View Profile: Charlaquin - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Today, 05:15 AM
    I think a serious argument could be made for 3e. Giving monsters Strength and Constitution bonuses meant many monsters were tougher in comparison to fighters. Rock Paper Scissors saving throws meant PCs were more vulnerable to spells. 3e starts out fairly deadly and becomes more deadly as levels escalate.
    174 replies | 4426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Today, 05:10 AM
    Labels from Masks. Shifting stats to reflect a shifting sense of self in teenage superheroes. Absolutely brilliant.
    54 replies | 2061 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Today, 04:51 AM
    Here's my take: Character sheets and game mechanics are representative of the fiction, but they are not the fiction. They are tools we use to create a consistent compelling fiction. I feel it is a grave mistake to confuse the fiction with its representation because it lowers our overall investment in what is actually going on. Some games (even games I am quite fond of) make it all too easy to do...
    786 replies | 22821 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:04 AM
    Since a reaction can be used to analyse a spell (just read this) and a reaction can be used to counter what if two mages were working in tandem... ie they could know what nature/level it was what resources to spend on countering it and similar benefits. Team dueling for the win?
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:57 AM
    Oh and I do kind of like your idea of allowing it as level 1 ... basically in homage to Chainmail ;)
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:56 AM
    Yes I think the original potency as Talian is suggesting does feel appropriate at least for slot equal cost when you go over It needs to make up for possible fails where it used to be automatic before.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:02 AM
    I agree it intuits as being slot cost heavy and I am wanting it to feel fun instead of poof, technically if you are fairly certain the counter spell will work with my suggestions it is slightly more powerful doing low but potentially flavorful whiplash damage on the controller of the countered spell. Even changes some are suggesting like making it opposed checks I think is flavorful...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 12:27 AM
    Sounds interesting. Nods I think I agree... it is at least ballpark.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 12:08 AM
    A solution I seen still kept the reaction cost but allowed it to be done after the subject was hit... and forced a re-roll (it could combine with other sources of disadvantage) But the damage reduction idea how exactly did that work?
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:36 PM
    Always givem more when it fixes a problem not bad to address the "must have" nature of things.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:33 PM
    I wouldnt go that far myself Yes to opposed rolls yes to aid other and a bonus to spell levels added. Presumably the best casting ability my Int is 18 and the Bards Charisma is 17 the Priests wizdom is 16 ... My casting ability controlls there spell slots contribute... enemy side does something similar. Compare total and apply special effects ;P I am sure they could be devils in the details...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:05 PM
    I suspect I would like a lot of your houserules
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:00 PM
    Chainmail Ranges in Inches I think each was 10 yards Sorcerer 60"Warlock 48"Magician 36"Seer 24" Better than Archery IRL ;)
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:57 PM
    I was suggesting basic if the one player wants to counter an enemy spell he asks his allies if they want in? yes they all add no? they do not get to
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:08 PM
    Idea of Multi-cast counterspell .... hmmm when I ask for strength check and multiple people are lifting I have in the past asked for the highest persons strength then gave a bonus for each person whose strength was within 5 points of that. AND make one check what if there was a rule where multiple casters could participate as a group or they interfered with one another?
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:03 PM
    It is definitely a guess but you know in combat the guess is fairly solid the enemy spell is not something you want to happen
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:00 PM
    There is a roll if they are countering a spell that his higher than 3rd... but I can see how opposed checks might feel more dynamic - my idea was to have d4+spell level+int? damage of a type perhaps related to the spell countered if you succeed and snap back damage if you fail, while allowing even countering lower level spells be somewhat more questionable. I definitely understand not...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:15 PM
    My philosophy is, never point your DM gun at something unless you’re willing to pull the trigger. If PC death is on the table, then when a PC dies, they’re dead. No fudging rolls, no extra chances, no rescuing them, they’re dead. To do otherwise weakens the tension posed by the threat of PC death. If you don’t want to kill off PCs, that’s fine. Just make it clear ahead of time that PC death won’t...
    28 replies | 539 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:26 PM
    Trading a spell slot to delay them? and them not losing a spell slot, that is edging passed not even something i would want. Does it progress the fight might be a measure of worth.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:19 PM
    Combat and Tactics looks to have been extensive material.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:13 PM
    Yeh the wasted reaction is one of the reasons why I didnt like protection its competing against the sentinel feat and opportunity attacks too. (both seem to be a defender fighters meat)
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:10 PM
    Agreed lots of cool answers.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:18 PM
    Aside from introducing possible but even potentially rarish failure on lower level ones I wasnt thinking of inhibiting just flavoring it up a bit adding pop when it succeeds and opposite small ouch when it doesnt (ie having it potentially fail against a lower slot spell was just more of that pop) It occured to me that modern wizard duel inspiration does draw heavily on Harry Potter. ...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:00 PM
    I was thinking it sort of gave flavor of magic being dangerous not just a level of commitment to the counterspell too...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:54 PM
    How about my idea... make it a bit more iffy against lower level spells and give whiplash effects even a small amount of damage d4+spell level? of a type related to the spell countered. (if any) or a type opposite. And conversely when I fail to counter it i might take a small amount of damage of the opposite type maybe? I brought up the original Chainmail to show both heritage and that the...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:38 PM
    Nods I can see that... and even at 5th level for the wizard its one of potentially many. Put it alongside fireball or lightning bolt.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:52 PM
    How many adversaries are typically spell casters? I can actually see it way more valuable in say my game than someone else's as I think people are the most complex and interesting monsters of all. But I have definitely seen many a game where it never came up.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:40 PM
    So you have seen it as becoming "must have" hmmm.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:30 PM
    I am now picturing a counterspell which harms the enemy if it succeeds by whiplash like effect and may harm the one casting counterspell if it fails.
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:26 PM
    Counter Spell goes way way back in Chainmail it was one of several magic abilities the casters simply had. Alongside either a Fireball, or Lightning bolt, seeing in the Dark and becoming invisible till they attacked. The above were basically at-wills, yeh. Though in a mass battle each turn might be closer to an encounter but since the adversary also only did one thing its closer feeling to...
    51 replies | 902 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:14 PM
    I do not think I remember seeing more than 1 or 2 henchmen ever it demonstrates how different experiences can be.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:51 AM
    I had considered a Leading Attack... which allowed one to probe for openings or induce openings in the enemy so that subsequent attacks could make use of the revealed opening. Whether the attack was yours or someone elses. Once the opening was exploited it went away. So you could make it a pretty big benefit I wasnt thinking advantage though. The other fighting styles give advantage on the attack...
    49 replies | 1025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:38 AM
    This reminds me of the assertion that 1e had people playing with extra rows of polearm users in the groups There is a feat where ALL adjacent allies get +1 AC bonus due to your shield work. Phalanx Warrior It is subtle. But that is not a FEAT bonus so if a bunch of you had it. The entire group could be compounding with adjacent allies - each member of the phalanx created shield wall...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:13 AM
    The 2e Fighter *(Warrior Lord) definitely included the 4e Warlord in its banner (at least flavor wise).
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:01 AM
    Fireballs must be really easy to cast... (this is actually a reference to an old issue of D&D spells always working but being described as really hard and meticulous = but a stray cat could mess up the casters day - ok that is later in the story)
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:42 AM
    To be clear ... does not exist in 4e either that is more 4e is an MMO speak congratulations join the dog pile of ignorance.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:15 AM
    Taunting / Intimidating and so on was a very common technique IRL. People/creatures are not dead wood. NOTE the very very limited but still available stopping up a doorway just quit being the only way which it was previously. When it's all you got it gets glorified. "sophisticated" -stop up a doorway is sophisticated? It was a desperate only way for decades LOL The Cavalier cannot...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:46 AM
    It uses your one and only reaction... no opportunity attacks no Sentinel feat benefits and you are protecting against an attack that may have been something which already failed. It seems like you are trading out offense not defense.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:14 AM
    I'm going to start with some personal background. Before I ever touched any dice I got my start role playing in online free form communities associated with various fandoms. I also am a lifelong theater geek with a deep appreciation for the craft of acting. I have a group of friends who gets together every couple months to do read throughs of some of our favorite plays. Right now I'm currently...
    786 replies | 22821 view(s)
    6 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 11:45 PM
    I heard this was a patch for someone leaping off of cliffs/tall towers with impunity
    174 replies | 4426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 11:28 PM
    My first personal character for the last edition was a swordmage with white lotus riposte trivially created at level 1. Do a swordburst damaging a bunch then if they attack they get porcupined with force blades back
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 10:45 PM
    That just needed quoted
    174 replies | 4426 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 09:39 PM
    Conceptually Talents for Monsters opposite Talents for Player Characters may be rather like what I was talking about depending on the details Or at least a method to present the new abilities
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 09:13 PM
    Or go variant human I think. Interesting and a different take. Interestingly intricate level progression Makes me think of Conan almost ;) What would be your best level 5?
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 09:08 PM
    It almost has to be seen that way when it takes so much time and energy for me I have to decide if it's even worth it.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:56 PM
    Thanks to those who actually contributed on this thread without playing accusatory MMO games
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:49 PM
    Pretty murky behind paying for it, not that I would begrudge doing so if it managed to clear up the problems I currently see with 5e.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:38 PM
    Not sure that is entirely true myself I was targeting a big tactical module as much as something WOTC could produce as anything. The earlier edition had a Tactical expansion of 192 pages; The set of role oriented subclasses some may already exist minor tweaks on Cavalier. Monsters which create more varied problems than a big bag of hit points and something like a more explicit stunt system...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:28 PM
    I shoot for not overwhelmingly specific partly because it could differ a lot It's a method for inspiring people without over-riding their own inclinations. someone just shared a homebrew everyman/simple action that allows someone to "Take a hit" when their adjacent squishier allie is about to be hit they can interpose, hoping maybe their greater defense helps them out. It could be seen as a...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:18 PM
    Ah that works and is a compromise removing my criticism.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:15 PM
    Yeh I couldn't understand how there was a failure to communicate... which is evidence of a failure to communicate too LOL
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:12 PM
    Parrying an attack against ones ally for that shield user might be... a somewhat different thought. You trade out your shield bonus to improve an allies armor class not your own... you no longer get the bonus till the end of your turn.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:09 PM
    Hmmm.. I was just thinking that a reaction is such a commodity using it when the enemy might not even hit would feel lame.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 07:57 PM
    I do like that quite a bit... I have been thinking for quite a while that a lot of fiction has heros who do little tidbits that might be seen as overlapping on the specialists. Many times it includes characters inspiring their allies but yes this is definitely another, a dive in front of an attack seems viable (you could even add some small movement if you accept being prone afterwards)... ...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 07:16 PM
    Yeah, same. If you don’t think the product is worth the money due to its crunch content being playtest material destined for a future book, I don’t blame you. But it’s unfair to claim they were being dishonest. They were very clear about what the product was.
    34 replies | 1053 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 06:59 PM
    OK I will channel my much younger self. Note I now disagree with that guy on almost every point for various reasons. hmmm maybe some are still influencing my thinking Hit points massively increasing? I mean really? Single attribute based actions = there is nothing that simple? Classes = carbon copy encouragement for the win Amnesia magic = nothing at all like legend or myth....
    163 replies | 7176 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 06:45 PM
    That might be ok if something is rare enough it isn't something to count on or worry too much over ... however it REALLY REALLY seems strange a mage is immune to the interference of the Cavalier adjacent to them. Hard to imagine they cannot ... something about mechanics being unnecessarily different, yada yada yada memory escapes me. Mage slayer looks like it has some bite against adjacent...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 06:13 PM
    There is a fun issue... your intimidation or even active interference against nearby enemies cannot will not interfere with casters they are immune.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 06:04 PM
    My gameworld has a hmmmmm archetype? That sometimes were called justiciars originally like police back in the ancient times but many of them became more like personal guards in modern times. Green Knights were one such group who I sort of hedged as being like druid/fighters when it was 1e days. But the Warden in 4e was associated with the Nature magic / sort of Druidic branch it fit rather well....
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:59 PM
    I kind of like that too it rather has the intimidation angle going on... You are distracting them because they think you might be coming back for more.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:52 PM
    Yes it certain seems to have some how many of what you mention above are in the Players Handbook vs Xanathars (which I had not investigated) I think ones that require a reaction are pretty darn limited though. And goading attack seems to have no impact on casters.
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:49 PM
    We had tons of outdoor adventures back in the day I still do including many open arenas and battlefields whose only walls were trees ...heck I think dungeons were actually pretty nonsensical to many DMs. 5 foot door ways for the win I suppose or dead squishies because someone objects to enemies falling for false openings, tricks and taunting and intimidation effects. Honestly I do not...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:33 PM
    The exception proves the rule... they might also ignore your attacks and run past so they can get at the more brains behind you not because you are too tough but because more meat is back there. Yeh but if you can barely react to one enemy see 5e... watch the others run by to get at the squishy threat with glea. The doorway/choke 5' point solution can under a narrow circumstances enable...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:26 PM
    The above is pointing out how recognizing roles as specializations of PCs is not a new thing I think if you make a diverse set of tactical choices they will undoubtedly interact with roles. 5e classes are pretty locked down design elements hurray for supporting classes but it means that the fighter is a meh defender without something like the subclass Cavalier. And arguably he needs a way to...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:07 PM
    Show me how show me. An ability might support one role when used one way and another role when used another way... does that mean it somehow doesn't support roles?
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 04:59 PM
    Ah I was kind of hoping you had some inspiration on that which I lacked to be honest.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 04:55 PM
    You are being obtuse I told you that you could swap out the adjective for its opposite and the sentence and idea still sounds interesting why would you have ever assumed I meant the adjective was ? "important"? Explain how it even makes sense to look at the words I want to meet a fancy dancer and assume your can remove the word dancer and have it even be meaningful let alone important?...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 04:30 PM
    Your being very hard to hit is not some invisible property If they do not behave differently very quickly then the DM is roleplaying them very badly... The guy who looks like he might be leaving openings but can take a lot of shots will be the target of choice the entire battle. Even though the DM knows you can soak the crap out of it. That will take much longer for the monsters to notice ...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 04:23 PM
    @dave2008 creating non-combat tactical role support might be something brand new to D&D even. Though I have heard of the face and similar ideas I do not remember them ever being rich with tactical choices.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:59 PM
    Thumbs up for being very on topic ;)
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:50 PM
    Adjectives cannot stand alone they describe the other and I pointed out you could in theory also create a non-combat tactical module which might be very intriguing to be honest.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:45 PM
    And the early edition had fighters become minion sweepers too as they levelled (if the DM used them zero levels it could in theory make fighters feel pretty badass)
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:41 PM
    The party was according to Arneson originally inspired by the US fireteam of 4 soldiers. With classes approximately reflecting its composition/roles.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:38 PM
    Adjective is battlefield indicating type and noun is role ... could call it combat role too. ( though in theory you could actually have a non-combat tactical expansion)
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:30 PM
    Not everything is a comparison and 4e will not always be better ;) - it cannot be ubiquitous like it was in chainmail (nor as absolute) so giving it other subtle control like the control I added which fit flavorwise seems a compensation for the indirect control it used to get.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:27 PM
    Sure and ones best designs are likely something you buy into yourself. I also think battlefield role support is a component of tactical game play. 5e is not very flush with that. So a module that built a series of subclasses to bring that on might be good. Had not even seen the Cavalier till I asked about defenders.
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:08 PM
    It took an expansion to get what looks like a functional defender... unless I am missing something
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:02 PM
    Fireball and lightning were iconic wizard magic from Chainmail they had indirect control because they were ubiquitous and as large area of not-ally friendly effects influences enemy behavior to not-clump together and 2 get close to allies of the wizard so the wizard cannot easily smash you - A wizard always had 1 or the other (which they could do every turn of the battle). Other consistent...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 07:17 AM
    It says it's playtest content, both in the book itself and in its dndbeyond description, so I don't see how it's in any way dishonest. I don't agree, but like Parmandur said, WotC has promised to do exactly that.
    34 replies | 1053 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 07:07 AM
    It's also possible that the rules content that appeared in Wayfinder's Guide will be tweaked for its release in the hardcover. Wayfinder's Guide is marked as playtest content, after all.
    34 replies | 1053 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 06:59 AM
    TFW stands for That Feeling When. Necro is short for what is called "thread necromancy" in common online vernacular. The thread has been "dead" for 6 years, and your post brought it back to life, ergo it was an act of necromancy. There's nothing wrong with thread necromancy necessarily. Some people consider it poor etiquette, but it's pretty harmless, and most people just find it strange and a...
    78 replies | 14312 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 05:21 AM
    It was already mentioned something other than boring bags of hit points monsters consider that your starting point ... then one needs abilities which interact with those on the player side and that depends on what abilities you give those monsters doesn't it devil is in the details and one thing you provide cascades into other things remember how I mentioned "what good is an ability that allows...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 04:43 AM
    I prefer a foundation and some assumptions in the foundation make changing it pretty difficult. For instance 4e assumed heros were most likely gradually approaching something akin to demigod status able to perform stunts which parallel works of magic through skill alone now if you wanted to pretend to being just a farm boy who could accidentally kill beasts the size of buildings through brute...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 04:11 AM
    you could definitely get a goal through the hoops right into left field over that issue...
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:54 AM
    Here is a lesson in playing a defender if you are too hard to hit and ultimate on saving throws ie defenses it is a very good way NOT to be an effective defender in 4e because the DM will have next to no reason for monsters to attack you because the DM is almost always the difference between you being attacked and not. Although occasionally a defender will have a nice trick that suckers the...
    81 replies | 1963 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:28 AM
    Because swordmages are so intrinsically superior, snicker They simply must be built as level 17
    49 replies | 1025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:23 AM
    I did make a more controllerish lightning bolt up thread
    27 replies | 945 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 03:09 AM
    Not what I was saying I was saying so there is that. You wanted to know why I thought it would be difficult and that was an element I would like to see but also an example of how such an element could touch on wide varieties of other design elements and that is a reason tactical elements tend to not be easy squeezy lemon peasy
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 02:33 AM
    Did that way back in 1e days but I am lazier now... reflavor seemed sufficient
    100 replies | 2271 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 12:52 AM
    LOL you took facing more literally than I meant it... but I suppose I could have said impacting its utterly appropriate for monsters to have one set of rules and the monsters another. your hyperbole about how having zero to -3 be unconscious with the rest dying is still hyperbolic and misplaced unless you think you are playing 3e where they lock step npcs and pcs like the game was RuneQuest 3...
    174 replies | 4426 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Charlaquin

Basic Information

About Charlaquin
Location:
Oz
Sex:
Rather not say
Age Group:
19-24
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Munchkinland
State:
Colorado
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,443
Posts Per Day
1.36
Last Post
PC Death: How do You Handle It? Yesterday 06:15 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
8
General Information
Last Activity
Today 07:25 AM
Join Date
Tuesday, 26th August, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

2 Friends

  1. Campbell Campbell is offline

    Member

    Campbell
  2. Garthanos Garthanos is offline

    Member

    Garthanos
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
My Game Details
Town:
Munchkinland
State:
Colorado
Country:
USA
Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Tuesday, 23rd July, 2019


Monday, 22nd July, 2019


Sunday, 21st July, 2019


Saturday, 20th July, 2019



Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 01:53 PM - Yaarel mentioned Charlaquin in post 4e Clone − help create it!
    @Zardnaar, @DEFCON 1, @Charlaquin It is worth having balanced abilities. Rather than the eight abilities, it is possible to have four abilities. • Strength • Dexterity • Intelligence • Charisma In this four ability setup: • Strength includes hit points. • Dexterity handles jumping and climbing. • Intelligence includes the five senses. • Charisma includes willpower and empathy. In this way: • ‘Strength’ equals exactly 4e Fortitude • ‘Dexterity’ equals 4e Reflex • ‘Intelligence’ equals 4e Perception • ‘Charisma’ equals 4e Will So, for example, it is possible for the 4e clone to talk about the ‘Strength ability’ and the ‘Strength defense’.

Tuesday, 4th June, 2019

  • 03:22 PM - TwoSix mentioned Charlaquin in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    Weird. The quote has my name. But I didn't write what you're responding to? Maybe it was TwoSix ? Yea, that was my quote listed under your name. I'm sure Charlaquin can fix it in the morning (since it's midnight in Australia.)

Friday, 10th May, 2019

  • 03:45 PM - jayoungr mentioned Charlaquin in post The Pilosus, a player race with 6 Genders for your 5th edition Sci Fi setting
    I find it funny that people seem to know more about a fictional race that i created than the one who made them. It is like saying to god, hay that's not how it works when really he should know because well he made it. I promise, explanations and expansion of all that is this small and might add controversial race will be revealed at a later date when i am done with the races for players as a whole. Mean while please continue as this is very good material on my end and might even use a snip it or two to help fill in some of the cracks that i have been stuck on or not. Don't take it personally. As Charlaquin said upthread, it's just a touchy subject right now, and people are quick to assume you have a message, even though it sounds like that wasn't your intention. (FWIW, I don't have a problem with imaginary alien biology for imaginary alien species.)

Saturday, 4th May, 2019

  • 06:45 AM - Unwise mentioned Charlaquin in post Please describe your experience (players) or management (GMs) of a perfectly executed metaplot...
    Charlaquin , wow it sounds like we are running the same game :) I'd like to think my earlier mentions of that helped inspire yours. It sounds like yours has progressed better than mine though. My group stopped playing due to RL concerns before I could reveal the death curse having an effect on them. I planned on swapping from flashback mode to real-time once the members sitting around the pub talking noticed that they were getting sicker and sicker. They were well over-leveled, which would have meant they breeze through Chuult and have a final showdown with the BBEG, which was the final moment in which we see if these old timers live or die. I'm sad we did not see that through to the conclusion.

Wednesday, 1st May, 2019

  • 01:30 PM - robus mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...ting there be leeway for error" is just a player screw job AFAIC. Yeah, I'm not big on playing silly buggers to try to increase difficulty. So definitely stepping into the realm of going after others method right off the bat. Your second post in thread #42 gets a bit more passive aggressive: I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. Maybe I'm just too gamist in my approach. @Bawylie engaged with that though in post #46 but rather than dogpiling, gave a brief history of the game discussing the different approaches to action resolution encouraged by the different editions. @Oofta joins in with post #49 and increases the temperature with this little nugget: While I encourage people to state things in-character, I don't see a need to treat every action like Jeopardy where things have to be said using the correct structure. No need for a wording gestapo if the intent is clear. (my bold) And we’re off to the races... Edit: and I see Charlaquin beat me to it.
  • 10:35 AM - pemerton mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    This is the gauntlet that leads to the lich's lair, his home. They want to dissuade people from trying to get through it, the entire point is that it is a security measure. You don't post the code to your home security system on the front lawn, why would a Lich who is willing to devour and destroy souls to extend their life risk anything that could lead to their death? To reiterate the obvious, I'm not Charlaquin. Still, I think my response to this question is consistent with what Charlaquin has said upthread: you, the GM, tell me. I mean, it's the GM's job to frame a situation that will be engaging for the players, and if that situation is going to be a lich's gauntlet of death than it's on the GM to find a way of making that engaging rather than just an experience in literalness. If you, as a GM, want to keep threats and consequences hidden from your players well that's your prerogative. But you can't blame this on the fiction, given that you wrote that! If I create a lich that is an undead sociopath, with no regard for mortal life except as a fuel source to delay it's own death for as long as possible... Why on earth would I have it sandbag the heroes by posting a riddle before a trap? "Oh, if the heroes are clever enough they'll bypass my defenses, right into my inner sanctum, but of course they'll never be more clever than me and catch all the clues I left them." <snip> I coul...

Tuesday, 30th April, 2019

  • 10:21 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...said. Not even close. Really? "There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players) You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. (You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)" How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined? Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced. Seems pretty dang close to what Oofta was saying about Charlaquin coming across as feeling superior in their style. “More refined” is what I was saying Hussar was mistaking his playstyle preference for, as opppsed to simply a preference. By saying that the playstyle the 5e rules promote is for inexperienced players, it was him suggesting that his playstyle was more refined. It’s the equivalent of saying “[thing I don’t like] is for babies.” I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussar’s wording. I don’t think either of our tastes are more refined, or “for more experienced players,” I think they are simply different preferences. Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way. There isn't much daylight between Charlaquin's position and mine, plus I have the other poster blocked, so my mistake there. But that poster has been continually railing about my position as well or what he or she can read of it in quotes from others or perhaps loggi...
  • 09:13 PM - robus mentioned Charlaquin in post Please describe your experience (players) or management (GMs) of a perfectly executed metaplot...
    Charlaquin, that sounds cool - though back-to-back Tombs of Horrors might be a bit "overkill" so to speak ;) ?

Monday, 29th April, 2019

  • 06:12 AM - Chaosmancer mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...f the universe if it suits me. I have all the advantages I could ever need. This is about style. My players want to be the characters in the game, and that means they are limited by what those characters could see or understand. Whether or not we're asked to say whether a thing is good or bad, we're tasked as DMs by the rules of D&D 5e to judge whether a player's approach to a goal makes the task trivial or impossible and, if neither and accompanied by a meaningful consequence of failure, to call for a roll of some kind. Do we agree on that point? For the most part, I do not agree with "needing a meaningful consequence of failure" before asking for a die roll. I'll admit I'm perplexed why there is resistance to telling the player the consequences of failure. If helping them making an informed decision is "coddling" then I'm all for it: I'd rather have them know the stakes, so that when they decide to roll that die they know what they're rolling for. As Charlaquin says, and supports with the Hitchcock quote, the suspense is so much more delicious when you know what that stakes are. Now, you don't have to give away every nuance of the consequence. "Sure, you can try to chop the door down, but it's going to make a lot of noise. Are you sure...?" But they don't have to know exactly what sort of creature is going to be alerted. And here Charlaquin and pemerton is where I want to discuss something about our word choice. See, I don't see the point in telling my players that breaking down a door with an axe will make a lot of noise. To me, that is unnecessary because it is obvious. As obvious as telling a player that if they attempt to jump over a ravine, they might fall into said ravine. This is obvious, this is knowing how the world works. We assume standards such as gravity and sound work the same as always, until we are given reason to suspect otherwise. To me, this is just telling the players obvious things, the only use of whic...

Saturday, 27th April, 2019

  • 02:28 AM - DM Dave1 mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    (...I'm constantly "bemoaning" the fate of my monsters and the successes of my players, most of them seem to enjoy the act, especially since I let them know it is all an act on top of it. I'm very silly at times) While I largely agree with Charlaquin in this discussion, I am seeking to share some common ground here. Our table very much enjoys this farce as well where I openly lament the party’s latest beat-down of my creatures. We’ll see who laughs last, though! Each battle is but a test for the final showdown with the BBEG! :devil:

Thursday, 25th April, 2019

  • 11:55 PM - pemerton mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...om the same section ("Difficulty Class"). We can only speculate as to why.Just as we can only speculate as to why the skill text in the Basic PDF for 5e seems to take 3 different approaches across the 3 entries of Investigation, Perception and Survival. Put this together and we have an expectation that players will ask for checksWhose expectation? The DMG and PHB for 4e came out in 2008 - were expectations changed by a book published two years later? Did the RC change its text because it was wanting to bring the rules text more closely into line with observed play practices? In which case one could hardly assert its normative force. Anyway, given the text I've quoted from the 4e DMG and the text you've quoted from the 4e PHB, I hope you can see why I don't see the cleavage in systems being as great as you do in respect of GM and player roles. The key difference I see is that the 4e rules assume that checks will be made at moments of drama, whereas the 5e rules as applied by Charlaquin and (I think) you expect players to be angling for no check even at moments of drama. My own framework for making sense of this contrast is between "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (4e) and classic skilled play, which in my view doesn't involve "pixel bitching" as you have described it upthread, but does involve leveraging the fiction to generate desired results by way of free narration (5e "goal and approach" as articulated in this thread).
  • 03:29 AM - pemerton mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Play it and get back to us.There was a reason I asked Charlaquin.
  • 02:37 AM - pemerton mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Rolling dice is not the primary resolution mechanic of the game, in my view. The primary resolution mechanic is using a human brain to imagine a fictional scenario and determine the likely outcome of the action within that scenario. If, and only if the outcome can not be determined by this method alone, then rolling dice is a tool to help make that determination.I'm glad you spelled this out, because it was the first thing I thought when I read Chaosmancer's remark about the game's resolution method - ie that you would not agree. we aren't talking about goal and approach. We are talking about whether or not giving players information on the consequences of their actions leads to better and more dramatic roleplaying. That has nothing to do with how the players approach the problem and all about how much we tell them.As a semi-participant in this particualr discusion with Charlaquin, I will say that what you describe here doesn't ring true to me at all, for my game. I'm not talking about tellling players coonsequences which would obtain even if the players weren't told. I'm talking about telling the players those consdequences that obtain, or - alternatively - having those consequences be implict in the framing of the situation and the plyaer's knowledge of why the situation matters. I don't think that keeping potential consequences secret from the players makes for good RPGing. You are standing in on the second floor of a mansion, guards are charging up the stairs and you need to escape. You see a window and a chandelier, across from which is a ledge leading somewhere else, in addition to the stairs leading down. What do you do? <snip> the player can't spend 10 minutes checking the stability of the chandelier. It is a viable option, but a failed check might lead to it breaking, and the player doesn't know it could break.The devil is always in the...

Tuesday, 23rd April, 2019

  • 06:17 AM - Elfcrusher mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    @Charlaquin and @iserith raise an excellent point, which maybe will clear up some of the confusion. Players do, after all, often say a lot more than, "I attack." They describe where they move. They say which target they are going to attack. They use bonus actions. They invoke special abilities. The expend resources. Notice this is not just the "narration" you keep invoking. It's not that they wrap colorful adverbs around the actions. They are describing specific things they are doing to achieve their goal. And those decisions have mechanical impact. The other two pillars have far, far fewer mechanics designed to support them, so to make those pillars as rich you need to give the players some leeway to be creative. As I suggested above, maybe they go fetch a ladder, or stack up some crates, to climb a wall. I'm glad the game doesn't have specific class mechanics for activities like these; I'd rather leave it to improvisation and DM judgment. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be m...

Friday, 19th April, 2019

  • 07:29 AM - pemerton mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...tainly the players deciding to seek out the troll king (somewhat) changes the dynamic, as opposed to, for example, them being captured and then dragged in front of the troll king.To me, this raises the question of how much should failure snowball? This is very system dependent, but my overall take is that if the players are unsuccessful and so their PCs are captured by the Troll King, then they can expect to have to make some suboptimal moves. A bit like when a fight goes bad and the wizard has to start declaring melee attacks. At some point in this rambling conversation it was brought up that players who would worry about failing a roll and making a situation worse would simply choose not to roll. They would remain neutral as a counter to the consequences of failure. So, it was proposed, that there should not only be consequences for failure, but consequences for doing nothing. So, exactly what I said. Consequence for failing and consequence for doing nothing.That was me, not Charlaquin. As per a post I made not too long ago days-wise but maybe 100+ posts upthread, there are different approaches possible and this thread is bringing out some of those differences. Just to mention some of the posters I've interacted with: The approach I'm describing (which I use in 4e and which I think could be ported to 5e) has some similiarities to 5ekyu's, but is not identical (as can be seen in the discussion of the Audience With the Troll King scenario). Ovinomancer also does some things similar to me - eg in some recent posts mentions the idea of keeping up the pressure on the players via their PCs - but not identically I don't think. I also have some similiarites to Elfcrusher and Charlaquin - eg regarding the fictional specification of the declared action as very important - but some differences - eg I call for more checks than they do (see my quote upthread from Luke Crane for the reasons why). I have had far too many players who are so scared of failing and...

Thursday, 18th April, 2019

  • 07:47 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...nto what you are saying, trying to figure it out, and it seems our difference is simply you have a strict checklist that you don't share with your players and just mentally work through? That's what this entire thing exploded from? Action declarations sometimes have checks follow them. The action declaration, like the check itself, is an event in the real world. On the other hand, the action is an imagined event that (we pretend) occurs in the fictional world of the game. I think that keeping these things distinct aids clarity, especially when trying to compare different approaches to action resolution. For most versions of D&D, including 5e, for many action declarations this simply isn't true. In 5e the action declaration I cast a spell is not normally resolved by calling for a check. Nor is the action declaration I pick the sword up from the ground. Nor is the action declaration I use the key to unlock the door. Actually, if we want to get really pedantic to quote Charlaquin "Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check."" So, almost all spells are resolved through a check. Either an attack roll or a saving throw. But while we can pedantically argue down the primrose path, I think another point here is more important. That bolded section... is that the only point to keeping them separated? Just for ease of comparing different styles, most of which will still follow "declaration before roll" no matter what may find its way between? (I think it is fair to say no one has been advocating rolling then declaring an action afterward) In that case, awesome, I appreciate it existing for that. Why am I getting taken to task for saying there are some checks that don't require a roll (reliable talent, barbarian strength) and that the action and check are so closely linked that I don't see a point in dividing them at the table? I was told I was wrong for equating actions and checks, ...

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019

  • 06:10 PM - Oofta mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Charlaquin, I don't want to waste time on this any more. Obviously if someone has a key to a door they don't need to use lockpicks. If they can bypass a trap by taking another route, they take the other route. On the other hand if they have to disable a simple trap (complex traps are a different beast) or unlock a door with lockpicks, I will ask for a check no matter how they describe it. That's just not how I run it. Run it differently at your table? As long as people are having fun you're doing it right.
  • 02:38 PM - iserith mentioned Charlaquin in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    ... doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge. I think this shows that 4e is very much in the camp of frame checks and then roll dice to find out how the fiction evolves at key moments of dramatic uncertainty. And the framing is to be undertaken by both player and GM, with the GM haveing ultimate responsibility for managing the coherence of the fiction and ensuring that the framing respects this. I mention this not to contest your account of how you run 5e, nor what approach 5e might best be suited for, but rather to show that goal and approach (or, as I prefer under the influence of Luke Crane, intnt and task) has currency beyond your particular use of it - which makes it even more appealling! Sure, whereas D&D 5e divorces tasks and checks in a way that D&D 4e does not. A player describes tasks rather than "uses skills." This is the issue Charlaquin is having trying to communicate with another poster in the current similar thread. To add to the differences, D&D 4e also says "All DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations." This backs up the idea "frame checks and then roll dice to find out how the fiction evolves at key moments of dramatic uncertainty." D&D 5e does not support players calling for checks at all, plus "dramatic uncertainty" is framed as "uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure." These may seem like minor differences, but in play, a D&D 4e game and a D&D 5e game "by the book" will look different in many ways outside of different mechanics. Unless of course one is playing D&D 5e like some other game. (As an aside, here's a weird thing I noticed about D&D 4e back in the day. What I quoted above - the "dramatic situations" line - was removed from D&D Essentials Rules Compendium. I have no idea why because the "dramatic situa...
  • 06:14 AM - Elfcrusher mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Charlaquin I think you should give up. It just ain't gonna happen.

Sunday, 14th April, 2019

  • 09:31 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Charlaquin in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...an absurd premise hard enough. Fine. Elfcrusher, in your sarcastic example of a DM calling for a die roll to disarm a poisoned handle, even after the player declared they were wiping the handle with a thick cloth and were wearing gloves so that no poison could possibly contact their skin, you were completely wrong in all ways and there was nothing redeemable about that. No roll should ever be called upon in that situation, no matter the circumstances, and nothing else could ever be said about that example or any permutation of that example because your failure in calling for that roll was so extreme it eclipses everything else. Further more, my use of that example to bring up an entirely different point was wrong in all ways. I should have never have done so, and will endeavor to punish myself appropriately for such a disgrace, since my point fell under the assumption of the roll that must have never been and that is a shameful scar upon my DMing from here on out. Now, Charlaquin, if I have properly responded to the roll that never should have been made, can we just drop this already? This is because your point of conflict is "is this NPC lying to me." That's, frankly, utterly boring to me. If I present a lying NPC, figuring out the NPC is lying will not resolve whatever the actual issue is. It will just lead to a new point of contention. Why did the NPC lie? What do we do know that we know the NPC lied? To go back to the shopkeep example you proposed, determining that the shopkeep lied would never be a check in my game. I'd never need to prevaricate to preserve uncertainty so that my plot continues. Instead, discovering the lie is just one more means to advance the plot and do something different. You'd need evidence, and could then brace the shopkeep with it to expose the lie and get the truth (which leads to more adventure), or maybe you engage in discussion, discover something about the shopkeep, like that he loves his little girl...


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 84 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Sunday, 21st July, 2019

  • 11:25 PM - gyor quoted Charlaquin in post Any news on the Eberron Hardcover books' release date?
    It says it's playtest content, both in the book itself and in its dndbeyond description, so I don't see how it's in any way dishonest. I don't agree, but like Parmandur said, WotC has promised to do exactly that. I bought it to show support. And I have wanted a "dead tree" version of 5e Eberron since 2015 and the first UA. I'm glad I got the WGtE as I've been running Eberron for a year with it, but I'm even gladder to be able to have a refined version with more stuff and the artificer in it. As for the WGtE, I think they will do one final update when the new book comes out that finalizes any material in it (like races) and then put a PoD version out. However, I don't expect new material like the artificer to be in it. They've already said the finished Artificer will end up in the WGtE.
  • 09:29 PM - Li Shenron quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    We’ve known the promise of modularity was an empty one since before the end of the playtest. Unfortunate, because 5e has a really, really solid mechanical underpinning that WotC just doesn’t seem to have any interest in experimenting with. Huh? The "solid mechanical underpinning" IS the modularity. We did get the modularity, we just didn't get the modules. And the main reason IMHO is that gamers have not be asking for them. One module has been attempted twice in UA, the mass combat rules, and gamers turned it down twice, while praising more subclasses and feats, what's WotC supposed to do?
  • 07:09 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Charlaquin in post Any news on the Eberron Hardcover books' release date?
    It's also possible that the rules content that appeared in Wayfinder's Guide will be tweaked for its release in the hardcover. Wayfinder's Guide is marked as playtest content, after all. Unless the Wayfinders Guide is updated with those tweaks, this would be absolutely unacceptable.
  • 07:09 AM - Parmandur quoted Charlaquin in post Any news on the Eberron Hardcover books' release date?
    It's also possible that the rules content that appeared in Wayfinder's Guide will be tweaked for its release in the hardcover. Wayfinder's Guide is marked as playtest content, after all. For sure: though they have promised to update the WGtE, including a final PoD version, to be a companion to the hardcover book.

Saturday, 20th July, 2019

  • 08:24 PM - dave2008 quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    The strength of 4e’s monster design, IMO, was not in the design of its individual monsters, but in the way monster roles allows you to build dynamic tactical encounters more easily than in other editions. The individual monster designs were fine, good even, but in 4e one individual monster is only a fraction of what makes up a combat encounter. Yes, you can do that in 5E too, but thE game doesn't give the names out of the box. Though that would be the easiest thing to add to a tactical module.
  • 07:32 PM - Garthanos quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    There were some pretty cool variant rules in the DMG, and that was it. . And some are kind of innadequate like how second wind is very nearly un-used in 4e due to action economy and which is even more tied down in 5e. But it gets a variant? Thought i would double down on why the variant they presented isn't really even the interesting parts of Healin Surges Healing Surges in 4e A limit to healing albeit high limit to "commonly available" healing (no healing if your subject is out except by dm controlled resources) Defenders and to a lesser degree melee combatants have more not just more hit points they need healed more often doing their fighting style and role. A resource spent in extreme exertion for skill use not just healing and sometimes by magic items and rituals adding this could be nice in a module Flavor wise putting the awesome in the character being healed as much as the healer proportionate healing - yes its kind of flavor too. (remember curing light wounds healed your low...
  • 05:38 PM - Xeviat quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    The strength of 4e’s monster design, IMO, was not in the design of its individual monsters, but in the way monster roles allows you to build dynamic tactical encounters more easily than in other editions. The individual monster designs were fine, good even, but in 4e one individual monster is only a fraction of what makes up a combat encounter. That section of the DMG was my favorite and most used section of that book. 4E monsters were so easy to refluff and retool, and you could have interesting dynamic encounters right out the gate. I remember an encounter in an exploration game I ran where first level characters were being stalked by a pack of wolves. I made stats for an "alpha wolf", which were soldier wolves while the younger wolves were still skirmishers. The soldier wolves had a mark but also had a grab instead of the usual knock prone. When they grabbed someone, they used their movement to drag the target back away from it's friends so the skirmishers could dog pile. Yeah, that's...
  • 05:35 PM - Garthanos quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    The strength of 4e’s monster design, IMO, was not in the design of its individual monsters, but in the way monster roles allows you to build dynamic tactical encounters more easily than in other editions. The individual monster designs were fine, good even, but in 4e one individual monster is only a fraction of what makes up a combat encounter. I think people do not always get how over all structure contributes It kind of relates to 5e designers take on healing surges mentioned earlier.
  • 03:38 PM - Garthanos quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    I don’t think anyone expected the game to be able to play exactly like each other edition. But I don’t think anyone took the promise of modular rules too literally. Early on they were quite explicit about the idea of modular rules packets that could be plugged in or removed to tailor the experience more to your group’s play style, and those never appeared, beyond the handful of optional rules variants in the DMG. And to be fair, the optional rules variants in the DMG are a great example of what that kind of modularity could look like. It’s just a shame WotC never made any more products like that. I find the accusation that people want it to be exactly the same is ummm insert something not nice. I mean really why not actually try to be better? 4e had some experiments later in the edition where a class could shift battlefield roles for instance swapping out your general fighting specialization dynamically. Not that they were totally locked down any way but explicit fluidity is good too.
  • 03:22 PM - Garthanos quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    There were some pretty cool variant rules in the DMG, and that was it. . And some are kind of innadequate like how second wind is very nearly un-used in 4e due to action economy and which is even more tied down in 5e. But it gets a variant?
  • 08:29 AM - ccs quoted Charlaquin in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    If you want any more tweaking than that, it’s 3rd party or nothing. Or you just do it yourself.

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 09:59 PM - DM Dave1 quoted Charlaquin in post Player's Attention
    The biggest improvement I saw at my table was to switch form asking the group "What do you do?" to asking individuals "What do you do?" Now every player knows that in a given scenario they are gong to be asked what their character does, they can't just sit around let the bigger personalities at the table make all the decisions until initiative is rolled. So they spend more time thinking about what their character is going to do and the phones just took care of themselves. I also found it helped my players get more equal spotlight which has been a huge bonus to my game too. I think this will help with my group’s indecision problem too. It reminds me of the thing where, in a crisis, if you say “someone call an ambulance,” everyone waits for someone else to do it, so you have to tell someone specific to call. It’s the kind of advice that, once you hear it, seems obvious in hindsight. Which is usually the best kind of advice. It works. My entire game is run like that, almost as a one-on-one be...
  • 10:53 AM - Cap'n Kobold quoted Charlaquin in post Finesse rebalance
    As a general design thing, I really wish both Dex and Str were somehow used in all attacks. Not only is it logical that a character with 16 Str and 16 Dex should always be more dangerous than somebody with 16 in one and 10 in the other, but it would encourage more variety in point distributions. I'm fine with not requiring Dex for attacks, but I'd like to see it used for AC calculations rather than being able to dump it if you're wearing heavy armour. I'm unsure of the best way to do that, keep all armour meaningful, and not break bounded accuracy however. I think a few simple weapons should be finesse, like staff, spear, and handaxe. For one thing, those are never the best options, so it’s not gonna break anything. For another, they aren’t heavy slow weapons, so why not? Conceptually for me at least, there is a distinction between "not a heavy, slow weapon" and "the wielder's athleticism and power are irrelevant to this weapon's use". The classic two handed sword(longsword) for example do...

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 11:48 PM - vincegetorix quoted Charlaquin in post A character sheet for Skills With Different Ability Scores?
    Perfect, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for! Thanks. This, although not what I had in mind, is very cool. Very PbtA. Yup, its a shameless steal. I'm a big fan of Beyond the Wall and Dungeon World, so since my table is full of new players, I wanted to give them a condensed character sheet with a focus on who their character is instead of the numerical values behind that character.
  • 02:40 AM - Elfcrusher quoted Charlaquin in post Finesse rebalance
    The paladin also loses half that damage (for around 12.5) if he misses one attack, whereas the rogue only loses 1d6 (for around 18 damage). I think this is a key point about the rogue's effectiveness. And also, as others have noted, that if stuck at range the rogue can just use his bow (often hiding as a bonus action) at full effectiveness. As a general design thing, I really wish both Dex and Str were somehow used in all attacks. Not only is it logical that a character with 16 Str and 16 Dex should always be more dangerous than somebody with 16 in one and 10 in the other, but it would encourage more variety in point distributions.

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 08:16 PM - Xeviat quoted Charlaquin in post Finesse rebalance
    It's very strange to me that you draw a line between "Dex to melee guys" and ranged guys. Any Dex-based character can do both with no penalty whatsoever. I've always felt like it should take more time to be switching from melee to a ranged projectile weapon vs. switching from melee to a thrown weapon. A bow user could draw a weapon and hold their bow in their off-hand, but then they don't get the benefit of a shield (anyone else have groups that sundered bows as a typical strategy in 3E?). The rules kind of don't differentiate item manipulation but that is another point to consider.
  • 04:44 PM - Flamestrike quoted Charlaquin in post Finesse rebalance
    You say this, and yet you also say the problem is illusory. Just because it isn’t a problem at your table, doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem at anyone else’s, and it’s pretty rude to walk into a conversation about how to address a problem many people are experiencing and say “this isn’t a real problem, you shouldn’t bother trying to fix it” just because you personally aren’t experiencing the problem. Its your game and do what you want, but not only do I not see the need to do what you're suggesting, I think it's a poor choice. Will you be imposing a similar rule forcing Spell Casters to use Int for Spell Attack rolls (spell power), Wisdom for Spell save DC's (will power) and Charisma (force of will) for Spell damage... or will they continue to use one stat for literally everything, while Martials are forced to split between Strength, Dex and Con?
  • 04:39 PM - Flamestrike quoted Charlaquin in post Finesse rebalance
    Dex characters, unlike Str characters, don’t have to dedicate themselves to being melee or ranged only, since they use the same mod to hit and do damage with both. This is more of a reason that finesse is INBA, not less. But they do anyway, seeing as Paladins and Barbarians already suck at ranged combat. Every single Paladin or Barbarian I've seen packs some Strength based throwing weapons and focuses on mobility (getting toe to toe as soon as possible). Why are we forcing MAD on Martials anyway? They already need [one of Str or Dex], and Con. And why are we forcing them to use two different Stats for combat, when Casters get away with 1 stat for melee spell attacks, ranged spell attacks AND spell DCs? ...so? Who multiclasses? Maybe your game doesnt include multiclassing. That's fine, but it's a rule and when in play (as it is at many tables, including all AL tables and under AL rules) Strength is important. And in exchange they get significantly higher AC and become competent at range. Th...
  • 03:08 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Charlaquin in post Does Your Fantasy Race Really Matter In Game? (The Gnome Problem)
    Which Gnome race? I have my own version of Gnomes that has a clear, consistent identity, which I’m quite fond of. But until I basically rewrote them myself, I was on the gnome hate train because I couldn’t tell what the heck they were supposed to be. Are they shorter dwarves that specialize in engineering? Halflings who live in the woods and do illusion magic? Both? Neither? D&D couldn’t seem to make up its mind about what the heck Gnomes were supposed to be, so I did it myself. Now I like them, but they’re not really any of the many disparate things D&D calls “gnomes.” If you look at gnome portrayal in media, especially CRPGs, they are usually interpreted as the whacky/insane race. See Jan Jansen (Baldur's Gate 2), Grobnar Gnomehands (NWN2). This is even lampshaded in Pathfinder: Kingmaker. (Paraphrase) "How could I have known he was a spy? Sure he was a sorcerer, sure he was a gnome..."
  • 08:38 AM - Flamestrike quoted Charlaquin in post Finesse rebalance
    Dex characters can take Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert, so 1 and 2 are a wash. If they're taking either of those feats, they're ranged characters and the rapier is for show only. Finesse is a non issue. Dex-based Barbarians and Paladins are at least as effective as Str-based ones. No, they're not. Firstly, you need Str 13 to MC as a Barbarian or Paladin. Secondly Dex based barbarians miss out on Rage damage with dex. They miss out on using reckless attack + advantage to land GWM hits. Their capstone becomes half useless. The advantage on Strength checks when raging becomes meh. They can use Dex based ranged weapons, but why would they? Youll never see Sharpshooter or Crossbow expert on a Paladin or Barbarian. Ever. Paladins cant smite at range, putting them into melee combat. Again V-Paladin and D-Paladin get oath abilities that grant big bonuses to hit (mitigating GWM's -5 to hit) - either advantage to hit or +Charisma to hit. Even A-Paladins get to restrain their target with their oath...


Page 1 of 84 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Charlaquin's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites