View Profile: SkidAce - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No More Results
About SkidAce

Basic Information

Age
55
About SkidAce
Introduction:
Played all versions of DnD since 1981. Mostly DM. Travel a lot due to military, so not as active
Location:
Hampton, VA
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Yes
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Twitter:
Chris_Skid

Signature




"My favorite part of DMing is making whatever interests the characters important. Or at least seem important." - James Wyatt

Unconquered Kingdoms, Obsidian Portal July 2016 Campaign of the Month

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,519
Posts Per Day
0.57
Last Post
Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented Saturday, 22nd June, 2019 10:57 PM
Albums
Total Albums
1
Total Photos
3

Currency

Gold Pieces
7
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:38 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 19th September, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019


Monday, 24th June, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Saturday, 22nd June, 2019


Friday, 21st June, 2019


Thursday, 20th June, 2019



Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thursday, 2nd May, 2019

  • 08:47 PM - Satyrn mentioned SkidAce in post I have an issue with swarms
    Well there already is a swarm trait (which is why I came up with the "overwhelming" trait - though that's not been super popular). I like the idea of that, but the swarm of bats is described as "Medium" which doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. It should be large and then a bunched up party could be really harried :) There's nothing stopping you from making the swarm bigger. But I'd think it's easier to just use multiple Medium swarms. Think of it as a tool for building whatever size you want - and as multiple Medium swarms, SkidAce's suggestion is effectively implemented. Look at it as a tool not the final product.

Friday, 19th April, 2019


Saturday, 13th April, 2019

  • 10:32 PM - CleverNickName mentioned SkidAce in post Critical Role Kickstarter Predition Game: Guess the Funding Outcome (GTFO)
    I think I´m winning right now, do I? I need to enjoy my victory time while it lastsYep, I had updated the first page to reflect your lead. Looks like things have slowed down quite a bit, and nearly every projection online is now saying that SkidAce will be the winner of my silly little contest. But Critters are crazy, there's no telling what this last week will be like...

Monday, 8th April, 2019

  • 03:33 AM - Blue mentioned SkidAce in post How do YOU handle a Fastball Special, and other team manuevers?
    This particular situation came up in another thread and my answer was simple: If one character is helping throw another, use the higher STR for a jump check and apply advantage. This is the equivalent of one character using the help action (or whatever it's called out of combat) and one person jumping. The advantage is using the better STR either way. EDIT: SkidAce pointed out that advantage doesn't help distance, just clearing obstacles and the like. I plead brain holdover from an earlier edition. Okay, my solution only partially works.

Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019

  • 05:14 PM - CleverNickName mentioned SkidAce in post Critical Role Kickstarter Predition Game: Guess the Funding Outcome (GTFO)
    Lidgar took the lead last night, but I don't think he can hold on to it for much longer; it looks like mortwatcher will overtake him on Thursday. Kickstarter pledges have slowed down dramatically in recent weeks, falling from about $100K/day to around $55K/day. But don't be worried. Even at that "slow" rate, they will reach their final stretch goal in another 6 days. (I know that $55K/day feels small compared to the craziness of a few weeks ago, but that is still a huge amount for any Kickstarter project.) My spreadsheet predicts a final result of $9,715,346, and that PabloM will win by a very narrow margin. But my spreadsheet doesn't account for a last-week crush, and my gut tells me the final amount will be closer to what SkidAce predicted. (And Kicktraq thinks Yardiff will win.) Only time will tell!

Tuesday, 5th March, 2019

  • 11:43 PM - CleverNickName mentioned SkidAce in post Critical Role Kickstarter Predition Game: Guess the Funding Outcome (GTFO)
    ... gyor: $30,000,000 Hussar: $25,000,000 aco175: $23,500,000 CubicsRube: $21,000,000 CleverNickName: $20,612,408.57 ---------Highest-Funded Kickstarter in History (Pebble Time smartwatch) $20,338,986----------- Parmandr: $20,000,000 EnochSeven: $16,213,102 TallIan: $15,876,374 MNblockhead: $15,555,555 77IM: $14,980,000.00 jgsugden: $14,520,000 OB1: $14,000,042 The Big BZ: $14,000,000 dregntael: $13,935,109 chrisrtld: $13,635,019 pogre: $13,500,000 Aebir-Toril: $13,224,376.89 Satyrn: $13,000,000 Yardiff: $12,456,145 -----------Highest-Funded Game Project on Kickstarter (Kingdom Death: Monster 1.5) $12,393,139-------- Radaceus: $12,345,678.91 FarBeyondC: $12,345,678.90 Morrus: $12,000,000 Mistwell: $11,800,000 Mort: $11,620,000 Zardnaar: $11,354,883 <--- The Winner! Sadras: $11,120,000 SkidAce: $11,000,000 Tazawa: $10,700,000 togashi_joe: $10,250,000 DM Dave1: $10,101,010 MichaelSomething: $10,000,000 Lazybones: $9,750,000 PabloM: $9,500,000 akr71: $9,250,000 rczarnec: $9,250,000 Azzy: $9,000,000 Henry: $8,900,000 mortwatcher: $8,666,000 Lidgar: $8,423,976.73 vincegetorix: $8,360,000 SmokeyCriminal: $8,008,135 AriochQ: $7,777,777 robus: $7,750,000 MarkB: $7,500,000 phantomK9: $6,969,696 TarionzCousin: $6,160,000 ClaytonCross: $6,000,000 ---------Highest-Funded Film Project on Kickstarter (MST3K Kickstarter) $5,764,229----------- MaximusArael020: $5,685,000 Prakriti: $1

Thursday, 28th February, 2019

  • 02:57 PM - lowkey13 mentioned SkidAce in post Do you want Greyhawk updated to 5e?
    Quickleaf Mort SkidAce My apologies! This hasn't happened to me before (um .... that never sounds right). As y'all know, I can't alter the settings after the poll has been posted. :( ( Umbran is it possible for you to make it public? ) Here are the results so far: Yes! Greyhawk should be updated to the current edition. 105 57.69% No! That sounds like a terrible idea. 44 24.18% I refuse to answer polls that value my opinion. 9 4.95% Other (will explain the comments why I can't answer yes or no to a yes or no question) 24 13.19% I will update the first page post in a few days with the results.

Tuesday, 19th February, 2019

  • 04:17 PM - Istbor mentioned SkidAce in post cthulhu mythos 5e
    Are you referring to the 5e one that was recently kickstarted? I have designs on the content of that book especially if SkidAce has such a high opinion on it.
  • 01:57 AM - dave2008 mentioned SkidAce in post cthulhu mythos 5e
    @SkidAce pretty much nailed it. I really like how the book addressed the elder gods.

Thursday, 18th October, 2018

  • 11:54 AM - akr71 mentioned SkidAce in post Barkskin *Might* Be the Worst Spell Description I've Ever Read
    Maybe. Here's what you do: Figure out what your AC would be sans barkskin. Is it less than 16? Then it is now 16. Is it now 17 or higher? Then it is now 17 or higher. For instance, if you are wearing chain mail and equip a shield, it is now 18. I guess I can understand the confusion vis-a-vis the fiction, but I don't share it. I think it's simple, concisely worded, and intuitive. No matter what, the process is the same: check your AC without it, and if it's less than 16, it's 16 instead. I said I would argue that point, I didn't say I would win the argument. :lol: However, as a DM, I would allow it for the reasons SkidAce outlined below: I agree its simple. And understandable to a degree. But it makes no sense. I have barkskin on and no shield. AC 16. My buddy has barkskin and a shield. AC 16. No difference when anyone is trying to hit either of us.....although one of us has more protection. Every single other example when I pick up a shield I get more protection. Is the barkskin less "barky" when I pick up the shield? I know that it is a narrative concern, but it bothers me.

Thursday, 11th October, 2018

  • 09:07 AM - Lanefan mentioned SkidAce in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    ...I call this 'internal consistency'. I guess what I prefer is, insofar as it's possible, for the game mechanics to align with the fiction and not rub against them. To some degree this can't actually happen because it's hard to know how spell slots and hit points actually work. Nonetheless I prefer things to "feel" right... Same here. ...and for some reason, the rest mechanics feel awkward and wrong. I don't think they work that well, either. I dislike attunement and concentration for the same reasons, not because the ideas are inherently bad but because they are just implemented in such an arbitrary fashion. (No I didn't like 1E's race and class limits, either.) Agreed re 5e rest mechanics. Agreed to a point re attunement, as one can easily come up with an in-fiction rationale for it. Ditto concentration - it makes sense in a few instances but 5e went overboard with it as a balancing mechanic. As for 1e: I don't mind some races flat-out not being able to be some classes ( SkidAce mentions Dwarven wizards as an excellent example, with which I fully agree) but I feel that if you can be a class at all there should be no arbitrary racial limits on how far you can advance. Stat-based limits, sure - you have to be smart enough to advance to this level of wizard, or wise enough to be allowed into the innermost mysteries of your temple, or nimble enough to master the most demanding aspects of thievery - and note this in a small way builds in racial limits as some races simply can't achieve high scores in some stats. Lan-"half the characters in my game right now are probably at or beyond their RAW level limits by race - hasn't hurt the game any"-efan

Thursday, 23rd August, 2018

  • 01:29 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned SkidAce in post Line of Sight and Ethereal Plane
    ...at least by my reading, and the resulting difference doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure that this is the same thing, though. We're clearly differing on the method, not the results. What if the receiver is turned off? Would you then say line of sight is blocked because no signal is being received? To me, that is analogous to closing one's eyes. This is kinda like what I think is wrong with line of sight in general. What do you mean by 'receiver'? I understand what I mean, of course, but receiver is a collective noun meaning many part. The actual emitter/receiver is the antenna, and you don't power those off. The part you're talking about is more analogous to the brain - the part that identifies and decodes the received signal. Which opens the question of 'if you're brain-dead, can you see?' Not really relevant to the discussion, I'd say. I'll agree to disagree with you on this. Nod, and a good gaming to you, sir, as well! My reading isn't unique. SkidAce appears to agree with me when he says, 'I believe "line of sight" is a measurement type thing. You can use your vision to determine if anything is blocking the line between A and B. 'But closing your eyes just means that you put the ruler away. Person at A can still see you and shoot you with, say an arrow.' His statement doesn't address line of sight as belonging to one observer or another. Line of sight is a quality that exists (or doesn't) between two locations. Opening your eyes and looking along the line allows you to make use of the line of sight, but it doesn't create it.[/QUOTE]

Wednesday, 22nd August, 2018

  • 10:44 PM - Hriston mentioned SkidAce in post Line of Sight and Ethereal Plane
    ...if you cannot see it, you have no line of sight. Again, if sight is blocked, there's no line of sight. I know rl references are mostly useless, but I actually work professionally with line of sight, and it doesn't matter what blocks it, if you can't draw an unblocked line from a receiver to the source, you don't have line of sight. There's nothing special about eyelids that exclude them from the line between your eyes and what you're looking at. What if the receiver is turned off? Would you then say line of sight is blocked because no signal is being received? To me, that is analogous to closing one's eyes. Respectfully, there is no difference at all. If I cannot see it, I have no line of sight. This is obvious. I'll agree to disagree with you on this. Are aesthetic arguements that turn on specificly unique readings to achieve no gain actually aesthetic? Rhetorical answer: I don't think so, they're more persnickety than aesthetic. My reading isn't unique. SkidAce appears to agree with me when he says, 'I believe "line of sight" is a measurement type thing. You can use your vision to determine if anything is blocking the line between A and B. 'But closing your eyes just means that you put the ruler away. Person at A can still see you and shoot you with, say an arrow.' His statement doesn't address line of sight as belonging to one observer or another. Line of sight is a quality that exists (or doesn't) between two locations. Opening your eyes and looking along the line allows you to make use of the line of sight, but it doesn't create it.

Tuesday, 21st August, 2018

  • 04:57 AM - iserith mentioned SkidAce in post Missing Rules
    ... at the 1896 Olympics was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either. Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty. My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does. What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and @robus and I think @SkidAce, @5ekyu and @Reynard, on the one hand, and you and @Charlaquin on the other. I still think this comes down to approach. There are two goals here, you might say: Jumping Normally and Jumping An Unusually Long Distance. You can certainly achieve the second goal, in some circumstances, given a viable approach. This might mean interacting with the terrain in some fashion that is unusual, getting the assistance of an ally, or using a resource that reasonably helps. The resolution of that outcome may or may not involve a Strength (Athletics) check. What is a viable approach requires context and, even if we're all looking at the same context, we may rule differently as to its viability. Some might say it works, others that it doesn't - no roll. Some might say it's uncertain and call for a check. Among those latter folk, the DCs may vary. Do I think a character can jump an unusually long distance? Yes. The rules say it's possible. What matters is the approach they offer to achieve that goa...
  • 04:30 AM - pemerton mentioned SkidAce in post Missing Rules
    ...t the 1896 Olympics was over 22 feet, I don't think that the outcome of an attempt by a muscled and athletically trained human in the D&D world to jump an 18' chasm is certain failure. Obviously, given the rule on p 64 and assuming less than 18 STR, it is not certainly successful either. Hence it would be determined by a STR (Athletics) check made against an appropriate difficulty. My reason for spelling this out is simply to demonstrate the point that what is at issue in this thread, at least as far as the current discussion is concerned, is not the proper way to adjudicate 5e, nor the closely related issue of whose job it is to call for checks, nor the issue of whether or not "I clear the chasm by jumping over it" states an approach to the goal of getting across the chasm - it manifestly does. What is at issue is what the rule on p 64 makes certain and leaves uncertain. On this issue of jumping the chasm, that's the sole point of difference between me and robus and I think SkidAce, 5ekyu and Reynard, on the one hand, and you and Charlaquin on the other.

Thursday, 10th May, 2018


Thursday, 3rd May, 2018

  • 06:17 PM - LordEntrails mentioned SkidAce in post "Stream of Many Eyes" -- WotC To Announce New Storyline In June
    I've seen them, but they where too dull for me to do more than skim read. The usual dungeon-ecology stuff: Group of monsters A is at war with group of monsters B, who are being manipulated by group of monsters D (for Drow). I gotta agree with SkidAce here, seems to me you never gave UM much of a chance. I will say since I've read all of it in every edition at least once, there is a lot there. Sure, some things were simply done. But I attribute that more to the restrictions of the format and what was state-of-the-art (normal) at the time. The previous UM products lay out potential, they give an imaginative DM the start of something impressive. Sure, many people saw it as a kick-in-the-door dungeon, but that, imo, is only because at the time that was all we knew (thanks to B1) and so that's how we ran it. Also, a book is a horrible format for a dynamic environment or adventure of the scale of UM. Princes of the Apocalypse, Red Hand of Doom, etc, they all suffer from trying to lay out a dynamic environment in a linear format. UM is no different. Give me any adventure that has a 1000+ locations that doesn't suffer from the same problems?

Monday, 30th April, 2018

  • 07:52 PM - Blue mentioned SkidAce in post Thoughts on wands being overpowered in 5E
    ...t's not changing the action economy. Another wizard wouldn't be taking up your actions. So let's tone done the hyperbole and look at what's really happening. First, "adding in a fireball" is only half the equation. There's an opportunity cost of performing some other action. At the least, the action is of no cost - a cantrip. At the other end, the action is one with a cost but would be more effective - such as an upcast fireball that will end the combat sooner. Second, if you used 7 charges, you might have just destroyed the item. Likely you'll leave at least 1 charge. It regained d6+1 charges per day. Please note that Identifying a Magic Item (DMG pg 136) does not tell you the number of charges - that requires the Identify spell. So once you've brought it down to 1, without using Identify, you can only count on using it twice a day to avoid a chance to burn it out. Even with using Identify you can only use it average 4.5 times per day after the first, not 7. EDIT: Thanks SkidAce for pointing out that there are additional rules for attunement under "Activating an Item" that does allow one to know how many charges it has and are regained. I was only looking udner the Attunement section and various Wands. Third, you're not just comparing against other rare items, you're comparing against other rare items that require attunement. Like +2 to all spell attack rolls. According to the DMG, these wands could start appearing around 5th level. I can attest that a level 6 party with one of these wands is a force to be reckoned with. To stand on the shoulders of @FireLance who already did the math (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?395770-Analysis-of-quot-Typical-quot-Magic-Item-Distribution), a character can expect to find 2 rare items over 20 levels of adventuring, the first around level 10. So while yes, it is possible that items come up sooner, that's not the most common result. Having some extra 3rd level spells when you can cast 5th level spells is ...

Thursday, 8th March, 2018

  • 05:59 PM - Gradine mentioned SkidAce in post Lovecraftian Corruption In Your Role-Playing Campaigns
    ... it is indeed just a game. But then, isn't F.A.T.A.L. just a game? Is Kipling's Jungle Book just a novel? Is the KKK's Birth of a Nation just a series of flickering lights on a wall? My point is that prejudices and biases don't develop in a vacuum. They, quite frequently in fact, develop from popular culture we consume. If I run a game with someone who have no personal experiences with mental illness, and that game presents insanity as corruption, as something to be feared, what am I actually teaching that person about insanity? What are they learning? And how will that impact the way they treat the mentally ill in the future? To echo the earlier point about Lovecraft's well-documented racism, but Lovecraft's version of horror was definitely about the fear of the unknown. And for Lovecraft, that included race and mental illness. By continuing to equate the latter with something "unknowable" and therefore frightening, is it possible we're doing harm to people with mental illness? SkidAce probably solves the answer here, in that as long as what we're aware of what we're really talking about, and more specifically what we're not, that there should be a way to present it in game without contributing to anyone's prejudices.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 55 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 11:26 PM - Ohmyn quoted SkidAce in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    This part depends on the campaign setting. Elves are not "Fey" with a capital f. "Fey" in many games I've played, would take a dislike to the druid, sorta like they were a traitor (you were supposed to understand....hisssss...). But, anecdotal preferences are anecdotal. I was more going off of the typical core mechanics in 5E. Sure, I know Elves aren't actual Fey, but that's why I said they had a natural proclivity for the Feywild and not that they were Fey themselves. Elvish and Sylvan share an alphabet, and almost every non-evil Fey in the Monster Manual, from Sprites to Satyrs to Treants and Dryads, have Elvish as a default language on top of their normal Sylvan. Elves are pretty commonly known for elegant chain shirts and rapiers, and I've never once heard of Fey having a dislike for any Elf that decided to wear or wield metal of any kind. Druids by default sure don't share a language with Fey, unless they're an Elf or they're a Shepherd Druid. I've also never heard of Fey having a di...

Friday, 21st June, 2019

  • 03:14 AM - JacktheRabbit quoted SkidAce in post How many 1st level Fighers can an 11th Level Fighter Kill?
    Hey numbers and percentages may be off slightly, but in the end... It informs me that a squad (10-13) of guards could be a viable threat. Good info.Sure a squad of 10 to 13 guards are a threat if they are mindless mooks. Guards threaten hero. Hero threatens back. Guards demand surrender, hero charges and kills up to three based on rolls and action surge. Numerically and with reinforcements the hero will lose, EXCEPT guards paid 5 silver a week realize they don't get paid enough and break moral then flee. So while the math works the logic fails unless you DM video game style where every for fights to the death.

Tuesday, 18th June, 2019


Monday, 17th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Monday, 10th June, 2019

  • 12:57 PM - CapnZapp quoted SkidAce in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    Future streaming can kiss my butt. Power outages, data caps.... I understand and see the signs....I am not enthused.That is likely because you're not a content owner. The notion of being able to rent out content again without having to sell it or otherwise transfer any rights, so you can charge a fee each and every time said content is accessed, and withdraw it at any time for any reason, is a corporate wet dream!
  • 08:19 AM - dalisprime quoted SkidAce in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    Future streaming can kiss my butt. Power outages, data caps.... I understand and see the signs....I am not enthused. Surely power outages stop any form of non-tabletop gaming , unless you have a handheld console with fully charged battery, in which case the Stadia platform would also work since you can play your games via phone/tablet that can be kept charged up with power banks. As for data caps - just get a better provider.

Tuesday, 4th June, 2019

  • 08:01 PM - Charlaquin quoted SkidAce in post Revised Artificer Survey now available
    I agree they don't formally. But I don't think they ignore them completely. I agree, but I don’t think they’ve really looked to forums to get a read on player opinions since the 5e open playtest ended and they shut down their official forums.

Monday, 3rd June, 2019

  • 11:43 PM - gyor quoted SkidAce in post Baldurs Gate 3 apparently in development (with evidence)
    PH is more than enough to say competitive in my opinion. There's more to it than just character options. Given the importance of BG 3 to the announcement of Stadia on June 6th and the nature of the competition, I expect they will be more ambitious, but I could be wrong.

Friday, 31st May, 2019


Tuesday, 21st May, 2019


Sunday, 19th May, 2019

  • 08:59 PM - Mercador quoted SkidAce in post The New Dungeons & Dragons Storyline for 2019 Leaked Ahead of Live Stream
    I must say, not sure what new rules will bring, 1 DM/1 player is something you can already do. And its how I taught my kids. (they are sperated by 6 years of age, so I did it twice...) In 5E? I would like to play PF1 AP with my daughter but it's quite difficult to adjust combat when it's clearly for 4-5 players. I guess I could give her superpowers but it won't be the same.
  • 02:41 AM - Satyrn quoted SkidAce in post Favourite D&D edition that’s not 5E
    Same as Morrus , a close vote. Many fond memories of 2E, but 3E coming along and "modernizing" things we had houseruled for 2E anyway, makes it my favorite. At least at the beginning. Yeah. At least at the beginning.
  • 01:50 AM - Parmandur quoted SkidAce in post The New Dungeons & Dragons Storyline for 2019 Leaked Ahead of Live Stream
    I must say, not sure what new rules will bring, 1 DM/1 player is something you can already do. And its how I taught my kids. (they are sperated by 6 years of age, so I did it twice...) From what they said, primarily the Sidekick rules, to allow a single PC to have other roles filled.

Friday, 17th May, 2019

  • 05:03 AM - MechaPilot quoted SkidAce in post Firearms
    Or they are familiar with the effects of guns, and not familiar with bows and plate mail. Just giving "some" of them the benefit of doubt. Being familiar with one and not the other doesn't really let someone off the hook for feeling guns need a massive injection of realism when so much else about the game is just fine with a light sprinkling of realism. It's also worth noting that this injection of realism almost always results in guns being nerfed so hard they become inviable, or just downright inferior, as a primary weapon option. Regardless of the actual reason for it (and it certainly may vary beyond just a desire to keep effective guns out of the game), guns are one of the very few topics where bringing them up spawns a staunch realism debate. The only other topics I've seen that create such a debate are the inspirational healing and damage on a miss mechanics.
  • 03:25 AM - Celebrim quoted SkidAce in post Firearms
    My goblins that use crude pistols have distilled, crystallized, nitroglycerine as the replacement for black powder. I.e. "pyroglycerine". The best known explosives in my campaign world has the stability of raw nitroglycerin (or less) and the explosive power of black powder. The goblins have on several occasions tried to weaponize it, including inventing firearms. However, in battle the tendency is for one spell or accident to set off one or more soldiers stored powder, which then sets of a chain reaction that decimates the entire force. As a result, firearms are widely considered something of a joke, and attempts to weaponize explosives in battle are a parable for military ineptness and foolishness.

Thursday, 16th May, 2019

  • 04:23 PM - Mercule quoted SkidAce in post Are you satisfied enough with the Artificer to publish it?
    For us/my campaigns, WIZARDS fill the role of magic as science (study, learn, have academies, specializations, etc ,etc.) with their learned and studious approach. Sorcerers (adepts) ARE/CHANNEL magic. Artificers? They run the gambit from magic craftsman/creators, to well, scienceny steampunk and new semi tech inventions. (bombs, guns, clockwork, you know the drill) Hmm... Using your breakdown, I guess this makes more sense: Sorcerers: Are magic (no disagreement, here) Wizards: Magic as science. I think we're good, here. Artificers: Magic as engineering or magic as craft. It's still magic, though, and should look as much like modern (or even enlightenment) engineering as wizards look like modern science. I think that last is part of the key. I'm not looking for camp, steampunk, etc. I'm more than willing to include the logical extension of industrialized/engineered magic. It should still be cut from the same cloth as the rest of the magic in the game, though. This artificer ...


Page 1 of 55 123456789101151 ... LastLast

SkidAce's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites