View Profile: DaedalusX51 - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About DaedalusX51

Basic Information

Date of Birth
May 1, 1984 (35)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
120
Posts Per Day
0.04
Last Post
Better Fighter? Tuesday, 18th July, 2017 03:04 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
7
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 17th February, 2018 09:14 PM
Join Date
Tuesday, 5th October, 2010
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
No results to show...

Thursday, 12th January, 2017

  • 06:27 PM - Satyrn mentioned DaedalusX51 in post Battle Master Homebrew Idea
    It would make more sense if you it was at-will, but you had to spend your action to do it. A class which gives up nothing in order to grant anyone else an entire extra action is twice as good as any other class. Oh my. I was about to tell you that you misread me, but then I reread (a couple times) what I wrote. 79911 @DaedalusX51, what Saelorn is saying here is right. I made a horrible copypasta booboo when presenting my all-in commander's strike. I meant to post ". . .on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks your action and use a bonus action to . . ."

Wednesday, 11th January, 2017

  • 09:44 PM - lowkey13 mentioned DaedalusX51 in post Would this fix Champion?
    DaedalusX51 If you are looking for specific feedback regarding the Champion, I think it would be best to do the following in a clear and concise manner, understanding that there are many people that are perfectly happy with the Champion as-is. 1. Explain your experience with the Champion (either personal or at the table). This will give people an idea as to why you are proposing the changes. Is this from game-play experience (someone rage-quit after playing the Champion because of X), or because you haven't seen it in play, and you think it's not being played because of Y. 2. Explain why you think changing the Champion is the best route, and why this chassis (class) is a better chassis to change than others. For example, "I love the idea of a simplified fighter, but I think it needs ...." 3. Explain what you want to accomplish with the change. "I think that the Champion needs more DPR, so ..." or "I think the Champion needs more defensive capabilities, so ..." 4. Propose your change and reque...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Tuesday, 18th July, 2017

  • 06:18 AM - Tony Vargas quoted DaedalusX51 in post Better Fighter?
    Now I think the argument about disassociative mechanics has merit, A lie repeated often enough can have that effect. If you try to come up with anything while worrying about what someone else might find 'dissociative,' you'll never get anywhere, because it's beyond subjective, it's downright arbitrary. If you stick with what you find 'associated,' it'll be fine, but narrow, because you have to lock in that narrative. I think they should have taken an effects first design like the Champions RPG, and made your power source dictate additional things about your abilities. So instead of having a bunch of pregenerated powers you would just create powers and give them your own fluff. Systems like that work but they obviate classes, almost entirely. Since D&D is primarily concerned with being D&D, and has always had classes... It could be fun to have an improvised maneuver system that simply is the maneuver design system, though, with a modest restriction to make having maneuvers wort...
  • 12:48 AM - Tony Vargas quoted DaedalusX51 in post Better Fighter?
    Superiority Dice kind of hit a nerve with me because you have 4-6 uses of maneuvers that recover on a short rest. Why can't I continue to trip people as part of an attack? Does it represent stamina? Does it represent the enemies catching on to your tactics? Sure, whichever one works for you. ;) I understand that we all have different levels on where we can suspend our disbelief and I think this is key to having a good roleplaying game. I think it's key to having a good player. Can you suspend your disbelief? Can you respect other people's suspension of disbelief, or do you throw a fit? Or do you break the unwritten 'don't be a jerk' rule? I think the backlash from 4E wasn't just because it was different, but because the mechanical implementation didn't match the story in many cases. In fact a good section of the 4E player base believed that it was best to ignore a power's "fluff" and instead create your own. IDK about 'best,' but the flavor text of a power was explicitly something the ...

Monday, 17th July, 2017

  • 06:54 PM - Tony Vargas quoted DaedalusX51 in post Better Fighter?
    I just don't think that only dealing damage is interesting design or fun to play. ... if you wouldn't mind explaining why you enjoy more damage over round by round choice I would greatly appreciate it. Can you really not imagine a situation where someone piling on massive damage as they progress levels wouldn't be having a brilliant time? I'm not sure how the negatives are meant to parse in that sentence, but, there are many circumstances were a character that gains little but scaling damage (which, let's face it, everyone does gain, in addition to other stuff), would miss out on some of the fun. There are certainly players that go there on purpose, and it's an article of faith that they do so because they love doing damage so much and aren't interested in the rest of the game. I think it may often be more nuanced than that, though. In most eds of D&D, turn-based combat means that everyone gets to step up and do something in a fight, but, outside of that structure, it's tends towards whoeve...

Sunday, 16th July, 2017

  • 05:43 PM - Hillsy7 quoted DaedalusX51 in post Better Fighter?
    First off apologies if that cam across a bit Brusque - I had half hour to kill in between meetings at work. I'm sorry that it came across that way. That wasn't my intention. I just don't think that only dealing damage is interesting design or fun to play. I don't think you're an idiot, but if you wouldn't mind explaining why you enjoy more damage over round by round choice I would greatly appreciate it. I don't understand your Eldritch Knight comment. If you wouldn't mind explaining what you mean by that, it would be appreciated. First off: Can you really not imagine a situation where someone piling on massive damage as they progress levels wouldn't be having a brilliant time? This is basically one of the reasons Sneak Attack progression has survived multiple iterations - a decent subset of players love grabbing and rolling loads of dice. I mean there's also a decent argument to be made that one of the great draws of the 5e fighter (Champion specific) now compared to 4e certainly, and 3/3.5...

Friday, 14th July, 2017

  • 01:18 PM - Hillsy7 quoted DaedalusX51 in post Better Fighter?
    After the rousing discussion on the Building a better Fighter thread, I decided to try to make a better Fighter with the input of that thread. Here is my idea, as well as my design notes for the decisions I've made. Take a look and tell me it's awesome! (or it sucks butts...) http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJX-IRuOXW I appreciate the enthusiasm, but personally I'd remove the initial theory/justification part, or at least simply identify what you want to change, and not why. Reason being is I found myself interested in looking at your changes, but was then immediately put into a defensive frame of mind with being constantly told what is fun (inferring if I don't find that fun, I'm an idiot), and why I play a Fighter (and apparently, the only reason I want to play an eldrich knight). At the very least put it at the end, that way people can assess your ideas with a uncoloured view - I had to forcibly challenge my initial reactions to your changes because I fundamentally disagreed with...

Wednesday, 12th July, 2017

  • 02:18 PM - snickersnax quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Fighter
    I've updated my idea with design notes and additional subclasses. I appreciate the feedback. http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJX-IRuOXW I agree with so many of the flaws that you see with the fighter and I like the idea of giving fighters extra reactions. I think that there is one more problem that you have not addressed and in fact exacerbated with your additional level 2 feature. The fighter is already too heavily front loaded. Action surge is such a strong feature that it eclipses many weak capstones by itself. A two level dip into your homebrewed fighter now gives: proficiency with light and medium armor, shields, simple and martial weapons, fighting style, second wind, action surge and combat reflexes. There are few classes where level 19 and 20 would not be better served by taking them as fighter, and in many instances should probably be taken much sooner. I wish I had a simple suggestion to make it better, but I don't. Mostly because I would rather see 1st and 2nd leve...
  • 09:29 AM - Zardnaar quoted DaedalusX51 in post Thud The RPG A 5E Hack
    I like most of this, but I'm not a fan of 3 levels of Indomitable. Is this 3 uses of a once per encounter power that allows you to re-roll a failed save? If so that seems like a lot of saves. I would probably put it at only one per encounter. However, if you want it to be 3 saves per encounter you might as well just make it advantage on saving throws. It frees up two levels to make new special features. Speaking of which, is there any reason that you do not have second wind for the Fighter? Unless that is part of the default rules for all characters, like in 4E. I think it's a pretty iconic ability. Maybe put this at 3rd level if it's not. At 9th level maybe add in a Weapon Mastery feature? (of whatever you think would be balanced) Otherwise this seems pretty solid. I dumped second wind as I was not using hit dice and I shifted some of the restored hit points to the increased hit points at level 1. You are right about indomitable I'll tweak things later and tidy some things u...
  • 08:33 AM - Zardnaar quoted DaedalusX51 in post Thud The RPG A 5E Hack
    A little confusing here. You state that you have three saving throws, but they are not named the same as the ability scores? Is there a reason why you made that decision? Was it just a carryover from an old write up of the rules? I would think that the saving throws and ability scores would be named the same thing as they perform the same function. Let me know if you think differently. Here you reference constitution for the dwarf. Should that be Strength? Is the damage resistance for the entire encounter or for a single source of damage? Sounds good to me! Nope the Dwarf is right. Str/con might be the better combo.

Thursday, 6th July, 2017

  • 11:15 PM - smbakeresq quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Fighter
    While you are correct, the Paladin would most likely use lower level spell slots on low hp creatures and higher level spell slots on high hp creatures. So in the end I think it about evens out in regards to excess damage, maybe with a slight nod to the Fighter. No. The Paladin WILL use his Smite when he rolls a crit to get double damage on the Smite dice since he can use it after he knows he got a crit. Crits for a Paladin are greatly magnified because of this, and he won't waste any excess damage if played smartly but can spike huge amounts of damage. Champion should get more crit and better crits, have them add another die at certain levels. Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
  • 08:42 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Monk
    So 12-15 hitpoints? Yeah I agree with you about this. I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (dragon magic) and chaos (wild magic) disciplines. In addition, I would make one or two Mystic discipline using half casters classes that can cover a light to no armor wearing martial type and a heavy armor martial type. Possibly one class with level 1 subclass choices that determine armor proficiency like the cleric, or two classes with a 3rd level subclass. This would be where the monk class would reside as well as the kensai/samurai, ninja, soulknife, psychic warrior/battlemind, etc. I think we should open up the monk archetype so that they don't have to only use monk weapons nor are forced into an unarmored style. (they should have a subclass devoted to those things however.) There are many variations of martial arts heroes, some that do and do not wear armor. This would allow a convergence of p...
  • 06:51 PM - Tony Vargas quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Monk
    Niche protection? I can't name a single edition where niche protction was actually a thing in the first place! I can't name one where it was entirely absent. Interesting difference in perception, there. ;) Or maybe definition. 4e Roles, for instance, were arguably a form of niche protection, even if it wasn't protection for any one specific class. The old school trope of "we need a cleric" or "we need a thief" is also a strong example of the effect of niche protection. In this case, the Monk's unarmed/unarmored 70s-grindhouse-martial-arts is niche protected. Not many other things are in 5e, though, and almost nothing that might be is entirely locked up if feats & MCing are available. So 12-15 hitpoints? Everybody gets a lot of hps in 5e, eventually (20 HD + CONmodx20 adds up, and nobody gets d4 HD anymore), so yeah, don't see the big deal. I wouldn't attempt to put the Monk class into the Mystic. I would, however, fold the Sorcerer into the Mystic. So you would have elemental (...
  • 05:16 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Monk
    20 hitpoints? That's the difference between d8 and d10 over 20 levels.? I don't care about level 20. literally at all. IMO, it's almost entirely irrelevant to any discussion about comparative power in DnD. Levels 3-12 or so are the most important levels in the game, imo. 1-15 is the range I even care about for balance considerations. Beyond that, it is basically the epic game, and I don't expect balance or even good design. Because it's DnD and only one edition has ever designed the "end game" well, and even if had problems. The Mystic also gets the bare minimum proficiencies. The already small subclass would have to use some of its power budget bridging that gap. I'm not sure that the basics of the monk could fit in the level 1 and 3 subclass set of features. The difference matters at low levels, and somewhat at mid levels, which is what matters. So, Use of a list of weapons as monk weapons, unarmed fighting boost, unarmored fighting boost (the monk should be able to wear light armor and ...
  • 12:42 AM - ad_hoc quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Monk
    I know that's an option for a lot of people, but I'm not really a fan of multiclassing. I think class based games are great at creating a cohesive theme that is married to the mechanics in a way that classless system have a really hard time matching. However, multiclassing to me feels like a poor attempt at turning a class based system into a classless system, but bringing along all the narrative baggage that made the class based system so great. I guess the real issue is D&D can't be everything to everyone and some people are just going to be left out. I loved my time playing AD&D when I was younger and I like many aspects of 5E, but I'm interested in new gameplay with a D&D feel. If I wanted old game design ideas I would be playing AD&D instead of 5E. I think subclasses in 5e are great and eliminate the need for multiclassing while keeping the benefits of a class based system. While I am glad only 2 pages were devoted to multiclassing I wish it wasn't in the game at all so that designers...

Wednesday, 5th July, 2017

  • 10:00 PM - Helldritch quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Monk
    Yeah, if I could have my way with D&D I would have combined the Sorcerer and Mystic into a single class. So we would have a character with inbound power (with ki, psi, spirit, or whatever we want to call them points) that would specialize in cool themes like a Elemental control, mind control, telekenisis (like the force), Body Control (think Dhalsim from street fighter) or whatever. I would prefer to do it without using the standard spell system to differentiate it from the wizard, but we could probably fit it in that way if we wished. Then you could just have Mystical Warrior (which would house the kensei/psychic warrior classes) and Mystical Rogue (which would house the monk/soulknife classes) half caster classes. Obviously they would have more evocative names than that. I'm just personally not a fan of creating a whole new system (psionics, ki, superiority dice, etc) for every new class especially when current classes share systems (spells, fighting styles, etc). A shared system gives a s...
  • 08:38 PM - Tony Vargas quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Monk
    Yeah, if I could have my way with D&D I would have combined the Sorcerer and Mystic into a single class. So we would have a character with inbound power (with ki, psi, spirit, or whatever we want to call them points) that would specialize in cool themes like a Elemental control, mind control, telekenisis (like the force), Body Control (think Dhalsim from street fighter) or whatever. I would prefer to do it without using the standard spell system to differentiate it from the wizard, but we could probably fit it in that way if we wished. Since so much of the game system is the spell sub-system, leveraging it does make sense, yes. Then you could just have Mystical Warrior (which would house the kensei/psychic warrior classes) and Mystical Rogue (which would house the monk/soulknife classes) half caster classes. Obviously they would have more evocative names than that. Some series or game had a 'Shadow-dancer,' that sounds like a decent name for a Mystical Rogue. I'm just personally not a fan...

Thursday, 29th June, 2017

  • 06:19 PM - Tony Vargas quoted DaedalusX51 in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    I just wish they would have divorced class from role, tied powers to power sources instead of class, I think the fanbase equated class to what 4e formalized as Source more so than to Role, while it seems from the design that they expected a more equal weight, that class would exist at the intersection of Source & Role, rather than be primarily about Source. Class taking the place of source would have meant fewer classes and less sheer space devoted to powers. Leaving Role to 'build' (sub-class) decisions might have opened up some loopholes, but it could have been a better way to go. matched flavor to mechanics, and used 5E like magic items, feats, and bounded accuracy. I'm not as jazzed about bounded accuracy as most people, 5e just scales with tremendous hp/damage bloat, instead, so it's not that big a deal - and, while it's fine for balancing combat at various levels, it's not so fine for anything that's going to turn on d20 rolls, instead. :shrug: To me 5E is almost that game...
  • 01:29 AM - Soul Stigma quoted DaedalusX51 in post Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room
    I think it's a shame that most things were abandoned from 4E. While I wasn't a fan of homogenization in order to achieve class balance or a Gamism first style of design, it had many features worth keeping. Balanced classes that all used the same resting mechanisms, the Warlord, Fighters that did cool stuff, classes feeling complete from the beginning, the bloodied condition, returning to full HP after each battle, healing surges and daily powers as an attrition based resource, levels 21-30 in the base game, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, etc... I just wish they would have divorced class from role, tied powers to power sources instead of class, matched flavor to mechanics, and used 5E like magic items, feats, and bounded accuracy. To me 5E is almost that game, but then I also feel like it took a few steps back as well. Maybe 6E will finally get it. ;) Edit: I think they could have still done things like powerful fireballs in a 4E type game while keeping class balance. You would just have...

Wednesday, 28th June, 2017

  • 09:22 PM - Yunru quoted DaedalusX51 in post Better Battle Master Beta v0.1
    It might help, but I can't read it because the table doesn't appear to be showing up correctly for me. Oh wow, what is that? ENWorld you done :):):):)ed up. EDIT: Aaand fixed. I bring it up because I was thinking similar thoughts, only making the Fighter subclasses half-classes (so 1/2 caster Eldritch Knight, 1/2 Manuevers Battle Master, and the Champion getting a power boost).

Monday, 26th June, 2017

  • 03:21 AM - Gladius Legis quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Fighter
    See all you have to do is post something wrong and the internet will fix it for you! Thanks for the corrections. It does look like with better math the Battle Master is coming in at a much more acceptable level. However unless there is something I missed, the Champion is still severely lagging behind. Would you agree that is still the case? Depends on how you define "severely," but yeah, the Champion lags behind the Battle Master. Here's calculations I made between the two over the course of a 30-round day, taking crit ranges and crit damage into account since they're relevant with the Champion in play. vs. AC 13 + proficiency bonus (65% chance to hit) 30 rounds of combat/day, 2 short rests/day All characters with greatsword + GWF Style and 20 STR Champion Lv. 11: 33*3*(.55*13.33 + .10*21.67) = 940.4 Lv. 15: 33*3*(.5*13.33 + .15*21.67) = 981.6 Lv. 19: 36*3*(.5*13.33 + .15*21.67) = 1,070.9 Lv. 20: 36*4*(.5*13.33 + .15*21.67) = 1,427.8 Battle Master Lv. 11: 33*3*(.6*13.33 + .05*21.67) + 15*...
  • 01:08 AM - Gladius Legis quoted DaedalusX51 in post Building a better Fighter
    Math All calculations made against a Hobgoblin with AC 18 Improved Divine Smite vs 2nd Extra Attack 11th level Paladin vs 11th level Fighter Both with a +9 Attack Bonus .45(2d6+5+1d8)+.45(2d6+5+1d8) = 14.85 vs 16.2 = .45(2d6+5)+.45(2d6)+5+.45(2d6+5) Your calculations are waaaaaaaaay off. An 11th-level Fighter (or Paladin) is going to hit that Hobgoblin better than 45 percent of the time. +9 to hit AC 18 is a 60% chance to hit. Also telling that even when calculating by level, you fail to account for the different proficiency bonuses by levels. Lv. 13-16 characters will hit the AC 18 Hobgoblin 65% of the time, and Lv. 17-20 characters 70%. You're also ignoring Fighting Style. Great Weapon Fighting makes 2d6 = 8.33 So for the Fighter, Action Surge SHOULD add/day: Lv. 11: .6(2d6r1&2+5)*9 = 72.0 Lv. 15: .65(2d6r1&2+5)*9 = 78.0 Lv. 19: .7(2d6r1&2+5)*18 = 168.0 Lv. 20: .7(2d6r1&2+5)*24 = 223.9 Add the Superiority Dice to those figures and the Battle Master will push well ahead of the Paladin on...


Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

DaedalusX51's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites