View Profile: Psikerlord# - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Psikerlord#'s Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 12:37 AM
    In order to get players to fear for their PCs lives, I suggest either (i) double the number of foes you usually use, (ii) use much higher power monsters, or (iii) change the death & dying rules to make the game genuinely dangerous.
    20 replies | 749 view(s)
    2 XP
No More Results
About Psikerlord#

Basic Information

Age
43
About Psikerlord#
Sex:
Male

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,221
Posts Per Day
0.69
Last Post
Combating fights to the death Monday, 20th May, 2019 12:37 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
39
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:45 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 5th August, 2010
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
6

Friday, 14th June, 2019


Tuesday, 21st May, 2019


Monday, 20th May, 2019


Saturday, 22nd September, 2018


Tuesday, 27th December, 2016

  • 10:09 AM - Lanefan mentioned Psikerlord# in post DMs, Do you allow your group(s) to play Evil PCs and/or parties, & why?
    So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?And a supplementary question for Psikerlord# is, why would it automatically be a TPK? If there's one E in a party of G's you're probably looking at one or two deaths tops: the E and maybe a G if s/he manages to drag one down with him/her. You are, however, looking at a session or two where nothing gets done beyond this... Lanefan

Thursday, 1st December, 2016

  • 05:50 AM - Ashabel mentioned Psikerlord# in post Advantage vs Disadvantage : What's the Math?
    Psikerlord#: I agree. I couldn't find anything like this (possibly was too lazy with my search cause I wanted the challenge myself) and I just felt like sharing my observations. Attempting to quantify what advantage/disadvantage actually meant is challenging, and I'm not even claiming anything with my post. Just what my observations were as I was doing this. Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

Wednesday, 20th April, 2016

  • 02:41 AM - pukunui mentioned Psikerlord# in post feeling dissatisfied - need some advice
    SteelDragon:Ouch. For the record, I am thoroughly enjoying the other game I'm DMing. Admittedly, that's a Tyranny of Dragons game set in the Forgotten Realms, so I've just been running it more or less as is, with just a few tweaks. This campaign is a homebrew. I had a specific vision of what I wanted it to be like, but through no one's fault but my own, it has not turned out to be that way. No, it's not that players' fault. It's my fault. Why shouldn't I be allowed to enjoy myself, though? It's not like I'm getting paid to DM.

Thursday, 7th April, 2016

  • 10:14 PM - Quickleaf mentioned Psikerlord# in post Making Chase Rules... that actually do what they're supposed to!
    I've been looking for a way to make chases interesting for a while now. This system has some similarities to what they have in Spycraft, but it is easier to run, and works easier with DnD rules. I might give this a try the next time a chase comes up. Yes, these rules are modeled on Psikerlord#'s chase rules, but then I made a bunch of changes that included looking at RPGs from the spy genre which generally receive praise for their chase rules... Spycraft, Top Secret, and James Bond 007 in particular. I'll need to do some play-testing, possible streamline them a bit, and tweak the chase events, but the rules should be good enough to play with for now.

Monday, 16th November, 2015

  • 05:58 PM - Skyscraper mentioned Psikerlord# in post Alternate Ranger (simple)
    Thanks for the comments and shares, and for the discussion. As concerns the two ranger fixes proposed in the UA articles: I find the first fix to bring the ranger a bit too close to the fighter, with the manoeuvers. I like that the fighter has exclusivity over that interesting mechanic and I feel that it doesn't distinguish the ranger enough to give him that as what then becomes its defining power. The second UA article brings the flavor of the ranger into the realm of the shaman as I noted above, and this is not a flavor I wish for the ranger to have. As for the ranger replicating spells with herbs and poultices as suggested by @Psikerlord#, while the idea is interesting and flavorful, it is not what I would be looking for. For one thing, it brings the ranger closer to an herbalist/alchmist. I understand that the flavor of the ranger picking herbs in the wild is somewhat distinctive, but the result remains a potion-maker and it's not what I'm hoping. My own take does have a bit of that with (1) a healing power and (2) a neutralize poison power; but I wish to orient the ranger elsewhere. The idea of making the ranger a rogue spineoff would also not be to my liking, although I understand the impulse. The sneak attack remains a distinguishing element of the rogue, and for the ranger to have that, it both works against distinguishing the ranger and the rogue. One important point I did not mention initially in this thread, is that the animal companion would not be limited in its actions or attacks: the ranger can order it to act whenever he wants. Without spells, the ranger looses Hunter's Mark. However, damage output would...

Sunday, 1st November, 2015

  • 03:19 AM - I'm A Banana mentioned Psikerlord# in post [Primeval Thule] House rules for spellcasting
    But, I have no interest in balance here. I WANT casters to be gimped. If you want to play a caster in my PT game, you are going to do so with significant disadvantages. Again, you're basing this on the idea that all classes should be equal. I have no interest in that. All that was based around Psikerlord# 's idea that they don't don't want to ban or discourage casters, but add some chaos. Adding some chaos to casters alone does discourage casters. I disagree. If the campaign features spells being cast every round, then it is not a low magic campaign, regardless of what's going on in the background. The players couldn't care less about what's going on in the rest of the world. The players care about the campaign they're playing. And if we allow full casters, then it's standard D&D, complete with magical solutions to every problem. I'm not interested. If the only way you can convey the low-magic style of the campaign is to enforce low-magic on the party, I think you're selling the setting short. If a party of casters galavanted around PT, they should probably have a very different experience to a bunch of casters galavanting around FR - all resisting their own madness and hiding out from villagers and unleashing their power only when far away from the prying eyes of their ...

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Psikerlord# in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...heLion ; @JamesonCourage ; @JasonZZ; @jayoungr ; @JediGamemaster ; @JeffB ; @Jester Canuck ; @jgsugden ; @jodyjohnson; @Joe Liker ; @JohnLynch ; @Johnny3D3D ; @KarinsDad ; @kerbarian ; @kerleth ; @Kinak; @KingsRule77 ; @Kirfalas ; @Kobold Stew ; @koga305 ; @Lanefan ; @Lanliss ; @Leatherhead; @Libramarian ; @Li Shenron ; @LuisCarlos17f ; @lowkey13 ; @Manbearcat ; @MarkB; @MechaPilot ; @Mecheon ; @mellored ; @Mephista ; @Mercule ; @MG.0 ; @MichaelSomething; @Miladoon ; @Minigiant ; @Mishihari 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 ; @Wi...

Wednesday, 9th September, 2015


Saturday, 5th September, 2015

  • 03:11 AM - pukunui mentioned Psikerlord# in post An adventure start for new PCs isn't railroading...
    Psikerlord#: I think it would only count as a railroad if the DM sprung it on the players without any warning. You know, like, "Hey everybody. Let's start a new campaign. Roll up some 1st level PCs ... Everybody ready? OK, now, you're all captives in a drow prison in the Underdark! Mwahahahahahaha!" If, instead, you say: "Hey, I've got this adventure that focuses on fighting demons in the Underdark. You guys wanna play? Cool. You start out as prisoners of the drow. When you roll up your character, please come up with a bit of backstory explaining how your character came to be captured by the dark elves." - that doesn't count as a railroad, because you're getting your players' buy-in ahead of time.

Wednesday, 2nd September, 2015

  • 12:07 PM - El Mahdi mentioned Psikerlord# in post Warlording the fighter
    ...a whole army). Doing so either allows all members of the group to recover hit points equivalent to the Warlord’s Wisdom or Charisma modifier times ½ the allies level (minimum of 1), or free all members of the group from non-magical fear (the Frightened condition), or reduce any effects due to exhaustion by one level. The group must be within hearing range of the Warlord, and only affects members not at 0 hit points. Command Actions (in-work) Individual tactics or maneuvers - based on Battlemaster maneuvers, 4E Warlord powers, etc. @fuindordm @Tony Vargas @GMforPowergamers @Hussar @cbwjm @epithet @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) @bert1000 EzekielRaiden @Manbearcat @Uchawi @Ashkelon @Eric V @pemerton @Jester Canuck @Bluenose @Minigiant @I'm A Banana @aramis erak @Warbringer @Leatherhead @ehren37 @Winterthorn @TheHobgoblin @Neonchameleon @Obryn @Imaro @nomotog @Ashrym @The_Gneech @Remathilis @Olgar Shiverstone @Sacrosanct @Gimul @Twiggly the Gnome @CapnZapp @MechaPilot @kerbarian @Psikerlord# @jgsugden @DEFCON 1

Monday, 13th July, 2015

  • 05:25 AM - Hussar mentioned Psikerlord# in post So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?
    ...'t there a spell that does [specific effect]?" Because the writers didn't think of it, they thought it would be imbalanced, and/or there's only so many pages in the PHB. Nothing more nefarious than that. Also, I recognize you're getting annoyed by this accusation, but when you repeatedly emphasize that you want to get these effects "and still deal damage", it does kind of sound like you're asking for more power. Please try to recognize that. The fact is that some effects simply are more powerful than others, and sometimes best balanced by sacrificing up-front damage. So it's like our hypothetical wizard player is asking "Why isn't there a hold person spell that also deals damage?" If this is not what you mean to say, maybe reconsider how you're framing your position. All Battlemaster manoeuvres deal damage and have an effect. Or, at least most of them do. That or you're helping someone else do damage or you're healing. Shouldn't that be the baseline? But at least Psikerlord# gets my point. Nice to see someone does. But watching Sacrosanct and Hemlock go through the mental contortions to ignore the dissociated nature of 5e just to avoid having to have any "taint" of 4e in 5e is hilarious. Good grief, how does one "draw upon reserve energy" to completely heal potentially lethal wounds? After all, a fighter could be bloodied by an attack - thus have actual physical appearance of damage, the player drops his second wind and poof, no more cuts and he mag... err... oops, not magically, regenerates. But, this is, of course, all associated, because, apparently, fighter training gives me a special button I can push in my belly button that fills up my Hit Points. :lol: Just like apparently, getting really angry makes my skin twice as tough so it take a bear twice as long to eat me. Note, the whole "dodging and shaking off pain" is something that's been added. There's nothing in the books that says this. How is this different than any other post hoc jus...

Saturday, 20th June, 2015

  • 04:25 AM - pemerton mentioned Psikerlord# in post Current take on GWM/SS
    ...e resolution of declared actions, of course they are, in some sense, of the players' own devising. As a limit case, if a player never declares attacks for his/her PC these feats won't cause any issues! Probably no one is playing the game at that limit point, but I'm not sure on what basis you are saying that some deviations from the limit are typical and some are aberrant and the fault of the players. D&D - especially in the post-AD&D era - presents itself, in part, as a type of optimisation puzzle, in the sense that a fair bit of PC building and game play involves manipulating numbers, with bigger being better. What is your threshold for acceptable or wrong-headed solutions to the puzzle that the game poses? Because you're 25% increase in DPR is not a huge deal. Not when the class that's getting this buff, typically the fighter, is getting left behind by all the spell casting classes at higher levels.Well this goes back to the question I posted not far upthread, and to which Psikerlord# replied. (And from his most recent post, DaveDash seems to agree.) If you nerf the feats, you establish a degree of balance between various damage-dealing warrior builds but at the risk of underpowering warriors. (This raises an issue about non-feat-using games: are warriors automatically underpowered in those games, without these damage boost feats to support them?) If you keep the feats as is, you make a couple of damage-dealing paths clearly superior, which suggests the alternative option of introducing some new feats for duelists and two-weapon fighters.

Tuesday, 9th September, 2014

  • 08:21 AM - Mouseferatu mentioned Psikerlord# in post In Defense of the Beastmaster
    ...those two exceptions make a huge difference. Saving throws, and the fact it takes an action to command an attack. The latter has been the subject of whole threads unto itself, so I'm not going back into it here. ;) In terms of HP, while 3e ACos had a higher potential max, their average hp are a bit lower than the 5e version. In 3e, the combo of Hit Die and stat increases over the levels wound up giving them a total of +10 to hit and +10 to AC over the course of all 20 levels. Using the prof bonus in 5e, it's +6--which, given the bounded accuracy, seems about right to me. 3e ACos were hardier because 1) they had save proficiencies, and 2) they got evasion. I realize we're getting into house rules territory, now, but if the DM just gives the ACo evasion and adds a line to the effect of "If the beast is not proficient in any saving throws, it becomes proficient in the saves in which its master has proficiency," I think that'll more or less fix it. (Gah! Way-of-shadow'd by Psikerlord# !)

Wednesday, 30th July, 2014

  • 09:52 AM - Ruin Explorer mentioned Psikerlord# in post This Game is Deadly
    ...g majority, and also claim to speak for the majority based on your perspective and experience. It's got to be one or the other. I'm afraid not, Mistwell. It merely means I might represent a very different constituency to this majority you perceive. One that is less common on ENWorld, but more common elsewhere. Or not. But your argument rests on the assumption that ENWorld is tightly representative of the RPG industry as a whole, or D&D players as a whole, and I don't think anyone believes that - Morrus, I certainly doubt does. Also, re: polling, I'm afraid that's not simply true, from an objective/fact-based perspective. I'm all over the place! Sometimes wild minority, sometimes supermajority. I can prove this by pointing to specific polls, if you want. (Recent examples of opinions on both ends of the spectrum - Like most people I thought that the Hermit background was awesome - very unlike most people I worry that backgrounds will be used as a lazy space-filler in 5E) Psikerlord# - Precisely! :) We disagree on most things, but neither of us knows if we're an outlier, and nor does Mistwell. We can only speak for our own experiences and beliefs. Mistwell - If you like I can add an "Everything in this post is IMO and IME." to my sig. - would that help? I mean, one assumes that, normally, but... :D I mean, let's be real, it's quite possible, what with this being the internet that I am a complicated chatbot, or that the people I play D&D with exist only in my head, or are robots living on the dark side of the moon or whatever, but you don't have any basis for asserting I'm outlier beyond ENWorld, and even then, I think it's less consistent than you think, given the PMs and upvote comments I get. One thing is that we're what, ten years different in age (entirely a guess - I'm 36) and I'm from a upper-middle-class (as 2E AD&D would put it!), vaguely academic/artsy-fartsy London (UK) background, and I presume you're from a very different one. Many people on ...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 50 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 22nd February, 2019

  • 11:27 PM - bulletmeat quoted Psikerlord# in post Initiative options?
    1. PCs make a roll under Dex check (or avg of Int & Dex, or whatever). If success, they go before monsters. If fail, they go after. This is much quicker than also having to have the GM roll, and everyone compare and sort out an order. A player immediately knows from their own roll if they go before monsters or after and can just decalre it. PCs sort out their own order, and GM sorts out monster order on the fly. 2. Use cards. Card for each monster type and PCs get a card each. Draw to see who acts next. Advantage on this system is quick, fun to draw cards, and most importantly no-one knows who is acting next... increases combat unpredictability which = more dangerous = I like. 1. I was thinking of something similar to this. Every group of enemies (4 goblins in one group, the 2 orcs in the second group, and the ogre in the third group for example) have a static Init score= DEX mod + proficiency mod + 10. Players roll their initiative normally each round. Any that beat the static score(s) ...

Sunday, 4th November, 2018

  • 12:55 AM - schneeland quoted Psikerlord# in post It's that time of year again! Nominate Your Most Anticipated Games of 2019
    There'll be a post on the site shortly, but basically: full colour, about 280 pages, incorporating all classes into one book (plus new cultist (cleric) class), most of the toolkit info (mass battle, traps, hirelings, blackpowder/ships), expanded wilderness exploration rules/tables, more monsters, example Unique Feature abilities, spell name changes (using Midlands style names), some other bits and pieces. All compatible with the original (well page number references will change). Awesome! I have just learned about the game and the "feature" list immediately clicked with me. So now I do have another title to look forward to in 2019.

Saturday, 3rd November, 2018


Friday, 26th October, 2018

  • 07:23 AM - Li Shenron quoted Psikerlord# in post Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
    If you dont have a trap every 5 ft there's no need to roll. I don't think anyone ever did that. Not that I have experienced anyway. You don't need to have a trap every 5ft, all that it takes is a bad adventure/DM that places traps in locations so random (e.g. the casual tile on the floor) that they are impossible to guess with reason -> players get frustrated by springing traps randomly -> players declare that they now check every single tile in the floor -> DM has them roll every check separately -> everybody gets bored and think the game (rather than the adventure/DM) sucks -> game desigers step in to save the game and introduce a rule to avoid too many rolls. It might be very much theorycraft, but at different times it has been a vocal one, and it's been going on for a long time (see Take 10 in 3e).
  • 01:09 AM - iserith quoted Psikerlord# in post Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
    And when the DC is 20? How about then. What if it's Infinity + 1? What're ya going to do then?!
  • 12:51 AM - iserith quoted Psikerlord# in post Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
    Not so. Good luck detecting that DC 18 trap with your PP 14. Bet you wish there was room for randomness then. No worries - if I'm the designated trap-finder with that low of a passive Perception, I'll just ask another PC to Work Together with me on that for a passive Perception of 19.

Thursday, 25th October, 2018

  • 11:02 PM - Li Shenron quoted Psikerlord# in post Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
    PP is broken, turning stealth PCs into super ninjas, and making traps auto detect or fail to detect with no randomisation involved (a spectacularly bad idea, why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know). I can't be sure without asking the designers, but I don't think passive perception was meant to remove randomness. IMHO it was brought into the game to silence the idea of rolling for traps every 5ft step.
  • 10:04 PM - iserith quoted Psikerlord# in post Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
    why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know). As a player, I absolutely do try to take luck out of any task I have my character attempt, to the extent that I can.
  • 09:51 PM - DEFCON 1 quoted Psikerlord# in post Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
    PP is broken, turning stealth PCs into super ninjas, and making traps auto detect or fail to detect with no randomisation involved (a spectacularly bad idea, why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know). There easily can be randomization when using passive perception if you randomize the DCs to be detected. Rather than just assigning DCs for hidden objects, you roll checks to see what those DCs are when creating the adventure.

Sunday, 23rd September, 2018

  • 10:48 AM - Zilong quoted Psikerlord# in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I dont hate 5e. The basic system is fine, apart from death and a number of the spells need to be removed. And reset everyone onto the same long rest refresh mechanic. And a few other tweaks. What I do dislike though, are Adventure Paths, which are partly responsible for the rise in importance of "plot", instead of RPGs focusing on open world choices - which after all is what they are better at than any other medium. Open world games are often overrated. I say this as both player and GM. I'm well aware that this runs counter to the prevailing opinion on many rpg forums. In the groups with which I've GM'd or played the unfocused nature of the "open world" style just gets bogged down with long stretches of nothing. True, a good GM can mitigate that, but the same can be said about problems with games built around a central plot. In either case, it is usually an issue of GM experience and skill. I just get annoyed when "open world" gets some kind of free pass as the promised land of gaming.
  • 06:39 AM - Lanefan quoted Psikerlord# in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    Cakewalk has become more and more overt however from 2e onwards. -10 before dead, then I forget 3e, but 4e had death saves making it hard to die and finally 5e it's almost impossible to die, short of a full TPK. And even if you do die, no worries, 3rd level revivify and done. Death is a speedbump on the plot train, because the show must go on. At the theory level I agree with you. At the practice level -10 before dead was a very widely used option in 1e; though it wasn't in the original 3 books and I forget when it came out, it did appear as an option quite early; and 1e-2e were still deadly if a DM didn't pull her punches. 3e was bloody deadly largely because they scaled up the monsters so much (and because the CR/EL system needed a bit of work, but that's on the DM to sort out). 4e's a different breed of animal - from what I've seen here it seems they'd either all die or all not die, they'd sink or swim as a unit - but it could still be rather deadly in the hands of a DM who let it be so. ...
  • 03:48 AM - pemerton quoted Psikerlord# in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.That's probably stronger than I would put it! But clearly if your basic model for play is the adventure path - or any other module/story which works by starting at event/encounter 1 and then working through to event/encounter N - then either the players need to succeed at each of 1, 2, 3, . . . N-1, or else the GM needs to adjust the consequences to compensate for failure (eg if the players miss the clue at 1, the GM feeds it to them at 2 instead). If and of 1 through N-1 is a fight, in a system which sets the stakes for losing a fight at death, then victory by the PCs better be pretty close to certain. I'm not sure if that's what you've got in mind by "cakewalk".

Saturday, 22nd September, 2018

  • 11:13 PM - Lanefan quoted Psikerlord# in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.I think much the same "cakewalk" claim has been made after the release of each edition starting with 2e. Nothing new there; and while it's harder to kill off PCs in some editions than others they can all be made about equally deadly (or not) depending on the DM. The "'strong narrative' to 'enjoy'" claim came even sooner, right around the time the Dragonlance modules came out in the 1e era.
  • 10:34 PM - cmad1977 quoted Psikerlord# in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded. Sounds like someone’s got a less than decent DM.
  • 10:27 PM - DEFCON 1 quoted Psikerlord# in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.Someone needs to start writing their own material and stop using adventure paths, methinks. ;)

Saturday, 11th August, 2018


Thursday, 9th August, 2018

  • 03:12 PM - Mike R quoted Psikerlord# in post WTF is "cold iron", and why's it so special?
    As I understand it cold iron is iron, just another name for it. In LFG however I made it: Weapons forged of cold iron (the oldest and purest iron ore, mined deep and sometimes exhibiting mild ferromagnetism) are best against Demons and Undead As a means of bypassing immunities without needing a magic weapon (and I made silvered weapons useful against lycantropes and aberrant terrors). what's "lfg"?

Wednesday, 1st August, 2018


Wednesday, 25th July, 2018

  • 02:00 PM - 5ekyu quoted Psikerlord# in post So I ran a 6-8 encounter day...
    IMO the best way to fix the 5e rest problem is as follows: 1. Short rests only restore HD 2. All short rest abilities are now twice per long rest. 3. Long rest takes 8 hrs 4. After long rest, roll on the table to see how many expended abilities are restored: 2d6 ABILITIES RESTORED 2-5: None of the character’s expended abilities are restored. 6-8: Half of the character’s expended abilities are restored. 9-10: Three quarters of the character’s expended abilities are restored. 11-12: All of the character’s expended abilities are restored. This system allows for dungeon crawls, wilderness treks and city adventures. All classes refresh on a consistent mechanic, but importantly, when an ability is used, there is no guarantee the PC will get it back after 8 hrs rest. This means there is a disincentive to nova, rest, repeat on days with fewer encounters (eg wilderness trek), but still allows for combat heavy days (eg dungeon crawl), assuming at least some of the party get lucky with their recovery ro...


Page 1 of 50 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Psikerlord#'s Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites