View Profile: Saeviomagy - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About Saeviomagy

Basic Information

About Saeviomagy
Introduction:
Powergamer with restraint for the sake of fun and a hunger for player-driven stories.
Location:
Wollongong
Age Group:
31-40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
6,668
Posts Per Day
1.07
Last Post
Ghosts of Saltmarsh Resources Wednesday, 12th June, 2019 06:02 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
1
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 03:18 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 10th July, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Thursday, 26th October, 2017

  • 12:01 AM - pukunui mentioned Saeviomagy in post Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Gloom Stalker Subclass
    Saeviomagy: I've long thought that the PHB ranger has "solo play" written all over it. Yes, it has a few team-oriented features, but mostly it screams "I work alone" ... and this subclass, while it sounds kinda cool, does nothing to lessen that vibe. In fact, it just enhances it. A gloom stalker would make for a great solo campaign PC. Not so sure how well it will work as part of a team.

Tuesday, 26th September, 2017

  • 12:57 AM - Oofta mentioned Saeviomagy in post removing heavy armor profiency
    It depends on what your goal is. Currently heavy armor primarily supports the idea of a strong but clumsy melee type. Get rid of heavy armor and that archetype is incredibly handicapped unless you somehow compensate as @Saeviomagy suggested. Another option is to allow very heavy and large shields. Add a tower shield that requires a 14 strength, grants +4 to AC and negates dex penalty. Allow medium armor made of alternate materials such as layers of silk or laminated armor. That doesn't cover the big guy with a two handed weapon, but it at least gives people who want to play a tank an option other than barbarians and dex based fighters. Or just look up information on what was historically used, which apparently included heavy armor, at least according to some sources EDIT: I would make the tower shield proficiency equivalent to heavy armor proficiency; classes that have heavy armor proficiency would have tower shield proficiency and feats that apply to heavy armor would apply to the new shield category.

Saturday, 16th September, 2017

  • 02:23 AM - MoonSong mentioned Saeviomagy in post Multiclassing ability score prerequisites—required for balance or an unnecessary hurdle?
    @Blue , @Mephista, I don't share Saeviomagy's view on that background doesn't matter. But the problem with the background is that background is stuff you don't get to play. It is there, in the past. Now the example given wasn't "Wizard academy reject that turned to something else" as a character concept, it was a case of "My character is not entirely conventional and cannot ever stop taking levels in the same class regardless of what happens in game". Let's try with something else, how about a dex paladin with low strength? One played by a thespian that barely ever speaks out of character? Now something happens in game that makes it natural for the paladin to shift paths -maybe the order did something unspeakable, maybe the god was evil all along, maybe someone dear by the paladin had to be sacrificed for grater good- whatever it is, it makes zero sense for the paladin to remain a paladin and keep getting good at being a paladin. But what now? It might take 8 levels for the paladin to gain enough strength to be allowed to multic...

Friday, 21st July, 2017

  • 05:19 PM - Tequila Sunrise mentioned Saeviomagy in post Do You DM or Play with Flair?
    Saeviomagy Arilyn Clerics are the ministers of communities, and each cleric is a messenger and vessel of all gods. Some clerics favor one god over others, but no cleric is foolish enough to exclude any god of recognized importance from his prayers and invocations, no matter how much he may find a particular god distasteful. The D&D priest (aka cleric) is actually odd compared to most real world priests of polytheistic faiths. My cleric hews more closely to real world priests, in that each one is a servant of all his culture's gods and is not supposed to play favorites.

Monday, 19th June, 2017


Thursday, 15th June, 2017

  • 09:36 AM - n0nym mentioned Saeviomagy in post Keen Weapons in 5th Edition?
    I've given "Keen" weapons (increased critical threat range) in my games and I've had one as a player, and it doesn't seem to be a major issue... Even though I was a Fighter/Rogue abusing Shield Master for Advantage, the GWM Barbarian still outdamaged me most of the time. After all, even if the weapon did awesome damage (which it does not, as @Saeviomagy pointed out), it's a MAGIC item, it's *supposed* to feel awesome. Magic items that feel mundane suck. Lastly, I don't think anyone mentionned the Sword of Sharpness in the DMG, which is basically how 5th edition does "Keen" weapons.

Tuesday, 6th June, 2017

  • 03:40 PM - SkidAce mentioned Saeviomagy in post Mearls: "Imagine I am writing a section on tool proficiencies for XGE..."
    We use gaming tool proficiencies. I might not be understanding you Saeviomagy. The campaign world has a game called Drax. If you are not proficient in the tool you use a straight Int check as you play/learn. If you are proficient you add your proficiency bonus. If you don't have the tool in your possession, you cant use it (play the game).

Saturday, 18th February, 2017

  • 02:36 AM - ThePolarBear mentioned Saeviomagy in post How does the Phantasmal Force spell work correctly?
    ...y other benefits cons: Many). If you prefer to work with external influences: Perfectly fine :D Closing: Regardless of the illusionary effect (attacking monster, status effect, object), I don't see this spell to be game breaking anymore. Yes, it's versatile. But neither its damage (1D6/round) nor its distraction / crowd control options (e.g. a fire cage) are too bad in comparism with other level 2 spells (e.g. Hold Person) - not even, if they are combined! In this topic, we talked a lot about restrictions. In the beginning there were people that allowed "chaining a creature" or making it "extinguish in a pool of illusionary water". Looking back, a lot of these improper usages have been corrected. In the end, there will always be some parts/usages that rely on DM's discretion. But in my view, the spell doesn't appear to be broken as it was before this discussion. Regards Happy to have been useful if you found my comments to be of some worth :D Have a nice game and have fun! Saeviomagy There's way more creatures with a high con than there are with a high int. Even things that are described as cunning manipulative spellcasters get an int of 13-15. The sole exception is dragons. Con? I suppose you meant Wis? Hold Person is Wisdom, as is Suggestion. B/D is Con, but in the part you quoted there was no mention of it. Explain why phantasmal force cannot paralyze the target? if you can create any visible phenomenon and you can also determine the end result of that, then there isn't anything stopping you creating a full body force field that holds the target motionless. Because you do not create a full body force field, but the illusion of a full body force field. The target can see, hear, smell, taste and recieves tactile feedback on the proprieties of said field (does it make your hair rise since it is electric in nature? Is it hot? Cold? Is it smooth?) but it does not exists and cannot impede or support physical actions. An illusory bridge can't hold a person on i...

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Saeviomagy in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...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 ; @Xeviat ; @Yaarel ; @Yunru ; @Zalabim ; @Zansy; @Zardnaar ; @Zeuel ; @ZickZak ; @ZombieRoboNinja ; @ZzarkLinux
  • 06:22 AM - Lanefan mentioned Saeviomagy in post Literacy and Languages in your game
    I've gone in the other direction - unless I have a very good reason otherwise, everyone and everything speaks Common. I've found very few situations that are improved by the PCs not being able to talk to creatures they encounter. Which isn't remotely realistic, of course, but then neither is D&D's binary choice between knowing or not knowing a language. :)For added realism and less binary-ness, have a die roll (we use d10 exploding) for how good you are at the language. Saeviomagy - We find that having different characters know different languages sometimes gives said different characters a chance to be the party face, for better or worse. If the Dwarf with Cha 6 is all you've got who speaks Dwarvish and you're dealing with some Dwarves who don't know anything else...well, fun times all round. :) Most of the time, however, as long as somebody knows the language we often just get them to translate so everyone can join in...though on occasion (like my most recent session) the translator might intentionally not give a comple-etely accurate translation... Lan-"what are words for, if no-one listens anymore"-efan

Tuesday, 12th May, 2015

  • 06:12 AM - zago mentioned Saeviomagy in post Does the "Friends" cantrip need a fix?
    Saeviomagy Yikes. I guess I don't understand. Fundamentally the charisma check shouldn't allow someone to convince someone of something they wouldn't do. Advantage on a Charisma check grants a small bonus to what is a 'possible' check. Getting an item for 25-33% off is an example of what I would suggest is a possible check. Getting an item for free isn't. As far as how long it takes: Maybe I spend an hour calmly haggling with a merchant, I say to him this is my last offer and if he doesn't accept right now, I will leave. I cast friends, we contest, I win (let's say) he relents, coin is already on the table, and I walk away a 15g longsword for which I paid only 10g. Now I have about 50 seconds to disappear in a crowd. I don't see this as exceptional at all. I also don't understand how this somehow cracks at the realism of anyone's world. I also don't understand why anyone would look at this cantrip and think, holy cow, this doesn't work and has no use, because every social exchange...

Saturday, 18th April, 2015


Tuesday, 30th December, 2014

  • 02:58 AM - Ahrimon mentioned Saeviomagy in post Those poor farmers!
    Saeviomagy Another thing I'd like to point out that may help you see where I am coming from is from a post earlier in the thread: As stated, the rules for making money are for PCs only. So, according to the RAW, NPCs can never make money by owning land, a business, or whatever. So, NPC's can never do anything that the book doesn't explicitly have rules for? :erm: But if you see the book as a set of basic guidelines or examples of how things can be done then you have no problem deciding how you want to handle it as a DM. Also, as others have pointed out, its something that the GM can 'fix' at his/her convenience, should the matter come up. And to me, everything about this is a feature. Not something that needs to be fixed, a mistake, or something half-completed. It's a stepping stone. A muse if you will. Every campaign is going to be different. Putting hard coded rules in the game makes a default assumption that every game is the same. 5e is all about taking the game a...

Wednesday, 26th November, 2014

  • 06:39 AM - doctorhook mentioned Saeviomagy in post Mage Hand and the No Good, Low Down, Dirty Rotten Arcane Trickster
    ...lly hate the feature that much, make up a new, equivalently powerful feature, and give him that instead. Slapping disadvantage on the feature is going to lead to either him having one less feature (effectively - there are better ways to "clumsily muck around with a trap") OR him trying to powergame his way past the limitation, which will end up in an arms race. Neither is a good thing.I had been mulling about allowing ATs to sneak attack with spells in some fashion. Cantrips only, maybe? Only within 30ft? Certainly only spells with attack rolls, not saves. Single target spells, or only one of the targets in an area effect spell. Arcane tricksters are mercifully short on suitable attack spells and slots, and reliance on Int would be MADdening. Firebolt + sneak attack is powerful, but sort of a one-trick pony; with a range restriction it might even be balanced. Anyway, what are your thoughts on this as potential alternative class feature for Arcane Tricksters, as per your suggestion, Saeviomagy?

No results to display...
Page 1 of 46 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 08:17 PM - Mookus quoted Saeviomagy in post Ghosts of Saltmarsh Resources
    Not having the new one (and therefore possibly completely off base), might I suggest the 3.5e DMG II, which has a pretty exhaustive rundown of saltmarsh in it. :: recons the bookshelf :: Wow, sure does! Thanks, Saevimagy, good tip.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 06:48 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    In this case, the rules make more work. That does not empower the DM, because the DM always had the power to make a specific assessment, modify dcs or throw the rules away if they want to. You make some strong points, there. Yes, Empowerment does mean more work, more skill/talent required. But that just means the Role of DM is that much harder to fill, that much more valuable.

Tuesday, 4th June, 2019


Monday, 3rd June, 2019

  • 10:31 PM - Stalker0 quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Which is especially cogent since getting +10 in something is actually pretty difficult in 5e. Sometimes. With my party: 1) +3 prof 2) +5 stat 3) +2.5 (Guidance) There's the +10. And that doesn't even start with the bard powers and the two characters that have expertise. Hitting 30's in my game is a lot more common than the "impossible" tag it gets noted.
  • 10:29 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment. Sure it does. Usually to no change in job title nor increase in pay, too. Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC. I agree a more with the latter than the former. It's not much time, for at least some return, taking into account /who/ is making an attempt. It may not much more time to figure every DC whether the task is a foregone conclusion or not, but what's the potential return? It's a GM failure if the PCs aren't having fun. It's a system failure if the Rules As Written don't convey the Rules As Intended. What if the Rules Are Intended to be ambiguous, so the DM has plenty of room to interpret them as desired? ;)

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 12:08 PM - 5ekyu quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure? Then why are we even bothering with numbers? This is about dissatisfaction with the skill system, and this is pretty representative of a skill system that just doesn't work - you have to make up the numbers for each player on a case by case basis, and the only influence the actual system has is now I ALSO have to be wary that my arbitrary numbers don't fall into the automatic success or failure cases of each character. Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of how a DM can decide the price of failure. Again - I can just do that. The skill system doesn't help me in the slightest. Design features can be wrong, so stating that doesn't make any ground for your argument. Whether or not someone intended the skill system to be a step worse than just making things up based on how you feel about a character doesn't change whether or not that was the result. Because what's expected from the DM i...
  • 01:02 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure? Well, you could have that info behind the screen. Or ask them when they declare an action. Besides, at a given level, there should be some 'safe' DCs. Then why are we even bothering with numbers? This is about dissatisfaction with the skill system, and this is pretty representative of a skill system that just doesn't work - you have to make up the numbers for each player on a case by case basis, and the only influence the actual system has is now I ALSO have to be wary that my arbitrary numbers don't fall into the automatic success or failure cases of each character. Your numbers shouldn't be arbitrary, of course, otherwise you wouldn't be considering each character when setting a DC. And, it's only if you don't settle on success or failure as being the better narrative result that you go to the trouble of check. As iserith has pointed out, once players are used to it, th...

Tuesday, 28th May, 2019

  • 06:02 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Since we're already talking about using the skill system, lets assume that there is some doubt about success here... "Automatic success" is when there isn't, though, and that's determined before DCs are set. If the DM calls for a check, but sets a DC the character can't fail, the /DM has failed/ and DMs should avoid the appearance of fallibility as much as possible, it undermines the level of trust needed from the players. First up, this is rubbish. It's not how any published adventure works A published adventure is a tool to help the DM along, setting DCs for him is an exception to the usual mode of play, but the DM needn't abide by it, it's there to aid, not constrain. nor does it make a lot of sense: you don't assign a different DC to each character who wants to climb a wall based on how you, the DM, feel about their chances. And if you have to... that's a problem. At that point I may as well scrap the entire skill system because it's making my job more difficult, not easier. Why wouldn'...
  • 05:49 AM - iserith quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    First up, this is rubbish. It's not how any published adventure works, nor does it make a lot of sense: you don't assign a different DC to each character who wants to climb a wall based on how you, the DM, feel about their chances. Sure you do, if one character climbs the wall in a way that is meaningfully different than someone else, then the DC can vary. If the approach to climbing is largely the same, then it is reasonable to assign the same DC. And if you have to... that's a problem. At that point I may as well scrap the entire skill system because it's making my job more difficult, not easier. It's the role of the DM as described by the game to judge these matters. I already addressed the concept of a world of adventure (or even mundanity) where performing a dangerous climb has zero chance of injury to those woefully incompetent in the field of rock climbing. It's a ridiculous concept. There's a reason why even experts don't go rock climbing alone with no safety gear. I cove...

Monday, 27th May, 2019

  • 06:52 PM - iserith quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Don't those things factor into the DC, not into whether or not a roll is necessary? We already decided this is a moderate climb, not a beginner one. We already decided the penalty for failure is something nasty, simply because you're climbing the side of a mountain. But now we need another, different evaluation of the climb difficulty to determine whether it's possible to fail or not... and if we decide it's not difficult, then it's fine for the worst climber in the world to attempt the moderate climb with fatal consequences, because he never actually needs to roll... That's the basic adjudication process though. First the DM decides if a roll is necessary at all. Climbing is called out specifically as being just movement except in certain circumstances. A DC can only be set once the task is established by the player in a reasonably specific way such that the DM can decide if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Climbing in particular just costs 2 feet of m...
  • 03:35 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Right... and in this case, our max-level, max-strength, trained in climbing figher (edit - argh, barbarian succeeds automatically!) can feel confident that he can attempt a moderate climb and not risk death! Effectively reducing DCs by 5 feels better than where DCs are currently, because it brings results into the 'cannot possibly fail' region more often. "Cannot possibly fail" is also known as DM Narrates Success, and it's not slaved to bonuses or DCs - in fact, it precedes the determination of the DC by the DM. There's no need to tweak rules to get there more often, just narrate success more often. As DM, you are /Empowered/ to do so!

Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019

  • 02:24 PM - iserith quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Right... and in this case, our max-level, max-strength, trained in climbing barbarian can feel confident that he can attempt a moderate climb and not risk death! Effectively reducing DCs by 5 feels better than where DCs are currently, because it brings results into the 'cannot possibly fail' region more often, but it's still an across the board change that requires the DM to do a lot more than is written into typical skill checks, and will still often be invisible. Well, the good news is that climbing in D&D 5e is a factor of speed and ability checks are only necessary if there's something about the climb that makes it uncertain, such as a slippery vertical surface or few handholds.

Monday, 20th May, 2019

  • 06:45 PM - DMMike quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    So it's now not actually possible to fall while climbing, is that what you're saying? That doesn't seem satisfactory either! Good question. I suppose that the answer is that falling is one interpretation of "no progress." I don't think that free-climbing is a very good example though, because who looks at a climb-or-die cliff and says "hmm, the only solution must be to start climbing!" For what it's worth: in the Princess Bride, the Dread Pirate Roberts gets stuck on a climb-or-die cliff face. He doesn't fall, but he loses a LOT of distance between himself and Buttercup. I'd say he failed his climb roll, there.

Saturday, 18th May, 2019

  • 06:30 PM - DMMike quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    you were in the middle of free climbing and had to choose a body for the ascent would you choose.... A) 1st level weakling with no Athletics Proficiency B) 20th level max-STR barbarian Obviously B, because you would have a way less chance of falling to your death. My copy of the PHB says that a failure means you make no progress or you make progress with a setback. That's hardly "falling to your death." the reality is that if free climbing was as dangerous as 5th ed makes it, neither they nor I would have chosen to commence the climb in the first place. You are now safe to resume climbing, Saev.

Friday, 3rd May, 2019

  • 07:17 PM - Sabathius42 quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little? If you, Saeviomagy, were somehow teleported into your D&D game (Tron style) and directly onto the side of a cliff you were in the middle of free climbing and had to choose a body for the ascent would you choose.... A) 1st level weakling with no Athletics Proficiency B) 20th level max-STR barbarian Obviously B, because you would have a way less chance of falling to your death. DS

Monday, 1st April, 2019

  • 09:14 AM - 5ekyu quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?Of course in your example it's not true but your math seems way off. Barb 20 has Indom Might so their minimum score is 20. They auto-succeed on Hard climb at DC 20. (Not surprising, level 20 is not usually supposed to be worrying about a tough climb challenge. Thsts morevtier-1 and maybe early tier-2 "challenge" fodder.) Weakling (below avg str) cannot succeed, cannot get to a 20 with strength 9 or less. So, for your cherry picked example the proficiency does not matter cuz the characters specific stats and chosen DC make it automatic. If the weakling did have proficiency, then they would meet the DC only 10% of the time. So, not much of a t...
  • 07:35 AM - Saelorn quoted Saeviomagy in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?That's an idea. If you narrowed the focus of each skill, and increased the benefit of proficiency, then it could add depth to characters without trivializing skill checks (as might happen if you only increased the bonus, but didn't narrow their focus). Personally, I would increase the proficiency bonus for skills by +4 across the board, and not narrow their focus at all, but also increase skill check DCs by +5. I don't particularly care about making the skill system any more complicated, though.

Wednesday, 27th March, 2019

  • 06:36 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Saeviomagy in post How Should Taunting Work?
    You lower your guard, they become more likely to attack you, even potentially at the expense of consequences depending on the character of your target. Otherwise you're going to need some social checks that won't always work, and probably can't be attempted by a wolf. The premise of the thread is that it requires social Checks that won’t always work. Why would it always work? I’m also unsure why a familiar couldn’t attempt it. Why would it require language? You may not have caught it in the OP, but in this game we already flavour that when a familiar uses Help in combat; it is harrying the target with attacks that annoy, but don’t hurt enough to count as an “Attack”. Crows do this to eagles to distract them long enough to steal their food. A bird getting in your face and pecking at you annoyingly, and then circling you just out of immediate reach, absolutely could cause a creature to run at it and swat at it. This is...like...classic story trope stuff, and exists IRL. I really don’t get wh...
  • 05:28 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Saeviomagy in post How Should Taunting Work?
    Oh dear. That’s not the response I was expecting. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish. edit: I admit I didn’t read your OP more than once due to it being written in black ink on (for me) a black background, so I think I missed some of the finer details. Apologies. Huh. I wrote it using the default settings. If it shows up otherwise that’s either a forum glitch or a clash of settings. It's only punitive if you don't tell the player the mechanic before time. As written, it's a niche ability that doesn't get used every round, only when it's important. Personally I might go with "As a free action, you may select a foe and grant them advantage on their next attack against you for the following round. Foes are aware that you have done so, and will take this into account when deciding on tactics." Why would the enemy have advantage? I don’t understand why that would be the mechanical resolution. "Mash a keybind; 6 second cooldown." Oh, wait...wrong gam...

Friday, 1st March, 2019

  • 10:28 PM - jasper quoted Saeviomagy in post Unicorn horn
    Let her graft it to her own head! And after 8 levels she turns into a unicorn. Then the Red Bull comes for her.


Page 1 of 46 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Saeviomagy's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites