View Profile: Charlaquin - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 06:09 AM
    Sci-fi, man. But, like, Firefly-style.
    169 replies | 3425 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 11:02 PM
    Eh, Shadow Blade with a shortsword or scimitar pact weapon and the blade pact invocations seems good enough for me.
    31 replies | 873 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 10:51 PM
    I think we all know who the best white dragon really is:
    41 replies | 1108 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 09:54 PM
    You can pretty much assume access to the Drow race, at least as safely as you can assume access to anything else thatís in the PHB. Which is to say, chances are itíll be fine, but it doesnít hurt to double-check, and be prepared for the possibility that the DM will say they donít think itís a good fit for the campaign.
    37 replies | 989 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 07:01 PM
    Alternatively, you could take the Resilient feat for Constitution. War Caster is also worth considering in addition to which ever source of Con save proficiency you go for, but proficiency should be the higher priority.
    37 replies | 989 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 04:43 PM
    I didnít mention Aid because it doesnít actually grant temporary hit points. Rather, it increases your maximum HP and current HP for the duration. This is an important distinction, because the limited-duration HP increase from Aid can stack with actual temporary hit points. Seems like a perfectly reasonable call to me.
    10 replies | 355 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 04:34 PM
    Shadow Blade and Booming Blade is definitely the way Iíd go to make a non-hexblade, non-pact of the blade melee warlock. Mobile is a good idea to keep you from getting too beat up since youíll be squishy (go Variant Human to get it at 1st level so you can spend your other ASIs on Dexterity). Probably best to keep a dagger in your off hand so if two enemies get in close you can attack them each...
    37 replies | 989 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 03:19 PM
    At the end of the day, youíre the DM. If you think having it expire after a minute is fair, thatís your call to make.
    10 replies | 355 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 03:16 PM
    The spirit persists for one minute. The temp HP are not the spirit. EDIT: For counter-examples, the spell Heroism does specify that the subject gains temporary hit points ďuntil the spell endsĒ and Potion of Heroism specifies that the subject gains the temporary HP for an hour.
    10 replies | 355 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 06:00 AM
    Why would the temp HP go away when the spirit disappears? I donít see anything in the effect that specifies a limited duration, so from my reading they should last until depleted or until the character who has them finished a long rest, yes? Otherwise looks like a solid ruling to me.
    10 replies | 355 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 08:21 PM
    Agreed, I thought it was a great solution. One which a 4e clone would presumably adopt, what with being a clone.
    62 replies | 1519 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:30 PM
    In my opinion, 4e didnít so much balance the abilities as it removed the distinctions between them. Each class added their primary ability to attack and damage rolls with their class Powers. Initiative and Fort, Ref, and Will defenses could each be calculated with one of two abilities. And between +5 bonus to skill checks for training and +1/2 level to everything, the impact of abilities on...
    62 replies | 1519 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 06:24 PM
    On the contrary, I think most 4e fans recognize that 4e has some problems and needs fixing. Itís just that fixing 4e and cloning 4e are two very different pursuits. If you want to fix 4e, by all means please do. Iíd love to see what you come up with. If you want to clone 4e, overhauling its ability system is not a good place to start.
    62 replies | 1519 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 05:29 PM
    This.
    62 replies | 1519 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:18 PM
    Itís not a question of whether itís worth having balanced abilities, itís a question of whether you can balance the abilities and still call your project a 4e clone. And the answer is no. If you want to make a 4e-style game of your own that balances the abilities and fixes other problems you have with 4e, great! More power to you! But it wonít be a clone of 4e.
    62 replies | 1519 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:22 AM
    I gotta agree with Zard. Your 8 abilities are a neat idea and might have a place in a heavily 4e-inspired system. But 4e had 6 abilities. Adding 2 more and shifting around what the abilities each do puts your system solidly out of 4e clone territory. And thatís ok, thereís nothing wrong with trying to evolve 4eís design. I just donít think you should call it a clone if thatís what youíre doing.
    62 replies | 1519 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:46 PM
    Same tho
    77 replies | 2753 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 06:44 AM
    I donít think the rapier needs any help. Itís already one of the best melee weapon options in the game for most characters who can use it, I donít think incentivizing one of the few classes that favor a different weapon to use the rapier too is a positive change.
    36 replies | 1256 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 05:01 PM
    I think you and the OP are using different standards for ďworking.Ē When the US army manuals say torture always ďworksĒ in the long run, itís saying that torture always eventually succeeds in getting the victim to tell the torturer whatever they want to know. When an academic paper says torture doesnít ďwork,Ē theyíre saying it isnít a reliable means of gathering intelligence because it always...
    68 replies | 2496 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 07:23 AM
    Err... We were talking about THAC0, which is player-side information. Also, the character sheet posted up thread with a space to fill out rolls required to hit targets of various ACs would seem to me to indicate that the combat matrix (or at least the part that was relevant to your own character) was functionally player-side.It mucks up the dramatic tension of the die roll, even worse than adding...
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 05:43 AM
    Ahh, ok. Yeah, that sounds generally worse than adding your attack bonus to your roll result and saying what AC you got. Of course, both sound worse to me than the DM telling you what AC you need to hit and telling them if you hit or miss. And when doing it that way, it seems that doing the math to figure out what number youíll need to roll on the die first and then rolling would be the ideal way...
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 02:16 AM
    Iíve observed that many players, especially players who started with 3e or later, conflate THAC0 with descending AC generally. I know it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that THAC0 was not shorthand for descending AC, but in fact referred to a 2e evolution from AD&Dís Attack tables.
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 02:08 AM
    Charlaquin replied to Tortles
    As someone who enjoys Dragon Ball, Iím partial to Tortle monks, and Sun Soul monks in particular. Itís not an especially mechanically optimized setup, but who cares, itís cool!
    9 replies | 399 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 01:31 AM
    You know, I think I may have discovered the key factor in whether or not someone liked THAC0.
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 01:13 AM
    Maybe for your group. For as long as Iíve been discussing games on the internet there have been people who claimed to have genuinely preferred THAC0. Personally, I didnít start playing until 3.5, my analysis is based purely on my understanding of game design and psychology.
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 12:33 AM
    Did you do it differently? I guess I never considered the possibility that the DM might just ask you to roll and tell him the number you got and your THAC0, do the math himself, and tell you if you hit or not. That sounds awful, itís no wonder it developed such a bad reputation if folks were doing it that way.
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 11:25 PM
    So, to actually add something to this discussion, while addition may be easier for more people than subtraction, and higher AC being better may be more intuitive, THAC0 does have one major advantage over BAB: With THAC0, you do the math to figure out what your target number is before you roll, so you immediately know if you hit or miss as soon as the die stops rolling. This as opposed to BAB...
    166 replies | 5460 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 08:56 PM
    No surprise, GNS was always just edition covert ops.
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 08:54 PM
    Haha, this is nothing. This wouldnít even be a conflict if it wasnít for us shell-shocked edition war veterans being so jumpy. The edition war wasnít called that for nothing, battles occurred in every corner of the internet where gaming was discussed. And they were vicious. The absolute most civil discussion of 4e you could have hoped for at the time was one where people were ďonlyĒ...
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 03:13 PM
    Depended on the experience of the player. New players (or ones new to casters) didnít. Instead, they got angry and protested, ďwhatís the point of even playing a wizard if all I can do is use weapons worse than a fighter?Ē The ones who had played casters a few times and knew how broken they got at higher levels mostly stayed quiet as they waited for their turn to be the star of the show.
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 05:44 AM
    You talk about excluding people as if it is a fundamentally bad thing. It's part of basic human socialization to have expectations and boundaries.
    1470 replies | 39621 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 01:12 AM
    Attitudes and expectations matter. I am fine with role playing that aims higher in the literary sense or is more casual. What is fundamental to me is that we are all involved in the process as creative peers and everyone's contributions are valued equally. Also that everyone is expected to contribute. Also that contributions move play forward and demand action from other players (GM included).
    1470 replies | 39621 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 09:49 PM
    The Essentials line had two variants of the Fighter, both of which were less complex than the standard 4e fighter. They still had Powers, of course, but they were built around using a much smaller number of them, most of which were at-will. Both were very easy to learn and to play. As were most of the variant classes in the Essentials line. If the complexity of 4e and keeping track of Powers...
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:22 PM
    Essentials really dialed back on a lot of things that many 4e fans liked most about the edition. The Essentials classes werenít as well balanced against each other as the pre-Essentials versions (though it was still pretty reasonably balanced). Essentials classes offered fewer decision points, both in terms of level-by-level build options and turn-by-turn action options. And I think there was a...
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:07 PM
    That makes sense. I adore the Warlock for that. Itís the one casting class that actually feels like it plays in a meaningfully different way than the others to me.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:01 PM
    I agree, but I donít think theyíve really looked to forums to get a read on player opinions since the 5e open playtest ended and they shut down their official forums.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:59 PM
    Because I want things that claim to be different to actually be different. Nobody bothers describing their spellcasting anyway, so saying ďyou can describe casting your spells as making something with a tool and using that tool to create the desired effectĒ doesnít really mean anything. I donít just want to say my Artificerís magic is different, I want my Artificerís magic to be different. ...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:45 PM
    Big fan. Favorite class in 5e. Great class for newer players who want to play a caster but might be overwhelmed by spell slots and spell preparation, tons of customizability for experienced players who want to mess around with builds. One of the best gishes in the edition. And its resource management is functionally pretty close to AEDU, which I love.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 06:32 PM
    Oh, for sure. I loved Essentials, and if I went back to 4e Iíd probably want to run post-Essentials options only. Maybe post PHB3, if I had players who really wanted to play psionicists.
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 06:28 PM
    I always think itís worth trying past editions, to expand oneís understanding of the game and its history. That said, if 4e is too complex for you, youíll HATE 3.5.
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:19 PM
    I kinda doubt we will, honestly. For better or worse, thr Artificer in this most recent round is probably very close to the one weíll be getting in the final product. There may be some small tweaks, but I expect it to be about like the difference between the UAs for the Xanatharís Guide subclasses and their final iterations.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:15 PM
    Fewer? Yes. Easier to keep track of? Yes. More effective? ...my instinct says this is a misapprehension, but I suppose it depends what you mean by effective. Anyway, 4e is definitely high on complexity compared to 5e, which is one of the reasons I havenít gone back to it. Keep in mind the context though, after late 3.5, 4e was a significant reduction in complexity.
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:05 PM
    Yeah, Oz as in the magical land of. I have no idea why ENworld lists that as my location though. I once set that as my location for Gaia Online as a joke when I was in middle school, but I never set it to that in ENworld that I remember.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 04:02 PM
    I would certainly recommend giving 4e a shot. Personally, I think itís a great system, but even if you find itís not for you, it should be an enlightening experience.
    234 replies | 9268 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:54 PM
    I live in the US, so itís morning now where Iím at. Sorry, I copy and paste quote tags a lot, sometimes I get the wrong one. Itís fixed now.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:33 AM
    Iíd be fine with it working that way, personally, but Iíve been told that that isnít sufficient spellcasting ability to express the Eberron Artificer. The suggestion of spell slots powering Infusions was meant as a compromise. An alternative where both full-spellcasting and non-spellcasting could coexist in the same class. Personally, I donít much care how it gets done, as long as it is possible...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:20 AM
    Iím not claiming my stance is the majority. Iím saying that the point of the playtest and surveys is to end up with an Artificer that satisfies the majority of players. I am providing my feedback to help insure that my perspective is taken into account. Theyíll end up with what they end up with, but for as long as theyíre seeking feedback, Iím going to continue expressing my desire for a...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:13 AM
    I think this would be the best solution, personally. Natural Weapons would count as weapons for the purpose of making attacks, but not for anything else.
    10 replies | 431 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 01:34 AM
    Well, itís kind of linguistically weird to call fists ďweapons.Ē And there are a few edge cases where having unarmed strikes defined as weapons mechanically could cause problems. But 5e for some reason only defines 4 kinds of attack: melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, and ranged spell attack. Clearly, an unarmed strike is a melee attack of some kind, and clearly it...
    10 replies | 431 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 12:58 AM
    No, Iíve been saying I donít want to cast spells and pretend theyíre something other than spells. I have no problem with narrating things to suit my character, what I have a problem with is trying to pretend a spell isnít a spell just because you used Calligrapherís Tools instead of an Orb to cast it. Or, how about this for a novel idea: I provide feedback in the public playtest survey that...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 12:07 AM
    No, I want Infusions to be as they are in the playtest (they pretty much nailed them, in my opinion), except instead of spending the "Infused Items" resource on them, you spend spell slots on them. Mostly so that I can do something more interesting than cast spells with the spell slots you people insist the class must have. Yes. It's just a spellcasting focus. They can use thieves tools...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 09:42 PM
    No, they're not. In the current iteraction, Infusions cost their own unique resource, independent from spell slots. My suggestion is to consolodate those resources. Have Infusions cost spell slots and get rid of the separate limited number of Infusions per day. Then the folks who don't want to cast spells with their Artificer can spend those spell slots on more infusions, and the folks who do...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 03:57 PM
    Seems to have worked well enough for the other 5e classes. Seems like a pretty good argument for why the Artificer shouldnít be throwing acid at-will, not an argument for why it should have spells. You donít need technology duplicating magic to have a character who used magical technology in place of spells. And I believe that character can fit comfortably in the same class as the one...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 07:55 AM
    Yes. The wands and the scrolls do it. And so could the Artificer be. They cast spells without using spell slots. Yes, and itíd be pretty cool if Artificers did things that were similarly distinct from the thing wizards do.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 07:40 AM
    I didnít mean literal Batman, and Iím pretty sure the context made it clear that I was using him as an example of a character who does not have super powers but keeps up with super powered characters by use of tech. If you prefer Iron Man or Rocket as an example, that works too. And f*** anyone who wants to play a magitech-using character in any setting other than Eberron, right?
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 07:00 AM
    Sure, thatís fine. I donít think itís as elegant as making Infusions cost spell slots, but it works. No, Iím sorry, it doesnít. A spell is a spell, and a magic item is a magic item, and the class as it currently stands uses its spell slots to produce the former. You can pretend itís the latter if you want, but thatís not consistent with the way the game mechanically expresses those things in...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 06:42 AM
    So donít make it a 1/3 caster? There are plenty of other ways to go about it. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and make it a half-caster. Give it Warlock-style spell slots. Hell, give it full casting and make spell slots the resource that Infusions consume instead of using their own unique resource. That would allow for anywhere from full casting to no casting as the player wishes, for all...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 06:29 AM
    I read the article. I just disagree with Keith that reskinned spellcasting is a sufficient mechanical representation of using magical items to produce spell-like effects.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 04:45 AM
    Except, it doesnít ďuse a spell-storing item to create a cure wounds item, which results in using a tool to cast cure wounds.Ē It casts the cure wounds spell, using thievesí tools or artisanís tools as a spellcasting focus.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 03:01 AM
    Yes, that is precisely what I want them to do. Rather than casting spells themselves, they craft items, which they use to cast spells they otherwise couldnít.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 03:00 AM
    Which is shortsighted. The class isnít only going to be used for Eberron, it should be built to be able to accommodate more concepts than just the Eberron Artificer. It should absolutely be able to accommodate the Eberron Artificer, but with 5eís broad approach to class design, it should be able to accommodate other types of magitech characters too.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 02:56 AM
    And others, like myself, are perfectly fine with the Eberron Artificer, but want the 5e Artificer to be able to accommodate a wider range of character concepts than the original. 3.5 had a zillion classes and prestige classes to represent highly specific concepts. 5e takes a much broader, more archetypal approach to class design, with the more specific concepts falling to Subclasses to...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 02:42 AM
    Most editionsí Rangers could cast spells too, didnít stop the 4e ranger from being a non-caster. And for that it was, in my opinion, a much better expression of the archetype the class represents. I donít really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current editionís expression of it the best it can be. I disagree. I think the thing I want...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 11:30 PM
    This is the best solution, in my opinion.
    208 replies | 5742 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 11:24 PM
    One of the common critiques of the Artificer as it currently stands is that itís too busy - the whole ď140% of a classĒ thing. Iíd rather the 40% that gets cut not come from among the unique things the class can do. Infusions are a pretty big cognitive load already, so having both Infusions and spells is a big contributing factor to the feeling of bloated ness in this class. If one of those...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 08:06 PM
    Yeah, what I want out of the Artificer is D&D Batman. A character with no super powersspells, who can still keep up with the superscasters by using various tools and gadgets. I donít think full-caster and non-caster would work in the same class, unfortunately. What I could maybe see working is if Infusions were powered by spell slots, instead of their own unique resource. Then the players...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 07:57 PM
    But again, if weíre just reskinning spells, we donít need a new class for that. I can already just play a wizard and pretend heís making potions, bombs, and gadgets using a tool instead of a magic wand. To justify its addition to the game, the Artificer needs to do something that existing classes donít already do, and ďcast spells, but pretend theyíre not spellsĒ is absolutely something other...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 03:28 PM
    Oh, sure. Iím cool with the pets, personally (kind of. I donít like the turret conceptually, and I think the artificial mind needs work). My problem is with the spellcasting. And I wouldnít even mind if spellcasting was a feature of some Artificer subclass, I just donít want all of them to be forced into it.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 06:58 PM
    I mean, I disagree that it ainít broke. If all weíre doing is reskinning spells as potions, what do we need an Artificer for in the first place? Weíve already got a perfectly good Wizard we can say is making potions if we want to do that. As for a better suggestion, Iíd leverage Infusions. Weíve already got a Replicate Magic Item Infusion. Add scrolls, potions, and wands to the list of things...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 03:08 PM
    Kind of a false dichotomy there. Infinite bottles and spells refluffed as potions are not the only options.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 02:02 AM
    That would be a good way to do it, in my opinion.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 12:23 AM
    I donít want to come off sounding snarky here, but the point where you create the tool. Out of the options, I guess spell slots. But itís really more of a hollistic thing. If it looks like a spell, acts like a spell, and quacks like a spell, calling it an Infusion or a Psionic Discipline doesnít make it not a spell. The 5e version. From what I recall, the 3.5 version was more or less...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 09:32 PM
    Perhaps another way of putting this: the world does exist ďforĒ the players, it does not exist ďforĒ their characters.
    106 replies | 3385 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 09:20 PM
    I think a non-spellcasting Artificer would fit fine in Eberron. Itís not like they wouldnít be able to make scrolls, potions, wands, etc. with which to produce the effects of spells. Ugh. If thereís one thing I dislike more than a spellcasting Artificer, itís a spellcasting Artificer that tries to pretend itís not casting spells because it calls its spells something different. I donít want...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 05:01 PM
    Yeah, Iím not a fan of (natively) spellcasting Artificers either. Whatís cool about the Artificer is the idea of a character who canít do magic herself, but creates magic items to do overcome that limitation. Theyíre the D&D Batman, with no super powers of their own, but enough gadgets that they donít need powers. Let them craft potions, scrolls, and wands to cast spells with, but donít give them...
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 12:23 AM
    Sure, I can see what youíre going for with that. I just think getting 5e D&Dís progression to look like that is going to take a much more comprehensive numbers overhaul than simply changing HP gains. Your proposed change doesnít look to me like it would succeed in creating a difficulty curve like early WoWís, it looks more like it would result in a curve that starts out high, rises rapidly, and...
    94 replies | 4288 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 04:39 PM
    Yeah, if HP doesnít increase significantly throughout a characterís career but damage remains the same, survivability is going to dramatically decrease as characters gain levels, which is very counter-intuitive. For a change like this, youíd pretty much have to re-write half the game to adjust damage scaling to suit your new HP scaling.
    94 replies | 4288 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 01:26 PM
    Which makes sense, given that 4e was designed with VTT play in mind.
    288 replies | 9946 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 01:19 PM
    Simple solution: set the expectation ahead of time that the PCs be heroes. Make it clear that evil characters are not appropriate PCs for you campaign, and if a PC starts to veer into evil behavior, they may become an NPC. Then follow through with that if your players start acting like conquerors who can do whatever they want without consequence just because thereís no one around strong enough to...
    24 replies | 900 view(s)
    6 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 04:36 AM
    Iíve only played/run two of these and neither of them were very good IMO :(
    210 replies | 8107 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 29th May, 2019, 09:30 PM
    Interesting! I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. This class definitely has a lot going on. Is there anything in particular you felt may have been contributing to the bloat that youíd be willing to talk more about? Personally, I really like the tool proficiencies, crafting, and infusions, have mixed feelings about the pets, and think the spellcasting is too much.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 29th May, 2019, 07:19 PM
    I was very thorough on this one. Theyíre honing in on what could be a really great class, but itís not quite there yet.
    127 replies | 4481 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 28th May, 2019, 09:04 PM
    My experience playing it was very similar. I really enjoyed its design as an inversion of a standard dungeon adventure - rather than delving into the dungeon to recover a powerful artifact or kill a big bad at the deepest part, you start out in the deepest part of the dungeon and your goal is to escape before the poison gas kills you. Itís awesome, and I love how the combat encounters are all...
    16 replies | 1933 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 07:10 AM
    I think a lot of DMs worry too much about allowing things that donít explicitly say they can be used to do damage to do damage, especially when it comes to cantrips. Personally, I try to err on the side of allowing a result that reinforces the playersí sense of a consistent world. It makes sense that filling a creatureís 5-foot space with fire would hurt them, so it should do some fire damage....
    14 replies | 651 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 06:55 AM
    I mean the obvious solution to the ďplayers will only use it when they have disadvantageĒ option is just to make it not allow that. You can only benefit from the coin on a roll that doesnít already have advantage or disadvantage. I really like Shiroikenís idea of having the (dis)advantage be bankable. Either you apply advantage to a later roll of your choice (that doesnít have disadvantage) or...
    10 replies | 461 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 06:40 AM
    No doubt! Like I said, the survivability treadmill is not without its drawbacks, theyíre just drawbacks I personally find less irksome than the drawbacks of the accuracy treadmill. I mean, ultimately I prefer horizontal advancement over vertical advancement anyway. Iíll take a system where leveling up gives you a cool new power over one where leveling up gives you a simple numerical bonus any...
    288 replies | 9946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 06:24 AM
    With lower attack bonuses, the result on the d20 has a greater impact on the result, proportional to the modifier. I suppose if the treadmill keeps perfect lockstep with your progression and you never fight anything outside of the appropriate challenge for your level there is no difference on swinginess, but in actual play no game is really like that. I may have missed that part of the...
    288 replies | 9946 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 25th May, 2019, 07:32 PM
    shifting the treadmill from hit bonus and AC to damage and HP is just as illusory, yes, but there are some important differences. With an accuracy treadmill, you eventually reach the point where itís impossible for you to miss enemies far enough below your CR, which in turn find it impossible to hit you. Shifting the treadmill to survivability makes the giant horde of low-level enemies tactic...
    288 replies | 9946 view(s)
    1 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
2,333
Posts Per Day
1.33
Last Post
Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment! Today 04:44 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
8
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:10 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 26th August, 2014
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Campbell Campbell is offline

    Member

    Campbell
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Town:
Munchkinland
State:
Colorado
Country:
USA
Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019


Monday, 17th June, 2019


Saturday, 15th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Thursday, 13th June, 2019



Page 1 of 9 123456789 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. ē Strength ē Dexterity ē Intelligence ē Charisma In this four ability setup: ē Strength includes hit points. ē Dexterity handles jumping and climbing. ē Intelligence includes the five senses. ē Charisma includes willpower and empathy. In this way: ē ĎStrengthí equals exactly 4e Fortitude ē ĎDexterityí equals 4e Reflex ē ĎIntelligenceí equals 4e Perception ē ĎCharismaí equals 4e Will So, for example, it is possible for the 4e clone to talk about the ĎStrength abilityí and the ĎStrength defenseí.

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 weíre 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 ďfor inexperienced players.Ē (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. ďMore refinedĒ 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. Itís the equivalent of saying ď[thing I donít like] is for babies.Ē I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussarís wording. I donít think either of our tastes are more refined, or ďfor more experienced players,Ē 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 partyís latest beat-down of my creatures. Weíll 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. Donít say no too often, but donít say yes if it doesnít 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 80 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019

  • 02:32 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Just going to ignore the ďby my standardĒ part then? I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but this thread is about the D&D standard. If we're going to go by your standard, then we can make Tom LG, NG, CG or any other alignment you feel like assigning him with your personal standard. It's just not something that really goes with this thread.

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 10:52 PM - Jharet quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Of course it is. Itís the goodest good alignment as currently written, so itís no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who donít want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so itís the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns. That would be LAWFUL GOOD and TRUE NEUTRAL.
  • 05:56 PM - billd91 quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Just going to ignore the ďby my standardĒ part then? I think the implication is he disagrees with your standard.
  • 01:27 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Of course, by my standard, CN means someone who lives outside of society (whether literally in the wilderness or as a vagrant in civilized settlements) rather than sacrifice their individual liberties, and neither puts themselves in harm's way to benefit others, nor brings harm to others for their own benefit. I guess an example of a fictional character who fits that bill might be like... Tom Bombadil? Tom is the epitome of the original true neutral druid. He wasn't chaotic at all. He just didn't care about things like law, chaos, good and evil.
  • 03:33 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    I donít know what part of what I said you think this disagrees with. This part... The way I see it, Neutral good ignores unjust laws, Chaotic Good fights to disrupt unjust governments, and Lawful Good works to reform unjust governments. You specifically call out the Paladin stepping in to prevent that murder(ignoring an unjust law) as NG, and then state that LG works to reform the governments.
  • 03:12 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    The way I see it, Neutral good ignores unjust laws, Chaotic Good fights to disrupt unjust governments, and Lawful Good works to reform unjust governments. I disagree. Let's take a scenario where there is an evil dictator in charge of a country that a LG Paladin enters. In that country it's illegal to murder people. However, there is also a law that allows the dictator's personal guard to ignore that rule murder anyone they like. The Paladin is in the bar and the server accidentally spills an ale on one of the personal guard. In response the guard stands up and draws his sword to remove the head of the offender. The LG Paladin is going to step in and prevent the murder from happening, despite the law allowing it. He's not going to sit back and allow the murder to happen, then create signs and go with the rest of the party to protest outside the castle until the dictator reforms things.
  • 02:08 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Interesting. I do something similar, but I treat the alignment on the character sheet as the characterís ideals. It is, in effect, a statement of intent. The player picked Lawful Good (or whatever) because they envisioned their character as someone who holds Law and Good as noble values, and strives to live up to them. However, people donít always succeed at living up to their own ideals. So, any effects which care about your Alignment (so, basically none in 5e) will treat you as the alignment your behavior is consistent with, regardless of what your ideals are. I also do something similar. I don't even look at the character sheet or really care about what alignment is written. If a mechanic keys off of an alignment, I just mentally assign whichever alignment is closes to how the PC is being played and move on. I'm much more interested in PCs having complex personalities, than in seeing a PC constrained by an alignment.
  • 02:07 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Is not true, the way 5e defines the alignments. Thatís actually the point I was (somewhat passive-aggressively) trying to hint at by claiming that CN was ďthe neutralest Neutral.Ē I do think that Chaotic individuals should be opppsed to laws by definition, but if you actually read the definitions of the alignments in 5e, thatís not the case. CG individuals ďact as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.Ē CN individuals ďfollow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.Ē CE individuals ďact with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.Ē There is nothing about any of those alignments that necessitates active opposition to law. They all exhibit disregard for law, certainly, but disregard is, in my opinion, a hallmark of neutrality. Hence my (in hindsight, unnecessarily coy) assertion that Chaotic in 5e is just Neutral with attitude. I don't think they actively oppose laws at all. I just think that for the most part, they ignore...

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 03:28 PM - WaterRabbit quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but oneís self. Itís just Neutral with attitude. This is objectively wrong. This whole CN is more neutral than N. By definition, chaotic individuals actively oppose laws -- especially those laws they see are victimless. So laws against say prostitution, drug use, mandatory wearing of seatbelts, etc. they opposed because they oppress individuals. This is not a more neutral than alignment. A Chaotic Good person will try to change or go around laws on the assumption that people act with personal responsibility toward each other. A Chaotic Neutral person would actively participate in smuggling, stealing from the rich because they have rigged the system, etc. A Chaotic Evil person would engage in assassination in the attempt to overthrow laws they don't agree with. True Neutral on the other hand is essentially "Live and Let Live", "Don't Rock the Boat", "I'm not getting involved" type of alignment. It doe...

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 11:03 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    I'll try one more time. In other words, neutral doesnít commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality. No. Chaotici Neutral is not committed to not taking a side. In fact, it emphatically DOES take a side. It's committed to the side of the desires of the individual who is Chaotic Neutral. It is committed to whim and flights of fancy. And in 3e, it's also committed to resisting authority, tradition and restrictions. Those are all things that the more neutral True Neutral does not commit to.
  • 09:38 PM - lowkey13 quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    In other words, neutral doesnít commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality. Admittedly, when I think of Chaotic Neutral, I think of committed. In game, "My goodness, Uruk the Flighty should be committed." Out of game, "I swear ... I will need to be committed if Charlaquin makes another friggin' CN Character." Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is ďf*** you, Iíll do what I want!Ē, Q. What is the definition of irony? A. 10,000 people at a Rage Against the Machine concert, chanting in unison, "Eff you, I won't do what you tell me!" Neutral is ďeh, Iíll do what I want.Ē The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&Dís standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules. Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but oneís self. Itís just Neutral with attitude. As I always suspected ... http://pa1.narvii.com/6416/6673db2c5f5883a1de71af8cddd8ca87c3812aba_00.gif Chaotic Neutral is the Poochie of Alignments.
  • 09:34 PM - billd91 quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    In other words, neutral doesnít commit to any side, chaotic neutral is committed to not taking a side. It is, functionally, a more committed form of neutrality. Same story told with more words. Chaotic Neutral is ďf*** you, Iíll do what I want!Ē, Neutral is ďeh, Iíll do what I want.Ē The only functional difference between chaos and neutrality on the law/chaos spectrum by D&Dís standards is their level of commitment to not caring about the rules. Except that the idea Chaotic Neutral is committed to is noncommitment to anything but oneís self. Itís just Neutral with attitude. That's not conceptually correct. CN does pick a side more than Neutrality does - it picks the side of individualism rather than the pragmatic approach between social expectations and individual choices a Neutral might take. It is not more neutral between social/order and personal/disorder than Neutral. It definitely favors a side.
  • 08:29 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    By a natural language definition, youíd be right. But by D&Dís definitions, where chaotic seems to mean not caring about the rules, rather than being actively opposed to rules, chaos is just more extreme neutrality. No, not by natural language. By D&D definitions it's not more neutral than neutral. Below are some of the definitions. 5e: CN: creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. N: is the alignment of those w ho prefer to steer clear of moral questions and donít take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Whims are chaotic and impulsive, not neutral in any way. Steering clear of moral questions and not taking any sides, even chaotic and impulsive ones is more neutral. 3e: CN: chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesnít strive to protect othersí freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not int...
  • 02:11 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Of course it is. Itís the goodest good alignment as currently written, so itís no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who donít want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so itís the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns. Er, by definition Chaotic Neutral cannot be more neutral than True Neutral.
  • 06:17 AM - ccs quoted Charlaquin in post Warlock build advice...
    You can pretty much assume access to the Drow race, at least as safely as you can assume access to anything else thatís in the PHB. Which is to say, chances are itíll be fine, but it doesnít hurt to double-check, and be prepared for the possibility that the DM will say they donít think itís a good fit for the campaign. So.... Exactly what I said about not being able to just assume access to the drow option.
  • 02:24 AM - Hussar quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    It depends on what definition of the alignments youíre working with. In the way I prefer to use alignment, I agree with you on this 100%. But it is worth noting that the way I prefer to use alignment involves defining the alignments differently than the 5e PHB defines them. According to the 5e PHB, Chaotic Neutral means ď[a character] who follows their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else,Ē and thereís really nothing about that definition that precludes being responsible and trustworthy. I donít particularly like that definition of Chaotic Neutral, but I think itís safe to assume itís the one most 5e players are working with. Well, the whole "follows their whims" right there makes them untrustworthy. Particularly when combined with putting their personal freedom above all else. Basically becomes, "you can't tell me what to do, I'll do whatever I feel like, which, right now, means that I'm going to sleep on watch because, well, I'm tired and you can't tell me what to do." ...
  • 12:21 AM - Morrus quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Hence why I said itís the alignment least likely for the DM to allow. i misspoke. I meant to say Chaotic Neutral.

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 11:58 PM - Xeviat quoted Charlaquin in post The Final Bladelock
    Eh, Shadow Blade with a shortsword or scimitar pact weapon and the blade pact invocations seems good enough for me. TWFing I assume? So 1 spell known, 1 slot cast per combat, and a bonus action used at the start of combat, 2 invocations, and concentration nets you ... 2d6+20, +2d8, or 36 at 19th level (when you can regularly have 20 dex/cha). You're hitting slightly lower damage at 12th level (lower cha, so 2d6+16, when EB only has 3 attacks for 31.5, so you're even at that point without hex). Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast is doing 4d10+20 at 17th, or 42, and can use a spell slot, concentration, and bonus action (per opponent) for Hex to up it by another 4d6 (14), and hex lasts for 24 hours at this level if you hold concentration. Bladelock gets a lot of cool points, but it is costly and doesn't really gain anything.
  • 11:39 PM - Morrus quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Of course it is. Itís the goodest good alignment as currently written, so itís no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who donít want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so itís the one DMs are least likely to allow in their campaigns. In my experience Chaotic Neutral is the evilest evil but your DM said you weren't allowed to be evil. I usually ban it in my games, as well as evil, unless I'm deliberately accommodating evil characters.
  • 03:42 PM - Uller quoted Charlaquin in post Bear Spirit Totem Questions
    The spirit persists for one minute. The temp HP are not the spirit. EDIT: For counter-examples, the spell Heroism does specify that the subject gains temporary hit points ďuntil the spell endsĒ and Potion of Heroism specifies that the subject gains the temporary HP for an hour. And Aid says for the Duration specifically. So I would find that pesuasive that since no duration is specified for bear totem it must be all day...But just comparing the Bear totem to the unicorn...the unicorn also allows an increase in hp and it does last all day (since it is healing). But you have to also expend spell slots and it is only druid level additional hp per spell cast. So allowing the temp hp from the bear totem to last all day seems way more powerful to me. So I think I'm sold on they expire with the totem.


Page 1 of 80 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Charlaquin's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites