Mordo's page

Mordo wrote:

Forgive me if it has already been aswered before (I haven't read all 548 previous post :P )

From what I've read will class progression look like how talent tree worked in D20 Modern, as when you pick a class, at a given level, you have the option to pick a talent (or feat in the case of PF2e) and as you level, you have the option to specialize more into that talent tree, or pick a new one to diversify your options? The same could be said for ancestry, skill and general feats?

If so I think it may be quite interesting, as long as you try to avoid trap options just because you want to get the feat next in the talent tree.
Or would you go with broader feat like 5e that have more than a single bonus, and at least one can be use in a wider range of conditions?

PF2 is looking to get rid of feat taxes, and make it so feats have the following as prerequisites (pardon me if I've forgotten something, and don't take this as certain): proficiencies, class/ancestry for those feats, level, and feats that the feat builds on. So, assuming I've understood what they've said correctly, if there were a chain of feats to improve your ability to trip opponents, that chain might require you to be of a certain level or something, and it would require earlier feats that improve your ability to trip opponents (hence a feat chain), but it wouldn't require something like Combat Expertise, because it doesn't build on that.

That’s the feel I got from the blog post. When I’m talking about traps, is like if in a feat chain, feat #1 is good, feat #3 is awesome and is exactly what I’m looking for, but in order to get it I must pick feat #2 which is underwhelming even if related with the feat chain theme. Maybe if there are alternate prerequisite for certain feats in a feat chain, then you coyld just skip a feat that you feel is underwhelming (i.e at level 5 you get to pick feat #2 from the tripping feat chain and at level 7 you could take feat #3 which you really want, but id the prerequisite for feat #3 was feat#2 or proficiency X or skill bonus +Y, then you could go around feat #2 that don’t appeal to you)

Forgive me if it has already been aswered before (I haven't read all 548 previous post :P )

From what I've read will class progression look like how talent tree worked in D20 Modern, as when you pick a class, at a given level, you have the option to pick a talent (or feat in the case of PF2e) and as you level, you have the option to specialize more into that talent tree, or pick a new one to diversify your options? The same could be said for ancestry, skill and general feats?

If so I think it may be quite interesting, as long as you try to avoid trap options just because you want to get the feat next in the talent tree.
Or would you go with broader feat like 5e that have more than a single bonus, and at least one can be use in a wider range of conditions?

the best value would be a pledge increase that don't needs more investment.
i.e. upgrading from basic digital to premium digital is good, while updating from basic digital to basic boxed is not as good as you need to produce more physical goods. Same goes with upping your pledge with a physical add-on, it's less valuable than with a pdf add-on.

As for myself, I'm considering adding a premium digital copy to my early bird Collector's Edition and maybe as well the Alpha access...

Quote:

Developers haven't ruled out offering the possibility to create your own NPCs in the future.

As long as that remains on the table of possibilities then I'm looking forward to it. I honestly wouldn't mind if I had to pay a little extra for a DLC update that allowed me the ability to create my own party (and possibly still add an NPC companion through the Leadership feat or something), just as long as I still had an option to do so.

I wouldn't mind either to have that option as a DLC, but I'm not expecting such a thing for the release of the game or in the months following the release.

I prefer to have them spend their time on creating a better story and to take their time to polish the game and have a virtually bug free release :)

Is the game still going to be made where we can only make one character (and thus have to rely on NPC's completely for our party makeup instead of making four PC's for ourselves)? I hope not.

The intent of the game is to be a single player game where the NPCs are part of the experience. Yet except for the classes, feats and skills the NPCs already have when you meet them, you can select how they will level up afterward. Thus giving you a form of control over the abilities of the NPCs.

Developers haven't ruled out offering the possibility to create your own NPCs in the future, but they want first to focus on the single player experience with all the NPCs stories. (the same goes for multi-player, not ruled out, but not a priority either)

As far as I'm concerned, until I've went through the game at least a couple of times, I want to play with the included NPCs as there are so much to them to get bored in a single playthrough.

It's one of the reason why I preferred BG 1&2 over Icewind Dale

The stretch goal scroll on the campaign-page has been updated. Looks like a new companion is next, presumably the Goblin. I'm not too excited about that, to be honest.

It could be More Companion(s) and they just forgot to put the "s" at the end, an easy mistake when english is not your native language ;)

I'm finding the Updates frustrating. Don't get me wrong, I'm loving the frequency and the detail we are being presented with, but for me too much of it is an outlier to what I consider the actual game.

I see now from the AMA some of what I actually want to know - character skins, size, color ; that character models will be wearing their equipped items etc. the actual stuff I get to choose and implement in the game. This should have been presented from the start.

If I heave no idea about how I make my character and interact with the world then I have no interest in companions or music or ambient sounds, or that the devs are currently in 4 games of Kingmaker.

Basically I'm left with a stream of inconsequentia while waiting for the actual reveal of HOW I PLAY THE GAME.

I want an update with bite. Enough of the feels - we've had plenty of that - let's have something to chew on. Of course I'll say this as I'm biased - perhaps such an update, finally might get a lot of interest for shallow aesthete's like me. ;)

I'm sure folks might argue we have a lot of what I am asking for, but I disagree, else I wouldn't be asking for it.

I'm backing this, it looks great, I like Owlcat a lot and the direction generally pleases me.

Could it be that since the KS is not about financing the actual game but instead gathering money for extras as better kingdom rules, better companions, better music, etc. the updates focus on theses topics, instead of the actual gameplay?

I never really paid attention to FR prior to 5e, and even then, our first few games were either set in Greyhawk or on Golarion. Then when Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide came out, I was very pleased to see that it offer lot's informations on the various location of the Sword Coast area, but was still vague enough for anybody to make the world their own. It reminded me of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, which I liked very much and still use for my Greyhawk games.

Short answer, the dev have stated that they prefer to focus on a top quality single player experience, instead of diverting ressources to create a multi-player mode. Not that multi-player will never happen, but if it does it may be through DLC after the game is released.

Didn't you just do a conversion of the Modron March to 5e?

2nd Edition is so clunky compared to all the other editions!!!! :-O

Wizards only get 1 spell! 1!!!!!!! Also, 1d4 hit points. How did ANY wizard survive to 2nd level????

I take it you're not playing with friends, because friends don't let friends use THAC0. ;-)

Surviving the first few levels as a wizard was a satisfaction on it's own. In order to do so, you needed to have a good party to help you out survive so when you get access to more powerful spells they'll be thankful for when you save them in return.

Also having low level wizards this weak prenvent their proliferation, which was fine since most settings at that time was less common and widely available compared to what we have now. Yet I'm glad that 5e brought the cantrip to be used in place of darts :D

One of the best move we made when switching to 5e, was to stop using grid and miniatures. Combat are more fluid, take less time and look less like a tactical game, which suit best our group.

So why it is "Forgotten" Realms anyway?

I mean, from sound of how generic it is I'd imagine that is why its forgetable .-.

I think the reason is that because the Yawning Portal is set in Waterdeep and built upon the ruins of a tower belonging to a famous wizard known for planar travel and sitting on top of one of the entrance to Undermountain.

That's kinda far fetched but plausible enough so the rumors of theses famous dungeons come to the characters ears. How to reach them is completely up to the DM.

I don't mind reusing existing features, but superioity dice have been already reused in other UA. They should be left on the side line for a while. We already have the BM, Monster Hunter, the Scout and the Cavalier that use them. It's good to see new mechanics once in a while in UA articles.

I don't mind see an archetype using them in an upcoming book, but until then let's have WotC staff try to come up with different features that they could use. Let's remeber that UA articles are brainstorming for upcoming products. If they always rehash the same mechanics, they won't be brainstorming much.

On the other hand,you can see the Arcane Shots either as maneuvers or even Invocation but specific to the Arcane Archer, this way, they are effectivly reusing existing feature, but just gave them a new name.

I think that Arcane Archer is flavorful and could fit either as a fighter or ranger archetype. And I'm really glad the didn't go with superiority dice. Almost all the previous fighter archetype used them and they just feel bland. Also it's not looking to be better than other existing archetype. Often I think forum poster doesn't seem to consider an archetype worthy unless it's plainly better than any other option. As far as I'm concerned, archetypes are to add diversity and flavor, not power.
[/rant]

Knight and Samurai are interesting archetype, still I'm not how I feel about them.

As for Sharpshooter I believe it's totatly uneeded.

I feel like "Heavy Armor Proficiency" is the lazy "This domain is short on abilities, but I don't know what else to give them" option. Forge and Protection, I can see, but Grave? (Though nothing beats the Nature domain for the Heavy Armor headscratcher.)

Also, Forge feels like it gives too much. I think the only other class or racial ability that flat-out gives immunity to a damage type is Druids and Poison.

In regard to heavy armor proficiency, I have a theory that the design intent was to have all cleric have heavy armor, but for some domain, it wouldn't make sense. Since it's easier to add a feature in an archetype, that removing a feature in a base class, they went with medium armor, and gave heavy armor for most domain.

As for the Grave domain, I agree that limiting to medium armor would make more sense than heavy armor.

the dragons' spellcasting abilities in the MM weren't designed to cover spells selection throughout the dragons life, they are designed so you can easily pick a spell list for a dragon of a givin CR that will act as an NPC or a monsters, and then be gone.

The reason they can't swap spells, is in the case that the PCs faces a specific dragons, and fall back, then when they'll fight it again later, it will still use the same spells.

If you plan to have a dragon as a reccuring vilain or ally, then you can select the spells as you need it as it is beyond the intent of the rules as presented in the MM.

Ice hockey should definately make the cut for an hypothetical NES mini 2. That game was just addictive.

As someone who loathed FR for a long time. I gave it a try when the Sword Cosat Adventurer's Guide came out. While 90%+ fluff in this book, I was agreably surprised. If you come to the setting with an open mind, and don't know much (or ignore) its lore, this book, gives you a general feel of the world, and just enough information about the different cities and areas without shoving to much FR lore. I found it quite similar to the Greyhawk Gazeteer of early 3.0, but with less statistical data.

Our group use it as a generic setting, and benefits from the small descriptions for each notable places and cities. Certainly drow and tiefling are more present than in Greyhawk, but they are still quite rare. In our group drow isn't allowed as a character race, and tiefling, dragonborns, half-orcs, and gnomes are restricted to a one (of this list) per party, and suffers in social situation, especially in small comunity, less in waterdeep.

I don't own every module but as far as I can tell, Storm King's Thunder is the only one which is very Fearûn centric, as the characters have to travel to many different location in the North. Otherwise, HotDQ can be ported quite easily. as the above poster said, PotA offers guideline to port the adventure to an other existing setting or what to consider for your homebrew. CoS happens in Ravenloft, and character are brought through the the Mist, which can appear almost anywhere. OotA being mostly an underdark adventure could probably port to any stettings with a typical underdark.

Usually the name and synopsys of the spring adventure is revealed around late january.
... At least it was for PotA and CoS. ;)

The latest UA Ranger need to choose a Favored Enemy from the following list: beasts, fey, humanoids, monstrosities or undead. Then at 6th level they get to choose a second favored enemy from this list:aberrations, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fiends, or giants.

Let's be honest, the Favored Enemy types are quite large enough to have the ranger be able to use its ability more than once in a while.

The Greater Favored Enemy will happen less often. Maybe, the ranger should be able to select a second Favored Enemy in addition of getting Greater Favored Enemy

I think the ranger should be able to change its favored enemy after a short or long rest. I like the damage bonus, if only because every other martial class gets a special attack of some kind.

I think that Hunter's Mark fills that role. While it's a spell, it allow to mechanically illustrate the advantage a ranger have against a target he focus on while being able to change it's focus to another target.

I'm in to tie Natural Explorer to favored terrain, but would give new terrain at level 5, 9, 13 and 17, as except for level 5, they are virtually dead level. Also with 3 favored terrain befor level 10, it should allow enough versatility for the ranger to be able to use Natural Explorer, without having the ability always on. And it fits thematically the rangers being a wilderness expert. I also consider bringing back the "expertise" on Int or Wis skill check for skills you are proficient with.

Internationnal Trailer 2

Anyone looking forward that movie?

The film is currently in official competition at the Venice Film Festival, and seems to have received positive review so far...

... also from the same director doing Blade Runner 2...

I don't recall seing any CR either, but someone could extrapolate that a trap that is considered a hard challenge for four level 5 characters grant as much xp to be equal 4x the xp a hard encounter would grant to a 5th level character. That would be my best guess on how giving xp for bypassing/removing a trap.

I'm away from book, but I belive you award xp for trap based on their deadliness. If I remember well, DMG has a table to determine the deadliness of a trap based on damage dealt. Then I assume that you allow xp as if they overcome an easy/medium/hard/deadly challeng for their appropriate level.

Again, I'm AFB and I'm writing this answer from Memory, which is not often the best ressources that I have

Just for a few bucks more than the HL ruleset, you can get all that you need in a nice hard copy (the only rulebook needed is the PHB, MM can be a nice too have) ;)

Inspiration is a nice mechanic, but somehow we keep forgetting using it (DM forget to give some, and players forget that they had).

I recently found out that I had 1 point on inspiration written down on my character sheet, and neither the DM and I remembered when I got it...

I don't want a PHB2. What I want is new archetypes, spells, feats and the like into campaign setting book. Something similar to what they did with the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide with the Battlerager, Bladesigner and Purple Dragon Knight. Setting books could be more balanced between fluff and crunch than what SCAG was.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

I've heard theories about this - that basically Hasbro thinks that they can make more $ as D&D as a brand than from D&D itself. Therefore they have limited reason to increase their pace of release, instead doing just enough to keep the brand pretty solid.

Basically - it's primarily to keep D&D relevant for video games etc. Any $ they make on D&D itself is nice, but it's largely secondary to keeping the brand around and healthy.

On the other hand - for Paizo - books are at the core of their business, so the way to up their profits is to print more books.

That doesn't explain why they're focusing on adventure campaigns (not all of which have a video game analogue) and not crunch. It seems to me, rather, that they're trying to forgo the very problems that past editions had, and the one Paizo's Pathfinder is currently experiencing. Bloat.

But I can't actually get into Hasbro's or Paizo's headspace any more than anyone else.

They focus on adventures campaign because it let them create larger theme that is used for their other products. As of now, I believe that every theme; Tyranny of Dragon, Elemental Evil, Rise of Demon, Curse of Sthrad (well maybe not CoS) have been made into modules for NWN Online. EE have been converted to a board game, RoD has the Sword Coast Legend computer game, and some Drizz't book related.

They wear plot armor of buyancy, no other explanation needed ;)

I'd give them a tool proficiency of their choice to represent the profession they had before.

houstonderek wrote:

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

That they'll actually finish the 5E SRD?

If you're hoping for a 3x type SRD, don't hold your breath. They're not making that mistake twice, I'm sure. The SRD is more for 3pp than letting cheapskates have most of the game for free.

No, not even that. There's a list of things they refer to in the SRD, like magic item attunement rules, random property tables, and spells, that make parts of what they released unusable for players and publishers alike.

They expect you to actually own the books. Again, it's by design, it isn't meant to be a comprehensive rules database, it's an indication of what you're allowed to play with as a third party publisher.

They don't care if it's useful for players, that's what the books are for. They sell stuff, they're a business, not a gamer charity.

He's talking about it from a 3PP's perspective, not as a player wanting all the rules for free.

Attunement is referred to in the SRD but it isn't open content. That's a potential trap for 3PP who isn't careful or who skims the SRD and makes pretty reasonable assumptions. That link shows other examples too.

A 3PP that wants to create a magic item that requires attunement, they only need to say so, no needs to have the SRD explaining how it works, it's already in the DMG.

At first in 3.0 PrC were a good concept for organization, but it soon became a reason to publish more and more books without any consideration to balance or how to integrate them story wise.

It's may be just me, but I don't want PrC at all. 5e don't need PrC for the sae of PrC, and even it they were only limited to organization, I'm not sure I want them. I think archetypes are a good substitute.

Mike Mearls said, that Eldritch Blast omission was an error that should have been fixed now.

As for your wizard, I'd use you fight with the ogres as a turning point and would set it's background a timid magic user that always have been push around and disrespected, until that one day. His comrade not acknowledging his victory and he decide to leave them, and, with his newly found confidence, move on to make a name for himself.

From there you could roleplay your wizard with a boalstering confidence, but that can still falter. He can even become a leader.

As far as setting material goes, Greyhawk would be the easiest one to do, as they could do the same as with SCAG and do 80% fluff (to give setting material for those new to GH) and 20% crunch related to setting GH organization. Unfortunately, this kind of setting book is the kind that has the least chance to have good sells. A Eberron and/or Darksun setting book, will requires new classes, races and archetype (artificer, psychic, Warforged, etc. for Eberron, Thri-kreen, Half-Giant, Preserver and Defiler, psionic, Elemental domains, etc. for Darksun).

While a brand new setting could be interesting, but might need as much as works as Eberron and Darksun, plus any creative work related to this new setting.

What I wrote in the survey, is that if new material (classes, races, archetypes, etc.) comes out it should be tied to a setting, in a setting book. So if a DM wants to allow some of the new stuff, it will be easier, that to try to ban new material from a PHB2.

I did consider replacing the beastmaster with a spell called Find Companion which would be a ritual spell with a casting time of 3 days in a shrine of the environement from which the Ranger hope to get his companion from. After 3 days a creature typical from the environnement (i.e. no lion in a forest) will make appear and the ranger will need to succeed a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check (DC fixed or based on creature CR, I didn't decided yet). If succeed, the beast become a ranger companion and it share a telepathic link with the ranger up to 100ft (maybe more). The beast keep its statistics (it's not a spirit like Find Familiar or Find Steed) and act independently on its own initiative count. If the creature dies the ranger suffers an exhaustion level unitl he takes time to mourn (mourning is a downtime activity that requires a full day) the lost companion for a number of days depending on the companion CR (at least a day).

This way any ranger can benefits from the power boost having a companion that act freely on its own. Also it doens't limit the companion to CR1/4 or lower, nor prevent the ranger from having more than one companion.
The drawback is that the companion is no more a surnatural creature that grow with the ranger and that if the companion die, the ranger suffers an exhaustion level until he spend time mourning the Fallen companion.

Familiars, can't attack and are pretty weak, so they don't happen to go often in melee, reducing their use compared to a BM companion. Hirelings and trained animals are entirely up to the DM as there's not much about how they act. Summoned creatures are controlled by the DM, and requires the use of a precious spell slot. Also they aren't available 24/7 and don't benefits from the same boost companion does. The closet contenders are the undead controlled by a high level necromancer. Those can effectively overshadow a BM companion.

What if you gave the ranger a beast to command at level five in lieu of extra attack - then the odd mechanic wouldn't really matter. As it is, the odd mechanic really only exists for two levels - and then what you're essentially doing is trading extra attack for a beast's attack. Then change up what they get at third level for something else.

Given that, what we're really saying for a typical beastmaster is, "Just put up with this odd mechanic for two levels, and then you don't have to worry about it anymore; thinking of t like a training period for the bond between you and your animal."

Now that I'm looking at it this way, I'm really not seeing an issue at all.

I get your point, the ackward automaton feel could be explained by being the companion still under training until the Beastmaster reach level 5 and gets its extra attack, then be able to command its companion every turn as well as attacking.

I like this! Thanks

Another Beast Master fix I like is for the Ranger to spend an action to give a command, and then the beast companion uses its actions to suit that command the best it can.

"attack this guy (points finger)": first round, the beast use the Dash action to reach, then attack on the following rounds until the opponent is defeated.

"follow me": the beast companion take the Dash and Disengage actions as long as the Beast Master take the Dash and Disengage action.

"stay away": the companion uses the Dash, Dodge or Disengage action as need be to stay out of combat.

"guard this place": the beast companion use the attack action if an opponent enters the guarded area.

etc

I'm not to kind about this one as it breaks the action economy, and is a major boost the the ranger power. Which, as I said in my introduction, is already balanced.

Mordo wrote:

What if the companion could act independently but couldn't take the attack action on its turn unless the Beastmaster spend himself his action to give him the order to attack? It works pretty much the same as written in the PHB, but the companion, will be able to dodge, disengage, help, dash on its own.

I can meet you halfway and say that the Beast Master could command its beast companion to move and take the Dash, Disengage (and Hide because, why not?) at no action cost from the Beast Master. The Beast Master would have to spend its action to command the Attack, Dodge or Help actions.

At 7th level, the Beast Master can command the Help and Dodge actions as a Bonus Action of its own.

Being able to disengage without spending the ranger's action would improve the (relatively fragile) companion's survivability significantly

Oops, I forgot to include the hide action...

I like your idea, it will prevent abuse from the help action, and also doesn't requires to find a new 7th level ability.

First and foremost I must say that I think that the beastmaster is well balanced as is. But I agree that the companion looks like a mindless automaton. I do understand why did so and I can live with it.

But, for those who see it as a show stopper, I was trying to find a solution on how to get the companion more "lively" without tipping the action economy balance.

What if the companion could act independently but couldn't take the attack action on its turn unless the Beastmaster spend himself his action to give him the order to attack? It works pretty much the same as written in the PHB, but the companion, will be able to dodge, disengage, help, dash on its own.

Unfortunately, the 7th level ability becomes irrelevent. In such case, what new ability could replace it? Allow the beastmaster ranger to get an aditionnal companion? Increase the CR allowed?

I think an additionnal companion could be nice. Each will require its own attack command in order to attack, but spending your attack action and your extra attack could be used to commande both...

What do you think, could this be an interresting alternative that will get the animal companion feeling more like living creature without giving too much a power up to the beastmaster ranger, as letting the creature be totally independent as it is often proposed?

Between the Basic rules and the 5e SRD, pretty much every monsters in 5e are covered, so MM isn't an obligation. Unfortunately you can't do without the PHB if you want to have access to all the character options.

Is the book grounded in the Forgotten Realms world or how is it written for world encompassment? Is it available in stores now? How does the plot mesh with previous Ravenloft/Strahd products? Does it assume that Expedition to Castle Ravenloft was never written? Does it assume that PCs destroyed Strahd in that adventure and somehow now he is back?

I don't have the book, but from what I've read so far, it's a rewrite of the original module. They got the original author to help revisite and expand the module based on it's personal experience running the module, and adding ideas that came up after it was published.

So, short answer, everything that came after I6, is not taken in considaration.

Cole Deschain wrote:

This flick earns its R.

Or rather, waves its banner with a triumphant cheer.

Completely agree with you. Although [blinks... checks twice... blinks again] it's funny to notice that Quebec, Canada has it rated for 13 year olds... I wonder if they edited it for larger audience or if they lost a lot of R events in the translation??

One thing to remember is that Quebec, is a french speaking province, so most will see a dubbed version, and while many do speak english, some expresion or cultural reference may miss the spot.

By the way, the movie was great! In fact, it's pretty much the first movie produced by Fox that I liked :D

I wouldn't apply physical bonus to speed, like the one barbarians or monks gets, to the astral plane as it's the plane of thoughts and dream. In the astral plane you travel to the speed of thoughts, hence the use of Int for calculating speed. Monks and barbarian superior speed is the result of physical training and top notch body fitness.

Within 5e bound accuracy system, a +1 is a nice boost to you ability, but the system still allow characters that have not maximized their main attribute to still be able to hit or achieve success on a skill check.

So in 5e a character that decide to specialized and put up is main attribute will be more effective, but he will still have chances to succeed at skill check related to its lower ability scores. And a character that favor versability might not be as good as the specialized character in its main stat, but he will have better chance to succeed overall and will still be effective for what his class is best at.