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

Basic Information

About nexalis
Introduction:
When I am formulated, sprawling on a pin, when I am pinned and wriggling on the wall, then how should I begin to spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways? -T.S. Eliot
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
63
Posts Per Day
0.06
Last Post
Zeep's Ultimate Fighter/Wizard Wednesday, 20th February, 2019 06:23 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
1
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 23rd March, 2019 10:20 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 21st September, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Monday, 14th November, 2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 23rd February, 2019

  • 03:24 AM - Zeep quoted nexalis in post Zeep's Ultimate Fighter/Wizard
    Upon re-reading your post, I think we may both be saying the same thing(?) The Ruby and warcaster combination is needed to do this without Object interaction yes, I didn't mention this as every DM is different and I like to put as many variables away for this guide. Using the official ruleset of D&D for object interaction was the only way to do this within the rules of the PHB. I'm going to mention it here out of my guide, if you want to cast V, S and M spells with warcaster *or without for twohanded/other solutions. Go with Nexalis his idea of asking your DM for the Ruby of the Warmage some time in the Campaign, otherwise you still have the component pouch and the object interactions.

Monday, 18th February, 2019

  • 01:13 PM - Zeep quoted nexalis in post Zeep's Ultimate Fighter/Wizard
    A great solution for casting with a weapon in your hand is the Ruby of the War Mage from Volo's Guide. It's a common magic item which you can affix to your melee weapon, and which allow you to use the weapon as a spellcasting focus. Talk to your DM about performing a minor quest to procure one. Great solution if you have spells with S and M. Problem is that if you have sword and shield you still can't cast S spells that don't need material. So you need to get warcaster or use my method that is described in my guide to do that.

Friday, 22nd June, 2018

  • 06:23 AM - pukunui quoted nexalis in post Tomb of Annihilation recaps
    I've noticed that you're running a very deadly game, which seems appropriate to the theme.Interestingly enough, it didn't really get all that deadly until the group reached Omu. I find it fascinating that Elvraema and Carn have somehow managed to stay alive from the beginning of the campaignTechnically they have both cheated death twice. Elvraema technically died at the very start of the campaign. She was the first to descend into the ravine in The Sunless Citadel. I rolled Stealth for the giant rats on the landing and all of them beat her passive Perception, so they surprised her. I rolled two natural 20s and an 18. The damage was precisely enough to instakill her. Her player turned to me and said, with a shocked look on his face, "Now what?!" It was virtually the very first thing that had happened in the campaign! I ruled that she could remain alive, albeit unconscious. I think I had the player spend his Inspiration for it. We only had three players/PCs during that first session, s...
  • 03:48 AM - pukunui quoted nexalis in post Tomb of Annihilation recaps
    I have been reading through your recaps and thoroughly enjoying them. Thank you! Awesome! Thank you for letting me know! Sometimes they feel like a bit of a chore, but knowing that people are enjoying reading them makes it all worth it. In case you hadn’t noticed, we had a near TPK in Omu. We did a sort of reboot, jumping about a month forward in-game and skipping over level 8 so we could go straight into the tomb itself with the PCs at level 9. We are supposed to be playing again tonight but unfortunately it looks like I’d only have 2 out of 5 players, so we may have to postpone.

Sunday, 19th November, 2017

  • 10:21 PM - FrogReaver quoted nexalis in post [GUIDE] Into the Woods We Go: The Ranger Guide
    The biggest issue I have with Zephyr Strike is that it competes w/ Hunter's Mark for your Concentration. The degree of friendliness with Hunter's Mark is a strong factor in how I personally rate Ranger spells. As I think it was mellerod pointed out, there's now to ranger subclasses that don't need to rely on hunter's mark and it's concentration for damage. In fact Hunter's Mark get's pretty fiddly in conjunction with those subclasses. Zephyr Strike gives them an interesting combat option that doesn't really hurt their bonus action economy.

Wednesday, 10th May, 2017

  • 03:42 AM - Dannyalcatraz quoted nexalis in post So long and thanks for all the fish!
    "RPG forum debates are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so low." --Henry Kissinger "Holiday fifthmeal debates among Halfling clans are so vicious precisely because the steaks are so low." --Hoddy Rosytoe

Sunday, 4th December, 2016

  • 06:00 PM - FormerlyHemlock quoted nexalis in post Advantage vs Disadvantage : What's the Math?
    Nice! I've written similar programs myself. I notice yours is hosted on GitHub. Is the source code available in a public GitHub repo? Yep, it's at the usual relative URL for the github project: https://github.com/MaxWilson/RollWeb There's also an .exe there with slightly better capabilities, e.g. only the exe can parse "avg.(d20a+7)?15". I wrote those tools primarily as an exercise in packrat parsing (an easy way to parse recursive grammars). The transpilation to JavaScript (using WebSharper) ended up losing some capabilities, and I never hunted down the bug because I switched to using Fable instead of Websharper. -Max
  • 04:26 AM - FormerlyHemlock quoted nexalis in post Advantage vs Disadvantage : What's the Math?
    This is precisely the way to look at it. If you focus only on the difference as it applies to a single roll, a 0.25% chance of failure doesn't look much different from a 5% chance failure. If you focus on all of the rolls you will make for an entire year, however, it is the difference between failing once per week as opposed to failing once per year. The graph is deceptive in that it makes advantage/disadvantage appear inconsequential at the extremes of the DC, when this is not the case at all, as you rightly point out. The relative difference is just as important as the absolute difference when you have a reliable source of advantage. In other words, you are seeing the forest just fine! The relative difference is actually more important IMO than the absolute difference because in reality the number of rolls you make isn't static. You change your behavior based on risk assessment. If an orc will hit you 10% of the time, then you dare not fight 50 of them head-on in a fight to save the pri...
  • 04:16 AM - FormerlyHemlock quoted nexalis in post Advantage vs Disadvantage : What's the Math?
    Here is a mathematically precise and succinct way to compute your chance to hit with advantage and disadvantage. You can turn this into a set of simple functions in a programming language or Excel without the need to perform simulations or permutations of any sort. // First, compute the basic probability of a hit double probabilityOfHit = (21 + attackModifier - targetArmorClass) / 20; probabilityOfHit = Math.min(0.95, probabilityOfHit); // if you roll a 1, you always miss probabilityOfHit = Math.max(0.05 * (21 - criticalHitOn), probabilityOfHit); // if you equal or exceed your critical hit roll, you always hit // From the probability of a hit, derive the probability of a miss double probabilityOfMiss = 1 - probabilityOfHit; // Compute the probability of hit with advantage probabilityOfHit = probabilityOfHit + (probabilityOfMiss * probabilityOfHit); // Compute the probability of hit with disadvantage probabilityOfHit = 1 - (probabilityOfMiss + (probabilityOfHit * probabilityOfMiss); I've ...

Friday, 2nd December, 2016

  • 05:42 PM - TwoSix quoted nexalis in post Advantage vs Disadvantage : What's the Math?
    This is precisely the way to look at it. If you focus only on the difference as it applies to a single roll, a 0.25% chance of failure doesn't look much different from a 5% chance failure. If you focus on all of the rolls you will make for an entire year, however, it is the difference between failing once per week as opposed to failing once per year. The graph is deceptive in that it makes advantage/disadvantage appear inconsequential at the extremes of the DC, when this is not the case at all, as you rightly point out. The relative difference is just as important as the absolute difference when you have a reliable source of advantage. In other words, you are seeing the forest just fine! You're absolutely right. In a game with a 2-3 combats per session, rolling attacks normally will probably give you a 1 about once a session. Rolling attacks with advantage gives you a 1 about once a campaign.

Thursday, 1st December, 2016

  • 03:24 AM - Rhenny quoted nexalis in post Lenora's Journal for Our Phandelver Campaign Transition into Curse of Strahd
    I really enjoyed reading this, Rhenny! Thanks for sharing. My pleasure. Thanks for reading. I've been keeping journals for some of the campaigns I run and some of the ones I play in. I love to read them over to help me remember what's going on and we used them for our group to keep informed too, but I love when others read and comment on them. Cheers.

Wednesday, 30th November, 2016

  • 12:16 PM - Cap'n Kobold quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    "My character wouldn't do that" was a catchphrase much heard at my table for decades. It was often a game stopper for us, so I for one am glad to see it replaced in recent years with, "OK, so why would my character do that? ... I know! It's because of X, Y, and Z." Hmmm. I generally don't see that as always a problem. I've certainly said the same thing: "I'm not doing that" - while speaking as my character. It might close off some avenues, but unless the adventure is written that the only way to progress is a single, morally repugnant act, it shouldn't shut the game down.

Tuesday, 29th November, 2016

  • 11:11 PM - Tony Vargas quoted nexalis in post there aren't enough slow Dwarves with Axes!
    There aren't enough slow Dwarves with Axes.[/INDENT][/B] Inconceivable. Mike Mearls's extensive research at conventions (or at least the one anecdote he related to us) clearly showed that D&Ders want to hit orcs, with axes. The inability to do so necessitated the Essentials Slayer, and, when that didn't result in widespread enough hitting of orcs by axes, we got 5e. 5e is the hit the orc with my ax edition. It's its raisin debtor or whatever that French idiom is. ;P All over the world, millions, well tens of th- well, some players are gleefully hitting orcs with their fighters' axes, reveling in their freedom from the complexity-paralysis of choosing which of two 'stances' they're in while they do it. It's a heart-warming* thought. Were it not for the common mainstream misconception that a game of hitting orcs with axes is somehow inherently 'violent,' there'd be a Nobel Peace Prize in it for Mr Mearls. How can a party of characters that are focused purely on ranged com...
  • 10:23 PM - Bawylie quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    "My character wouldn't do that" was a catchphrase much heard at my table for decades. It was often a game stopper for us, so I for one am glad to see it replaced in recent years with "OK, so why would my character do that? ... I know! It's because of X, Y, and Z." Yeah! For a long time I was very tired of players talking themselves out of doing things. Got to the point where the action stopped. Just like you say - a game stopper. I've instituted a rule against "defective adventurers" that covers this stuff, but I rarely have to bring it up past session zero anymore. People want to engage with and play the game now. As opposed to turtling through a session in the hopes of XP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • 10:03 PM - Sacrosanct quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    Another great example. Thanks! Similar passages exist in both Moldvay's and Mentzer's basic books as well. Mentzer is way obvious and they have a whole page devoted to it on page 2. Moldvay says a couple times that you take the role of your PC to create the story, and in the example D&D session, it clearly has the role-playing aspect as important. So the bottom line is that the importance of role playing not only existed, but every major book, and many of the most popular supplements, highlighted the importance of it. Saying that role playing didn't exist until 2e is like saying saving throws didn't exist until 2e.
  • 09:27 PM - Sacrosanct quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    For an example from the core rulebooks, note that the original DMG had tables for NPC personality traits. I'm sure there are other examples from the original core books, but my memory is not what it used to be. The article mentioned by LowKey is a perfect piece of corroborating evidence. Role-playing was not only a thing, it was the thing that catapulted D&D to its position of prominence. Saelorn has me blocked, so he can't read my posts. But I'd certainly consider the Player's Handbook a core product. And as you can see from my post, it clearly states that role playing is a thing.
  • 09:08 PM - Sacrosanct quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    I don't agree with your premise that the books didn't encourage roleplaying prior to AD&D2E. Take a look at the player characters described in the back of the original Rogue's Gallery published back in 1980 (https://dnd.rem.uz/Advanced%20D%26D%20(unsorted)/AD%26D%20-%20The%20Rogues%20Gallery.pdf). You'll see that they all have quirks, personalities, and backstories suitable to a modern game with roleplaying as its emphasis. Character building and personality development were at the core of the game from its earliest days. Different groups chose to emphasize it to different degrees of course, but it was definitely there in all sorts of articles and supplements that were published back in the day. I definitely can't take credit for somehow figuring it out in a vacuum as you seem to imply. On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on character optimization is something that I would characterize as a relatively new phenomenon. Sure, people optimized their characters to varyi...
  • 09:01 PM - Saelorn quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    I don't agree with your premise that the books didn't encourage roleplaying prior to AD&D2E. Take a look at the player characters described in the back of the original Rogue's Gallery published back in 1980 (https://dnd.rem.uz/Advanced%20D%26D%20(unsorted)/AD%26D%20-%20The%20Rogues%20Gallery.pdf). You'll see that they all have quirks, personalities, and backstories suitable to a modern game with roleplaying as its emphasis. I certainly wouldn't call that a core product, and it doesn't exactly jive with what I get from reading the Basic rulebook, but point taken. On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on character optimization is something that I would characterize as a relatively new phenomenon. Sure, people optimized their characters to varying degrees in the early days, but there weren't any "optimization guides", or "DPR analysis", etc., in any type of published format as far as I am aware.This trend is much easier to understand. Prior to (roughly) Skills & Powers, there ...
  • 07:36 PM - Saelorn quoted nexalis in post Role playing and wargaming
    Why do people insist on generalizing about the past based on their own anecdotal experiences? Play styles differed back then just as much as they do now!Because this thread is explicitly asking for personal experiences on the topic. In my experience, role-playing wasn't a "thing" in D&D until 2E came out, based on my anecdotal evidence of how people describe playing each edition, and how the books are written. It's good that your experience is different. I'm glad to know that some people figured out the whole role-playing thing before the books started encouraging it. I wish more people with your perspective would post in this thread.

Sunday, 13th November, 2016

  • 03:07 AM - HermanTheWize quoted nexalis in post Help Coming up with first 8 levels of my Rogue/Ranger(revised)
    Personally, I think you should strive to get to Ranger 5 as quickly as possible. Since you are set on starting as a rogue, I'd recommend the following progression: 1. Rogue 1: Sneak Attack 1d6, Extra Skill, Expertise (Stealth, Perception) 2. Ranger 1: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer 3. Ranger 2: Archery Fighting Style, Hunter's Quarry 4. Ranger [Hunter] 3: Colossus Slayer 5. Ranger [Hunter] 4: Sharpshooter 6. Ranger [Hunter] 5: Extra Attack 7. Rogue 2: Cunning Action 8. Rogue [Assassin] 3: Assassinate 9. Rogue [Assassin] 4: Alert or +2 Dex (depends on how badly you want to trigger Assassinate; Natural Explorer already gives you advantage on init) What do you think of crossbow expert? Instead of Sharpshooter at level 5(Ranger level 4). Edit: And thanks for the input.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

nexalis's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites