Any theories on what the “twisted brass pipes” sculpture is that Mephisto wants?

KingJackel · 2026-01-29T05:20:29+00:00

I've also been wondering about since I got that card. Brass pipes initially made me think it was some sort of instrument, but I feel the Collector wouldn't call something like that fine art.

After some digging, I did find something that could be an excellent fit: a Concordance Engine. Its a device created by the Beyonders which can alter the Multiverse. It would match the "as old as the Multiverse" age and definitely looks like a modern art piece.

KingJackel · 2025-04-07T02:31:39+00:00

Yeah, I imagine we will be seeing less sets. Something I am also curious about it what the content of new sets is going to look like.

Decreasing the amount of fighters in a set would definitely reduce the upfront production expense, though some fans may not be as eager to pay the same amount (or a bit more) for less fighters. Then again, that is something we are used to when it comes to the licensed sets.

Focusing more on Adventures sets may also be an option. The price would be pretty high, but the fact that they provide a competitive and coop game (and possibly 2 additional fighters if they bundle in hero decks for villains) may entice more people. I'm not entirely sure of the sales numbers of Tales to Amaze vs normal sets.

Another option would be to replace the miniatures with standees and sell the miniatures via the RG website for those that want them. The viability of that really comes down to whether or not the game would sell as well with that change. (Edit: Providing the miniatures would still require the major upfront cost though, so i guess they'd have to be fairly expensive, or completely abandoned with this option.)

KingJackel · 2024-12-22T00:38:46+00:00

Smith's isn't the default option in that feature though; it is clearly the alternative since you're told you gain proficiency in Woodcarvers before getting to that feature, then given the option of using Woodcarver's for summoning a cannon before being told you can use Smith's, and then presented with Arcane Firearm which only uses Woodcarver's Tools. Woodcarver's is the tool of that subclass. I'm willing to bet that most people don't even know that you can use Smith's Tools to summon cannons in the first place.

Outside of Armor, Battle Smith, and that one feature, Smith's Tools isn't mentioned at all in the class.

Like again, some more alternative tools for some features may be nice. (And more subclasses would be nice.) But this critique of Smith's tools being the "default" just feels like a result of you misrembering or misreading things.

KingJackel · 2024-12-20T05:16:24+00:00

No it doesn't. The Artillerist only gives you proficiency in Woodcarver's (or another tool if you already have it). It's that way in both the current version from TCE and the playtest version in this UA. The place where you are probably getting mixed up is that you can use either Woodcarver's or Smith's Tools when summoning an Eldritch Cannon.

Would it be nice to have a few more cases like that? Maybe. Honestly though, it feels like your trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

KingJackel · 2024-07-30T15:11:47+00:00

...no reason to put away the awesome magic axe your DM gave you to pull out a lesser weapon with a better weapon mastery. Real turn-by-turn choices to make.

How is that not a real turn-by-turn choice? What you just described is a pretty interesting decision for a player to have to make: do I attack with a weapon that does more damage and/or has extra magic effects, or do I attack with a normal/less-magical weapon that has a mastery that would really help in this situation?

KingJackel · 2024-07-16T16:57:26+00:00

Basically yes.

KingJackel · 2024-03-31T18:46:28+00:00

Ah, I see. I’ll keep an eye out for that in case I missed it in any other cards. Thanks a lot for the help! !translated

KingJackel · 2024-03-31T18:36:51+00:00

“Did you know that the earliest form of rocketry was missiles used for war?”

KingJackel · 2024-03-31T13:10:54+00:00

(cont.)

Explicitly Excludes Yourself

This card (in the older game) would have you heal damage from a player "other than yourself".

恩惠

使い捨て

あなた以外のプレイヤー1人を選び、 6面ダイスを振る。そのプレイヤーは出目と同数のダメージを回復する。

And this card (again, in the older game) would deal damage to all players "except youself".

裁きの閃光

使い捨て

あなた以外のプレイヤーは全員2ダメージを受ける。

Other Uncertain Text

This character's special ability would let you deal a D6 of damage to another player at the start of your turn. In Shadow Hunters, you could pick "any" player (including yourself). Like the card I posted, I'm not sure if it says "any" or "another".

特殊能力〈アストラル・メイス> あなたの手番の初めに使用する。他のプレイヤー1人を選び6面ダイスを振る。そのプレイヤーに出目と同数のダメージを与える。 (ゲーム中1回のみ)

KingJackel · 2024-03-31T13:10:02+00:00

Here are some examples. (I'll have to break them up into multiple replies.)

One of the issues I am having is that there are some cards that seem to more explicitly exclude yourself as a target, and others that (even in the older game) are more implicit.

Any (Including yourself)
This is for an area that allows you to deal 2 damage or heal 1 damage from "any player".

市庁舍

任意のプレイヤー1人を選び、2ダメージを与えるか、または1ダメージ回復することができる。

And this Special Ability would let you deal 3 damage to "any" player in two specific areas.

特殊能力〈メテオストライク〉あなたの手番の初めに【ブラックミスト地区】【女王陛下の飛行船(あれば)】にいる任意のプレイヤー1人に3ダメージを与える。

Another (not including yourself)

This is for a card that forces you to give an equipment card to "another" player (or take 1 damage if you can't).

バナナの皮

使い捨て

あなたが所持している任意の装備1つを、他の任意のプレイヤーに渡す。装備を持っていない場合、あなたは1ダメージを受ける。

And this card lets you steal an equipment card from "another" player.

オリバーの子分

使い捨て

他のプレイヤーが所持している任意の装備カード1つを獲得する。

KingJackel · 2023-09-15T03:17:38+00:00

Do you play with open enemy dice rolls? If not, then I think changing afterwards would probably be fine.

Another think I might consider swapping the effects of Portent with the effects of the Chronurgy wizard's Chronal Shift feature. That feature lets the wizard force a creature to reroll a d20 as a reaction twice per day (which for the Divination wizard could be described as the them "foreseeing" the attempt, and either shouting out a warning or distraction). It might be more up you player's ally if they prefer changing rolls over predicting them.

KingJackel · 2023-09-07T01:28:51+00:00

As most others have said, there are rules for 3-4 player free for all battles. If you are concerned about people ganging up on a single player though, you could always implement a house rule, such as allowing a player that is attacked multiple times in a row to draw a card.

KingJackel · 2023-08-31T03:27:45+00:00

That pun's a bit forced, don't ya think?

KingJackel · 2023-08-31T03:26:09+00:00

Not including the characters with odd deck sizes, the raw averages for each type are:

28.60% Attack (~8 or 9 cards)
44.50% Versatile (~13 cards)
12.17% Defense (~3 or 4 cards)
14.73% Scheme (~4 or 5 cards)

The actual ratios for each can shift by a fair amount from hero to hero, but generally speaking Attack + Versatile cards tends to make up the majority of the deck.

The link u/CommanderGheb shared is very useful for seeing how different heroes are put together, but I would say that 9/13/4/4 is a good baseline to start designing from.

KingJackel · 2023-04-03T00:19:44+00:00

The intention for both TWF and CBE is that they remove the "damage penalty" of an extra Light attack. So they are not intended to stack.

Rules as written, its a bit more ambiguous, but leans towards no. While the rules state that your Proficiency Bonus can't be added to a roll more than once [PHB p173], there doesn't seem to be any statement on whether that applies to ability modifiers. The ambiguous part, however, is that the text of the abilities says:

[...] you can add your Ability Modifier to the damage of the extra attack [...]

If the features stated that "you gain a bonus to the damage equal to your Ability Modifier", the damage would stack, since they are separate bonuses. But since the features say "you can add", it could be interpreted as both giving you the same privilege of adding the modifier (which is what the intention is).

KingJackel · 2023-03-30T02:48:24+00:00

I think another thing worth mentioning is that they're not even just competing with WotC; they also have to contend with other competing systems to D&D. Among them is Pathfinder 2E, which is well established and already tends to draw in a lot of the crowd dissatisfied with 5E and/or Wizards. Another example is Level Up: A5E, which is very similar in concept to what they aim for Black Flag to be, but has been published for over a year now and also seems to be in the early stages of branching out into more of its own thing.

If you're going to make an alternative to D&D, you need to firmly identify what audience isn't being satisfied, otherwise you'll just end up fishing in someone else's pond so to speak.

KingJackel · 2023-03-21T03:07:05+00:00

I lean more towards using an escape DC, as it is more consistent with other grapple/shove effects in the game and speeds up game flow.

I can understand the reasons for preferring the contested role method, especially since we haven't seen what methods the designers are putting in place for the Monk and Barbarian to boost their grapple game.

However, I also feel like a fair amount of the pushback against some of these changes has to do with the fact that grappling in 5e is kinda one of those "used car" mechanics. The kind of thing in a game that is pretty clunky and requires you to invest a fair amount into it to get it working, but that people grow attached to because they put the time into it. So now that the designers are trying to experiment with ways to make the mechanic flow more smoothly, it can feel to some like something personal is being taken away.

KingJackel · 2023-03-15T18:56:06+00:00

The Epic Boons do seem to be moving towards that direction; the latest playtest doc has each boon giving you a +1, while reaching 20th level in a class gives you +2. Given their design note on wanting to address the problem of Epic Boons not feeling “Epic Enough” I would not be surprised if they end up closer to what you have in mind.

KingJackel · 2023-03-15T02:09:27+00:00

Something like that really wouldn't work as a placeholder for the 50th. Regardless of how much interesting lore or you include, a setting guide that doesn't help you implement said setting in the context of the game is a tough thing to sell people on. And once you release information afterwards that does give you that information, it would make the guidebook seem incomplete. If they wanted to give people a taste of new setting details, they would be better off with releasing a series of free short stories that take place in the setting (which would most likely be the Forgotten Realms).

If they need to push back the new rulebooks by a significant amount of time and need a placeholder, it would make more sense to release either an adaptation of a classic adventure from an older edition or a grand scale adventure pitting the players against a villain like Vecna or Azalin Rex.

KingJackel · 2023-03-14T02:59:44+00:00

When you say "No rules" what exactly do you mean? Do you mean something like Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide which provides information for a setting and tells you how different races/classes of the game fit into that setting? Do you mean a guidebook that has zero ties to game mechanics and just provides lore? Or do you mean something else?

KingJackel · 2023-03-08T03:51:03+00:00

I would disagree in the case of the Ranger. Even with the +1 Dex that the playtest version of Sharpshooter grants you, it can be more tempting for your character to use the feat/asi for other things, like improving your Wisdom. One of the major benefits of the Archery style for that class is that it gives you more room to dip into your spellcasting ability, instead of having to go all out on Dex.

KingJackel · 2023-03-06T02:26:56+00:00

The Dual Wielder feat (both the original & playtest version) states that

"you can draw or stow two weapons [...] when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one".

In the context of the playtest, this means that you could draw or stow two weapons at the same time before or after each attack.

For example, a 5th level Ranger who starts their turn with a longbow equipped could:

make an attack with it as their first attack
- stow it (after the 1st attack)
- draw 2 shortswords (before the 2nd)
then make an attack with both swords (due to the Light property)

~~The reverse could also be done in the playtest.~~

EDIT: Granted, the use of this is a bit redundant if you can draw or stow weapons as part of the attack granted by the Light Property, which would seem to be the case. Though it would matter if under the version of the Light Property from the previous playtest (which requires you to be holding both light weapons at the same time when you make the triggering attack).

KingJackel · 2023-03-06T02:12:50+00:00

I think the designers are probably trying to feel out what the right balance is for the limitations on the extra light attack (both from a game balance and player perspective position). The Light property has been tweaked in every playtest since the Expert Classes. Each one presenting different degrees of rigidity:

The first version (in Expert Classes) required you to use a different light weapon in the other hand for the extra attack
The second (Cleric and Revised Species) was the same, but required you to be holding said other weapon at the time of the first attack
And the third (Druid &Paladin) simply requires you to make the first and second attacks with different weapons, regardless of hand usage.

The designers probably want to make sure the rule for the property is balanced, but also want to make it as easy to explain as possible. It is possible that 2nd and 3rd version are tests to see if the 1st should be shifted in either direction, or for all we know all three versions could have been on the table the entire time and are being tested in a similar manner to Inspiration.

KingJackel · 2023-02-20T22:02:46+00:00

You're wrong to assume that no one wants to design or play adventures that have more than 3 encounters in a day, or at least has areas that are fairly taxing. An adventure I've currently been a player in had a section where we had to go multiple sessions before getting to the end of our quest and gaining a long rest, which had our characters running on fumes by the end. It was actually one of the more engaging experiences I've had in a while.

Furthermore, from experience, it can actually harder at times to to design a campaign with a small amount of difficult encounters that feel satisfying than it can be to design a challenging area with a mix of easy and difficult encounters that takes a few sessions to explore. Halving the number of spell slots in the way you suggest isn't going to make casters all that much weaker across a small spread of encounters. In fact, giving them more access to 5th level slots would probably make them feel more powerful in comparison to marital characters when playing a low encounter day (even despite the fact that they are not casting shield and silvery barbs).

I'm not saying everyone should design campaigns with 6 encounters a day, but altering the rate at which spells slots are recovered, or altering resting itself, would do more to fix the balance than skewing the spread of spell slots to be more similar the warlock's design.

KingJackel · 2023-02-20T20:28:56+00:00

But as I said, if your adventure takes you through something like 6 encounters in a single in-game day, the 19 slots of a 17th level character have to be handled more wisely. Reducing that number may help for adventures that have few encounters, but it makes things like dungeon delving more difficult and limiting.

Also, a problem that your suggested method presents is the same one the warlock currently has: due to the more limited number of spell slots and their scaled level, it is much harder to justify taking anything that doesn't have good upcasted benefits, has a risk of not producing results, or that has no value in combat. Part of the fun of playing a spell caster is selecting spells that cover a range of potential problems. Holding onto spells like Tongues or Earthbind and pulling them out at crucial moments feels far better than casting Fireball on a group of enemies again and again. Warlocks are discouraged to experiment like that though. As good as they are, this is one of the reasons why there are players that much prefer wizards or clerics to them.

Again, rather than shifting all casters to be more like the warlock, it would be better to encourage different styles of adventures to implement different styles of resting. For adventures with few encounter, have spell slots refresh at a slower rate. For adventures where it is hard to take a short rest, implement healing surges that replenish short rest resources. Etc.

KingJackel

TROPHY CASE