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

Basic Information

About Kinematics
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
157
Posts Per Day
0.28
Last Post
How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game? Friday, 31st May, 2019 04:46 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
6
General Information
Last Activity
Tuesday, 25th June, 2019 03:10 AM
Join Date
Monday, 15th January, 2018
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Sunday, 19th May, 2019

  • 02:10 PM - Oofta mentioned Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    I agree with Kinematics, about the only difference I see is that there would be no "gold rush". If wizards have access to fabricate, they've probably had it for millennia unless magic is new in your campaign. Would the odd wizard here and there do it? Perhaps. But it wouldn't even have to be plate armor, it could be custom carriages for the well to do. But a smart wizard wouldn't flood the market, they'd make enough that their brand was exclusive and maintain their profit margin. So I'd say it would be similar to plant growth which is the equivalent of adding good fertilizer to your world. Assuming that the wizard spent the years it takes to become a master craftsman with the skill to build the item by hand which is the prerequisite of course.

Wednesday, 14th March, 2018


Tuesday, 27th February, 2018


Friday, 23rd February, 2018

  • 01:58 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Kinematics in post [+] Design & Development: Wealth Curves
    And finally, the big boys, where level 20 characters end up with a lot of gold. Do note that this has been what every edition of D&D has resulted in, regardless of whether there's been anything to spend it on or not. The green 3rd ed curve is the much-discussed "Expected Wealth per Level", included mainly for comparison purposes. Since Sane Magic Prices seems to reuse much of the d20 framework I'm assuming this curve is great for any campaign including magic shoppes with Sane prices. Pathfinder is similar, for that game, and yellow. Presumably the differences are mostly because Paizo couldn't very well keep using the existing d20 curve, so they made their own. The most interesting of the three is the blue "typical" curve. Thanks to the efforts of tankschmidt and Kinematics we now have a curve of what the DMG treasure guidelines actually result in when used. Not always, of course - the curve is named "typical" because it's an average. You could call this the "default" curve in 5th edition. And that would be fine, as long as you remain aware you need no gold in this edition for the game to work. And indeed, even official adventure campaigns sometimes do not bother sticking to this line. (Actually I would be interested in wealth curves for each of the major hardbacks. For instance, my feeling is that Storm King's Thunder comes closest to Typical wealth since it mostly off-loads treasure awards to the DMG tables. While my experience with Out of the Abyss tells me it hands out very low wealth.) Here they are, first for low levels... 94544 ...then for all levels: 94545 I'd say they are remarkably similar on the whole. If you wonder why the blue curve looks a bit wonky, please head over to http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?402507-...
  • 01:04 PM - Matrix Sorcica mentioned Kinematics in post [+] Design & Development: Magic Item Pricing
    (I've been encouraged to post about this in another thread than the "determining wealth" thread, to not dilute the focus of that thread, so here it is) So, over in this thread, Kinematics finds out that 5E's wealth curve is actually pretty close to Pathfinder's wealth per level. This of course led to the question of whether you just couldn't use the Pathfinder magic item prices without too much trouble? In that thread, I suggested that to do that, you would have to make certain adjustments to how PF "plus" items are priced, besides what have alreday been disussed here regarding scrolls, wands, potions etc. My suggestion was one should halve the bonus of all PF items, double the plusses cost for "virtual plusses" (flaming, holy, fortification, etc.) disallow stacking (except ring of pro. perhaps), disallow +shields, double cost of armor, and you get within the +3's of 5E rather than the +5 of PF. So a +4 holy flaming longsword is equivalent to a +7 weapon in PF and cost 98,000 gp. In 5E it will be a +2 holy flaming longsword, be equivalent to a +10 weapon and cost 200,000 gp. Consider replacing the bonded accuracy breaking Giant Belts from 5E with "half-plus" ...
  • 12:07 AM - tankschmidt mentioned Kinematics in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    ...fication is triggered by the large jump at each tier. This tells me tankschmidt has used the average level of the party to calculate which tier of hoards to use, not the challenge rating of the monster said party just defeated. This is incorrect. I also wanted to confirm that CapnZapp is correct about my unclear assumptions in writing the original post -- that the party would only obtain hoards from monsters at their level. In my experience, this assumption works pretty well in a megadungeon campaign. While the party is likely to encounter and defeat wandering monsters with CRs higher than their average character level, wandering monsters tend to leave their hoards at home. Moreover, our groups have always been timid about venturing to levels deeper than they can handle. Within this construction, if a level four party is too scared to adventure on the fifth level of the dungeon, they will likely miss out on the level 5 hoards altogether. I love the new model suggested by Kinematics.

Thursday, 22nd February, 2018

  • 03:06 PM - CapnZapp mentioned Kinematics in post [+] Design & Development: Magic Item Pricing
    Sorry Kinematics but I don't fully grasp your argument that prices should correspond to "fraction of time" spent on a tier. If it is at all relevant, I can say that my point with handing out wealth to a character is strictly gameplay related. The goal is still getting the character kitted out with cool items, only with the express purpose of having items of her own choosing. This means I'm not concerned with alternative uses for that gold, such as "since that sword only represents a 20% damage increase, I can just as well donate the money to charity". I mean, sure go ahead, the game won't break even if you throw all your gold away. But I'm not gonna worry that prices aren't competitive with other things you can do with your gold. I'm simply assuming that at the end of the day you go down dungeons in order to loot gold, which you then have fun spending on bigger swords so you can go down deeper dungeons. Even if your campaign is more complex and intricate than this phrasing might suggest. P...
  • 08:40 AM - CapnZapp mentioned Kinematics in post Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level
    I love you right now, Kinematics

Sunday, 11th February, 2018

  • 05:46 PM - Blue mentioned Kinematics in post Sorcerer spell chains
    In discussions about the Sorcerer and spells known, I've before said that I wish they knew less but could do more with what they had - that they had their talents and could twist those in ways that others couldn't but wouldn't have the breadth of different types of magic. In a recent thread, Kinematics had an idea about upcasting that I ran with in a way that would require the least changes to the system but hit my goals. I'd love to get your help in putting it together. His idea was allowing upcasting to increase the scope of the spell instead of just some factor. For example Disguise Self doesn't take concentration, and Alter Self can do the same things plus more, but requires concentration. So there's use cases for both. This made me think - what happens if you could get both? There's a lot of overlap, so it's not worth two of your spells know, but it's in-line with Sorcerer's ability to manipulate magic if you think about it as one effect that they can realize different ways. The basic idea is that sorcerers get less spells known, but can pick chains of spells as a single (?) pick. For example, a chain of spells may be "Disguise Self, Alter Self, Polymorph, True Polymorph". (Though I think the highest level spells might not be in chains.) Off the top of my head, I was t...

Friday, 19th January, 2018

  • 06:14 PM - Nevvur mentioned Kinematics in post Spell Creation System
    @Kinematics Versatility is the overpowered goodie, and that's baked into your entire system. edit: I can't really say whether it's overpowered, to be honest. But even if it's just a bit more power, I'd like to see non-magic users get something nice before magic users even get a scrap

No results to display...
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Friday, 31st May, 2019

  • 04:20 PM - WaterRabbit quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    Never try to compare value to the commodity price of raw gold/silver/copper. It's largely meaningless. If you want to compare monetary values, generally stick to basic goods like flour, salt, bread, etc. I usually settle on about $50 per GP, $5 per SP, and $0.50 per CP. I understand your approach and it is logical. However, if you tell your players $1 = 1 GP that immediately have a better grasp on how money works in the game. They aren't spelled out in the rules, but the rules for creating spells and magic items ARE in the rules. It's inconceivable that anything the players can think of hasn't been tried hundreds, if not thousands of times in the thousands of years that magic and castles have been around. Countermeasures would have been created and be in widespread use by places as rich as cities and the nobility/royalty. It's definitely much harder if you limit the players/NPCs to what spells and items are listed, though. While I agree, limiting to what is published remov...
  • 08:12 AM - Stalker0 quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    Basically, if you can describe what you're doing as "reshaping" (ie: trees to wooden bridge), it would work, but if it's "processing" (ie: ore to metal), it wouldn't. You need wool for clothing, for example, not a sheep. Definitely agree here, especially since there is no true notion of “chemistry” in dnd. There’s nothing that says that diamonds in dnd are “pressurized carbon”

Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019

  • 02:08 PM - Maxperson quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    That depends on whether the druids are rigid in their beliefs, and refuse to use their powers for any other purpose than what directly supports nature (though that's already invalidated by the mere fact of having druids as adventurers), or they recognize that increasing crop yields by 20% means saving 10,000 square miles of nature from being turned into farmland. That seems like an extremely efficient way of preserving nature and keeping it in balance. Each druid effectively keeps 500 square miles of nature safe by using one spell per day. Druids are automatically rigid in their beliefs, like clerics, or they would not be druids. They'd be nature lover, tree huggers, hippies, or whatever else you want to call them. Also, the existence of adventurers does not invalidate what I said, as I said the following, ". You might get an individual here or there that aids a single farmer with a single cast of the spell as thanks for some sort of aid or out of friendship, but druids aren't going to di...

Tuesday, 21st May, 2019

  • 09:31 PM - MechaTarrasque quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    That depends on whether the druids are rigid in their beliefs, and refuse to use their powers for any other purpose than what directly supports nature (though that's already invalidated by the mere fact of having druids as adventurers), or they recognize that increasing crop yields by 20% means saving 10,000 square miles of nature from being turned into farmland. That seems like an extremely efficient way of preserving nature and keeping it in balance. Each druid effectively keeps 500 square miles of nature safe by using one spell per day. Put another way, I don't believe druids are evil cultists who are completely immune to reasonable compromises. That would be a significant shift in the magic cosmology of the world. Perfectly valid, but it wouldn't be the standard expected world of D&D. It also somewhat conflicts with spells like Temple of the Gods, where casting the same spell on the same spot every day for a year makes the effect permanent. If repeated casting of higher leve...
  • 01:31 PM - Maxperson quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    Most likely the kingdom would employ 10–20 or so druids, with a large portion of the additional production going to granaries and food stores, and probably an agreement to limit cultivation expansion from areas that the druids want to preserve. In a world of magic and monsters, you have to deal with a lot more than just random weather drought, and having ready food supplies would go a long way towards keeping a kingdom stable. At the same time, the improved production will likely lead to a fairly large urbanization shift, probably on the order of a hundred thousand people. (Which would likely get you a few dozen more level 5 druids, so a net positive for druid culture.) This will in turn lead to a lot more of the urban benefits that most adventurers take for granted — plus a large pool of adventurers in general. In a world with many monstrous threats, more adventurers is a good thing. While some have pointed out a power monopoly of the druids, I don't think it will scale to 100% use of PG...
  • 06:02 AM - Stalker0 quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    Thus, 1250 GP income per year from normal crafting. Fabricate bypasses that, but would likely be commercially limited to about 10x to 20x that amount. So what do you think would be the commercial limitation? As we established it looks like the market can absorb a few wizards with fabricate, as its still a very small increase in the supply of crafted goods. So to my mind either there is enough market for the wizard to sells all the goods he makes, or a few regular crafters go out of business and the wizard takes over (due to speed and consistency of product, and could probably undercut the regular craftsman, after all they are making enough to afford it). Again, not enough to ruin the economy as you have well established, but probably enough to ensure the wizard could make more money than even seasoned adventurers make.

Saturday, 18th May, 2019

  • 11:17 PM - Stalker0 quoted Kinematics in post How do you handle the "economy killing spells" in your game?
    How many of job X make it to level N? This was a wonderfully rationalized post, I greatly appreciate the effort. It also helps solve some of the cleric questions such as: If 5th level clerics can cast Create Food and Water...do you even need farming? (the answer based on your numbers: you could feed 3,000 people or so if every 5th level cleric did the job...a nice boost, but certainty not supporting a 5 million person kingdom). If we continued with your model and assumed numbers, for this 5 million person kingdom, how many specialized crafters would you predict exist? In my OP I assumed that even a small number of crafting wizards would dominate certain crafting markets...aka replace a large number of crafters. But the key check in that statement is...how many crafters does the market have? If wizard replace 600 out of 1000 crafters, thats a huge deal. If its 600 out of 6000, its a factor but doesn't completely change the market, etc.

Monday, 9th July, 2018

  • 08:16 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Kinematics in post Tactical zone.....not sure if I like or not?
    Can someone describe this feature or reference the video where MM discusses this? For those of you who do not know: Mike Mearls hosts a stream where he designs subclasses, this week he took a stab at the highly demanded (Fighter)Warlord. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/235935943 2nd part. 3rd part: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621 And, in summary: Transcribed his first draft results, which you can see here. . Discussions: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?622602-Mike-Mearls-Happy-Fun-Hour-The-Warlord http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?629831-quot-Warlord-quot-Fighter-sub-class-from-MMHFT-podcast-Further-duscussion

Sunday, 8th April, 2018

  • 04:54 PM - Garthanos quoted Kinematics in post Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"
    I can see activating Rage to be similar to opening a door, or pulling out your sword. It's sort of a Bonus Action, but not quite, as we want to eliminate some of the other interactions with the Bonus Action framework. I can see raging as a reaction too... ie IRL it generally is ;)

Thursday, 5th April, 2018

  • 04:18 AM - FrogReaver quoted Kinematics in post Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"
    Given some of the responses here, I think it's important to note that Mike was speaking in terms of design, not play. Players will often need to think of things in terms of action economy (though the less you need to think in that way, the better). However the designers should not fall into the trap of building the action economy. (Those who are in charge of balancing the game, like Jeremy Crawford, are likely to put more emphasis on that, but their job isn't the same as design.) The designer should be focusing more on what the class/subclass/monster/whatever can do, not the action economy details of how it fits in with everything else. You can't always get away from it (eg: all the bonus action limitations on expanding Rogue), but it shouldn't be the focus of the design, because that leads to designing a bunch of mechanics rather than a class, where the most important point is making something that lets a player feel like they're their character. So from the designer's perspective, yes, he...

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 08:46 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Kinematics in post Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour: Barbarian Marauder
    In the case of the Barbarian, it had to do with why Dex builds are so difficult, which is because of the multiclassing problems of Rage + Sneak Attack. You already can't cast spells whilst raging. The could just extend that to "can't cast spells or use special class abilities like sneak attack". Problem solved.

Sunday, 1st April, 2018

  • 01:55 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Kinematics in post "Warlord" Fighter sub-class from MMHFT podcast. Further duscussion.
    It may be nice to get a new Mearls Warlord thread with his final design so we can all talk about that and we won't have to dig through 900 posts to find the details about his design? Any volunteers to create it? Hunted up the most relevant links from the original thread: Links to the podcasts: For those of you who do not know: Mike Mearls hosts a stream where he designs subclasses, this week he took a stab at the highly demanded (Fighter)Warlord. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/235935943 . 2nd part: YouTube link is here. 3rd part: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621 And, in summary: (also attached, below) Transcribed his first draft results, which you can see here. . I'm going wiki with this one, so feel free to add other relevant links!

Saturday, 31st March, 2018


Thursday, 29th March, 2018

  • 03:45 AM - FrogReaver quoted Kinematics in post If a Warlord class existed, what two saves would you give it, and why?
    Intelligence, Constitution. This is about saves, not talent. Even if there are charismatic warlords, I don't expect them to have high saves against charisma effects. I do expect a warlord to see through illusions and other mental (magical and mundane) tricks. I might swap Constitution ⇒ Wisdom, on that basis. Yeah, it would be counter to Charm Person and Suggestion and similar things. Constitution saves have some things it works for that mesh with the class, but isn't quite as solid a "must have" save. OK, Intelligence, Wisdom. I voted for str wis. I would be willing to change str out for int. I feel the warlord is generally more-strong willed than anything and wisdom in the saving through regard emulates that even better than charisma.

Wednesday, 28th March, 2018

  • 01:56 PM - Yaarel quoted Kinematics in post Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
    The Tactical Focus got blobbed into a 10'x10' square, which Mike seemed to think was OK when he first wrote it up, but when thinking about it during the stream, he realized that that only works in tiny little dungeon areas, and not out in the field, or in a forest, etc. Pretty sure it will have growth capability, but it may have issues with making something that isn't too weak for the outdoors while not being too strong for indoors. If I remember correctly, the Tactical Focus is a 10-foot square on each side of a targeted creature. Thus it is 10-foot by 20-foot rectangle (or a 10-foot by 25-foot rectangle depending on the size of the creature?). Mearls mentioned the size of the Focus might be too small, and it is still in flux. I suspect he wants a focus definition that is both easy to visualize for mind-style, and also easy to convert into squares for grid-style. 10 feet on opposite sides of a creature, does this. Mearls also mentions being torn between defining the Focus acco...

Sunday, 25th March, 2018

  • 01:01 AM - FrogReaver quoted Kinematics in post Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
    I'm inclined to think, based on considering the various evolution paths (assuming an evolution subclass mechanism), that a base class option similar to Lay On Hands or Second Wind is fine, but that significant (inspirational) healing should be locked to a subclass. For my four subclasses, only the Icon fits the concept of allowing inspirational healing. The Commander, Strategist, and Defender all strike me as very non-healer types, aside from possibly a Second Wind analog. Adding healing to them can be done in lots of ways, such as the Healer feat, or a multitude of multiclassing options, but is not something intrinsic to the subclass. Of course, that also matches with the evolution approach on subclassing. The Warlord may be a support class, but the subclass defines how you go about providing that support. Maybe that's healing (inspiring/leading), or maybe it's giving you escape routes while trapping the enemy, or maybe it's by demoralizing the enemy such they can't fight you effectively...
  • 12:46 AM - FrogReaver quoted Kinematics in post Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
    The only actual design point that's really been close to settled is that of subclass level divergence. Tony Vargas has been asserting 1st level, while I asserted 3rd level. The 1st vs 3rd choice influences the nature of the class vs subclass relationship, in terms of power derived from each aspect, the sorts of abilities that are presented and available, and the approach to the conceptual design of the character. I've been doing a lot of thinking about the implications of the types of splits, both thematically and functionally, as well as reviewing whether I was even describing things properly. I've looked at how the design would play out in each version, trying to see which one would let things work more smoothly in those defining aspects where it matters (since there are a lot of aspects that don't really change with the choice), and I find that I didn't really set things out properly for the decision that I made. First, I feel I used inappropriate terms for describing the types when I las...

Saturday, 24th March, 2018

  • 10:54 PM - mellored quoted Kinematics in post Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
    The only actual design point that's really been close to settled is that of subclass level divergence. Tony Vargas has been asserting 1st level, while I asserted 3rd level.If you get a "invocation" choice at level 1, then you can still pick your idenity of tactical +Int to damage, inspiring +Cha to THP, or whatever else right off the bat. Then you can evolve and expand later.

Thursday, 22nd March, 2018

  • 11:42 PM - mellored quoted Kinematics in post Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
    Warlord is a horrible name, anyway. Let him make the Fighter subclass the Warlord (because being all fighter-y fits the name), and come up with a different name for the tactician class.I don't think anyone would be upset if it was renamed, and there's probably been at least 10 other good names that have been suggested. And probably another 10 more that where useable. But until there's something offical to replace it, it's going to be stuck at the last offical name D&D called it, which is "warlord".
  • 10:52 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Kinematics in post Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
    Warlord is a horrible name, anyway. It's good enough for John Carter... ...OK, Marvel fans, and Travis Morgan. Let him make the Fighter subclass the Warlord (because being all fighter-y fits the name), and come up with a different name for the tactician class.Even with as few as you're trying to keep your hypothetical sub-class list too, Tactician is only one of them. We've had brainstorming sessions and polls, here, about alternatives to the name. It's one of those cases of "worst possible option, except for all the others." FREX: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471694-Warlord-Name-Poll Besides, the only options with any sense of continuity at all are Warlord (which is, at least, somewhat fantasy-sounding), and Marshal (which is an American law-enforcement officer - maybe it sounds better to European ears, but to me, it just evokes westerns). Might be a bit difficult to make a Warlord class if you already use the Warlord name in a fighter subclass... Meh, Mike has ...


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Kinematics's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites