with sweeping relativizing language. To me it seems people are only playing casual games, low-level games or both. The number of people that have tried the higher levels and have some measure for character building are very few. In fact, I can only name a single one - Celtavian, and his campaign crashed and burned because the game's unprecedented lack of challenge. In fact, if it wasn't for his thread and heads-up, mine would probably do too, since now I was prepared the included encounters could be used for jack shi t.

Thursday, 26th January, 2017

  • 06:43 AM - FormerlyHemlock mentioned Celtavian in post Balor vs Pit Fiend
    @Celtavian, that version is more complicated (especially with spellcasting) than my simulator can currently handle. If I ignore the spells, the Fiery Charge, and the fiery aura, and just bump up the HP to 393 instead of 262, the outcome is unchanged: the five 9th level Champion PCs with magical weapons beat it. However, if I just assume the Balor has cast Darkness beforehand and uses its Truesight, then everything flips. Together with the 393 HP, making the area dark (and ignoring the chance of losing concentration on Darkness, or having Darkness dispelled/etc., although these Champions can't cast Dispel Magic anyway of course), that makes the Balor win most of the time, barely. Zentradi the Balor wins 88 out of 100 matches against Katie the Champion and Lux the Champion and John the Archer and Katie the Archer and Maid Marian the Archer, with 69.73 HP remaining (17% of total) Obviously in actual play you'd play the Balor with much more sophistication and would take advantage of his high move...

Thursday, 5th January, 2017

  • 12:37 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
    ...f fighters. (And after typing this but before posting, I've got to your post 716. The task of lowering "par" is interesting, but I don't have anywhere near the grasp of the system to contribute meaningfully to that discussion. But happy to follow along and chime in if others are taking the issue up.) The first that strikes me is the sadness of seeing the possibility that somebody (not saying this is you P) has resigned himself to the notion that any fighter NOT using a greatweapon (or crossbow) is irrelevant, or at least does irrelevant amounts of damage, which amounts to pretty much the same thing. Retaining the +10 damage for some, but not all weapons, feels to me to throw out the baby (the relevance of other weapons and combos such as Drizzt or Zorro) with the bathwater (allowing martials to keep up with cantrip-based "weaponry").I understand this point - as you've stated it here, in posts 709 and 712, and elsewhere in the thread. I don't have an answer to it. But wasn't Celtavian house-ruling some -5/+10 feats for other fighting styles?

Monday, 2nd January, 2017

  • 08:35 PM - FormerlyHemlock mentioned Celtavian in post Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
    Well, that was a bit of a cheap shot, wasn't it... ;) Of course I didn't mean ranged superiority in its general sense. That much has been obvious for long. I specifically meant it took me a while to realize exactly how many checks on ranged builds WotC has done away with in this edition. What I mean is that any reasonably effiency-minded player will create a character able to project force at range, unless the game rules actively rewards melee builds. I don't deny (or even mind) that ranged is superior in general. I just don't want it to be the go-to option in my D&D. For that to happen, there must be a considerable cost to ranged capability. This is exactly the point I perceived two years ago (IIRC as soon as I bought a copy of the MM) and have been dealing with in one way or another ever since, both in theorycrafted Internet discussions and at the table. I doubt I was anywhere near the first one to notice it--it's a pretty obvious feature of 5E. I remember Celtavian started a discussion around that time about how crippling the concentration limits were because spellcasters "have" to spend their concentration on getting the melee guys into combat with the Fly spell, and a number of people on that thread were like, "Dude, spend your concentration on something else. Ranged weapons are where it's at now." Pointing out that you're late to the party isn't meant as a cheap shot--but you are late to the party, and so someone who's been dealing with this all along is entitled to look a bit askance when you arrogantly announce that you have discovered a major issue and also one simple trick that fixes it completely. So far you haven't seemed to listen to anyone who tells you how they've dealt with the issue at their tables, whether by encounter modification (I'll bet it's not an issue at Flamestrike's table for example, because he'll just make all the monsters pop out of the dungeon walls within melee range of the party; I bet Hawkeye has done occasional e...

Saturday, 24th December, 2016

  • 12:55 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    If showing a monster's stats is what works to achieve the desired result, then I'd say to do it. I don't know if that would work for my group...but I also don't know if Orcus is the best example. He immediately evokes some kind of response in players, most of the time at least. But what about an unknown entity that is just being introduced? Sure, you could reveal his stats to make the players realize the threat he poses...but I also think that removes the mystery. I find it better to use the narrative element of the game to establish the threat level of an enemy. <snip> I do think that the mechanics of the game should be considered. However, I feel like such mechanics should be applicable to the situation. Or should in some way be observable to the characters in order to justify the players' knowing of it.As I see it, the sorts of issues being discussed in this thread arise when the narrative element and the mechanical element come apart. For instance, as I understand Celtavian's complaint, the narrative element of the Marilith promises something that the stablocks don't deliver. Johnny3D3D had a similar sort of experience with 4e (fortunately for me, this hasn't happened to my group). When this sort of dissonance occurs - for instance, the flavour text says that the Marilith is such-and-such a thing (say, a threat to all but the mightiest of heroes), and then in play it turns out differently (the ongoing ficiton of the game isnt framing the PCs as the mightiest of heroes, and yet they easily defeat a Marilith with really very little effort at all) - then what is to be done? I don't think just telling those experiencing the dissonance that they're doing it wrong, or that they're metagaming too much, is very helpful. (Which is what some posters in this thread seem to be saying.) After all, if the mechanics and narrative complemented one another, then this sort of metagaming wouldn't matter - it would just reinforce the narrative. I want the players t...

Thursday, 22nd December, 2016


Sunday, 11th December, 2016

  • 04:01 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    @Celtavian Those scenarios may be mathematically possible with the game mechanics...10,000 orcs may be able to defeat an ancient dragon, or 100 level 1 fighters...but why would such a scenario actually play out? Surely that's a battle for the DM to determine the outcome, no? I don't make my players roll a skill check for every action they take, only when the outcome is in doubt. Smaug attacking Laketown leaves nothing in doubt...not unless there are some PCs there. The math is a tool to serve the narrative. It's not supposed to determine the narrative. Adhering so closely to the math makes it a case of the tail wagging the dog. Ignore the math and just go with what you want to happen unless the PCs are concerned. In the case of a battle between Smaug and some PCs...well, if for some reason, like maybe extreme optimization, you feel that the chances are heavily skewed toward the PCs, ten I would simply grant legendary actions to Smaug, and maybe even some lair actions. Give him enough actions s...

Friday, 9th December, 2016

  • 10:18 PM - Helldritch mentioned Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    Celtavian Again you assume optimal positioning for the players and put the "dumbness of dumbness" in the orcs. We do not take space into account simply because we are using the lord of the ring scenario. You keep putting the PCs in a good limelight whereas they were not aware of the horde. They are exploring an unknown vast and I mean very vast room where hundreds could stand with many many many openings. Stop putting your PCs out of the situation to put them in a good tactical encounter where they can win easily. The whole point of this situation is to point out that contrary to other editions, the orcs would stand a real threatening chance to win that encounter with the PCs. We have already conceded that in some scenarios the PC could and would win. You only take these into account and blatantly ignore what we are saying. Take time to think about it and you will see that the possibility of failing for the PCs in that scenario is real. OB1 did a white room math and proved that the PC w...

Thursday, 8th December, 2016

  • 03:15 PM - Helldritch mentioned Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    @Celtavian I am pretty sure that our playstyle is very different. Who said anything about 300 "standard" orcs? A war party will have standard orcs yes. But it will also have Eyes of Gruumsh, War Leaders, Claws of Luthic, Zombies and Skeletons from priest and many other special orcs. Even if 80% of the horde is standard, that leaves us with 60 non standard orcs. More than enough to kill your 15th level characters. Believe me, whatever your character have in reserve, I could manage them. Once I was asked by a DM to help him out with his group. They were level 24th and they were about to slay all gods in the Legend and lore book. A typical Montyhaul campaing that went wrong. With the group, I bet with them that I could kill them with a hundred ogres and one mage level 12. They all laughed at me. 1 hour later. The group was dead. The funny thing is that my group would never have fallen for that simple trap. All this to say that if your group isn't afraid of a 300 orc rampaging group. They should be...
  • 01:02 PM - Helldritch mentioned Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    @Celtavian I am well aware of the power of sharp shooter feat. It ignores all covers save full. We have a 31 page thread. 5ed has its draw back. It is clear throughout the thread that I believe that this edition fails around level 15 (sooner if the DM does nothing). But the 5ed works a lot more than previous ones. And feats are not the only options you can take to give more powers to the players. Inspiration, Hero points, Flanking, Diagonal movement, Facing, Fire arms and Hitting cover. All these are used at my table. Some give a lot of punch to the heroes. Hitting covers makes the Sharp Shooter and Spell Sniper feats mandatory as you can really hit your friends. (yes I have a feat tax) If you want to play a game out of the box and hope it will go smoothly without any glitches, go back to WoW and other videogames because no table RPG will give you that. A DM must prepare. A DM Has to know his players, the system, the rules and everything that goes into the game. A DM must prepare A DM must ...

Sunday, 27th November, 2016

  • 11:30 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    ... than to the expert level. When players do indeed play at that level, adjustments need to be made. Or depending on the desired result, adjustments are more likely to be needed. Some folks may be perfectly happy to let things play out as they will. But that's the point - that's not what's happened with 5E. 5E is significantly easier than any edition I've come across to break. 5E looks and feels significantly easier than either d20 or 4E. So this is not the whole truth. I am fully prepared to tweak encounters to match the performance of my players. What I do not accept is when the encounters are essentially useless as written, as if meant for a party five or even ten levels lower, and in need to be completely rewritten from scratch. And just as a reminder, now we're definitely not talking about the Death Knight encounter. Now we're talking about the level of challenge offered by the latter half of Out of the Abyss, to pick an immediate example. This was what made Celtavian quit 5E after all. But it's not confined to one adventure module. One inexperienced or naive module more or less is nothing. We can all live with that. What is so worrying is the entire Monster Manual, and how it appears to be written by staff with no real experience of high level hero capabilities. The way ranged fire is made "cool" with little thought on how this impacts the overall game and indeed the fundamental assumptions of the entire genre. How Greatweapon Master interacts with commonplace class features of the PHB. Indeed even the utterly basic things: the atrocious index, and the completely inept way spells are categorized. 5E is great, no dooubt about it. But that's just it. Precisely because it is so well designed in general does the flaws and niggles stand out, especially since they're so worryingly indicative of not having learnt by past mistakes.

Monday, 25th April, 2016

  • 03:23 AM - Blue mentioned Celtavian in post What Melee class does the most damage?
    Gotta agree with Celtavian in many of the specifics but also that the circumstances matter. For example, if you've have a DM who does one encounter a day? Paladin with a bonus action attack blowing all their slots of Divine Smite (and Smite spells when they can't take a bonus action attack) are fantastic. Got a DM who does 8 combat encounters a day and some other scenes where a paladin may want to cast out-of-combat spells? They are middle of the pack, maybe edging towards the back depending on which Oath. Also of big interest is your party dynamics. Have a caster willing to haste you (and just you unless they are a sorcerer), then combatants that do full damage every hit do better vs. those that only add once per round. Have a caster willing to bless you regularly then Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master look really nice. Changing topics slightly, lots of people are giving two feat combos as "da bomb". That only works at high levels. You can manage to have two feats at 4th level, but only if yo...

Thursday, 7th April, 2016

  • 08:08 PM - Azurewraith mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    Flamestrike ill have to ask my figther player on that 2nd action surge my players tend to look after there characters mechanics as you know Dms got enough on their plate. Celtavian yep twas a coutal didnt do alot Sorry I flubbed up on a few parts I'm planning on grabbing the sheets at some point to tally up used resources. I don't think either mistake on cast time for celestial or the 1/2 aura would of made much difference. The extra surge would of had an impact I was to busy planning my own turn to catch it

Wednesday, 6th April, 2016


Friday, 1st April, 2016

  • 01:34 PM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    I especially want to thank Pemerton (and possibly others?) for going that extra mile and providing the number crunching.No worries. Celtavian obviously doesn't need anyone to white knight for him (!), but some of the comments being made seem to me to be way off base. I'm a great believer in actual play posts, rather than abstract speculation, generalisation or theory-crafting, and Celtavian has provided a pretty clear actual play post that explains how his group defeated this marilith + friends encounter pretty straightforwardly (with an admitted misreading of the Banishment spell - we don't know how much difference it would have made had the Concentration requirement been imposed). I feel the core issue here is the divide between different viewpoints. Celtavian represents the quintessential power gaming group. The fun comes from optimization. Having a DM that combats this, either by discouraging the minmaxing itself, or by applying strong tactics for the enemy, makes it less fun. This kind of group wants monster stats that have tricks that at least makes it challenging to fight them, even if you use every trick in the ...
  • 01:25 PM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    This character had hunters mark, bless and haste up on it? Heh. There is about zero chance of this happening in my campaign. You need a ridiculously good series of initiative rolls and a massive resource expenditure. Is there a reason you can't just read Celtavian's post? Haste was not in play in the first-round shooting of the Marilith: there was Bless and Hunter's Mark. The fifth attack roll came from a ranger class feature granting an additional attack in the first round of combat. Haste seems to have been cast later on in the combat. A marilith's initiative bonus is +5, isn't it (from DEX)? It's not that remarkable for two out of 6 PCs to go before it, especially the one who also has +5 DEX. (And that's ssuming they did go first - they may have cast their spells while the Marilith closed - Celtavian's post doesn't make the turn sequence entirely clear.) I also don't find two 1st level spells in a party of 6 10th level PCs to be massive resource expenditure in the opening round, and I already documented how the overall expenditure is not terribly massive but is in fact less than one 10th level full casters load-out. IMO, the Marilith encounter is a bad example to use for this case, leading the discussion down the garden path... I feel ...
  • 11:57 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    He does 1d8+1d6+17 per attack. So he did 100 or so in round one of her 180 points. 4 bow attacks (assuming ranger plus sharpshooter plus Dex 20 plus +2 bow) is 5d8+68 damage. Not bad rolling on that 5d8. Even with the resource expenditure and house rule that lets the PCs double down on buffs that's some good luck for the PC.Celtavian has set out the damage. I assume that is 1d8 from weapon, +1d6 from Hunter's Mark, +2 from magic, +5 from stat, +10 from feat. The average of 1d8+1d6 is 8; so the average overall is 25 per hit. Four times 25 equals 100. I'm not going to do the maths on rolling 4d8 + 4d6, but I think the likelihood of that tending towards average is going to be pretty good. Based on the parameters that Celtavian has provided, I don't think this is particularly lucky. A fairly average number of hits (.775*5 = 3.875, which is not much lower than 4) for an average amount of damage.
  • 09:52 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    So a 10th level archer (Ranger 3 + EK 7 I presume) with a +2 Bow and the sharpsooter feat and a Dex of 20 using [action surge] + [bless] + [quickened haste] as resources [and the concentration slots of 2 PCs] dealt 100 damage in one round to a Marilith? I still think he's pretty lucky - his average attack roll is +10.5 with bless (after the -5 from sharpshooter) and he hit AC 17 5/5 times. So the Sharpshooter with his magic bow (+2 bow) and bless fires all attacks at the marilith. He moves forward 30 feet to hunter's mark. We are using Unearthed Arcana material. So he has Close Quarters Combat and Archery Style (fighter/ranger) and is a Deep Stalekr ranger (1 extra attack on the first round of combat). He Action Surges and unloads five Sharpshooter arrows at her. Attack bonus +4 prof +5 dex +2 bow +1 Close quarters fighting +2 archery style -5 sharpshooter +1d4 bless. Each attack is +9 +1d4. He hits four of five attacks.As I read Celtavian's post, the bonus to hit is +11.5 (+4 prof, +5 DEX, +2 magic, +1 class feature (close quarters shooting), +2 class feature (archery), +2.5 bless, -5 feat) which means the chance to hit AC 17 is around 75%. Celtavian states that four of five attacks hit. The likelihood of either 4 or 5 of 5 attacks hitting, with a chance to hit of 3/4, is (3/4)^5 plus (3^4 * 1 * 5)/(4^5), which equals 8*(3^4)/4^5, which equals 648/1028, or a little better than 60%. Winning a coin toss is obviously luckier than losing it, but it's not all that lucky. Let me see if I can remember. In that deadly fight, they used: 2 5th level banishes 1 4th level banish 1 1st level bless 1 3rd level haste with 3 sorcery points to twin it (cast on bladesinger and sharpshooter) 1 1st level hunter's mark (I think this dropped after he was attacked by the marilth) 1 1st level hex warlock slot I don't think they cast much else. Just absorbed the hit points, fell back down the tunnel to a relatively safe lo...
  • 12:02 AM - Lord Twig mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    Celtavian, In my edits and re-edits of trying to get my post done I think I lost the meaning of some of my points. So I apologize for that. I did not mean to say that you were saying that your players are better. I meant to suggest that the way it has been stated implies superiority weather you meant it or not, and I don't think you meant it that way. So, yes, your players do optimize for ruthless efficiency far more than the "typical" group, but that is not the only problem. It seems that, although they are "playing to win" to an extent that race, class and abilities are reduced to a numerical puzzle to figure out the "best" combination, you, as a DM, are not doing the same. So you have a disparity of play styles. Sure you DM for them, and are used to their play style, but you apparently refuse to stoop to their level. And no it is not house ruling to have a shadow demon out of range of the party's sight observe its fellows being destroyed and run away. It doesn't matter how good their steal...

Thursday, 31st March, 2016

  • 04:33 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Celtavian in post Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day
    Celtavian I fully understand finding useful tactics, I find that to be a fun aspect of my game. But I am not on a search for the perfect collection of proven tactics, which is what it sounds like your group is doing. Don't they find it boring to constantly be playing the same tactics every encounter? Sure, I suppose in one campaign the devilsight warlock could be player by Mike instead of Tim, but that only changes things up so much. As a group, it sounds like at some point you guys will have a set party composition and then no one will ever deviate from that composition for any reason. I think that's why folks are saying you need to vary up the encounters a bit. It seems to me you either need to impose some restrictions at the start of the campaign that would limit the player choices and force some different choices. I don't know if that would fly with your group, though...so if that's not an option, then you need to do something else to challenge them, which would basically mean you need t...


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
No results to display...

Monday, 19th March, 2018

  • 08:24 AM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post The Contagion Spell
    Hard to believe no one is utilizing this spell and can offer actual play experience using it as written. It could be not many players have reached level 9 and of that group very few play a class capable of using contagion. I'll have to use it and see how it plays out, then adjust accordingly.It's now 2018 and we finally have a Druid high level enough to make this an issue.

Friday, 29th September, 2017

  • 05:23 PM - JacktheRabbit quoted Celtavian in post Does an item to enhance Unarmed Strike exist?
    I did not see one. Easy enough to add. Still pretty annoying playing a monk and not having one. I'm sure if it is designed by WotC it will require attunement for no good reason. What is annoying is that there is not a single monk specific magic item in the game. I am pretty sure they are the only class that is ignored like this.

Tuesday, 15th August, 2017

  • 07:30 PM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post Dual hand crossbows, poison and hex warlock
    The fact that the current edition of D&D is intuitive. If you can clearly show it takes two hands to load a crossbow, hand or otherwise, it takes two hands. You would have to prove at the table you could load a hand crossbow with a hand crossbow in your hand to get that one by me as a DM. No DM should allow two-hand crossbows with Crossbow Expert bonus action save perhaps every other round according to drawing action. They have to clear a hand to load the hand crossbow. It shouldn't have to be written down same as they don't have to write down you need legs to walk as a humanoid. Loading takes two hands. This invalidates all the intended scenarios. The only remaining scenario is the one where you use a single hand crossbow. Perhaps unrelated, this is all the powergamer needs to gain the game's best kind of "two weapon fighting" and at range, no less. Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
  • 07:00 PM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post Dual hand crossbows, poison and hex warlock
    Look at that, Crawford did clarify. I knew they never intended Hand Crossbows to be used like automatic pistols. I read that Sage Advice, and that "clarification" is complete bogus. If there is one thing the rules accomplish, it is to turn the hand crossbow into an (semi-)automatic weapon! At least that's how I look at the situation where the high level fighter attacks nine (9!) times in sex seconds with his sole hand crossbow... Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
  • 06:50 PM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post Dual hand crossbows, poison and hex warlock
    Loading two hand crossbows is heroic? How does that have anything to do with heroism? It's a power gamer exploit. Anyone reading Crossbow Expert can see it was intended for a rapier wielding player or single sword user to fire a hand crossbow along with his weapon in melee. It's another example of a small clarification slipping by that gets exploited by power gamers looking for any advantage as they try to force RAW onto DMs to exploit rules. Look at that, Crawford did clarify. I knew they never intended Hand Crossbows to be used like automatic pistols. Crawford agrees that you need at least one hand free to load the bolt. Like the new WotC says, your table, your rules. But it was never intended for you to use two hand crossbows and fire at will with the bonus action. It was always supposed to be one shot, enter battle, reload maybe every other round. Like a pirate or musketeer with sword and pistol. @RSIxidor pizzystrizzyDo you need two hands to load a hand crossbow? IE, could I have a shi...
  • 03:05 PM - Barolo quoted Celtavian in post Dual hand crossbows, poison and hex warlock
    Loading two hand crossbows is heroic? How does that have anything to do with heroism? It's a power gamer exploit. Anyone reading Crossbow Expert can see it was intended for a rapier wielding player or single sword user to fire a hand crossbow along with his weapon in melee. It's another example of a small clarification slipping by that gets exploited by power gamers looking for any advantage as they try to force RAW onto DMs to exploit rules. I would not call it even an exploit, as it hasn't proved to be overpowered, at least in the games I DM. What I don't like about it is that I feel this was supposed to be something to emulate those drow fighting tropes, where the drow warrior opens with a shot from his pre-loaded hand crossbow then charges to melee, or even that assassin coming from the shadows and unloading their two hand crossbows simultaneously and hoping for an instant kill. But instead, what I see is dedicated archers going crossbow expert + SS, and favoring the hand crossbow. Su...

Friday, 24th February, 2017

  • 02:05 PM - Imaro quoted Celtavian in post Improved Find Familiar
    Pact of the Chain should have done far more to boost familiars to make it worth taking. Familiars with 7 to 15 hit points aren't too helpful past the low levels. As a DM I kill them often because I feel higher level monsters don't allow small creatures to wander their lairs being well aware that such creatures are a danger. Wait so they should be boosted because they are not worth taking... and yet you have your powerful monsters go out of their way to kill them because they are... "well aware that such creatures are a danger"... huh?

Friday, 17th February, 2017

  • 05:43 AM - Lanefan quoted Celtavian in post Balance of Power Problems in 5e: Self created?
    When you come from a game like Pathfinder/3E with a near endless number of character building options, 5E runs out of character building options real quick even with the limited feats and customization options they have now.To you, a bug. To me, a strong feature; improved further if the DM drops feats from the game. I'd rather spend my time playing the character than building it, meaning I want character generation to be smooth, simple and fast*...as in 15-minutes fast once I've done it a few times. * - PF/3e were - let's face it - none of those. Lan-"characters can be very, very different in play even if their underlying mechanical numbers are exactly the same"-efan

Wednesday, 8th February, 2017

  • 06:50 AM - Leatherhead quoted Celtavian in post [UA Favored Soul]Are there any obvious cleric spells that combine well with metamagic?
    Extend heroes' feast. Would that work? No, the max duration on extend is 24 hours.
  • 04:07 AM - I'm A Banana quoted Celtavian in post Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?
    That it limits offsetting penalties in a strange way in some cases like making it easier to hit in places of darkness if both participants are affected by it when the advantage benefit of hitting a blinded target it canceled by the disadvantage of not being able to see creating a flat roll with all bonuses. It's a very goofy way to run the situation where it somehow becomes easier to hit if both targets can't see. That doesn't at all mirror the reality of two blind people swinging at each other. The other weakness is the strange way it stacks and offsets. Once you have it, that's it. Just as no matter how many advantage situations you have from a special ability, prone, restrained, and the like all add up to advantage or vice versa. There have been many times when gaining advantage leaves my players bored because they have no other special abilities or situations to use. Many times it's been like, "We got advantage. No one else needs to do anything but launch an attack." It become a bit bo...
  • 03:02 AM - FrogReaver quoted Celtavian in post Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?
    A blinded target can't easily defend himself. So yes if he can't see and I can't see it makes perfect sense to assume neither of us has an advantage or disadvantage on the other. That it limits offsetting penalties in a strange way in some cases like making it easier to hit in places of darkness if both participants are affected by it when the advantage benefit of hitting a blinded target it canceled by the disadvantage of not being able to see creating a flat roll with all bonuses. It's a very goofy way to run the situation where it somehow becomes easier to hit if both targets can't see. That doesn't at all mirror the reality of two blind people swinging at each other. The other weakness is the strange way it stacks and offsets. Once you have it, that's it. Just as no matter how many advantage situations you have from a special ability, prone, restrained, and the like all add up to advantage or vice versa. There have been many times when gaining advantage leaves my players bored because th...
  • 02:11 AM - ThePolarBear quoted Celtavian in post Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?
    For invisibility and darkness, the rules are actually quite sparse. Someone in darkness is effectively blinded. Blinded • A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. • Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage. [...] Oh, and if I'm missing a rule somewhere feel free to point it out. Wouldn't be the first time. :) Don't mind if i do. That part was changed because it made zero sense. It's now "you are effectively blinded when looking at something that' in an heavily obscured area" - not a direct quote, but enough to give an idea of what the change was and how it affects things. Now, leaving aside that heavy obscurement still blocks "vision", you can theoretically see a campfire while in the woods at night and far from any light source while before you were not able to. Thus rendering the darkness pointless. What's needed here is a flat minus to the attack roll (peronally, I'd say -4),...
  • 01:32 AM - Hussar quoted Celtavian in post Why do so many DMs use the wrong rules for invisibility?
    The weirdness of the invisibility and darkness rules is definitely a clear design flaw where the advantage/disadvantage mechanic is shown to have a major weakness. What's the major weakness of advantage/disadvantage?

Friday, 3rd February, 2017

  • 03:32 PM - dave2008 quoted Celtavian in post [CAMPAIGN] Out of the Abyss [SPOILERS]
    YEENOGHU Huge fiend (demon), chaotic evil; Challenge 24 (62,000 XP) Armor Class 25 (natural armor); Hit Points 720 (24d12 + 192 x 1.5 PC multiplier); Speed 50ft. STR 29 (+9) DEX 16 (+3) CON 26 (+8) INT 16 (+3) WIS 24 {+7) CHA 16 (+3) Saving Throws Str +16, Dex +10, Con +15, Int +10, Wis +14, CHA +10 Skills Intimidation +17, Perception +21, Athletics +16, Survival +21. Damage Resistances cold, fire, lightning; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. Damage Immunities poison; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing that is nonmagical Condition Immunities charmed, exhaustion, frightened, poisoned. Senses truesight 400 ft., passive Perception 31 Languages all, telepathy sight range Innate Spellcasting. Yeenoghu’s spellcasting ability is Charisma (spell save DC 18, +10 spell attack). He can innately cast the following spells, requiring no material components. At will as free action: detect magic. At will as bonus action: dispel magic, fear, invisibility, Spiritual weapon (8th level spell, 4d8+3 forc...
  • 02:34 PM - AaronOfBarbaria quoted Celtavian in post Hidden
  • 02:15 PM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post When Fiends Attack: Are Balors, Pit Fiends and Ultraloths too weak?
    I've come to the conclusion that the designers have decided that there is no way to build monsters capable of challenging all parties. So they created a bunch of bare bones creatures with some starting ideas and made it very easy to modify nearly any creature to accomplish what you want it to accomplish. Alternatively phrased: "I've come to the conclusion that the designers have decided that there is a way to get away with not spending the effort to build monsters capable of challenging all but the softest, newbiest of parties. So they created a bunch of lowest-effort lowest-denominator bare bones creatures with some starting ideas and offloaded the entire monster design finetuning process entirely on individual DMs and then just spun those cost-savings as something good for the consumer" It seems to have worked. I just wish they were called out on selling considerably less work as the same title. The "it's easy to modify" excuse only goes so far. We who want to pay money not to have to do ...

Friday, 20th January, 2017

  • 09:41 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted Celtavian in post [5E] The few mechanical implications of... non-magical weapon immunity and CR.
    Yes. However 5E makes it a little bit too easy because alternative, non-creative methods (especially cantrips) are so readily-available. Most parties will probably never need to use flaming oil or poisonous snakes or drowning to kill a jackalwere, which is a pity. (Hmmm, magic-immune or magic-resistant jackalweres might be fun for a low-level adventure.) Cantrips definitely make killing creatures resistant to non-magical weapons easy. Not to mention paladins. Resistant creatures haven't been interesting in D&D for a long, long time.Trying desperately to drop something with your 1d8+0 cantrip while the rest of the party try to hold it at bay with torches, or wrestle it into the campfire is still a very different experience than fighting something that everyone can deal their usual d8+mod to though.
  • 12:28 PM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post [5E] The few mechanical implications of... non-magical weapon immunity and CR.
    Resistant creatures haven't been interesting in D&D for a long, long time. Yes. I don't think this has been a concern even once in 5E. I keep reading about parties without any magic weapons and no energy-based attack forms (like cantrips), but I don't imagine there are many of them. If WotC wanted this to be a thing, they would have retained different layers: "The Beeblebrox is immune to non-magical weapons and cantrips, resistant to +1 weapons and level 1-3 spells. Weapons +2 or better and spells 4th level or better work normally".

Thursday, 19th January, 2017

  • 09:32 PM - Willie the Duck quoted Celtavian in post What is "broken" in 5e?
    Not sure why you hopped into the discussion if you weren't looking to debate. I don't argue if by that you mean either of us becoming irritated or unhappy. Your argument, regardless of your assumptions concerning it, do not change my experience as a DM trying to deal with Sharpshooter in a fashion that is fair and fun. In fact, it is becoming no fun to deal with Sharpshooter because of how heavy-handed I have to be when dealing with it. Please go back to your original comments on my original post and try to see if you can see why I read your comments as a decidedly hostile how-dare-you-have-an-opinion-I-disagree-with?-style tirade. If that is not how it was supposed to be interpreted, then more's the loss.
  • 02:30 AM - mflayermonk quoted Celtavian in post What is "broken" in 5e?
    Though I do have a method for countering sharpshooter known as "beat the holy living hell out of the bow user". The bow user PCs don't enjoy it, but it accomplishes my goal of challenging the PC rather than letting a PC act as ranged artillery without risk. If the designers will not take some time to redesign this feat, I'll simply limit it using the narrow, but effective, choices available to me that often lead to them getting severely hammered by the ranged or mobile attackers I make up specifically to counter the extreme disparity in ranged attacking power. In a game I was running recently, the PCs decided to go to the astral plane in pursuit of some major magic items. The astral monsters I used were 80% psychic damage monsters. As you can imagine, two PCs were very unhappy with this turn of events.


Celtavian's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites