View Profile: Garthanos - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 07:57 PM
    I do like that quite a bit... I have been thinking for quite a while that a lot of fiction has heros who do little tidbits that might be seen as overlapping on the specialists. Many times it includes characters inspiring their allies but yes a dive in front of an attack seems viable (you could even add some small movement if you accept being prone afterwards)... Although it usually seems to be...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 07:16 PM
    Yeah, same. If you don’t think the product is worth the money due to its crunch content being playtest material destined for a future book, I don’t blame you. But it’s unfair to claim they were being dishonest. They were very clear about what the product was.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 06:59 PM
    OK I will channel my much younger self. Note I now disagree with that guy on almost every point for various reasons. hmmm maybe some are still influencing my thinking Hit points massively increasing? I mean really? Single attribute based actions = there is nothing that simple? Classes = carbon copy encouragement for the win Amnesia magic = nothing at all like legend or myth....
    161 replies | 6616 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:57 PM
    I recommend sblock and trigger warning. Aside from that, great post... ...y'all'll hafta just imagine a cynical quip, here. Maybe later.
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 06:45 PM
    That might be ok if something is rare enough it isn't something to count on or worry too much over ... however it REALLY REALLY seems strange a mage is immune to the interference of the Cavalier adjacent to them. Hard to imagine they cannot ... something about mechanics being unnecessarily different, yada yada yada memory escapes me. Mage slayer looks like it has some bite against adjacent...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:28 PM
    Not that many monsters cast spells. There is a Mage Slayer Feat, though, that well, just read it... I mean, a 5e caster in a world where everything had Mage Slayer would still have it easier than an old-school magic-user.
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:22 PM
    After L5R? What did L5R do?
    215 replies | 13669 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:16 PM
    Playtest? Seriously, though, the point was ditching the small, established, loyal market for the much, much larger potential market of /people who might like your game if it didn't suck quite as hard/, then just coasting on name recognition as your marketing strategy, so that you only reach that established base you just cut loose. But, I exaggerate. A bit. Starfinder went well,...
    215 replies | 13669 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 06:13 PM
    There is a fun issue... your intimidation or even active interference against nearby enemies cannot will not interfere with casters they are immune.
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 06:04 PM
    My gameworld has a hmmmmm archetype? That sometimes were called justiciars originally like police back in the ancient times but many of them became more like personal guards in modern times. Green Knights were one such group who I sort of hedged as being like druid/fighters when it was 1e days. But the Warden in 4e was associated with the Nature magic / sort of Druidic branch it fit rather well....
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:59 PM
    I kind of like that too it rather has the intimidation angle going on... You are distracting them because they think you might be coming back for more.
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:52 PM
    Yes it certain seems to have some how many of what you mention above are in the Players Handbook vs Xanathars (which I had not investigated) I think ones that require a reaction are pretty darn limited though. And goading attack seems to have no impact on casters.
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 05:50 PM
    Weren't those committed 3.x fans the basis for even having PF, in the first place, though. Now that sounds like angling to repeat 4e marketing blunders.
    215 replies | 13669 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:49 PM
    We had tons of outdoor adventures back in the day I still do including many open arenas and battlefields whose only walls were trees ...heck I think dungeons were actually pretty nonsensical to many DMs. 5 foot door ways for the win I suppose or dead squishies because someone objects to enemies falling for false openings, tricks and taunting and intimidation effects. Honestly I do not...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 05:37 PM
    ...another good reason to play a game now and then. ;) The voice is less at issue than the message. And, if I seem strident about this, it's because it's not just your too-narrow, exclusionary definition and it's not just in this context. The Forgites do the same thing, multiplied by their copious lexicon, and it happens way to much in RL politics. It's fine to stipulate a definition...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:33 PM
    The exception proves the rule... they might also ignore your attacks and run past so they can get at the more brains behind you not because you are too tough but because more meat is back there. Yeh but if you can barely react to one enemy see 5e... watch the others run by to get at the squishy threat with glea. The doorway/choke 5' point solution can under a narrow circumstances enable...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:26 PM
    The above is pointing out how recognizing roles as specializations of PCs is not a new thing I think if you make a diverse set of tactical choices they will undoubtedly interact with roles. 5e classes are pretty locked down design elements hurray for supporting classes but it means that the fighter is a meh defender without something like the subclass Cavalier. And arguably he needs a way to...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:07 PM
    Show me how show me. An ability might support one role when used one way and another role when used another way... does that mean it somehow doesn't support roles?
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:59 PM
    Ah I was kind of hoping you had some inspiration on that which I lacked to be honest.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:55 PM
    You are being obtuse I told you that you could swap out the adjective for its opposite and the sentence and idea still sounds interesting why would you have ever assumed I meant the adjective was ? "important"? Explain how it even makes sense to look at the words I want to meet a fancy dancer and assume your can remove the word dancer and have it even be meaningful let alone important?...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:30 PM
    Your being very hard to hit is not some invisible property If they do not behave differently very quickly then the DM is roleplaying them very badly... The guy who looks like he might be leaving openings but can take a lot of shots will be the target of choice the entire battle. Even though the DM knows you can soak the crap out of it. That will take much longer for the monsters to notice ...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:23 PM
    @dave2008 creating non-combat tactical role support might be something brand new to D&D even. Though I have heard of the face and similar ideas I do not remember them ever being rich with tactical choices.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:59 PM
    Thumbs up for being very on topic ;)
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:50 PM
    Adjectives cannot stand alone they describe the other and I pointed out you could in theory also create a non-combat tactical module which might be very intriguing to be honest.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:45 PM
    And the early edition had fighters become minion sweepers too as they levelled (if the DM used them zero levels it could in theory make fighters feel pretty badass)
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:41 PM
    The party was according to Arneson originally inspired by the US fireteam of 4 soldiers. With classes approximately reflecting its composition/roles.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 03:38 PM
    Controller was as much an excuse to grandfather in more of the wizard's favorite toys as a role, but, the rationale appeared to be that large-area damage would limit enemies' tactical options. Thus minion-sweeping also fell to the controller.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:38 PM
    Adjective is battlefield indicating type and noun is role ... could call it combat role too. ( though in theory you could actually have a non-combat tactical expansion)
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:30 PM
    Not everything is a comparison and 4e will not always be better ;) - it cannot be ubiquitous like it was in chainmail (nor as absolute) so giving it other subtle control like the control I added which fit flavorwise seems a compensation for the indirect control it used to get.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:27 PM
    Sure and ones best designs are likely something you buy into yourself. I also think battlefield role support is a component of tactical game play. 5e is not very flush with that. So a module that built a series of subclasses to bring that on might be good. Had not even seen the Cavalier till I asked about defenders.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:08 PM
    It took an expansion to get what looks like a functional defender... unless I am missing something
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:02 PM
    Fireball and lightning were iconic wizard magic from Chainmail they had indirect control because they were ubiquitous and as large area of not-ally friendly effects influences enemy behavior to not-clump together and 2 get close to allies of the wizard so the wizard cannot easily smash you - A wizard always had 1 or the other (which they could do every turn of the battle). Other consistent...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • doctorbadwolf's Avatar
    Today, 02:30 PM
    It was sold as a product in itself, not as an “early access” for another product. If all of the mechanical content is duplicated, they’re going back on that, and turning a 25$ product that was worth its price into a glorified Dragonmark article about Sharn.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 11:56 AM
    How is something at stake if you don't know what it is yet?
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 08:36 AM
    That point first started getting made 15+ years ago, in 3e forums. The thing that's funny is MMOs came up with "aggro," because they were trying to implement the traditional D&D Fighter role, but didn't have unwritten DMing rules that most monsters just attacked the fighter, most of the time, especially if he made any pretense towards getting in the way. I guess we could just figure 5e has a...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 08:21 AM
    There are no strikers in 5e. There are characters that have little to contribute /in combat/ but damage, and have more to do outside of combat, and there are tougher characters who have little, at all, to contribute besides damage. But there are no strikers. Anyway, the only ballgame in DnDtown is Fire/ball/.
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 08:10 AM
    Its all you need, but it helps to give the impression you're following /something, an AP, even just notes you made earlier. Its ok to just make it all up, it's better not to project that you are. There is none. Wealth & mundane gear have little impact on PCs ability to meet challenges. That should be adequate to keep the wizard viable. More spells from captured spellbound is just...
    15 replies | 217 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 07:42 AM
    Your definition of role-playing is simply too narrow. Especially given the need to go all caps and bold like some sort of outraged Darth Vader voice. There's at least a 3-way distinction. There are games that aren't role-playing, there are instances of playing a role that are in no way games... ...and there are role-playing games, that integrate (not merely juxtapose) the two. In an RPG...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 07:17 AM
    It says it's playtest content, both in the book itself and in its dndbeyond description, so I don't see how it's in any way dishonest. I don't agree, but like Parmandur said, WotC has promised to do exactly that.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    1 XP
  • doctorbadwolf's Avatar
    Today, 07:09 AM
    Unless the Wayfinders Guide is updated with those tweaks, this would be absolutely unacceptable.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    0 XP
  • doctorbadwolf's Avatar
    Today, 07:08 AM
    If the WGTE “was a playtest”, wotc did something extremely dishonest with its release. You know people payed for it, right?
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 07:07 AM
    It's also possible that the rules content that appeared in Wayfinder's Guide will be tweaked for its release in the hardcover. Wayfinder's Guide is marked as playtest content, after all.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Charlaquin's Avatar
    Today, 06:59 AM
    TFW stands for That Feeling When. Necro is short for what is called "thread necromancy" in common online vernacular. The thread has been "dead" for 6 years, and your post brought it back to life, ergo it was an act of necromancy. There's nothing wrong with thread necromancy necessarily. Some people consider it poor etiquette, but it's pretty harmless, and most people just find it strange and a...
    78 replies | 14157 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:59 AM
    Sorry, but this is hilarious on several levels. One is just who you're talking too, I mean, you are barking up a tree he ain't never climbed. You're also confusing your post-TSR trends, a little. 3.x had the RaW-uber-allies zeitgiest going. But, it's the OP, Sacrosanct, a dyed in the sandtable old school headmaster, who has insisted on confining this debate to the actual, verifiable,...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 06:54 AM
    I don't see any challenge to characterisation. You tell us your character is someone who cares about little but being provided with a meal. And so in exchange for a promise of food you submitted yourself to a process that - as you describe it - you seemed to have no control over. As a result you have no soul - I don't know what that means in mechanical terms in 5e, but it doesn't seem to...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    1 XP
  • doctorbadwolf's Avatar
    Today, 06:47 AM
    Thats literally the primary content of an Eberron setting book.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:43 AM
    True, if youre playing poker or polo or pachinko, your play experience is not a roleplay experience. And, if you're playing Hamlet or Naughty Schoolgirl or Devil's Advocate, your roleplay experience is not a game-play experience. But if you're playing an RPG, it really /should/ be both. Is that undesirable? Because, if it is, freestyle RP is totally a thing, and you won't need to deal...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 06:30 AM
    Its an RPG, the whole thing is about roleplaying. Relative to the other WotC eds the biggest 'pro' in 5e is the DM - DM Empowerment. But, the real "pro" of 5e is... Move product in volumes not seen since the 80s.
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • doctorbadwolf's Avatar
    Today, 05:26 AM
    Nothing yet. I hope that it doesn’t have everything from Wayfinder’s Guide, because I’ll be very ticked off if they essentially make it so that I have to pay twice for the same stuff in order to get what’s new in this new product. I also wonder if we if we will be getting an Eberron Starter Kit.
    19 replies | 339 view(s)
    0 XP
  • doctorbadwolf's Avatar
    Today, 05:23 AM
    Hexadin should be fun, but a straight rogue would also be fun. You want a build where weapon damage die just doesn’t matter, and that doesn’t require your target be within 5ft. Rogue/Battlemaster with two whips could be really fun. Most maneuvers don’t even specify melee, much less 5ft, so you could do a lot with the secondary effects and a build they can’t easily get to. Combine that with...
    3 replies | 110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 05:21 AM
    It was already mentioned something other than boring bags of hit points monsters consider that your starting point ... then one needs abilities which interact with those on the player side and that depends on what abilities you give those monsters doesn't it devil is in the details and one thing you provide cascades into other things remember how I mentioned "what good is an ability that allows...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:43 AM
    I prefer a foundation and some assumptions in the foundation make changing it pretty difficult. For instance 4e assumed heros were most likely gradually approaching something akin to demigod status able to perform stunts which parallel works of magic through skill alone now if you wanted to pretend to being just a farm boy who could accidentally kill beasts the size of buildings through brute...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 04:11 AM
    you could definitely get a goal through the hoops right into left field over that issue...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:54 AM
    Here is a lesson in playing a defender if you are too hard to hit and ultimate on saving throws ie defenses it is a very good way NOT to be an effective defender in 4e because the DM will have next to no reason for monsters to attack you because the DM is almost always the difference between you being attacked and not. Although occasionally a defender will have a nice trick that suckers the...
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 03:31 AM
    Your PC's actions have put your family at risk. When you decide to do have your PC do X rather than Y, how do you - as a player - know whether your are jeopardiding your relationship with your family? Who decides whether they stick with you or abandon you? And how? Is this is all just GM decides? This seems to rest on a premise that there is a finite amount of "challenge" which, if the PCs...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:28 AM
    Because swordmages are so intrinsically superior, snicker They simply must be built as level 17
    47 replies | 800 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:23 AM
    I did make a more controllerish lightning bolt up thread
    27 replies | 891 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 03:23 AM
    Let's suppose your claim about human physiology was true, which I don't think it is. In 4e hp are not a model of that physiology. They are part of an action resolution framework. The primary mechanical marker of the power of a 4e creature, including the degree of physical trauma it can endure, is its level. By setting the level of a being, the GM is using a mechanical device to signal its...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 03:20 AM
    Yeah, the actual play experience will be subjective, so looking for the difference there will, at most, uncover some dusty system artifacts that might reveal which system was used, but nothing much more. Now, whether via system procedures, or via some naïve-RP/freestyle/make-believe consensus, the same persons could have established the same elements of the fiction in the same order. ...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 03:09 AM
    Not what I was saying I was saying so there is that. You wanted to know why I thought it would be difficult and that was an element I would like to see but also an example of how such an element could touch on wide varieties of other design elements and that is a reason tactical elements tend to not be easy squeezy lemon peasy
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 03:03 AM
    IDK. Would the existing PF fanbase be offended if their system were positioned as Advanced D&D (w/1e UA & 2e Complete & Option books), to 5e's Basic D&D?
    215 replies | 13669 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 03:00 AM
    That's fair. I mean, 5e /has the bloodied condition/, without having the "Bloodied" /Condition/. So any rule you could write in 4e like "when the <insert creature> is not bloodied and attacks a bloodied enemy <bad things happen>" you could as easily write, in 5e "when the <insert creature>'s current hit points, not including temporary hit points are greater than half its maximum hit points...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 02:57 AM
    To allude back to an earlier post, those are possible transcripts of play, accounts of events that oocur in the fiction. But from the transcript we can't tell what the play experience was. We can't tell who estabished the fiction, or how, or what the actual play experience was of doing that. I don't know what you mean by roleplaying activity or roleplaying experience. Do you mean transcript of...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 02:51 AM
    I was searching for some way of making a statement general enough to avoid implying any specific system or set of assumptions. But, y'know, RPGing is something we all do. Any time we do that, is an 'instance,' right? So, in any given instance, we might decide to go beyond the scope of the system we're using, or even merely the scope of what it does well. And, /if/ we're a group with a good...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 02:49 AM
    As I've already posted, I don't think this thread is the place for a serious discussion of philosophy of action. Rather, I'm taking Davidson as a starting point. But if you are correct, then it follows that - in the example - four different actions have been performed. And if there were two prowlers, each alerted, then five different things would have been done. That is obviously absurd. ...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 02:33 AM
    Did that way back in 1e days but I am lazier now... reflavor seemed sufficient
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 02:27 AM
    I don't know what you mean by a given instance of RP. I'll set out a practical example to try and illustrate my point: imagine a situation in which the PCs are fighting some NPCs, and are losing - multiple PCs down, hors de combat etc while the NPCs are clearly about to carry the day. In these circumstances in Classic Traveller the players have to make a morale check for their PCs...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 02:25 AM
    It's not the most clearly-stated rule ever (even by 1e standards), but, yeah, that's the only way to parse the rule that allows the optional -3 'single blow' phrasing to make any sense. TBH, it /doesn't/ make a lot of sense, no matter how you try to parse it. Every group I ever saw use the -10 rule, allowed that you dropped unconscious if reduced to anything from 0 to -9, then bled at...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 01:31 AM
    The whole DMG is essentially optional rules. (really, the whole game is, but don't admit it to the players) nb: that's to /exactly/ 0 hit point. If you drop to -1 or fewer you die. That's what happens while you're unconscious, after having been reduced to exactly 0. You lose 1 hp per round, going from 0, to -1, etc, down through -9, then die when you reach -10. If you don't take any...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 12:52 AM
    LOL you took facing more literally than I meant it... but I suppose I could have said impacting its utterly appropriate for monsters to have one set of rules and the monsters another. your hyperbole about how having zero to -3 be unconscious with the rest dying is still hyperbolic and misplaced unless you think you are playing 3e where they lock step npcs and pcs like the game was RuneQuest 3...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 12:37 AM
    Looks for place in the books saying monster and player facing rules are identical... then turns to 3rd edition ahah.
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 12:34 AM
    honestly I only remember their premise ... they may have grabbed random encounter difficulties for all I know so a few bad rolls in a row on the dms side and your group is eaten by a series of nasties which if you planned would be really nasty. Though i think a chase scene with lower difficultes ie a skill challenge would be how the second level + 4 would go down if they survived the first is...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 12:11 AM
    Bloodied is a pacing mechanism which changes and swaps out tactical choices. (Does that make bloodied tactical even though it itself isn't usually a choice I think so - see below for ways it becomes a choice too) On the monster side of the screen monsters get powers that renew on bloodied conditions for instance it changes there choices I have player characters with powers and even skill...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 12:07 AM
    No problem. I'd've not replies if I'd noticed you taking down the post I was responding too...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Today, 12:05 AM
    ..it'd be an issue, because there are INT based casters & 1/3rd casters who already need a lot of INT, which otherwise does nothing for combat - suddenly they could leverage it. And, those 1/3rd casters (EK & AT) are otherwise weapon-users... ...oh, and Bladesingers...
    47 replies | 800 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Paul Smart's Avatar
    Today, 12:01 AM
    I am thinking of building a whip using character and was wondering how to optimize the whip as a weapon. I am thinking pally for smites or rogue for sneak attack. The hexblade may also be good. How would you do it? Thanks.
    3 replies | 110 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:44 PM
    One can use all the option rich elements not to optimize for potency or balance but for flavor which is why I liked even Hybrids in 4e. 5e multi-classing doesn't live up to my expectations for enabling broad richness, it appears to make somethings prohibitively costly for little reason and other things trivially easy because of coincidence or something. Like having to go 17 levels before I...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:40 PM
    I've heard about it but never checked it out. What did they do, just dial up encounters?
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:38 PM
    That's the thing, you don't need to talk about 20-level builds to new players. They can play a 'starting package' or pregen. Really, in any edition, pregens are a good idea, that's why modules had 'em back in the 0e days (In Search of the Unknown, which came with the c1977 basic set had pregens in the back), and 5e has 'em in the Basic PDF. Encounters pregens came on laminated half-sheets. ...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:06 PM
    There was a player designed expansion for 4e I think it was designed to show how the rules were flexible enough that without change you can make 4e as deadly as you wanted I think it was called 4th core?
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:00 PM
    That is how we interpreted it. From zero to optionally negative 3 nobody had to worry about you if you managed to drop negative farther than that it was a dying process although easily stopped. We still died horribad easy but that rule did make it less absolute than what I saw in the old Blue Book D&D
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:57 PM
    Yes 3 to 5 is reasonable... though I have known many editions where the designers thought X was the target and players did 1 significant battle with only a few scrapes otherwise besides that so I it may just be people being people. Sure that is the other end of the improvement how much tougher do you make it when you have X likely fights in a given span. 5e did seems to learn some from...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:47 PM
    Oh, yeah. Especially some messed up monsters early on, and the off-kilter encounters in KotS and the like, could be deadlier than EL would indicate, and, until the MM3, if you weren't playing like 8-enounter days, EL=Level could seem a little too easy. It'd've made more sense, as a practical matter of how it seemed 4e got played 'in the wild' to peg monster math/EL to a 3-5 encounter day, and...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:41 PM
    But, you haven't gotten to the pedantic part, yet!? Asked and answered: they only feel heavy after you take them out of the water.
    161 replies | 6616 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:31 PM
    Realism? In a discussion of hit points? Nope, we don't. A very slight trauma involving relatively little injury can kill instantly, profound trauma over much of the body can be survived. The human body is freak'n weird. People fall in the shower and die. People fall out of airplanes without parachutes and live. It's not because some people rolled 1 on their HD. It's not because falls do...
    752 replies | 21034 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:22 PM
    I would express it as there was less random fluctuation and you are more aware of how how a given challenge will resolve... its not "trying hard" its predictably hard... less oops more planned on the verge of tpk because i designed the encounter that way. DM choices ARE decisive and blaming the dice less a thing. There were ways of Jinxing the EL guidelines even in 4e so its not completely...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:13 PM
    I ran 4e, for the run of Encounters (and beyond, but with an established group), so that's a /lot/ of introducing the game to brand-new players. Something I'd done back in the day, and done, since, as Encounters opened up to the Next playtest, then 5e. 4e is /easily/ the most accessible of the WotC editions, to brand-new players. Now, sure, you /could/ do 30-level builds if you were so...
    87 replies | 1695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:03 PM
    Flamestrike Noting you like Crown Paladin ;)
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Tony Vargas's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:59 PM
    Not much variance, on that count, I'd think. The EL guidelines of 4e were quite straightforward, relatively dependable, and an exact-at-level encounter was a resource-ablating 'speed bump' (same intent as a single CR=Level encounter in 3e), that'd break deadly only towards the end of an unusually long day (8+ encounters in all likelihood). Lower ELs below level -1 or 2 rapidly became trivial,...
    144 replies | 3289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:55 PM
    The one for range and the other for adjacent OK seeing how that works The use of ones reaction on opportunity attacks is less the Warlords schtick than the fighters so its less of a problem for them that Protection fighting style uses it.
    45 replies | 746 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Garthanos

Basic Information

About Garthanos
About Me:
Artist, Poet, Scientist and Game Fiddler
Location:
Lincoln, Nebraska
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

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

Facebook:
lancealandyas
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

State:
Nebraska

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
7,637
Posts Per Day
2.01
Last Post
Show me how to build a defender.... Today 07:57 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
78
General Information
Last Activity
Today 07:58 PM
Join Date
Sunday, 15th February, 2009
Home Page
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/kingsmagick.php
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

34 Friends

  1. AbdulAlhazred AbdulAlhazred is offline

    Member

    AbdulAlhazred
  2. Aldarc Aldarc is offline

    Member

    Aldarc
  3. C4 C4 is offline

    Member

    C4
  4. Charlaquin Charlaquin is offline

    Member

    Charlaquin
  5. darkbard darkbard is offline

    Member

    darkbard
  6. doctorbadwolf doctorbadwolf is offline

    Member

    doctorbadwolf
  7. FireLance FireLance is offline

    Member

    FireLance
  8. firesnakearies firesnakearies is offline

    Member

    firesnakearies
  9. Flipguarder Flipguarder is offline

    Member

    Flipguarder
  10. heretic888 heretic888 is offline

    Member

    heretic888
  11. Igwilly Igwilly is offline

    Member

    Igwilly
  12. keterys keterys is offline

    Moderator

    keterys
  13. Klaus Klaus is offline

    Member

    Klaus
  14. malcolm_n malcolm_n is offline

    Member

    malcolm_n
  15. Nemesis Destiny Nemesis Destiny is offline

    Member

    Nemesis Destiny
  16. Neonchameleon Neonchameleon is offline

    Member

    Neonchameleon
  17. On Puget Sound On Puget Sound is offline

    Member

    On Puget Sound
  18. OpsKT OpsKT is offline

    Member

    OpsKT
  19. Paul Smart Paul Smart is offline

    Member

    Paul Smart
  20. pemerton pemerton is offline

    Member

    pemerton
  21. Raven Crowking Raven Crowking is offline

    Member

    Raven Crowking
  22. RedSiegfried RedSiegfried is offline

    Member

    RedSiegfried
  23. Reinhart Reinhart is offline

    Member

    Reinhart
  24. Rolenet Rolenet is offline

    Member

    Rolenet
  25. Ryujin Ryujin is offline

    Member

    Ryujin
  26. Scrivener of Doom
  27. surfarcher surfarcher is offline

    Member

    surfarcher
  28. thanson02 thanson02 is offline

    Member

    thanson02
  29. The Fighter-Cricket
  30. Tony Vargas Tony Vargas is online now

    Member

    Tony Vargas
  31. Turtlejay Turtlejay is offline

    Member

    Turtlejay
  32. UHF UHF is offline

    Member

    UHF
  33. UngeheuerLich UngeheuerLich is offline

    Member

    UngeheuerLich
  34. Yaarel Yaarel is offline

    Member

    Yaarel
Showing Friends 1 to 34 of 34
My Game Details
State:
Nebraska
Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 21st July, 2019


Saturday, 20th July, 2019



Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 02:41 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Garthanos in post Ranger: Beastmaster New Powers
    ...l). The only other lack being access to a truly world-shaking PP like Battlefield Archer. So, you don't REALLY need to fiddle with their powers, they just need maybe 3 really nice sky blue feats and a sky blue PP. There is a misconception that, because the beast is not a combat monster, that the build is 'bad in combat', it isn't. It is basically just as effective as the other 3 ranger builds, except without some fairly small extra benny. In return you get a basically unkillable companion that can take hits for you, do OAs, set of traps while you are nice and safe at the other side of the room, carry stuff, etc. (heck, if you're a halfling there are beasts you can RIDE, beat that!). Heck, I guess a pixie ranger could ride ANY companion, hahaha. Anyway, I have nothing against some powers that push the beast more into being an ersatz weapon, that isn't a bad idea at all, but it should be thought of more as 'color' and not so much as something needed to 'beef up' the build in any way. Garthanos, the +1 hit and damage bonus you are giving is OK, it certainly won't break anything and isn't going to make the character stronger than an optimized twin striking build. I wouldn't go any further than that, except maybe to extend it to some non-at-will versions.

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 08:21 PM - Yaarel mentioned Garthanos in post 4e Clone − help create it!
    Which is one reason the Warlord doesn't work as an archetype, to 5e Fighter is too deeply committed to all-DPR, all the time. Off on a basic level, IMHO. If you can't think of high-level abilities a class should have, you don't have a handle on the class, yet, and you won't create a viable class, but another LF to be overshadowed by all the Qw's in 5e. It seems to me, the Fighter is a great chassis for the Knight/Warlord. The Fighter has so much ‘uncluttered’ design space. Because the Fighter base design space guarantees excellent damage dealing, the design space for the archetype can focus exclusively group enhancement capabilities. @Zardnaar, @Garthanos, I found it easy to translate Come and Get It, into a 5e format and sensibility. It is also an example of how there is little difference between 4e Encounters and 4e Dailies. Taunting Strike // Barrier Attack 3 Worldly Mind, Intimidation // Action Target: foes in close Versus: your Charisma versus each foes Charisma Hit: Barrier: each foe moves into melee Target: foes in melee Attack: your per-turn attack You taunt your foes, goading them to come attack you. When they reach you, you bust out to punish each of them. Each hostile in close range (30 feet) who can see or hear you must make a Charisma defense, or as a reaction move toward you, adjacent within melee range (5 feet) if able. Then you make one per-turn attack (such as using a weapon or a cantrip) against each hostile in melee. [Compare 4e Come and Get It PH1]
  • 06:38 AM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Garthanos in post Fighting With Style, Fighting Styles as Level 1 subclass choices
    @Garthanos With respect, I do not care about nitpicking examples of zero to hero narratives. I’m not here to follow every possible rabbit hole of a debate that ever presents itself. Rand is a farmboy, his dad barely trains him, and I’ve read these books 7 times. You aren’t going to badger me into agreeing with you, so just drop it.

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 01:31 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Garthanos in post Diplomatic Inspiration / Leadership
    Tony Vargas Garthanos This is where I bill the 'non-wonky math' feature of HoML. Since a skill check and an attack roll are going to work exactly the same, you can simply make powers which attack with skill checks! That makes this sort of design a lot cleaner. Instead of imputing all sorts of craziness to a Diplomacy or Intimidate check, you simply create a power, which has an attack line of something like 'Intimidate vs WILL' and it can do whatever (psychic damage being an obvious possibility).

Wednesday, 10th July, 2019

  • 04:02 PM - Fenris-77 mentioned Garthanos in post Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?
    I'd be happier about picking saves if the saves were all created equal, but the really aren't. Maybe give each class one of the strong three and let them pick from the weaker three. Or even chose one from each list. Garthanos - if you gave each of those tiers +1 (for a range from +1 to +3) I don't think you'd be breaking anything. I don't think it's as interesting as adding specific skills, but that's a matter of personal taste.

Saturday, 6th July, 2019

  • 03:59 PM - Blue mentioned Garthanos in post Ranger: Beastmaster New Powers
    Garthanos, can you make sure to use the edition prefixes when creating a new post so the target audience for the thread is clear from the forum screen? Thanks. EDIT: Me be idiot and missed it. Sorry!

Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019

  • 04:57 AM - Umbran mentioned Garthanos in post The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
    Oh I guess I will unblock the jerk .... It is time for you, Garthanos, to review The Rules. Specifically, take a look at the section, "Keep it civil". Because you are, at this point, far over the line. You have been lucky, riding on the grace of the fact that the moderators have been busy. But from now on, we expect you to be polite and respectful in this thread, and elsewhere on this site. If your mood is such that you cannot do that, we expect you to recognize that, and hold off posting until you can treat your fellow gamers well. If you have any questions on this, please take it to e-mail or PM.
  • 04:47 AM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Garthanos in post The Intelligent Fighter , Thibault's Circle.
    Garthanos I don’t think my comment was out of sync, but it’s fine. Anyway, I do think that an Int oriented fighting style and some new maneuvers for the battle master would be better than a new battlemaster style subclass. Instead, I’d want to explore what a subclass could provide as constant benefits or at will abilities. Or perhaps something more like the warlord subclass Mearls toyed around with in the happy fun hour stream.
  • 04:32 AM - Yaarel mentioned Garthanos in post 4e Clone − help create it!
    Garthanos I am mulling three rest types. • sleep (8-hour long rest) • meal (1-hour short rest) • breather (15-minute brief rest) The breather matters because it is the standard unit of time to perform a magical ritual. (I like a 15-minute unit over 10, because there are about one hundred of them per day: 14 minutes and 24 seconds.) Also, 15-minute breather feels like a more useful time space to get something done. It is enough time to bandage wounds, explore a room, eat something on the run, regather ones wits, and so on. I am unsure what restorative benefit to assign to the pause. Short rest can spend hit dice, long rest refreshes all hit points and hit dice. Re 4e: an ‘action per breather’ can approximate an encounter power. And it comes with its own narrative explanation. The capability is exerting and requires one to catch ones breath before doing it (effectively) again.

Sunday, 30th June, 2019

  • 02:11 AM - doctorbadwolf mentioned Garthanos in post What is the Ranger to you?
    Garthanos you know I’m an old 4venger, you don’t have to tell me how cool 4e is. This is a thread about the ranger conceptually, though, not about the relative merits of different system’s design philosophy. And yes, in the 4e era I was regularly bugging the designers for magical options for the Ranger. They finally did it in essentials, adding a bunch of primal utility powers to the ranger list, and making it easy for a phb ranger to pick up Wilderness Knacks, but I would have still preferred to also see some primal weapon based attack and defense powers, and some Ranger specific rituals.

Wednesday, 5th June, 2019

  • 07:02 PM - Yaarel mentioned Garthanos in post How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules
    Garthanos and Tony Vargas I really want to consolidate AC and Reflex. So, a sword attacks the Reflex defense. A ray attacks the Reflex defense. An armor improves the Reflex defense, if the Strength/Constitution prerequisite is met.
  • 05:02 PM - Yaarel mentioned Garthanos in post How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules
    @Tony Vargas, @Zardnaar 5e long rest grants complete healing PLUS hitdice. What if a long rest only gives hitdice? Thus someone who is fresh (unbloodied) can spend hitdice in the form of second-winds. But someone who is injured or exhausted must spend the hitdice immediately to recover, thus is more vulnerable to further damage from future battles. @Tony Vargas, @Garthanos, and others Personally, I love the 5e proficiency bonus, and feel it more than adequately addresses the 4e half-level bonus. Student Tier Levels 1-4 (Proficiency +2) Heroic Tier Levels 5-12 (Proficiency +3, +4) Paragon Tier Levels 13-20 (Proficiency +5, +6) Epic Tier Levels 21-24 (Proficiency +7, also allows ability scores to improve beyond 20) Moreover the Epic Tier can come with an Epic Destiny, becoming ‘Immortal’ by various methods. 5e feats include certain ones that are a ‘half feat’ plus a +1 ability score improvement. It is easy to equate smaller 5e feats as one or two half feats. I consider 4 skill proficiencies to be worth one half feat. Minor traits like Elf Trance are worth one skill proficiency. In some settings, languages matter, and if so, they might be worth a skill proficiency. Together light and medium armors proficiency equals 1 skill, and heavy armor prerequiring light and medium armor, is worth an other skill. A cantrip seems worth two skills, or something ...

Friday, 14th December, 2018

  • 03:15 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Garthanos in post On the Differences Between 1e and 2e (Not all AD&D Is the Same)
    Manbearcat Garthanos Zardnaar Lanefan Saelorn So I was trying to get at a slightly different point that had been bugging me for a while (much more subtle than the continued banes of my existence; e.g, Paladins, Gnomes, and Rapiers). We (and I include myself in this) often treat 1e and 2e interchangeably (I often use the 1e/2e descriptor). In many ways, that is fair- there is a great amount of overlap between them! Certainly more, IMO, than between any two other "numbered" editions. But here's the thing- while most of us normally easily differentiate between the other old compatible editions (OD&D, B/X, BECMI), we don't often think about or see the differences between 1e and 2e. And I think that's a topic worth thinking and talking about. 1e was around from 1977 (PHB) until 1989 (2e).* 2e was around from 1989 until 2000. I mean .... it's kind of insane when you think about it. And both editions had controversial publications that (arguably) created their own separate demi-mondes (1985, UA, lead...

Monday, 3rd December, 2018

  • 03:01 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Garthanos in post What are your favorite Skill Challenges.
    To answer Garthanos original question: I don't know that I have a favorite exactly. The DMG2 has some good advice and RC has a good clear write up. There are a couple other books that touch on the subject tangentially, but nowadays I live with mostly my own advice. I stick to the RC implementation, technically, but I really like being looser most of the time than any of the books suggest. However I'll agree with pemerton that Complexity 1 and 2 challenges are usually PRETTY tightly focused and work well in the original 4e style.

Wednesday, 28th November, 2018

  • 04:21 AM - Manbearcat mentioned Garthanos in post 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain
    ...and daily powers leveraged in SCs do bring an attendant opportunity cost (if I understand correctly what you mean by this). You're understanding me correctly. To be clear: Opportunity cost in terms of... If I forgo this Move Action to get in position (instead spending it to push toward success in a relevant SC) to use x Standard Action for Combat I'll have to use lesser effective y Standard Action. Or, more difficult still, consider the course of action that Garthanos carved out above: Fighter spending multiple actions (and multiple rounds to potentially, but not assuredly) take control of the Elite Controller (Leader) Tank instead of deploying his normal combat shtick to lock down enemies, create catch-22s to dictate the melee, and deal a lot of damage/improve his team's survivability. Getting the action economy and the rider effects (see Dazed on the Elite while he is in the cockpit) is something an average GM could easily miscalculate and a poor GM could cluster-eff entirely. Those sort of opportunity-cost based decisions must be weighed and balanced by a GM (in real time, on the go).

Saturday, 24th November, 2018

  • 05:59 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Garthanos in post 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain
    ...tion”, I don’t see how Fighters typically being physically imposing/dynamic, Rogues being scoundrel-ey/resourceful/daring-do, and Mages being erudite/mystical is a problem? In Marvel Heroic, Hulk is going to be SMASH-ey and Doctor Strange is going to be erudite/mystical. If the mechanics/PC build schemes don’t engender that emergent quality, there is something wrong with the game. Same goes for Leverage and any game with strong, distinct archetypes. 3) If the concern is challenge-based, then (a) see (1), (2) maybe there is a system maths problem, and (3) if “Challenge” requires heavy deviation from archetype (therefore diluting archetype or rendering it incoherent), then the game has a problem (see (2) above. 4) Fail-Forward and (1) above (hard framing and dynamic situation changes) should alleviate “fiction-irrelevant best skill spamming.” 4e has all 3 of those built into its Noncombat Conflict Resolution so if that isn’t happening then it’s straight user error by the GM. Garthanos , thanks for posting. I’ll get a response up later and move this thread along.

Friday, 23rd November, 2018

  • 05:09 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Garthanos in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them." Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now. and the obligatory Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules" And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine. I know this is a rather long-delayed comment on this, but.... I tried this design approach in HoML (both the one Mearls is talking about AND the options that Garthanos mentions). This is REALLY REALLY HARD to make work, and there's a huge cost in terms of diluting the thematic coherence of the class' power list. You can't just 'add an overlay' and/or a class feature choice, or something similar and successfully transform one role to another. Roles are more deeply ingrained into the classes than that, and making 'role light' so you can simply swap them out is a poor substitute. This is basically why Strike! is uninteresting to me, the 'role matrix' approach it uses just doesn't really do justice to roles. Now, I think its fine to do something akin to what the Berserker does in HotFW, make a 'switching' class that can toggle into a different role when it makes thematic/narrative sense. It is still hard to pull off well, and you won't suddenly stop being an X just because you are now in Y mode, but you can certainly go from 'high damage melee striker' to 'front line leader' or something like that and its workable. One thing that was excellent about 4e...

Thursday, 22nd November, 2018

  • 02:50 AM - pemerton mentioned Garthanos in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    ...sting experiment, with some solid ideas. Thinking about why it didn't ultimately work is fruitful 4e works very well as an RPG, with one major exception and one other point of complexity. Major exception: the scaling for combat numbers is different from the scaling for out-of-combat number (roughly +1 per level vs +0.7 per level). At heroic tier this can mostly be ignored, but as levels grow its effect on the maths becomes more evident. It means that you can't have truly universal resolution (eg Intimidate vs Will, Acrobatics vs Reflect, to-hit vs a skill challenge DDC, etc) without the maths breaking down. Fixing this would require reworking the maths of one or both systems, which would be hard, so it's something that I fudge over in play. Point of complexity: 4e combat resolution is very concrete (mapped terrain, detalied position tracking, etc). But 4e non-combat is very abstract (skill challenges). This can cause ajdudicative challenges at the point of interface. As I think Garthanos has noted in this thread, it also puts some hard limits on the gonzo eg epic fighters can't easily leap to the moon, because their exploits also have to fit on a battle map tracked in 5' squares. So anyway, to say that "4e didn't work" is simply to say that it was not as commercially successful as WotC hoped. That's not primarily an inquiry into RPG design but into (i) RPG marketing and (ii) what is popular in RPGing. I have my own views on why 4e was not popular, informed mostly by what I read on the interwebs. (1) Many RPGers don't like closed scene resolution and other forms of abstraction, other than hit points as a weird exception. (2) Many RPGers treat resource management and related puzzle solving as the main focus of play, whereas 4e tends to subordinate this in certain respects. (3) Many RPGers prefer much tighter GM control of outcomes than 4e defaults to.

Monday, 19th November, 2018

  • 12:09 AM - pemerton mentioned Garthanos in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    ...l but impossible at 1st level thing is to set a DC of 25+. Which is not fiction-first. Or to put it another way: if the DC follows "the narrative" (which I am taking to be synonymous with what I and others are calling the fiction - ie an understanding, prior to mechanics, of what is and is not feasible for the protagonists) then what is the role of bounded accuracy? They are different methodologies - opposed, almost. Thus, as I said, my confusion on this point. Right. Which is the case in 4e as well, it jut approaches it from the question of "How hard of a door would be a reasonable challenge at this level?" Sometimes the answer is the DC 15 wooden door, sometimes it's the DC 25 mithril door, and sometimes it's the DC 35 primal spirit of doors. Tare you claiming in 4e the DC of a wooden door would change depending on the level of whoever interacted with it and that is an example of fiction first?4e builds in level scaling, and minionisation, and the rest. (And I see that Garthanos also makes this point.) The mathematical result of keeping the door at DC 15 and scaling the bonus by 0.5 per level; and of keeping the bonus to the attempt confined to the raw STR bonus and stepping down the DC by 0.5 per level; is the same. Either way, we have a change in the fiction - ever-growing prowess of the PC - that is then expressed mechanically - the same door get easier to burst down or the same ogre gets easier to defeat. 5e doesn't have the level scaling. And it doesn't adjust the DC of the attempt vs the door (I think - see my uncertainty reported above). If it's nevertheless fiction first that means the fiction is the 15th level fighter has rather little more prowess than the 1st level fighter, as relative feasibilities change hardly at all. But to be honest there's little that I see in the design to suggest fiction first, and the most common refrain I here from 5e proponents is "bounded accuracy", which as I have said is a quite different methodology. The DC ...

Friday, 16th November, 2018

  • 10:10 AM - pemerton mentioned Garthanos in post Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
    Are these Martial Practices? If so which ones are being used and at what level are they gained?They're just action declarations. I don't use Martial Practices in my 4e game. (A difference between me and Garthanos.) My point is that if simpe action declarations resolved as skill checks can do things "comprable to raising the dead" or "opening portals to other planes" then Martial Practices can hardly make martial PCs less capable. As to your other post: I don't know on what basis you say that I said, in another post, that "ritual caster alone makes casters more effective than martial PC's in 4e." I didn't say that, and don't agree with it. I've posted multiple actual play examples in this thread that show why I don't agree with it. What post are you referring to? And is your view based on your own play experience? As to thinking that the invoker/wizard caster in my game doesn't leverage the rules well, please read these two actual play reports and then tell me what the weakness of play consists in. The explanation for why ritual casting doesn't dominate play in 4e as I experience it is fairly straightforward. Domination in play can take two main forms: providing mechanical solutions ...


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 91 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Sunday, 21st July, 2019

  • 07:16 PM - Xaelvaen quoted Garthanos in post Show me how to build a defender....
    I think well done homebrew is on the table There's a simple homebrew idea we employ for 5E - 'Take the Attack'. Take the Attack (Reaction) : When an ally adjacent to you would be attacked by an enemy, you can move in the way of the blow, and the attack roll targets you instead. We make this simple option so literally anyone, from any class, can have heroic 'save the squishy' moments. Stick the ability on a Full-Plate and Shield-wearing defender, and it is a significant boon, especially after magic items are taken into account.
  • 06:28 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Garthanos in post Show me how to build a defender....
    There is a fun issue... your intimidation or even active interference against nearby enemies cannot will not interfere with casters they are immune. Not that many monsters cast spells. There is a Mage Slayer Feat, though, that well, just read it... I mean, a 5e caster in a world where everything had Mage Slayer would still have it easier than an old-school magic-user.
  • 05:59 PM - TwoSix quoted Garthanos in post Show me how to build a defender....
    I think well done homebrew is on the table Mage Hand Press has a really nice Warden class that's probably the closest I've seen to fitting the 4e defender paradigm; unfortunately it's still limited to Patreon subscribers.
  • 05:19 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Garthanos in post Show me how to build a defender....
    Your being very hard to hit is not some invisible property If they do not behave differently very quickly then the DM is roleplaying them very badly... It depends on the nature of the enemy. Skeletons, golems and other unintelligent foes will keep flailing away however ineffectual their attacks are. And if the guy who is very hard to hit is physically between the enemy and more vulnerable targets then even intelligent foes might have no choice but to try and go through them. This is the behaviour that MMOs couldn't emulate.
  • 04:28 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    @dave2008 creating non-combat tactical role support might be something brand new to D&D even. Though I have heard of the face and similar ideas I do not remember them ever being rich with tactical choices. Yes, there is a 5e 3PP supplement that created something they called "social combat." I downloaded that draft, but I didn't end up backing the kickstarter. I think the idea of non-combat tactical options is very interesting, but I have even less of an idea of how to implement them.
  • 04:26 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Adjectives cannot stand alone they describe the other and I pointed out you could in theory also create a non-combat tactical module which might be very intriguing to be honest. It is interesting that you still haven't answered the question directly. You seem to assume that because the adjective is not the subject that it cannot be important? I do not. I simple asked which was more important to you: the adjective or the noun. Frankly I can't understand why you don't simply say what is important to you. It only takes 1-5 words and it would be very clear. Instead you feel the need to describe the rules of the English language to me (which don't answer the question)? It just feels oddly obtuse to me. However, based on your responses I assume the important part to you was the "role(s)" So, correct me if I am wrong, to you a tactical module would have to emphasis/support PC roles. Is that correct? So, if I created a module that didn't support specific roles, but did create tactical option...
  • 04:24 PM - GlassJaw quoted Garthanos in post Show me how to build a defender....
    Here is a lesson in playing a defender if you are too hard to hit and ultimate on saving throws ie defenses it is a very good way NOT to be an effective defender in 4e because the DM will have next to no reason for monsters to attack you because the DM is almost always the difference between you being attacked and not I play D&D under the assumption that the opposition will be monsters and enemies, not the DM. If the DM changes the way the monsters are supposed to behave because of my character, I will have a conversation with the DM face-to-face.
  • 03:47 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Adjective is battlefield indicating type and noun is role ... could call it combat role too. ( though in theory you could actually have a non-combat tactical expansion) Ha! I didn't ask which was adjective and which was a noun, I asked which you thought was important. I still don't know which is important to you from your response.
  • 03:33 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Not everything is a comparison and 4e will not always be better ;) - it cannot be ubiquitous like it was in chainmail (nor as absolute) so giving it other subtle control like the control I added which fit flavorwise seems a compensation for the indirect control it used to get. OK, it just threw me off. ;) FYI, I do give my dragons some control as there BW leaves an area of effect and often applies some conditions (sorry the fireball just reminded me).
  • 03:31 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Sure and ones best designs are likely something you buy into yourself. I also think battlefield role support is a component of tactical game play. 5e is not very flush with that. So a module that built a series of subclasses to bring that on might be good. Had not even seen the Cavalier till I asked about defenders. I guess I'm not sure what you mean as I feel there is plenty of battlefield support. Is the important part there "role" and not battlefield?
  • 03:25 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Fireball and lightning were iconic wizard magic from Chainmail they had indirect control because they were ubiquitous and as large area of not-ally friendly effects influences enemy behavior to not-clump together and 2 get close to allies of the wizard so the wizard cannot easily smash you - A wizard always had 1 or the other (which they could do every turn of the battle). Other consistent abilities included counterspell, immunity to normal missile fire, seeing in the dark and being invisible until they attacked. I am not sure why you have said the above as it doesn't seem relevant to my statement. My point was simply that a fireball in 5e works just like a fireball in 4e. The 4e fireball didn't have any added control aspects. That which was there in 4e is there in 5e.
  • 12:22 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Strikers cannot be the only ball game in town. I recently adjusted the Fireball and Lightning bolt to actually be more controller for 4e... inducing movement and creating zones and inducing some more conditions. That is interesting. Fireball was not a control spell in 4e, it just did damage. For a module to be tactical it has to have well defined situational choices. I know that is vague but my spark is languishing in near 100 degree heat Yep, that is pretty vague and hard to design too. I'm engaged in another project at the moment. But I think this is an interesting challenge I might want to take up. Though I think my goals would be different than yours.
  • 08:21 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Strikers cannot be the only ball game in town. There are no strikers in 5e. There are characters that have little to contribute /in combat/ but damage, and have more to do outside of combat, and there are tougher characters who have little, at all, to contribute besides damage. But there are no strikers. Anyway, the only ballgame in DnDtown is Fire/ball/.
  • 04:26 AM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Not what I was saying I was saying so there is that. You wanted to know why I thought it would be difficult and that was an element I would like to see but also an example of how such an element could touch on wide varieties of other design elements and that is a reason tactical elements tend to not be easy squeezy lemon peasy Yes, but that was my previous response wasn't it? It is hard to determine how a tactical module would affect other parts of the game if we don't know what we mean by "tactical module." So I guess I will ask in another way: 1) What would you want in a tactical model. 2) What would you have to have to be considered a tactical module (without these things you wouldn't consider it a tactical module)?
  • 04:05 AM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Did that way back in 1e days but I am lazier now... reflavor seemed sufficient Well, note I said "significant" monsters. I don't do it for everyday orcs and such. I don't remember making custom monsters at all back in 1e / D&D days. I really on started doing that with 4e and 5e.
  • 03:32 AM - GlassJaw quoted Garthanos in post Show me how to build a defender....
    Could you elaborate a Halfling who just wants to keep his friends safe sounds familiar Well as others as illustrating, it's difficult to build the traditional MMO tank/defender role in 5E. There isn't a simple "grab aggro" mechanic. But another way to be a "defender" is make a character that can soak a ton of damage, incredibly difficult to kill, and can offer some control to the battlefield. The halfling sword & board barbarian is one of those characters: AC: It's not too hard for a Stout halfling to get to 16 Dex and Con. With a shield, that gives you AC 18 early on. Hp: d12 Hit Dice, and with Bear Totem you take half damage against everything except psychic damage. Saves: This is where it gets nutty. Danger Sense gives you advantage against any effects you can see. Halflings have advantage against fear and poison. Plus halflings reroll 1's. Plus, if you make a Dex save, you take no damage because of Shield Master. And if you do fail, you take a quarter damage because of Bear Totem...
  • 01:42 AM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Bloodied is a pacing mechanism which changes and swaps out tactical choices. (Does that make bloodied tactical even though it itself isn't usually a choice I think so - see below for ways it becomes a choice too) I apologize, i didn't explain what I meant. I believe the bloodied condition has a tactical element, my point was I don't think it is necessary for a "tactical module." I think you can have a tactical module without having the bloodied condition. As far as you using it and it not being a problem... well how many enemies play differently when bloodied? I have roleplayed them since 1e differently but i do not find that being quite the same. Do you have skills that play off of it? how many racial features or feats trigger off of it etc etc. i feel it all adds up. It depends. I don't have to re-write the whole book, we just deal with the players we have so we don't have to deal with all of the possible issues or options. That being said, play is very different when our characters or...
  • 12:42 AM - GreyLord quoted Garthanos in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    Looks for place in the books saying monster and player facing rules are identical... then turns to 3rd edition ahah. That's true. IF we go by that...the DMG would be for monsters? The PHB defines what happened to the players already at 0 HP. :)

Saturday, 20th July, 2019

  • 11:40 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Garthanos in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    There was a player designed expansion for 4e I think it was designed to show how the rules were flexible enough that without change you can make 4e as deadly as you wanted I think it was called 4th core?I've heard about it but never checked it out. What did they do, just dial up encounters?
  • 11:38 PM - dave2008 quoted Garthanos in post So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever
    Because increasing the tactical element of play interleaves with every class used and any combat spell and every monster in use. How many bits and pieces do you have to interact with just for one element is what makes it difficult? I already mentioned the bloodied condition I will point out more broadly why that example works. It can give us monsters who have tactically interactive abilities defenses and powers which change over stages of a combat what makes them inducing/encouraging different kind of choices and approaches by the players. There could more stages if one wanted to notch it up. Honestly I am not asking for identical to previous editions. One hopes for better. I guess it depends on what you mean by "Tactical Module." For example, the bloodied condition is not something I would have thought as part of such a module. So I guess the first thing would be: what is needed for you to consider it a tactical module? FYI, we use a version of the bloodied condition in out 5e games a...


Page 1 of 91 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Garthanos's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites