View Profile: Charlaquin - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 06:43 PM
    I thought what players hated about the beastmaster was that the beast can’t attack unless you spend your action to tell it to, so after 5th level you’re trading two attacks for one.
    18 replies | 442 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 06:41 PM
    You mean Rogues? Their damage scaling mostly comes in the form of Sneak Attack, so maybe Sneak Attack dice? All damage dealing cantrips scale, so if you haven’t taken any damage dealing cantrips, I wouldn’t exactly describe that as “free.” Extra attacks and cantrip scaling are absolutely comparable, they fill the exact same role in the system math, multiplying the character’s average...
    18 replies | 442 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 06:15 PM
    Point of order: the intent of sidekicks is explicitly not as something for less experienced players to play, but as a way to give a small party (particularly single-players) a bit of a boost in utility, and another character to interact with. You certainly can hand a newbie a sidekick, but that’s not what they were designed for. The reason for making Sidekicks instead of monsters/NPCs with class...
    18 replies | 442 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 07:03 AM
    I think more complex is the opposite of what most people who are interested in sidekick rules want for sidekicks. Bummer they only go up to 6th, I’d love a set of simpler sidekick rules all the way up to 20th.
    7 replies | 378 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 06:26 AM
    It’s different for everyone, but I find that about one hour of prep work per hour of play time is a good general guideline. If your players are getting impatient, I would remind them that you are volunteering your free time to do eight extra of your free time a week to entertain them for four.
    39 replies | 968 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 05:39 AM
    Oh, I like that! I guess they could get a half share of the treasure? I don’t know, but I use XP, so your suggestion works plenty well for me.
    18 replies | 442 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:03 PM
    With the confirmation of Sidekicks coming to 5e in the Essentials Kit, I’ve been thinking about how they might be used in campaigns with more than one PC. My first thought was that they would make pretty good skilled hirelings. But that also got me to thinking about AD&D, and how a lot of classes would attract lower-level followers as class features. I always thought that was a pretty cool idea,...
    18 replies | 442 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:04 PM
    So, this house rule would mean that for characters within the same level tier, all saves are functionally d20+mod vs. 10+ mod, since both sides are adding the same bonus for proficiency, effectively cancelling this bonus out. However, adding the proficiency bonus to both sides does mean that for mismatched opponents, the higher level character gets +1 per tier they are above the other character....
    15 replies | 425 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:39 AM
    Just to make sure I understand correctly, by “skill challenge” do you mean in the 4e sense of a collaborative effort requiring a certain number of collective successful skill checks before a certain number of collective failures?
    7 replies | 302 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 07:23 AM
    That sounds right. It’s been a while since I read HotDQ, but I do remember it being horribly railroady.
    47 replies | 1259 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 22nd June, 2019, 06:07 AM
    Are there actually any 5e modules that do this? It depends. If I’ve got a good rapport with the players and I have a strong sense that they’d be accepting of me just narrating the villain’s escape, then sure. On the other hand, one of the things I enjoy most about D&D is the power the PCs have to say “screw what the plot says is supposed to happen, we make our own fate.” And that’s something...
    47 replies | 1259 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 04:29 AM
    I don’t disagree, but I think it’s something that merits a bit more discussion in the book. Paladins and Warlocks have their oaths and pacts baked into their identities, and the potential narrative consequences of violating them are addressed by the book. With Druids, it’s an afterthought. A single-sentence parenthetical addendum to their armor proficiencies, with no mention anywhere else in the...
    278 replies | 5983 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 04:21 AM
    Yeah, it’s a dumb (non-)rule.
    278 replies | 5983 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 06:09 AM
    Sci-fi, man. But, like, Firefly-style.
    307 replies | 7979 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 | 999 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 | 1238 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 that’s in the PHB. Which is to say, chances are it’ll be fine, but it doesn’t hurt to double-check, and be prepared for the possibility that the DM will say they don’t think it’s a good fit for the campaign.
    37 replies | 1137 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 | 1137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 04:43 PM
    I didn’t mention Aid because it doesn’t 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 | 411 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 04:34 PM
    Shadow Blade and Booming Blade is definitely the way I’d 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 you’ll 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 | 1137 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Thursday, 13th June, 2019, 03:19 PM
    At the end of the day, you’re the DM. If you think having it expire after a minute is fair, that’s your call to make.
    10 replies | 411 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 “until the spell ends” and Potion of Heroism specifies that the subject gains the temporary HP for an hour.
    10 replies | 411 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 don’t 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 | 411 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.
    73 replies | 2203 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:30 PM
    In my opinion, 4e didn’t 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...
    73 replies | 2203 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. It’s just that fixing 4e and cloning 4e are two very different pursuits. If you want to fix 4e, by all means please do. I’d 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.
    73 replies | 2203 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 05:29 PM
    This.
    73 replies | 2203 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 04:18 PM
    It’s not a question of whether it’s worth having balanced abilities, it’s 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 won’t be a clone of 4e.
    73 replies | 2203 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 that’s ok, there’s nothing wrong with trying to evolve 4e’s design. I just don’t think you should call it a clone if that’s what you’re doing.
    73 replies | 2203 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:46 PM
    Same tho
    77 replies | 2922 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 8th June, 2019, 06:44 AM
    I don’t think the rapier needs any help. It’s already one of the best melee weapon options in the game for most characters who can use it, I don’t think incentivizing one of the few classes that favor a different weapon to use the rapier too is a positive change.
    36 replies | 1327 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 “working.” When the US army manuals say torture always “works” in the long run, it’s 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 doesn’t “work,” they’re saying it isn’t a reliable means of gathering intelligence because it always...
    68 replies | 2753 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 | 5842 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 you’ll need to roll on the die first and then rolling would be the ideal way...
    166 replies | 5842 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 02:16 AM
    I’ve 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&D’s Attack tables.
    166 replies | 5842 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 02:08 AM
    Charlaquin replied to Tortles
    As someone who enjoys Dragon Ball, I’m partial to Tortle monks, and Sun Soul monks in particular. It’s not an especially mechanically optimized setup, but who cares, it’s cool!
    9 replies | 427 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 | 5842 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 01:13 AM
    Maybe for your group. For as long as I’ve been discussing games on the internet there have been people who claimed to have genuinely preferred THAC0. Personally, I didn’t start playing until 3.5, my analysis is based purely on my understanding of game design and psychology.
    166 replies | 5842 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, it’s no wonder it developed such a bad reputation if folks were doing it that way.
    166 replies | 5842 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 | 5842 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 08:56 PM
    No surprise, GNS was always just edition covert ops.
    245 replies | 10668 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 08:54 PM
    Haha, this is nothing. This wouldn’t even be a conflict if it wasn’t for us shell-shocked edition war veterans being so jumpy. The edition war wasn’t 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 “only”...
    245 replies | 10668 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) didn’t. Instead, they got angry and protested, “what’s the point of even playing a wizard if all I can do is use weapons worse than a fighter?” 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.
    245 replies | 10668 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.
    1473 replies | 42142 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).
    1473 replies | 42142 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...
    245 replies | 10668 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 weren’t 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...
    245 replies | 10668 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:07 PM
    That makes sense. I adore the Warlock for that. It’s the one casting class that actually feels like it plays in a meaningfully different way than the others to me.
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 08:01 PM
    I agree, but I don’t think they’ve 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 | 4871 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 “you can describe casting your spells as making something with a tool and using that tool to create the desired effect” doesn’t really mean anything. I don’t just want to say my Artificer’s magic is different, I want my Artificer’s magic to be different. ...
    127 replies | 4871 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 | 4871 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 I’d probably want to run post-Essentials options only. Maybe post PHB3, if I had players who really wanted to play psionicists.
    245 replies | 10668 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 06:28 PM
    I always think it’s worth trying past editions, to expand one’s understanding of the game and its history. That said, if 4e is too complex for you, you’ll HATE 3.5.
    245 replies | 10668 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 we’ll 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 Xanathar’s Guide subclasses and their final iterations.
    127 replies | 4871 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 haven’t gone back to it. Keep in mind the context though, after late 3.5, 4e was a significant reduction in complexity.
    245 replies | 10668 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 | 4871 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 it’s a great system, but even if you find it’s not for you, it should be an enlightening experience.
    245 replies | 10668 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 03:54 PM
    I live in the US, so it’s morning now where I’m at. Sorry, I copy and paste quote tags a lot, sometimes I get the wrong one. It’s fixed now.
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:33 AM
    I’d be fine with it working that way, personally, but I’ve been told that that isn’t 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 don’t much care how it gets done, as long as it is possible...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 07:20 AM
    I’m not claiming my stance is the majority. I’m 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. They’ll end up with what they end up with, but for as long as they’re seeking feedback, I’m going to continue expressing my desire for a...
    127 replies | 4871 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 | 485 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 01:34 AM
    Well, it’s kind of linguistically weird to call fists “weapons.” 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 | 485 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 12:58 AM
    No, I’ve been saying I don’t want to cast spells and pretend they’re 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 isn’t a spell just because you used Calligrapher’s 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 | 4871 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 | 4871 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 | 4871 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 shouldn’t be throwing acid at-will, not an argument for why it should have spells. You don’t 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 | 4871 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 it’d be pretty cool if Artificers did things that were similarly distinct from the thing wizards do.
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 07:40 AM
    I didn’t mean literal Batman, and I’m 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 | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 07:00 AM
    Sure, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s as elegant as making Infusions cost spell slots, but it works. No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t. 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 it’s the latter if you want, but that’s not consistent with the way the game mechanically expresses those things in...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 06:42 AM
    So don’t 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 | 4871 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 | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 04:45 AM
    Except, it doesn’t “use a spell-storing item to create a cure wounds item, which results in using a tool to cast cure wounds.” It casts the cure wounds spell, using thieves’ tools or artisan’s tools as a spellcasting focus.
    127 replies | 4871 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 couldn’t.
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 03:00 AM
    Which is shortsighted. The class isn’t 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 5e’s broad approach to class design, it should be able to accommodate other types of magitech characters too.
    127 replies | 4871 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 | 4871 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Monday, 3rd June, 2019, 02:42 AM
    Most editions’ Rangers could cast spells too, didn’t 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 don’t really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current edition’s expression of it the best it can be. I disagree. I think the thing I want...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 11:30 PM
    This is the best solution, in my opinion.
    217 replies | 7314 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 it’s too busy - the whole “140% of a class” thing. I’d 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 | 4871 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 don’t 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 | 4871 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 07:57 PM
    But again, if we’re just reskinning spells, we don’t need a new class for that. I can already just play a wizard and pretend he’s 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 don’t already do, and “cast spells, but pretend they’re not spells” is absolutely something other...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Sunday, 2nd June, 2019, 03:28 PM
    Oh, sure. I’m cool with the pets, personally (kind of. I don’t like the turret conceptually, and I think the artificial mind needs work). My problem is with the spellcasting. And I wouldn’t even mind if spellcasting was a feature of some Artificer subclass, I just don’t want all of them to be forced into it.
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 06:58 PM
    I mean, I disagree that it ain’t broke. If all we’re doing is reskinning spells as potions, what do we need an Artificer for in the first place? We’ve already got a perfectly good Wizard we can say is making potions if we want to do that. As for a better suggestion, I’d leverage Infusions. We’ve already got a Replicate Magic Item Infusion. Add scrolls, potions, and wands to the list of things...
    127 replies | 4871 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 | 4871 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 | 4871 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 12:23 AM
    I don’t want to come off sounding snarky here, but the point where you create the tool. Out of the options, I guess spell slots. But it’s 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 doesn’t make it not a spell. The 5e version. From what I recall, the 3.5 version was more or less...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 09:32 PM
    Perhaps another way of putting this: the world does exist “for” the players, it does not exist “for” their characters.
    106 replies | 3823 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. It’s not like they wouldn’t be able to make scrolls, potions, wands, etc. with which to produce the effects of spells. Ugh. If there’s one thing I dislike more than a spellcasting Artificer, it’s a spellcasting Artificer that tries to pretend it’s not casting spells because it calls its spells something different. I don’t want...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 05:01 PM
    Yeah, I’m not a fan of (natively) spellcasting Artificers either. What’s cool about the Artificer is the idea of a character who can’t do magic herself, but creates magic items to do overcome that limitation. They’re the D&D Batman, with no super powers of their own, but enough gadgets that they don’t need powers. Let them craft potions, scrolls, and wands to cast spells with, but don’t give them...
    127 replies | 4871 view(s)
    2 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
2,357
Posts Per Day
1.34
Last Post
Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack? Today 06:43 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
8
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:45 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 7 1234567 LastLast

Monday, 24th June, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Friday, 21st June, 2019


Thursday, 20th June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019


Tuesday, 18th June, 2019


Monday, 17th June, 2019



Page 1 of 7 1234567 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 81 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Monday, 24th June, 2019

  • 06:57 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Charlaquin in post Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
    Point of order: the intent of sidekicks is explicitly not as something for less experienced players to play, but as a way to give a small party (particularly single-players) a bit of a boost in utility, and another character to interact with.Oh, wow, so exactly like a Companion character, then? That's nice. Odd choice of name, when Companion hasn't been used for anything else, and Henchman is so much more traditional... ::shrug:: … and in a product called "Essentials" it can hardly be just another example of the reflexive horror of all things 4e … [i]Edit: Oh, wait, maybe not "Henchman" because Villains have Henchmen (or minions or underlings) but Heroes have "Sidekicks." Companion characters proved quite handy in 4e, both for rounding out a small (or even just lop-sided) party, and as loaner PCs for guest players or extra-simple training-wheels options for new players who specifically wanted that (with the bonus that it could be whatever said new player was interested in, not jus...
  • 12:48 PM - Li Shenron quoted Charlaquin in post Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
    Of course, since having an additional character would effectively multiply a player’s action economy, I thought it might be best for Sidekicks to replace Extra Attacks if they were to become class features. And maybe replace cantrip scaling for casters? What about characters who gain no extra attacks nor cantrips? Also, if all my cantrips don't scale, do I get my sidekick for free? The main problem here is that extra attacks and cantrips are not comparable with each other, and they are not comparable with sidekicks either. In 3e there was a core feat, although in the DMG, called "Leadership", which granted you a cohort (plus various followers) of a lower level. If a DM wanted to give sidekicks as a character option (not mandatory), my first idea would be to consider it cost a feat, because at least a feat has the same cost for everyone (even if two classes get 1-2 more feats than others, in practical terms it matters little). Still I couldn't say if a sidekick is worth less or more than a f...
  • 01:56 AM - DM Dave1 quoted Charlaquin in post Sidekicks instead of Extra Attack?
    With the confirmation of Sidekicks coming to 5e in the Essentials Kit, I’ve been thinking about how they might be used in campaigns with more than one PC. My first thought was that they would make pretty good skilled hirelings. But that also got me to thinking about AD&D, and how a lot of classes would attract lower-level followers as class features. I always thought that was a pretty cool idea, but with the more complex classes of the WotC editions, controlling multiple characters obviously gets to be a bit much. But maybe sidekicks with their more streamlined builds could work as a way to bring the concept into 5e. Of course, since having an additional character would effectively multiply a player’s action economy, I thought it might be best for Sidekicks to replace Extra Attacks if they were to become class features. And maybe replace cantrip scaling for casters? I dunno, just spitballing at this point, but interested to hear others weigh in on the concept. I like where your mind is going wit...

Sunday, 23rd June, 2019

  • 08:40 AM - Rya.Reisender quoted Charlaquin in post Villains that are supposed to escape
    Are there actually any 5e modules that do this? All of them hundreds of times? Well... so far I finished DMing Lost Mine of Phandelver and have an ongoing Princes of the Apocalypse campaign and I think pretty much every 5th encounter has a sentence about some creature escaping when a condition is met (usually "losing the battle" or "left alone"). But I handle it like how most others here do, just stick to the rules and let the creature die. I was just wondering because often players miss out on even seeing half the creatures abilities, because they have this habit of keeping everything grappled and even if the creature has say the ability to move through walls, that doesn't help it when its speed is 0. Of course I could change the ability to "It can move through walls and is immune to the grappled condition" in preparation, but still feels like cheating to me. Then the module should have thought of it.
  • 01:11 AM - Garthanos quoted Charlaquin in post Examples of a skill challenge within a combat and vice versi
    Just to make sure I understand correctly, by “skill challenge” do you mean in the 4e sense of a collaborative effort requiring a certain number of collective successful skill checks before a certain number of collective failures? Not certain why you are asking... If a series of skill uses and each and every make or break the sequence that isn't a skill challenge they need to contribute not be barriers, if the skill uses are largely easy that isn't a skill challenge etc. Non-simplistic usually collaborative skill use where a composite failure results in a broad shift in the story in a direction that the players had not desired and composite success (Perhaps adjusted by resource expenditures of course.) and in 4e grants an allotment of experience and the desired shift etc. Perhaps my favorite skill challenges are chase scenes it has a definite beginning and ending and intermediate stages and degree of success and setbacks can be readily visualized. Although that crafting a of a magic item in ...

Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 02:22 PM - Jay Verkuilen quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    I also, uh... Don’t really like what little 5e has to say about alignment. It’s vague enough that you can argue pretty much any character you want is whatever alignment you want them to be, and it has basically no effect on the game anyway, so it might as well not be there. Agreed, it's exceptionally brief, much like the almost total lack of description of skills. On one hand this gives the DM freedom but on the other hand it provides essentially nothing to work with. The only parts of the game that got solid attention (in the PHB especially) were the classes, combat, and spells.
  • 06:34 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Charlaquin in post Villains that are supposed to escape
    Are there actually any 5e modules that do this? . I think horde of the dragon queen does something similar. I recall something like that anyway
  • 12:04 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    That is exactly what you’re doing. You’ve decided that the mafia is a LE group because it is classically used as an example of one. No. I've decided they are LE, because they fit the descriptions of LE to a T.

Friday, 21st June, 2019

  • 11:13 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    You’re trying to build definitions for the alignments to accommodate characters and groups being the alignments you’ve already decided they should be, which is going about it backwards in my opinion. Um, no. I'm not. The Mafia is the classic example of a LE group. One used in many, if not most alignment threads that I've seen, yet rarely brought up by me. That said, I still think the mafia is an ideologically Lawful Evil organization. Its members are expected to behave according to its rules, for the betterment of the organization as a whole. Individual members’ behavior may or may not be consistent with those ideals, but the fundamental principles of organized crime fall on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum, and the egoistic side of the ethical spectrum. And yet they will not sacrifice for society as a whole. They don't give a rats fig about society as a whole, except for how it can benefit them. The biggest thing that most people can sacrifice for society is money, and ...
  • 01:09 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Why not? Evil society is still society. Any authoritarian regime expects its citizens to sacrifice pretty much all personal liberty for the benefit of society. Because it falls apart when you apply it to groups smaller than a country. The Mafia is a classic lawful evil group that does not benefit society as a whole. They only work to benefit their smaller society.

Thursday, 20th June, 2019

  • 03:05 PM - Celebrim quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    That’s why I prefer to distinguish between a character’s ideology and their actions. The above character sounds like he holds Good ideals, but commits Evil actions. Which is fairly typical, to be honest. Most people tend to hold altruistic ideals in theory, but in actual practice behave more egoistically. At my table, that character would have Good written on his character sheet, but would count as Evil for the purposes of any mechanics that care about alignment. But, of course, ignoring alignment completely works just as well. Better for 5e, in fact, since 5e has almost no mechanics that care about alignment anyway. I would imagine that the majority of people do not know their own alignment, and misrepresent their alignment to others and even to themselves. In D&D terms, it requires a high degree of Wisdom to be self-aware enough to know what you actually believe and what it means. This is complicated by the fact that no mortal however wise is going to be absolutely pure in their alignmen...
  • 02:20 PM - OB1 quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    The Law/Chaos spectrum can be viewed analogously to the Good/Evil spectrum, but with personal wellbeing swapped out for liberty and others’ wellbeing swapped out for societal order. Lawful - I sacrifice my own liberty to benefit society as a whole. Neutral - I meet the expectations society places on me, to the extent that thru don’t impede on my personal liberty. Chaotic - I eschew society in favor of retaining my personal liberty. I like this! My only quibble is the line with lawful about benefiting society as a whole, as it doesn’t work with LE. How about this. Lawful - I work to increase Order. Neutral - I work to maintain Order Chaotic - I actively or passively embrace disorder. Or even more simply I create. I maintain. I undo.
  • 06:48 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    That’s why I prefer to distinguish between a character’s ideology and their actions. The above character sounds like he holds Good ideals, but commits Evil actions. Which is fairly typical, to be honest. Most people tend to hold altruistic ideals in theory, but in actual practice behave more egoistically. At my table, that character would have Good written on his character sheet, but would count as Evil for the purposes of any mechanics that care about alignment. But, of course, ignoring alignment completely works just as well. Better for 5e, in fact, since 5e has almost no mechanics that care about alignment anyway. You say he would count as evil. Why? Is evil so much more powerful than good that someone who is the quintessential lawful good person in every other way, becomes evil with that one evil habit? Is any evil act no matter how small enough to do the same? If not, what's the weight of each type of evil act? Trying to figure that stuff out gives me a headache, so I just ignore it. ...

Wednesday, 19th June, 2019

  • 10:35 PM - WaterRabbit quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    I don’t really care to continue the argument about whether or not CN is “more Neutral than Neutral. That said, I am going to do so anyway, because everything before the "but" is BS. FTFY. :)
  • 02:22 PM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    This, in my view is one of the major problems with the 9-alignment system as traditionally presented in D&D. The difference between Chaotic and Neutral with respect to Law and Chaos is simply a matter of degree, and the line between them is not particularly bright. Sure, we can probably all agree that betraying one’s allies falls on the Chaotic side of the line, but does one betrayal make a self-interest les character Chaotic Neutral? Can a character be considered Chaotic Neutral if they haven’t betrayed their allies? And while we’re at it, isn’t self interest a characteristic of evil too? What can a self-interested character get away with doing before crossing the line from Neutral to Evil? It's worse than that, really. You can have an upstanding citizen who would sacrifice himself to save the community, helps little old ladies across the road, donates money to help orphaned children, but secretly also abuses those children on a regular basis to satisfy his appetites. Is he LG? Is he evil? ...

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019

  • 02:32 AM - Maxperson quoted Charlaquin in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Just going to ignore the “by my standard” 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. It’s the goodest good alignment as currently written, so it’s no surprise most players would gravitate towards it. Chaotic Neutral is the neutralest neutral, so that would appeal most to players who don’t want to be tied down to any ideology, and chaotic evil is the evilest evil, so it’s 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 “by my standard” 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 don’t 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.


Page 1 of 81 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Charlaquin's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites