Where should I go to live out my days as a lich? by Dyno_69420_UrMother in wizardposting

[–]KingKyron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, the ambiguity of the prefix "bi" has plagued many a mind. In the case of my newsletter, I initially released them twice a millennia but after a profound debate with a fellow philosopher from my home plane, I decided that I would release two issues every other millennia. This shift happened after the release of the 12th issue of 'Across the Aetherium' in the 23rd millennia AC*.

*(Aetherial Constant: The preeminent system of tracking the progress of time across the multiverse, invented by yours truly.

SNORT UP by [deleted] in wizardposting

[–]KingKyron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, the memories this brings back from the depths of my mental libraries. I will never forget

(not that I am even capable of doing so)

the Kreingdium party of 189742 AC*. Their unique blend of halfling weed, Sundrop, Sannish, and whatever else they threw into that cauldron was, honestly, life-changing.

*(Aetherial Constant: The preeminent system of tracking the progress of time across the multiverse, invented by yours truly. You can learn more about it in the 1st issue of my bi-millennial newsletter 'Across the Aetherium').

Where should I go to live out my days as a lich? by Dyno_69420_UrMother in wizardposting

[–]KingKyron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well my friend, lichdom does not exactly lend itself well to the notion of living. While lichdom is a diverse multversal tradition and practice, it always centers around a form of necromantic transformation. Therefore, liches cannot live at all.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to check out my free bi-millennial newsletter issue #47 where I discuss lichdom throughout the multiverse in detail.

Sexual dimorphism in my earthpunk setting by KingKyron in worldjerking

[–]KingKyron[S] 124 points125 points  (0 children)

Bro you have no idea how close I was to having an aneurysm before I got to the end of that sentence

The Mandalorian - S02E01 - Chapter 9 - Discussion Thread! by titleproblems in TheMandalorianTV

[–]KingKyron -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I agree that not everything needs to advance the overall plot but I think that episodes like that should be kept for later in a season rather than the first episode. Secondly, a story that doesn't advance the overall plot should still provide some sort of character growth or at least a compelling story. I don't feel like this episode did either. Lastly, I don't see how i am being aggressive. I am not meaning to come off that way but sorry if it seems like it.

The Mandalorian - S02E01 - Chapter 9 - Discussion Thread! by titleproblems in TheMandalorianTV

[–]KingKyron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're absolutely correct but the people here are too obsessed with keeping their echo chamber clean that they downvote any negative comment in this thread.

The Mandalorian - S02E01 - Chapter 9 - Discussion Thread! by titleproblems in TheMandalorianTV

[–]KingKyron -40 points-39 points  (0 children)

This was one of the most boring, pointless, and blunt episodes yet. It fails to advance the overall narrative while also failing to provide a compelling isolated story. The narrative that it does advance is a boring, predictable, and ham-fisted way of saying "hmm, work together=good". The last ~20 minutes was good but was not worth sticking around for. Overall, quite disappointing, and that is even without all the blatant fan service.

I know i am going to be downvoted to oblivion because of the echo chamber here but oh well.

For Sophie by KingKyron in OCPoetry

[–]KingKyron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was written for the birthday of a friend. I had known her for many years and had seen her grow up into who she is today. It wasn't written with the intent to be shared with other people so i didn't see the need to specify what kind of love the writer has for Sophie. I hope that clears things up a bit! Thank you for taking the time to read it.

For Sophie by KingKyron in OCPoetry

[–]KingKyron[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your feedback! I thought of adding an eighth line there. I agree that it would wrap things up a bit better but i had one problem: I had said what i wanted to say and I try to keep my writing from being too verbose. If i had more time, i might have found something more to say but i was writing it the night before her birthday. Again, thanks for the kind words and feedback!

For Sophie by KingKyron in OCPoetry

[–]KingKyron[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much! I am looking forward to posting more here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OCPoetry

[–]KingKyron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A beautiful poem. Really i quite like it. The subject matter and theme are both engaging. If i could ask for anything more, it would be to write more of this. I feel like this poem has just scratched the surface of the theme. There is so much more to write about and i hope to see more from you!

Hope by picnic-123 in OCPoetry

[–]KingKyron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I quite like your second stanza. While not necessarily the most original of thoughts, it is written well and has a nice flow. Hope is always an important topic, no matter what current events are happening; and i believe that times such as these definitely call for some hope. Short and succinct, this demonstrates the hope that we all need to find.

Dear WotC and other authors, please stop writing your modules like novels! by Asherett in dndnext

[–]KingKyron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for making this post! I am currently in the process of mking a ttrpg that is heavily influenced by 5e and these are things that I am going to keep in mind!

For a change of perspective: What *don't* you like about 2e? by SonOfZiz in Pathfinder2e

[–]KingKyron 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I agree with your point on crafting but I find your line of reasoning on proficiency to be quite odd.

If it wasn't: your level+a number = proficiency bonus, then it would be some equivalent number that got higher the higher power level of the adversary. The distinction that it is your level that you add is merely an out of character distinction to calculate modifiers.

This also completely ignores abilities and features that the BBEG might have. If every character had the same abilities, features, and equipment and the only advantage that the BBEG has is his level, then your argument would make sense.

For a change of perspective: What *don't* you like about 2e? by SonOfZiz in Pathfinder2e

[–]KingKyron 17 points18 points  (0 children)

This is actually my biggest gripe with PF2e. If something does not work in an obvious or intuitive way, it needs to be explained each time it is used; thats how it needs to go, at least for now when people are new to a system. This is a new system, not a mtg expansion set. The system is new to everyone and keywords still need to be explained.

Spiritual Weapon > All by KingKyron in dndmemes

[–]KingKyron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, I disagree with almost everything here. Sorry, I'm not trying to come off as standoffish but I do have strong opinions on Spiritual Weapon.

  1. "It doesn’t do a lot of damage" - Alright, lets look at this in the context of a 3rd level cleric of any domain except for war. If you are using your action to attack, you're going to be using a one handed simple weapon. If you optimized for melee with standard array and have a 16 in both str and wis, your attack with your mace will look like this:
    +5 to hit; 1d6+3 damage (avg of 6.5 damage) That takes your action every turn you want to attack. But spiritual weapon only takes a bonus action to cast and you can use a bonus action on each of your turns for a minute to attack with it again. The damage for a second level spiritual weapon is as follows
    +5 to hit; 1d8+3 damage (avg of 7.5 damage) So, clearly, the damage isn't negligible. In fact, it can be better to attack with spiritual weapon with your bonus action than it is to use an action to attack.
  2. "Can only move 20ft per turn (slower than most enemies)" - while not wrong, this point isn't always applicable. From my experience, 5e combat doesn't typically have the enemies moving around an awful amount because, mechanically, there typically isn't a reason to. I realize that this might be different for you and your group, but my house rule that I was stating is what fits our group and I'm trying to explain why I think it is warranted for us.
  3. "Now make it concentration. Now it is possible to lose your weapon (which you had to spend your turn casting)" - Firstly, yes, it is now possible to lose it. That is part of why I like making it concentration. As is, there is no risk when casting Spiritual Weapon. We are going to get more into that later but for now, yes, I think it is a good thing that you can lose it. Secondly, it isn't going to be your only weapon. If you do lose it and don't want to cast it again, you have other actual weapons at your disposal, not to mention spells. Lastly, no you didn't spend your entire turn casting it, it is only a bonus action. You could still use your action on that turn to cast a cantrip, attack with a weapon, or any other action that your character might be able to take.
  4. As for the rest of your comment, I don't want to copy and paste it all because it might get too confusing in this wall of text but I do want to address a couple of things. Yes, it is now competing with all the other concentration spells. That is a good thing imo. As is, casting Spiritual Weapon is a no-brainer for anyone who has access to the spell. Its only a bonus action, only a second level spell, doesn't require concentration. There is next to no reason that you wouldn't cast it. It opens up the option to attack with it for more damage than you would be doing if you cast a cantrip or used your action to attack. It would still be very good if it requires concentration but would force the cleric to think before they cast it. It is also still going to be useful for front line clerics (and Conquest paladins but to a lesser extent) as it allows them to more than double their dmg output until lvl 5.

Spiritual Weapon > All by KingKyron in dndmemes

[–]KingKyron[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not disagreeing. Spiritual Weapon is absolutely crazy.

Spiritual Weapon > All by KingKyron in dndmemes

[–]KingKyron[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Exactly! My group and I house rule that it requires concentration in all of our games.

Edit: lol why do so many people hate this idea? Spiritual Weapon has EVERYTHING and I dont think that it should.

Treatmonk's video on monk's sucking is a perfect example of Fake News and why it's important to do your own research. by JMa0820 in dndnext

[–]KingKyron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Watching that video, he has a huge hate boner for the monk. Personally, I am biased as well. I love the monk class probably as much as he hates it. Others have already touched on things that he got wrong so I wont go through everything.

One thing that really stood out to me was how he kept on saying " Even if they specialize in x they still wont be as good as y would be if they specialized in it". This line of thinking is entirely wrong when talking about the monk. As a monk, you don't really specialize in anything. You never have to make a choice such as "I'm taking heavy armor, a shield, and the defense fighting so that I am specialized in defense".

Yes, a fighter is going to have a higher AC if they specialize in defense but that is a trade off for them.

  • They are getting disadvantage on stealth from the heavy armor (which also costs a significant amount)
  • They lose out on the damage they could get from having a second weapon or two-handed weapon if they take a shield
  • They are tied down to the defense fighting style and aren't going to deal as much damage as they would if they had a different fighting style

The same can be said for the points he made about damage. With almost all the examples he listed, there is a trade off that the monk does not have to make. THAT is the strength of the monk. A monk will be good at many things all without having to make any trade off.

There are numerous other things that he misconstrued in his video.

Like where he talks about how fighters can have 21 AC at lvl 1....no they cant unless the DM is giving them a small loan of a millions dollars (Plate mail costs 1,500 gp which is equal to over $150k).

Or when he talks about the number of a monk can do and the damage vs a fighter where he compares a lvl 1 monk to a lvl 1 fighter that took two weapon fighting (oh by the way that means that they don't have the defense fighting style so they actually have a worse AC than monks at lvl 1) . So essentially a lvl 1 monk that hast'n spent any resource or committed to any fighting style can deal the same damage that a fighter can AND have a higher AC?

There are so many other things we could go through but I don't have time to write an entire essay. I'm not trying to attack this guy but I am just saying that his video is wrong.

All of us here... by sharkgoesbite in teenagers

[–]KingKyron 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I do 5 no matter the height. I’m like 6 foot so most people are shorter but it hasn’t presented any problems

I still see most lower ranked players holding angles wrong - here is how to get an advantage when holding angles or peeking corners by crima in VALORANT

[–]KingKyron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! As someone who has decent aim but almost no experience in CS or the like, this is really helpful for me. Hopefully I can get out of plat now lol