View Profile: fromthe1980s - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About fromthe1980s

Basic Information

Age
49
About fromthe1980s
Location:
USA
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
10
Posts Per Day
0.01
Last Post
Psionics as sorcerer? Wednesday, 8th February, 2017 06:05 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
4
General Information
Last Activity
Thursday, 14th March, 2019 11:55 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 11th July, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...
No results to display...
No results to display...

Thursday, 9th February, 2017

  • 04:13 AM - I'm A Banana quoted fromthe1980s in post Psionics as sorcerer?
    Since I laid hands on my 5e PHB, I've thought about making Professor X from Xmen or a similar type character. I even remarked: It would be easy to alter the Sorcerer for that. I was totally disappointed in the UA mystic. Why couldn't psionics be a Sorcerer with permanent Subtle Spell? Many spells are perfectly suitable for fluffing as "psychic." Cantrips alone that could be: blade ward, dancing lights, friends, light, mage hand (fluff it as invisible maybe), mending, message, minor illusion, prestidigitation, true strike. In fact, some spells seems more suited to mind games that "arcane," illusions for example. Knowing that someone is in your head = friends cantrip. Even spells that have a point of origin with the caster such as fireball could be realistically created "in the mind" as opposed to "from the weave." Replace CHA with INT maybe. It works perfectly well as a sorcerous origin (that's the way I did it for my astral classes doc). The real question, though, is does that meet ...

Sunday, 18th December, 2016

  • 05:12 AM - Ilbranteloth quoted fromthe1980s in post CHALLENGE: Change one thing about 5e
    Too many classes with magic. Spell casting is too common. Eliminate EK, AT, W4E, and make Ranger and Paladin spell-less. Give some classes abilities that function like spells, create new feats that function like spells, if you want, but don't make everyone a caster. Although I like the idea of a spell-less ranger, the paladin doesn't make as much sense at this point. However, a big change is when they gain spellcasting abilities. I would prefer that they gain them later on as they used to. That might address some of your concerns. I also rewrote the bard in my campaign using the Warlock mechanics as a template. So they only gain up to 5th level spells. I did this for the same reason - I think bards should have spells, but not up to 9th level.

Tuesday, 22nd March, 2016

  • 11:04 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted fromthe1980s in post Why don't Druids get charm animals and plants as a class ability?
    Also, this feature isn't anything like the current items listed in Druidcraft, so sticking it in would be an odd fit. (A Frankantrip, perhaps?) It's so much like Friends (more limited targets, but without the aftereffects) that it pretty clearly* would need to be a cantrip of its own. And then we've got more competition for a pretty tight cantrip budget.Depending upon what it does, its going to be at least as powerful as a level 1 spell, not a cantrip. Potentially more if it affects more targets than the method of charming animals that the Druid currently has access to. No, I think I prefer it as a class ability. Compared to martial classes or fractional casters, casters already have very, very few class abilities in their chart. I could see tucking this into level 3 quite nicely. That is because their spell progression is their main class ability, and it improves improves every level for a full caster. Charm plants and animals is a _class ability_ for nature domain clerics. I'm arguing...
  • 04:20 PM - iserith quoted fromthe1980s in post Why don't Druids get charm animals and plants as a class ability?
    Playing LMoP and the first cave has wolves. We have a Druid in the party who can't make friends without a spell? But a nature cleric could? Huh? I know the adventure lets anyone make friends by offering a snack but this is just one instance. I would think Druids could do this multiple times per especially on low CR animals. I suggest just telling the DM what you hope to accomplish and how you set about accomplishing it in fictional terms, then let him or her adjudicate. If I felt your efforts had an uncertain outcome, I'd ask for a Wisdom check and we'll see how it turns out. You might be able to apply a proficiency bonus for Animal Handling to that ability check or even spend your Inspiration to give yourself an edge. In short, I don't believe a class feature is necessary to do what you want to do. It sounds like you want a button to push to make something happen.

Monday, 21st March, 2016

  • 03:22 PM - ExploderWizard quoted fromthe1980s in post Why don't Druids get charm animals and plants as a class ability?
    Playing LMoP and the first cave has wolves. We have a Druid in the party who can't make friends without a spell? But a nature cleric could? Huh? I know the adventure lets anyone make friends by offering a snack but this is just one instance. I would think Druids could do this multiple times per especially on low CR animals. The nature cleric would need to use a channel divinity power (which is just a spell of sorts using a different resource system) to do so. Even that is only a magical effect that lasts one minute. Offering food and being kind to the animal is the only way make real friends and anyone can do that. Also remember that the druid has the ability to change into the same form as the animal and effectively communicate, which is something the nature cleric can't even come close to doing.
  • 12:49 PM - EzekielRaiden quoted fromthe1980s in post Why don't Druids get charm animals and plants as a class ability?
    Playing LMoP and the first cave has wolves. We have a Druid in the party who can't make friends without a spell? But a nature cleric could? Huh? I know the adventure lets anyone make friends by offering a snack but this is just one instance. I would think Druids could do this multiple times per especially on low CR animals. For the same reason that Paladins can't get a special horse without casting a spell, and Rangers can't shoot lots of arrows without a (fifth level!!) spell. (Okay, *technically* you can shoot lots of arrows with a second-level spell--conjure barrage--but swift quiver is literally a fifth-level spell, with concentration, that lets you fire two extra shots as a bonus action. So apparently shooting four arrows a round for two combats a day is a fifth-level spell ability!) That is: 5e "solved" the issue of some classes having lots of class features by making a whole bunch of them into spells. Paladin, Ranger, and Druid being the key examples.

Monday, 13th July, 2015


Sunday, 12th July, 2015

  • 04:43 AM - transtemporal quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    Cantrips are fine for low levels, but some don't scale or don't keep up with the damage possible by other classes. Yes they do. They scale with character level (firebolt for example does 1d10 at 1st, 2d10 at 5th, 3d10 at 11th, 4d10 at 17th). Dagger for show, cantrips for a pro!
  • 03:45 AM - Saelorn quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    one thing you may not forget: dual daggers may end up being more damaging than a can't rip at low levels, but only if you have higher dexterity than int.Going with the previous assumption, about DEX 14 and INT 16, the wizard really should be dual-wielding daggers at first level. There's no reason to not dual-wield, unless circumstances require you to keep both hands open. Most of the time, you can just make two attacks, or put away one dagger (as a non-action) before casting. Granted, without the fighting style it only increases your damage by 1d4 points, but that's still enough to put it ahead of any other option (in terms of pure damage, at level 1). Why can't WotC/D&D create a spellcaster, specifically a wizard, who never needs to resort to weapons like swords and bows?Because this is D&D, and a D&D wizard is a very specific type of character. You're supposed to save your magic as an absolute last resort, and rely upon your meager weapon until such time as you absolutely need to use a spe...

Saturday, 11th July, 2015

  • 11:47 PM - Nebulous quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    Why can't WotC/D&D create a spellcaster, specifically a wizard, who never needs to resort to weapons like swords and bows? I played the basic rules boxed set in the 1980s when the Magic-User got one magic missile and then had to use a dagger for the rest of the adventure. I was recently excited to start playing again with my kids and 5e, which I like in general. However, even with cantrips (new to me) we still have a few spells and then pull out the ole dagger! Same is true for warlocks, sorcerers, etc. It is easy to play a Barbarian or Fighter with no spells and many types of creative combat maneuvers, why not all spells for the wizards? My friend, your argument doesn't even make sense within the rules established. Spellcasters can spam low level magic again and again instead of daggers.
  • 10:53 PM - aramis erak quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    Cantrips are fine for low levels, but some don't scale or don't keep up with the damage possible by other classes. every offensive cantrip I've seen scales with Character Level.
  • 07:17 PM - Nebulous quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    Why can't WotC/D&D create a spellcaster, specifically a wizard, who never needs to resort to weapons like swords and bows? I played the basic rules boxed set in the 1980s when the Magic-User got one magic missile and then had to use a dagger for the rest of the adventure. I was recently excited to start playing again with my kids and 5e, which I like in general. However, even with cantrips (new to me) we still have a few spells and then pull out the ole dagger! Same is true for warlocks, sorcerers, etc. It is easy to play a Barbarian or Fighter with no spells and many types of creative combat maneuvers, why not all spells for the wizards? I don't think these assumptions are true in 5e, and they even addressed this in 4e.
  • 01:01 PM - Staffan quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    However, even with cantrips (new to me) we still have a few spells and then pull out the ole dagger! It does sound like the OP misunderstood the wizard class table and thought the number of cantrips was the number per day rather than the number you know and can cast at will.
  • 06:37 AM - pukunui quoted fromthe1980s in post Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?
    Cantrips are fine for low levels, but some don't scale or don't keep up with the damage possible by other classes.Let's compare (PHB options only). Wizard 1 (Dex 14, Int 16; PB +2) Dagger: +4 to hit; 1 target; range 20'/60'; 4 (1d4 + 2) piercing dmg Acid Splash: +5 to hit; 1-2 targets; range 60'; 3 (1d6) acid dmg Chill Touch: +5 to hit; 1 target; range 120'; 4 (1d8) necrotic dmg + can't heal Fire Bolt: +5 to hit; 1 target; range 120'; 5 (1d10) fire dmg + sets things on fire Poison Spray: DC 13; 1 target; range 10'; 6 (1d12) poison dmg Ray of Frost: +5 to hit; 1 target; range 60'; 4 (1d8) cold dmg + slowing Shocking Grasp: +5 to hit; 1 target; touch; 4 (1d8) lightning dmg + no reaction Wizard 5 (Dex 14, Int 18; PB +3) Dagger: +5 to hit; 1 target; range 20'/60'; 4 (1d4 + 2) piercing dmg Acid Splash: +7 to hit; 1-2 targets; range 60'; 7 (2d6) acid dmg Chill Touch: +7 to hit; 1 target; range 120'; 9 (2d8) necrotic dmg + can't heal Fire Bolt: +7 to hit; 1 target; range 120'; 11 (2d10) f...

fromthe1980s's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites