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
0.92
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 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tuesday, 9th June, 2015

  • 05:12 AM - Hussar mentioned Celtavian in post 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
    I was counting on the bard and the cleric to be providing buffs. After all, Celtavian has been pretty insistent that you can get advantage/buffs/whatever, to such high points by 8th level that the -5 from Sharpshooter/GWF becomes meaningless, so, I'd assume that the effective -5 for disadvantage would be similarly easily overcome. For it to start its round at 60 feet to breathe, means that the dragon has eaten at least 4 attacks already. It had to. Remember, our fighters do have a range of 120 feet with javelins. Plus a 30 foot movement. Any round the dragon breathes, it's going to eat 4 javelins, possibly 6 with Action Surge. Or, 6 every round with a simple Haste spell. I'm not saying the fighters can do it on their own. I'm saying that they don't need to fly to do it either. At some point, the dragon's going to want to bring down it's big damaging attacks - and that means melee.

Monday, 8th June, 2015

  • 03:17 PM - ThirdWizard mentioned Celtavian in post 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
    ...mental Evil, or even most of the "classic" modules don't necessitate ranged combat. They never did. Just to add onto this a bit, I ran a seafaring campaign a couple of years ago. Heavy armor was typically a bad idea. Players built their characters accordingly in order to fit the genre and to remain viable combatants (and not drown) while in the water. It was up to each player to be able to swim from ship to ship or to be able to survive a fall into the ocean. And, at no point did anyone say that the system we were playing had problems because they built a character who was ill-suited to seafaring. Everyone knew what the game was about, and everyone played accordingly. Right now I'm running an urban game, where the PCs rarely leave the city. This also changes the dynamic somewhat from the typical (if there is such a thing) D&D tropes. The players adapt to the campaign or they aren't successful. Of course, we communicate about expectations, and so they are successful. It sounds like Celtavian is in a highly specific campaign, one where melee fighting is kind of like wearing heavy armor in a seafaring game. The end result sucks, but it is an artifact of the type of game being played. So, yes, his experiences are perfectly valid for the type of highly specialized game that he's playing. But, I also agree with Hussar here, in that the experiences of playing a dragon heavy game can't be extended to D&D in general, or at least not in a generalistic way. Most PCs will meet one, maybe two, adult dragons in their entire adventuring career. Many none. Perhaps that's why all the backlash. It's seen as playing a plate-wearing fighter in a seafaring game and expecting to always have a spellcaster cast water walking on you. Maybe the problem isn't that water walking is this super important spell. Maybe the problem is that pirates shouldn't wear plate mail. Now, if everyone loves the concept of the plate-wearing pirate, that's one thing. But if the caster is tired of casting the spell, ...

Sunday, 7th June, 2015

  • 10:15 AM - Hussar mentioned Celtavian in post 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
    No, you will not receive an apology. I am not dealing with imaginary dragons out of the Monster Manual and theory-crafting strategies to defeat them. I am dealing with designed encounters in a module produced by a company licensed by WotC with vast dragon lairs. You seem to have no experience with this in 5E. What I stated was factual based on your stated tactics and not in anyway meant to be insulting. /snip OTOH, both Kamikaze Midget and myself have been playing a 5e conversion of Dragonlance for the past six or so months. We've had numerous dragon encounters with dragons both large and small, in lair and not. Does that mean we get to contribute here? Because, Celtavian, if all you are talking about are the encounters found in a single module series, then how are any of your points valid outside of those specific encounters? It cuts both ways. You are the one claiming that Fly is an absolute requirement when facing dragons. That thrown weapons for Str based fighter types just won't cut it, no other spells will work, and only the experience that you had is valid. Do you not see how unbelievably arrogant that comes across as? Do you not understand why you are getting such push back?
  • 06:09 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
    D&D in any edition isn't well designed for that kind of experience, IMXP. Character creation is too minute, adventures require too much ramp-up time, death isn't a speedbump, the narrative matters....outside of a one-off at a convention or something, I wouldn't expect D&D to give me that experience. It sounds like your table has a pretty unique and particular playstyle.The playstyle that Celtavian describes doesn't seem that unique to me. I think there's a long tradition, within the overall range of D&D play, of treating the game as a challenge, and of looking for rational tactical strategies within the parameters that the rules set for such a challenge. And even within this thread, we've seen more than one other poster (and I'm not including myself) taking an approach that's similar even if not identical.

Saturday, 6th June, 2015

  • 08:47 PM - pming mentioned Celtavian in post 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
    Hiya! @Celtavian, I think one of the difficulties some folks are having with your posted problem is that your gaming group is "out on the edge of regular". Not quite 'fringe' stuff, but within spittin' distance of it. You say that you are more or less expected to buff because it's (a) what your friends are assuming, and (b) so effective numbers wise. I think everyone gets that. However, I think you have come to realize that that "group attitude" is not the normal. So that right there puts others at a disadvantage to either help you solve it, or have them understand your point of view. Next, you also have to realize that how your games turn out is definitely not normal. You said: Our adventuring day is fewer, harder combats meant to use all our resources in one big combat to the death. XP budgets usually exceed the recommended amount. We play very deadly with the DM using as optimal as possible tactics for the NPCs. We had a bunch of these in Tyranny of Dragons against you know what. This right h...

Saturday, 9th May, 2015

  • 01:48 AM - FormerlyHemlock mentioned Celtavian in post Are monks very samey?
    What's that mean? I feel like I'm missing a reference. "Grok" means "deeply understand". It's a reference to Heinlein's book "Stranger In a Strange Land" about a telepathic Martian who groks things very quickly. I've actually never read the whole book but the term is part of pop culture now... Celtavian, you don't strictly need the Mobile feat. You could just rely on missile weapons. But Mobile lets you get your bonus action attack into play, and eventually Stunning Strike. Yes, a fighter can do it too but a monk does it somewhat better due to faster movement (fighter would need to cast Expeditious Retreat to keep up). Mobile is not a mandatory feat, but it's helpful, just as Sharpshooter is helpful for an archer. And yes, I know not having a tank can get casters dead. That's why I said the rest of the party is a liability against conventional foes. Monks can handle hobgoblins/goblins/basilisks/etc. by themselves.

Tuesday, 5th May, 2015


Friday, 24th April, 2015

  • 09:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E
    How do you know that in standard games, DMs do not play the enemy targeting healers and arcane casters once they are known? Where do you get your data on this from? Based on what I have read here on the forums over the years, that's not a reasonable assumption.On this, I'm more sympathetic to Celtavian. Or rather, whatever the details about typical GMs targetting this or that, I think he's right to think that his group is not entirely typical in its tactical/mechanical acumen. I think the same is definitely true of keterys, and emdw45, and from your posts I think it's true for you as well. Based on my reading of posts online, plus my experiences playing with other groups, at cons, etc, I think it's true for my group as well. (Though my group is not as hardcore as keterys's - his 4e epic party had 1000-hp first rounds, whereas mine tends to be more in the single-digit hundreds.)

Thursday, 23rd April, 2015

  • 10:45 PM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E
    this is why Healing Word is generally considered superior to Cure Wounds. Cure Wounds uses an action this round to gain one additional action next round (assuming the healed PC does not go unconscious again). Action economy for this round actually shifts towards the NPCs. Healing Word only uses a bonus action, so action economy for this round does not shift towards the NPCs.Yes, the argument for HW over CW is quite clear, athough I can also see Celtavian's reasons for favouring CW in certain circumstances.
  • 10:48 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E
    ... simplest: you can only truly rest in a haven/city eg Rivendell, Minas Tirith not under siege, etc). Is this an approach that can be used in 5e? people like myself who deliberately eschew "balanced" encounters and consider the game to start long before initiative is rolled aren't playing the same game as someone who insists on encounter balance and balanced classes that all contribute equally to each encounter. I'm referring to a style that expects the DM to build encounters according to the encounter budgets listed in the Basic Rules and the DMG. E.g. rarely make Deadly encounters, follow the "adventuring day" XP budget guidelines, not use monsters with a higher CR than the player level. People with such expectations exist, at least on the Internet (and presumably therefore in real life). Such people should know that I have no intention of using those rules, and that's the primary thing I intend to communicate by saying I believe in Combat As War.The combat with gnolls that Celtavian has described seems like the sort of thing that I might run in my 4e game. I like to keep track of my XP budgets, to get a sense of what sort of threat I am presenting to the PCs (and thereby challenge to the players) but (like Tony Vargas said upthread) I don't take the view that there is any particular degree of difficulty I'm bound by (within reason - much above level +4 to 6 in 4e can be pretty punishing!). But I do prefer that most of the decision-making take place during resolution (eg the choke-pointing and other tactics that Celtavian described) rather than in advance of the encounter. The latter style was a big part of play in the Rolemaster games I used to run, but these days I prefer the "immediacy"/"spontaneity" of the 4e makes-choices-in-the-moment approach.
  • 05:01 AM - FormerlyHemlock mentioned Celtavian in post Any Eldritch Knights here use a familiar?
    Okay, I checked, and Celtavian, thanks for the correction. The 3rd level slot is the only one that's special: if you trade it out, you have to replace it with evoc/abj only (i.e. you lose the unrestricted pick). Looking through the spell list, I see only three real candidates for that unrestricted pick at 3rd level. Offensive: Find Familiar can grant you advantage on most attack rolls if you pick an Owl, tell it to Flyby, and guess well about who you'll be attacking next turn (i.e. whom the owl is going to Help you against). It costs 10 gold per casting, which might not be a big deal, and it has no impact on your action economy. Defensive + Offensive: Expeditious Retreat consumes your bonus action and doubles your movement in combat, for up to 10 minutes at a time. For melee fighters, this can mean closing with the enemy faster before it gets any ranged attacks in, or running away when things go sour. For missile fighters, it means staying out of range and getting "free" attacks while the enemy attempts to ...

Wednesday, 15th April, 2015

  • 01:54 PM - Fabio Andrea Rossi mentioned Celtavian in post Power Creep pitfalls in 5E
    @Celtavian & those experiencing issues with GWF and SS: how would you balance it? Would changing it into a -5/+5 (like I think it was at some time in the playtest) do the trick? Or, as an alternative fix for those who already have it in place and do not want to smack the players too hard, offering in those feats a -1/+1 basis up to +10/-10 max? This second option would still allow significant damage improvements but would also somehow compensate the increase in "damage increase cost" by allowing more flexibility to players as they can choose whatever to invest in raw power at the expense of accuracy. But...I have no idea how it would impact on balance, what do you think?
  • 06:22 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Power Creep pitfalls in 5E
    Did I miss a page? Where was it mathematically proven? <snip> The more math I do, the more confident I am that limiting it to one attack per round is more than sufficient. I'm totally comfortable with this feat working once per round, and I'm only slightly wary of it working as written. If you want to nerf it without doing that, though, changing it to +7 damage makes it considerably worse (~-1 damage to the above bonuses). Changing it to +5 damage, however, renders the feat largely pointless, so be careful.You don't seem to be too averse to a bit of maths yourself! On the possible nerfs, you mention 1x/rd as an option, which certainly fits with Celtavian's concern that it is at higher levels that its power really shows itself. What's your view of a flat +2 to damage? (With no to hit penalty.)

Tuesday, 14th April, 2015

  • 12:53 AM - pemerton mentioned Celtavian in post Power Creep pitfalls in 5E
    I don't think "build a PC to my conception" is a valid agenda unless it's a conception within what the rules support. <snip> If you want concept to trump rules, write a novel.Or you can tweak the rules. Which is what Celtavian has done, by adding some feats. I can see where you're coming from here. We do want to look at the raw numbers and stats for an objective analysis. My own opinion is that, although a great feat, without synergistic buffs to support it, it's not game breaking. <snip> Maybe it's a function of the fact that my party is still reasonably low level (6) to the point where AC still matters Celtavian has expressly stated that in his (?) view the issues with GWF only kick in at higher levels (above 9th). In my maths, I assumed a 6 needed to hit (say +4 prof, +5 stat vs AC 15) - which is clearly assuming play at mid-to-high levels.

Friday, 10th April, 2015

  • 05:02 PM - Fabio Andrea Rossi mentioned Celtavian in post Power Creep pitfalls in 5E
    Thank you all for your understanding. @Grakard yes, it’s a challenging but very fun table, that’s what’s keeping us all together in the face of real life issues. That, and relatively quick commuting times due to us living at an hour driving distance at most. @Greenstone.Walker this is very good advice and I may just do that…sparingly. To us, combat is a minigame in the role playing experience, one which we enjoy playing with not too many moral issues, more on the tactical side. But, out of combat this aspect is very present, actually the whole campaign world has strong morality/ambiguity elements, mainly in the form “destiny from the gods vs. individual will” which often challenge the players from this point, effectively I could insert more of this in the battlefield, good point. Just don’t want this as a permanent solution to offset power level aspects. @Celtavian & @Tormyr sorry for the confusion (and many thanks for your time and interest!): I refer to long rests. I should probably follow your advice and allow less resting and require more long term character sheet precision :eek: The point is that more you advance in levels, more things players have to track in the field of expended resources. With an ever shifting party I could not blame if somebody “forgets” if they used or not a power. Yes, they should track it on the sheets, we also tried poker chips to track powers and it did work to a degree, but I do have players more forgetful than it’s healthy. To give you the idea, I have a copy of everybody characters for the times when somebody forgets his own (“I just came from work! My baby ate the sheet! I thought I left it here!”) and I can’t keep those updated, so it’s just easier to start fresh each time. BUT…5e has not that many things to track and you may have a point here. @Fralex: power creeping outdoor may be healthier but it’s not ...

Thursday, 2nd April, 2015


Saturday, 28th March, 2015


Sunday, 28th December, 2014

  • 07:10 PM - the Jester mentioned Celtavian in post Observations and opinions after 8 levels and a dragon fight
    The weird part here is not so much your reading of the, but rather your insistence on the certainty of the text and your assumption of near unanimous agreement on this, when the text has no explicit mentions of your assertions and the majority of posters here and in other threads actually disagree with you. Celtavian, I have to agree with this. The level of disagreement with you in this thread certainly puts the lie to the notion that there is a clear and unambiguous answer that any sensible person can see; and the fact that most of the people in this thread disagree with you makes me doubt very much whether most DMs agree with your interpretation. Continuing to insist that you are right, period end, is just shouting your opinion and hoping to drown out the sea of voices that don't think you are. You've made your argument clear, and many of us have made clear that we disagree with your reasoning. Can't you at least do us the courtesy of accepting that maybe everyone else isn't unambiguously wrong and that your interpretation of how blindsight works is just that- one interpretation? By the way, any argument that requires looking at the rules from a previous edition for support is, IMHO, extremely flawed. How does such an approach help groups that are new to D&D? It doesn't, and it isn't supported...

Thursday, 25th December, 2014

  • 07:19 PM - Cyberen mentioned Celtavian in post Observations and opinions after 8 levels and a dragon fight
    Apparently I'm part of the 1% on this, too. In fact, it seems like just about everyone who has posted about it except for Celtavian is part of that 1%. Or maybe there isn't such a broad consensus after all? Not true. I would rule like Celtavian in this case, not because the rule is crystal clear, but because,as Authweight told better than me, the situation is muddled, the most interesting option is his #2 : rulings in a case by case basis, and I firmly believe, in the case of a lvl 8 rogue encountering a CR 13 legendary dragon, his #3 (no easy way to stealth) has the merit of both balance and tradition. Note that I would certainly rule differently in the case of a lvl 18 rogue trying to stealth the same dragon (ok, you've already been there... roll the dice).

Wednesday, 24th December, 2014



Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
No results to display...

Saturday, 10th December, 2016

  • 03:54 AM - hawkeyefan quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    Depends on the book and characters. Elric was capable of destroying nations while other characters like Aragorn have to stay out of the way of even twenty orcs and Conan is between the two extremes. All three writers were good in my opinion. It is important that a DM have an idea of what level of power he wants to base the internal consistency of the world. I think my biggest problem is the limited nature of higher level creatures. When players are getting spells like wall of force and abilities like high DC stuns, monsters are still just big bags of hit points with fairly straightforward capabilities. There's a lack of tactical capability by mariliths, balors, dragons, and the like. It's real easy for PCs to spread out to mitigate their best attacks and match monster mobility and damage, especially for ranged attackers which tend to dominate my games due to the extreme advantage of ranged attacking in this game. Even in 3E they made being able to move and use a powerful ranged attack limited...
  • 01:11 AM - FormerlyHemlock quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    I think my biggest problem is the limited nature of higher level creatures. When players are getting spells like wall of force and abilities like high DC stuns, monsters are still just big bags of hit points with fairly straightforward capabilities. There's a lack of tactical capability by mariliths, balors, dragons, and the like. It's real easy for PCs to spread out to mitigate their best attacks and match monster mobility and damage, especially for ranged attackers which tend to dominate my games due to the extreme advantage of ranged attacking in this game. Even in 3E they made being able to move and use a powerful ranged attack limited. It was a serious feat to fire an arrow and move your full movement between shots. Not so in 5E. And I'm seeing why this was something 3E designers avoided. Ranged parties hit, then move to cover. They really hammer big bad martial creatures like dragons and balors. It's kind of a pain in the behind as a DM. I'm trying to find a modification for this that allo...

Friday, 9th December, 2016

  • 10:34 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    The one area I do agree with is that 10,000 orcs is a challenge for a lvl 20 party whereas it wasn't in 3E or earlier editions. The only problem is that large scale combat in D&D is almost always boring and tedious. 3e introduced (AFAIK) a 'swarm' mechanic(template? design?) that statted out a large number of itty-bitty monsters as a single creature. It eventually expanded it to statting out a 'mob' of small or medium creatures as a much larger creature. 4e kept both. 5e still has the odd swarm though it doesn't make a big deal of it and it'd be easy enough to extrapolate a mob. So a mob of orcs or unit of disciplined hobgoblin soldiers or throng of zombies could be handled that way, making it more of a challenge for a higher level party and also less tedious to resolve.
  • 03:55 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    Right now it comes down to the demon having to completely avoid showing himself because if he comes up for air, it gets focus fired and killed way too quickly. I do not like that at all. Yes. I already know I could come up with some environment that mitigates this a bit, but doing this every time lessens the fearsomeness of the creature. It shouldn't need a highly beneficial environment to be effective in my opinion. This has to be one of the most backwards things to me. Of course the environment should be important, and both enemies and PCs should use it to the best of their advantage. D&D is not played in a white room. It's played in an environment. Using the environment doesn't lessen the fearsomeness of a creature. It can enhance it. PCs going into a swamp to fight a black dragon should be MORE afraid of it there than if they ran into it in an arena. I can only speak for my groups obviously, but we've had PCs overcome overwhelming odds by using the environment to their advantage,...
  • 01:34 PM - Helldritch quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    Once again putting words in that I didn't say. They most certainly wouldn't say, "Charge." They would scout it, say 300 orc horde with a leader, probably port or transport in, take out the leaders, and nuke a major portion of the central command, adios out, piecemeal the rest of the orcs. Tactically, a group of level 15 characters with a mix of magic and martial might have a lot of power at their beck and call. They wouldn't have much fear of an orc warband. By 15th level they've fought dragons, demons, giants, and far worse than a group of 300 orcs. It's not going to scare them and it shouldn't. At that level the wizards are accessing magic that allows them to traverse the world fairly quickly, druids are turning into elementals and summoning animal hordes, fighters can take fire breath weapons full force and smile, paladins are immune to most anything and have insane saves, rogues can hide where no orc would have a shot at seeing them nearly any round, and clerics can heal a lot of damage as w...
  • 02:29 AM - hawkeyefan quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    Once again putting words in that I didn't say. They most certainly wouldn't say, "Charge." They would scout it, say 300 orc horde with a leader, probably port or transport in, take out the leaders, and nuke a major portion of the central command, adios out, piecemeal the rest of the orcs. Tactically, a group of level 15 characters with a mix of magic and martial might have a lot of power at their beck and call. They wouldn't have much fear of an orc warband. By 15th level they've fought dragons, demons, giants, and far worse than a group of 300 orcs. It's not going to scare them and it shouldn't. At that level the wizards are accessing magic that allows them to traverse the world fairly quickly, druids are turning into elementals and summoning animal hordes, fighters can take fire breath weapons full force and smile, paladins are immune to most anything and have insane saves, rogues can hide where no orc would have a shot at seeing them nearly any round, and clerics can heal a lot of damage as w...
  • 12:04 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    I think that 6 people facing 300 people should feel like the situation is unwinnable if it comes down to combat. There are definitely ways I could see this going in favor of the PCs (guerilla tactics and area of effect spells really being the big ones), but regardless of exactly how it plays out, 6 people facing 300 should feel fear. The point being that your players don't feel fear because the 300 are merely orcs, and they are 15th level PCs. That requires an awareness of the mechanics of the game that really interferes with things. The fact that your PCs simply go "Oh, 300 orcs? Hah....CHARGE!!!!" is more of a problem than the game design, I would say. The fact that mechanically a group of 6 high level characters can likely defeat a horde of low level ones doesn't mean that the PCs should behave that way. I mean, for all they know, that's 300 level 15 Orc fighters, barbarians, and sorcerers. Each of those orcs could be every bit as capable as the PCs. The fact that the PCs behave as if ...

Thursday, 8th December, 2016

  • 11:25 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    Should level 15 characters be afraid of 300 rampaging orcs? I don't think they should. 300 orcs is a fairly small horde. I think six level 15 characters should be able to kill an orc horde that size fairly easy. Level 15 is serious power and should be serious power in a cinematic sword and sorcery game like D&D. A ten thousand orc horde? Now that should scare them. That's a worthy fight for level 15 D&D characters. That's an epic fight against a horde threatening an entire realm they are dutybound to protect. Three hundred orcs? That's a tiny horde threatening some villages or a small city. A 300 orc horde would be something I might consider for 4th to 7th level characters for them to kill over the course of an entire adventure arc. Most DMs can concoct a way to kill their players in a one time encounter where they set them up in some kind of situation where you exploit their weaknesses and find a creature capable of defeating their strengths. This isn't any kind of challenge for a DM. "Gee, I ...
  • 09:39 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    I've not made a single statement that 5E is "failing" because that is far too big a claim. I and other folks like CapnZapp have pointed out areas of the game that have to be watched carefully because they provide players with an out-sized advantage in a very large number of situations that make the game trivial. Does that mean we can never challenge the players? No, it does not. What it does mean is the players can take on far more powerful creatures and situations than the CR system takes into account, meaning the DM has to modify often because MM monsters were not designed very well for challenging PCs at higher levels. Specifically, solitary creatures are far too limited and easily exploited by smart players using the base abilities of the game. It's not an insurmountable challenge, but it's one to be aware of.. And we've been saying, especially in the context of this thread, is the problem is not because the monsters are trivial and you as the DM needs to modify them because they're poorly ...
  • 06:49 PM - Caliban quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    If I gave a substantial amount of role-play experience, I would develop a level equality problem. I and other DMs in my group have tried this over the years with little effect. The people that enjoy role-playing do it the most and the best and those that don't continue to lag behind. So I don't bother since the level equality problem would be more problematic. I think it's generally more enjoyable (for the RP'er) to reward good roleplay with in-universe roleplay awards, rather than XP. The good RP'er has a better in-game reputation amongst the NPCs (either friendly or feared depending on what they go for), forms alliances or friends that will pay off later, may get a better reward because the NPC's are more impressed with them, etc. The combat monster gets their enjoyment from curb-stomping monsters, or pulling out a win when the odds are against them. They'll barely remember RP rewards, much less care about them. (This is an extreme example, as there are players who care about...
  • 06:15 PM - smbakeresq quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    Inspiration is a poor mechanic. There are so many ways to gain advantage at higher level that an inspiration doesn't do much the higher level you get. I've had to modify inspiration to make it useful at higher levels. A powergamer still wouldn't care. It is on attacks, but less so on saving throws and other things to avoid really bad things. Personally I rarely use inspiration on attacks, a missed attack is less fatal then many saving throws. Occasionally if a player has an inspired idea I just give them the save without rolling. By the time you reach higher levels you have toned down the power gamer or driven him out of the group.
  • 04:15 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    300 orcs against 6 15th level players and your player would run? Not mine. They would kill 300 orcs. Not sure it would be that hard. Not sure why you think it would be. 15th level characters are really, really powerful. 300 standard orcs are not much of a match them unless you have somehow set up the encounter where all three hundred can surround and attack the party every round with 300 attacks. If they're loosely spread out in a horde the PCs are tracking, six 15th level characters will kill them all with minimum trouble, though it would be a long, monotonous, and uninteresting exercise in dice rolling. Interesting. Even assuming that on average each orc only gets one attack on the party before dying, 5e's bounded accuracy was intended to make that orc horde coming for them a threat. Its not like 3.5 ed where they'd need 20s to even hit the party members. How do you think the intentions of the system would break down in the case of that horde?
  • 02:48 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    300 orcs and 6 15th level players... pre 5ed. We kill 'hem all! ROYAL RUMBLE! 5ed... We get the message boss. Let's get out of here now! Yep, 5ed is really good. 300 orcs against 6 15th level players and your player would run? Not mine. They would kill 300 orcs. Not sure it would be that hard.. I'm guessing there is a huge difference in play style here. A battalion of low level mobs in 5e is much more dangerous than in older editions, that's for sure. I am pretty sure that our table would do whatever they could to avoid a rampaging horde of 300 orcs, even with our group that finished RoT (we were 15th level). It's like the very first post in this thread. If I was running those NPCs against a party of that composition, the NPCs would probably wax the PCs fairly easy. In fact, just give me the diviner and a bunch of mooks to qualify for a "deadly" encounter, and I would still make it extremely hard on the PCs as described. A DM who preps and knows his or her NPCs is a great counte...
  • 09:11 AM - Flamestrike quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    This statement in one form or another has been repeated ad infinitum. All I can say is glad 5E is working well for you. It isn't for me and my style of play even though I've used every single tactic you've mentioned. From memory the game you were running had several 'beyond artifact' items like +3 intelligent weapons with the spellcasting ability of 13th level casters (and their own pool of actions and ability to maintain concentration independent of the weilder) and other abilities, plus IIRC you also had houserules allowing multiple concentration spells at once and so forth. I wouldnt be entirely surprised if that throws the maths out a tad. Not that there is anything wrong with that kind of epic play, but it messes with class balance and encounter balance something fierce. Effectively there were whole additional party members as magic items.
  • 08:43 AM - CapnZapp quoted Celtavian in post last encounter was totally one-sided
    As Vargas says, the powergaming combos are still easier to deal with than 3E/Pathfinder. There is a reason we're here after all... :cool:
  • 06:53 AM - Lanefan quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    If I gave a substantial amount of role-play experience, I would develop a level equality problem. I and other DMs in my group have tried this over the years with little effect. The people that enjoy role-playing do it the most and the best and those that don't continue to lag behind. So I don't bother since the level equality problem would be more problematic.It can be, if more than a few levels; but a couple of levels variance isn't too bad - except in 3e and 4e. I worry more about designing an overall experience everyone can enjoy including myself as DM. So many people seem to forget the DM needs to have fun as well or they won't be particularly motivated to run the game. That's why poorly designed rules irritate me so much as a RPGer that has spent a lot of time DMing. Poorly designed rules that allow for extreme exploitation ruin my experience as a DM and cause a lot disagreements as my players don't like toys to be taken away once they've used them. ... I think game designers as a whole l...
  • 05:41 AM - quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    Inspiration is a poor mechanic. There are so many ways to gain advantage at higher level that an inspiration doesn't do much the higher level you get. I've had to modify inspiration to make it useful at higher levels. A powergamer still wouldn't care. They wouldn't, but inspiration is a problem much like rewarding "good RP" as always been. I've played with noobs and professional actors. Guess which ones usually get the RP rewards? (it's not the noobs). Sure, you can add all sorts of subjective "rules" to it, "guidelines" on what constitutes good play, but it's still the DM deciding that one character action is "better RP" than another. Worse off, it's usually not used to reward good RP, it's used to reward table behaviour that the DM determines is beneficial to the sort of game he wants to run. Some players may make completely in-character decisions and get nothing for no reason other than their decisions aren't moving the game in the direction the DM wants to go. Of course that's sort o...
  • 03:00 AM - thecasualoblivion quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    If there not powergaming, I wouldn't consider them a powergamer. My response fits powergamers meaning people that play this game for power. Optimizers are a slightly lower level of min-maxing. I don't know that I would put them in the same category as powergamers. Optimizers tend to optimize a concept, but it's not always the most powerful combat character. Powergamers are in it purely for the power to lay waste. Powergamers are annoying. Optimizers I don't mind so much. I expect players to optimize character concepts. If I were looking at it as a sort of categorization system, it would look something like this. Min/Maxers: Players that seek to minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths. A. Power Gamer: A player that plays the game with little regard for story or concept focused purely on mechanical power to lay waste to anything he faces in the game system. Story and concept are incidental to this player. B. Optimizer: A player that attempts to optimize a character concept within the frame...
  • 02:55 AM - smbakeresq quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    True. I view Powergamer/Munchkin as the hardest to deal with for me as a DM. They could give a rip about story or continuity. They want to squeeze every point of damage they can out of the character to see the high numbers to "win the game." Just give inspiration constantly to the non-power gamers. When the power gamers complain tell them their build is not inspiring, its a math construct.
  • 02:40 AM - dave2008 quoted Celtavian in post A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.
    If there not powergaming, I wouldn't consider them a powergamer. My response fits powergamers meaning people that play this game for power. Optimizers are a slightly lower level of min-maxing. I don't know that I would put them in the same category as powergamers. Optimizers tend to optimize a concept, but it's not always the most powerful combat character. Powergamers are in it purely for the power to lay waste. Powergamers are annoying. Optimizers I don't mind so much. I expect players to optimize character concepts. No worries, my OP covers both. Of course other people disagree with your definition. That is one thing that makes these discussions difficult since we aren't all using the same definition?


Celtavian's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites