View Profile: cbwjm - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About cbwjm

Basic Information

About cbwjm
Location:
Auckland
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Country:
New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,444
Posts Per Day
1.48
Last Post
Shoe Horning the Races by Class? Today 02:57 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
21
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:57 AM
Join Date
Wednesday, 7th January, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Eleihun Eleihun is offline

    Member

    Eleihun
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Country:
New Zealand
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Friday, 19th July, 2019


Tuesday, 16th July, 2019


Monday, 15th July, 2019


Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Friday, 12th July, 2019


Thursday, 11th July, 2019


Wednesday, 10th July, 2019


Tuesday, 9th July, 2019


Monday, 8th July, 2019


Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019


Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Friday, 21st December, 2018

  • 02:46 PM - lowkey13 mentioned cbwjm in post No Magic Shops!
    Not being able to see posts by people that have blocked you? Fair enough. Not being able to access entire threads just because they happened to be started by people that have blocked you? Broken as freak - I didn't know we could own threads and decide who gets to see them. (I duly note that this behavior is likely not consciously set up that way by Morrus and is probably considered a bug in the forum software. Still, it hasn't been fixed or mitigated for years, so that excuse isn't particularly persuasive anymore) Hey now! I love me a magic shop thread! ;) Anyway, cbwjm and Mistwell I think a lot of the debate over the block/ignore function tends to be one of those, "Sure, it is great in practice, but how does it work in theory," type of issues. The enworld community, in contrast to an unfortunately large part of the internet, is still a large, diverse, and active community of people engage in regular conversations without it going off the rails. Part of this is because of the excellent moderation of Morrus, Umbran, Danny, and others (including all of us regular users who flag issues). But part of this, IMO, is because of the block list. It's a great feature for several reasons. First, in use, it keeps people from further attacking each other. It's the ultimate in de-escalation. But, and this is an important point, it's also a calming/moderating influence on all posts, IMO. Because I don't know about you- but I don't want to get blocked. I like talking to people! So any time I think maybe I just need to ratchet it up a little .... I don't. I st...

Friday, 13th July, 2018

  • 02:12 AM - Unwise mentioned cbwjm in post Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
    cbwjm The reason I came up with that example is that I actually played a Dwarf from a clan that prided itself on never having been in sunlight. They felt that sunlight would weaken both them and their culture, like it must have done to humans. He of course saw the sun for the first time and fell in love with it and the outside world. I chose deep-dwarf over Drow because it would not have the issues I mentioned above. To me that is the trick, something can be a great story yet shift the view of the world. In my Warhammer campaign example, my players all had great back stories (which they never do normally) but the end result was that it was a group that did not fit in the world at all. ad_hoc I can see where you are coming and agree, but don't have that experience myself. Frankly if they engage in RP or backstory at all I am thrilled, we don't have people competing for the spotlight.

Tuesday, 12th June, 2018

  • 11:48 AM - Coroc mentioned cbwjm in post UA: Giant Soul Sorcerer
    cbwjm Thank you, might be fun, i'd wish though their creative energy would concentrate on other things, but that is just me.

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 12:18 PM - Coroc mentioned cbwjm in post Mike Mearls tweet: Is the Known World of Mystara coming to 5e? (What's Cool About Mystara?)
    cbwjm #84 Your ideas to "shoehorn" different races into a classic Setting are great, also for DMs who want to do something like that with their official or homebrewed setting, but let me ask you and the rest of the Forum (although it had been asked before): Is this the biggest Problem we got in converting new Settings to 5e? Maybe i do not see things like that because i get old and stubborn but for me the biggest Goal to achieve when converting classics like DS, ebberon, DL or Mystara to 5e is: Do i get the same feel from the Setting like when i played it Long ago with a different Version of the rules and would even someone not familar with the Setting back then but starting to Play it with a 5e conversion get the same vibe? That is the hardest Thing to achieve and imho this requires something which seems to be outlawed by at least some of the Forum These days: Cut it out, leave it, do not allow it, restrict reduce: classes, spells, equipment allowed/ available, Combos, alignment...

Thursday, 15th February, 2018

  • 07:00 AM - Hawk Diesel mentioned cbwjm in post Getting rid of the short rest: The answer to Linear Fighter vs Quadratic Wizard?
    ...have ONE utility spell running in most situations and then burn spell slots with damaging spells, 1 per turn, that do typically less damage than the damage being doled out by the martial characters. In practice I just don't see the spell casting uber-race outshining their mundane counterparts. Do they sometimes? Sure, some spells are just the thing to save the day, as they should be. But just as often the monk gets in a Quivering Palm or a paladin triggers a massive Smite or a frenzied barbarian is able to resist the mind-bending spell that has beguiled the rest of the party. All fair and valid points. I have played high level D&D, though admittedly not much. But thank you for bringing up these examples. It is helping me consider whether I am still thinking that magic users are as powerful as I proposed. At my table we long rest once every 2 or 3 sessions. Are you saying that your table long rests more than once per session? Yea, sometimes. Either similarly to what cbwjm, or being in games where long rests were just plain used more often than short rests (though that game had the house rule that short rests were 4 hours, so anytime you could short rest there was no reason not to just go for a full long rest). That's the sort of thing that we hand wave. There is no real tension there. So either we just declare that time passes and we're wherever we need to be or perhaps have a bit of description of what happened but not actually play it out. If exploration is the thing then we do that but it would be a series of encounters and obstacles. It's sort of the same with the skill system. If there is no consequence and/or it isn't interesting then there is no roll. Do you mean you hand wave that single encounter between long rests in the travel periods? I'm not understanding. But I have experienced a number of sessions in my games where there is max one or two encounters between long rests. Obviously when I DM I can have control over the pacing...

Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018

  • 05:42 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned cbwjm in post Attempt at a Kalashtar race
    So if I were to give anything extra, I would want it to reflect how Kalashtar are refugees fleeing execution and assimilation into the Dreaming Dark, il-Lashtavar. Not all Kalashtar are warriors, but all have an instinct for survival. Combined with their psychic talents, I might suggest this: Inertial Armor. Your latent psychic talent provides you a measure of protection against physical harm. When not wearing any armor, your AC is calculated as 11 + Dexterity. You can use a shield and still benefit from this ability. Alternatively, I might grant advantage on saving throws against exhaustion from forced marches and lack of sleep, due to their history of far travel to escape enemy Inspired soldiers looking to exterminate them. As for the psych damage and the cantrip, normally I would agree with you cbwjm. Damage tyoes are fairly interchangeable. However, if you look, Totem Barbarians remain vulnerable to psychic damage, Psychic damage is the only kind that can normally affect a creature under the Feign Death spell... many resistance/immunity exceptions are around psychic damage. Additionally few spells or abilities inflict psychic damage, and arguably it is the only damage type not in some way grounded in a physical or material way. Unless you build a character with a focus on psychic damage and alter many spells to allow for such, few players will ever deal psychic damage in any significant amount. Thus their would be little reason to adjust encounters or otherwise account for someone that deals psychic damage. So while most damage types are interchangeable, I would say psychic and force are the lone exceptions. I'd even put necrotic and radiant in the same category as the others.

Friday, 12th January, 2018

  • 04:21 AM - Olive mentioned cbwjm in post Wizard Spells
    If they're allowed to do this then you're really encouraging them to start colluding. Personally I don't like telling players, "Yeah, I know the mechanics encourage you to do X, but I'd really rather have you roleplay so can you just cooperate?" I would much rather point to a mechanic and say, "Sure, you can copy...but there's an X% chance it will get erased from your own spellbook." I was going to post something but then cbwjm said what I thought. I just don't see this as a huge issue, especially as they're going to want to prepare different spells regardless so they can maximise the things they can do.

Thursday, 16th November, 2017

  • 12:27 PM - Coroc mentioned cbwjm in post Weapon Help
    Do it like cbwjm suggests, give it a fixed boon (1d4 is ok) and some charge ability modelled after a spell. The charged ability should be usable as a free action on a hit, or instead of one of your normal ranged attacks. Rather than introduce a mechanic depending on the attribute, give the weapon a reason and personality why it does not be wielded by weak characters. If your intend is as a GM that the sword should go to the party brute and no one else, then the sword will simply zap everyone else for 1d4 force damage who even touches it. Rule 0 applies, if someone questions why and does not accept your explanation that the sword wants to be wielded by the strongest char because of blah.---

Thursday, 9th November, 2017

  • 05:04 AM - Hawk Diesel mentioned cbwjm in post D&D's Monk Way of the Sun Soul in 'Xanathar's Guide To Everything'
    I don't get it. Why would they re-release the sun soul monk? If the version presented in the SCAG is problematic, I would prefer they address that reasoning and proposed changes in a UA. Doing this makes me wonder if they are just trying to pad their page count. Also, I second cbwjm. What flaws are there in the Sun Soul Monk? Seems like a mechanically sound archetype to me.

Wednesday, 1st November, 2017

  • 03:06 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned cbwjm in post Monk Weapon
    That should satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "Longsword". It probably won't satisfy a player whose character concept is based around "d10 damage" But here you are making a value judgment. You are inherently saying that a player must value the role playing aspect over the game aspect of something is a role playing game. It is not up to us to decide how a person plays or what gives them enjoyment when playing. I suppose a table could decide this together in a session zero, but then such a person would be better prepared to understand how others would respond to playing an elf monk and wanting to actually use all the abilities their choice of character grants. I really like how cbwjm put it. The rules are really guidelines or suggestions. They shouldn't be taken as immutable dogma. But then I don't believe in sacred cows.

Tuesday, 24th October, 2017

  • 09:04 AM - Yaarel mentioned cbwjm in post Mystic playtest...ugg this class is all over the place
    @GMforPowergamers, @cbwjm The way I wish the Magic Weapon spell worked is like this: Class Level: Attack Bonus Student L1: +1 Master L9: +2 Legend L17: +3 Epic L25: +4 Each plus is 8 levels higher. The advancement covers the entire 20-level career. They way it actually works is like this: L1: +1 L7: +2 L11: +3

Tuesday, 3rd October, 2017

  • 04:56 AM - Chaosmancer mentioned cbwjm in post Sorcerer vs Warlock
    Xeviat and cbwjm Sure, there are a lot of things we "could" do. I mean, in one respect, the only difference between a wizard and a bard is divide between Art and Science. And Music aficionados are usually quite eager to point out the science behind the art, and vice versa. But, if anything, the Wizard and the Warlock are more similiar. It doesn't matter if you studied for the test or someone handed you the answer sheet, you're still taking a test. That is a fundamental difference between "I was born for this" Birds don't need to study to know how to migrate and fly, they just do it, and no amount of tinkering to grow wings or building things that fly makes us birds. The metaphors can get really mixed, and, like I said, we can make all of these crushed together, but there are fundamental differences at play in the lore of the sorcerer that really should not be ignored. Even if the mechanics of the class and the game don't reflect that story accurately

Saturday, 1st July, 2017

  • 08:38 AM - Hawk Diesel mentioned cbwjm in post Converted Pathfinder spells for Cryomancers
    I haven't read them all yet, but I agree with cbwjm regarding Snowball. Either increase the damage, or make it a cantrip. If you go the cantrip route, on a hit the target automatically has disadvantage on their next attack before the start of your next turn. As for Ice Armor, if you compare it to Mage Armor (also a first level spell), then it is clear that no one would take mage armor if this is an option. Thus I would bump Ice Armor up to 2nd level or make it a concentration spell to balance against mage armor.

Tuesday, 13th June, 2017

  • 06:07 AM - Sword of Spirit mentioned cbwjm in post I gave up--Here's a Warrior-Mage base class
    Hi all! I took some time to think through the class more. I'd like to provide a simplified comparison for ease of analysis. I'd be particularly interested in commentary from those who have looked at the original proposal, including FrogReaver, Hemlock, Zardnaar, cbwjm, Blue, as well as anyone else who likes to look at these sorts of things. I'm going to take as a baseline for balance the wizard's Bladesong Tradition, since the designers felt it was more or less balanced. My class needs to be comparable in overall balance to Bladesinger. My table will present a simple comparison of essential features level by level, for a skeletal baseline, that should be no more powerful than Bladesinger. Then I'll provide a list of features that can be added, and it would help me greatly if I could get people to basically "say when" when the class hits the point where it is overpowered compared to Bladesinger. Except for what is spelled out on this table and intro, assume that this class's features and stats are identical to a Bladesinger. Ie, you are taking away the stuff in the Bladesinger columns, and adding in the stuff in the Warrior Mage columns. I made an exception by noting where they both gained Extra Attack. You can more or less forget the first...

Monday, 29th May, 2017

  • 05:20 AM - TheCosmicKid mentioned cbwjm in post Oriental Adventures 5e - What race options are there?
    ...we have a very hard time seeing anything other than humans really 'being' any of those classes and caring about how the world sees them. I mean, if you are a spirit folk samurai (not sure if that was even a choice, but for sake of argument...), why would this spirit folk even be a samurai of some ruler in some land that has virtually nothing to do with his "race"? Sure, the spirit folk probably has his/her river/forest/mountain/whatever in the daimyo's province...but that would be it. Why would the daimyo accept such a creature into his confidence? Why should the daimyo even trust such a creature, who obviously would have significantly different ideas on what is "right", "just", or even "legal"...compared to humans?The spiritual beings in East Asian legend mirror the human social order much more closely than fairy folk do in European legend. Chinese mythology even has a celestial bureaucracy with ranks, offices, and duties just like the imperial bureaucracy. And -- Alex Williams and cbwjm mentioned Journey to the West. In that story, not only is the "adventuring party" composed of a variety of nonhuman characters, but the underlying reason for their journey is that they've all converted to Buddhism. You never hear about elves or trolls converting to Christianity; the implication is that they're fundamentally incapable of it. But Buddhist lore has spirits, demons, and monsters all happily joining the team and working together. So I'm thinking that, all things being equal, it takes far less effort to explain why a river/forest/mountain/whatever spirit might be a samurai than why an elf might be a paladin.

Wednesday, 17th May, 2017

  • 04:00 PM - Redthistle mentioned cbwjm in post Druid subclass: Circle of the Warden
    ... are definitely something which can be expanded with additional forms being added for the warden to learn. There could be a level requirement (prefer not to have one though) or they could start with 2 or 3 forms and then be able to choose more as they level up. For the tankiness, I did think of doing something similar to the dragon sorcerer which grants +1 hit point/level. This would bring them up to a d10 hit die equivalent. It would certainly help them survive in melee by giving them just a little more of a hit point buffer. This works, does what it needs to, but it kind of isn't too interesting. Although I guess the more interesting parts of the warden are the forms. I probably wouldn't increase the size of their hit dice, but the idea of them gaining temp. hit points could be interesting. Perhaps Wisdom modifier (min. 1) temp hit points at the start of their turn. Although I've been concentrating on getting Primal Forms into a reasonable draft form, the ideas from @rgoodbb and @cbwjm quoted above have been moving around in the background of my mind. I do think that cbwjm's original ideas for the 6th, 10th, and 14th level features are good as they are, but adding the Wisdom modifier as temporary hp while in primal form is appealing and makes a certain sense. What if the Circle of the Warden was designed like the Circle of the Land subclass, with multiple types of warden? The 4e Player's Handbook 2 described the Earth Warden and the Wild Warden, and the 4e Primal Power book gave us the Life Warden and Storm Warden. They wouldn't necessarily have to be named after those specifically, but the notion of those tree-related powers in 4e ... it would be like playing a were-treant or something. Sweet! I haven't looked at any of the Paragon Paths yet, so they haven't been included in my thinking here. I'm probably missing some good ideas because of that. Anyway, back to some ideas for primal forms. Here's the current adaptations I've considered: Form of the Avalanche Unl...

Sunday, 14th May, 2017

  • 03:51 PM - Redthistle mentioned cbwjm in post Druid subclass: Circle of the Warden
    I'm working on getting this Circle feature more in line with the descriptions in Wild Shape, and find myself in need of other some feedback on what I'm working up. Primal Form At 2nd level you do not gain wild shape. In place of wild shape, you gain the ability to use your bonus action to assume a form of primal power to enhance your combat abilities for 1 minute. The number of times you can assume a primal form is shown in the wild shape column of the Druid table in the Players Handbook. There is no Wild Shape column in the Druid Table. Instead, the feature states that you can transform 2 times, but once both transformations have been used, you need to take a short or long rest to regain the ability to transform. I'm thinking we should just use that language. In Wild Shape, the Beast Shapes table (re-labeled Primal Forms below) shows a real disconnect with changing into primal forms (I guess that's why cbwjm called it a "1st draft," eh?) of the Circle of the Warden. Primal Forms Level Max. CR Limitations Example 2nd 1/4 No fly or swim speed Wolf 4th 1/2 No fly speed Crocodile 8th 1 - Eagle Now, a hint of a direction to go shows up immediately in Form of Storm's Thunder (with a bit of added fluff inspired by the 4e class descriptions) below: Form of Storms Thunder Tendrils of mist drift around you, flickering with light, as faint rumbles of distant thunder emanate from your body. On your turn, when you hit with a melee attack, you deal an extra 1d6 thunder damage. This increases to a d8 at 5th level, d10 at 11th level, and a d12 at 17th level. Here, cbwjm added class-level specific increases to the damage in the spirit of cantrip-type increases, while keeping the increases lower than cantrip increases in keeping with other kinds of class/archety...

Sunday, 7th May, 2017

  • 06:07 PM - MoonSong mentioned cbwjm in post This is a directory of posters who think the sorcerer needs fixing
    ...that Neo-Vancian would mean balance problems for sorcerers, but over time I've noticed there is more and more posters who think the class could use a little help and recently that number has exploded. Just a beg, please, please pretty please with sugar on top, if you think the sorcerer class is not underpowered, or doesn't lack options, or overall doesn't need adjustment. (Or worse you don't want a sorcerer class at all), please refrain from posting here or being confrontational if you can't help it. This thread doesn't seek to prove a point or disprove yours. It just wants to be a hub for like-minded players and DMs to make acquaintance of each other. Double so for newcomers to the forum. The Directory so far. If you want to be included (or removed), edit this post to add or remove your name (and only your name, no vandalism plz). @Tony Vargas, @Hawk Diesel, @RangerWickett, @dco @Gwarok, @LapBandit @Sword of Spirit, @Gradine, @gyor, @Xeviat, @Yunru, @Jago, @flametitan, @Ketser, @cbwjm, @Immoralkickass @ScuroNotte , @Irda Ranger @dropbear8mybaby, Ilbranteloth Gradine's treatise on the sorcerer A brief(?) treatise on the plight of Sorcerer The fundamental problem with the Sorcerer in 5e is that the reason the class was created in the first place was to create a mechanical distinction that no longer exists in 5e. 4e solved the problem by creating a new mechanical distinction, but that no longer exists in 5e either. See, the 3rd edition Sorcerer was basically worse than the Wizard in all but a handful of ways (more spells per day being the big one, also they had slightly better weapon proficiencies and were more fun at parties). In exchange they had slower spell progression and no bonus feats, because WotC overestimated the power of spontaneous casting Monte Cooke hated sorcerers reasons. Pretty much everyone agreed that simply on the basis of the slower spell progression (something which was then saddled onto all future spontaneous full-casters), spontaneous caste...

Sunday, 30th April, 2017

  • 12:06 AM - Oofta mentioned cbwjm in post Unearthed Arcana: Get Better At Skills With These Feats
    Do you allow anyone to make the check as a bonus action? Or does it take their full action to ignore difficult terrain? Or is it a check that's made as part of their movement? If the answer is the first or third choice, then yes, I can see how the feat wouldn't seem that great for your table. Otherwise, all the feat does is allow a character to do what they already could, but faster. I do it the same as cbwjm if I think it makes sense, it's just part of the movement. A lot of times I'll also allow athletics. So either dive dextrously through the thick brush or muscle your way through. There are times when it doesn't make sense. If the difficult terrain is a supernatural effect of a monster warping space for example. So just another feat I don't need.

Wednesday, 26th April, 2017

  • 05:00 AM - Lanliss mentioned cbwjm in post homebrew Cleric Changes discussion
    I started thinking on some Cleric changes to apply to my world, ways to make them more interesting as a class. I am leaning heavily towards more Warlock-like changes, since I think Warlock and Cleric are two sides of the same coin. To that end, here are some of my changes Going to happen: Changes that I am decided on, mostly pretty obvious things that come with the Warlock Chassis Short-rest spell slots, same progression as Warlock, including Mystic Arcanum Divine Gifts: Invocations for the Cleric. One of the topics to be discussed. cbwjm has been helping out on this, and even put it in a handy link. http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/B1WZWvYTAx


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 82 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Tuesday, 16th July, 2019

  • 11:23 PM - the Jester quoted cbwjm in post Does Your Fantasy Race Really Matter In Game? (The Gnome Problem)
    Could you have a quick run down on the identity you've given gnomes? For the record, here is my write up of gnomes, their place in my world, and how they typically view the other common races. GNOMES There are only a few hundred gnomes in the city, and of those, at least a hundred (and perhaps more) are unknown to any save other gnomes. Gnomes tend to be longtime residents of the city, and very few are refugees (the gnomish penchant for illusion and camouflage makes it easy for populations of gnomes outside of the city to remain unnoticed by humanoids). There is a small gnomish neighborhood in the city, but a good number of gnomes live scattered throughout the city's other neighborhoods. Values: The gnomish worldview is based on their small stature. Rather than the semi-parasitic approach that halflings take, seeking shelter among bigger folk, gnomes are more prone to deal with overpowering foes through stealth, tricks and traps while remaining largely self-reliant as a race...

Monday, 15th July, 2019

  • 09:53 AM - Aldarc quoted cbwjm in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    Is this a statement about what players of 5e prefer... is fan art being used as support for said statement??It's a statement that the game's visions for certain monsters evolves and occasionally becomes more solidified through editions. Like, how many pick tiefling and base their look off some Blizzard fan art of a draenai? I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few of them.At least one of my friends did.
  • 07:28 AM - Tony Vargas quoted cbwjm in post Does Your Fantasy Race Really Matter In Game? (The Gnome Problem)
    Did it really matter what fantasy race a player chose for his or her character? Sure. Anything other than human and race tended to loom large. Iwas creating my own campaign setting and since we have rules for all these races the only reasonable thing to do was to shoehorn them into my setting. ... I got to gnomes. I couldn't think of any reason to add them to the setting beyond that they should just be in a D&D setting. You could always shunt elves & gnomes and the like into some fey Otherworld.... I like to play up the Feywild angle (can't remember if they are from the Feywild in 5e or if I'm thinking of pathfinder) Yes, like 4e which made gnomes fey (and, briefly, monsters) and introduced the Feywild (IMHO, it replaced the classic Ethereal, or you could say the Shadowfell merged it with the plane of shadow). Not every fantasy race works for every campaign setting. .. I just don't think having a plethora of available races necessarily adds much of anything to the setting. Any...
  • 07:13 AM - Charlaquin quoted cbwjm in post Does Your Fantasy Race Really Matter In Game? (The Gnome Problem)
    Could you have a quick run down on the identity you've given gnomes? I like to play up the Feywild angle (can't remember if they are from the Feywild in 5e or if I'm thinking of pathfinder) They are in 4e and Pathfinder. 5e is a bit more cagey about their origin. Forest gnomes seem to exist to cover the Fae gnome concept, and rock gnomes to cover the smaller, zanier dwarves concept. but I like to have them from there. In the game I will be running a secretive gnome village is nearby built around a fairy ring allowing movement between Feywild and the prime. These gnomes are secretive and skilled with illusions generally keeping the big races out. Sometimes the thought that they're Smurfs creeps into my mind and I have to keep pushing that thought away. I like Fae gnomes, but its not what I went with for my home brew setting. My feywild was getting a bit crowded with goblins (and by extension orcs, though more distantly) having their origins there, and with a lot of in-universe ambiguity be...

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 08:25 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted cbwjm in post Fighting With Style, Fighting Styles as Level 1 subclass choices
    I like the trade off idea. But even with the bonus action, I wouldn't want it to end up being better than duelist If you're heart set on the bonus action, I think you should shoot for it to be comparable to TWFing, and not go for the AC boost. (Though now I have some new ideas in the ever growing how am I going to fix TWFing at my table thoughts) If it costs a Bonus Action, it should do more than duelist. What about: If you have an implement in your off hand, when you use the attack action, you can use an action to make a melee spell attack dealing 1d6 + mod. elemental damage? Spellcasting ability is Intelligence i assume you mean use a bonus action for the melee spell attack? That could work. Another idea. It's magic. So insteadInstead of attempting to compete on the raw damage front instead look for useful effects that aren't directly related to damage. If the effect you decide is most thematic isn't strong enough let the style also add a +1 damage bonus. Magical effects you...

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 06:50 PM - Xeviat quoted cbwjm in post Fighting With Style, Fighting Styles as Level 1 subclass choices
    I feel like every class should gain an archetype at level 1. The rogue scout or valour bard are some of the archetypes that annoy me the most. I feel like rogue could have had 1st level archetypes that tied things like thieves tools and thieves cant to the archetype so that I can play a scout without either of those but instead have an additional language and maybe herbalism kit of survival as an archetype skill. Valour bard I'd like to be able to start out with battleaxe, chain shirt, and shield at level 1. My only "complaint" would be how it might interact with multiclassing, but enough classes start with their archetype that it's kind of half in there as it is. This could be good for the game, but it would take some work to squeeze in because some classes don't have much room at first level for much. Feel like taking this to a different thread?

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 06:49 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted cbwjm in post Fighting With Style, Fighting Styles as Level 1 subclass choices
    I feel like every class should gain an archetype at level 1. The rogue scout or valour bard are some of the archetypes that annoy me the most. I feel like rogue could have had 1st level archetypes that tied things like thieves tools and thieves cant to the archetype so that I can play a scout without either of those but instead have an additional language and maybe herbalism kit of survival as an archetype skill. Valour bard I'd like to be able to start out with battleaxe, chain shirt, and shield at level 1. I agree, and Id love to do a whole DMsGuild product someday adding small features to each class with level 3 subclasses. I feel the same way. If I'm creating a character that will be an eldritch knight, I prefer it to be of a race that already has limited magic, high elf being my favourite. Although I guess it isn't really that different to multiclassing into wizard at 3rd level from a non-magical class but if I have the idea of creating an eldritch knight, I'd like the archetype t...

Wednesday, 10th July, 2019

  • 04:48 AM - Flamestrike quoted cbwjm in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    I'm thinking of granting all players half-proficiency to their non-proficient saving throws so that there is still at least some scaling of all saves for all classes as they level beyond the occasional ASI put into a stat (The cool thing is that you can adjust this in DnDBeyond and have it automated). Has anyone tried this? I'm not sure if this would be "Yay, I save more often, I AM UNSTOPPABLE!" fun or "Looks like I saved again, not much challenge in this game." non-fun. Just wanting to get some feedback for anyone who has done this. I tried this myself and there is no need. Mid to high level parties have a lot of save buff effects going on. Firstly it further devalues dump stats (this is bad). Dump stats only ever really come into play when you're making a save based on that Stat. Watch your party Barbarian with the Int 8 cry when the Illithids and Intellect devourers come out to play. Secondly, at mid to high level, there are a ton of buffs on Saves as it is. Most common save Buffs ar...

Tuesday, 9th July, 2019

  • 11:34 PM - Xeviat quoted cbwjm in post Saving Throws and non-proficiency
    I'd be worried that people might find it a bit too easy if they save more often than not. It's like playing in God mode in a video game, fun rom start but gets old quick. Admittedly this change might not make too huge a difference at later levels since they might go from needing a roll 19 to save to a 16 to save. A greater chance but still not stacked in their favour. I don't think players will notice that. They will notice of they roll a 15 on their d20 for a wisdom save and still fail, though.

Monday, 8th July, 2019

  • 02:02 PM - Lylandra quoted cbwjm in post Gamer Stats From White Dwarf in the 80s
    ENworld has a little over 340,000 members which is pretty significant. Of course, not all of them will be active and many (most?) may not have filled out the "about me" section of their profile (I haven't), so even if a report could be run off, it might not be the most accurate. And women tend to have a higher chance of not filling out the gender box as many have had bad experiences being a "girl on the internet". Even if the EN forums are a relatively safe and welcoming space. (I've received some creepy PNs back in the days of the official WotC forum and I know that not every woman shrugs that off so easily.)

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019

  • 07:24 AM - Charlaquin quoted cbwjm in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    But bonus actions don't map to 4e's minor actions very well either. I disagree. 5es action economy is basically the same as 4es, with some technical differences in how movement is handled. 4e you could do multiple minor actions by giving up move or standard actions, can't do that with bonus actions. True, and that is one of the improvements that 5e made to 4es action economy, in my opinion (the other being the aforementioned technical differences in movement.) I honestly can't remember if you could do extra swift actions by giving up other actions. Me either. I dont think you could (apart from gaining a standard, swift, and move action by not taking a full-round action, I guess), but it has been a long time since I played 3.X To me it seems that the 5e bonus action has its roots in the addition of the swift action in 3e becoming the minor action if 4e and now the bonus action of 5e. Sure, I agree with you there.
  • 06:23 AM - Charlaquin quoted cbwjm in post Mearls' "Firing" tweet
    Don't you mean 3.5s swift action being rebranded as "bonus actions"? N... no... 3.5s action economy was a great deal more complex than 4es and 5es. Enough so that swift actions dont cleanly map to minor actions the way bonus actions do.

Thursday, 27th June, 2019

  • 09:44 AM - pemerton quoted cbwjm in post [1e and OD&D] How did you handle Druids and Armor? Clerics and Edge Weapons?
    I don't believe I ever knew about this prohibition for Monks. <snip> They can throw a flask of holy water (and all thrown weapons) but not one of flaming oil...maybe you could story-it-up as it being a 'dishonorable" way of attacking and that...would throw the monk's spiritual purity/enlightenment/soul into inner turmoil -misalign his chakras, what have you- which would interfere with the effective practice of their abilities. So, again, atonement, meditation, maybe take a quest to regain your "honor'/realign your mind-body-soul to regain your abilities. Monks couldn't use flaming oil in 1e? That seems a weird restriction. Why weren't they allowed to?I dunno the reason, but I assume it's related to their inability to use potions (PHB p 32): Magic items usable by monks include all magical varieties of weapons listed (unless proscribed), rings, and those miscellaneous magic items which are usable by thieves. No other magic items of any sort may be employed by monks. Holy water isn...

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 10:27 PM - 5ekyu quoted cbwjm in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I think the main problem with this "rule" is that it is a roleplaying one, not a mechanical one. A lot of people nowadays want the mechanics of the class laid out for them and want the roleplaying aspects left in their hands. That's why this "rule" should have been left in a sidebar as flavour for druids, that or this should have been left off completely and druids should have simply been given light armour proficiency instead of light and medium.To me I would have: Put hide armor as light and studded as medium. Adjust scores and values. Give druids light armor and shields Give wildshape restrictions if wearing medium or heavy armor or metal shields. Basically, they wont be merged into the form. Have to be left behind.
  • 02:59 PM - lowkey13 quoted cbwjm in post [1e and OD&D] How did you handle Druids and Armor? Clerics and Edge Weapons?
    Okay. Seems weird though. Yeah, I don't know that I've ever seen the origin of that one; it's so weird and hyper-specific it has to come from somewhere. Maybe from an episode of Kung Fu in the 70s?
  • 11:20 AM - JonnyP71 quoted cbwjm in post [1e and OD&D] How did you handle Druids and Armor? Clerics and Edge Weapons?
    Monks couldn't use flaming oil in 1e? That seems a weird restriction. Why weren't they allowed to? Because the rules said so. And that's all that mattered. And that's all that *should* matter. A game system should not have to try to justify every little oddity in the rules.
  • 05:33 AM - Maxperson quoted cbwjm in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour. Heh! Not even that much. I'm proposing just donning it long enough to sneak into a castle. That's apparently enough to give these guys fits.
  • 05:27 AM - 5ekyu quoted cbwjm in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I also think a lot of people can't believe that there are DMs that would kick out a player who wants their druid to use metal armour.While obviously there can be most any type of behavior, I dont know of any GM eho would kick a player out for *wanting* their druid to wear metal armor. I can see it as more likely to occur to players who *insist* and get argumentative or insulting about it if told no. Me? I am a "say yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no" guy do in my games I added special "banded armor" (lacquered and treated wood originally elven), shell and chitin based armors and so on. If a player specifically wanted metal, my response would be that it was OK if and only if they gave me background and story driven basis for their charscter that was, in fact, compelling, integral to their charscter and defining. (Basically it adds more to the game and adds to the world in consistent story spawning ways.) But a position paper on "smithing vs tanning - which is more natural?" ...

Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 05:18 PM - Garthanos quoted cbwjm in post Missing Battle Master Manuevers
    Since 5e doesn't limit them by level, it kind of works when you require more dice for a maneuver. With Come and Get It costing 3 dice, that means that a battlemaster at level 7 would be able to perform this manoeuvre and 2 more single die cost manoeuvres between short rests. Sure kind of but then the 4e fighter also had a daily in there. I think mayhaps the fighter needs more superiority dice to do the multi-dice cost trick. Or another resource like heroic surge to do daily class maneuvers with.

Friday, 21st June, 2019

  • 02:24 AM - Oofta quoted cbwjm in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    I guess for me the question is, what happens if they do wear metal armour? The answer is: absolutely nothing. 5e isn't like past editions where a druid character loses access to spellcasting and supernatural abilities if they go and start wearing metal armour. If there had been some kind of rule that metal armour had some sort of penalty if worn, like if they wear metal armour they can't wildshape, then people might be more accepting but instead it is a weird legacy suggestion that, in my opinion, doesn't really fit in well with 5e. The situation won't come up because they won't wear metal armor. Might as well ask what happens if that champion fighter shapeshifts into a bear. Unless of course you've chosen to change the rule in your campaign.


Page 1 of 82 123456789101151 ... LastLast

cbwjm's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites