This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Razor 007

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 88
1
I guess WOTC may allow 5th Edition to live on, since it's still making good money?

They may just release a "D&D Unchained" book, and include a few pages of wokification?

2
If any and every monster in the Monster Manual / Bestiary becomes subject to random mutations, due to "X"; then suddenly player knowledge doesn't contaminate the gaming experience, anymore.


3
By Hasten; I mean that WOTC will cave in to pressure to go full Wokeness, in a Big Way soon.

By Delay; I mean that WOTC will leave the money machine alone, because 5th Edition is a proven profit maker.  Nobody wants to be blamed for another 4th Edition type flameout.



4
The Cantriips in D&D 5E would function well enough to be leveled spells in a lower magic setting.

Eldritch Blast could be extremely powerful in some settings.

5
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Re: Support Your FLGS
« on: January 15, 2021, 09:39:27 PM »
I understand that stores can only afford to stock what sells.  A store can't afford to be a museum.

However, it gets old having to pay full retail for every single item.  Every item is cheaper online.

6

Quote
Personally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.

I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?

I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.


Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?

It doesnt need to double...but for me the Deed die in DCC really makes fighters stand out.


Yes, DCC is a good source of inspiration.  Bonuses to Hit, and to cause Damage for Fighters of levels 1 through 10, per round could be:

d3, d4, d5, d6, d7, d8, d10, d10+1, d10+2, d10+3

7

Quote
Personally, I like at-will magic as an equalizer. If attack spells were objectively better than weapons, then the best warriors would be spellcasters, which means all the rulers would be spellcasters.

I don't see a reason for such result necessary. Especially since sure maybe attack spell is better than weapon, but how about overall survivalibity of wizard, and fact that its way harder to become wizard than warrior?

I dont think thats actually true. Fighters are supposed to be the best of the best not your average run of the mill warrior, and people with the aptitude to be the best of the best at anything are rare. I think the real issue in this is most of the time the fighter won't feel like they're really the best of the best because imo Fighter dont really feel like they're that good at fighting in many systems.


Then perhaps Fighters should always do double damage in Melee?

8
As Rob mentioned...

My setting dictates the degree of both the necessity and power of magic. Not the rules in the book, they just describe how we're gonna do those magical things if they exist.

As for cantrips in how I like my "D&D fantasy" - I preferred the original UA. But that's because I want my magic to be rare and powerful. Just being a spellcaster in my games has some intrinsic meaning (like all classes) rather than just being a "magic-user level <X>". As such I don't mind my spellcasters doing neat little utilitarian effects to give them some flavor and role-playing fodder. Just like I don't mind even a 1-point damage spell they could fire off to zerk a pest without necessarily killing it. or whatever.

One of the greatest issues I have with the D&D is the sliding or non-existent context of these things we're engaging with. I find it's usually at the root of a lot of these questions. And to the OP I'm not taking a shot at you or anything, I'm merely posting my opinion based on the game. I perfectly understand why you'd ask that question. My aim is to bring you to our side and get you to answer it for yourself. (there is no right answer). ;)


A 1 point damage spell could dispatch a weak minion, or perhaps end the suffering of a dying comrade, or set off the trigger of a trap from a safe distance.  It's still very useful.

9
As a gift; I received Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, for D&D 5E.

I want to spend more time with it, but life gets in the way.

After a couple of hours with Tasha's; I think I personally appreciate Xanathar's Guide to Everything, more.

I don't need more rules or more options for 5E.  Heck, the basic rules are plenty.  However, I do enjoy seeing additional spells laid out for this edition.  It gives me a reference, for my own machinations

10
"I'm just playing my character."

Ok, well is your character a fruit loop?  Because, you are acting like some kind of fruit loop.

"That's not very nice.  I'm starting to feel unsafe at your gaming table."

Ok.

"Well, aren't you going to apologize and attempt to affirm me?"

No.

"That's it!!!  I'm going to ruin you all over the internet!!!"

Ok, bye.

11
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Re: Enjoy.
« on: January 12, 2021, 03:47:51 AM »
That's some rich reality, right there.

12
The unlimited use, level 0 spells in D&D / PF.

Your caster is never out of spells, now.

In 5E; Cantrips became almost like 1st level spells, but with unlimited castings.
Well does your conception of how magic works in your setting include the above regardless of system?

If it does, then congrats 5e saved some work for you. If it doesn't then kick it out the door and don't use it in your campaigns. And luckily since d20 had cantrips as open content in a text editable format then some work has been done. Just take the d20 list and tweak the effect until cantrip work how you conceive cantrip working in your setting.


Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

13
The unlimited use, level 0 spells in D&D / PF.

Your caster is never out of spells, now.

Weak in 3.0 / 3.5 / PF 1E.

More powerful in 5E / PF 2E.

In 5E; Cantrips became almost like 1st level spells, but with unlimited castings.


14
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.


It's like ordering something in an Asian restaurant, and then picking out the broccoli.  You really like the dish, but you hate broccoli. 

OD&D has 90% of what I want, and I spend my time chasing the other 10%. 

AD&D has more than I want, and I spend my time ignoring what I don't want.

Neither has exactly what I want, but both are very cool games.

15
From a truly scientific perspective; no one can change their DNA.  A dress, some makeup, and an operation do not suddenly turn a man into a woman.

I now activate my Winged Boots, cast Greater Invisibility, and Fly well outside of Melee range.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 88