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

Basic Information

Date of Birth
February 3, 1976 (43)
About Staffan
Location:
Lund, Sweden

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
6,459
Posts Per Day
1.01
Last Post
Tyranny of Dragons Getting Republished in Combined Anniversary Volume Sunday, 21st July, 2019 09:57 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
10
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 06:11 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 19th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Tuesday, 23rd July, 2019


Monday, 22nd July, 2019


Sunday, 21st July, 2019


Sunday, 7th July, 2019


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Wednesday, 6th March, 2019

  • 11:00 AM - pemerton mentioned Staffan in post Why the hate for complexity?
    Staffan's post made me think about Rolemaster: 1. Declare attack/defence split. 2. Declare target. 3. Roll d100. 4. Add attack portion of the split declared at 1. 5. Subtract target defence. 6. Cross reference on chart to determine hits taken and crit delivered. 7. Roll crit. 8. Cross reference on chart to determine consequence of crit. 9. Determine total hits delivered (from 6 and 8). 10. Apply hits taken and other crit effects to target. This can get to twelve steps if more than one crit table has to be consulted (which can happen with some RM attack forms).

Friday, 1st March, 2019

  • 12:52 AM - Hussar mentioned Staffan in post Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong
    There was the whole dividing XP between classes thing that meant that multiclass characters advanved real slooow. As Staffan said, you were generally only a level behind, and, depending on what classes you had, you might not even be that. IIRC, the XP for a 10th level fighter made me something like a F8/MU9/Thief10. Hrm, give up two levels of fighter for 19 levels in other classes? Yeah, not really a trade off. :D Funnily enough though, we always played that MU could never use armor. So that fighter/MU was still unarmored. At least, that's how I remember us playing. Maybe that was a 2e thing though? It's been FAR too long since I played 1e.

Saturday, 28th July, 2018


Thursday, 31st August, 2017

  • 09:06 AM - Coroc mentioned Staffan in post Xanathar hint from Crawford?
    Staffan Aldarc Oh now i see the prob, i was in good belief the sorc could get something by converting the level 4 and 5 slots to get more level 3 castings and cherrypicked fireball for its damage and ae potential, but it does not make any sense to use the level 4 slots for that purpose, because you would get less than the 5 sp needed for that new level 3 slot and even with level 5 you would just be on par and better of casting the fireball as a higher level slot. And i see another prob with converting the lower level slots to get 5 sp for a new 3rd level slot, it requires a bonus action and can get really fiddly midcombat. Your sorc PC is constantly confronted with numerical problems. That is maybe an issue which should be fixed somehow for real. But let us see if i was so wrong if we take another example by using level 10 sorcerer and level 5 spells. Asuming you could somehow convert your lower level slots in a meaningful order to always ach...

Saturday, 8th July, 2017

  • 03:42 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Staffan in post Short rest house rule
    Staffan I don't see any problem with this house rule at all. If it makes your game work better, go for it. My only question is about the difficulty with taking an hour long short rest to begin with. Why are these so hard to come by? Don't get me wrong, I'm all about limiting where and how often my PCs can rest, but I do generally allow them options. So I ask out of curiosity to better understand your need for a house rule.
  • 03:32 PM - Kobold Stew mentioned Staffan in post Short rest house rule
    I think you unfairly drills down on specifics here. ... Why? Because I feel focusing on the 5 to 15 minute difference misses the point. I apologize to Staffan if I seem unfair. I see the core of the proposal that each of the first three rests takes an (increasingly longer) different amount of time. The DMG raises the possibility of 5-minute rests (DMG 267), and says that two a day is about right (DMG 84). The house rule helps to enforce that design constraint, and suggests that the players won't police themselves (i.e. that short-short rests will be abused). If the OP doesn't like hour-rests, shorter ones are fine. What I do not see is what is gained by distinguishing between 5 minutes and 15 minutes for a short rest in most games.

Friday, 7th July, 2017

  • 01:29 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Staffan in post Mearls on other settings
    ...pective. For every person on the internet complaining about how a setting got ruined, you have ten more who are happy with the setting, and then another ten who don't like the changes, but they just do what they want without worrying about what's "canon". And, then there's this: But, what about changes in that timeline that ran contrary to the themes and character of the setting? Adding druids to Dark Sun came pretty late in the run and was a major change. Dragonlance as another example was massively changed over the course of its run. What constitutes the "themes and character" of that setting? So on and so forth. No matter what WotC does, they are going to get it wrong, at least according to a number of fans. Who are then going to make things unbearable for the rest of us while they take up their torches and pitchforks. I'm sorry, but, I just watched how "reasonable" setting fans are for the past six or so years. I have zero faith. Druids were there from the jump, as Staffan already said. And Dark Sun is actually a good example of a setting that made too many changes. The characters in the Prism Pentad novels pretty much dealt with all the major storylines and faced many of the major villains, going so far as to kill some of the Sorcerer Kings and even the Dragon. Which is fine for the novels. But then the Revised Edition had to run with those changes and re-establish the setting after the novels. And a large chunk of it was garbage. The solution is not to complain about it, although I don't blame people for complaining. But it's not a solution. The solution is to do what you want with the setting.

Wednesday, 7th June, 2017


Tuesday, 17th January, 2017

  • 12:02 PM - dave2008 mentioned Staffan in post Points of Light setting and current cross-over strategy: Round peg in the square hole.
    Just thought I would post this because reading the whole thing is important than just a snippet. Also, as Staffan mentioned: “For Duty and Diety,” pg 57 “The Marketplace appears as nothing more than a huge, sprawling bazaar. It stretches for miles in every direction, with tents and stalls making impromptu roadways through the realm. Gambling halls, drinking tents, and hucksters of all varieties mix here indiscriminately. It’s a place of splendor, but it’s also very, very confusing to a newcomer. The Marketplace Eternal is actually home to four gods of wealth and trade; Waukeen of Toril, Shinare of Krynn, Zilchus of Oerth, and Sera of Aebrynis have pooled their resources to make their realm larger than each of them might have managed alone. Each power maintains his or her own quarter of the realm. Waukeen’s quarter is called the House of Barter, and she eagerly leads the PCs to a wide, busy landing in this portion of the realm. As the group appears, a hush falls over the assembled beings here as they realize who walks among them once more” Emphasis mine
  • 01:22 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Staffan in post New Digital Games Studio announced by the president of Wizards of the Coast
    I said it before, I have meant no hostility, in what I have posted before and what I'm posting now. @Morrus, I also have no problems with books, I thought my exchange with @darjr around post #98 of this thread made that clear. @Staffan, I see no point in discussing theft as a legitimate business option. A consideration, yes, an option, no. @Charles Rampant, I'm not bent out of shape. I'm amused. As Myrddin points out, most of what you ask for is already available. As I pointed out earlier, I find it amusing that people continually make the same complaints yet refuse to acknowledge that options other than what they have envisioned are available. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your ideas of a companion app are something new and revolutionary, but what has been described in this thread fails to describe something new and revolutionary in my understanding. I find discussions on ENWorld interesting. One aspect of that is that people seem to assume hostility here rather than interest or critical consideration.

Sunday, 15th January, 2017

  • 01:03 PM - dave2008 mentioned Staffan in post Points of Light setting and current cross-over strategy: Round peg in the square hole.
    First of all you need to watch you call a troll. I haven't called you any names so try and have a bit more class and don't call me any. I have reported you as well. Secondly: This has already been touched on and I have already explained what this all means in detail so I'm not sure why you are repeating it. No you haven't - at least not in this thread. I may not be familiar with every piece of FR lore, but I have read every page of this thread. In post #44 You said: 1) "homedrew disclaimer" for the Ed Greenwood quote - fine. Pretty weak, but fine. 2) You claimed Ed Greenwood did not support the multiverse with no citation 3) "None of the official products mention anything about Oerth, Krynn, Darksun, or Mystara." Yet @ Jester David and Staffan provide evidence to the contrary - you did not react to that. You also said, "The only thing we have is an older Dragon mag article about Elminster having a get together with Mord and Dalamar and that wasn't even written by Ed Greenwood" Again Jester David provided supporting evidence by Ed Greenwood and you have not addressed that. As expected, when presented evidence contrary to your opinion you ignore it. 4) Not really relevant.
  • 03:46 AM - dave2008 mentioned Staffan in post Points of Light setting and current cross-over strategy: Round peg in the square hole.
    Wow Jester David and Staffan that is one of the best troll beat downs by evidence I have ever seen. The question is, did you remember to use fire? Now I guess we will see what kind of person Corpsetaker is in how he/she responds to your evidence.
  • 01:54 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Staffan in post Points of Light setting and current cross-over strategy: Round peg in the square hole.
    Thanks for those references Staffan, I couldn't remember where I had seen them and was worried I might have made them up in my own campaigns (which have always embraced the multi-verse approach).

Friday, 22nd January, 2016

  • 09:48 AM - delericho mentioned Staffan in post Could Paizo go 5e?
    As far as I can tell, there are no domains in the SRD that weren't present in the PHB; I don't know what FRCS domains you are thinking of. I was thinking of the ones Staffan linked to. You're right, however, that those come from "Deities & Demigods" (some of them, such as Madness (RttToEE) and Scalykind (FRCS), don't originate there, but that's the book where they're all gathered). Not that it matters... The point is still that fundamentally the development of 3.5 remained closed, and Wizards produced a phenomenal amount of content for the game that was never added to the SRD or quietly Opened like UA. Sure, I agree with that. As always, though, it's worth noting that WotC were never under any obligation to add anything to the SRD. It's really good that Paizo see significant value in open gaming, and I'll list that as one of their strengths, but that doesn't imply that I'll necessarily criticise WotC for coming to a different conclusion.

Sunday, 27th December, 2015


Monday, 16th November, 2015

  • 09:47 PM - pukunui mentioned Staffan in post Forgotten Realms Deities
    hawkeyefan: Yeah, I guess. I think maybe Gond's just on my mind at the moment because the PCs in my Tyranny of Dragons campaign have been running around Baldur's Gate for the past few sessions, and he plays a fairly important role in society there - and there *is* actual evidence of technological progress in that city, since its port, at least, has definitely gone through a bit of an industrial revolution, what with its steam-powered cranes that run on rails and the like. Staffan: Yeah. I asked the same question over at Candlekeep, and someone else pointed out that the Realms had been going in a slightly more technologically-advanced direction under TSR, but it seems that WotC put a stop to that starting with 3e. And yes, Gond is the described as being the god of craftsmen and such, not just invention, but the way he's described in the SCAG seems to put the emphasis back on the latter. For example: "Anyone who is crafting something might say a prayer to Gond to guide the work, but folk know that Gond smiles most brightly upon new inventions that others find useful." It goes on to talk about how Gond's priests "keep journals in which they record ideas, inventions, and innovations discovered in their travels, and take great delight in meeting fellow priests and sharing their finds ... Wandering priests turn their journals over to the resident scribes at such temples, who then record the priests' observations for posterity and the benefit of all." This all m...

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Staffan in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...ihari Lord ; @Mistwell ; @MoogleEmpMog ; @Mon @MonkeezOnFire ; @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) ; @MostlyDm ; @Mouseferatu ; @MoutonRustique; @Nemesis Destiny ; @neobolts ; @Neonchameleon ; @Nifft ; @nightspaladin ; @nomotog; @n00bdragon ; @Obryn ; @Ohillion ; @oknazevad ; @Olgar Shiverstone ; @Orlax ; @Otterscrubber ; @Pandamonium87 ; @Paraxis ; @PaulO. ; @Pauln6 ; @Pauper ; @payn; @pemerton ; @peterka99 ;@ Pickles III ; @Pickles JG ; @pkt77242 ; @pming ; @pogre; @PopeYodaI ; @Prickly ; @procproc ; @Psikerlord ; @Psikerlord# ; @(Psi)SeveredHead; @Quickleaf ; @Raith5 ; @raleel ; @Ralif Redhammer ; @Raloc ; @Ranes ; @RangerWickett; @Ratskinner ; @redrick ; @Rejuvenator ; @Remathilis ; @Ristamar ; @RolenArcher; @Roland55 ; @RPG_Tweaker ; @Rune ; @Rygar ; @Sacrosanct ; @Saelorn ; @Saeviomagy; @sailor-Moon ; @SailorNash ; @Saplatt ; @Satyrn ; @Shades of Eternity ; @shadowmane; @sheadunne ; @Shasarak ; @shidaku ; @shintashi ; @Shiroiken ; @SigmaOne ; @sleypy; @sleypy01 ; @SpiderMonkey ; @Staccat0 ; @Staffan ; @steeldragons ; @steenan @STeveC ; @strider13x ; @Strider1973 ; @Sword of Spirit ; @Talmek ; @TerraDave; @TheCosmicKid ; @The_Gneech ; @TheHobgoblin ; @The Human Target ; @the Jester; @The Mirrorball Man ; @The Myopic Sniper ; @ThirdWizard ; @Tia Nadiezja ; @Tinker-TDC; @Tonguez ; @Tony Vargas ; @Tormyr ; @TrippyHippy ; @tsadkiel ; @tuxgeo ; @twigglythe Gnome ; @TwoSix ; @Uchawi ; @Ulorian ; @UnadvisedGoose445 ; @UngeheuerLich; @Us ; @Valmarius ; @Warbringer ; @was ; @wedgeski ; @Wednesday Boy ; @Wik ; @WillDoyle ; @Winterthorn ; @Wuzzard ; @Xeviat ; @Yaarel ; @Yunru ; @Zalabim ; @Zansy; @Zardnaar ; @Zeuel ; @ZickZak ; @ZombieRoboNinja ; @ZzarkLinux

Monday, 27th July, 2015

  • 08:32 PM - steeldragons mentioned Staffan in post What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?
    Well, nothing I can find in UA says anything bout it. There is the "expanded giant class list" which adds in goblinoid/"giant class" critters from FF and MM2. So, in addition to the [correct] quote from Staffan, UA adds: cyclopskin, dune stalker, flind, gibberling, grimlock, meazel, norker, ogrillon, quaggoth, tasloi, and xvarts. Nothing about DMs adding things beyond this list, though.

Saturday, 2nd May, 2015

  • 03:39 AM - pemerton mentioned Staffan in post Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
    ...he major aspect is that they made the ranger unique and gave it mechanics. <snip> To me, the first thing you do when you make a class after creating its story and background is design its 1st, 2nd, and 5th level class features. You define the first few class features that the class uses all the time that others cant and the first upgrade of that.Sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who want WotC to design them an artificer class to have to either drop that request, or design the class themselves! It wasn't fans of the ranger as a separate class who designed the 5e ranger, after all: WotC did. All existing 5e classes have earned their place because they have more than proficiencies and spell lists to differentiate them. It's not much to ask that any proposed artificer/psion/warlord/whatnot has that, too. no one's proposing anything about what those unique class features should be(@Minigiant has a few ideas). There have been a lot of ideas posted. Staffan seems to me to have given the most detail, using bard as a model for the class design. You seem not to have responded to those posts. People have mostly given reasons why the artificer is not a wizard: no spell book, different spell list, different HD, different proficiencies, different class features (eg infusing items). ThirdWizard gave a pretty comprehensive list upthread. Given that 5e doesn't support "refluffing", and given that 5e sub-classes are additive but not subtractive, these are good reasons to think that the artificer is not a wizard subclass. The claim to be a bard sub-class is cleary stronger, but Remathilis and others have made a flavour-based case against this; and in 5e flavour is integral ("refluffing" is not part of the game). What would the class actually look like? That's for WotC to say, just as, knowing that fans wanted a ranger that wasn't just a fighter with Archery or TWF prof plus some nature profs, they provided a ranger that was its own thing. ...

Tuesday, 28th April, 2015

  • 03:12 AM - doctorhook mentioned Staffan in post Advantage when two allies are in melee with the same enemy?
    Thanks for the feedback, gang! I obviously was confused, and I think Staffan and CapnZapp were exactly correct: there was a rogue in the first party I DM'd for 5E, and I think I mistakenly translated the rules for sneak attack onto the rules for advantage. I appreciate the input.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 44 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 21st July, 2019

  • 10:25 PM - Parmandur quoted Staffan in post Tyranny of Dragons Getting Republished in Combined Anniversary Volume
    Depends on how you count it. 1e had lots of module collections (e.g. first G1, G2, and G3, and then G1-3 and then later included in GDQ1-7) but I don't think they were nostalgia products as much as just compilations. If you count AD&D as a single edition (which it sort of is - the differences are minuscule, particularly compared to later editions), you have Return to White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff, and Return to the Tomb of Horrors as well. I'd only start counting from the first WotC edition: 3.x nor 4E did this sort of thing that I can recall.

Saturday, 22nd June, 2019

  • 02:09 PM - Oofta quoted Staffan in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Agreed. Or, to take an example from The Good Place: In life, Tahani was a world-famous philantropist, raising billions and billions of dollars for charity. Objectively, the world was a better place because of her. But the main reasons she did that was to impress her parents and to outshine her sister - not because of a sincere desire to help. And that is why she went to the Bad Place after death. Well, in all fairness Everyone is going to the bad place and has been for a while now
  • 10:30 AM - CapnZapp quoted Staffan in post Paizo Update: Pathfinder 2E Core and Bestiary in Regular and Deluxe Editions
    We don't know what the final product will say yet, but in the playtest the common factors seemed to be: 1. Class feat and skill feat every even level. 2. Skill increase every odd level (except first). 3. Ancestry feats at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. 4. General feats at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. 5. Ability boosts at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. I haven't seen any indication that they've changed this basic structure, though they may have changed the more class-specific increases.If magic items are even close to being as ubiquitous as in PF1/3E this does not paint the whole picture. That is, if you can increase your stats by another ten points or so from two different bonus types, or gain a couple of feats thru magical doodads...
  • 06:53 AM - trancejeremy quoted Staffan in post Paizo Update: Pathfinder 2E Core and Bestiary in Regular and Deluxe Editions
    They've said that some of the old classes will get full class treatment, while others can be handled via dedication class feats (like multi-classing). It depends on how much the class brings to the table - I think they've said that the Cavalier is a strong candidate for the dedication route, for example. This strikes me amusing, as it's somewhat what AD&D 2e did with "kits"

Friday, 21st June, 2019

  • 07:26 PM - Mournblade94 quoted Staffan in post Acquisitions, Inc.: First Impressions
    Adventuring Companies have been a fixture of the Realms for a long time, ever since the beginning. The Grey Box spends three pages talking about what they are and lists the roster and exploits of a few famous ones. AI, as far as I can tell, adds a bit of corporate humor to the mix, but it doesn't seem to add anything radically new. Adventuring company charters have always been a thing in Forgotten Realms. The Knights of Myth Drannor have a charter. But that's a far cry difference from changing it to some random office show.
  • 02:50 AM - Kurotowa quoted Staffan in post Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?
    I often get the feeling that the designers thought short rests were fairly easy to get, so they overvalued abilities you recover on a short rest. Had a short rest been like in 4e, about 5 minutes long, the warlock recovering their spells on a short rest would have been amazing. But instead, at least in the game I'm running (Princes of the Apocalypse, so fairly dungeon-heavy) it seems like the number of situations where the PCs could take a short rest but not a long rest is fairly small. That does seem to be the more common (though not exclusive) play experience. The assumption is two short rests a day. It really makes me wonder how a house rule that all "recharge on short rest" abilities are multiplied by three and recharge on a long rest instead would work. Has anyone actually played with something like that? I'm sure it would be a bit uneven, but the disparity between long rest and short rest classes is probably my biggest complaint about 5e at this point.
  • 02:07 AM - Parmandur quoted Staffan in post Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?
    I often get the feeling that the designers thought short rests were fairly easy to get, so they overvalued abilities you recover on a short rest. Had a short rest been like in 4e, about 5 minutes long, the warlock recovering their spells on a short rest would have been amazing. But instead, at least in the game I'm running (Princes of the Apocalypse, so fairly dungeon-heavy) it seems like the number of situations where the PCs could take a short rest but not a long rest is fairly small. The assumption is two short rests a day.
  • 12:17 AM - Yaarel quoted Staffan in post Paizo Update: Pathfinder 2E Core and Bestiary in Regular and Deluxe Editions
    We don't know what the final product will say yet, but in the playtest the common factors seemed to be: 1. Class feat and skill feat every even level. 2. Skill increase every odd level (except first). 3. Ancestry feats at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. 4. General feats at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. 5. Ability boosts at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. I haven't seen any indication that they've changed this basic structure, though they may have changed the more class-specific increases. In the British interview, the Pathfinder team mentioned everyone in the party being werewolves, and using the Advancement table to reflect this. I am curious about what they meant, exactly.

Thursday, 20th June, 2019

  • 06:05 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Staffan in post Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?
    I would be very surprised if Mearls hasn't had a folder on his computer named "6e ideas" since at least the day 5e went to the printer. I would also be surprised if it has gone farther than that. I’m guessing that folder contains “use varying dice types to add to proficiency instead of a flat rate.” 😉 He was pretty fond of that idea in playtest, and seemed disappointed the survey results didn’t support it.
  • 01:53 PM - Paul Farquhar quoted Staffan in post Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?
    That's not exactly true. In 1e, rangers got followers when they reached 10th level, and those followers could include animals. Which was easy to balance. All classes got followers, whether animal or not. And all followers where expendable replaceable cannon fodder, so there was no need to inflate their stats. Like ranger dual wielding, it's all Drzzt's fault. Drzzt's companion was a Figurine of Wondrous Power, not a class feature.
  • 01:37 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Staffan in post A question on some game systems
    Old-school Runequest has the same types of magic, but handles them in different ways.Yep. RQ 3rd added sorcery. The RQII I played had Battlemagic, which you just learned and spent POW to use. Battlemagic used a focus, like a lesser rune, that you needed to cast it, and your own POW. You could also get a Matrix, a magic item that 'knew' the battlemagic for you, and Power Crystals - drops of god's blood shed before time - that you could store POW in, then recover it, yourself, so you could use some battlemagic without depleting it (POW was the fuel for battle magic, and the attack stat, and the defense against it, so, yeah.) Rune Magic, which you got by sacrificing POW, and was re-useable if a Priest or one-time as an Initiate the character I played most was in the Black Fang Brotherhood, and specialized in stealth, high POW gave you a stealth penalty, so whenever he crossed that line, he'd sacrifice for the cult-special rune magic: Shattering, which was a nasty little attack spell, that...

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 05:09 AM - oknazevad quoted Staffan in post New survey from WotC about boxed sets
    I have a suspicion that Greyhawk fans will be waiting quite a while longer on getting a "proper" 5e treatment of their setting. Five years or so. Because in five years it will be 2024, which is 50 years since D&D was originally released - and that makes a nostalgia product perfect. I could see that. Except what constitutes a "proper" setting treatment? The format of that has varied over the years. As does the answer to the question of what level of content to include; does the product give a broad overview of the high-level aspects of a setting, or does it deal with the close-in aspects of the day-to-day NPCs? Or does it do both by having multiple products, with regional guides released after the main broad setting guide? Or does it focus on those gazetteers as part of a series of adventure modules? All have been done over the years. The last is how WOTC has been handling it during the 5e era (even The Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica contains some adventure material), and it's been rather succ...

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 11:03 AM - Paul Farquhar quoted Staffan in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    But I think the tolerance for slow leveling was higher back in the day. I actually think this is insulting to younger players. "Grown Up" game designer: "those kids today they need to level up every 10 minutes in order to not get bored (my generation was oh so superior)". Actually, fast levelling comes from games like Diablo where there was minimal story advancement to reward players, so some other sort of candy was needed to keep players interested. Give players of any age a sufficiently engaging story and they don't need to be fed a constant diet of loot and levels to keep them playing.
  • 10:15 AM - CapnZapp quoted Staffan in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    Not in the slightest. Though I guess it depends on how generous the DM was with story XP in 2e (1e was more objective in this manner, giving 1 XP per gp worth of treasure brought back home). But I think the tolerance for slow leveling was higher back in the day. The original Baldur's Gate had an XP cap of 89,000 XP, which translated to 7th level for single-classed fighters, paladins, rangers, wizards, and clerics, and 8th level for single-classed druids, thieves, and bards. That's for a game that takes 40-80 hours to play through. Today, I think that would be a hard sell. One of the problems is that games with frequent leveling, e.g. World of Warcraft, have many many more levels than D&D. WoW started with 60 levels, and I believe they're up to 120 now. That gives you a lot more room for frequent "dings", and even after you've reached the max level there are many goals left (reputations, gear, crafting skills, dungeons/raids, and so on). With only 20 levels (and it's likely the game won't...
  • 01:10 AM - cbwjm quoted Staffan in post Gods and Divine Magic
    I had an idea for a setting that was somewhere between your Agnostic and Channeled. The idea was that the gods were like in Eberron - they may exist or they may not, but religion is primarily a social construct. But the Domains represented real aspects of reality, and the cleric class represented mystics who had a special bond that allowed them to channel this power. Using this power was a thing you had to learn, but at the same time it was more of an art than a science (hence being associated with Wisdom rather than Intelligence). Many religions would consider one or more domains linked to their god or gods, and there'd be some clerics who associated with those religions, but you wouldn't have a definite tie between clerics, religions, and gods. You might as well find a cleric of Trickery working for (or running) a shady merchant cartel or a thieves' guild as a temple of Sehanine.I actually had a similar idea. Each domain is one of the greater planes of existence which interact and create th...
  • 12:20 AM - flametitan quoted Staffan in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    Sorry to bother your discussion about dwarf wizards and cleric/warlocks and whatnot, but I just thought of another bit of lore that I miss from 4e: the Elemental Chaos. That is, the idea that the elements aren't separated into distinct planes that are all fire (so just going there will burn you to a crisp) or earth (so you'll be stuck in rock forever) or water (no air and infinite pressure) or air (falling forever). Instead, it's one plane where the elemental influences are turned up to 11, but since it's not made up of pure elements you can actually have adventures there without either instantly dying or having magic that makes the elemental influences window dressing. Salamanders swimming in a lake of lava: cool. All fire all the time: not. The elemental chaos is still in 5e. If you travel far enough out in the inner planes, they start warping back into each other, and form into it.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 11:21 AM - CapnZapp quoted Staffan in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    Similarly, they have a mechanic for concentration which limits the number of buff spells you can have up. It's not as binary as 5e's - a Concentration spell in PF uses one action per turn for the caster, and it might not be as ubiquitous, but the mechanic is there. I'm not saying they can't pull it off, but when your audience isn't asking for it, and given Paizo's record, I remain dubious. After all, adding these restrictions mean nothing unless they then have the courage to actually add them to nearly every spell. Take 5E as an example. Imagine removing the Concentration requirement from as few as a dozen spells, carefully selected. Boom! You've just neutered the entire concept. It still is there on paper, but your Wizard can, I don't know, be invisible while flying and still haste everybody else. My point? When you look at the Magic chapter, it is not nearly enough to just read the initial section where magic rules are explained. You also need to ensure that all the best spells really ...

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 09:04 PM - MechaTarrasque quoted Staffan in post What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?
    Primal power as distinct from arcane or divine. Each setting having a self-contained cosmology, with the meta-settings having the option to intrude but only from their own point of view (I could see a Planescape or Spelljammer supplement including Eberron stuff. I don't want Eberron to include Planescape or Spelljammer stuff.) I figure there are planescape and spelljammer types popping up in Eberron, but they aren't PC's or archliches or armies of githyanki, but wholesalers buying crates of magical flashlights or similar things, so very few every know about them. If the Eberron natives ever knew the truth, they might try to get into the multiversal commerce game, so they keep their true nature a secret (and they would be willing to do very bad things to keep the secret). And since magical flashlights are national security or anything and their gold is good, no one has any reason to investigate.....
  • 01:00 PM - Aldarc quoted Staffan in post "My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2
    Haven't we gone over this like a dozen times already? Paizo has said that they're using a method for monster creation that's similar to the one in Starfinder which in turn is similar to 4e: choose monster level and "role" and get basic stats from that, flavor with appropriate special abilities, and done. Some monsters might have magic stuff as their core kit, but those are more of a loot thing than a numbers thing.We have gone over this a dozen times, but if CapnZapp actually bothered reading the available resources provided/linked/discussed (or even listen),* then he wouldn't have far less to complain about, so he doesn't bother. I even sent him video links of Paizo talking about how monster/NPC creation would work in PF2. Has he watched any of them yet? Evidently not. But according to Paizo, it's even more improved (particularly the math) and streamlined than what is found in Starfinder. But yeah, monsters in 5e are simplified, but they are also mostly boring sacks of HP. For PF2, Paizo atte...
  • 08:07 AM - TheSword quoted Staffan in post Do you like Warhammer FRP 4th edition?
    I don't have much experience with 2e, but 4e is definitely crunchier than 1e. When reading it, I've noticed a tendency to define a lot of things like downtime activity and combat maneuvers. Some people appreciate having that sort of thing defined, others would prefer to wing it. One thing I do like is that you can have unlimited advancement without switching careers. In 1e, you could only ever get +10 to WS and BS as a mercenary - if you wanted more than that you needed to become something else, like a Mercenary Sergeant/Captain - and if you were playing by the rules, that basically meant that you needed to be part of a mercenary unit and become promoted. That's something we usually ignored, because our characters were adventurers and being blocked in your advancement is no fun, so we basically just paid the XP and moved on. But in 4e, there's nothing that says you can't boost your WS as high as you want it as a Recruit or Soldier - advancing to Sergeant offers the chance to learn other thing...


Page 1 of 44 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Staffan's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated
Bardificer - An Eberron-style Artificer based on the Bard class
Like many others, I was not happy with the artificer-as-wizard-tradition offered by Wizards of the Coast, because I thought it was too far off what the Eberron artificer was in 3e. So I made my own, based on the Bard class. Many of the class features...
350 +1 1 Monday, 23rd March, 2015, 06:14 AM Monday, 23rd March, 2015, 06:14 AM

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites