Post by: penguinofhonor on November 07, 2014, 06:33:01 pm
Talk mainly about these things:
- Board games
- Card games
- Tabletop roleplaying games
- Anything else I forgot
Post by: Gentlefish on November 07, 2014, 07:56:27 pm
So, favorite D&D/Pathfinder classes?
Outside of Tier 1, I'm a fan of the Dragonfire Adept myself. Inside, I'm a Druid's man through and through. Haven't played pathfinder, but I really want to try the gunslinger class.
Post by: Tawa on November 07, 2014, 08:12:49 pm
Post by: scriver on November 07, 2014, 08:17:32 pm
Post by: Redzephyr01 on November 07, 2014, 08:48:23 pm
Post by: rabidgam3r on November 07, 2014, 08:49:31 pm
Post by: birdy51 on November 08, 2014, 12:38:21 am
PTW for now, I may chime every once and a while.
Post by: Arcvasti on November 08, 2014, 12:52:23 am
Despite their mechanical mehness, something about me just loves Fighters. Assigning like ~24 bonus feats for making that 20th level Fighter is really fun. And the Spring Attack upgrade feats[Not that I've ever tried that in practice] just seem fun[BOING SLASH ALL THE THINGS]
Sorcerer is definitely up there, since they can do all kinds of magicy stuff without being Tier 1[Something I've only encountered on the internet. I guess most of the people I've played with just didn't try to uber-optimize, in favour of making EVERYTHING BURN.]. Plus spellbooks and such are sort of fiddly.
Also, I'm going to be playing a game of Twilight Imperium[No idea which edition] this weekend, with some other newbies and some veterans[Who I fully expect to get my ass kicked by.]. Has anyone heard of/played it? If so, what the hell does a newcomer to the game do to upstage the veteran players?
Post by: Bohandas on November 08, 2014, 03:16:16 am
WOO this is a BUMP.
So, favorite D&D/Pathfinder classes?
Wizard and/or warlock (from the "Complete Arcane" rules supplement)
Post by: Heron TSG on November 08, 2014, 04:39:58 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on November 08, 2014, 05:21:04 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 08, 2014, 07:12:25 pm
Mechanically I've always been a fan of Crusaders from the Tome of BattleI like Crusaders, too. Wrote one up the other day with the intention of a sort of "Paladin +" with a lance, a donkey, and a heavy iron shield.
EDIT: I'm writing up a Silverbrow Human "Mailman" right about now, but I'm unsure what the dragonblood subtype (which I got from Silverbrow) does. Can anybody confirm whether the information presented here (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dragon-magic--62/dragontouched--747/) is feat-specific or comes from the subtype?
EDIT2: If it doesn't, can somebody clarify precisely what the subtype does?
Post by: Fniff on November 08, 2014, 07:20:27 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 08, 2014, 07:23:45 pm
Mechanically I've always been a fan of Crusaders from the Tome of BattleI like Crusaders, too. Wrote one up the other day with the intention of a sort of "Paladin +" with a lance, a donkey, and a heavy iron shield.
EDIT: I'm writing up a Silverbrow Human "Mailman" right about now, but I'm unsure what the dragonblood subtype (which I got from Silverbrow) does. Can anybody confirm whether the information presented here (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dragon-magic--62/dragontouched--747/) is feat-specific or comes from the subtype?
Crusaders are really cool, also they are the only ones with access to Devoted Soul, which has a stance that lets you roll -all- max damage dice again. For more damage.
I played with a keen screaming falchion. 3d4's roll 4's so often. But I can't help imagining multiclassing into sorcerer at that point and fireballing all the things. All those sweet sixes would get re-rolled into even more damage.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 08, 2014, 07:28:14 pm
Post by: Fniff on November 08, 2014, 07:31:39 pm
Post by: AlleeCat on November 08, 2014, 07:39:21 pm
Post by: Darvi on November 08, 2014, 07:50:15 pm
Let's share our creepiest, most horribly inappropriate rpg stories! :DI'd rather not. Let's just say that the (in-game) place got sticky afterwards.
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 08, 2014, 08:00:22 pm
It's a card game where each player controls a number of species of animal and compete against the other players to eat more food. The beauty of the game is in the interactions between different cards and different players - it definitely feels like an evolutionary arms race. Each player gets multiple species so you can either diversify your strategy or get your species to work together efficiently.
Post by: Heron TSG on November 08, 2014, 10:10:21 pm
Can anybody confirm whether the information presented here (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dragon-magic--62/dragontouched--747/) is feat-specific or comes from the subtype?The dragon-blood subtype on its own doesn't change anything about your character. (Unlike the 'undead' subtype, which removes your constitution modifier amongst other things.)
EDIT2: If it doesn't, can somebody clarify precisely what the subtype does?
There are, however, other feats (http://dndtools.eu/feats/races-of-the-dragon--83/dragon-wings--730/) to take that require the subtype, and that's a good way to gain the type.
Selecting draconic feats as if you were a sorcerer of your character level is something that only the Dragontouched feat lets you do; simply being dragonblooded won't let you do that. If your character is just a dragonblood kobold who doesn't have that feat, and he's a bard, you can't select draconic feats as if you were a sorcerer. (You'd select them like a bard; not at all.)
For example: A dragonblood kobold ranger without Dragontouched couldn't take Draconic Heritage (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dragon-magic--62/draconic-heritage--703/), but a sorcerer could. If that ranger took Dragontouched, he'd also be able to take that feat. Even a normal kobold ranger could take it, the dragonblood subtype notwithstanding.
Post by: Tawa on November 08, 2014, 10:14:53 pm
Ah, thanks.Can anybody confirm whether the information presented here (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dragon-magic--62/dragontouched--747/) is feat-specific or comes from the subtype?The dragon-blood subtype on its own doesn't change anything about your character. (Unlike the 'undead' subtype, which removes your constitution modifier amongst other things.)
EDIT2: If it doesn't, can somebody clarify precisely what the subtype does?
There are, however, other feats (http://dndtools.eu/feats/races-of-the-dragon--83/dragon-wings--730/) to take that require the subtype, and that's a good way to gain the type.
Selecting draconic feats as if you were a sorcerer of your character level is something that only the Dragontouched feat lets you do; simply being dragonblooded won't let you do that. If your character is just a dragonblood kobold who doesn't have that feat, and he's a bard, you can't select draconic feats as if you were a sorcerer. (You'd select them like a bard; not at all.)
For example: A dragonblood kobold ranger without Dragontouched couldn't take Draconic Heritage (http://dndtools.eu/feats/dragon-magic--62/draconic-heritage--703/), but a sorcerer could. If that ranger took Dragontouched, he'd also be able to take that feat. Even a normal kobold ranger could take it, the dragonblood subtype notwithstanding.
Post by: birdy51 on November 08, 2014, 10:44:06 pm
Does anyone know of any good but obscure tabletop games to play? I can personally recommend Geiger Counter.
I've been getting my feet wet in the tabletop business through Pokémon Tabletop United, if that counts as obscure. Basically, it's applying DnDesque elements to Pokémon and watching everything unfold from there. Despite my better judgment, I'm currently running a campaign of that over in the Forum Games and Roleplaying part of the site and I'm also working with a group of other people through Maptools for another campaign whenever we can meet up. It's a good time.
Can we also talk about how underappreciated and awesome Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://Betrayal at House on the Hill) is?
Ah hell ya. I've played that game a few times. It's a hoot.
Post by: Kadzar on November 09, 2014, 03:32:44 am
Does anyone know of any good but obscure tabletop games to play? I can personally recommend Geiger Counter.Does it have to be games we've actually played? Actually, now you've made me want to list and describe all the folders in my RPG's Library. Not that I'd describe all of them as good (or even necessarily ones I've read through), but most of them probably qualify as obscure.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 09, 2014, 07:10:41 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on November 09, 2014, 07:20:18 pm
Anyway, I'm part of a group who just finished with a player DM'ing a 3.5 prefab called The Red Hand of Doom. Pretty good. The usual DM liked the break, but spent the time cooking up a homebrew mash of CoC and D&D 3.5 and we start next week after he tries to find some other players. He recommended coming with a few extra built players.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 09, 2014, 07:22:22 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 09, 2014, 07:54:58 pm
Basically they're games set in D&D campaign settings like Ravenloft, but with the rules simplified into something more closely resembling HeroQuest than normal D&D.
But the cleverest thing is that the dungeons are created by placement of randomly shuffled facedown tiles so that they're different every time, sort of like some kind of tabletop roguelike
Post by: Tawa on November 09, 2014, 09:57:03 pm
Has anybody played any of the "D&D Adventure System" boardgames?Sounds neat!
Basically they're games set in D&D campaign settings like Ravenloft, but with the rules simplified into something more closely resembling HeroQuest than normal D&D.
But the cleverest thing is that the dungeons are created by placement of randomly shuffled facedown tiles so that they're different every time, sort of like some kind of tabletop roguelike
Unfortunately, nobody will play HeroQuest with me, let alone something with "Dungeons and Dragons" slapped onto the front of it. :(
Quick question for you D&D multiclassing experts: I was overcome to-day to create a character where the main idea of the thing is that I use this feat (http://dndtools.eu/feats/draconomicon--92/dragon-wild-shape--3256/) to ENTER THE DRAGON. Catch is, while "19 WIS" can be gotten past with some menial levels of minmaxing, "15 ranks in Knowledge (Nature)" automatically bars me until 12th level. I figured I'd just use the Wildshape Ranger variant (since most people around here throw Druids out the window on account of tiers) to get the wild shape class ability and tough out my not-dragon existence until then.
Thing is, it'd get pretty lame if my like 11 levels were just typical ranger stuff and one day I start making a point out of turning into a dragon to kill people, so I thought it might be better to use Dragonfire Adept levels to fill the gap, but I'm unsure how well this would work out. Would it be worth it to multiclass for five levels (and miss out on the last five levels of Dragonfire Adept class features) to get wildshape and the feat? I figured it'd be best to make levels 7-12 the Ranger ones so I can take the feat then and there and be done with it, if it matters.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 09, 2014, 11:06:45 pm
At least, that's how it's been house-ruled within my group in order to be a more viable choice. So with that ruling, you can end up taking the feat right at 9th level, and with the DFA breath skill, you can already start out with skill focus(breath) and a metabreath feat like entangling exhalation or breath barrier, before ever being able to shape into the dragon.
Post by: Tawa on November 10, 2014, 01:11:30 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 10, 2014, 05:53:53 pm
Actually making new classes meant to be multiclasses. The Hybrid Classes.
So we don't get the broke diagram multiclasses of the Monk... Nor the underpowered multiclasses of the wizard + Anything else.
Nor do they rely on prestige classes. Heck even the Cleric + Sorcerer hybrid works better then the Hierophant.
It is such an elegant solution that I hope 5th edition picks it up.
---
Then again after playing for a long time I just kind of find that Prestige classes just aren't too good, at least they aren't something that I think an Archtype couldn't handle better.
Heck I'd be all for scrapping the dragon disciple prestige class and turning it into... a class.
Post by: scriver on November 10, 2014, 05:56:40 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 10, 2014, 05:59:09 pm
Pathfinder oddly enough has probably found one of the cleaner solutions to multiclassing ever created.Paizo scum. :P
Actually making new classes meant to be multiclasses. The Hybrid Classes.
So we don't get the broke diagram multiclasses of the Monk... Nor the underpowered multiclasses of the wizard + Anything else.
Nor do they rely on prestige classes. Heck even the Cleric + Sorcerer hybrid works better then the Hierophant.
It is such an elegant solution that I hope 5th edition picks it up.
---
Then again after playing for a long time I just kind of find that Prestige classes just aren't too good, at least they aren't something that I think an Archtype couldn't handle better.
Heck I'd be all for scrapping the dragon disciple prestige class and turning it into... a class.
Post by: Neonivek on November 10, 2014, 06:02:11 pm
That's not on their srd, is it? I haven't seen it. How does it work?
It is totally on the SRD
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes)
Quote
Paizo scum
Given how many things I can spot 5th edition doing that is lifted directly from pathfinder...
Post by: Tawa on November 10, 2014, 06:04:19 pm
I stay far, far away from 5th, man.QuotePaizo scum
Given how many things I can spot 5th edition doing that is lifted directly from pathfinder...
Post by: scriver on November 10, 2014, 06:20:40 pm
That's not on their srd, is it? I haven't seen it. How does it work?
It is totally on the SRD
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes)QuotePaizo scum
Given how many things I can spot 5th edition doing that is lifted directly from pathfinder...
Oh, thanks. I must've missed it in the past.
Post by: BadLemonsXI on November 10, 2014, 06:46:20 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 10, 2014, 06:48:00 pm
I hate Mafia.
Post by: Arcvasti on November 10, 2014, 06:52:40 pm
I stay far, far away from 5th, man.QuotePaizo scum
Given how many things I can spot 5th edition doing that is lifted directly from pathfinder...
5th Edition is pretty cool. Actual game balance without 4ths ability-based BS? Hell yeah.
And Werewolf/Mafia is pretty fun. Although I personally prefer other games with traitors in them with something to do besides find the traitors for the non-traitors. In Mafia, the only way to find the traitors is through meta ways/guesswork. With something else to do, being a traitor is far more interesting, since you can sabotage the party. It works the other way too, since they can be suspicious of people for what they actually DO, rather then mostly random chance.
Post by: Fniff on November 10, 2014, 06:55:23 pm
... Hrm...
Post by: Tawa on November 10, 2014, 06:56:58 pm
5th Edition is pretty cool. Actual game balance without 4ths ability-based BS? Hell yeah.If you ask me, there's too much 4e stuff that crept back in for me to touch it with an 11-foot pole.
But that's just me.
Post by: Neonivek on November 10, 2014, 07:00:54 pm
5th Edition is pretty cool. Actual game balance without 4ths ability-based BS? Hell yeah.If you ask me, there's too much 4e stuff that crept back in for me to touch it with an 11-foot pole.
But that's just me.
Yeah but a lot of it is the stuff the game needed... Like the "short rest" between battles to keep games moving.
As well as adding "Holy damage" allowing for future divine offensive spells.
Post by: BadLemonsXI on November 10, 2014, 07:08:18 pm
Post by: Fniff on November 10, 2014, 07:09:14 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 10, 2014, 07:10:42 pm
Strategy is fun. I like strategy.
Post by: BadLemonsXI on November 10, 2014, 07:13:47 pm
Wargames is the term.Cool thanks. Huh the only problem I could see with playing Wargames is the money you have to spend buying the stuff for them. tho the guys there told me of what to do to find and buy the stuff for cheaper, second hand etc. etc.
Post by: Fniff on November 10, 2014, 07:43:50 pm
Post by: AlleeCat on November 10, 2014, 07:47:53 pm
It's the nerd version of a drug addiction, really.So is collecting retro games. I must spend about half of each paycheck at my local game store.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 10, 2014, 08:06:56 pm
It's the nerd version of a drug addiction, really.So is collecting retro games. I must spend about half of each paycheck at my local game store.
I know what you mean. I ate less for a paycheck just because I found Azure Dreams at the local game store and just had to have it.
Of course I haven't played it yet.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 10, 2014, 11:30:50 pm
Post by: Heron TSG on November 11, 2014, 05:08:32 am
If you ask me, there's too much 4e stuff that crept back in for me to touch it with an 11-foot pole.What about a 12 foot pole? One of my favorite items from the Magic Item Compendium. The meta-joke is worth the extra cash to buy it.
As well as [5th edition] adding "Holy damage" allowing for future divine offensive spells.Divine damage was already a thing in 3.5, like in Flame Strike. In fact, there were hundreds of offensive divine spells, depending on what you mean by divine. (In 3.5 that means 'castable by clerics and other divine casters', though if you mean 'deals divine damage' that's only a few dozen.)
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 11, 2014, 08:58:28 am
Post by: timferius on November 11, 2014, 09:13:08 am
Post by: TheWetSheep on November 11, 2014, 11:16:49 am
Wargames is the term.More specifically, miniatures wargames. Wargames usually refers to games like Advanced Squad Leader (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/243/advanced-squad-leader) and Virgin Queen (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41066/virgin-queen). These are more like a typical boardgame, but are usually very in-depth and heavy simulations of combat.
Mafia sounds fun if complicated IRL. On the Internet it's a shouting match thanks that beautiful feature of the Internet where no one backs down over anything, ever.It's a good way to learn interrogation technique, though. For IRL, The Resistance (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41114/resistance) is the best social deduction game I've played. It can get crazy intense.
Post by: timferius on November 11, 2014, 11:26:00 am
Post by: AlleeCat on November 11, 2014, 08:57:57 pm
Post by: Kadzar on November 12, 2014, 12:11:11 am
One thing I like about Zombicide is that you can't plan your build. You have to deal with the (equipment) cards you're drawn and usually base your level-up choices on that. I do sometimes wish I could transplant at least a little bit of Zombicide into D&D; I feel like it's pretty much mastered the concept of class-based design.
Post by: uber pye on November 12, 2014, 12:59:55 am
you should, it is the best (http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/73/95/2e7395de686d3ea8fd70c299186b8aa7.jpg) awsome (http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs43/f/2009/077/a/3/Exalted__Fair_Folk_Battle_by_UdonCrew.jpg) game! (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Exalted)
Spoiler: In games i have played: (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on November 12, 2014, 01:44:05 am
Ranging from "Really? You are proud of suplexing that?"
To "How the heck did you manage that?"
Post by: timferius on November 12, 2014, 07:39:50 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 12, 2014, 08:07:37 am
If you ask me, there's too much 4e stuff that crept back in for me to touch it with an 11-foot pole.What about a 12 foot pole? One of my favorite items from the Magic Item Compendium. The meta-joke is worth the extra cash to buy it.As well as [5th edition] adding "Holy damage" allowing for future divine offensive spells.Divine damage was already a thing in 3.5, like in Flame Strike. In fact, there were hundreds of offensive divine spells, depending on what you mean by divine. (In 3.5 that means 'castable by clerics and other divine casters', though if you mean 'deals divine damage' that's only a few dozen.)
No outright holy damage. Just imitation elemental damage or non-type damage.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 12, 2014, 06:36:16 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 12, 2014, 08:05:28 pm
4e had radiant damage. That's sort of the same?
4th and 5th have holy damage and unholy damage as its own separate type indeed.
Warlocks being one of the few arcane classes that can even do unholy/holy damage because of their quasi-divine origins.
Post by: Yoink on November 12, 2014, 11:32:22 pm
Let's share our creepiest, most horribly inappropriate rpg stories! :D
Well, three players in my old Pathfinder group were starting new characters on the same day, due to half our party being wiped (in an incredibly stupid fashion) during the last session. So there's me with my half-orc rogue (I spoke in this annoying growly voice, it was a miracle I didn't get hoarse from it), a tiefling ranger (played by a more experienced DnD player, probably the most competent of the trio) and a halfling. I don't even remember what class the halfling wa- actually, that's right, he was a druid who later learned to ride around on a velociraptor.
Anyway, the three of us were in a tavern, having met recently on the road to whatever city we were in now.
It was a very ambiguous opening, but oh well. As all good adventurers do, we started drinking heavily. (It was at this point my character gained the nickname 'Shitdrinker', which followed him around for the rest of his life, due to saying the booze "tastes like shit".)
There was some various stupidity with the rough-looking occupants of the seedy place we were in, we moved on to stronger drinks, and then we ended up failing a whole bunch of CON rolls and blacking out. We came two under a wagon somewhere in the city, naked (almost? I think we still had underwear, or some sort of loincloths, but I can't remember) and incredibly hungover, and the halfling had some lewd phrase written around his mouth.
So, we'd lost all our gear, money, dignity (pfft), everything.
Once the tiefling and I had managed to beg some rubbishy clothing off a sympathetic shopkeeper, we had to think up a way to make some cash. We ended up hanging a sign around the halfing's neck (he was still wearing his loincloth) advertising a price for a sweet piece of halfling ass. He then wandered through the seedy dock area we were in, flirting with likely customers whilst the rest of us followed at a discreet distance.
Once he finally found an unscrupulous, scummy-looking sailor who was actually interested, we waited until his purse was in his hands and they were standing in some sort of alleyway, then the tiefling and I jumped out, bashed him over the head and grabbed the money before running off.
Unfortunately for us, the city we'd decided to commit this crime in turned out to be Waterdeep, which apparently has a pretty hardcore system of law enforcement. (I didn't even know about this OOCly) It wasn't long before we were being pursued. The tiefling surrendered peacefully, I tried to fight and was swiftly knocked out, and the halfling used some feat-or-other to run a ridiculous distance in a short space of time.
That was when they called in some sort of Wizard-Cops to catch him, which they did quite quickly.
So, we ended up thrown into some dungeon or other, having nowhere near enough money to bribe our way out of it. :'(
Tl;Dr: We whored out our halfling on the docks of Waterdeep and robbed his customers to make quick cash, were promptly caught and jailed.
(This is just one of many creepy, inappropriate stories from that group, haha. Man, I miss playing with them.)
Post by: scriver on November 13, 2014, 02:04:50 am
4e had radiant damage. That's sort of the same?
4th and 5th have holy damage and unholy damage as its own separate type indeed.
Warlocks being one of the few arcane classes that can even do unholy/holy damage because of their quasi-divine origins.
How is thus different from 3.5s Divine damage?
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2014, 02:05:29 am
Where are people getting the idea that there is a separate divine damage?
Post by: Heron TSG on November 13, 2014, 02:25:30 am
Quote from: d20srd
A flame strike produces a vertical column of divine fire roaring downward. The spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6). Half the damage is fire damage, but the other half results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to fire-based attacks.
There are a number of spells with similar wording.
Then you have spells like Holy Storm:
Quote from: Planar Handbook
A driving rain falls around you. It falls in a fixed area once created. The storm reduces hearing and visibility, resulting in a -4
penalty on Listen, Spot, and Search checks. It also applies a -4 penalty on all ranged attacks made into, out of, or through the storm.
Finally, it automatically extinguishes any unprotected flames and has a 50% chance to extinguish protected flames (such as those of lanterns). The rain damages evil creatures, dealing 2d6 points of damage per round (evil outsiders take double damage). In addition, each round, a blast of frost strikes a randomly selected evil outsider within the spell's area, dealing 5d6 points of cold damage.
After the spell's duration expires, the water disappears.
That deal an untyped damage that only affects evil creatures, and bonus against evil outsiders like demons and devils. The Book of Exalted Deeds has loads of stuff like that.
Post by: scriver on November 13, 2014, 02:30:39 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2014, 02:36:19 am
Indeed. While I'm not sure about Barbarossa's second example, I have never heard of the damage in Flame Strike (and all of the others like) being referred to as anything but Divine damage.
Because most people are not really experienced in the contradictions and other abilities that do "untyped" damage.
Some forms of "divine damage" hit against Damage reduction for example (Holy weapons for example). It isn't an entity on its own, it isn't modified or altered except by the very word of each individual spell and ability.
4e and 5e both added Divine and Unholy damage as an entity on its own unmodified by the inherent goodness or evil of the individual (Because frankly 3.5's divinity stuff is often grade school anyhow), with energy resistances dealing directly with those forms of damage.
It is especially helpful since many unholy attacks just use negative energy.
Post by: Heron TSG on November 13, 2014, 03:08:03 am
Quote from: Feat: Violate Spell
This feat adds the evil descriptor to a spell. Furthermore, if the spell deals damage, half of the damage dealt is vile damage. For example, a violated lightning bolt cast by an 8th-level wizard deals 8d6 points of damage: 4d6 points of electricity damage and 4d6 points of vile electricity damage (but creatures immune to electricity take no damage). A violated spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
It's also worth noting that there are damage reduction in 3.5 for alignments, and your average cleric can make a weapon 'Good' for the purposes of bypassing DR, and so forth. There are also ways for clerics (and other divine casters) to give themselves and/or their allies damage reduction that requires an aligment to pass.
What makes something holy as opposed to unholy, asides from the relative 'good' or 'evil' of the deity providing the power to the divine caster? Or are unholy spells provided by nega-gods? There's still positive/negative energy in 3.5, neither of which carries an inherent alignment. If you're looking for divine damage that isn't good or evil, there's a couple for you.
Every edition of D&D has clear-cut lines of good and evil in its cosmology, with the only major exception being the Eberron Campaign Setting. (Which involves such things as a relatively good-and-stable kingdom using armies of necromancy-fueled skeletons to wage war to preserve its living citizens.)
The cosmology of Greyhawk and many of the D&D gods and planes has been basically the same since AD&D. It's straightforward and clear-cut because it makes for good storytelling scenarios. The archetypical D&D campaign involves a party of adventurers embarking on a difficult journey to save the world from some terrible thing or other. A campaign all about solving world hunger could be interesting, but it's both easy and very dramatic for the campaign to be about saving their land from invasion by a powerful and cruel empire, or rescuing a princess from a ghastly ritual perpetrated by a cult of Takhisis. Call it tacky, but a conflict that a grade-schooler can understand isn't necessarily a bad thing for a roleplaying game.
Post by: scriver on November 13, 2014, 03:32:14 am
And yeah, Divine damage is supposed to be indefensible against, given that it's basically direct divine damage.
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2014, 03:33:40 pm
Which as much as I complain about WAY TOO MUCH... is probably for the best. It shouldn't require college level analysis just to understand nuance. Better people to easily grasp onto the game and have fun.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Note: The Spoiler is an inane rant that sounds like I was drunk or half-asleep while writing it. I tend to leave these up for honesty sake... but if you do respond to it, know I regret ALL OF IT!
Post by: Kadzar on November 13, 2014, 10:09:06 pm
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2014, 10:36:10 pm
I feel like making a quick post to say that Neonivek is misremembering the names of the damage types in 4e and 5e. They are called Radiant and Necrotic.
Well I am not misremembering exactly. Radiant and Necrotic are divine damage.
Post by: Heron TSG on November 13, 2014, 10:37:48 pm
Yeah but the issue with that is it creates the Jesus versus Satan scenario. But then again Dungeons and Dragons was always VERY Christian in the way it often presented its cosmology.I think Zoroastrianism predates Christianity with regards to that dynamic, and there's a reason it's such a common theme in religions. Everyone like to feel like they're the good guys trying to defeat the bad guys.
-AND HOLY GOODNESS do Blackguards and Anti-paladins not even FUNCTION in any conceivable sense. There is no way someone could be a Blackguard and still be alive after a year. Evil is dumb!There are a few (http://dndtools.eu/classes/blackguard/) classes (http://dndtools.eu/classes/hexblade/) and (http://dndtools.eu/classes/bone-knight/) variants (http://dndtools.eu/classes/paladin-of-slaughter/) for (http://dndtools.eu/classes/paladin-of-tyranny/) evil paladins that all work pretty well in 3.5.
Post by: Neonivek on November 13, 2014, 11:00:37 pm
Lets just say that evil that hates good in all forms is stupid no matter how you slice it.
Post by: Bohandas on November 14, 2014, 03:49:58 am
Because 3.5 has no divine damage... The closest is negative and positive energy...
Where are people getting the idea that there is a separate divine damage?
The "Divine Blast" ability from Deities and Demigods for one thing.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 03:53:06 am
Because 3.5 has no divine damage... The closest is negative and positive energy...
Where are people getting the idea that there is a separate divine damage?
The "Divine Blast" ability from Deities and Demigods for one thing.
Which isn't in the original book that dealt with divinity. Are these third parties or one offs?
*checks section*
No... there is a Divine Blast... that does untyped damage.
Post by: Bohandas on November 14, 2014, 03:59:15 am
Because 3.5 has no divine damage... The closest is negative and positive energy...
Where are people getting the idea that there is a separate divine damage?
The "Divine Blast" ability from Deities and Demigods for one thing.
Which isn't in the original book that dealt with divinity. Are these third parties or one offs?
*checks section*
No... there is a Divine Blast... that does untyped damage.
No, its a WoTC product.
Its even in the damn System Reference Document. Under "Divine Abilities and Feats"
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35)
Post by: Heron TSG on November 14, 2014, 04:06:19 am
(You can actually check the Deities and Demigods book, there's a Wizards of the Coast logo in the first credits page, and Skip Williams is one author amongst the many. He along with Monte Cook wrote more 3.0/3.5 books than just about anyone I can think of)
To quote the ability:
Quote
The deity can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + its Charisma bonus. The ray created can extend up to one mile per rank (the deity chooses the length). Targets the ray strikes take 1d12 points of damage per rank of the deity, plus 1d12
points of damage per point of Charisma bonus the deity has. There is no saving throw, but the deity must make a ranged touch attack to hit a target. The deity can make the ray look, sound, smell, and feel like any-thing it desires. Despite the appearance of the ray, the damage it deals results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by protection from elements and similar magic.
which you may recognize from Flame Strike and many other abilities that deal divine damage. But this is getting pretty silly.
Post by: Bohandas on November 14, 2014, 04:09:30 am
Let's share our creepiest, most horribly inappropriate rpg stories! :D
We once had a discussion about how the spell "Rainbow Blast" (from the 3.5e Spell Compendium) sounds like a gay thing. And how it might therefore be condemned by the stodgier faiths (and conversely how the elven faiths might be overly fond of it.
---------------
Speaking of elves and horribly inappropriate rpg stuff:
I also had an idea - which never came to anything - to have a campaign centering around a conflict between the normal elves and the drow (dark elves), wherein the church of Corellon Larethian (god of the non-drow elves and enemy of the drow) would gradually be depicted as being more and more like the Ku Klux Klan as campaign progressed, complete with white robes, lynchings, giant burning holy symbols and being led by a "grand wizard". Having it turn out that the elves are jiat racist seems like an obvious plot twist, but I haven't seen it done elsewhere (perhaps it's so obvious that it comes off as trite???)
Post by: Kadzar on November 14, 2014, 04:30:08 am
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35)For easier readability (i.e. not having to download crap) here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#divineBlast)'s a link to the relevant entry from the HTML SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm).
(You can actually check the Deities and Demigods book, there's a Wizards of the Coast logo in the first credits page, and Skip Williams is one author amongst the many. He along with Monte Cook wrote more 3.0/3.5 books than just about anyone I can think of)Speaking of Monte Cook, has anyone had any experience with Numenera? I haven't looked into it much at all, since I don't know what to expect of the guy. On the one hand, I've heard he's responsible for the ridiculous caster superiority in 3.5 and a lot of the trap options, which he apparently said were intentional. On the other hand, Unearthed Arcana had a lot of good ideas in it; not just for 3.5, but for rpgs in general.
Oh, and also, has anybody here tried out Dungeon World? That's the other system I've been interested in.
Post by: Bohandas on November 14, 2014, 04:38:06 am
I have nearly complete sets of expensive rulebooks for three different tabletop RPGs (D&D 3.5, Paranoia, and Toon) but have yet to play a campaign in any of them that didn't fall apart before it started. Of course, I've only so far made two attempts (both with D&D), owing to the difficulty of getting a group together; but both of them fell apart durin or shortly after character creation.
A game of Toon would probably be more stable due to its relative simplicity. But due to the relative obscurity of the game it would prpbably be even harder to get a group together.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 04:43:49 am
Unless you read the Tenants of the Blackguard.
If you are talking about 3.5, "The Tenants of the Blackguard" is not something that actually exists. Blackguards don't have any sort of code equivalent to the paladin one. The closest to that they have is the simple requirement to be evil to take class levels.
Anyway, I don't really understand your complaint about how religion and alignment work in D&D. Sure it's a bit simplistic in some areas, but most fiction is. And sure it's vague in some ways, but that's to make room for the players and the GM to interpret it however is appropriate for their campaign.
I also had an idea - which never came to anything - to have a campaign centering around a conflict between the normal elves and the drow (dark elves), wherein the church of Corellon Larethian (god of the non-drow elves and enemy of the drow) would gradually be depicted as being more and more like the Ku Klux Klan as campaign progressed, complete with white robes, lynchings, giant burning holy symbols and being led by a "grand wizard". Having it turn out that the elves are jiat racist seems like an obvious plot twist, but I haven't seen it done elsewhere (perhaps it's so obvious that it comes off as trite???)
It's a pretty good and interesting idea. Although in D&D at least you might need to make some changes to how some things work. It's hard to be secretly evil racists when good and evil are objective and everyone literally glows with their morality. (Although I guess depending on how you handled it the rank and file elves and clergy might not be evil, just misled. Which would make it easier.)
Post by: Gentlefish on November 14, 2014, 04:48:55 am
Hmm....
But first I should update my already-running game a few more times :P
Post by: scrdest on November 14, 2014, 05:26:48 am
Unless you read the Tenants of the Blackguard.
If you are talking about 3.5, "The Tenants of the Blackguard" is not something that actually exists. Blackguards don't have any sort of code equivalent to the paladin one. The closest to that they have is the simple requirement to be evil to take class levels.
Anyway, I don't really understand your complaint about how religion and alignment work in D&D. Sure it's a bit simplistic in some areas, but most fiction is. And sure it's vague in some ways, but that's to make room for the players and the GM to interpret it however is appropriate for their campaign.I also had an idea - which never came to anything - to have a campaign centering around a conflict between the normal elves and the drow (dark elves), wherein the church of Corellon Larethian (god of the non-drow elves and enemy of the drow) would gradually be depicted as being more and more like the Ku Klux Klan as campaign progressed, complete with white robes, lynchings, giant burning holy symbols and being led by a "grand wizard". Having it turn out that the elves are jiat racist seems like an obvious plot twist, but I haven't seen it done elsewhere (perhaps it's so obvious that it comes off as trite???)
It's a pretty good and interesting idea. Although in D&D at least you might need to make some changes to how some things work. It's hard to be secretly evil racists when good and evil are objective and everyone literally glows with their morality. (Although I guess depending on how you handled it the rank and file elves and clergy might not be evil, just misled. Which would make it easier.)
You might go with the reinterpreted morality axes - good/evil as, essentially, conduits for positive/negative energy and law/chaos as 'has/hasn't a destiny assigned by a higher power'. So, you may have a lowercase good Good Paladin, a good Evil Friendly Necromancer, and an evil Good Knight Templar-type, for example, and so on.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 05:53:29 am
QuoteThe deity can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + its Charisma bonus. The ray created can extend up to one mile per rank (the deity chooses the length). Targets the ray strikes take 1d12 points of damage per rank of the deity, plus 1d12
points of damage per point of Charisma bonus the deity has. There is no saving throw, but the deity must make a ranged touch attack to hit a target. The deity can make the ray look, sound, smell, and feel like any-thing it desires. Despite the appearance of the ray, the damage it deals results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by protection from elements and similar magic.
which you may recognize from Flame Strike and many other abilities that deal divine damage. But this is getting pretty silly.
Unless it specifically says it does Divine Damage and not "The source of this damage is divine" it doesn't count. It is untyped.
Quote
If you are talking about 3.5, "The Tenants of the Blackguard" is not something that actually exists. Blackguards don't have any sort of code equivalent to the paladin one. The closest to that they have is the simple requirement to be evil to take class levels
If a blackguard does an action that is good... They fall.
They better hope they don't have friends, allies, loved ones, or anything of the sort.
Not doing evil is TOUGH but do-able. Not doing good is basically nonsense.
Quote
Anyway, I don't really understand your complaint about how religion and alignment work in D&D. Sure it's a bit simplistic in some areas, but most fiction is. And sure it's vague in some ways, but that's to make room for the players and the GM to interpret it however is appropriate for their campaign
Mostly it has to do with how the idea of good and evil are in play. Often just boiling down to very modernistic tenants.
Basically Dungeons and Dragons idea of good and evil usually plays out like how Bioware thinks good and evil operate.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 05:59:13 am
If a blackguard does an action that is good... They fall.
This is not actually true.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 06:05:21 am
Quote
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladins code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions dont interfere with his goals.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 06:14:15 am
B: That's even not from D&D. From what I can see that's from pathfinder.
C: That doesn't preclude friends or allies. It might not even preclude loved ones depending on how your world handles love. The concept as a whole is very weird and antisocial, but it's not "not even FUNCTION in any conceivable sense." The person would probably be insane from our standards. But in a world where evil is a actually valid world view (That's super modern of course of course!) supported in many ways by the way the universe works and a person can achive such a high level of personal power... It wouldn't even be physically that hard to make work.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 06:47:10 am
Demons function because they are endless armies controlled by extremely powerful demons strong enough to force the others in line. They don't need food, water, shelter, or anything and thus can be constantly blindly destructive... especially since they have their own realm. They need ALL of these elements to survive.
Devils function because they aren't allergic to good and are intelligent... when written competently. They are also kept in check because the fact that they aren't stupid means they come into direct conflict with stupid evil.
I am reminded a lot of this sort of depiction of Fallen Angels where they are indeed still outright evil... but they still have that sort of altruistic desire imbedded in them. So if you traveled deep into their territory you would see beautiful palaces where the Fallen Angel's closest friends and family living in luxury.
Those things? "I will stab you in the back if it serves my interest and I do not hide this fact. I am a champion of evil and even the very idea of doing good makes my blood churn"... "Yeah, clearly I trust you... ohh wait... no I forgot I have intelligence along with being evil".. "But I can help you"... "Only if it serves your interest, so I will know your always manipulating me and planning my downfall".
I am starting to understand why people say a Evil Villains best friend are good people.
Also Dungeons and dragons handles evil BAAAAAADLY! To the extent where they often just ignore alignment altogether. This is especially obvious with the "Chaotic Evil" Drow who have a non-chaotic Evil society... and are well organized... To the extent where I had to justify it myself by explaining that Drow live in a Cat Colony culture where they live close to eachother for protection and have little-no compulsion to kill eachother... and work together mostly at a whim but are otherwise cities of individuals rather then groups.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 06:53:50 am
NOT being blindly destructive is not a act of good.
Being selfish does not preclude working within a society that enables one to exist if one is relying on that society. (Especially if that society is itself evil.)
Fuck, that code is easier to live by then the paladin one in some ways. A antipaladin could very easily live in a good society. A paladin can't live in a evil society.
Those things? "I will stab you in the back if it serves my interest and I do not hide this fact. I am a champion of evil and even the very idea of doing good makes my blood churn"... "Yeah, clearly I trust you... ohh wait... no I forgot I have intelligence along with being evil".. "But I can help you"... "Only if it serves your interest, so I will know your always manipulating me and planning my downfall".
I'm trying to make sense of this, but it mostly appears to be a paragraph of gibberish? I'll just mention that a antipaladin by that code can do whatever they feel they need to in any circumstance.
Also Dungeons and dragons handles evil BAAAAAADLY! To the extent where they often just ignore alignment altogether. This is especially obvious with the "Chaotic Evil" Drow who have a non-chaotic Evil society... and are well organized... To the extent where I had to justify it myself by explaining that Drow live in a Cat Colony culture where they live close to eachother for protection and have little-no compulsion to kill eachother... and work together mostly at a whim but are otherwise cities of individuals rather then groups.
I'm not really aware of that many depictions of drow society outside of the Drizzit books, so to be honest, that has fully colored my perception of them. Just to state in advance in case what I am thinking is wildly off.
But. A society where laws are meaningless and only enforced by traditions that the whims of the powerful. Where you kill to get ahead. Where the organization flows top down from the threat of force of the powerful (with a literal god being at the top of the threat of force pyramid?)
That seems appropriate for a chaotic evil society.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 06:58:43 am
A good society requires you to be sociable.
Being sociable requires you to be altruistic.
Ever had someone ask you for something and you did it... openly and willingly? Well not Antipaladins.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 07:01:44 am
Being sociable requires you to be altruistic.
No it doesn't. Proof: Actual real world.
Ever had someone ask you for something and you did it... openly and willingly? Well not Antipaladins.
This is nether required to be part of society, and even if it was then antipaladins could do it.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 07:02:55 am
Being sociable requires you to be altruistic.
No it doesn't. Proof: Actual real world.
Just, step back and analyze what you do on a daily basis.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 07:03:34 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 07:05:20 am
Okay. Done. A antipaladin could live all vital parts of my life by that code.
I am concerned with how much your life seems to coincide with "be the champion of evil" and bring the world to ruins and to never EVER willingly to a good act unless the act is actually to attempt to destroy the world.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 07:07:12 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 07:11:23 am
None of that is in the code you posted.
What did you think your dark goal was? To just be a greedy bastard? :P
Mind you if I wrote that I'd honestly exclude the "You must be greedy and selfish at all times" because that is probably a rather big detriment for someone you want to be your champion of evil. You want them to kind of work for you, not themselves.
None of that is in the code you posted.
I probably should rewatch that episode of Liars game again where the scientist says that human beings do acts of altruism because they are fundamentally selfish. Mind you whether or not that counts depends on interpretation.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 07:21:34 am
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 07:24:07 am
At its worst Paladins were ridiculously overzealous and punished by their deities (which is odd... given that... well... Zeus could have a Paladin... and why would a Paladin of Zeus be against promiscuous sex?) such as a Paladin falling because of an act someone in his party did. Making them almost stupidly pure more fitting for a NPC then a PC.
Then again Paladins were always kind of... odd in dungeons and dragons.
Not that it was much better in 3.5 (outside the reworks like the Paladin of Freedom)... Though from what I hear it has improved quite a bit in 5th ed.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 14, 2014, 07:39:46 am
Neonivek, I wonder, what are your thoughts on 5th ed as a whole? I would be interested in hearing your viewpoint on it. If you have one. (Also sorry if you have already mentioned it on this thread, I've not really been watching this thread very closely.)
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 07:51:38 am
I don't mind that the game tries to REALLY focus on how powerful you can get in the game, characters often really gone off the rails.
The whole "You can either get a feat or an attribute increase" part is just flat out weird to me.
As well the streamlining goes both ways... I like that they added short rests, I dislike that they removed carrying weight.
I like that they did a LOT to fix rogues (Anyone can get trap removal, they just get it for free), as well as removing their horrid "most enemies are immune to rogues".
All in all my opinion is!!! I really gotta play it first... It feels entirely different from 3.5... it is almost like a marriage between 3.5 and 4e.
Post by: timferius on November 14, 2014, 07:56:44 am
Post by: Helgoland on November 14, 2014, 12:07:43 pm
Post by: Kadzar on November 14, 2014, 01:34:24 pm
Also, it's sounding like peoples opinions might change quite a bit once the DMs guide is out. It's sounding like it will have a tonne of variant rules. In fact, I would be surprised if there isn't a carrying weigh variant in the DMs guide. For me, all in all, I'm loving the sound and look of 5e, especially as a newer DM. I'm looking forward to taking it out for a spin some time.Carrying weight is actually in the Player's Handbook (including the downloadable Basic version (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)). It's in the Using Ability Scores section under Strength. The default is such that you can pretty much ignore carrying capacity if you don't have a negative Strength modifier, whereas the Encumbrance variant just below it puts it at about what it was before.
But anyway, about Paladins, I haven't seen them in play, but from what I've heard they're pretty beastly. And from the DMG preview, it seems even the Oathbreaker (http://i.imgur.com/G4WpohM.jpg) option is none-to-shabby.
The only part of the paladin I have a problem with, and it's not even a major problem, is the Oath of the Ancients. The mechanics are great, but I don't really like the fluff that much, since it seems to imply that nature is a Good, rather than Neutral, force. And I personally really don't like the implication that the oath represents some ancient belief, considering it very much lines up with modern views, and I prefer my ancient beliefs to be considered barbaric by modern standards (so probably closer to the Oath of Vengeance). But that's minor nitpick, since there are two other great oaths, and I can just rename OotA to "Oath of the Warden", since it's good at keeping fey and fiends at bay.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 14, 2014, 01:59:14 pm
Post by: timferius on November 14, 2014, 02:01:07 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 02:04:00 pm
Post by: AlleeCat on November 14, 2014, 02:11:01 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on November 14, 2014, 03:21:29 pm
TBH if I had my druthers 5e would have been a different sort of update of 3.5 with a couple difference balance dynamics: one which is basically 3.5 with the broken and stupid problems (Truenamer, Monk, ferex) fixed akin to how many houserules set things right; and then a couple different sets of guidelines for balancing games for high-tier high-magic parties vs. low-tier low-magic parties; and probably something akin to the book of weeaboo fightan magic from 3.5 (only more so) to add martial and skillful classes or class variants which have bullshit on par with primary casters, just done through non-spell bullshit instead of spell bullshit, so that you can have a mixed party for high-level campaigns.
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 03:39:07 pm
Post by: Kadzar on November 14, 2014, 04:16:41 pm
-snip-I feel like you probably shouldn't make a judgment on 5e without having actually looked at the Player's Handbook yourself. I mean, yes, compared to the full run of 3.5, it's limited, but we only have the Player's Handbook so far, and it has a lot more options available for characters than the 3.5 PH did. It may not have as many Feats as 3.5, but that's because they got rid the idea from 3.5 that you need a feat for basic competency, so they made feats be things that are actually worth taking instead.
And the classes are designed in such a way that they are varied, like in 3.5, but somewhat balanced, like in 4e. But they're not as balanced as 4e. It's somewhere between 3.5 and 4, so that the wizard isn't just a glorified mook-smasher like in 4e, but he also isn't so overpowered he makes all other classes redundant, like in 3.5.
Post by: scriver on November 14, 2014, 05:03:10 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on November 14, 2014, 06:23:46 pm
And casters are strong as hell at low levels in 3.5e. Never experienced it myself, but apparently an elven wizard with a bow and Grease and Colour Spray can singlehandedly kill the average low-level encounter.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 14, 2014, 06:48:24 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 06:58:36 pm
Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO.No.
Post by: Neonivek on November 14, 2014, 07:15:19 pm
In 5th Ed though, casters only get 2-3 spells of higher then 1st level AT LEVEL 20. They do have ways to regenerate spell slots in short rests, but those are usually once per day abilities. They need the cantrips so they can do stuff when all their other spells are spent. No more spamming 8-9th level spells to melt encounters. You can do that ONCE and then you have to use cantrips/lower level spells to avoid wasting all the powerful spells at once.
And casters are strong as hell at low levels in 3.5e. Never experienced it myself, but apparently an elven wizard with a bow and Grease and Colour Spray can singlehandedly kill the average low-level encounter.
It is more that Fighters tend to be more universally useful at low levels.
While Wizards are the win button... but because of how limited their spells are, they cannot exercise it for every battle.
Truthfully I always thought that it was mid game when Martial characters COULD start to get an edge over spell casters (Ignoring Druids who are best in the mid game and actually have a small 2 level window where they can beat Wizards at their own game). Since it is after Spellcasters get their SUPER damage inflation of level 3 spells and before they get their broken spells of level 6... While Mid game is also where martial characters reach their maximum power.
Post by: scriver on November 14, 2014, 07:17:31 pm
Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~
Well... What is it? :P
Post by: timferius on November 14, 2014, 07:23:51 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 07:31:42 pm
From what Wikipedia tells me, it's D&D, but it seems like the kind of thing that's made to have Old Man Henderson in it legitimately--you're supposed to come up with a "one unique thing" that gives you bonuses and is incorporated into the story of the game. Oh, and freeform backgrounds replace skills.Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~
Well... What is it? :P
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like one of those terrible animes where all the characters have some kind of outlandish, exaggerated trait to make them stand out.
Post by: Arcvasti on November 14, 2014, 07:38:11 pm
From what Wikipedia tells me, it's D&D, but it seems like the kind of thing that's made to have Old Man Henderson in it legitimately--you're supposed to come up with a "one unique thing" that gives you bonuses and is incorporated into the story of the game. Oh, and freeform backgrounds replace skills.Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~
Well... What is it? :P
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like one of those terrible animes where all the characters have some kind of outlandish, exaggerated trait to make them stand out.
Seems to be sort of a compromise between mainly stat and combat based D & D and fully RP and world building centric games like Aria[Which I've always been meaning to try, since I have most of the sourcebooks for it.]. Could be interesting if done well and played with the right people.
EDIT: This is just going on what Taw said. I'll need to research it personally before I say anything more.
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 07:41:01 pm
Just in case I was biased.
Post by: uber pye on November 14, 2014, 07:42:58 pm
From what Wikipedia tells me, it's D&D, but it seems like the kind of thing that's made to have Old Man Henderson in it legitimately--you're supposed to come up with a "one unique thing" that gives you bonuses and is incorporated into the story of the game. Oh, and freeform backgrounds replace skills.Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~
Well... What is it? :P
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like one of those terrible animes where all the characters have some kind of outlandish, exaggerated trait to make them stand out.
it can have that problem, but what would you rather be, Ragnarok Kingvictor, the only paladin in the city of thieves or
human paladin #352?
Post by: Arcvasti on November 14, 2014, 07:45:22 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 07:46:36 pm
yeah play 13th age! Its great!Uh.From what Wikipedia tells me, it's D&D, but it seems like the kind of thing that's made to have Old Man Henderson in it legitimately--you're supposed to come up with a "one unique thing" that gives you bonuses and is incorporated into the story of the game. Oh, and freeform backgrounds replace skills.Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~
Well... What is it? :P
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like one of those terrible animes where all the characters have some kind of outlandish, exaggerated trait to make them stand out.
it can have that problem, but what would you rather be, Ragnarok Kingvictor, the only paladin in the city of thieves or
human paladin #352?
You do realize you could write that into your backstory anyway, right?
And who names their character "human paladin #352"? You're implying that you need to play 13th age to have a backstory.
Post by: Arcvasti on November 14, 2014, 07:52:58 pm
yeah play 13th age! Its great!Uh.From what Wikipedia tells me, it's D&D, but it seems like the kind of thing that's made to have Old Man Henderson in it legitimately--you're supposed to come up with a "one unique thing" that gives you bonuses and is incorporated into the story of the game. Oh, and freeform backgrounds replace skills.Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~
Well... What is it? :P
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like one of those terrible animes where all the characters have some kind of outlandish, exaggerated trait to make them stand out.
it can have that problem, but what would you rather be, Ragnarok Kingvictor, the only paladin in the city of thieves or
human paladin #352?
You do realize you could write that into your backstory anyway, right?
And who names their character "human paladin #352"? You're implying that you need to play 13th age to have a backstory.
Some of the D & D backstories I've seen on Bay12 have been really cool and unique. But... Not everyone plays D & D like that and the characters often tend towards the generic.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 14, 2014, 07:58:55 pm
Post by: uber pye on November 14, 2014, 08:15:32 pm
Sounds like in 13th age that you background affects your skills, and in D&D you pick your skills then set up your background.
in 13th age you get a number of points that you can distribute among your backgrounds and these are your skills.
if you want to use one, if it is reasonable that this background would help, then you get however many points you put in to it as a bonus to your roll.
for example, Ragnarok Kingvictor needs to sneak up on a dragon, so she uses her thief-blood background so that she could be in a better position when combat starts.
Post by: timferius on November 14, 2014, 08:19:53 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on November 14, 2014, 08:38:09 pm
-snip-I feel like you probably shouldn't make a judgment on 5e without having actually looked at the Player's Handbook yourself. I mean, yes, compared to the full run of 3.5, it's limited, but we only have the Player's Handbook so far, and it has a lot more options available for characters than the 3.5 PH did. It may not have as many Feats as 3.5, but that's because they got rid the idea from 3.5 that you need a feat for basic competency, so they made feats be things that are actually worth taking instead.
And the classes are designed in such a way that they are varied, like in 3.5, but somewhat balanced, like in 4e. But they're not as balanced as 4e. It's somewhere between 3.5 and 4, so that the wizard isn't just a glorified mook-smasher like in 4e, but he also isn't so overpowered he makes all other classes redundant, like in 3.5.
I did. I read it through a couple times a while back to be sure. It's pretty much exactly what I described: a blend of 3.5e and 4e with some (but not near all) of the 4e stupidity cut, and some of the extreme edges of 3.5e blunted. The discussion on caster spells/day above is a good example of that, and it's one of the better balance changes they made from a perspective of trying to find a lower-power neutral ground.
That said, it's still less versatile both in and out of combat -- Tawa made a good point on that -- not least because it is partially derived from 4e. Honestly, I'd argue that it's better for RAW to have the potential for absurdity and non-combat adventures that you got with 3.5e, I just think that it should have been expanded beyond primary casters and certain skills. When I say that it's a step between 3.5e and 4e, that's not a good thing, because what 4e did was not a good way to fix balance issues.
Obviously 3.5e has balance issues, but the way to solve them is not to remove potential and make the game less interesting, it's to balance things by bringing everything up to the same level. 4e is a fairly good example of how perfect balance doesn't necessarily mean a game is good, because all of the classes basically do the same thing with different fluff. Good balance is asymmetrical; look at Starcraft or TF2 as example of how classes/factions can be radically different without one being overpowered compared to the others. Moreover, 4e's focus on the most boring parts of DnD is telling -- the main thing that made dungeoncrawling and random encounters fun for players is giggling about what their build can do, but 4e removed most of the variety, risk, and wow factor from combat.
Exalted in some respects is a good example of how to do a high-power game full of bullshit-hax powers and make it interesting -- moreover, while dealing with problems other than combat.
Heck, look at some of the stories we get out of 3.5e and Pathfinder. Would the Tale of an Industrious Rogue happened in 4e? Would it have been anywhere near as interesting? That's why I honestly think that, while 5e is not necessarily bad as a standalone, and good in comparison to 4e, it's still only a step in the right direction by virtue of moving away from 4e.
Don't nerf casters, give martial and skillful classes better bullshit. Here, take an example class with random ideas off the top of my head: fix the basic problems with monks, give them real bullshit (Haste and a Nerveskitter-like as #/days at # level? Featherfall at 1st or 2nd level at-will instead of that bullshit-long useless slowfall progression? Automatically give them things like arrow-catching, Spiderwalk and Spring Attack as they level? Make Flurry of Blows not suck a barrel of dicks? Better unarmed damage? Better class AC progression? Shift some of the class bonuses to reduce MAD? Let them enchant their bodies? Give them a selection of extra special abilities to pick from: let them choose things like getting massive boosts to dipl/intimidate/bluff checks made in combat, element-typed unarmed damage, at-will Blink, &c.) Stuff like that. Make as many classes bullshit enough to at least make it to Tier 2 classification of "Does a small selection of things really, really well."
Post by: Gentlefish on November 14, 2014, 08:42:55 pm
-snip snop-
This is exactly why I love Tome of Battle. It puts martial characters on the same footing as casters. I know it's more "Hey look magic martial arts!" rather than "Okay we fixed up some martial characters so they suck less" but I think it really fills the gap between "regular" martial combat and the "fantastic" element of magic.
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 08:48:05 pm
That said, my favorites are still probably DFA (the MONARCH of direct damage) and Sorcerer, but Tome of Battle is a necessity for anybody who wants to play a melee character with any spellcasters in the party.
Post by: Bohandas on November 14, 2014, 08:53:40 pm
Have they done anything different with alignment in 5e?
Post by: Gentlefish on November 14, 2014, 08:54:31 pm
Yeah, Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic was pretty good. I'm getting a pretty good run out of a duelist-esque Swordsage right now and have a Crusader written up that seems pretty badass compared to a run-of-the-mill fighter. (Speaking of which, you can get some obscene damage rolls at early levels with a lance.)
That said, my favorites are still probably DFA (the MONARCH of direct damage) and Sorcerer, but Tome of Battle is a necessity for anybody who wants to play a melee character with any spellcasters in the party.
Dat 8d8 4th level maneuver. I can't imagine that hit with a lance.
Post by: Tawa on November 14, 2014, 09:02:59 pm
Hehehe. Lances are fun. They're like a one-handed spear with reach that deals delicious double damage (ooh, alliteration) when you charge.Yeah, Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic was pretty good. I'm getting a pretty good run out of a duelist-esque Swordsage right now and have a Crusader written up that seems pretty badass compared to a run-of-the-mill fighter. (Speaking of which, you can get some obscene damage rolls at early levels with a lance.)
That said, my favorites are still probably DFA (the MONARCH of direct damage) and Sorcerer, but Tome of Battle is a necessity for anybody who wants to play a melee character with any spellcasters in the party.
Dat 8d8 4th level maneuver. I can't imagine that hit with a lance.
So that's like a max of a little over 70 HP of damage. Do I hear "You win"?
Post by: Kadzar on November 14, 2014, 09:58:07 pm
Don't nerf casters, give martial and skillful classes better bullshit. Here, take an example class with random ideas off the top of my head: fix the basic problems with monks, give them real bullshit (Haste and a Nerveskitter-like as #/days at # level? Featherfall at 1st or 2nd level at-will instead of that bullshit-long useless slowfall progression? Automatically give them things like arrow-catching, Spiderwalk and Spring Attack as they level? Make Flurry of Blows not suck a barrel of dicks? Better unarmed damage? Better class AC progression? Shift some of the class bonuses to reduce MAD? Let them enchant their bodies? Give them a selection of extra special abilities to pick from: let them choose things like getting massive boosts to dipl/intimidate/bluff checks made in combat, element-typed unarmed damage, at-will Blink, &c.) Stuff like that. Make as many classes bullshit enough to at least make it to Tier 2 classification of "Does a small selection of things really, really well."It's kinda weird that a lot of the things you mentioned wanting monks to have are pretty close to what they get in 5e.
I don't like the half-assed way they redid the alignment system in 4e. They should have either kept it as it was or scrapped it entirely, instead of arbitrarily removing two of the nine alignments.No, 5e brings it back to nine alignments.
Have they done anything different with alignment in 5e?
Post by: Arcvasti on November 14, 2014, 09:59:50 pm
I don't like the half-assed way they redid the alignment system in 4e. They should have either kept it as it was or scrapped it entirely, instead of arbitrarily removing two of the nine alignments.No, 5e brings it back to nine alignments.
Have they done anything different with alignment in 5e?
Also, IIRC, in 5e, you can only detect the alignment of things like outsiders or POSSIBLY powerful paladins/clerics. Which is a change I heartily approve of.
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2014, 07:25:23 pm
Well, how can they function?
Demons function because they are endless armies controlled by extremely powerful demons strong enough to force the others in line. They don't need food, water, shelter, or anything and thus can be constantly blindly destructive... especially since they have their own realm. They need ALL of these elements to survive
This is actually a subject I've devoted considerable thought to. I don't think that demons would realistically actually function that way. In that paradigm they would have to be watched perpetually in order to prevent desertion; there would have to be a literally unbroken line of stronger and stronger demons stretching all the way from the front lines all the way back to the demon prince in charge. The second anyone was left alone they would would desert, just on principle even if for no other reason.
I think it would be more likely that the blood war and any other extraplanar wars would be viewed as a sort of a sport. The Abyss' internal squabbles might reasonably have elements of both paradigms though.
Also, I think that the abyssal lords would mainly attract followers and servants through a sort of crazy rock star/celebrity mystique. Demons wouldn't serve them through loyalty; as for fear the demon lord would be just as likely to harm them whether they obeyed or not (Like Marceline from Adventure Time dispensing "weird punishments" totally at random (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joi7HqywDAg) in the episode where she becomes ruler of the Nightosphere). They might, however, stick around and take orders out of morbid curiosity as to where this was all going
Post by: Bohandas on November 15, 2014, 07:27:34 pm
Also, IIRC, in 5e, you can only detect the alignment of things like outsiders or POSSIBLY powerful paladins/clerics. Which is a change I heartily approve of.
I think that was more or less the case in 3e and 3.5e as well, with the exception that the alignments of the undead could be detected as well.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 15, 2014, 07:44:01 pm
Post by: Tawa on November 15, 2014, 07:56:01 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on November 15, 2014, 08:46:24 pm
Post by: Bohandas on November 16, 2014, 01:29:38 am
Speakimg of demons...Well, how can they function?
Demons function because they are endless armies controlled by extremely powerful demons strong enough to force the others in line. They don't need food, water, shelter, or anything and thus can be constantly blindly destructive... especially since they have their own realm. They need ALL of these elements to survive
This is actually a subject I've devoted considerable thought to. I don't think that demons would realistically actually function that way. In that paradigm they would have to be watched perpetually in order to prevent desertion; there would have to be a literally unbroken line of stronger and stronger demons stretching all the way from the front lines all the way back to the demon prince in charge. The second anyone was left alone they would would desert, just on principle even if for no other reason.
I think it would be more likely that the blood war and any other extraplanar wars would be viewed as a sort of a sport. The Abyss' internal squabbles might reasonably have elements of both paradigms though.
Also, I think that the abyssal lords would mainly attract followers and servants through a sort of crazy rock star/celebrity mystique. Demons wouldn't serve them through loyalty; as for fear the demon lord would be just as likely to harm them whether they obeyed or not (Like Marceline from Adventure Time dispensing "weird punishments" totally at random (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joi7HqywDAg) in the episode where she becomes ruler of the Nightosphere). They might, however, stick around and take orders out of morbid curiosity as to where this was all going
I briefly wrote a webcomic about life in the Abyss. I didn't get very far with it and it was piggybackimg off the forum from another webcomic but I still think it was ok. Check it out:
http://mspaforums.com/showthread.php?52649-Ekolid-A-Demonic-Adventure
Post by: scrdest on November 16, 2014, 05:21:50 am
So its like mandatory plot velcro. Which, in my experience as a DM, is something that is always useful. Setting up potential plot threads in advance sounds a hell of a lot better then trying to shoehorn your players into going down this adventure path.
Heh, I'm actually doing that for the Night's Black Agents (what I referred to as 'Jason Bourne: Vampire Hunter') game I mentioned in the Happy Thread. The plot works sorta like Sid Meier's Covert Action plots except more detailed character-wise.
BBEGs have goals, they will take actions to fulfill the goals either by themselves or by using other people, and will proceed no matter what the PCs are doing at the minute (unless they are, in fact, stopping one part of the plan, in which case they will try to get the plan back on track), and as the PCs investigate the clues they move closer to the confrontation.
Post by: sjm9876 on November 16, 2014, 08:24:55 am
-snip-I'm actually going to step in and defend 5e here, as someone who has DMd both 3.5e and 5e (and read 4e, quickly deciding I didn't like it.) Sure, the base rules aren't as nuanced as 3.5e. This is very much not an issue - it isn't difficult in the slightest to add in new skills etc..., and the extra streamlining is far more beneficial IMO - in my 5e game the only people who had any difficulty making characters were the two who had played before in 3.5e and so had missed off backgrounds (another nice touch, I feel, especially given how easily new ones can be made) and the first time player who hadn't done known spells as a wizard - so 3 minor things in a group of 6. In comparison, I spent my entire first session of 3.5e with my previous group fixing characters.
The flatter progression also looks brilliant, as it should make orc hordes a valid threat at any level - I haven't had a chance to test this though.
I do agree that 3.5e offered slightly more options (interesting play-wise) straight from the rulebooks, but I found in 3.5e my players mostly didn't use there options as there were just too many of them to choose from. In 5e, the players are far more creative, as opposed to just looking through their skill list for one that looks like it might be helpful.
Anyway, my 2c as a DM.
Post by: birdy51 on November 16, 2014, 11:41:43 am
Post by: Flying Dice on November 17, 2014, 02:58:07 am
Fair enough, that's pretty much the only argument I buy regarding 5e. I'd agree that it's probably good for lower-level and more mundane play, but there are elements of it that really feel off. The whole idea of even high-level characters still being largely mortal and within human norms is an interesting premise, just not one which I associate with DnD.-snip-I'm actually going to step in and defend 5e here, as someone who has DMd both 3.5e and 5e (and read 4e, quickly deciding I didn't like it.) Sure, the base rules aren't as nuanced as 3.5e. This is very much not an issue - it isn't difficult in the slightest to add in new skills etc..., and the extra streamlining is far more beneficial IMO - in my 5e game the only people who had any difficulty making characters were the two who had played before in 3.5e and so had missed off backgrounds (another nice touch, I feel, especially given how easily new ones can be made) and the first time player who hadn't done known spells as a wizard - so 3 minor things in a group of 6. In comparison, I spent my entire first session of 3.5e with my previous group fixing characters.
The flatter progression also looks brilliant, as it should make orc hordes a valid threat at any level - I haven't had a chance to test this though.
I do agree that 3.5e offered slightly more options (interesting play-wise) straight from the rulebooks, but I found in 3.5e my players mostly didn't use there options as there were just too many of them to choose from. In 5e, the players are far more creative, as opposed to just looking through their skill list for one that looks like it might be helpful.
Anyway, my 2c as a DM.
Incidentally, here's an interesting read (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/24293560/) I forgot I had saved regarding skills in 5e. It covers pretty well one of the issues I have with it: the blending of styles from 3.xe and 4e combined with the attempt to make things more mundane and low-powered leads to some pretty absurd things, albeit in the opposite direction to where things normally go in high-level DnD play. The OP focuses on a 20th level 5e Ranger not only having a narrower range of competence than a 6th level 4e Ranger, but also being much worse even within that range, but what's most quotable is the fact that not only can that 20th level 5e Ranger specced to break objects not bust down a barred door, neither can a Balor.
I mean, I'm not sure what I'd rather take, that 5e was just that badly planned and written, or that they legitimately wanted 20th level characters to be less competent than what people in the real-world are capable of in extreme circumstances.
Post by: Dutchling on November 17, 2014, 04:17:14 am
Post by: timferius on November 17, 2014, 08:19:35 am
PTW in case you people start talking about MTG :P
Broaden your horizons! Join us in the mass of RPGs, Board Games, Card games and more! There's a million worlds beyond the magic rack in your local game store. Move past the booster packs and join us. I don't really play Magic, but I'm eternally grateful for Magic players funding stores so they can stock the stuff I do play.
Post by: Kadzar on November 17, 2014, 01:35:24 pm
Incidentally, here's an interesting read (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/24293560/) I forgot I had saved regarding skills in 5e.That's from a playtest from early last year. Skill dice don't even exist in this version, and chains are DC 20 to break. I'm not saying the skill system isn't still a little wonky, but the numbers for 5e posted in that thread are irrelevant at this point.
This is a thread (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44826/are-peoples-competencies-really-as-flat-in-dd-5e-as-its-math-suggests) that was made after the Basic rules were released.
Post by: Parsely on November 17, 2014, 01:56:58 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on November 17, 2014, 02:26:34 pm
Ah, thanks, I missed that. It still looks a bit strange, yeah, but nowhere near as bad. I'd still take it as evidence that they're flying by the seat of their pants rather than thinking things through thoroughly in advance, though, which says bad things--that's how we got the Truenamer, after all.Incidentally, here's an interesting read (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/24293560/) I forgot I had saved regarding skills in 5e.That's from a playtest from early last year. Skill dice don't even exist in this version, and chains are DC 20 to break. I'm not saying the skill system isn't still a little wonky, but the numbers for 5e posted in that thread are irrelevant at this point.
This is a thread (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44826/are-peoples-competencies-really-as-flat-in-dd-5e-as-its-math-suggests) that was made after the Basic rules were released.
Post by: Criptfeind on November 17, 2014, 02:38:26 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on November 17, 2014, 02:41:38 pm
Post by: timferius on November 17, 2014, 02:44:20 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on November 17, 2014, 02:59:18 pm
I also hate it when a game isn't 100% balanced at the moment of conception.Hue hue hue. The content is goofy, but that's not what it's about, it's that whoever came up with that needed feedback to realize that it was a bad idea. It's the same pattern that made certain things in 3.5 laughable. Things ranging from severely underpowered to virtually nonfunctional without massive shenanigans were released and never officially fixed. A system where an Epic-level character is incompetent by normal human standards either by way of being an ineffectual JOAT or a focused savant who still falls below peak human performance is not something where you should need second opinions and careful consideration to realize that something's off; it's like whoever writes stuff like that doesn't even bother proofreading their own work and has to be pinged just to realize that their unbalanced bullshit is unbalanced bullshit.
Let's put this in perspective. The public playtest of DnDNext began in May of 2012. They didn't release the Basic Rules until 2014. Going by the logic of, "Hey, it's not in the game any more," doesn't really carry that much weight when they needed two years of public playtesting to fix stuff that should have been flagged before they even went public with the system.
Certainly that skill system was cut and changed, but the simple fact that whoever came up with it didn't notice the problem while they were designing it, and nobody around them shot it down right away says quite a lot. It's the same sort of thing as those "This game will be every genre of game in one!" projects on Kickstarter if the 'dev' takes advice and cuts the dating sim elements or the RTS element or whatever; that's less total stupidity in the project proposal, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a fundamental problem with the guy proposing it. It's much the same here: I'd love to see 5e be a great system, but I really have doubts about Wizards' ability to pull it off.
But by all means, continue with the snide one-liners.
Post by: Bohandas on November 17, 2014, 03:32:43 pm
EDIT:
Of course it doesn't really matter since I could never get a group together either way.
(If any of you are in southeastern pennsylvania or southwest new jersey and interested in playing Paranoia or Toon I'd like to hear from you)
Post by: Toaster on November 17, 2014, 04:42:10 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on November 17, 2014, 06:41:51 pm
Post by: Kadzar on November 17, 2014, 10:05:59 pm
Personally it doesn't matter to me because after 4e came out I said "fuck this, I'm not buying any more WoTC products".You might want to limit that thought to RPG's, since Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10547/betrayal-house-hill) is a damn fine game.
Post by: Bohandas on November 17, 2014, 11:58:31 pm
Personally it doesn't matter to me because after 4e came out I said "fuck this, I'm not buying any more WoTC products".You might want to limit that thought to RPG's, since Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10547/betrayal-house-hill) is a damn fine game.
Welo, I have bought a couple of their products since then Though I try to buy them secondhand so that they don't make any money from it (I think that they're rushing these editions out to wring mpre cash out of their players and I won't be party to it. And its not even just Wizards of the Coast actually, but Hasboro in general tends to pull that kind of bullshit Princess Twilight Sparkle my ass...)
Post by: Arcvasti on November 18, 2014, 12:30:46 am
I think that they're rushing these editions out to wring mpre cash out of their players and I won't be party to it.Personally it doesn't matter to me because after 4e came out I said "fuck this, I'm not buying any more WoTC products".You might want to limit that thought to RPG's, since Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10547/betrayal-house-hill) is a damn fine game.
Maybe. 3.5e was[Apparently. I never abused the loopholes that much myself and had a bunch of fun with it.] horribly unbalanced and at some point, someone high up decided to fix that and made 4e, which, while better balanced, was approximately as bland as pudding. Cardboard pudding. So 5e is more backpedaling from the negative response from the fans so they don't lose their customers.
Post by: Gentlefish on November 18, 2014, 01:53:56 am
So are homebrews! I'm in a CoC/3.5 campaign and wizards are allowed to take metamagic/reserve feats instead of creation feats because creation is going to cost SAN.
Post by: Heron TSG on November 18, 2014, 03:04:45 am
Are there any underwater PnPs? I desperately want to find a good system for personal underwater combat.D&D 3.5's Stormwrack splatbook has some pretty okay rules for it, but if you don't know D&D 3.5 already and you want to make use of its more advanced underwater/flying combat rules right away, you may be in for a bumpy ride.
But yeah, my favorite part about D&D 3.5 is that it's so ridiculously easy to make homebrew for if you need something that you can't do with the already astronomically wide character options. Fax Celestis has a pretty good homebrew repository, and there are lots of people who have succeeded in making classes as balanced as the official ones, or more so. (Or just really interesting to play.)
PTW in case you people start talking about MTG :PI admit that I am a filthy casual when it comes to building decks, having not spent more than ~$15 on a single one, and I only have three and a half working decks. I'm the sort of player that plays to make stupid combos happen, and the wackier the cards involved the better. My decks:
Mono-White Soldier Tribal Deck: I think everyone has made or played one of these at some point, it's just a pile of soldiers that all make soldiers more powerful, and it makes a bunch of soldier tokens to pump up. It includes a hilarious combination between Palace Guard (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=205110) and Gift of Immortality (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=373566). This deck is extremely good at beating other token decks, deals with enchantments pretty well, but gets slaughtered by heavy burn decks or (obviously) unblockable creatures and creatures with protection from white.
Red-Green Mana Ramp Firebreathing Extravaganza: This is arguably my best deck, and my favorite to play. It has a bunch of druids, land fetches and tutors, a couple Zhur-Taa ancients to massively increase mana production, and Soulbright Flamekin for wacky red mana production. It usually ends in fire (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=comet%20storm), dragons (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=244720), more dragons (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=249885), or minotaurs (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=198164), depending on the match. On rare occasions it ends via Robo-Timmy (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=colossus+of+akros).
Blue+Artifact Robot Apocalypse: This is a really silly deck. It plays four Ornithopters, Phyrexian Walkers, Shield Spheres, and Memnites to just cover the board in shitty zero-CMC artifact creatures. The deck also has a pair of Masters of Etherium (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=222744), but I'm too cheap to get a full playset. The key card in the deck is Mirrorweave (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=153973), which can turn every single shitty robot into an Artifact Lord. That combination is a staple, but it's not why I built the deck. I built the deck to create an army of Colossal Whales (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=370685) that devour my opponent's entire roster of creatures permanently and strike for massive damage. I also built the deck to deal with a friend's particularly cheesy deck that is basically unassailable by creatures thanks to massive amounts of lifelink and fog effects. How? Turn all of my creatures into Bronze Bombshells (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=107327) and pass them off with a Sky Swallower (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=96835). I've only managed to win that way once, but it was immensely satisfying.
"I play Sky Swallower, and that'll be it for my turn. You get all of my permanents."
"Uh... okay? Why not attack with them first, at least?"
"You also take 77 damage from your new Bronze Bombshells."
"..."
Post by: sjm9876 on November 18, 2014, 05:26:57 am
5e wasn't as rushed out as it could have been. As has been raised, it underwent 2 years of playtesting, (which was sadly needed, but the point stands.)I think that they're rushing these editions out to wring mpre cash out of their players and I won't be party to it.Personally it doesn't matter to me because after 4e came out I said "fuck this, I'm not buying any more WoTC products".You might want to limit that thought to RPG's, since Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10547/betrayal-house-hill) is a damn fine game.
Maybe. 3.5e was[Apparently. I never abused the loopholes that much myself and had a bunch of fun with it.] horribly unbalanced and at some point, someone high up decided to fix that and made 4e, which, while better balanced, was approximately as bland as pudding. Cardboard pudding. So 5e is more backpedaling from the negative response from the fans so they don't lose their customers.
Unrelatedly, I think whether you like 5e comes down to what kind of game you would like to run/play.
If you want a 3.5e style game, where a bunch of specialised characters ascend to demigodhood, then it isn't for you.
Personally, I find the flatter curve allows PCs to do a wider variety of activities, but not as surely, keeping the game far more interesting.
All a matter of opinion.
Post by: Heron TSG on November 18, 2014, 05:31:24 am
Post by: Fniff on November 18, 2014, 01:01:06 pm
I'm sure most of you have heard of the World of Darkness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/NewWorldOfDarkness), the urban fantasy/horror roleplaying game. I'm also certain that some of you might have heard of Fiasco (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/Fiasco), the Coen Brothers RPG. I have come up with an idea that mashes them together. The intention is to make players that don't need to be artificially brought together by circumstance and to immediately generate stories that the players have a hand in. Note: this means that the party is less often "a party of adventurers going deep into the night" and more like "a bunch of losers killing each other for something vaguely mythical".
I'm basically aping the character creation system from Fiasco then welding it onto the World of Darkness. You start out by rolling a large pile of dice (4 per player) and then start defining Relationships, Objects, Locations, and Mysteries.
Every player has two relationships with the players to their left and right. First you say what kind of relation it is (Crime, family, etc) with a die, then use another die to define it (Dealer/addict, siblings).
Objects/Locations are distinctive items and areas that two players can add to their relationship. It's a similar system to relations; say what kind it is with a die (Valuable, Underground) then define it (A stolen assault rifle, a tunnel that loops back on itself). The object and location is integral to the relationship of the two characters: perhaps one of the characters stole the assault rifle from the other, or they both discovered the tunnel.
Finally, there's Mysteries. These replace a feature from Fiasco called Needs which are obsessive motives. Mysteries are questions that the two characters are both involved in. If the question was answered, both of these characters would be seriously affected. These could be as mundane as "Is my wife cheating on me?" to as strange as "Why is my furniture bleeding?". The mystery is once again integral to the relationship. It could be between the husband and the boyfriend of the wife, or the unfortunate owner of the bleeding furniture and the person who cast the spell on the furniture.
After you've used all your dice, you should start making character sheets and explaining how this all fits together. From there it's a regular World of Darkness chronicle, but I think this could add a whole new dimension to play. Here's a test I did, which resulted in a pretty sweet premise for a chronicle if I do say so myself.
Spoiler: Premise (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Characters (click to show/hide)
Post by: Leafsnail on November 18, 2014, 02:45:51 pm
We MtG thread now?Speaking of which there's a silly little forum based format I've wanted to have a go at.
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/3-Card_Blind
Basically each player picks a very small number of cards, then you run all the decks against each other (in a deterministic manner) to see which one does best when you start with those cards in your hand. A surprisingly diverse and interesting metagame emerged for the 4 card blind games that are linked from that page.
Of course this format hasn't been updated for a long while and there's some stuff there that desperately needs to be banned (eg Channel, other things that let you play Emrakul turn one, probably some of the titans etc).
e: There's a more current banlist we could steal here (http://www.fantasystrike.com/forums/index.php?threads/mtg-n-card-blind.7324/). I'd still definitely add Channel to that though.
Post by: Parsely on November 18, 2014, 02:58:25 pm
I'm really hoping there's actually an actual underwater RPG out there somewhere.Are there any underwater PnPs? I desperately want to find a good system for personal underwater combat.D&D 3.5's Stormwrack splatbook has some pretty okay rules for it, but if you don't know D&D 3.5 already and you want to make use of its more advanced underwater/flying combat rules right away, you may be in for a bumpy ride.
Post by: scriver on November 18, 2014, 03:03:10 pm
Post by: Parsely on November 18, 2014, 03:04:17 pm
Pen and paper don't usually fair all that well underwater...._.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 19, 2014, 02:25:26 pm
Post by: timferius on November 20, 2014, 10:46:53 am
Post by: uber pye on November 20, 2014, 04:36:30 pm
although it may depend on the tone of the game and the character as not everyone should be large hams
Post by: AlleeCat on November 20, 2014, 05:17:09 pm
On the other end of the spectrum, you can just go full on ham and not really care about how ridiculous you get.
A good way to get a balance is play in a game you're not DMing, and get into character. Give your character a different voice from your own, and try to act as your character would act. Good DMs come from practice. Just practice.
Post by: timferius on November 20, 2014, 06:01:53 pm
Post by: Mephisto on November 21, 2014, 01:31:38 pm
My department at work games over lunch every Friday. We're developers - everyone else already thinks we're weird. Just embrace it.
Today's game was Nuclear War. Published in the 60s, but this was an 80s reprint. We played with six people, two of which were taken out by disease, defection, and disasters before the first turn. Shortly after the war started, another guy got taken out. Not by war, but by disasters again. Thus began a war of attrition, whereby my supervisor eventually got taken out by a relatively weak nuke. This engaged the retaliation rules, which means he can assemble any warheads and delivery mechanisms in his hand and fire them off. Long story short, his two warheads take out the guy who killed him as well as myself.
On the one hand, getting taken out before play starts sucks majorly. On the other, I think we could use more games where there is the potential for none of the players to win.
Post by: smeeprocket on November 21, 2014, 03:27:56 pm
So... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
7th ed is out on pdf now, I am going to convert a single player module set called monophobia to it and run that as soon as I brush up on the rules.
Post by: Dutchling on November 21, 2014, 06:22:12 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on November 21, 2014, 11:27:55 pm
I'm still struggling to Roleplay NPCs as DM. It's really starting to hurt my games I feel. Does anyone have any good advice? I'm a bit anxious about it, so I tend to stutter and underact. I also have to stop interrupting myself to insult myself after I say something cheesy/dumb.
Just relax, don't try to be good at acting.
You can distance yourself from the character by speaking in third person if you're just not feeling it right now. For example: "I don't know what's on the mountain, but everyone says there are snakes in the trees and strange men stalk the roads." vs. "The farmer doesn't know, but repeats rumors he's heard about snakes in the trees and strange men stalking the roads." It doesn't seem like such a huge difference, but at sometimes I find it easier to keep things separated.
I suggest making a little list on some scrap paper of what the NPC knows, then put an X next to the things he isn't willing to share. You can throw it away - it's just for your use during this conversation. Later you'll get used to putting yourself in the NPC's position and segregating all your DM knowledge away and just using what the NPC would know.
Next, and this reflects my personal RPG values, but consider all NPCs expendable. If the players want to murder the baron, who cares? Sure it upsets your plans for future adventures and plots, but it also greatly complicates the PCs' lives in interesting ways. That isn't to say you need to let them get away with anything they want. The PCs are 4-6th level. You don't need to impose your will on how the encounter plays out by making the baron a pushover 1st level goober nor a 20th level demigod in disguise. Let's say it's reasonable that the baron is 9th level and has some bodyguards of 3rd level and a ton of men-at-arms who are 1st, all because he's a minor noble carving out a small fief on the edge of civilization. If the PCs just start blasting him, he and his troops will respond. Maybe the PCs win, maybe they lose. But they will definitely learn from their experience. When players recognize that the DM isn't going to give any NPCs plot immunity, they become much less cavalier about destroying NPCs, because someone they screw over or kill may just be the key to what they want in the future.
Similarly, all PCs are expendable. If the Elf F/M is shit-talking the baron, it's OK to have the baron get pissy and order them all out. If they fight back, we have a fight, and possibly indefinite imprisonment or whatever if they lose. No PC is a precious and unique snowflake. Don't hesitate one moment to drop Drizzt into a volcano is all I'm sayin', there's PLENTY more where he came from. When players recognize that the DM isn't going to pull their bacon out of the fire for them, they become more careful and sincere in their roleplaying and pay more attention to the game.
Finally, try to avoid complex NPC interactions until you get more confident. For example, I might want to portray a town guard as sincere but move-along-now, and a later encounter as actually sinister and scheming because he's trying to herd the PC into an ambush. I need to be able to roleplay the differences well enough to give the player a chance to notice that the second guard is not behaving exactly normally. If I can't do that, I'll call for a character Wisdom check or something and if successful, mention that the guard seems kind of shifty. Up to the player to decide whether that's because he's giving bad advice or just because he's waiting for a bribe to drop or whatever. I guess my advice here is use the rules and rolls to make up for any inability you have to convey subtle hints.
Post by: AlleeCat on November 22, 2014, 06:32:52 pm
He has some great DM advice and even player advice, and it's usually phrased in fun little stories of him and his friends playing together.
Post by: sjm9876 on November 22, 2014, 06:38:44 pm
But yeah, the best way I found to pick up GM skill is trial and error. Find what works for your style above all. I act very little as my acting is incredibly out of place in the otherwise well detailed worlds I make. Though I have found that as I go on, I slip in more snippets of speech than I used to.
Post by: timferius on November 24, 2014, 07:35:00 am
Played Terra Mystica and the D.C. Deck building game this weekend, as friends were visiting. D.C. deck builder was actually fun. It's very similar to Ascension (which I prefer to play via the iOS app), except each person has a hero with a special ability, and there's only 1 resource. Despite the reduction to one resource, it had enough depth to play several times in a row without feeling burnt out.
terra Mystica is something else. It's a resource management game stacked on top of an area control game, with about 10 different systems in play at once. Despite that, it wasn't too hard to graps, and was great fun. There was a nice bit of interactivity (which sometimes lacks in euro style games), though not too much still.
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on November 24, 2014, 06:16:23 pm
FOr other DM tips, you should look up Noah Antwiler's show, Counter Monkey (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/).So I watched a bunch of his videos completely, gave it an honest try, and screw that guy. His lecture is verbose and aimless, he lacks charisma, and his opinions are pedantic and biased in a way that makes them useless. His front page has a 2-part review of D&D5 that's largely devoid of valuable content, and which is based on a read-through, having never played the game himself, one of the cardinal sins of a reviewer.
He has some great DM advice and even player advice, and it's usually phrased in fun little stories of him and his friends playing together.
I'm not saying a viewer couldn't get something useful out of watching his stuff. I'm saying you could get a dozen times the value from a good content producer without feeling like you're slogging through a one-sided conversation with that boring guy who must tell you in detail how his Drow Ranger really pulled one over on those centaurs that one time.
Side note: some topics really are simple enough to say in text, and video or audio just slows down the absorption rate for the student, and is less efficient traffic-wise. Justifying video or audio requires presenting something that takes advantage of the medium, which he doesn't do.
Let's take his "Don't Split the Party" video. Here's what I would say on the topic:
1: Splitting the party is a common choice, but make sure you assess the risks associated with two or more smaller, weaker groups encountering the same dangers as they would as a whole group.
2: It also slows down the game, meaning less stuff gets done in total in the game session. You also have half the group watching, bored, at any time.
3: If you send a scout, make sure he doesn't go too far ahead or press his luck - his job is to look and listen and bring back information. The scout's job is essentially to ensure that the party isn't surprised, and that they surprise the monsters.
4: Assume your scout may get caught - don't load him up with equipment or story items.
5: If the scout (probably a Thief) steals stuff, the rest of the party will have grumblecakes about it, and bickering may result.
Please tell me you didn't take 25 minutes to read that, and that it wasn't as boring as listening to some dude drone on?
Finally, he uses Disqus for his comments rather than a simple RE-CAPTCHA, discouraging casual commentary.
TL;DR (http://www.dump.com/toolong/): Counter Monkey is low quality and not worth the time.
Post by: Fniff on November 24, 2014, 08:12:56 pm
Hrm... Would anyone be interested in a podcast or a video about tabletop roleplaying? There aren't enough good discussions on those that are easily accessed.
Post by: Neonivek on November 24, 2014, 09:23:46 pm
Yeah. Spoony just doesn't have a good presentation style on Counter Monkey. I mean, an hour long video on critical hits has what should be a minor five second footnote on vampire clans take up around ten minutes. Most of those ten minutes are humming and hawing. It's like he's made it up on the fly.
Hrm... Would anyone be interested in a podcast or a video about tabletop roleplaying? There aren't enough good discussions on those that are easily accessed.
He started off MOSTLY fine, in fact a few were really insightful.
Unfortunately Counter Monkey turned from a "Guide for how to DM or play with examples given from experience" into "A blog" and is basically useless now. It isn't unusual for a topic to be brought up but never really explored.
Post by: scriver on November 25, 2014, 04:34:10 am
His front page has a 2-part review of D&D5 that's largely devoid of valuable content, and which is based on a read-through, having never played the game himself, one of the cardinal sins of a reviewer.
As that is the one episode I've seen of his show, I know for certain he tells you really, really clearly at the start of it that this is an extremely early first hand impressions thing of the book as he literally just got it the day before.
Post by: Gatleos on November 26, 2014, 01:17:36 pm
I think the problem is he ran out of stories. Spoony used to do vlog videos all the time, but a lot of that got crammed into the Counter Monkey videos when he ran out of interesting stories to tell in them. He does have some interesting things to say sometimes, it's just that he takes an hour to get to the point. I particularly liked that story he told about one of his players accidentally throwing a jar of acid at the Demigod of Rape's face. Haven't enjoyed the newer ones enough to even finish them.Yeah. Spoony just doesn't have a good presentation style on Counter Monkey. I mean, an hour long video on critical hits has what should be a minor five second footnote on vampire clans take up around ten minutes. Most of those ten minutes are humming and hawing. It's like he's made it up on the fly.
Hrm... Would anyone be interested in a podcast or a video about tabletop roleplaying? There aren't enough good discussions on those that are easily accessed.
He started off MOSTLY fine, in fact a few were really insightful.
Unfortunately Counter Monkey turned from a "Guide for how to DM or play with examples given from experience" into "A blog" and is basically useless now. It isn't unusual for a topic to be brought up but never really explored.
Guess I'll go back to lurking because I have nothing to contribute to this thread.
Post by: Flying Dice on November 26, 2014, 02:29:13 pm
How would you all go about fixing the Toughness feat without breaking it in another way? My initial inclination was to tie it to character level, something akin to +1 HP per HD. That'd give it a curve of impact, with it being most useful for the squishiest characters and least useful for those who are naturally toughest. You'd progress from it adding an average of 40% extra HP per level for classes with d4 HD (i.e. the average is 2.5 HP per level, so you'd be bumping that up to 3.5 HP/level effectively, though obviously that's less relevant at lower levels with max HP for 1st level and not enough time for rolls to average out) to an average of ~15% extra HP per level for classes with d12 HD.
That's probably the simplest way I can think of to make it useful without being overpowering, and probably both more balanced and easier to manage than some sort of percentage buff. Thoughts?
Post by: timferius on November 26, 2014, 02:30:52 pm
Post by: Bauglir on November 26, 2014, 02:54:34 pm
Just an idle thought that I had while driving home for Thanksgiving:If it's 3.5, they already printed that as Improved Toughness. If it were me, I'd rename that to Toughness as you've said, and make Improved Toughness something like "You get DR X/-, where X is half your level. Whenever you are dealt damage, you can spend an action point to reduce that damage by half. Halve the damage after any other modifiers, including other multiplications."
How would you all go about fixing the Toughness feat without breaking it in another way? My initial inclination was to tie it to character level, something akin to +1 HP per HD. That'd give it a curve of impact, with it being most useful for the squishiest characters and least useful for those who are naturally toughest. You'd progress from it adding an average of 40% extra HP per level for classes with d4 HD (i.e. the average is 2.5 HP per level, so you'd be bumping that up to 3.5 HP/level effectively, though obviously that's less relevant at lower levels with max HP for 1st level and not enough time for rolls to average out) to an average of ~15% extra HP per level for classes with d12 HD.
That's probably the simplest way I can think of to make it useful without being overpowering, and probably both more balanced and easier to manage than some sort of percentage buff. Thoughts?
And Toughness is a prerequisite for that. I kind of like my feats, especially in feat chains, to have really big impacts, though, which might not be to your game's liking.
Post by: Flying Dice on November 26, 2014, 03:02:07 pm
I don't really count Improved Toughness as fixing the problem, since it's basically just exacerbating it -- you're taking more Toughness-related feats just to make it less of a bad decision, which cuts into the feats you could spend on useful things. It's like, Toughness itself did have a niche, for stuff like really low-leveled squishies in one-shot games, but that's about it. Especially since IT is based on BAB, so the classes that need the HP the most (and are most likely to take the feat to begin with) are the least able to benefit from it.
Post by: Fniff on November 26, 2014, 03:03:13 pm
Welp. After months of enthusing about 5e, buying the books etc. 75% of my players just informed me that, nah, they'd rather not play another d&d game... Fffffffff------I know that feeling. My sympathy to you.
Post by: Bauglir on November 26, 2014, 03:12:51 pm
Especially since IT is based on BAB, so the classes that need the HP the most (and are most likely to take the feat to begin with) are the least able to benefit from it.Eh, wot? It's literally what you said up above, although it requires a +2 base Fortitude save which does mean the people who want bonus hit points the most can't get it until level 6. Which is a problem. Ought to have no prerequisites, really.
Post by: crazysheep on November 27, 2014, 01:04:38 am
mainly because I'm running a beginners campaign, having roughly 0 experience of DMing myself
Post by: Yoink on November 27, 2014, 05:06:44 pm
Hey, what are your opinions on FATE?
I've been thinking about getting back into tabletop RPGs, and there's a nearby-ish meetup with a FATE session next week. I don't really know anything about the system, which really adds to the usual worries of bursting in to meet a bunch of new people.
Also, on the same day as that, there's an 'Encounters' session at a local gaming store... basically a casual game of Dnd, as far as I can tell. Should I perhaps go to that instead? I believe a group of my friend's friends also play some RPGs (mostly 40k RPGs), but I don't know them very well.
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on November 27, 2014, 09:45:16 pm
If you enter my restaurant and I hand you a shit sandwich, it won't make you feel any less disgusted if I tell you before you bite into it that the sandwich may contain some shit.His front page has a 2-part review of D&D5 that's largely devoid of valuable content, and which is based on a read-through, having never played the game himself, one of the cardinal sins of a reviewer.
As that is the one episode I've seen of his show, I know for certain he tells you really, really clearly at the start of it that this is an extremely early first hand impressions thing of the book as he literally just got it the day before.
Just an idle thought that I had while driving home for Thanksgiving:First off, few feats offer increasing benefits over time. Compare with Weapon Focus, which does not give more than +1 to hit, and Spell Focus which doesn't increase the DC by more than the original +2. If you want to fix Toughness, here are my suggestions for HP modification:
How would you all go about fixing the Toughness feat without breaking it in another way? My initial inclination was to tie it to character level, something akin to +1 HP per HD. That'd give it a curve of impact, with it being most useful for the squishiest characters and least useful for those who are naturally toughest. You'd progress from it adding an average of 40% extra HP per level for classes with d4 HD (i.e. the average is 2.5 HP per level, so you'd be bumping that up to 3.5 HP/level effectively, though obviously that's less relevant at lower levels with max HP for 1st level and not enough time for rolls to average out) to an average of ~15% extra HP per level for classes with d12 HD.
That's probably the simplest way I can think of to make it useful without being overpowering, and probably both more balanced and easier to manage than some sort of percentage buff. Thoughts?
1: Give more than +3 HP. I personally believe the Dragon Toughness having a prerequisite Fort save but giving +12 HP is ridiculously powerful. That means if you have Toughness give +1 HP per HD then by level 20 that one feat would be contributing +20 HP ... again, overpowered. Improved Toughness is way too complicated: with a few exceptions, if a chart helps explain the rule, you need a simpler rule.
2: Offer a full reroll of all Hit Dice to date when someone chooses Toughness, taking the higher of the two (so your HP won't go down as a result) and turning all 1s rolled into 2s. For this reason, only people who have particularly low HP rolls will take advantage. But for a few, it can make the difference for a sad 6th level Wizard who rolled 6 ones in a row for HP and is seriously considering ditching the character to start over at 1st.
3: Offer DR 1/- fully stacking with any other DR X/-. Allow it to be taken a maximum of once per point of CON modifier; if CON modifier is negative, it can't be taken. You may consider this too powerful for a Barbarian type who already gets DR; consider that monsters frequently deal large amounts of damage in one swing, easily overcoming DR; that various prestige classes grant comparable DR bonuses; that physical DR is still bypassed by energy damage, paralyzation, poison, gas, etc.
4: Allow the player to roll 1d6 DR against one incoming attack in exchange for one of his next set of two Simple Actions (but you can't spend your actions beyond the next set - that is, you can't go into debt for the next 12 rounds to shrug off a hail of arrows). This is the "hit the guy real hard in the face but he just looks back at you and laughs" move. Also usable to improve a tanking character. But not terribly OP because you trade your own actions for the defense which means it's not combinable with other defenses that require the use of actions.
//
1
I believe the best feats do not improve a numerical score, but instead give you a cool new thing to do. Power Attack may be an interesting choice because you have to gauge monster AC and remaining HP, but it still just modifies attack and damage. It's only marginally more fun than Weapon Focus. A better choice is Cleave, which gives you bonus hits if you finish off enemies, or magic item creation feats which open up lots of options. These "cool new power" feats are infrequent because you actually have to come up with something creative. It's much easier to give the player a peg to stick in one of the system's holes (such as a +1 to the attack roll).
2
I believe the best feats are thematic and crunchy. For example, rather than Improved Initiative and Lightning Reflexes, I would call it just Lightning Reflexes with different bonuses as you stack slots onto the feat. Say, something like this:
Lightning Reflexes gives +1 to the Reflex save and Initiative roll per feat slot. Every second time the feat is taken, choose one from the menu of special abilities:
You can't be caught flat-footed.
Evasion.
You can make an extra attack with a Full Attack action but all attacks are at -2.
When attacked in melee with a natural 1 you can counter with a free standard melee attack (but this comes from the Cleave pool of extra attacks).
Quick Draw means pulling out an item takes a Free Action instead of Simple (restricted to once per round if you get stupid with this and try to powergame it).
Similar sets of feats should be grouped together for consistent theme and to erase feat prerequisite chains (in the above example, you need to spend a feat on a "boring bonus" in order to get the chance to spend a feat on a cool bonus).
This plays into my feelings that 3E would work a lot better without classes. That negates an argument that my Lightning Reflexes above steps on too many protected class abilities.
3
Taken together, these two approaches to feat design result in feats that are interesting, active, and strongly define the character. Someone playing a character with amazing sneaking skills will be obviously a lot different from one playing a fast and agile character, who will be different from a nimble and acrobatic character. And two people who invest heavily in Lightning Reflexes won't necessarily work similarly until they're pretty high up and are just mopping up the remaining abilities that aren't super important to them.
For that reason, I think it might be nice to have Toughness look like this:
Toughness gives +1 to the Fortitude save and +2 HP per feat slot. Every second time the feat is taken, choose one from the menu of special abilities:
Poison and disease onset times and recurrence times are doubled.
DR 1/- stacking with any other DR X/-.
Reroll all your HD, taking the better of the new roll or your old total. Your minimum per die is now 1 higher.
Shrug off 1d6 HP from a single attack by spending one of your next Simple Actions. You can't spend from more than 1 round in the future.
Do not suffer penalties from Fatigue status for (6+CON mod) rounds 1/hour. This doesn't remove your Fatigue, you just ignore it for a while.
(The benefits of the Endurance feat)
Post by: Bohandas on November 27, 2014, 10:17:17 pm
If you enter my restaurant and I hand you a shit sandwich, it won't make you feel any less disgusted if I tell you before you bite into it that the sandwich may contain some shit.His front page has a 2-part review of D&D5 that's largely devoid of valuable content, and which is based on a read-through, having never played the game himself, one of the cardinal sins of a reviewer.
As that is the one episode I've seen of his show, I know for certain he tells you really, really clearly at the start of it that this is an extremely early first hand impressions thing of the book as he literally just got it the day before.
They've had some success with coffee though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
Post by: AlleeCat on November 30, 2014, 02:13:39 am
I particularly liked that story he told about one of his players accidentally throwing a jar of acid at the Demigod of Rape's face.That video taught me a lesson on how to keep a narrative going, even if you players fuck it up horribly.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on November 30, 2014, 02:27:08 am
My buddy Zanzetkuken is hosting a pathfinder/palladium book game thingy that is so far pretty fun
Post by: Sergius on December 02, 2014, 01:53:11 pm
Post by: Levi on December 02, 2014, 02:28:25 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 03, 2014, 12:47:26 am
I also had an idea - which never came to anything - to have a campaign centering around a conflict between the normal elves and the drow (dark elves), wherein the church of Corellon Larethian (god of the non-drow elves and enemy of the drow) would gradually be depicted as being more and more like the Ku Klux Klan as campaign progressed, complete with white robes, lynchings, giant burning holy symbols and being led by a "grand wizard". Having it turn out that the elves are just racist seems like an obvious plot twist, but I haven't seen it done elsewhere (perhaps it's so obvious that it comes off as trite???)
OK, so apparently South Park has actually done something like this, albeit just for a few throwaway gags rather than a major plot point.
In the officially licensed videogame South Park: The Stick of Truth, which I just got last week, the Drow elves are opposed by the "Grand Wizard" (played by Cartman) of the Kingdom of Kupa Keep (or "KKK" for short).
Post by: Flying Dice on December 03, 2014, 12:59:56 pm
I also had an idea - which never came to anything - to have a campaign centering around a conflict between the normal elves and the drow (dark elves), wherein the church of Corellon Larethian (god of the non-drow elves and enemy of the drow) would gradually be depicted as being more and more like the Ku Klux Klan as campaign progressed, complete with white robes, lynchings, giant burning holy symbols and being led by a "grand wizard". Having it turn out that the elves are just racist seems like an obvious plot twist, but I haven't seen it done elsewhere (perhaps it's so obvious that it comes off as trite???)
OK, so apparently South Park has actually done something like this, albeit just for a few throwaway gags rather than a major plot point.
In the officially licensed videogame South Park: The Stick of Truth, which I just got last week, the Drow elves are opposed by the "Grand Wizard" (played by Cartman) of the Kingdom of Kupa Keep (or "KKK" for short).
Bonus points if two of the drow leaders are named Mah'teen Loo'thar Keeng and Mehl'koom Ekz. More if the elves make heavy use of Decanters of Endless Water.
Post by: scrdest on December 03, 2014, 01:20:24 pm
Post by: Kadzar on December 03, 2014, 02:06:38 pm
I just picked up a copy of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide at my LFGS last night (since they're part of the early release program and get advance copies). I'm only about 30 pages into it so far (though I did spend some time skipping ahead to look at magic items and such), and it has good advice on manageable world building and introducing world-shaking events into a campaign and suchlike. Something I'm really happy they included is advice on using hex maps at various scales, since it's something I've wanted to implement but didn't quite know how to use until now.
This isn't a full review or anything since I haven't even read the full book yet, but I felt like sharing/bragging.
Post by: timferius on December 03, 2014, 02:07:52 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 03, 2014, 11:09:22 pm
Cross-posting from Happy Thread:I just picked up a copy of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide at my LFGS last night (since they're part of the early release program and get advance copies). I'm only about 30 pages into it so far (though I did spend some time skipping ahead to look at magic items and such), and it has good advice on manageable world building and introducing world-shaking events into a campaign and suchlike. Something I'm really happy they included is advice on using hex maps at various scales, since it's something I've wanted to implement but didn't quite know how to use until now.
This isn't a full review or anything since I haven't even read the full book yet, but I felt like sharing/bragging.
Now if we could just get a Call of Cthulhu rulebook that deals with pentagonal and septagonal grids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane)
Post by: penguinofhonor on December 03, 2014, 11:25:21 pm
Post by: NobodyPro on December 04, 2014, 01:56:10 am
Post by: crazysheep on December 04, 2014, 02:09:30 am
I'm assuming I'm not in a high enough dimension to comprehend those grids because that page isn't working for me.Here, try this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane) The original link was missing one ":"
Post by: Bohandas on December 04, 2014, 02:18:42 am
Here, try this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane) The original link was missing one ":"I'm assuming I'm not in a high enough dimension to comprehend those grids because that page isn't working for me.Cross-posting from Happy Thread:I just picked up a copy of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide at my LFGS last night (since they're part of the early release program and get advance copies). I'm only about 30 pages into it so far (though I did spend some time skipping ahead to look at magic items and such), and it has good advice on manageable world building and introducing world-shaking events into a campaign and suchlike. Something I'm really happy they included is advice on using hex maps at various scales, since it's something I've wanted to implement but didn't quite know how to use until now.
This isn't a full review or anything since I haven't even read the full book yet, but I felt like sharing/bragging.
Now if we could just get a Call of Cthulhu rulebook that deals with pentagonal and septagonal grids (http://Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane)
Actually the problem was that it was it was unexpectedly case-sensitive
Post by: Gentlefish on December 04, 2014, 03:31:15 pm
Post by: Bohandas on December 04, 2014, 09:16:53 pm
No... No, it's missing the colon after the https.
If you look at the quote in the editor you'll see that it isn't
Post by: Culise on December 05, 2014, 10:41:35 am
Doesn't work so well when someone else has already quoted the original, unedited post. :PNo... No, it's missing the colon after the https.
If you look at the quote in the editor you'll see that it isn't
EDIT: *blink* And that person was you, actually. ^_^
Here, try this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane) The original link was missing one ":"I'm assuming I'm not in a high enough dimension to comprehend those grids because that page isn't working for me.Cross-posting from Happy Thread:I just picked up a copy of the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide at my LFGS last night (since they're part of the early release program and get advance copies). I'm only about 30 pages into it so far (though I did spend some time skipping ahead to look at magic items and such), and it has good advice on manageable world building and introducing world-shaking events into a campaign and suchlike. Something I'm really happy they included is advice on using hex maps at various scales, since it's something I've wanted to implement but didn't quite know how to use until now.
This isn't a full review or anything since I haven't even read the full book yet, but I felt like sharing/bragging.
Now if we could just get a Call of Cthulhu rulebook that deals with pentagonal and septagonal grids (http://Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane)
Actually the problem was that it was it was unexpectedly case-sensitive
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 01, 2015, 11:01:32 pm
Post by: Doomblade187 on January 01, 2015, 11:42:39 pm
I may have taken the curse that gives -4 to all attacks. Because flavor, dangit.
Oh, and while my stats are good in general (AC 19 at level 2, managed to GM in a wis-based oracle), I have a CON of 4.
So, while I have an idea how to deal with this ridiculously fun mess, I was wondering if anyone else had ideas how to make this more fun/surviveable. Current plan is to take Toughness at level three with my monk level.
Post by: Dutchling on January 02, 2015, 06:06:07 am
how about those new magic cards (http://mythicspoiler.com/frf/index.html)I was really hoping the face-down nonsense would stop after Khans :/
Manifest is really cool. Jeskai Infiltrator is my favorite use of it so far I think.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 02, 2015, 07:37:26 am
I play Boss Sligh so I'm mainly looking for cheap red stuff, and nothing's really caught my interest yet. Heelcutter is perhaps interesting as a sideboard against midrange, but it seems way more expensive than other options like Frenzied Goblin and it dies to stupid stuff like Courser. Outpost Siege is certainly a good card, and maybe it could help give Sligh some extra reach by letting it double draw every turn in the late game.
What I'm mainly hoping for is 1) a red creature that dashes for two or less mana, due to the synergy with Foundry Street Denizen and 2) for the red version of Valorous Stance to have relevant effects like Burn/Pump, although that might be a bit of a pipe dream.
Post by: timferius on January 09, 2015, 12:23:06 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 09, 2015, 01:21:35 pm
Post by: smeeprocket on January 09, 2015, 02:14:53 pm
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/115905563719021434929
Post by: AlleeCat on January 10, 2015, 04:46:12 am
Post by: Gentlefish on January 10, 2015, 04:55:23 am
In previous sessions, I have vomited up a human ear, vomited up green goo with worms, and woken up in a bed soaked in blood.
This is a good campaign.
Post by: AlleeCat on January 10, 2015, 04:59:05 am
This is a good campaign.In any other system, these things would probably be considered bad. In CoC, it's just everyday occurrences.
Post by: Gentlefish on January 10, 2015, 06:17:19 am
Post by: Dutchling on January 10, 2015, 01:02:48 pm
I love this block's flavor!His arms switched places o.OSpoiler: these two cards are the same golem (click to show/hide)
Post by: AlleeCat on January 10, 2015, 01:37:38 pm
Post by: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 01:42:17 pm
I suppose if you are mashing it up with 3.5 it would be more heroic oriented though.
CoC, for me, isn't so much about crazy things happening, it's about the fear of those crazy things. The actual crazy things are used sparingly, with a lot of suspense and build up. The new rulebook, for example, has an entire chapter on chases, including car chases.
What was the sanity roll on the new feet, btw? doesn't seem like it would be 1d10/1d100 since that is witnessing an eldritch being, but it should be pretty damn high.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2015, 02:06:26 pm
Heck I would LOVE to host it and know I would outright fail and fail HARD!
Many of the problems with the system are more accurately problems with the DMs (If being illiterate and blind is a genuine advantage in your game... You are clearly doing it wrong.), heck there is this famos CoC story that I immediately knew was fake (Mostly because of the sheer number of things the DM would have to bend over backwards to allow for it to occur). Yet the biggest difficulty of the system is more then others you cannot railroad it even slightly.
It is all about the investigation and gathering of clues. Hints upon hints. Heck it is 100% legit to allow the players to conceivably solve a case 30 minutes into a single session (In fact one adventure has the quickest possible solution paths if the players were... crazy enough. It would take 5 minutes) so long as you have barriers in the way.
Yet even when you give the players the "problem" or rather when they find out what the problem actually is. They can find any number of solutions.
But the greatest virtue of the system? It actively encourages and rewards creative solutions that avoid conflict altogether. It also makes investigation rather interesting mostly because the system handles the many intricacies of it.
---
I am trying to think of a way to turn this Pokémon RPG into a workable system rather then one that you play because it is pokemon and otherwise you would chuck it immediately.
I am trying to contact my math friend for help with this.
Post by: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 02:08:09 pm
I have a number of modules that aren't related to investigating anything though, and more about just surviving.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2015, 02:10:21 pm
the 7th edition rules push this even harder, Neo. Reward creativity, work WITH the players to make a story.
I have a number of modules that aren't related to investigating anything though, and more about just surviving.
Unlike most system I actually prefer a more episodic approach to CoC with little clues to the later metaplot with some return adventures (maybe that house you exercised actually had a demon under the basement you didn't see the first time)
Rather then a focus on one large narration oddly enough.
Though I guess that makes it perfect for player driven story, in 10 sessions every player could have their own adventure... probably 15.
Post by: AlleeCat on January 10, 2015, 02:10:34 pm
heck there is this famos CoC story that I immediately knew was fakeOld Man Henderson? It was Old Man Henderson, wasn't it?
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2015, 02:11:57 pm
heck there is this famos CoC story that I immediately knew was fakeOld Man Henderson? It was Old Man Henderson, wasn't it?
Ohh yeah, totally fake.
Post by: AlleeCat on January 10, 2015, 02:13:57 pm
I mean, he smoked the Necronomicon, for one.
Post by: Kadzar on January 10, 2015, 02:17:56 pm
I am trying to think of a way to turn this Pokémon RPG into a workable system rather then one that you play because it is pokemon and otherwise you would chuck it immediately.Pokemon Tabletop Adventures or Pokemon Tabletop United?
I am trying to contact my math friend for help with this.
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2015, 02:28:13 pm
I don't know if it was fake, but you have to admit, it was creative.
I mean, he smoked the Necronomicon, for one.
Well, he and a bunch of his buddies did fend of a group of cultists and two shoggoths... shoggoths which are immune to bullets... regenerate 2hp a turn... and only take half damage from explosives which means dynamite if it hits directly only can deal 15 damage if it maxes out its damage if it is interpreted as "Fire Damage". They are also not a stupid enemy and not stupidly loyal.
I can't imagine what a battle, one they weren't prepared for, would have to be like in order to win. Since a Shoggoth is a nightmare to fight solo with a well equipped and prepared party of incredibly experienced characters and players.
To name some of the other obvious inconsistencies.
-------
Alas seeing that the kickstarter had soo many freebies that might not be available with the base book makes it pretty much impossible to get into otherwise.
As that is about 10 books and additions...
---
I am trying to think of a way to turn this Pokémon RPG into a workable system rather then one that you play because it is pokemon and otherwise you would chuck it immediately.Pokemon Tabletop Adventures or Pokemon Tabletop United?
I am trying to contact my math friend for help with this.
They are different systems? I think PTU... Yep PTU.
Not that I want specifically PTU, I just want to see if I can do what PTU is attempting to except better.
For example one thing I thought of doing was getting rid of pokemon stats on the pokedex... and instead giving pokemon letter grades in each of their attributes.
Post by: Gentlefish on January 10, 2015, 05:23:58 pm
My CoC campaigns have never been THAT crazy. I would have thought you'd be insane by the end of an adventure like that.
I suppose if you are mashing it up with 3.5 it would be more heroic oriented though.
CoC, for me, isn't so much about crazy things happening, it's about the fear of those crazy things. The actual crazy things are used sparingly, with a lot of suspense and build up. The new rulebook, for example, has an entire chapter on chases, including car chases.
What was the sanity roll on the new feet, btw? doesn't seem like it would be 1d10/1d100 since that is witnessing an eldritch being, but it should be pretty damn high.
The way he has it mashed up, it was just a straight d100 sanity roll; casting a zero-level spell is easier to fail. Of course, then there's the Tiberian Hounds the group ran into while I was meditating for my hawk. It was a d100+13 roll. Success was a d4, and failure was a d20. And we see then again in 5d20 days. They will pursue us until we die because they're immortal. And they travel through corners.
Post by: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:02:16 pm
A sane person will become jaded and indifferent to horrors after such an encounter, though that also might mean they're getting PTSD...
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2015, 06:27:40 pm
other than eldritch beings (and possibly even then) isn't a sanity check for a particular thing a one time deal? I've never made people roll more than once because the shock already happened.
A sane person will become jaded and indifferent to horrors after such an encounter, though that also might mean they're getting PTSD...
You can get more then one roll for the same mundane thing, but it reflects a sort of different situation... and indeed you can become jaded to the same stimuli.
An ordinary person seeing a corpse will freek them out, needing to dig through its guts would freek them out even more. More then justifies two separate rolls.
But as long as the ST knows that mundane horrors are horrifying but not so much "Maddening" it should be fine... Unless it is TRUELY horrifying... Like needing to wade through gore.
Eldrich beings aren't necessarily THAT maddening anyhow.
Post by: Gentlefish on January 10, 2015, 06:31:49 pm
other than eldritch beings (and possibly even then) isn't a sanity check for a particular thing a one time deal? I've never made people roll more than once because the shock already happened.
A sane person will become jaded and indifferent to horrors after such an encounter, though that also might mean they're getting PTSD...
Heh. We only roll once per creature per encounter, but if we see another set of skeletons a few days down the line, we might lose a little more sanity. The hounds are special in that they're tacking us through time and space because they live outside of it, so who knows what sort of horrifying implications that has?
Post by: Fniff on January 10, 2015, 06:35:56 pm
Post by: smeeprocket on January 10, 2015, 06:38:36 pm
other than eldritch beings (and possibly even then) isn't a sanity check for a particular thing a one time deal? I've never made people roll more than once because the shock already happened.
A sane person will become jaded and indifferent to horrors after such an encounter, though that also might mean they're getting PTSD...
Heh. We only roll once per creature per encounter, but if we see another set of skeletons a few days down the line, we might lose a little more sanity. The hounds are special in that they're tacking us through time and space because they live outside of it, so who knows what sort of horrifying implications that has?
That seems excessive, once you've seen a walking skeleton you've seen them all. The example of a dead body versus sifting through organs makes better sense.
BTW, I didn't realize it was THOSE hounds. You are fucked.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 10, 2015, 06:59:14 pm
Post by: Neonivek on January 10, 2015, 07:00:40 pm
---
Well asked my friend about the Pokémon system compromise I had.
He hated it, but for some reason he really liked the PTU system... but it was hard for me to explain the problems with the system and how much it just didn't work.
Post by: Leafsnail on January 10, 2015, 07:35:09 pm
Post by: Dutchling on January 10, 2015, 07:45:31 pm
Spoiler: like here (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 10, 2015, 08:48:50 pm
Post by: Dutchling on January 10, 2015, 09:06:17 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 15, 2015, 11:47:34 pm
I've searched and searched trying to find this adventure again bit I CANNOT SEEM TO FIND IT AND IT'S DRIVING ME INSANE!
Anyway, does anybody have any leads as to what adventure I might be thinking of and where I might be able to find it?
EDIT:
It was prior to the release of the fourth edition, if that helps narrow it down.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 16, 2015, 12:10:01 am
Post by: Neonivek on January 16, 2015, 12:18:07 am
Risk anyone?
This is kind of why this thread doesn't work and why it keeps going under over and over again...
Yeah I am ignoring this thread now.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 16, 2015, 12:20:08 am
All I asked was if anyone plays risk and would like to talk about it...
It's a fun board game. And board games are table top games
Post by: Dutchling on January 16, 2015, 12:20:52 am
I, for one, think Risk is a terrible game to physically play but I play a PC version every now and then with my brother and a bunch of bots. It's somewhat entertaining.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 16, 2015, 12:22:42 am
It's pretty boring if you play to play.
I usualy just sit and watch the war over Asia then sweep in and take out the straglers
Post by: Arcvasti on January 16, 2015, 12:23:57 am
Also, no, I did not, in fact, risk anyone. Only person I risk is me. Jeez.
Post by: Dutchling on January 16, 2015, 12:24:26 am
I've never seen someone not win after controlling Australia though.
To be honest, the default map is horribly imbalanced. I just use custom maps, usually something WWII related.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 16, 2015, 12:33:34 am
I usually sit down with Africa and wait till Europe or SA is open
Ya we have wars over Asia because everyone wants the +7
I wait till everyone throws their border defenses into it then take Europe and Asia in one big swoop.
Post by: Neonivek on January 16, 2015, 12:34:01 am
Why (@neonivak)? It's just a DnD thread with random discussions about other games.
I, for one, think Risk is a terrible game to physically play but I play a PC version every now and then with my brother and a bunch of bots. It's somewhat entertaining.
It is too stuffed and someone's honest question is going to be completely overlooked because people didn't want to discuss well... tabletop games and actively tried to push it off.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?532586-D-amp-D-Far-Realm-Campaigns (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?532586-D-amp-D-Far-Realm-Campaigns)
My best attempt knowing next to nothing
Post by: timferius on January 16, 2015, 09:19:01 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 16, 2015, 10:54:25 am
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2015, 11:18:09 am
Risk annoys me. There are many far better balanced board games. There are many BETTER board games, period. Only reason that it has anything going for it was because it was on of the really early board games. Same with Monopoly, really.
You left out chess and checkers.
Post by: Dutchling on January 16, 2015, 11:21:40 am
Checkers is... I don't know why people play checkers.
Post by: Tack on January 16, 2015, 11:31:13 am
By 'tabletop games'... Does this include
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If it doesn't, let's talk Settlers of C'tan
(Or, The thing that is to Monopoly as Banished is to Sim City)
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 16, 2015, 11:39:56 am
Post by: Tack on January 16, 2015, 11:43:09 am
I currently (but sadly not for much longer) live in a place big enough to have a hobby room (and extremely less than exorbitant rent), so we often get friends and friends around to play on the sweet custom tables the resident 'poor financial choices' guy got commissioned.
Yes, I realize I'm one step away from holding backroom Warhordes games.
I see no problem with this.
Post by: Dutchling on January 16, 2015, 11:49:37 am
I swear there was a little Indian guy involved somewhere too.
Post by: scrdest on January 16, 2015, 11:55:22 am
So, getting off the topic of 'Game that shall not be named'.
By 'tabletop games'... Does this includeSpoiler (click to show/hide)
If it doesn't, let's talk Settlers of C'tan
(Or, The thing that is to Monopoly as Banished is to Sim City)
Heh, SoC with expansions is beyond spending time, it's being a time serial killer. One game can last like five hours sometimes.
I gotta play it again sometime, it used to be a staple of some vacation trips, until my mom and stepdad were introduced to a more lightweight game in a similar vein.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 16, 2015, 12:15:20 pm
This reminds me of a kid's movie I loved about a closet with fighting toys.
I swear there was a little Indian guy involved somewhere too.
Are you talking about the one with the evil GI joe knock offs trying to take over the world and the kid's other toys trying to protect him?
I forget the name of it but it was a great movie
Post by: Mephisto on January 16, 2015, 01:16:51 pm
This reminds me of a kid's movie I loved about a closet with fighting toys.
I swear there was a little Indian guy involved somewhere too.
Are you talking about the one with the evil GI joe knock offs trying to take over the world and the kid's other toys trying to protect him?
I forget the name of it but it was a great movie
The Indian in the Cupboard. I saw it exactly once as a young child and still remember seeing it for some reason.
Post by: IronyOwl on January 16, 2015, 01:23:07 pm
Post by: timferius on January 16, 2015, 01:36:03 pm
This reminds me of a kid's movie I loved about a closet with fighting toys.
I swear there was a little Indian guy involved somewhere too.
Are you talking about the one with the evil GI joe knock offs trying to take over the world and the kid's other toys trying to protect him?
I forget the name of it but it was a great movie
The Indian in the Cupboard. I saw it exactly once as a young child and still remember seeing it for some reason.
The scene with, if I remember correctly, Darth Vader fighting a t-rex (among other mayhem) was the best.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 16, 2015, 01:40:05 pm
Evil GI Joe would be Small Soldiers.Oh yeah
Post by: Gentlefish on January 16, 2015, 03:52:36 pm
Post by: AlleeCat on January 16, 2015, 09:31:34 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 16, 2015, 10:15:16 pm
Why (@neonivak)? It's just a DnD thread with random discussions about other games.
I, for one, think Risk is a terrible game to physically play but I play a PC version every now and then with my brother and a bunch of bots. It's somewhat entertaining.
It is too stuffed and someone's honest question is going to be completely overlooked because people didn't want to discuss well... tabletop games and actively tried to push it off.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?532586-D-amp-D-Far-Realm-Campaigns (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?532586-D-amp-D-Far-Realm-Campaigns)
My best attempt knowing next to nothing
I looked there already, but thank you anyway.
It's not any of the Dungeon issues that they mentioned.
Thanks anyway thugh.
Post by: Bauglir on January 18, 2015, 12:12:35 am
In one of my matches, time was called in game 3. You get 5 turns after the end of the turn when time is called, and I'd just passed to my opponent, so I'd go last. We do a couple of turns, and on his last one, I had 2 2/2 flying creatures and a morph, as well as 5 lands and 10 life. He's got a couple of creatures and exactly 11 life - I jokingly say, "If you attack, I swear I won't block". For some reason, he did, I wound up dropped to 1, and on my turn I turned my Efreet Weaponmaster (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=386529) face up, allowing me to swing for exactly lethal damage, at 1 life, at the last possible moment.
A later match had a number of amusing things:
He attacks with a morph, I block with one. He turns his face up to reveal a 4/4. I turn mine face up to reveal a Monastery Flock (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=386607).
Later, he plays Atarka (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=391796). I am dismayed. As a desperate gamble, I swing with an Abzan Skycaptain (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=391785), muttering that I just want to get the counters onto something bigger. The bluff works! He goes ahead and blocks with Atarka, allowing me to play Ride Down (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=386636). As tears of joy metaphorically stream down my face, I pass the turn, and he plays his second copy of Atarka. I am dismayed, but have no answers this time.
Next game was also good. I got off to a better start, and by the time he got Atarka out he was at 12 life. Early on I play a morph, which he eventually Arc Lightning (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=386478)s for 2 (me for 1), so I turn that Monastery Flock face-up. We spend the rest of the game dancing around Atarka, me with an Ashcloud Phoenix (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=386482) and a whole bunch of tricks and morphs and stuff. Eventually I run out of shenanigans with him at 1 life, and he swings for lethal. In retrospect, at one point I should have let the Phoenix trade with a blocker he used a combat trick to give reach and deathtouch - I blew a Sandblast that I could've used to kill Atarka to avoid that, but it stalled him the one turn he needed to not lose the damage race. I was too jealous of my own life total and the +1/+1 counters on the Phoenix, and didn't expect him to have as many ways to continue stalling as he did afterward.
Really damn fun prerelease, even though I didn't manage to place (Citadel Siege is bullshit, by the way).
Post by: AlleeCat on January 18, 2015, 04:56:17 am
Post by: Tawa on January 18, 2015, 02:15:28 pm
Interesting, at the very least.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 18, 2015, 02:45:52 pm
Post by: smeeprocket on January 18, 2015, 02:59:40 pm
3.5 was okay though, though I prefer Pathfinder.
Post by: Tawa on January 18, 2015, 03:03:33 pm
Managed to get a 4e addict to join us, too.
Post by: AlleeCat on January 18, 2015, 04:40:27 pm
Post by: chaoticag on January 18, 2015, 04:57:25 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on January 18, 2015, 06:37:32 pm
Pretty much the only 4e character I played that I liked was a monk. My favorite part was when I leaped halfway accross the map and kicked the boss in the face with a daily crit. He went from full health to just barely bloodied in one hit. Monk OPAF.
Not in 3.5 :V
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2015, 07:45:20 pm
which version of D&D though, because if you say 4th ed you are abad person and should feel bad. TTRPGs aren't MMOs.
Hell, I won't even play real MMORPGs.
Post by: AlleeCat on January 18, 2015, 08:19:38 pm
I found 4e pretty fun. I tend to enjoy pathfinder of 3.5 though, and just joined a 5e game. Gonna see how that system works out, but looks promising.Try 13th Age. It is to 4e what Pathfinder was to 3.5.
Post by: kilakan on January 18, 2015, 10:03:36 pm
I'm going to be gm'ing a game of pathfinder on sundays at 6pm Est, games will likely go for about 3-5 hours a week. Going to be a pretty standard `Adventurers Co*`game mostly so that the players can get to know each other in a shortish campaign and see if we want to set something up for a longer game.
I`m planning on using mumble for voice OOC and roll20 for actual gameplay/IC stuff. Don't need to have a mic yourself but I'll probably be talking over the ooc/gmy stuff.
Post by: Tawa on January 18, 2015, 10:09:23 pm
Try 13th Age. It is to 4e what Pathfinder was to 3.5.Internet tells me that 13th Age was based off of the d20 system.
Post by: Gentlefish on January 18, 2015, 10:10:57 pm
Posting here cause I'm not actually sure if it fits in Forum games and roleplaying, probably will make a thread there as well.
I'm going to be gm'ing a game of pathfinder on sundays at 6pm Est, games will likely go for about 3-5 hours a week. Going to be a pretty standard `Adventurers Co*`game mostly so that the players can get to know each other in a shortish campaign and see if we want to set something up for a longer game.
I`m planning on using mumble for voice OOC and roll20 for actual gameplay/IC stuff. Don't need to have a mic yourself but I'll probably be talking over the ooc/gmy stuff.
I'm interested. Can I gunslinger? :D
Post by: kilakan on January 18, 2015, 10:12:54 pm
Post by: kilakan on January 18, 2015, 10:43:23 pm
Post by: Bohandas on January 18, 2015, 11:33:07 pm
Potentially, we'd need to agree as a group what sort of level of fantasy we'd want to do. Aka, whether theres guns or whatnot, ect. Would most likely be a level 3 game unless people want to do higher/a level 1 campaign.
How about a campaign whose theme is that there used to be technology in the ancient past, but now a sinister conspiracy suppresses it by altering the flow of magic to make conductive metals (such as copper, silver, and gold) difficult to conjure (and has been doing so for so long that nobody even realizes anymore that anything is out of the ordinary)
Post by: Tack on January 18, 2015, 11:47:30 pm
Post by: Kassire on January 18, 2015, 11:52:06 pm
Isn't Dnd up to like, 6th ed now anyway?5th edition only came out recently
Post by: kilakan on January 19, 2015, 12:01:52 am
How about a campaign whose theme is that there used to be technology in the ancient past, but now a sinister conspiracy suppresses it by altering the flow of magic to make conductive metals (such as copper, silver, and gold) difficult to conjure (and has been doing so for so long that nobody even realizes anymore that anything is out of the ordinary)Considering baseline pathfinder includes aliens and robots, not too far off the mark.
Post by: Mephisto on January 19, 2015, 12:15:58 am
Try 13th Age. It is to 4e what Pathfinder was to 3.5.Internet tells me that 13th Age was based off of the d20 system.
D20, but designed by the lead designers of both 4e and 3e.
Post by: Bohandas on January 19, 2015, 01:14:35 am
Isn't Dnd up to like, 6th ed now anyway?
Probably. I think fifth edition just recently came out a couple of months ago, but with the accelerating rate that they're churning out new editions I wouldn't put it past them to have released a sixth edition already in order to sell more core rulebooks.
Post by: chaoticag on January 19, 2015, 07:06:53 am
Try 13th Age. It is to 4e what Pathfinder was to 3.5.I think I have a copy of the PDF, but right now I have too much that I'm going through plus exams to learn a new system. Already paging through Chuubo, Ryuutama and 5th ed.
Post by: Dutchling on January 19, 2015, 03:58:03 pm
Most notable, Birthing Pod got banned in Modern!
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 19, 2015, 04:16:40 pm
Post by: Dutchling on January 19, 2015, 04:21:30 pm
I did get to attend it. Played 2HG because someone was looking for a partner and I'm definitely not doing that again. It was fun to play but communicating is insanely annoying.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 19, 2015, 04:30:18 pm
Post by: AlleeCat on January 19, 2015, 07:48:14 pm
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 19, 2015, 07:53:42 pm
I want to make an Eldrazi deck, just to fuck with other casual players.
Haha
Make a speedy infect deck if you want to disappoint people
One of my friends made a saporling deck that screwed everyone over
He then said that it was invincible and couldn't be beaten
That might I mixed my Simic and infect decks
I killed him in 4 turns.
He was depressed for a week
I currently have the reigning deck for almost a year straight
Post by: Gentlefish on January 19, 2015, 07:55:48 pm
I was playing 4-player FFA and I was quietly building myself up. I got a duskvale wyrm (? a 6/6 green creature) up to 20/20 with a ring of kelonia and scavenges galore, then blew it up with Jarad and killed everyone.
Post by: Cryxis, Prince of Doom on January 19, 2015, 07:59:28 pm
It's pretty good for troop spawning of fairly strong soilders
Post by: Tack on January 19, 2015, 10:30:46 pm
I could always go to my friendly local GW store and bore myself into painting (they actually make for a pretty good atmosphere, and hey, I'm paying exorbitant rates for this service, right?)
But I barely have the motivation to do That.
Post by: crazysheep on January 19, 2015, 10:47:04 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on January 20, 2015, 12:11:38 am
Is there a rule that says your models have to be painted to compete?
So very much yes. It's another way for GW to make money, seeing as they sell paints.
Post by: Tack on January 20, 2015, 12:11:52 am
But I'm a member of the 'Paint before assembly' school of thought- which obviously causes trouble when you try to play with bases.
Post by: crazysheep on January 20, 2015, 12:56:04 am
Post by: Sergius on January 20, 2015, 09:48:05 am
But then again I know it's more about the $$$ and I also have little interest in expensive addictive hobbies like trading cards and miniatures, heh.
Anyhoo... found this: http://www.wikihow.com/Paint-Warhammer-Figures
Post by: Dutchling on January 20, 2015, 01:19:02 pm
When playing FFA I use my ramped up Boros deck with Woejeck general (?) and other legendaries.When playing FFA (and I want to win) I just use my Storm deck. Killing four of five players on turn 3 isn't that hard with a couple of Past in Flames and Grapeshots :D
It's pretty good for troop spawning of fairly strong soilders
It's fun because you're basically playing Solitaire except other people have to watch you play it.
Post by: AlleeCat on January 20, 2015, 04:14:38 pm
But then again I know it's more about the $$$ and I also have little interest in expensive addictive hobbies like trading cards and miniatures, heh.TCGs are probably less expensive than miniatures by a wide margin. Paper cards are much cheaper than pewter/plastic minis.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on January 20, 2015, 05:18:42 pm
Haven't checked the thread, so it might have been mentioned, but eh.
You can be a goddamn knife fighting space octopus.
Post by: Tack on January 20, 2015, 06:23:17 pm
It makes sense from the standpoint that two players using the same race would need to differentiate somehow, right?I think if it's something you willingly procrastinate instead of doing, it's not addictive.
But then again I know it's more about the $$$ and I also have little interest in expensive addictive hobbies like trading cards and miniatures, heh.
Post by: Tawa on January 21, 2015, 10:01:23 pm
Do you think a 15th level fighter that swings a greatsword that deals like three different kinds of bonus damage at +25/+17/+13 is sufficient for a good boss agains three or so 15th-level melee'ers and two non-direct damage dealers? Or is that too much?
Post by: Arcvasti on January 21, 2015, 10:07:25 pm
Post by: Tawa on January 21, 2015, 10:11:04 pm
Post by: Mephisto on February 07, 2015, 10:54:55 am
Prepare yourself, awesomeness incoming. (https://imgur.com/a/Ojcik#0)
The commenters on my Reddit post have already helped me to determine that Deities and Demigods is a first-edition - it includes the Cthulhu section and does not credit Chaosium.
Post by: birdy51 on February 07, 2015, 11:51:40 am
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 03:24:40 pm
So, can I ask you D&D buffs something?
Do you think a 15th level fighter that swings a greatsword that deals like three different kinds of bonus damage at +25/+17/+13 is sufficient for a good boss agains three or so 15th-level melee'ers and two non-direct damage dealers? Or is that too much?
how much bonus damage of each type
Post by: Tawa on February 07, 2015, 03:27:49 pm
Never mind anymore. Bit late there.So, can I ask you D&D buffs something?
Do you think a 15th level fighter that swings a greatsword that deals like three different kinds of bonus damage at +25/+17/+13 is sufficient for a good boss agains three or so 15th-level melee'ers and two non-direct damage dealers? Or is that too much?
how much bonus damage of each type
Post by: Bohandas on February 07, 2015, 03:31:26 pm
Post by: Peradon on February 07, 2015, 03:40:27 pm
Do I have any chance of learning how to play the game by just reading the manuel, or do I need someone to actually be there to help be through? Because I really want to learn to play, but I dont know anyone that does play, so I'm kind of stuck in limbo...
Post by: Kassire on February 07, 2015, 04:02:01 pm
Ok, DnD question:There's a bunch of games in Play with your buddies and FG&RP, and I'm not sure what you mean by manual. Like the SRD or PHB? If so, it would be advised to collect some other source-books depending on what role you want to play in a group.
Do I have any chance of learning how to play the game by just reading the manuel, or do I need someone to actually be there to help be through? Because I really want to learn to play, but I dont know anyone that does play, so I'm kind of stuck in limbo...
Post by: Tawa on February 07, 2015, 10:22:16 pm
Well how'd it work then?Hm? Oh, I just went and compared it to the builds the players had and figured that it was perfectly fine.
Ok, DnD question:Ohoho, you're looking for D&D? FG&RP has you covered. I learned to play off the SRD and by running my own and playing in games. I think that I'm the guy who started the D&D cascade down there. There were one or two before, but apparently three broke the limit and it just went downhill from there until there were roughly as many D&D games as there were FEF games.
Do I have any chance of learning how to play the game by just reading the manuel, or do I need someone to actually be there to help be through? Because I really want to learn to play, but I dont know anyone that does play, so I'm kind of stuck in limbo...
There'll probably be another game within the month, whether it's because I stay up too late one night and think "Hey, I can manage 4 games! Yeah!" or somebody else (such as one of the people already down there) decides they can run another.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 08, 2015, 07:09:03 pm
Post by: Dutchling on February 08, 2015, 07:12:23 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on February 08, 2015, 07:14:30 pm
Post by: Bauglir on February 08, 2015, 07:21:16 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on February 08, 2015, 07:24:54 pm
Post by: Kadzar on February 09, 2015, 01:25:49 am
From what I've read, WotC plans to put out less frequent but more high-quality splats for 5e. In the meantime, they're also running a monthly feature on their website called "Unearthed Arcana" where they release preliminary supplement material for free. The material is supposed to be like the earlier playtest material, meaning it's not final and will probably change according to player input, but it will do well enough for now.
They've already released the first update, and it's for Eberron stuff. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron) (Not a huge surprise, since, if I recall correctly, Mike Mearls is a big fan of the setting.)
Also, I realized I should probably post this to the Tabletop Games Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=145467.0), too.
Post by: Bohandas on February 09, 2015, 03:00:44 am
I like Eberron, but I like those too.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 09, 2015, 03:07:55 am
Post by: timferius on February 09, 2015, 07:52:06 am
I'm thinking of maybe getting Sheriff of Nottingham as a good, quick to explain social/party game. But I need more, MORE! AHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHA.
Post by: Mephisto on February 09, 2015, 08:23:48 am
Sheriff of Nottingham
Can confirm, was quite fun. As are lying and mental tricks.
Post by: Tack on February 09, 2015, 11:14:21 am
Guys, the birthday money is starting to roll in, WHAT SHOULD I BUY!
I'm thinking of maybe getting Sheriff of Nottingham as a good, quick to explain social/party game. But I need more, MORE! AHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHA.
How casual are you thinking?
On a scale from Cards against, to full DnD.
Let's say 3 is munchkins and 7 is settlers of Catan.
Edit: Ah, why'm I asking, I'm just gonna Reccommend one of the recent lovecraftian games.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 09, 2015, 11:17:16 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 09, 2015, 11:19:30 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 09, 2015, 11:36:56 am
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=142957
Post by: Tawa on February 09, 2015, 11:43:45 am
I wanted to see somebody get their arm cut off and then die from hit point loss!
I finish what I start.
Post by: Mephisto on February 09, 2015, 11:56:40 am
From what I've read, WotC plans to put out less frequent but more high-quality splats for 5e. In the meantime, they're also running a monthly feature on their website called "Unearthed Arcana" where they release preliminary supplement material for free. The material is supposed to be like the earlier playtest material, meaning it's not final and will probably change according to player input, but it will do well enough for now.
They've already released the first update, and it's for Eberron stuff. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron) (Not a huge surprise, since, if I recall correctly, Mike Mearls is a big fan of the setting.)
Also, I realized I should probably post this to the Tabletop Games Thread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=145467.0), too.
Didn't see this last time I posted. Don't know how yet to feel about them taking the name of a book that spanned at least two editions and turning it into something that is not a book.
Post by: timferius on February 09, 2015, 12:01:21 pm
Post by: Tack on February 09, 2015, 12:31:13 pm
Post by: scriver on February 09, 2015, 01:25:05 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 09, 2015, 01:36:56 pm
Ok, DnD question:
Do I have any chance of learning how to play the game by just reading the manuel, or do I need someone to actually be there to help be through? Because I really want to learn to play, but I dont know anyone that does play, so I'm kind of stuck in limbo...
Don't worry too much and just start reading. RPG manuals are designed to teach you the game via reading, and will often have little snippets of hypothetical games to illustrate how things work in practice. Follow through the character creation system a few times. This is also helpful if you want to run a game, since you can store spare characters you made and pull them out as NPCs later for your players. You can't have too many spare NPCs on hand for that.
Back in the old red book Basic D&D they had a solo adventure tutorial, which was done like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. It took you through a basic one character adventure. It was pretty cool, and I'd recommend checking out a PDF of the old Basic D&D. The game is a lot simpler than the AD&D or the modern ones.
Post by: Bohandas on February 09, 2015, 02:10:02 pm
Because I really want to learn to play, but I dont know anyone that does play, so I'm kind of stuck in limbo...
You could but one of those computer games that uses the exact game rules. Like Temple of Elemental evil or Dark Queen of Krynn
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 09, 2015, 02:13:54 pm
You never even got off the ground with that!It didn't start. Not my fault. After hours of working with them, the players still struggled to finish their sheets.
I wanted to see somebody get their arm cut off and then die from hit point loss!I finish what I start.
Post by: Tack on February 09, 2015, 02:39:58 pm
Strangely, pen-and-paper types are alarmingly accommodating to strangers.
Post by: scrdest on February 09, 2015, 03:35:24 pm
It's also built around ridiculously convoluted mechanics to the point that it's almost impossible to actually play, let alone play fluidly (no that is not an entendre)
And even if it was, it would still apply. Quadratic equations for peeing, anyone?
Post by: Tawa on February 09, 2015, 03:53:35 pm
Nonono, it was quadratic equations for sex. Peeing was a skill check.It's also built around ridiculously convoluted mechanics to the point that it's almost impossible to actually play, let alone play fluidly (no that is not an entendre)
And even if it was, it would still apply. Quadratic equations for peeing, anyone?
Post by: Jimmy on February 09, 2015, 04:07:05 pm
We've got a Pathfinder game with myself (Elf Conjuration Specialist Wizard) and three others (Tengu Rogue, Dwarf Cleric and Oread Monk).
Starting at level 2, we have our first encounter with some monstrous centipedes (CR 1). The monk turns out to be a glass cannon and the rogue makes no attempt to get flanking. I have to play traffic cop directing the cleric where to stand while I pop out an Enlarge Person on him so the monk and rogue can both get flanking, whilst simultaneously taking on both monsters using my familiar.
We'll see if it gets any better this week.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 09, 2015, 04:09:17 pm
Post by: Jimmy on February 09, 2015, 04:12:04 pm
Post by: King Kravoka on February 09, 2015, 06:32:18 pm
Post by: Kassire on February 09, 2015, 06:35:33 pm
I have been slowly working on a fantasy tabletop setting in space. It's got magical warp drives, werewolves of variable civility, and exoskeletal dogmatic elfs.Sounds mildly interesting, though details are the words of the gods
Post by: Flying Dice on February 09, 2015, 11:39:10 pm
If you're the only one optimising, don't.Alternatively, don't abuse it. The real problem with being the sole min-maxer in a group of people who don't is when your character continually overshadows the rest of the party. Natch it's partly on the DM to create encounters which cater to different skillsets, even if there's only so much that they can do for a party like his, but when it comes right down to it "I have the ability to resolve every problem we face in a trivial manner," doesn't mean "I should," and if they do end up being the same, it's a pointer at your lack of self-control.
Same basic principle as applies to an omnipotent being, really; just because you can fix every problem people have doesn't make it healthy for you or for them.
Though as such things go a Specialist Conjurer is about as good as you can get for optimized characters which don't overshadow everyone else, given that a whole lot of what you're doing is setting things up for your buddies. To use another metaphor, a basketball player who consistently outperforms the rest of his team won't be resented as long as he excels by being a team player, making good rebounds, drawing fouls, setting up assists, playing strong defense, &c.
Post by: Bauglir on February 09, 2015, 11:49:29 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on February 09, 2015, 11:49:59 pm
Trying to trip a chain demon with a chain.
Post by: Jimmy on February 10, 2015, 06:50:59 am
The part I find disappointing is that my familiar has about as many hit points as the Monk and nobody's moving tactically in battle to get the best advantage of their position. They're quite happy to just spend their standard on an attack and leave it at that. I'll see how things go next session, maybe they just had a bad night.
Post by: Tack on February 10, 2015, 07:56:26 am
So basically I was an Urog (Ogre/Orc) fighter named Berrick, rah rah hated by the town 'cos I was a rapebaby or something.
Ergo Berrick the Bastard
Ends up coming to 'coming of age' thingo, which is an elimination series of arena fights.
Queue me realizing I'm a half-ogre about to be going toe-to-toe with a bunch of full-ogres, and proceeding to be the most conniving, underhanded, sneaky ass douche.
I got about 80% of the 'takedowns' when I snuck up behind people and whonked them with my sword.
Artek, the "biggest one"- my chief rival, I managed to take out by stealth in 6 of the 8 rounds, with two of those being me climbing up onto arena architecture and waiting for his dumb ass to walk underneath.
This being said, only at about round 4 did we realize that I wasn't applying the Strengthx1.5 for Two-handed weapons, which unfortunately sent my damage from "One-to-two-Hit KO" to "One-Hit KO-to-Kill" and so proceeds me severely wounding two different ogres (including big bad), cutting the throat out of another and bisecting a fourth.
So then I was Berrick the Butcher.
The thing finally ended with them filling the arena up with water for a 1v1 vs my 'nemesis', which removed most of the stealth. Everything which was terrain I could've hidden behind was now the ground beneath my feet.
So naturally I just swam underwater all the way over to the other side of the arena (Urog gets +4 constitution), and then proceeded to pop up behind him, disarm him, drown him half to death and then knock him unconscious with the haft of the axe.
At which point I've gotta make the choice of letting him drown or saving his ungrateful ass.
It was a very difficult choice. Even after saving him ('cos the campaign was gonna apparently be 'mostly good'), I was still like 'Can I just behead him?'.
So now I'm Berrick the Benevolent, and I hate it.
Doesn't make sense for me to be universally hated growing up, use nothing but underhanded and douchey tactics to win, and then be like 'Surprise! I'm all compassionate!'.
Post by: Flying Dice on February 10, 2015, 10:10:54 am
Post by: Tack on February 10, 2015, 11:39:10 am
Post by: King Kravoka on February 11, 2015, 01:42:43 pm
I had a homebrew pathfinder campaign recently wherein Ogres are surprisingly reasonable and honorable.I think we all know who is a real man now. :)
So basically I was an Urog (Ogre/Orc) fighter named Berrick, rah rah hated by the town 'cos I was a rapebaby or something.
Ergo Berrick the Bastard
Ends up coming to 'coming of age' thingo, which is an elimination series of arena fights.
Queue me realizing I'm a half-ogre about to be going toe-to-toe with a bunch of full-ogres, and proceeding to be the most conniving, underhanded, sneaky ass douche.
I got about 80% of the 'takedowns' when I snuck up behind people and whonked them with my sword.
Artek, the "biggest one"- my chief rival, I managed to take out by stealth in 6 of the 8 rounds, with two of those being me climbing up onto arena architecture and waiting for his dumb ass to walk underneath.
This being said, only at about round 4 did we realize that I wasn't applying the Strengthx1.5 for Two-handed weapons, which unfortunately sent my damage from "One-to-two-Hit KO" to "One-Hit KO-to-Kill" and so proceeds me severely wounding two different ogres (including big bad), cutting the throat out of another and bisecting a fourth.
So then I was Berrick the Butcher.
The thing finally ended with them filling the arena up with water for a 1v1 vs my 'nemesis', which removed most of the stealth. Everything which was terrain I could've hidden behind was now the ground beneath my feet.
So naturally I just swam underwater all the way over to the other side of the arena (Urog gets +4 constitution), and then proceeded to pop up behind him, disarm him, drown him half to death and then knock him unconscious with the haft of the axe.
At which point I've gotta make the choice of letting him drown or saving his ungrateful ass.
It was a very difficult choice. Even after saving him ('cos the campaign was gonna apparently be 'mostly good'), I was still like 'Can I just behead him?'.
So now I'm Berrick the Benevolent, and I hate it.
Doesn't make sense for me to be universally hated growing up, use nothing but underhanded and douchey tactics to win, and then be like 'Surprise! I'm all compassionate!'.
Post by: timferius on February 11, 2015, 02:01:28 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 11, 2015, 03:43:13 pm
I haven't played a board game in years. The 'tabletop' games I play are over the internet.
But I'd play an xcom board game.. if I had three other people to play it with.
Apparently there's an app that runs the alien invasion, basically, and the four players respond to the invasion strategy the app chooses.
Post by: Kadzar on February 14, 2015, 02:06:36 am
This is the first part of the first installment of the series, in which they talk all about randomness, such as random rolls, random encounters, games that don't use randomness, critical hit tables, and embracing randomness. It's a very good discussion, and if you don't have time to watch it now, I encourage you to bookmark it for later.
Post by: BFEL on February 14, 2015, 11:03:39 am
Basically it boils down to a paladin with the hand. In my specific idea, said paladin is a farmboy who lost his hand in an accident, and then his parents made a deal with a devil or somesuch and bloop, kid gets the hand, parents dead (possibly could come back as something...unappealing later on) and the paladins take him in and start training him so that he doesn't fall to its influence.
He would join the party as a kid, and thus not a full paladin, and would come with some mentor/guardian paladin guy to watch over him (who could be killed at a nice dramatic point)
I imagine him as a "kinda dumb but strong willed" type character, and like to think that when the hand acts up he threatens to make it give out charity or something :P
Post by: timferius on February 14, 2015, 01:02:19 pm
Post by: Tack on February 14, 2015, 01:22:24 pm
I imagine him as a "kinda dumb but strong willed" type character, and like to think that when the hand acts up he threatens to make it give out charity or something :PYeah, I've currently got Berrick the Bloodthirsty with his Grandfather in his axe.
Grandfather's all like 'If you disgrace my line, I'll kill you'.
Berrick's like 'You let me die, you won't Have a line'.
Shuts him up right quick.
Post by: Kadzar on February 14, 2015, 02:09:59 pm
I don't know how many people keep up with this thread or are likely to watch it, but here is a video (http://youtu.be/Ug5AOhfM644) in which two DMs (one of whom is the creator of Dungeon World) talk about dungeon mastering.And the second part came out. (http://youtu.be/o0uTAKnv8eQ) (Looks like it was only about two hours after the first, but I was asleep at the time).
This is the first part of the first installment of the series, in which they talk all about randomness, such as random rolls, random encounters, games that don't use randomness, critical hit tables, and embracing randomness. It's a very good discussion, and if you don't have time to watch it now, I encourage you to bookmark it for later.
This part gets a lot more into embracing chaos and using it in your games. They talk about things like building a world in play from either a top-down or bottom-up perspective, using random results to enhance your game, challenging players in different ways, and suchlike.
Post by: Fniff on February 14, 2015, 03:13:12 pm
Post by: Mephisto on February 14, 2015, 03:19:59 pm
So I just learned about the Hand of Vecna, and it gave me inspiration for an interesting character concept.
Speaking of Vecna, read up on the Head of Vecna. You might get a chuckle and/or some ideas out of it.
Turns out rpg.net does this.
Post by: BFEL on February 14, 2015, 03:27:43 pm
...wish I actually had a group to play this stuff with :(
Post by: Reelya on February 14, 2015, 03:55:04 pm
It had a very high mortality rate of PCs, since it was all based around dangerous Earth animals, even more dengerous highly armed Earth locals, and the aliens not knowing how to operate simple Earth technology, like doorknobs. One tournament I remember reading about in a review, the aliens came across a door:
"I open the door" => "you don't know how to do that!"
"I look at the door" => "it has a round knob"
"I turn the knob" => "nothing happens"
"I push the door" => "nothing happens"
etc,etc
later it was revealed to the players that to open the door they should have turned the knob AND push the door at the same time. Yeah, so the games humor was based on the DM being the most literal prick DM of all time.
Post by: Dutchling on February 14, 2015, 04:17:42 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 14, 2015, 04:28:39 pm
Reminds me of stories from an Australian indie RPG from the 1980's called Hunter Planet. That had some some awesome modules, the basis of the game was that the PCs were aliens who've descended to Earth to hunt the natives.
It had a very high mortality rate of PCs, since it was all based around dangerous Earth animals, even more dengerous highly armed Earth locals, and the aliens not knowing how to operate simple Earth technology, like doorknobs. One tournament I remember reading about in a review, the aliens came across a door:
"I open the door" => "you don't know how to do that!"
"I look at the door" => "it has a round knob"
"I turn the knob" => "nothing happens"
"I push the door" => "nothing happens"
etc,etc
later it was revealed to the players that to open the door they should have turned the knob AND push the door at the same time. Yeah, so the games humor was based on the DM being the most literal prick DM of all time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spagPS2VVXo#t=04m58s
Post by: Jimmy on February 15, 2015, 03:45:09 am
Speaking of Vecna, read up on the Head of Vecna. You might get a chuckle and/or some ideas out of it.Beat me to it. I loved that gag.
My Friday night Pathfinder went smashingly! We clobbered some skeletons, disabled some traps, looted some ancient temples and even fought a choker! It didn't last long when a Color Spray left it blinded and stunned for 4 rounds.
Post by: Rex Invictus on February 15, 2015, 09:41:46 am
I'm doing a forum game here where the idea is that everyone chips in to create the world and then we make a West Marches / Pathfinder Society style game where we have several GMs all choosing to run their own game in the same setting. Taking on people for the roll of the Titans, the big movers and shakers of the world.
Post by: sjm9876 on February 15, 2015, 09:46:19 am
Post by: Rex Invictus on February 15, 2015, 10:03:24 am
Be very careful with the titans part. From my experience, any cooperative worldbuilding can be buggered over by a couple of people who have differing views on how the world should end up. Then again, I could just have got unlucky player-wise.
It's the main reason I'm functioning as a GM instead of as a player. I want to encourage antagonistic play.
Post by: sjm9876 on February 15, 2015, 12:08:16 pm
That said, I'll keep an eye out.
Post by: Bohandas on February 15, 2015, 01:00:03 pm
Be very careful with the titans part. From my experience, any cooperative worldbuilding can be buggered over by a couple of people who have differing views on how the world should end up. Then again, I could just have got unlucky player-wise.
It's the main reason I'm functioning as a GM instead of as a player. I want to encourage antagonistic play.
You should check out Paranoia if you like antagonistic play.
Post by: Rex Invictus on February 15, 2015, 04:37:05 pm
So I did this instead:
Let's Create a Setting! (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=148527.msg6037611#msg6037611)
Post by: Tack on February 15, 2015, 07:14:29 pm
Cool (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=136726.msg5043695#msg5043695)Cool. (https://boards.4chan.org/tg/res/30490013)
I'm in.
Post by: Rex Invictus on February 19, 2015, 03:57:54 pm
Post by: Rex Invictus on February 20, 2015, 02:34:38 pm
(P.S. They're all WoW raiders.)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Kadzar on February 20, 2015, 03:13:50 pm
Post by: Rex Invictus on February 20, 2015, 03:25:22 pm
A guy I know is running a game. This is what happened.
(P.S. They're all WoW raiders.)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Is that homebrew or an OSR game or something? Because 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#stableCharactersandRecovery) and Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Stable-Characters-and-Recovery) have very explicit rules about what happens to stabilized characters recovering without help. And 4 & 5E have death saving throws. I didn't pay any attention to anything after that.
Nope, PF. I didn't actually know about those stabilisation rules. I'd probably still run it in the same way, though, mainly because the player would otherwise die immediately.
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2015, 03:36:09 pm
I was originally planning to run it serious-ish story-wise, but I stagnated, scrapped it and now I'm gonna do a rather silly (think 80s action movie to classic Bonds) story involving Mad Scientists, CommieNazis, cringeworthy references, bloodthirsty supersoldier mutants, you get the picture.
Anyone interested? I've got two people already, would like to have a minimum of four, could be more - I'd just scale up the difficulty or vary up the challenges for broader skillsets.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 20, 2015, 05:26:42 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2015, 09:12:51 pm
Post by: Jimmy on February 20, 2015, 09:50:35 pm
DM decides that torches are overpowered in the hands of a low-light vision character. Or else he just doesn't get the rules for vision.
He decided that they shed normal illumination for low-light vision characters in a 40 ft. radius and then it's total darkness outside that radius, no dim illumination.
Post by: Tack on February 20, 2015, 10:16:29 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 21, 2015, 09:30:27 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 21, 2015, 11:32:16 am
Post by: chaoticag on February 21, 2015, 12:00:19 pm
Post by: Arx on February 21, 2015, 12:16:10 pm
Having navigated in the dark with multiple different kinds of torch (burning stick, actual torch with paraffin-soaked head, burning bush, mystic glowing staff constructed from glowsticks), if the light is bright enough to see very far by and you're holding it like you think of people holding torches, you will be blinded by it.
Torches should only be used by the cash-strapped or zombie-paranoid. Lanterns make much more sense in most other situations; the only drawback is that you can't immediately weaponise them or light things from them.
Post by: Tack on February 21, 2015, 01:04:46 pm
So now he's claimed top shelf on our wall of shame, and I feel annoyed 'cos whilst he does have the best painted models now, he copped out.
Well, less 'annoyed' and more 'envious'.
Gosh they are so pretty...
Post by: Bauglir on February 21, 2015, 01:20:21 pm
... Pictured Above: The most monstrous thing I've ever suggested on this board
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 21, 2015, 02:43:24 pm
Post by: uber pye on February 21, 2015, 05:35:11 pm
Should i get one with telepathy or one with true seeing?
Post by: Tawa on February 21, 2015, 05:44:14 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on February 21, 2015, 05:53:24 pm
The only reason to get Telepathy is if you're in a campaign where you have to regularly and repeatedly communicate with people over long distances and don't have any means of rapid travel or communication other than the upgrade to the ball.
Post by: Tack on February 21, 2015, 06:27:52 pm
If they're space marines, you should have them betray the Emperor and join Chaos. Obviously, you will need to repaint them to reflect this. To simulate the shock of betrayal, you should do this without anybody's knowledge.They're grey knights, actually.
So it becomes exponentially more delicious.
Hmm....
Post by: Mephisto on February 21, 2015, 09:35:42 pm
Well, I just ran across this (http://i.imgur.com/CfrLkXT.jpg) on Reddit. I'm sure someone can get some chuckles.
TL;DR from the comments: "Sure you might consider them horrible, but that just means you're racist."
Post by: scriver on February 21, 2015, 09:46:31 pm
Post by: Tawa on February 21, 2015, 09:51:11 pm
Post by: scriver on February 21, 2015, 09:57:43 pm
Post by: Kadzar on February 21, 2015, 09:59:57 pm
No, that is definitely not Forgotten Realms. Kender is Dragonlande only, and thank the gods for that.It's actually Dragonlance (though I will contend that maybe it's named slightly differently where you're from). And I've never understood why anyone likes Dragonlance. All I've heard is that the books were apparently good or something.
I've never really understood the love for Forgotten Realms, though it seems tolerable to me. It just seems rather bland and generic.
Post by: scriver on February 21, 2015, 10:23:53 pm
Post by: Kadzar on February 21, 2015, 10:55:01 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 21, 2015, 11:01:01 pm
Iirc Dragonlance was some groups own DnD campaign to begin with, that they then wrote books about and it somehow ended up a published setting.
So was Greyhawk. And they were both from campaigns that high ups in TSR were playing so it makes sense that they wound up published.
Post by: Bohandas on February 21, 2015, 11:06:34 pm
No, that is definitely not Forgotten Realms. Kender is Dragonlande only, and thank the gods for that.It's actually Dragonlance (though I will contend that maybe it's named slightly differently where you're from). And I've never understood why anyone likes Dragonlance. All I've heard is that the books were apparently good or something.
I've never really understood the love for Forgotten Realms, though it seems tolerable to me. It just seems rather bland and generic.
Dragonlance is a pretty cool setting. The pantheon and the kender and the draconians and their takes on gnomes and on wizards seem interesting to me at any rate.
I agree about Forgotten Realms though, it seems generic and trite.
Post by: Tawa on February 21, 2015, 11:18:15 pm
Plus I was a whiz at ocean currents and wind directions and that kind of thing back in Earth Science, so my (hand-drawn) world maps are generally somewhat geographically accurate.
Post by: Bohandas on February 22, 2015, 12:25:01 am
I agree about Forgotten Realms though, it seems generic and trite.
Except for Netheril. But that's just part of the setting's backstory, not something extant in the time period the setting is officially set at. and thus is largely glossed over.
Post by: Mech#4 on February 22, 2015, 12:43:41 am
I think my favourite book is "Flint the King" which focuses on the lowest dwarven society rung, the gully dwarves. It's a silly book with the gully dwarves being cheerful but nearly incapable of following any orders at all. The message of "bravery in the unlikeliest of places".
Dragonlance did strike me as being more light hearted than Forgotten Realms. Or maybe more "knights in shining armour".
Post by: Jimmy on February 22, 2015, 06:01:19 am
Post by: scriver on February 22, 2015, 06:46:38 am
Iirc Dragonlance was some groups own DnD campaign to begin with, that they then wrote books about and it somehow ended up a published setting.
So was Greyhawk. And they were both from campaigns that high ups in TSR were playing so it makes sense that they wound up published.
I see. I new about Greyhawk being Gygax's campaign setting, I just didn't know the Dragonlance people were involved with DnD in that way. That would definitly explain it, yeah.
Dragonlance has some interesting ideas in it. The magic being influenced by the moons, different types of dwarves and draconians.
I think my favourite book is "Flint the King" which focuses on the lowest dwarven society rung, the gully dwarves. It's a silly book with the gully dwarves being cheerful but nearly incapable of following any orders at all. The message of "bravery in the unlikeliest of places".
Dragonlance did strike me as being more light hearted than Forgotten Realms. Or maybe more "knights in shining armour".
I think it's less "knight in shining armour" and more "very informed black and white morality", which is why you get stuff like the super annoying chronically criminal kender bring heralded as "everything that is good and innocent about the world" when in fact they are just inconsiderate arseholes. It is a setting where the "forces of good" is so because the writers tell you they are, and probably has some of the worst incorporations of bad DnD tropes (like the alignment system), and unlike other settings you can't ignore it as the whole setting hinges on those metaphysics.
I agree about Forgotten Realms though, it seems generic and trite.
I think one of the few saving graces of FR is that the world feels like it doesn't exist for a pre-defined narrative. Unlike many other generic-ish settings there is no Mordor or Cthol Murgos or "darkspawn corruption" looming in one if the corners from which all really evil things stem or where the Dark Lord Orcus sits on his throne. It's just a huge world for adventures to take place in, and you can fit any kind of story into into it.
It might also be that even while the body of the setting might still be DnD generic, it's gotten a lot of nice, customized clothes to dress in over the years (it's a kind of super-developed genericality rather than underdeveloped). So it still stands out as "separate" from the standard issue DnD. 5th edition may change this, though, as they seem to be trying to make FR into that standard issue.
I'm also not sure how you could call Dragonlance interesting and FR "generic and trite" in the same breath. They both seem to he the same "generica with a few twists" to me.
Post by: Tack on February 22, 2015, 02:30:53 pm
Post by: scriver on February 22, 2015, 05:30:30 pm
Post by: timferius on February 22, 2015, 07:33:07 pm
Post by: Tack on February 22, 2015, 09:49:44 pm
'Cos I bet we've all got some awesome stories.
We had a 'Jo' who decided to play a Lawful Stupid, and it was literally hilarious (Somehow not annoying, just hilarious.)
We came across a necromancer who was preparing to summon an army of the dead, and we were like 'We Must interrupt the ritual'.
Queue Paladin:
WE CANNOT. THAT IS ASSAULT.
But he's a villain!?
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.
Necromancy!
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME YET.
The overly-dramatic way in which he delivered all of his lines might've done it.
Especially when the rogue pickpockets a bad-guy or something during a split party and suddenly the people on the other side of the city hear 'LARCENY!!'
Post by: Bohandas on February 22, 2015, 09:54:55 pm
Just mentioned 'Lawful Stupid Paladins' somewhere in some other thread, so I thought I'd drag this topic here to get a thorough beating.
'Cos I bet we've all got some awesome stories.
We had a 'Jo' who decided to play a Lawful Stupid, and it was literally hilarious (Somehow not annoying, just hilarious.)
We came across a necromancer who was preparing to summon an army of the dead, and we were like 'We Must interrupt the ritual'.
Queue Paladin:
WE CANNOT. THAT IS ASSAULT.
But he's a villain!?
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.
Necromancy!
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME YET.
I think this is the kind of situation where you have the wizard cast Flare or Stinking Cloud
EDIT:
Depending on how the DM rules, a Create Water spell over the villain's head might also do it. The paladin could cast that themself.
Post by: Tawa on February 22, 2015, 10:00:23 pm
Just mentioned 'Lawful Stupid Paladins' somewhere in some other thread, so I thought I'd drag this topic here to get a thorough beating.The clear response to this guy is to make a Phoenix Wright expy and make a case every time the paladin brings up the law.
'Cos I bet we've all got some awesome stories.
We had a 'Jo' who decided to play a Lawful Stupid, and it was literally hilarious (Somehow not annoying, just hilarious.)
We came across a necromancer who was preparing to summon an army of the dead, and we were like 'We Must interrupt the ritual'.
Queue Paladin:
WE CANNOT. THAT IS ASSAULT.
But he's a villain!?
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.
Necromancy!
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME YET.
The overly-dramatic way in which he delivered all of his lines might've done it.
Especially when the rogue pickpockets a bad-guy or something during a split party and suddenly the people on the other side of the city hear 'LARCENY!!'
Post by: scriver on February 23, 2015, 12:23:10 am
Just mentioned 'Lawful Stupid Paladins' somewhere in some other thread, so I thought I'd drag this topic here to get a thorough beating.
'Cos I bet we've all got some awesome stories.
We had a 'Jo' who decided to play a Lawful Stupid, and it was literally hilarious (Somehow not annoying, just hilarious.)
We came across a necromancer who was preparing to summon an army of the dead, and we were like 'We Must interrupt the ritual'.
Queue Paladin:
WE CANNOT. THAT IS ASSAULT.
But he's a villain!?
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.
Necromancy!
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME YET.
I think this is the kind of situation where you have the wizard cast Flare or Stinking Cloud
EDIT:
Depending on how the DM rules, a Create Water spell over the villain's head might also do it. The paladin could cast that themself.
I'm pretty sure goading the bad guy into attacking you first just so you can be technically justified in attacking him back should be a less Paladiny thing to do compared to just attacking him outright but being earnest about it.
...Maybe not from the perspective of a Lawful Stupid Paladin, though.
Post by: Tack on February 23, 2015, 12:29:05 am
EDIT: RANDOM BACKLASH ONTO MINIACHURS.
Has anyone ever found the melting point of citadel resin? 'cos I've heard they're shapeable if you stick them in boiling salt (Don't do this), but I was wondering if you could just throw a ton of sprues in a pot and go ahead.
Post by: Bohandas on February 23, 2015, 01:27:16 am
Just mentioned 'Lawful Stupid Paladins' somewhere in some other thread, so I thought I'd drag this topic here to get a thorough beating.
'Cos I bet we've all got some awesome stories.
We had a 'Jo' who decided to play a Lawful Stupid, and it was literally hilarious (Somehow not annoying, just hilarious.)
We came across a necromancer who was preparing to summon an army of the dead, and we were like 'We Must interrupt the ritual'.
Queue Paladin:
WE CANNOT. THAT IS ASSAULT.
But he's a villain!?
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.
Necromancy!
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME YET.
I think this is the kind of situation where you have the wizard cast Flare or Stinking Cloud
EDIT:
Depending on how the DM rules, a Create Water spell over the villain's head might also do it. The paladin could cast that themself.
I'm pretty sure goading the bad guy into attacking you first just so you can be technically justified in attacking him back should be a less Paladiny thing to do compared to just attacking him outright but being earnest about it.
...Maybe not from the perspective of a Lawful Stupid Paladin, though.
The point is that any of those things would force a concentration check and potentially disrupt a spell being cast by the target.
Post by: Tack on February 23, 2015, 02:00:45 am
Could you live with having interrupted that?
Post by: Arx on February 23, 2015, 12:50:39 pm
EDIT: RANDOM BACKLASH ONTO MINIACHURS.
Has anyone ever found the melting point of citadel resin? 'cos I've heard they're shapeable if you stick them in boiling salt (Don't do this), but I was wondering if you could just throw a ton of sprues in a pot and go ahead.
If you have the kind of resources needed to boil salt, I think you should be fine on shaping the resin.
Post by: timferius on February 23, 2015, 01:00:50 pm
According to Google that'd be 1,413 °C. I do not recommend heating resin up to this temperature, you will not have a model left.EDIT: RANDOM BACKLASH ONTO MINIACHURS.
Has anyone ever found the melting point of citadel resin? 'cos I've heard they're shapeable if you stick them in boiling salt (Don't do this), but I was wondering if you could just throw a ton of sprues in a pot and go ahead.
If you have the kind of resources needed to boil salt, I think you should be fine on shaping the resin.
Post by: Toaster on February 23, 2015, 01:20:54 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 23, 2015, 01:47:22 pm
But can you be ever REALLY sure that it wasn't a kittens and puppies spell?
Could you live with having interrupted that?
Those are relatively low level magic.
Post by: Mephisto on February 23, 2015, 02:51:16 pm
Thought some of you might like the idea and I just wanted to share.
Spoiler: My offerings (click to show/hide)
Fantasy Australia and Magical Adventures in Magic Land are tied for first, which makes me happy. The Furries option was included as a bit of a joke - I bought the system without reading it - but it's not in last place. I don't know what that says about myself or my players.
I'm not entirely sure what to do with these votes, though. Do I go with the idea that most people love (majority votes 4-5, some are 1-2) or the one that most tolerate (majority votes 2-4)?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 23, 2015, 04:05:44 pm
Quote from: Fantasy Australia
You did something bad. You're being shipped off to a supposedly uninhabited land to start up a colony or die trying.Could be interesting. Lots of chances for strange creatures and stuff. What system would you use for this? Not like I've heard of any of the ones you're mentioned here, though...
Quote from: Find the MacGuffin
Your kingdom is on the losing end of a war. The court mages have detected something that might turn the tides. Find it, whatever it is, and decide for yourself if the consequences are worth it.Depending on the macguffin and the consequences, could be good or not.
Quote from: Furries!
Genre: Psychological HorrorIt is horrifying.
Anthropomorphic flying squirrels, sexy frogs, and well-endowed komodo dragons.
System: Shard RPG
Post by: Criptfeind on February 23, 2015, 04:37:11 pm
Well, on the other hand, my experience with the game is pretty limited. Has anyone else played it? It's so interesting, but, as I said, I find it cumbersome.
As for picking the most popular game that a few will hate or a middle road one... I'd say you probably know your players better then I do. If the people who said they would dislike the most popular game are the type of people who might be generally okay with playing it and will have fun anyway, I'd go for it. If they are not, I'd try to take a more middle road.
Post by: Mephisto on February 23, 2015, 04:50:54 pm
This and the following are completely up in the air. I've kind of narrowed it down to something like GURPS or MasterBook (seems to be pre-GURPS GURPS).Quote from: Fantasy AustraliaYou did something bad. You're being shipped off to a supposedly uninhabited land to start up a colony or die trying.Could be interesting. Lots of chances for strange creatures and stuff. What system would you use for this? Not like I've heard of any of the ones you're mentioned here, though...
I was proud of the story I came up for this one. I was planning on the court mages thinking it was a previously-unknown <insert_magical_unobtanium_here> deposit (whether they actually think that or if that's only what the players are told, I haven't determined). The site the players eventually arrive at turns out to be a cache of magic MacGuffins that were deemed too powerful for one group to wield. Whether they decide to bring them back, destroy them, wield them against someone, or shove them up their bums and spin is up to them.Quote from: Find the MacGuffinYour kingdom is on the losing end of a war. The court mages have detected something that might turn the tides. Find it, whatever it is, and decide for yourself if the consequences are worth it.Depending on the macguffin and the consequences, could be good or not.
Quote from: Furries!System: Shard RPGIt is horrifying.
Spoiler: I don't know what you're talking about. (click to show/hide)
It's very polarizing for some reason (current votes: 1, 4, 1, 3 0)
Ars Magica is a pretty big pain in the ass to play. Fun concept. It's in a bit of a bad place because the mechanics are sorta cumbersome but the game itself fits a more roleplay orientated group.
I know exactly what you're talking about. It took me an hour to generate one mage with no companions or grogs. I'm not exactly happy with how that character turned out. It's been highly-recommended, however - the previous owner loved it so much that he also passed along hundreds of pages of dot matrix printouts of BBS discussions, rules clarifications, and errata.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 23, 2015, 05:02:15 pm
Is that a god-damned corgi furry?Spoiler: I don't know what you're talking about. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tack on February 23, 2015, 05:12:11 pm
I was proud of the story I came up for this one. I was planning on the court mages thinking it was a previously-unknown <insert_magical_unobtanium_here> deposit (whether they actually think that or if that's only what the players are told, I haven't determined). The site the players eventually arrive at turns out to be a cache of magic MacGuffins that were deemed too powerful for one group to wield. Whether they decide to bring them back, destroy them, wield them against someone, or shove them up their bums and spin is up to them.Oooh. Psychological.
One of the best games I've ever had, the wizard pulled a LOTR on a grimoir which was apparently causing undeadification of the land, and scarpered with it, whilst the party warrior was currently infected with ghouldom.
Grippli's like 'Fuck, I'll go grab him'.
Soon as he's gone, Paladin walks up to the warrior and is like 'give me your sword'.
Grippli ends up convincing the wizard to return (outstanding chr check), and they come back to this crazy-ass fallen paladin standing over the beheaded corpse of this warrior like 'YOU'.
Party wizard ends up having to fry him to stop his angry flailing, before they drop the book in and the whole world returns to normal.
It was high RP, too. Pretty cool having a party fall apart at the end like that.
Post by: Mephisto on February 23, 2015, 05:45:25 pm
Is that a god-damned corgi furry?Spoiler: I don't know what you're talking about. (click to show/hide)
More like pomeranian, but yes. Yes it is.
Post by: Eric Blank on February 23, 2015, 05:59:10 pm
Is that a god-damned corgi furry?Spoiler: I don't know what you're talking about. (click to show/hide)
It wouldn't be the first, nor the last.
Post by: Tack on February 23, 2015, 06:24:54 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 23, 2015, 06:37:13 pm
It's like her body is saying 'dance with me', and her face is saying 'SEE BALLS. GET BALLS.'FTFY. Substitute any other bodypart at your own convenience.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 23, 2015, 06:59:39 pm
This only makes me more uncomfortable.It's like her body is saying 'dance with me', and her face is saying 'SEE BALLS. GET BALLS.'FTFY. Substitute any other bodypart at your own convenience.
Post by: Yoink on February 23, 2015, 07:00:28 pm
It's what my DnD group played. Then again, I never exactly studied and critiqued the setting's backstory.
I imagine that DM could have made most any setting fun, regardless.
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 23, 2015, 07:05:39 pm
It is something people should be able to feel comfortable about.This only makes me more uncomfortable.It's like her body is saying 'dance with me', and her face is saying 'SEE BALLS. GET BALLS.'FTFY. Substitute any other bodypart at your own convenience.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 23, 2015, 07:08:22 pm
Of course. I am just uncomfortable.It is something people should be able to feel comfortable about.This only makes me more uncomfortable.It's like her body is saying 'dance with me', and her face is saying 'SEE BALLS. GET BALLS.'FTFY. Substitute any other bodypart at your own convenience.
Post by: Tack on February 23, 2015, 07:11:18 pm
WHY should people feel comfortable about the idea of a Corgi fetching your 'block and tackle'?Of course. I am just uncomfortable.It is something people should be able to feel comfortable about.This only makes me more uncomfortable.It's like her body is saying 'dance with me', and her face is saying 'SEE BALLS. GET BALLS.'FTFY. Substitute any other bodypart at your own convenience.
Post by: birdy51 on February 23, 2015, 07:11:35 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 23, 2015, 07:14:27 pm
;_;
Post by: Tack on February 23, 2015, 07:14:51 pm
No... No. The fear of ball-seeking Pomeranian People is a very real and rational thing to be uncomfortable about. Does that face look like the face of mercy?As mentioned in the original joke, it looks like the face of 'half-concussed'.
Post by: scriver on February 23, 2015, 07:22:56 pm
...I-I like FR. :-/
It's what my DnD group played. Then again, I never exactly studied and critiqued the setting's backstory.
I imagine that DM could have made most any setting fun, regardless.
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
I like it too, as you could probably tell from my defensive rant above. I'd still admit that it's pretty generic, though :P
Post by: Mephisto on February 23, 2015, 07:28:50 pm
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
Enlighten me? It sounds like something I can
Post by: Yoink on February 23, 2015, 07:39:09 pm
It's kind of a lengthy series, but the first book probably has the most encounters with said MacGuffins. Now I feel like re-reading it.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 23, 2015, 07:45:42 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 23, 2015, 10:09:48 pm
Post by: Kadzar on February 23, 2015, 10:14:48 pm
Since my group's been playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, I see it's not too bad, but I'm not sure what advantages it has over any random homebrew setting. If I was playing a D&D setting for the setting itself, I'd pick among Eberron, Spelljammer, or Dark Sun....I-I like FR. :-/
It's what my DnD group played. Then again, I never exactly studied and critiqued the setting's backstory.
I imagine that DM could have made most any setting fun, regardless.
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
I like it too, as you could probably tell from my defensive rant above. I'd still admit that it's pretty generic, though :P
Post by: Mephisto on February 23, 2015, 10:16:11 pm
Chronicles of An Age of Darkness, by Hugh Cook.
It's kind of a lengthy series, but the first book probably has the most encounters with said MacGuffins. Now I feel like re-reading it.
Some of them are freely available on his old web site (https://web.archive.org/web/20121228064956/http://zenvirus.com/hugh-cook/free-novels.html). Granted you've got to do a bit of time travel to find working archives, but I've got something to read now. Thanks!
Post by: Bohandas on February 23, 2015, 10:33:33 pm
Since my group's been playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, I see it's not too bad, but I'm not sure what advantages it has over any random homebrew setting. If I was playing a D&D setting for the setting itself, I'd pick among Eberron, Spelljammer, or Dark Sun....I-I like FR. :-/
It's what my DnD group played. Then again, I never exactly studied and critiqued the setting's backstory.
I imagine that DM could have made most any setting fun, regardless.
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
I like it too, as you could probably tell from my defensive rant above. I'd still admit that it's pretty generic, though :P
What about Planescape?
Post by: Kadzar on February 23, 2015, 11:11:19 pm
Well, those are my top 3 settings. Also, coincidentally enough, I don't think any of them could interact with the Planescape cosmology (by either having a different planar model or being entirely cut off from the planes, in Athas's case).Since my group's been playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, I see it's not too bad, but I'm not sure what advantages it has over any random homebrew setting. If I was playing a D&D setting for the setting itself, I'd pick among Eberron, Spelljammer, or Dark Sun....I-I like FR. :-/
It's what my DnD group played. Then again, I never exactly studied and critiqued the setting's backstory.
I imagine that DM could have made most any setting fun, regardless.
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
I like it too, as you could probably tell from my defensive rant above. I'd still admit that it's pretty generic, though :P
What about Planescape?
Post by: Bohandas on February 23, 2015, 11:15:23 pm
Well, those are my top 3 settings. Also, coincidentally enough, I don't think any of them could interact with the Planescape cosmology (by either having a different planar model or being entirely cut off from the planes, in Athas's case).Since my group's been playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, I see it's not too bad, but I'm not sure what advantages it has over any random homebrew setting. If I was playing a D&D setting for the setting itself, I'd pick among Eberron, Spelljammer, or Dark Sun....I-I like FR. :-/
It's what my DnD group played. Then again, I never exactly studied and critiqued the setting's backstory.
I imagine that DM could have made most any setting fun, regardless.
@Mephisto: Haha, that "cache of MacGuffins" idea sounds like one of the plotlines in my favourite fantasy series!
I like it too, as you could probably tell from my defensive rant above. I'd still admit that it's pretty generic, though :P
What about Planescape?
Spelljammer does by default (except in the Pholgiston, which is cut off from the planes like Athas)
Post by: Jimmy on February 24, 2015, 07:47:21 am
But can you be ever REALLY sure that it wasn't a kittens and puppies spell?
Could you live with having interrupted that?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
My Lawful Stupid Paladin was literally stupid. I had a 3 in Intelligence. I became famous for shouting "Drop your weapons and lay down on the ground!" at anything that looked vaguely suspicious.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 24, 2015, 07:50:19 am
Post by: Yoink on February 24, 2015, 07:55:24 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on February 24, 2015, 08:05:06 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 24, 2015, 08:06:00 am
Post by: scriver on February 24, 2015, 09:53:32 am
Well, those are my top 3 settings. Also, coincidentally enough, I don't think any of them could interact with the Planescape cosmology (by either having a different planar model or being entirely cut off from the planes, in Athas's case).Since my group's been playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, I see it's not too bad, but I'm not sure what advantages it has over any random homebrew setting. If I was playing a D&D setting for the setting itself, I'd pick among Eberron, Spelljammer, or Dark Sun.
What about Planescape?
Spelljammer does by default (except in the Pholgiston, which is cut off from the planes like Athas)
I think both Planescape and Spelljammer has that "this setting is ALL OF THE SETTINGS" thing going on.
Except Dragonlance. Because Copyright.
Post by: Tack on February 24, 2015, 01:44:01 pm
Ah. Housebroken Paladin, I see.3 intelligence is literally animal level, isn't it?No, that's only 1 and 2.
Post by: Jimmy on February 25, 2015, 08:07:58 am
My horse was twice as smart as me.
Post by: Mephisto on February 25, 2015, 08:30:19 am
It's alright. Paladins in 3.5 get a special mount at 5th level that starts with 6 intelligence and gains an extra point every three levels.
My horse was twice as smart as me.
That could be fun - always asking your mount's opinion on things. Even better if the rest of the party begins asking the mount instead of you.
Unrelated, I'm a little disappointed that I purchased Eoris and offered to run a game now. Check out a goon review here. (http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/hyphz/eoris-essence/)
I'm all for dice pools (loved Shadowrun and 7th Sea), but rolling upwards of 12d20 is a bit much on the hands and the dice bag. I've got the dice for it, but I'm the only one out of the group.
Post by: Tack on February 25, 2015, 08:42:17 am
Why do I have this mental image of a massive hulking armored slightly drooling figure sitting stop a horse whilst it just navigates most of the necessary day-to-day activities?It's alright. Paladins in 3.5 get a special mount at 5th level that starts with 6 intelligence and gains an extra point every three levels.
My horse was twice as smart as me.
That could be fun - always asking your mount's opinion on things. Even better if the rest of the party begins asking the mount instead of you.
Post by: Bohandas on February 25, 2015, 11:00:34 am
Well, those are my top 3 settings. Also, coincidentally enough, I don't think any of them could interact with the Planescape cosmology (by either having a different planar model or being entirely cut off from the planes, in Athas's case).Since my group's been playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, I see it's not too bad, but I'm not sure what advantages it has over any random homebrew setting. If I was playing a D&D setting for the setting itself, I'd pick among Eberron, Spelljammer, or Dark Sun.
What about Planescape?
Spelljammer does by default (except in the Pholgiston, which is cut off from the planes like Athas)
I think both Planescape and Spelljammer has that "this setting is ALL OF THE SETTINGS" thing going on.
Except Dragonlance. Because Copyright.
Nope, Dragonlance too:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krynnspace
Post by: Jimmy on February 26, 2015, 10:52:37 pm
Pathfinder familiars are a pain. If a vermin creature gains an intelligence score it's supposed to get a feat and a skill point, but familiars are supposed to be normal creatures even though they gain an intelligence score. I have no idea which way to go on this one.
Post by: birdy51 on February 26, 2015, 11:01:03 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 26, 2015, 11:15:41 pm
Ask if it can gain a Player Character Class instead. Why be just a normal rat, when you can be Rat Paladin!
Actually IIRC the vermin type in D20 is limited to only creepy-crawly type vermin (worms and bugs)
EDIT:
Unrelated: Is gangsta rap a Perform (Sing) check or a Perform (Oratory) check? Discuss.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 26, 2015, 11:23:00 pm
Unrelated: Is gangsta rap a Perform (Sing) check or a Perform (Oratory) check? Discuss.Depends. I would say Oratory, because most of it is spoken word with little actually singing.
Post by: Bauglir on February 26, 2015, 11:25:48 pm
Post by: Bohandas on February 27, 2015, 01:12:45 am
Pathfinder familiars are a pain. If a vermin creature gains an intelligence score it's supposed to get a feat and a skill point, but familiars are supposed to be normal creatures even though they gain an intelligence score. I have no idea which way to go on this one.
Don't familiars change type to Magical Beast?
Post by: scrdest on February 27, 2015, 05:58:31 am
Sing; format aside, rap follows the rhythmic and melodic properties of music.Unrelated: Is gangsta rap a Perform (Sing) check or a Perform (Oratory) check? Discuss.Depends. I would say Oratory, because most of it is spoken word with little actually singing.
Alternatively, if it's improvised on-spot, split it into a check for Sing first to see if it doesn't scare everyone off by botched technical details, then an Oratory check to see if the improvised text achieves its goal.
Post by: Bohandas on February 27, 2015, 07:29:51 pm
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2015, 09:05:21 am
It was confusing at first since it's not a "normal" board game by far. But it was surprisingly fast playing once we got the rules down and played a round.
Post by: Helgoland on March 02, 2015, 09:20:05 am
Post by: Criptfeind on March 02, 2015, 09:30:45 am
At least, that's my experience with the people who I hang out with and hung out with in the past.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 02, 2015, 09:34:45 am
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2015, 09:42:40 am
World Monopoly Champion doesn't have the same ring as a chess grandmaster.
Quote
Although in the past, US entrants had to successfully compete in regional competitions before the national championship, qualifying for the National Championship has been online since 2003. For the 2003 Championship, qualification was limited to the first fifty people who correctly completed an online quiz.
*Eye rolls* so that's how they select the top players for Monopoly. The first 50 people to phone in and answer some history of Monopoly questions. Hasbro might as well grab people off the street and say "you look smart, you're a contestant in the World Monopoly Championships!"
Post by: Flying Dice on March 02, 2015, 09:46:19 am
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2015, 10:12:17 am
My favourite part of Monopoly is how being in jail is obviously an advantage once you get past the early stage of the game.
Post by: Bohandas on March 02, 2015, 11:12:20 am
QuoteAlthough in the past, US entrants had to successfully compete in regional competitions before the national championship, qualifying for the National Championship has been online since 2003. For the 2003 Championship, qualification was limited to the first fifty people who correctly completed an online quiz.
*Eye rolls* so that's how they select the top players for Monopoly. The first 50 people to phone in and answer some history of Monopoly questions. Hasbro might as well grab people off the street and say "you look smart, you're a contestant in the World Monopoly Championships!"
You have to remember that Hasboro is run by incompetent morons.
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2015, 11:25:42 am
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2015, 11:50:59 am
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 02, 2015, 11:55:09 am
Post by: Kadzar on March 02, 2015, 01:50:09 pm
And since I'm posting here, I figure I might as well ask if anyone is interested in a game of Talislanta? From the Gaming Block thread:
Would anyone be interested in trying out Talislanta (http://talislanta.com/?page_id=5)? The entire library of Talislanta material, all 5 editions, has been released for free on PDFs by its creator.
I'm thinking of running a 2nd edition game. I've heard it was one of the better editions, and, looking through it, it seems to be a pretty well-made game for its time (and even in general. Aside from a few egregious examples, like there being two different skills for pickpocketing and swiping things, it seems very well made; it's a rather unified system). And though I haven't looked through the book in absolute detail, I've looked at the base mechanics in enough depth to see that it should play well; I won't run into the situation I had with deadEarth where I agreed to play a fundamentally flawed mess of a game. It's possible there are some things in there that are super over-powered, but I can deal with that.
So, anyway, who would be interested in something like this?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 02, 2015, 01:53:36 pm
PbP?
Post by: Kadzar on March 02, 2015, 02:05:26 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 02, 2015, 03:48:51 pm
So Wizards has released the second "Unearthed Arcana" article for D&D 5e. This one is about mass combat (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-when-armies-clash).AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES.
Post by: Tawa on March 02, 2015, 04:45:53 pm
At least in my experience a majority of people have not and will not play anything more then monopoly. But for the niche crowd that does play actual boardgames...You're implying that Monopoly isn't an actual board game.
I know what you're talking about, I just wanted to nitpick. :P
I wish I had better board games, but nobody I know likes games more complex than the big-name Hasbro ones. :(
Post by: Criptfeind on March 02, 2015, 04:51:29 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2015, 08:21:14 pm
Spoiler: GUESS WHAT BANANA BOY (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: YOU'RE SILUMGAR'S BITCH NOW (click to show/hide)
HYPE HYPE
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2015, 08:23:48 pm
No, really.
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2015, 08:24:32 pm
Elder Dragons though.
Post by: Kadzar on March 02, 2015, 08:45:40 pm
It has been quite a few years since I've played Talislanta. I'd be up for a game of it, it was decently fun.Oh, God, someone who's actually played the game. I hope you're okay with me most likely butchering the setting in my newbishness.
And do you have a preference for PbP or irc?
Post by: Flying Dice on March 02, 2015, 08:50:01 pm
I might give it a shot. Lemme look over the books.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 02, 2015, 09:29:17 pm
Oh, God, someone who's actually played the game. I hope you're okay with me most likely butchering the setting in my newbishness.
And do you have a preference for PbP or irc?
By 'quite a few' I mean like eight (Bonus, might not even have been second edition!) Don't expect me to know anything more then anyone else! (Although according to my computer I did something with the fifth edition of the game three years ago, but I don't recall that.)
Anyway, personally I'd be okay with ether play by post or irc, although I don't guarantee actually being available for a real time game, depending on when it is.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 02, 2015, 10:04:08 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2015, 10:22:07 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 02, 2015, 10:50:28 pm
In related news, Wizards has announced a number of new mechanics that will be made evergreen in the near future:
Spoiler: It's All True, Folks (click to show/hide)
Post by: Toaster on March 02, 2015, 11:02:47 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2015, 11:06:30 pm
Seems fair.
Post by: Bauglir on March 02, 2015, 11:09:00 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on March 02, 2015, 11:12:13 pm
Post by: Jimmy on March 03, 2015, 06:40:50 am
Post by: Culise on March 03, 2015, 10:31:40 am
On the downside, art large enough to discern the corpse makes clear that Slumgar Millionaire's throne is not atop a pile of bananas.We're still waiting on the return of Firstest Strike. *crosses arms*
In related news, Wizards has announced a number of new mechanics that will be made evergreen in the near future:Spoiler: It's All True, Folks (click to show/hide)
:P
Post by: Arx on March 03, 2015, 02:12:48 pm
Post by: kilakan on March 03, 2015, 02:16:04 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on March 03, 2015, 02:17:53 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2015, 02:18:31 pm
If you really hate drawing too many lands get some Cycle lands (http://magiccards.info/query?q=t%3Aland+o%3Acycling&v=card&s=cname) or spells with Retrace (http://magiccards.info/query?q=O%3ARETRACE+o%3Adisc+o%3Aland&v=card&s=cname).
Post by: Leafsnail on March 03, 2015, 02:19:38 pm
Post by: Toaster on March 03, 2015, 03:33:32 pm
Post by: Tack on March 03, 2015, 08:16:57 pm
The closest you can come to pure strategy is Chess.
Post by: tompliss on March 04, 2015, 04:33:46 am
Australia has the same board game culture as USA, then ?
You should try some german-typed board games. Most of those don't have luck involved at all, and rely much more on bluff and long-term strategy ;)
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2015, 07:44:45 am
I think it's a fusion here between US games and English ones. There are some homegrown ones too, but the international ones are better known.
My favorite ones I ever owned were Diplomacy, Axis and Allies and Talisman.
Post by: Tack on March 04, 2015, 07:56:05 am
Most of those don't have luck involved at all, and rely much more on bluff and long-term strategy ;)How can you have bluff without cards?
Then again, I think random chance is necessary for there to be a certain balance. If everything was static, there would be just 'One Perfect Way', and it would suck all of the fun out of games.
Like how most RPG's have damage be an X - Y figure, and include crits; just because the luck element spices up the game.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2015, 08:12:57 am
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2015, 08:16:59 am
Many games radically change between two players and 3 players. e.g. monopoly, settlers of catan. With two players, their trading mechanics don't kick in, and they're just dice-rolling contests.
Then again, I think random chance is necessary for there to be a certain balance. If everything was static, there would be just 'One Perfect Way', and it would suck all of the fun out of games.
Like how most RPG's have damage be an X - Y figure, and include crits; just because the luck element spices up the game.
Well, chess doesn't have luck, and there's definitely no agreement on a perfect sequence of moves. Chess has been superbly balanced over 1000 years though. I'm kinda interested now in possible links between chaos theory and games like chess now. Chess is so well-balanced it's on a knife edge and deterministic yet entirely unpredictable. If you change any of the rules, it just deteriorates into a much more predictable, lesser game. These qualities sounds a lot like chaotic systems theory, where on the cusp between two stable states, you get this chaotic behavior system.
Post by: timferius on March 04, 2015, 08:23:46 am
Also ya, if you look in to a lot of the Euro style games, most of them don't have any random elements. Terra Mystica is a pretty thick game I played recently with no cards, no dice. It's all about shuffling your cubes/discs/people etc. properly, and blocking your opponent where neccesary.
Post by: Sergarr on March 04, 2015, 08:24:02 am
If the game is even moderately complex, finding a "one perfect way" is not going to be easy.Most of those don't have luck involved at all, and rely much more on bluff and long-term strategy ;)How can you have bluff without cards?
Then again, I think random chance is necessary for there to be a certain balance. If everything was static, there would be just 'One Perfect Way', and it would suck all of the fun out of games.
Like how most RPG's have damage be an X - Y figure, and include crits; just because the luck element spices up the game.
For instance, we know the equation for gravity, but despite that, the three-body problem is still a thing. The Great Ferma Theory is something which can be expressed really easily, but proving it requires to go through some serious hoola-hoops. And so on - as long as your system is complex enough, solving it is not going to be easy, and even if you solve it, the winning algorithm would be extremely complex and basically impossible for a human to carry out without technical assistance.
Physics is full of simple rules that result in extremely complex systems. I don't believe that we can't do the same for our games.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2015, 08:47:21 am
Well, chess doesn't have luck, and there's definitely no agreement on a perfect sequence of moves. Chess has been superbly balanced over 1000 years though. I'm kinda interested now in possible links between chaos theory and games like chess now. Chess is so well-balanced it's on a knife edge and deterministic yet entirely unpredictable. If you change any of the rules, it just deteriorates into a much more predictable, lesser game.Well I mean, it's based on an old Indian game and there are both Chinese and Japanese versions of it too, so to some degree I think it's fair to say it was a compelling game even before those changes. Everyone seemed to agree the old game was too slow and changed the rules to make it more exciting (broadly speaking the Europeans made all the pieces way more powerful, the Chinese introduced cannons and forced the king to stay inside a little box and the Japanese introduced the rule where you can play the pieces you capture).
Post by: Tack on March 04, 2015, 09:30:56 am
Now that I think about it, there isn't too much luck to the typical MOBA, either.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 04, 2015, 06:18:32 pm
Bonfire of the Damned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDJTCYEg3Tc
Ignite Memories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmB0nlpz_2Y
Post by: Bauglir on March 04, 2015, 06:36:26 pm
Ignite MemoriesWelp. I'll never do anything quite that beautiful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmB0nlpz_2Y
Post by: Leafsnail on March 05, 2015, 01:26:43 am
Post by: Tack on March 05, 2015, 03:18:03 am
Post by: Leafsnail on March 05, 2015, 04:17:45 am
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=109756
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2015, 07:16:36 am
Ignite MemoriesSomething tells me that this deck is OP, seeing as both players were using it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmB0nlpz_2Y
Post by: Leafsnail on March 05, 2015, 07:21:38 am
e: although Chapin went on to lose to Doran the Siege Tower in the finals.
Post by: Tack on March 05, 2015, 09:33:44 am
Post by: Bauglir on March 05, 2015, 10:34:25 am
Although I'm curious about the 'skill' part when he tanked 5 ignite memories in a row simply because of the dice throws.I suspect that was the point - that luck is actually very relevant, indeed, even at the highest levels of skill.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 05, 2015, 01:28:13 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2015, 06:35:22 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 05, 2015, 08:00:27 pm
Post by: Jimmy on March 05, 2015, 09:45:38 pm
Dumb DM decision of the week: Handle Animal checks must be made each round of combat to have an animal continue to attack a target.
Post by: Bauglir on March 05, 2015, 10:22:05 pm
In case anyone thought that was just a joke: (http://dougbeyermtg.tumblr.com/post/112727174244/hi-doug-reading-the-new-uncharted-realms-i-felt)My only fear is that people will foolishly associate UW with autism because of their decision to leave R out of her latest card. This is not a fear I can blame on Wizards, so don't take that as complaining about their decisions. Yes, I worry about the stupidest damn things.Quote from: Doug Beyer's tumblrQ: hi doug!! reading the new uncharted realms, i felt an enormous amount of sympathy for narset, specifically with reference to the beginning sequence with her as a kid. the restlessness, the sensory overload, the self-distraction with counting and observation - these, to me, heavily code narset as being autistic. i am autistic myself and it would mean the absolute world to me to know that a character in a game i care deeply about is like me, and many other folks. is this something you can confirm?
A: That was the intent, yes. The most important part of Narsets character is her amazing mind, which is central to her potential as a powerful Planeswalker and as a pursuer of knowledge but it happens that she processes information and input differently than a lot of other people. Tarkir denizens might not have a term for the autism spectrum or being neurodivergent or neuro-atypical, but those terms would correctly describe her. In this timeline she is not khan of the Jeskai, but no matter the circumstances, she hasnt let go of her commitment to seeking her own path to wisdom and truth. Kudos to Creative Team member Kimberly Kreines for exploring this aspect of Narset in her story The Great Teachers Student.
Wizards has been doing representation really well lately.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 05, 2015, 10:30:50 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 05, 2015, 10:34:17 pm
EDIT: The thing is that stereotypical UW is about as stereotypically autistic as you can get, which is why I worry about people not caring and just going "Oh yeah, smart, logical, all sorts of rules, not good at handling social things, yup" and call it a day.
Post by: Dutchling on March 06, 2015, 06:16:06 am
Post by: Mephisto on March 06, 2015, 08:16:15 am
Envoy of Balance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/envoy-of-balance)
In my opinion, alignment is one of the least good mechanics of D&D/Pathfinder. And there's a prestige class built wholly around it.
Some of the abilities as well. Twinned Channeling. What is the point of that?
Post by: tompliss on March 06, 2015, 08:23:16 am
Twinned Channeling. What is the point of that?Selective Channeling => deal damage and heal on the same turn "easily" (and effectively on different targets) ?
Post by: Mephisto on March 06, 2015, 08:29:28 am
Twinned Channeling. What is the point of that?Selective Channeling => deal damage and heal on the same turn "easily" (and effectively on different targets) ?
I only read the first portion. Thanks for the clarification. That'll teach me to not read the entire block.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 06, 2015, 04:01:14 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 06, 2015, 04:12:48 pm
Envoy of Balance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/envoy-of-balance)
In my opinion, alignment is one of the least good mechanics of D&D/Pathfinder. And there's a prestige class built wholly around it.
Alignment makes too much in-world sense to be done away with in most settings though. Everyone believes in good and evil (and many believe in order and chaos) so naturally they become strongly reified on the outer planes; this also creates a valid in-story excuse for why the alignments aren't internally consistent - because people's beliefs aren't consistent.
Post by: Bauglir on March 06, 2015, 04:24:18 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/wttIIkG.png)Well, I'll be damned. /tg/ finally called it, after multiple consecutive attempts.
Post by: Dutchling on March 06, 2015, 05:52:15 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2015, 05:57:14 pm
ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAINno
Post by: Leafsnail on March 06, 2015, 06:56:30 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on March 11, 2015, 10:33:29 am
I love this block's flavor!Good news! The golem adventures continue! Seems to have taken a rarity hit this time though.Spoiler: these two cards are the same golem (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2015, 10:38:46 am
Post by: Leafsnail on March 11, 2015, 11:15:02 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dutchling on March 11, 2015, 11:27:38 am
Some more:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 11, 2015, 03:48:49 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 11, 2015, 04:09:50 pm
Also, I know I'm too into this block's storyline because I am really concerned about where the Efreet are now that they're not welcome in the Jeskai/Ojutai. I think Kolaghan is more likely than Atarka.Wait a minute... zoom in, enhance! (http://i.imgur.com/b4StJMu.jpg)
Ah, but seriously, DTK future confirmed for shit-tier future at this point.
Post by: scriver on March 11, 2015, 04:19:53 pm
I think Artful Maneuver/Hunt the Weak are just the same types of dragons fighting, not timeline shenanigans. The bigger Atarka dragons are definitely different. One has pointy horns and a full beard, one has glowing antlers and... a billy goat beard? Come on, Wizards.
But it's evil...
Post by: Leafsnail on March 12, 2015, 05:06:38 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 13, 2015, 11:21:35 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 13, 2015, 11:33:54 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 13, 2015, 11:37:15 am
That's pretty much all I know :P
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 13, 2015, 11:51:53 am
Post by: Leafsnail on March 13, 2015, 05:44:35 pm
e:
Spoiler: Sarkhan Dragonarms (click to show/hide)
e2: someone compiled all the references
http://imgur.com/a/o2r50
Post by: Sergius on March 16, 2015, 11:20:50 am
We arrived at a village, each of the PCs with his own motivation, after our caravan fell down a cliff and we were hunted by vicious evil panthers. The village was apparently in a sorry state, the villagers were antisocial, except for one, which we tried to help. There was no food in the fields, water was bad to drink, etc etc.
For some reason our goals mixed with saving the town from some evil wizard (everyone wanted to get at the wizard for a different reason but ultimately everyone was "good" aligned). Every time players tried to do something or investigate, were told to leave, that the villagers were afraid of us and hated us. Or something. And then something happened like lightning started causing fires, which the players promptly tried to help with, either with rousing speeches or joining the water bucket brigades.
This of course resulted in the villagers seeing us as demons that breathed lightning from our mouths and threw gasoline with our buckets, and again were told to leave. Then a Paladin In Shining Armor(TM) and flying steed came from the skies, told everyone we were so evil and should leave, and turned everything off instantly (lightning, fires). At this point we were pretty sure everything including the knight was an illusion made for the villagers to hate us even more.
Oh yeah and demons were kidnapping random children for months from their own beds.
We decided to hole up in the only friendly house so we could leave and find some clue (so we could get out of the way of the angry/fearful/confused villagers before something BAD happened to them). Then a demon kidnapped the friendly villager's son, said demon was completely unbeatable with us (we had level 6 pregens with zero magical items, just regular weapon and armor and no money). Also did some nasty permanent stat damage and left us a bit damaged, and even burned one of our weapons (for good measure).
So the villager friend asks us to help him retrieve the kid, we tell him we were going to investigate Location X as the more likely one, he led the way outside so we could go and save the day.
Then the DM decided the entire able bodied male population of the town (about 40 people) had us surrounded in a lynching mob with pitchforks and spears. We told them to sod off before something BAD happened to them, but they used their super strength (or something) to keep us from leaving. At this point we were pretty much sold on the idea that talking or trying to be diplomatic to them in any way was just going to be turned against us again anyway (the whole party was pretty much warriors anyway).
Our good barbarian thought it would be a good idea to intimidate them, so he attacked the weapons of the ones that blocked and shoved him. He succeeded, and obviously this resulted in the mob going into a berserker rage and throwing spears at him, doing damage. We retaliated trying to do non-lethal damage, and because some rule or something it was a critical and two villagers died. The rest screamed "KILL THEM!" so there was no turning back, I suppose.
We managed to kill them all (they never retreated, surrendered or gave any signs of giving up), after suffering 3 casualties out of 4. But then the DM told us "OMG you're so evil, you just slaughtered a whole town!" All attempts to say "but they attacked US!" he was like "but they're civilians! You wouldn't shoot a 10 year old if he threw a rubber ball at you! and anyway they all did Subdued (?) damage so you're healing all your wounds anyway! They use weapons that do no damage to you! blah blah!".
I told him "you just said they threw spears at one of us. SPEARS. You could have said stones or sticks but it was a spear. A spear does damage. I'm pretty sure you can kill someone with a pitchfork too, just because they have Magic We're Level 1 Adventurer plot protection from villagers doesn't mean the adventurers aren't going to react in-character!"
"But you're stronger, they couldn't have never kill you! And... it wasn't really spears, I just said that to see your reaction! But you're evil now! Change your alignments!"
"So, you're saying that attacking innocents is evil and changes alignment? That means the villagers turned evil when they attacked us right? So we really killed a lot of evil people, eh?"
"No no... the villagers were confused and fearful of you! They attacked out of fear!"
"Okay... wait, so fear makes people brave and with unlimited morale? Like, the next time you cast Fear on me let me know so that I can kill my enemies with even more determination! Also, the actions of the villagers confused us and made us afraid of the craziness, so that means our actions were okay too."
We left the town, confronted the bad guy, died in the process and he kept chiding how we lost because we didn't help the villagers and yadda... also our corpses get reanimated and they become very happy undead because in life they were evulz and loved to slaughter innocent people! How you like them apples you evildoers! Also one of the PCs was a merchant so his punishment after defeat was to turn into some sort of Greed Demon Pig of Evil Capitalism (which the DM smugly stated as if some kind of punishing for acting so evil, except... the character was a pregen, and the merchant backstory had been written by him, and at no point did the character act greedy except when telling others parts of his backstory. In fact at no point in the game they saw even a copper coin to be greedy about).
Long story short, we complained later in our Facebook page, but he keeps posting "you guys just lack self control! you should learn better morality blah blah blah". At this point he isn't even pretending we were playing characters whose morality values might not be the same as our 21th century selves, he's just telling WE (the players) are lacking in restraint or something (we actually did all our actions calmly, and even said things like "uh, I'm a barbarian, I should react like this, otherwise I'm metagaming or trying to play optimally", "right, and they attack first, so we should at least defend, no?").
(note that this guy makes us do lethal blows because "we didn't announce non-lethal right before every blow!". "Dude, we've pretty much established that we're doing non-lethal damage, until we tell you otherwise" "Nuh-huh! you have to announce every time otherwise it's lethal by default!")
Anyway, not sure there is a solution other than keep arguing, but this is just a rant. I hope it was entertaining 8)
Post by: Sergarr on March 16, 2015, 11:28:53 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 16, 2015, 11:32:56 am
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 16, 2015, 11:44:55 am
1: a group of under-equipped pre-genned 6th level characters of 'good' alignment enter a good-sized hamlet where they are not known and are immediately viewed with suspicion by the ENTIRE populous save one man.
2: during an emergency situation said characters actively tried to assist the populous of said hamlet and were placed under even greater suspicion without cause.
3: an unknown 'hero' tells the inhabitants of said hamlet that the characters are evil beings who are here to destroy them, and he is not met with skepticism or suspicion.
4: the DM then turns the whole scenario into a peasant mob situation with no right answer, there is no attempt to parley on the part of the peasants, nor an attempt to take the characters into custody. So when the party follows the logic of the situation (mishandled by party, but still fixable by good DM) and defends themselves the DM declares the players' actions 'evil' and procedes to be a douchbag and kill everyone off.
Get a new DM.
Post by: Sergius on March 16, 2015, 12:12:06 pm
The right answer was to either: randomly choosing the other door and do some dungeon delving (meaning, the ranger should have not tracked our "prey"), or after peeking thru the door and seeing the situation (apparently, urgent?) ignore it and go on our merry way to explore and collect trinkets. Trinkets that we needed to win, I guess?
Had I been the DM, I would have put the bad guys at the end of the dungeon romp, not at the beginning and forcing the players to do some stupid metagaming mental gymnastics to "take the passage to the right" first and then coming back.
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 16, 2015, 12:19:21 pm
Post by: Sergius on March 16, 2015, 12:29:10 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 16, 2015, 12:30:40 pm
Post by: Sergius on March 16, 2015, 12:32:16 pm
Following...?
Accidentally hit submit.
Post by: Pencil_Art on March 16, 2015, 10:22:28 pm
Well this seems like a good place as any to vent some frustration at last night D&D session.
We arrived at a village, each of the PCs with his own motivation, after our caravan fell down a cliff and we were hunted by vicious evil panthers. The village was apparently in a sorry state, the villagers were antisocial, except for one, which we tried to help. There was no food in the fields, water was bad to drink, etc etc.
For some reason our goals mixed with saving the town from some evil wizard (everyone wanted to get at the wizard for a different reason but ultimately everyone was "good" aligned). Every time players tried to do something or investigate, were told to leave, that the villagers were afraid of us and hated us. Or something. And then something happened like lightning started causing fires, which the players promptly tried to help with, either with rousing speeches or joining the water bucket brigades.
This of course resulted in the villagers seeing us as demons that breathed lightning from our mouths and threw gasoline with our buckets, and again were told to leave. Then a Paladin In Shining Armor(TM) and flying steed came from the skies, told everyone we were so evil and should leave, and turned everything off instantly (lightning, fires). At this point we were pretty sure everything including the knight was an illusion made for the villagers to hate us even more.
Oh yeah and demons were kidnapping random children for months from their own beds.
We decided to hole up in the only friendly house so we could leave and find some clue (so we could get out of the way of the angry/fearful/confused villagers before something BAD happened to them). Then a demon kidnapped the friendly villager's son, said demon was completely unbeatable with us (we had level 6 pregens with zero magical items, just regular weapon and armor and no money). Also did some nasty permanent stat damage and left us a bit damaged, and even burned one of our weapons (for good measure).
So the villager friend asks us to help him retrieve the kid, we tell him we were going to investigate Location X as the more likely one, he led the way outside so we could go and save the day.
Then the DM decided the entire able bodied male population of the town (about 40 people) had us surrounded in a lynching mob with pitchforks and spears. We told them to sod off before something BAD happened to them, but they used their super strength (or something) to keep us from leaving. At this point we were pretty much sold on the idea that talking or trying to be diplomatic to them in any way was just going to be turned against us again anyway (the whole party was pretty much warriors anyway).
Our good barbarian thought it would be a good idea to intimidate them, so he attacked the weapons of the ones that blocked and shoved him. He succeeded, and obviously this resulted in the mob going into a berserker rage and throwing spears at him, doing damage. We retaliated trying to do non-lethal damage, and because some rule or something it was a critical and two villagers died. The rest screamed "KILL THEM!" so there was no turning back, I suppose.
We managed to kill them all (they never retreated, surrendered or gave any signs of giving up), after suffering 3 casualties out of 4. But then the DM told us "OMG you're so evil, you just slaughtered a whole town!" All attempts to say "but they attacked US!" he was like "but they're civilians! You wouldn't shoot a 10 year old if he threw a rubber ball at you! and anyway they all did Subdued (?) damage so you're healing all your wounds anyway! They use weapons that do no damage to you! blah blah!".
I told him "you just said they threw spears at one of us. SPEARS. You could have said stones or sticks but it was a spear. A spear does damage. I'm pretty sure you can kill someone with a pitchfork too, just because they have Magic We're Level 1 Adventurer plot protection from villagers doesn't mean the adventurers aren't going to react in-character!"
"But you're stronger, they couldn't have never kill you! And... it wasn't really spears, I just said that to see your reaction! But you're evil now! Change your alignments!"
"So, you're saying that attacking innocents is evil and changes alignment? That means the villagers turned evil when they attacked us right? So we really killed a lot of evil people, eh?"
"No no... the villagers were confused and fearful of you! They attacked out of fear!"
"Okay... wait, so fear makes people brave and with unlimited morale? Like, the next time you cast Fear on me let me know so that I can kill my enemies with even more determination! Also, the actions of the villagers confused us and made us afraid of the craziness, so that means our actions were okay too."
We left the town, confronted the bad guy, died in the process and he kept chiding how we lost because we didn't help the villagers and yadda... also our corpses get reanimated and they become very happy undead because in life they were evulz and loved to slaughter innocent people! How you like them apples you evildoers! Also one of the PCs was a merchant so his punishment after defeat was to turn into some sort of Greed Demon Pig of Evil Capitalism (which the DM smugly stated as if some kind of punishing for acting so evil, except... the character was a pregen, and the merchant backstory had been written by him, and at no point did the character act greedy except when telling others parts of his backstory. In fact at no point in the game they saw even a copper coin to be greedy about).
Long story short, we complained later in our Facebook page, but he keeps posting "you guys just lack self control! you should learn better morality blah blah blah". At this point he isn't even pretending we were playing characters whose morality values might not be the same as our 21th century selves, he's just telling WE (the players) are lacking in restraint or something (we actually did all our actions calmly, and even said things like "uh, I'm a barbarian, I should react like this, otherwise I'm metagaming or trying to play optimally", "right, and they attack first, so we should at least defend, no?").
(note that this guy makes us do lethal blows because "we didn't announce non-lethal right before every blow!". "Dude, we've pretty much established that we're doing non-lethal damage, until we tell you otherwise" "Nuh-huh! you have to announce every time otherwise it's lethal by default!")
Anyway, not sure there is a solution other than keep arguing, but this is just a rant. I hope it was entertaining 8)
This. Hilarious. Your DM is not a very reasonable or experienced DM.
Post by: Tack on March 16, 2015, 10:53:51 pm
He literally put me and my party alone in a room with the king.
I mean... C'mon. Who didn't see that coming?
Post by: Bohandas on March 17, 2015, 01:03:47 am
- Averted in my last game, 'cos I'm playing Chaotic Evil.
He literally put me and my party alone in a room with the king.
I mean... C'mon. Who didn't see that coming?
Speaking of chaotic evil characters, a while back I was running a D&D demon themed forum comic over on MSPA's messageboard. Take a look at it:
Ekolid: A Demonic Adventure (http://mspaforums.com/showthread.php?52649-Ekolid-A-Demonic-Adventure)
EDIT:
Unfortunately my image hosting site ate some of the later images; I'll have to fix that at some point
Post by: scriver on March 17, 2015, 07:14:18 am
- Averted in my last game, 'cos I'm playing Chaotic Evil.
He literally put me and my party alone in a room with the king.
I mean... C'mon. Who didn't see that coming?
...Anyone hoping you wouldn't commit suicide? ;)
Post by: XXXXYYYY on March 17, 2015, 07:37:48 am
Well[...]Entertaining 8)Wow. Just wow.
Post by: Mephisto on March 17, 2015, 09:11:27 am
Speaking of chaotic evil characters, a while back I was running a D&D demon themed forum comic over on MSPA's messageboard. Take a look at it:
Not necessarily chaotic evil, but monstrous parties can be fun.
My players' party. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=137545.msg6095849#msg6095849) The first session is tomorrow, wherein they will be charged with various Bad Things whilst in human-dominated lands - I mean, just look at them. It's obvious that they did it.
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 10:17:00 am
- Averted in my last game, 'cos I'm playing Chaotic Evil.
He literally put me and my party alone in a room with the king.
I mean... C'mon. Who didn't see that coming?
That's the issue with me tho. I don't think that killing villagers is intrinsically evil. There are reasons (like self defense, fear for one's life, or "you just were pushed too far" by Angry Mobs with Torches and Pitchforks calling for your head) that while not Good actions don't make you less-Good (if we went that route, we'd lose alignment every time we do a non-Good action like eating or asking for payment for goods delivered. Is eating not evil? Is it good then? Is it a neutral action, meaning that evil and good characters's alignment each moves towards neutral?).
(Thinking that alignments themselves are rubbish vs actual personalities, motivations and sociopathies is a separate matter altogether)
For example, there are many people that say "so, not showing remorse or at least pity is evil then". But who says you have to externalize your feelings? Maybe the character is internally scarred. Maybe you don't have to TELL anyone, including the game master. Otherwise you have 100s of movies where the main character always talks to people like a total douchebag but actually does that out of bravado and always does the right thing no matter what... can't be good. Because Good is Nice.
The DM was pretty pissed that our IC conversation after the fact was "it is a true pity that the evils that befell these peasants drove them to seek death at our hands... clearly these evils must be erradicated to prevent more suffering" and was adamant that we were evil, in fact we were more evil for not admitting our evilness. (yes, this was a jab at him for forcing that situation on us and pretending that we intended it to happen).
He just keeps going on an on. Now he's changed his tune: it wasn't personal meaning I'm not saying you (the players) lacked restraint, I meant the characters. But if you *think* you played them correctly then they died happy right? (Wrong. We didn't roleplay them to "make them die happy and fuck the DM". Actually we roleplayed them pretty well according to their freaking class and alignment, Chaotic Good! Hell even Neutral Good would have been correct). One of them was a BARBARIAN for jeebus sake! If a barbarian learns restraint he fucking loses his barbarian abilities per R.A.W.! Geesh!
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 10:52:46 am
I mean it "would make sense" that if you slipped and fell backwards you could crack your skull and die instantly. But that's not how rpg's work... if in a specific game you have HP then you have HP and if some specific things instakill then it's very important to make sure what these are and that there's a damn good reason to throw at the players. You're not going to kill D&D players because it makes sense that any "medieval" setting has bad hygiene and every person has a 0.2% daily chance of randomly catching dysentery or whatever and die, and there was no "cure disease" available at the moment.
It's like the whole Paladin argument. It's bad enough that RAW causes no end to arguments between people who said they should fall if they kill an innocent that was transmogrified into a deadly hobgoblin (but at least atoning is free in this case, he can be a Paladin again next week, Hurray!), and people who say "the rules only say willingly". Then you start adding things that "make sense" like "it makes sense that the Paladin is a subordinate of any cleric of his same deity and if he commands him to do bad stuff he falls if he disobeys and he falls if he does it" (this actually came up in conversation in my group). But the rules don't say that Clerics are the bosses of Paladins, and the fiction doesn't support it either (if you take for example, Jean D'arc as a paladin... Paladins are pretty much loose cannons, and they think they have a direct and righteous connection to their deity and can even consider Clerics to be failing their vocation if they aren't as fanatical as them, even if they're both roleplaying their classes correctly. It arguably makes just as much sense to have Paladins and Clerics bickering all the time because Paladins think Clerics are DOIN IT WRONG and vice versa!).
Post by: scriver on March 17, 2015, 11:22:40 am
If you can't change GM, the only thing I can think of for you to do is to learn from this and, if he ever puts you in a similar situation again, insist that you attack the people with non-lethal attacks. Action heroes defeating "dumb obstructionist peasants" without killing them is a common storytelling thing as well, after all.
Post by: Culise on March 17, 2015, 11:29:51 am
If a barbarian learns restraint he fucking loses his barbarian abilities per R.A.W.! Geesh!Whoa. Let me stop you right there. RAW only states that a barbarian that becomes Lawful loses their abilities. Choosing to exercise a modicum of restraint, in and of itself, is not enough to become Lawful anything, or even Neutral anything; Chaotic or Neutral players can certainly justify restraining themselves from any acts. Even if you adopt the principle of alignment strongly reflecting/straightjacketing personality (which, by the way, is also incorrect according to RAW), this is still especially true for Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil, because these actually do have particular restraints "baked in" - specifically, a predisposition towards good or evil. By RAW, the only class that explicitly loses its power for a single alignment-inappropriate is the Paladin (specifically, for a willful evil act). Otherwise, alignment changes are up to DM interpretation. Given your DM, I wouldn't say that's much of a consolation, but don't confuse your DM's behaviour (or your own beliefs; I saw nothing in your stories about the barbarian becoming Lawful, or even flirting with the idea) for the rules-as-written.
Sorry, but "Chaotic stupid" is a particular pet peeve of mine, almost as much as "Lawful stupid."
EDIT: Also, a barbarian rage is, in the written fluff, a "screaming blood frenzy" wherein (s)he "becomes reckless." As far as mechanical effect, they do gain strength and constitution, but lose armor class and cannot use most charisma, dexterity, or intelligence skills or most manually-triggered magical effects. That said, there is no restriction as per RAW on a raging barbarian choosing to inflict non-lethal damage.
Post by: Kadzar on March 17, 2015, 01:11:42 pm
Plus, it takes away from the drama. With paladins falling, if they come across a some baby orcs and kill them, then fall, they know, okay, that was wrong, I shouldn't have done that. If paladins don't fall (and know they won't fall), they can kill the baby orc and be kept up every night thereafter wondering if they did the right thing. Or maybe they'll be fine with it, and gradually start rationalizing worse and worse sins. Rather than damning them for their acts, it's much better to let them damn themselves.
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 03:53:15 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 04:09:28 pm
Post by: Tack on March 17, 2015, 04:32:25 pm
The good ol' "STOP THE BOAT- I'm going fishing."
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 04:33:35 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 04:37:40 pm
It is not reasonable to believe that one of the primary mechanics of Dungeons and Dragons, the 'alignment' system needs to go away because you don't like it. The system exists for a reason, and it is heavily tied into the rest of the games' basic structure. If you don't like alignment DON'T PLAY D&D. There are a vast number of other, less structured systems to use, many with similar basic mechanics.The reason being "the justification for slaughtering the entire races because they're Always Chaotic Evil"? The sheer implications of that "Always Chaotic Evil" alignment are mind-boggling, don't tell me you're defending that.
Give me one good reason why Alignment system should stay as it is.
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 04:39:12 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 04:42:38 pm
Fine, you rewrite every single portion of the game to remove it. Every spell that uses alignment as a factor, every mention of the concept in the whole of the games' structure, every deity, every race, every monster, go for it. It won't be D&D.You still hasn't answered me why Alignment system should stay as it is.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 17, 2015, 04:51:53 pm
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 05:03:03 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 05:09:44 pm
I was going to wall of text and explain the system in a reasonable fashion, but that doesn't matter. You don't own the property, you are just a customer, if you don't like the product buy something else.So... you're not going to provide the reason why Alignment system should stay as it is.
Okay.
I have a question: do you own your country? If not, then why do you have a right to vote? After all, you're just a citizen of your own country and don't actually own it (and you didn't even buy it!), so, by your logic, you don't have any say in it.
And if you don't like it, you can always just go to another country!
Do you see the problem with this line of logic? Because I do.
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 05:14:38 pm
There is no argument that can convince you, and you certainly haven't actually tried to put forth one against the subject in question, so why don't you start.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 17, 2015, 05:24:44 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 05:25:25 pm
I was going to wall of text and explain the system in a reasonable fashion, but that doesn't matter. You don't own the property, you are just a customer, if you don't like the product buy something else.
Lose the attitude. If you love the system so much, defend it. besides, that's an incredibly flawed argument. Games, in most cases, are much more than just "products", take american football for example, that shit is a WAY OF LIFE. Rules change in that. Likewise, many friends are made and kept over P&P roleplaying games. Known fact: there are a lot of rules people disagree with. They homebrew new rules sometimes. Instead of just saying "Here, this is the game, fuck you." Give us a good reason why we should use it other than that it's mildly convenient. Hell, who knows? Maybe Bay12 could home-brew better rules.
I'm personally not even advocating you SHOULD change the system, I think it's "okay", but doesn't mean there can't be discussion about it. In the end it's 'A' mechanic, it doesn't make or break DnD, and quite possibly there could be other systems that do it better. I'm not asking you to change you mind, just provide an argument for why it stays the way it is other than "It's already here, get off my goddamn land." and entertain the possibility that there could be a different/bette system.
EDIT: @MyName: That's a cool concept, something I always wanted to try in an RPG without the shackles of hard stats already being there.
Post by: Tack on March 17, 2015, 05:28:12 pm
I like the alignment system. It is a convienent way to quickly describe a character's likely actions. I would, however, be interested in a more Myers-Brigg type thing. On that thought:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Fettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered)/Unfettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered)
Necktie/Bacon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 05:30:50 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 05:33:23 pm
But I think I'm not going to get that one. Probably because it's non existent.
Because Alignment system is stupid bullshit which condones entire races as inherently evil, which gives the Lawful Good Paladins perfect justification to conduct genocide towards them, which makes it Lawful Stupid, and which generally replaces the good roleplaying (which is what D&D is about, because it's a fucking Role Playing Game!) with a scripted set of reactions, and which has spawned the whole "True Neutral is the real good" bullshit as the part of natural averse reaction to this system which glorifies genocide of the "inherently evil" races and labels it as "unquestionably good".
This is a system that has the only purpose: to give justification to murder, and to make it possible to reveal "acceptable" targets with a 1st level spell. It's the system that has spawned the infamous "murder hobo", the people who play RPGs only to kill other people (oh, sorry, NPCs) they can get away with and loot their bodies, and labeled this behavior as "good". This is a system that has killed roleplaying and spawned the endless tide of mass murderers out of its corpse. This is an inherently evil and shallow system and RPG games would be much, much better if this system was never invented.
Noone here has detailed a 'better system' so I can't exactly frame an argument based on what you do or don't like about the damned thing. You want to homebrew a no alignment set of rules go ahead, but don't expect me to try to justify the existence of a system that predates my birth by over a decade without some actual counterpoints to start from.You know what else predates your birth? Racial segregation. Alignment system has reminded me that this thing existed. Maybe it's because alignment system is really convenient for the purpose of racial segregation. I wonder why.
Post by: nenjin on March 17, 2015, 05:40:26 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 17, 2015, 05:41:28 pm
like only evil people cast Cause Wounds.Well that's just silly. Are Paladins evil for using their weapons too then?
Post by: scriver on March 17, 2015, 05:44:37 pm
Because Alignment system is stupid bullshit which condones entire races as inherently evil, which gives the Lawful Good Paladins perfect justification to conduct genocide towards them, which makes it Lawful Stupid, and which generally replaces the good roleplaying (which is what D&D is about, because it's a fucking Role Playing Game!) with a scripted set of reactions, and which has spawned the whole "True Neutral is the real good" bullshit as the part of natural averse reaction to this system which glorifies genocide of the "inherently evil" races and labels it as "unquestionably good".
"Always Chaotic Evil" hasn't been a thing since 2nd Ed, as far as I know.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 05:45:07 pm
We've gotten along for years essentially writing official alignments out of D&D. We can do that because everyone generally understands the concept and tries to obey the rules, like only evil people cast Cause Wounds, without writing an Alignment on their character sheet. But generally I've found Alignments less and less useful as a player as time has gone on. It's primarily useful for teaching new players how to think like a character instead of themselves. And lot of times it's only there to punish people deviating from classical stereotypes. I think they're only useful for NPCs and monsters, and then only as guides on how to play them. Literally interpreting Alignments has always been rules lawyer wank.
This is essentially my view on the subject as well.
Post by: Tack on March 17, 2015, 05:49:45 pm
But now that you've thrown that out there I can justify sharing my own thoughts.
The Chao/Law Good/Evil scale is meant to simplify an alignment in the Objective, not the subjective.
That Objective state can either be our world (usually is) or the world it's set in. In the second type you can have some very interesting ideas of chaotic, lawful and neutral, depending on the setting:
Quote
Pre English conquest, the gravest of all crimes in Welsh law was not murder, but theft. And while armed robbery was considered excusable under some circumstances, theft by stealth theft absolute could be a capital crime. Stealing from your own host, who'd taken you in and given you shelter well. Very bad
However, most are due to OUR perceptions, OUR views of right and wrong. If we come across a race (AN ENTIRE RACE) which participates in slavery, mass murder, delights in killing and steals from others as much as they do eachother, we would perceive them as Chaotic Evil.
The entire race in DnD terms IS that, don't let the webcomic fool you. If someone decides to do a detraction from the trope and make a Drizzt Goblin, they can go ahead, but it's an exception from the rule- which is why it creates so much controversy.
In a similar fashion, the alignment restrictions of classes like Barbarian and Paladin are all in order to make the character abide by objective constants. A barbarian who removes his shoes to drink tea in the sitting room has ceased to be a barbarian as much as a Paladin who burns the orphanage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BurnTheOrphanage) is no longer a paladin.
Therefore, it's up to the GM to figure out what counts as the objective morality of that game. Are all lesser races ok to kill? Is it bad to kill a woman or child, irregardless of the race? All that stuff is up to your GM, and sure you can judge him on it, but you'd better follow the rules.
If you had a character who was bound to their 'Internal Morality Scale', then either they'd never progress or grow as characters, or they'd be able to Sell any little horrible thing they do.
I was playing a Paladin at one point and there was a guy in our group who had been laid with a curse of compulsive gambling. His entire fortune was in jeapordy from this point on, so I bet him his entire fortune that he could go five minutes without making a bet, and then asked him to bet on snail racing or something silly- thus dooming him to give all of his money to me. He couldn't stop me, because the entire curse.
Point of the story here is, whilst I was doing it for His sake, the GM says 'As he goes to hand over his pouch, you get a massive foreboding feeling. This isn't Right'.
It wasn't. A paladin doesn't cheat or steal, even to protect or help.
Ethics is complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Consequentialism). If you really wanted to make complex alignments, you should see if each character is Utilitarian (Most Good + Least Bad), Consequentialism (End justifies the Means) or Deontological (Doing bad things is bad, no matter what).
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 05:59:16 pm
Sergarr: That may just be the most idiotic comparison I've ever seen. If you can't even attempt to keep your cool on an issue this irrelevant then you shouldn't post.
Post by: Arcvasti on March 17, 2015, 05:59:45 pm
Noone here has detailed a 'better system' so I can't exactly frame an argument based on what you do or don't like about the damned thing. You want to homebrew a no alignment set of rules go ahead, but don't expect me to try to justify the existence of a system that predates my birth by over a decade without some actual counterpoints to start from.
When you can actually see someone's alignment in-game, via detect evil or something, it gets kinda stupid, especially with detect evil/whatever being such a low-level spell. An alignment is a roleplaying generalization of a characters basic morals and has little to no place in the actual mechanics. Its far quicker and easier to represent someone who's "Chaotic Good" rather then having a specific personality to give them. Its difficult to objectively define someone as evil and giving that capacity to a low-level spell[Castable at will for some classes] seems sort of bleh. And that's not even getting into how annoying detect X spells are to factour in to more mystery-esque adventures. And changing player alignment is actually handled pretty well in valnilla 3.5e, from the sections I've read on it in the DMG[Which exist specifically to prevent/discourage the stupidity Sergious encountered]. Honestly, if you just changed all alignment affecting stuff to only affecting outsiders/clerics/paladins, it would be much better. In 5e, detect spells[And POSSIBLY other types of spells, haven't checked] only factour in alignment with regards to outsiders/clerics/paladins.
FAKEEDIT: Wow, that's a lot of posts.
And the "Always chaotic evil" thing comes mainly from Tolkien's orcs. Which is, if I remember correctly, only true in THAT case because of the direct mental intervention of a controlling evil force[IE: Sauron]. And yeah, an entire culture whose ethics completely go against those considered "Good" by the grand final arbitrator of it[Because, in the valnilla D & D universe, there ARE objectively good entities], could totally be described as evil. Where it gets thorny is when an entire race[Or at least, MOST of one] is considered to always be of one culture and one morality.
Post by: Flying Dice on March 17, 2015, 06:07:06 pm
Basically it's pretty gamey to try to treat people as alignments. They're there for certain spells and powers, and to give people unfamiliar with the character a good one-phrase description of how they think and act.
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 06:09:56 pm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htmBecause Alignment system is stupid bullshit which condones entire races as inherently evil, which gives the Lawful Good Paladins perfect justification to conduct genocide towards them, which makes it Lawful Stupid, and which generally replaces the good roleplaying (which is what D&D is about, because it's a fucking Role Playing Game!) with a scripted set of reactions, and which has spawned the whole "True Neutral is the real good" bullshit as the part of natural averse reaction to this system which glorifies genocide of the "inherently evil" races and labels it as "unquestionably good".
"Always Chaotic Evil" hasn't been a thing since 2nd Ed, as far as I know.
"Alignment: Always chaotic evil"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm
Werewolf:
"Alignment: Always chaotic evil"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm
"Chromatic Dragons
Chromatic dragons form the evil branch of dragonkind. They are aggressive, greedy, vain, and nasty. "
"Alignment: Always chaotic evil"
I literally typed in "Always chaotic evil" into d20srd hypertext search.
Post by: NullForceOmega on March 17, 2015, 06:15:29 pm
Sergarr: From 3e Monster Manual, page 12: Alignment: Always: the creature is born with the listed alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or one-in-a-million exceptions.
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 06:16:30 pm
Whoa. Let me stop you right there. RAW only states that a barbarian that becomes Lawful loses their abilities. Choosing to exercise a modicum of restraint, in and of itself, is not enough to become Lawful anything, or even Neutral anything; Chaotic or Neutral players can certainly justify restraining themselves from any acts. Even if you adopt the principle of alignment strongly reflecting/straightjacketing personality (which, by the way, is also incorrect according to RAW), this is still especially true for Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil, because these actually do have particular restraints "baked in" - specifically, a predisposition towards good or evil. By RAW, the only class that explicitly loses its power for a single alignment-inappropriate is the Paladin (specifically, for a willful evil act). Otherwise, alignment changes are up to DM interpretation. Given your DM, I wouldn't say that's much of a consolation, but don't confuse your DM's behaviour (or your own beliefs; I saw nothing in your stories about the barbarian becoming Lawful, or even flirting with the idea) for the rules-as-written.
Sorry, but "Chaotic stupid" is a particular pet peeve of mine, almost as much as "Lawful stupid."
A barbarian doesn't need to act Chaotic Stupid. A barbarian can act as would thematically make sense for a barbarian that is not part of civilization and doesn't like getting manhandled by angry peasants who want to kick his face in or even if they just wanted to take his weapon, lock him up for no legitimate reason. You're reading WAY too much there with the "restraint".
Yes, a character wouldn't instantly fall by doing one Lawful action. But he can't consistently go about doing Lawful actions until his alignment shifts to Neutral and then Lawful. The requirement during play seems to be: having restraint = A HERO IS YOU. not having restraint when you're being bullied = TERRIBAD TOO BAD SO SAD YOU LOSE also you are evil because chaotic is evil and you're a jerk and you smell bad and should feel bad.
Quote
EDIT: Also, a barbarian rage is, in the written fluff, a "screaming blood frenzy" wherein (s)he "becomes reckless." As far as mechanical effect, they do gain strength and constitution, but lose armor class and cannot use most charisma, dexterity, or intelligence skills or most manually-triggered magical effects. That said, there is no restriction as per RAW on a raging barbarian choosing to inflict non-lethal damage.
Since the Confusion spell effect is completely separate from fluff saying "reckless" in a positive class ability, and the RAW explains exactly how you're being reckless (you're being reckless in your defense, obviously, and fine-motion tasks, which aren't required to swing a weapon at the intended target) I don't see how this could result in randomly killing a person that is your ally during combat. If this ability can make you randomly attack a Peasant ally, it can definitely make you randomly attack one of your own party, and you would see this stated in the rules somewhere, no doubt (it seems relevant during play!). And you wouldn't find out after the end of combat, surely, as your own teammate would definitely let you know with very colourful language.
Plus the part about nonlethal not being allowed not being RAW, it should be enough. The houserules that criticals (isn't a high roll t reflective of your attack being SO SKILLFUL that it dealt extra damage to vitals, it seems backwards to rule that doing extra damage due to a critical means you hit like some sort of drunken elephant which is why you dealt extra damage and also it has to be lethal... what?)
You could argue that for a barbarian, trying to incapacitate people doing clear assault and battery is a lot of restraint, yet chaotic enough to be Chaotic Normal as opposed to Chaotic IKEELYOU.
Post by: Bohandas on March 17, 2015, 06:18:39 pm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htmBecause Alignment system is stupid bullshit which condones entire races as inherently evil, which gives the Lawful Good Paladins perfect justification to conduct genocide towards them, which makes it Lawful Stupid, and which generally replaces the good roleplaying (which is what D&D is about, because it's a fucking Role Playing Game!) with a scripted set of reactions, and which has spawned the whole "True Neutral is the real good" bullshit as the part of natural averse reaction to this system which glorifies genocide of the "inherently evil" races and labels it as "unquestionably good".
"Always Chaotic Evil" hasn't been a thing since 2nd Ed, as far as I know.
"Alignment: Always chaotic evil"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm
Werewolf:
"Alignment: Always chaotic evil"
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm
"Chromatic Dragons
Chromatic dragons form the evil branch of dragonkind. They are aggressive, greedy, vain, and nasty. "
"Alignment: Always chaotic evil"
I literally typed in "Always chaotic evil" into d20srd hypertext search.
Don't forget demons!
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 17, 2015, 06:19:30 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2015, 06:25:53 pm
The problem with that assertion is that the ENTIRE cosmology of D&D is tied to the alignments. Good, evil, chaos and law are real forces in the D&D multi-verse, they are not simple abstracts and never were. I can agree that the use of the cosmological good vs evil and chaos vs law in character creation is sometimes problematic, but D&D has no grey in its moral system.What about the elemental planes? Why are they not tied to alignments? Why can't I have an alignment of Firey Earthy, if the core concepts are just an abstraction for some metaphysical forces?
Sergarr: From 3e Monster Manual, page 12: Alignment: Always: the creature is born with the listed alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or one-in-a-million exceptions.
And the fact that it's almost always doesn't make it any better. It still reeks of slavery attitudes. The same "this race is entirely composed of dirty backstabbers, you can't ever trust any of them because practically all of them are bent on evil and you'd be better by murdering them first" shit.
The reverse is even worse: "This race is goody-two-shoes! It's genetically bent on goodness, but will still slaughter evil creatures without a second thought, because they're EVIL!"
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 17, 2015, 06:32:52 pm
The reverse is even worse: "This race is goody-two-shoes! It's genetically bent on goodness, but will still slaughter evil creatures without a second thought, because they're EVIL!"That's not a thing. There are some monsters that are like that, but they make sense within their lore. Also, I am going to have to argue that LG =/= slaughter all CE. Mercy is a thing too.
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 06:33:52 pm
Then you have planes. So what? Keep the Chaos / Order / Evil / Good axis for whatever mechanical purpose you want, then give the denizens living in them more depth. Or keep the axis as a setting thing specifically for Planescape or settings where character actually, you know, travel to planes.
There's literally nothing stopping you from tossing alignment aside except a really small subset of spells (protection and detection?) which you can just rename to "protection vs undead and uh... burninating outsider?". Non-magical-aura-thing emanating creatures don't have an alignment, period.
It's really not that hard. "Planes are cool" is not a really good reason to get rid of it for non-divine/outsider purposes.
Heck, "The Planes" can be argued to be setting specific. Granted, they're "all official published TSR setting-specific", but still. It's a thing that's not mandatory. You can play "Mystara 3.0" or something and it doesn't have planes. I think Eberron also isn't, and some third party settings. Or just play a version of Forgotten Realms that is removed from the planar thing, at least as a setting. (pretty sure it's possible, there must have been a moment during Greyhawk and FR's existence during which Planescape hadn't been written and where the two weren't part of the same super-setting at all)
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 17, 2015, 06:53:13 pm
Post by: Tawa on March 17, 2015, 06:57:50 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on March 17, 2015, 06:59:36 pm
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 08:15:43 pm
It affects some spells? Spells can be added or removed at will. Swapping spells out of the list isn't even a houserule. If you want to do the legwork, change the spells. But even just purging them changes nothing. Casters don't get any reduced capabilities because some spells don't exist, they still get the same amount per day, and this already actually happens in some settings. Spells aren't base rules, spells are "stuff".
It affects some classes? Again, classes are not mandatory, even if they're called "Core Classes". Just remove alignment restrictions, or the classes altogether. Paladins already have a "code of conduct", simply put "don't do bad stuff" instead of "don't be Bad(TM)". If you don't want an Official List of Bad Stuff, just make add specific forbidden things to the list. Likewise, classes aren't rules, they're "stuff". Swapping classes in and out isn't a houserule either.
Monsters? Yeah, "stuff". Locations, planes, whatever.
You can still keep more tangible "axis", like Life/Unlife (positive/Negative energy) and just make up an Angelic/Demonic one for outsiders and planes if you want to keep them, and you're good to go.
Post by: Bauglir on March 17, 2015, 08:21:50 pm
There's no "add +3 lawful points to your Strength" or "roll to hit from you Chaotic to-hit table".We can fix that.
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 08:24:34 pm
There's no "add +3 lawful points to your Strength" or "roll to hit from you Chaotic to-hit table".We can fix that.
A game with rules like that would actually be kinda cool.
Post by: Tack on March 17, 2015, 08:57:41 pm
Paladins already have a "code of conduct", simply put "don't do bad stuff" instead of "don't be Bad(TM)". If you don't want an Official List of Bad Stuff, just make add specific forbidden things to the list.No thanks.
I don't think I need a 'List of things that are evil'. That would rigidify the morality of the character even more.
Also I gotta say if a party has an option other than slaughtering an entire village (leaving, surrendering, etc) and they slaughter the village, that's an evil act, no matter which way you slice it.
Post by: Bohandas on March 17, 2015, 09:34:45 pm
The problem with that assertion is that the ENTIRE cosmology of D&D is tied to the alignments. Good, evil, chaos and law are real forces in the D&D multi-verse, they are not simple abstracts and never were. I can agree that the use of the cosmological good vs evil and chaos vs law in character creation is sometimes problematic, but D&D has no grey in its moral system.
Well, technically the puter planes are controlled by belief, so while good and evil and law and chaos have tangible existence, this is only the case because people believe they do. And these tangible forces also necessarily inherit any inconsistency that there may be in these beliefs.
Also, it's implied that in the ancient past (the time of the Obryiths and Baatorians) there was only law and chaos; that good and evil became relevent tangible forces later.
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 10:02:35 pm
Also I gotta say if a party has an option other than slaughtering an entire village (leaving, surrendering, etc) and they slaughter the village, that's an evil act, no matter which way you slice it.
So, slaughtering an entire bandit camp when the options are leaving or surrendering is evil. I mean, bandits are pretty much villagers that decided to do unjust things. You know, like, attacking innocent people. Hey, what a coincidence.
There was no killing of villagers that weren't part of the mob. No idea how many villagers were actually left in their houses doing things that didn't involve trying to murder visitors. But hey, if you want to condone the murder of innocent visitors by angry lynch mobs, more power to you. I would call it blaming the victim, probably.
Also I view absolute qualificators like "no matter how you slice it", "no ifs, buts" and "end of story" with extreme suspicioun. They pretty much just mean "I'm right and don't try to argue". You know how people on the internet don't have to say "in my opinion" before each sentence, because it's assumed by default? You just said "It's not just my opinion, it is fact."
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 10:36:24 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 17, 2015, 10:54:20 pm
Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 10:55:33 pm
I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.
Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.
Thanks, I'll make sure to tell that to the nonexistent party mage. Maybe he'll put them to sleep or help fly us out of the impenetrable mob circle that had us surrounded.
Post by: Bauglir on March 17, 2015, 10:57:56 pm
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 11:01:44 pm
Why didn't you just daintily leap over their ranks astride your mighty unicorns?
Because we ran out of our rainbow dust, and it's just unfashionable to jump around in unicorns without sprinkling rainbow dust! :P
Post by: Bauglir on March 17, 2015, 11:09:38 pm
Shit, yeah, that'll do it. Fair enough. That sort of travesty would probably be a greater sin than even, say, child-eating.Why didn't you just daintily leap over their ranks astride your mighty unicorns?
Because we ran out of our rainbow dust, and it's just unfashionable to jump around in unicorns without sprinkling rainbow dust! :P
Post by: Tack on March 17, 2015, 11:27:24 pm
Also I view absolute qualificators like "no matter how you slice it", "no ifs, buts" and "end of story" with extreme suspicioun. They pretty much just mean "I'm right and don't try to argue". You know how people on the internet don't have to say "in my opinion" before each sentence, because it's assumed by default? You just said "It's not just my opinion, it is fact."Some things ARE fact; especially things covered by a Canon text. (Like 85% of DnD is)
So really the question is Was it self defense? Was there some other way you could've gotten out of it. If not, sure, you're all still great, high five. But if running, magic fairy dust or 'Ok, Ok, we'll leave already!' would work, then that was unequivocally bad.
Also I view the "Screw you GM, we don't have to tell you we're remorseful" attitude just hinders gameplay. You DO have to tell the DM, because he's the conduit between the players and the game. Things which he doesn't know about simply Aren't happening. (In My Opinion)
Post by: Sergius on March 17, 2015, 11:42:47 pm
I swear, I'm perfectly prepared to do that!
DM: You arrive at an old crypt, the moon casts creepy shadows all over.
Me: My character feels a deep sense of foreboding!
DM: Cool. So, you enter, right? The door creaks showing its ancient age.
Me: My character feels shivers all over his spine! Also, he remembers the days when, as a kid, he used to play in the graveyard in his home town. This fills him with a deep sense of nostalgia!
DM: Yeah, fine. Well, the corridor is dry and you can hear the echo of your own footsteps. There are cobwebs-
Me: My character remembers when he used to put dead spiders in the hair of his little school friends! This gives him a deep sense of jollyness as he suppresses a chuckle!
DM: ALRIGHT. So, there's a carving of a face.
Me: My character loves faces! Faces give him deep sense of optimism, thinking about all the faces he's seen over a lifetime of-
DM: SHUT UP ABOUT ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS! DAMN I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOUR CHARACTER FEELS!
Me: DEEP SENSE! DEEP SENSE! DEEP SENSE!
I must make sure the DM doesn't think my character is an evil unfeeling automaton and change my alignment!
Post by: Tack on March 17, 2015, 11:46:12 pm
Post by: Arcvasti on March 17, 2015, 11:49:01 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 18, 2015, 12:23:40 am
I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.
Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.
Thanks, I'll make sure to tell that to the nonexistent party mage. Maybe he'll put them to sleep or help fly us out of the impenetrable mob circle that had us surrounded.
Do you not have a bard either? Bards can learn those spells too, and glitterdust in particular is a massively useful debuff spell which I always learn when playing a bard in Temple of Elemental Evil because it's so da,n useful.
Post by: Sergius on March 18, 2015, 09:36:50 am
I think the appropriate response for a good aligned party would be either a tactical retreat or a sleep spell.
Maybe use glitterdust to cover your retreat.
Thanks, I'll make sure to tell that to the nonexistent party mage. Maybe he'll put them to sleep or help fly us out of the impenetrable mob circle that had us surrounded.
Do you not have a bard either? Bards can learn those spells too, and glitterdust in particular is a massively useful debuff spell which I always learn when playing a bard in Temple of Elemental Evil because it's so da,n useful.
I'm starting to see here's a heavy disconnect with reality here. Can't really blame you, because this is a fantasy setting and such things are possible, certainly. But if you start framing the "Good vs Nongood vs Evil" argument as "what would Superman do?" and then go down from there "What do you MEAN you don't have Calm Peasants 30' Radius? Well, in that case just become intangible and wait it out man!" to "just use your Psychology skill to find out if they have any childhood issues and fix them, so that they reconsider their actions!" to "geesh, just call the cops then, they'll handle it no problem" down to "well, I guess you could have tried selling all your earthly possessions and offering them the money to let you go. No cost is too high!" to determine if a character's actions are justified or not.
I'm sure there are thousands of ways that if you just happen to have them, you can always take the Third Option (TM), and avoid being Mr. Evil (after all, the best strategy to win in a conflict that you cannot win, is to make sure that conflict doesn't happen in the first place!). But why are you being Mr. Evil in the first place? Good is always Dumb? Peasants are Never Evil? (because they're not goblins?) Is attacking the party unprovoked not an evil action? Is it important to make a note of how many hit points each side has to determine if the fight is equal or not (and an non-equal fight automatically makes the winning side evil?)
If you have to fish for specific abilities to defuse a situation (well, use your wizard! well, use your bard then! well, use your supplies of glitterdust!) you're already giving up the argument of whether 1) you did anything to be attacked in the first place 2) you deserve the right to your own bodily health 3) you deserve the right to self defense.
And just by reading the fluff on 2nd Edition D&D and Complete Paladin guide, I can tell you without any doubt that a Paladin would have taken these steps:
1) Told them to stand down, in the name of Justice
2) Told them to stop their evil actions or face swift retribution
3) Use adequate force to repel each attack (with the possibility of killing)
4) Felt righteous that he upheld Law and Goodness int his world.
But he's not good, you say? If the villagers had told him that there was a horrible giant killing and terrorizing them, he would have immediately accepted their plea and quest to rid them of this evil menace.
The books explicitly say that a Lawful Good Paladin wouldn't take shit like a bunch of allegedly "neutrals" trying to kill him or his friends!
Spoiler: The Complete Paladin's Handbook (emphasis mine) (click to show/hide)
EDIT: as an aside, saying that something is non-good is the same as saying it is a neutral action, and implying that this would shift any Evil or Good character towards neutral makes no sense. Alignment can be changed by refusing to take the obvious active Good action (the orphans ask for your help or they'll end up homeless, you say "not my problem" is neutral AND it also makes you less good). Making every neutral or not expicitly good action an Anti-Good action is madness.
Post by: Culise on March 18, 2015, 09:46:19 am
A barbarian doesn't need to act Chaotic Stupid. A barbarian can act as would thematically make sense for a barbarian that is not part of civilization and doesn't like getting manhandled by angry peasants who want to kick his face in or even if they just wanted to take his weapon, lock him up for no legitimate reason. You're reading WAY too much there with the "restraint".I wasn't talking about the very particular scenario your DM laid out; restraining oneself from self-defense in the circumstances portrayed would have been foolish. I was talking about the general case you espoused where any barbarian that shows restraint would lose their powers. Simply put, self-restraint is not automatically lawful behavior. A chaotic person can have a limited code of honor, can have loyalties to their friends built on personal bonds, can have a few rules by which they choose to live (even if they're more like guidelines than rules). These would restrain their acts, but would not necessarily automatically reflect a philosophy where deference to laws, order, and authority must follow. Hells, simple common sense may be enough to restrain them on a situational basis - restraining yourself from trying to murder someone with a knife at your throat is simple self-preservation, not lawful behavior, but is still a manner of self-restraint (gods know I've heard stories about players who lack even that basic level of self-restraint).
Yes, a character wouldn't instantly fall by doing one Lawful action. But he can't consistently go about doing Lawful actions until his alignment shifts to Neutral and then Lawful. The requirement during play seems to be: having restraint = A HERO IS YOU. not having restraint when you're being bullied = TERRIBAD TOO BAD SO SAD YOU LOSE also you are evil because chaotic is evil and you're a jerk and you smell bad and should feel bad.
To refute Tack, since it's strongly relevant, I would assert that a barbarian who takes off his shoes to drink tea in a sitting room wouldn't automatically fall, because *why* he does it matters: maybe he just likes taking his shoes off when he's not outside; maybe taking off his shoes in that context is itself socially offensive; maybe maybe maybe. Just because a person's actions happen to be in accord with societal mores in certain ways (say, someone who doesn't murder without due cause, or someone who doesn't cheat at games of chance), doesn't automatically mean that the person's behaviour in general is lawful. Besides, Tack is not correct in the general case in that saying that a singular Lawful act by a Barbarian (or rather, a single act Tack personally views as Lawful) is automatically enough for a barbarian to lose their powers; that is purely DM fiat, albeit by a power granted by RAW, and while there is a place for DM fiat, I, for one, would certainly decline to play with any DM that would cripple a player just for kicking off their shoes and putting on a pot of tea. As per RAW, the paladin is the *only* case of a class in the core books (I don't know all the splatbooks off the top of my head) that is guaranteed to lose its powers for a non-alignment-appropriate act, and that only for an act that is both (a) willful and (b) evil. Clerics lose their powers based on violations of the rules of their order (as opposed to alignment, except insofar as one is intended to reflect the other), and other classes that lose their powers due to inappropriate alignment-related actions (monks, bards, barbarians) do only when they actually change alignments, which falls under the rules for alignment shifts that only state that it is up to DM discretion. One DM might choose to make a sip of tea enough to go from Chaotic to Lawful; another DM might effectively ignore it even if a barbarian, say, takes up an act of fealty to a king based solely on their loyalty to the principles behind the crown. Both of these are equally valid according to RAW, but to explicitly justify one in isolation with an appeal to the rules as written is typically used to imply that the other is not also justifiable by RAW, and I distrust that sort of disingenous act.
Tack and you would both be correct that a barbarian that consistently demonstrates Lawful behavior could lose their powers, if either of you had stated such. The problem is, you didn't say such in the original post I responded to, and he still hasn't said such at all; in fact, Tack, as per your example, you seem to be stating the opposite with your little analogy to the paladin. Perhaps I did read too much into your comment that "a barbarian that learns restraint loses their barbarian abilities per RAW." I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW.
Quote
Well, yes, I should imagine so. After all, I was stating that largely in support of your claim that a barbarian that completely loses control is not RAW. By RAW, the only mechanical effect is the stat bonuses and penalties outlined. At most, it's only the fluff that creates the circumstance they described, but this has no mechanical effect in the game unless such is houseruled in. Heck, a barbarian rage can even be deactivated before its formal duration runs out if they so wish; that does not sound like a loss of control.QuoteEDIT: Also, a barbarian rage is, in the written fluff, a "screaming blood frenzy" wherein (s)he "becomes reckless." As far as mechanical effect, they do gain strength and constitution, but lose armor class and cannot use most charisma, dexterity, or intelligence skills or most manually-triggered magical effects. That said, there is no restriction as per RAW on a raging barbarian choosing to inflict non-lethal damage.
Since the Confusion spell effect is completely separate from fluff saying "reckless" in a positive class ability, and the RAW explains exactly how you're being reckless (you're being reckless in your defense, obviously, and fine-motion tasks, which aren't required to swing a weapon at the intended target) I don't see how this could result in randomly killing a person that is your ally during combat. If this ability can make you randomly attack a Peasant ally, it can definitely make you randomly attack one of your own party, and you would see this stated in the rules somewhere, no doubt (it seems relevant during play!). And you wouldn't find out after the end of combat, surely, as your own teammate would definitely let you know with very colourful language.
Plus the part about nonlethal not being allowed not being RAW, it should be enough. The houserules that criticals (isn't a high roll t reflective of your attack being SO SKILLFUL that it dealt extra damage to vitals, it seems backwards to rule that doing extra damage due to a critical means you hit like some sort of drunken elephant which is why you dealt extra damage and also it has to be lethal... what?)
You could argue that for a barbarian, trying to incapacitate people doing clear assault and battery is a lot of restraint, yet chaotic enough to be Chaotic Normal as opposed to Chaotic IKEELYOU.
----
Though, truth be told, I'm mostly thinking about the possibilities for shenanigans available in a cursed Tea of Opposite Alignment. :P
Post by: Sergius on March 18, 2015, 09:55:44 am
I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW.
But if you want to get technical "you did use these exact words", I said "learns restraint", not "exercises restraint" - the implication was that the Barbarian trades his, whatever the barbarian has that makes him Smashy or whatever. The barbarian goes thru a permanent change of behaviour (therefore, "learns"). This is in direct response to the DM saying "restraint = good, not restraint = bad", saying, basically, that the "Proper Barbarian" is badwrong. Not that "restraint would have made sense in this specific case". Restraint that, you know, the Barbarian actually did exercise, and was completely in character when being annoyed about having to, but was chided for not being his default all the time and liking it.
Post by: Sergius on March 18, 2015, 09:59:03 am
I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...
Post by: Culise on March 18, 2015, 10:02:47 am
Except that the gist of my entire argument is that self-restraint, even consistent self-restraint, is in itself not automatically Lawful behavior, not unless it also pertains to some greater loyalty to societal order or rule of law. There was a classic warning about Chaotic Neutral characters that basically went, "A chaotic neutral character is not as likely to jump off a bridge as walk across it." Having a "Chaotic" hanging off the front of their alignment does not mean that the character has no brakes or checks on their behavior.I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW.
But if you want to get technical "you did use these exact words", I said "learns restraint", not "exercises restraint" - the implication was that the Barbarian trades his, whatever the barbarian has that makes him Smashy or whatever. The barbarian goes thru a permanent change of behaviour (therefore, "learns"). This is in direct response to the DM saying "restraint = good, not restraint = bad", saying, basically, that the "Proper Barbarian" is badwrong. Not that "restraint would have made sense in this specific case". Restraint that, you know, the Barbarian actually did exercise, and was completely in character when being annoyed about having to, but was chided for not being his default all the time and liking it.
Post by: Sergius on March 18, 2015, 10:08:20 am
Except that the gist of my entire argument is that self-restraint, even consistent self-restraint, is in itself not automatically Lawful behavior, not unless it also pertains to some greater loyalty to societal order or rule of law. There was a classic warning about Chaotic Neutral characters that basically went, "A chaotic neutral character is not as likely to jump off a bridge as walk across it." Having a "Chaotic" hanging off the front of their alignment does not mean that the character has no brakes or checks on their behavior.I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW.
But if you want to get technical "you did use these exact words", I said "learns restraint", not "exercises restraint" - the implication was that the Barbarian trades his, whatever the barbarian has that makes him Smashy or whatever. The barbarian goes thru a permanent change of behaviour (therefore, "learns"). This is in direct response to the DM saying "restraint = good, not restraint = bad", saying, basically, that the "Proper Barbarian" is badwrong. Not that "restraint would have made sense in this specific case". Restraint that, you know, the Barbarian actually did exercise, and was completely in character when being annoyed about having to, but was chided for not being his default all the time and liking it.
Then you're taking the word "self-restraint" out of the context in which it was used.
Post by: Sergarr on March 18, 2015, 10:18:24 am
I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.
I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...
Post by: Sergius on March 18, 2015, 11:13:04 am
I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.
I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...
Hadn't considered that. I suppose critical "success" doesn't make sense in any context other than To-Hit (so I don't know about skill rolls) otherwise it would work, undead or not. Critical as "you hit good" would damage undead, critical as "you hit vitals" wouldn't. So apparently D&D works for vitals only.
Then... I don't know. It would mean that critical means only that you hit a deadly spot entirely by accident. This is supported by only working on the unmodified dice roll falling in the crit. range (even tho it's a "always hits" only on natural 20). I suppose if that's the rule, that's the rule. But it's still not stated anywhere that criticals can't be non-lethal, so yeah definitely hitting to kill even if you meant to disable is a houserule, although a valid one?
Post by: Kadzar on March 18, 2015, 11:34:04 am
Well, as it pertains to skill rolls, crits don't exist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#skillChecks).I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.
I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...
Hadn't considered that. I suppose critical "success" doesn't make sense in any context other than To-Hit (so I don't know about skill rolls) otherwise it would work, undead or not. Critical as "you hit good" would damage undead, critical as "you hit vitals" wouldn't. So apparently D&D works for vitals only.
Then... I don't know. It would mean that critical means only that you hit a deadly spot entirely by accident. This is supported by only working on the unmodified dice roll falling in the crit. range (even tho it's a "always hits" only on natural 20). I suppose if that's the rule, that's the rule. But it's still not stated anywhere that criticals can't be non-lethal, so yeah definitely hitting to kill even if you meant to disable is a houserule, although a valid one?
Quote from: d20 SRD
Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.
Though it's a very common house rule, one so common that most people don't seem to realize it is one.
Post by: Sergius on March 18, 2015, 11:41:06 am
So for example, there are no "ranks in Diplomacy". I think most of NCPs are stuff like basket weaving and one or two that are actually useful in an adventuring situation.
Basically, PCs were almost doomed to fail and become murderhobos unless they rolled high Charisma. Which was pregen anyway.
Just in case I haven't mentioned this, our party of Level 6 adventurers consisted of:
-One dwarf barbarian
-One dwarf ranger (in the setting, dwarves aren't really familiar with human society, or something)
-One rogue
-One fighter-rogue (multi-classed human, as per multiclass demihuman rules). About two levels behind the others due to this.
All chaotic good.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 18, 2015, 11:02:29 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 18, 2015, 11:35:57 pm
I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.
I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...
Hadn't considered that. I suppose critical "success" doesn't make sense in any context other than To-Hit (so I don't know about skill rolls) otherwise it would work, undead or not. Critical as "you hit good" would damage undead, critical as "you hit vitals" wouldn't. So apparently D&D works for vitals only.
Criticals in relation to undead don't make sense either way; vampires - for example - have vital areas
Post by: NobodyPro on March 18, 2015, 11:42:20 pm
I like the alignment system. It is a convienent way to quickly describe a character's likely actions. I would, however, be interested in a more Myers-Brigg type thing. On that thought:Traits and Passions (http://darkreign.org/sites/default/files/Imperial%20Morality%20-%20Dark%20Heresy%20Personality%20System.pdf)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bauglir on March 19, 2015, 12:06:47 am
Post by: Arx on March 19, 2015, 12:15:52 am
Guys, what's the most popular tabletop war-game set in any from 1600-1890? Preferably around the napoleonic time period, but generally any era with heavy use of line formations and muskets. Anyone have experience with and/or play any??? Are they very popular at all?
A friend I've lost contact used to be int this on a large scale. I'll see if my brother remembers what he played.
Post by: scrdest on March 19, 2015, 01:42:18 am
My homebrew system, which I swear I'll write more of one of these days, has you pick an ideal or two and another thing or two that you despise. Acting in accordance with the former even when it's a bad idea gives you more heroism points. Among other things, those can be spent to tolerate the latter when necessary (although giving into your impulse to take a stand against whatever also gives you a chance to earn more points). I cribbed a lot of notes from FATE >___________>
I've been scrolling past and I misread that as FATAL. I've been mildly terrified until I re-read that.
Post by: Bohandas on March 19, 2015, 02:18:01 am
A larger creature is a lot easier to hit, but those hits aren't going to do very much if you can only reach the creature's toes
Edit:
Conversely, a smaller creature may be harder to hit, but that hit is more likely to hit something vital when the sword you've run them through with is as wide as their entore torso
Post by: Jimmy on March 19, 2015, 07:58:12 am
You need to respect that it's an integral part of the core mechanics of the fantasy setting. Alignment forms one of the basic building blocks for the universe. Every creature in the game has an alignment, and it's an intrinsic part of their character.
Some creatures are simply always a certain alignment, such as extraplanar monsters. Devils are always lawful evil. Demons are always chaotic evil. Angels are always good.
Player characters and other mortal creatures also possess an alignment. Mortal alignments derive from their culture, species, personal viewpoints and actions. For these creatures, their alignment is mutable but still just as binding as anyone else's. Through actions, they can have their alignment changed too, sometimes radically. For example, casting spells with an alignment description is specifically called out as constituting an act of that type of alignment. Planning to summon a bunch of devils and demons into the world? That's pretty evil, man. Smiting your foes with a few Holy Words? That's gonna earn you brownie points with the good guys.
Alignment changes are part of the game, and the rules support them happening, if failing to give a concrete system of keeping score of your alignment and when it would change. It's a DM discretion area, and I maintain that only a poor DM handwaves away the entire thing as too hard. The biggest point most of the mediocre DMs get stuck on is focusing too much on the evil and chaotic side of things. Is your Chaotic Neutral barbarian helping a bunch of villagers clear the bandit problem from the local area? Seems to me he's helping establish law and order, and his chaotic side would take a hit. Is your Lawful Neutral cleric out slaying evil monsters and protecting the innocent? Seems to me they're due to head towards a good alignment. Turning evil isn't a one-way street. It's easier, but performing good acts moves you in the opposite direction too. The trick is to strike a balance between unduly altering a player's character and recognizing the world they exist in has a system of morality that is fundamentally different to our own reality.
If you have too much of a hard time accepting that alignment in a D&D world is an objective, measurable thing instead of a subjective, indefinable quality, remember that some things in these worlds just simply work different to real life. This is a world of levels, hit points, skill points and attack bonuses. These things don't necessarily have a discrete representation in the game, but they exist and are just as valid as alignment. For better or worse, this fantasy world has a line in the sand where morality exists in nine defined flavors, and your character as well as everyone else will be in one of those nine boxes.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 19, 2015, 09:03:19 am
Guys, what's the most popular tabletop war-game set in any from 1600-1890? Preferably around the napoleonic time period, but generally any era with heavy use of line formations and muskets. Anyone have experience with and/or play any??? Are they very popular at all?
A friend I've lost contact used to be int this on a large scale. I'll see if my brother remembers what he played.
Thanks Arx. Anyone else know of some good miniature wargaming set in this era???
Post by: Sergius on March 19, 2015, 12:05:49 pm
Throwing my hat in the ring as pro-alignment system for 3.5e (la la la 4e I can't hear you!)
You need to respect that it's an integral part of the core mechanics of the fantasy setting. Alignment forms one of the basic building blocks for the universe. Every creature in the game has an alignment, and it's an intrinsic part of their character.
Some creatures are simply always a certain alignment, such as extraplanar monsters. Devils are always lawful evil. Demons are always chaotic evil. Angels are always good.
This is a content issue, not a mechanics issue. "All angels are always good" is a characteristic of the setting. "All angels always want to further the power of heaven no matter what" can be a characteristic of another setting. Both settings can be played in D&D, even using alignment rules (just give the grimdark setting Angels a different one). You're arguing that the default list of creatures in vanilla D&D (Greyhawk? Forgotten Realms? Ravenloft? Spelljammer? Eberron? Iron Kingdoms?) is neatly categorized in Always Evil/Good/Neutral. Yet, creatures are removed from that list and new ones added all the time. There's an actual description on HOW each creature is Evil, you know. It's not like they give you "Alignment!" and you go "well, these guys are Evil so they must keep slaves and beat them, and kill old ladies for the lulz."
You forget that "good" is always a word even if "Good(tm)" is not an Alignment. "All angels are good" can work without a Mechanic, just by saying it, let me show you: "Angel: note: these guys are really good!". D&D will tell you to guess what it means anyway even if you write it down in a box that says Alignment.
Quote
If you have too much of a hard time accepting that alignment in a D&D world is an objective, measurable thing instead of a subjective, indefinable quality, remember that some things in these worlds just simply work different to real life. This is a world of levels, hit points, skill points and attack bonuses. These things don't necessarily have a discrete representation in the game, but they exist and are just as valid as alignment. For better or worse, this fantasy world has a line in the sand where morality exists in nine defined flavors, and your character as well as everyone else will be in one of those nine boxes.
But there's the problem: Good and Evil in D&D is not an objective measurable thing. As in, the behaviors that define them are NOT objective at all (they are Measurable, only because you glow Evil or you glow Good the more evil or good things you do). The game still tells you "well... Good aligned creatures do good deeds... and stuff. Use your common sense, duh!". Or to ask your DM (who then proceeds to tell you that Attacks of Opportunity are always evil because he's a big turd blossom). There's not a cut-and-dried list, a menu a-la-carte where you can verify if any single thing you want to do falls in Good or Evil aligned. There are guidelines, sure: don't steal from people that need it more than you! but it's okay to steal from people that have too much don't like to share (OR IS IT?!)".
The whole point of "what happens if you remove alignment" was to show that it's this: nothing special. Two spells stop working (maybe more), and monsters aren't cookie-cutter anymore. That's it. This is not an argument that "alignment systems are bad and shouldn't exist anywhere ever!" It's simply showing that in D&D specifically, alignments hardly even do anything except so that someone can yell at you "alignment shift!" or as a crutch to avoid writing down on your character "my character is always helpful with children but hates abusive authority, yet will respect a benevolent ruler"
Alignment shifts are also meaningless, they do the following:
1) You decide beforehand which is your alignment so that you know what things you're allowed to do.
2) You do things that aren't part of that alignment.
3) You get told which alignment really corresponds to the things you do and to change it.
So, now your alignment is a different one than the one you thought was your alignment when you first wrote it down...
Then later.
4) Your character decides to do different kinds of things.
5) You get told that your alignment is now different.
6) You get to do the new things that you decided to start doing from now on, because of the new alignment (which you could do anyway! except... that they changed your alignment).
So in the end, the Alignment is a label that tells others, what kind of things you do, but don't prevent you from doing different things, doing them enough just changes your Alignment?
But Alignment matters because of magic. And spells that say "if alignment = +1 then...". Which is a really tiny subset of spells anyway. And that normally don't work on creatures that don't radiate their alignment (Clerics, Paladins, and outsiders/undead). May as well make the spells based on Heaven/Hell allegiance instead of actual Goodness/Badness.
In fact, Clerics don't even radiate their own alignment, they radiate the alignment from the deity that gives them spells (which can be one step apart). And Paladins only ever radiate Good (Heavenly!), because if they become Evil and fall, they don't suddenly radiate Evil -their Heavenly Radiation simply stops, and they have to actively seek a new career (that radiates Helly!).
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 19, 2015, 12:15:10 pm
Post by: Sergius on March 19, 2015, 12:21:23 pm
What about paladins of tyranny or slaughter?
I don't know, I assume it's a different class? So, it radiates different stuff. Evil, I suppose? I would have him actually radiate Tyranny. Maybe a "detect aura" should be more specific and tell you all kinds of radiations! 8)
If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 19, 2015, 01:10:08 pm
The paladin of slaughter is chaotic evil and reads as Chaotic Stupid...
Quote from: Paladin of slaughter code of conduct
A paladin of slaughter must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of slaughter's code requires that she disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her, refuse help to those in need, and sow destruction and death at all opportunities.
But the paladin of Tyranny is somewhat more reasonable.
Quote
A paladin of tyranny must be of lawful evil alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of tyranny's code requires that he respect authority figures as long as they have the strength to rule over the weak, act with discipline (not engaging in random slaughter, keeping firm control over those beneath his station, and so forth), help only those who help him maintain or improve his status, and punish those who challenge authority (unless, of course, such challengers prove more worthy to hold that authority).
Anyway, they have auras of evil.
I would think paladins losing their aura when they fall is because they are no long walking bastions of whatever force they channel. Same as they lose spells.
Post by: XXXXYYYY on March 19, 2015, 01:41:25 pm
Obviously, a Paladin of GP has an aura that continually summons coins, launches them in all directions, and has them disappear after hitting something. Possibly treat it like a permanent Darkness spell of the proper CL, always centered on the Paladin. Possibly add a constant nonlethal damage to anyone in the area not wearing enough armor/clothes.What about paladins of tyranny or slaughter?
I don't know, I assume it's a different class? So, it radiates different stuff. Evil, I suppose? I would have him actually radiate Tyranny. Maybe a "detect aura" should be more specific and tell you all kinds of radiations! 8)
If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Huh. That could actually be pretty cool, if a bit silly.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 19, 2015, 01:55:15 pm
Post by: Mephisto on March 19, 2015, 01:55:32 pm
If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
I know this was kind of in jest, but aren't most of D&D's gods of magic true neutral?
Someone I found with a short Google search mentioned a third-party neutral Paladin-like that casts arcane rather than divine spells.
Post by: Bohandas on March 19, 2015, 02:35:53 pm
Obviously, a Paladin of GP has an aura that continually summons coins, launches them in all directions, and has them disappear after hitting something. Possibly treat it like a permanent Darkness spell of the proper CL, always centered on the Paladin. Possibly add a constant nonlethal damage to anyone in the area not wearing enough armor/clothes.What about paladins of tyranny or slaughter?
I don't know, I assume it's a different class? So, it radiates different stuff. Evil, I suppose? I would have him actually radiate Tyranny. Maybe a "detect aura" should be more specific and tell you all kinds of radiations! 8)
If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Huh. That could actually be pretty cool, if a bit silly.
The paladin of gold pieces radiates law and evil and has a red white and blue elephant for a mount
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 19, 2015, 02:38:47 pm
If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Paladin of magic is pretty simple. An aura of magic, as per detect magic.
EDIT: damn phone messed up quotes
Post by: Flying Dice on March 19, 2015, 02:52:42 pm
Any idea how to fix it, short of migrating everything back to the old sheet format by hand?
Post by: Sergius on March 19, 2015, 02:59:28 pm
If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Paladin of magic is pretty simple. An aura of magic, as per detect magic.
Exactly. No Good, Evil, Law or Chaos radiated. He wouldn't have to be True Neutral, as he would be a champion of the use of Magic in all its forms, but he would do what's necessary to make Magic used more. He wouldn't necessarily make sure that Magic is used in all its aligned forms to keep some semblance of Balance, like that psychopath the Druid.
Post by: Toaster on March 19, 2015, 03:00:18 pm
Post by: Sergius on March 19, 2015, 03:03:34 pm
He'd lose his abilities if he did something physical when magic would do!
But that's only if Physical and Magical are opposite alignments :D
Otherwise, we can have a Paladin class that's just good with a sword (maybe gets a few "magic" abilities even tho he has no idea how to do proper studied magic) and he'll go all around saving wizards and cheering them on so they use more magic 8)
Sounds more like a magician advocate than a Paladin. I haven't really thought it thru.
Post by: Tack on March 19, 2015, 05:29:04 pm
He would be lawful neutral, and exemplify the path of learning and intelligence. He may even be 'that atheist guy'.If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Paladin of magic is pretty simple. An aura of magic, as per detect magic.
Exactly. No Good, Evil, Law or Chaos radiated. He wouldn't have to be True Neutral, as he would be a champion of the use of Magic in all its forms, but he would do what's necessary to make Magic used more. He wouldn't necessarily make sure that Magic is used in all its aligned forms to keep some semblance of Balance, like that psychopath the Druid.
So I think he'd be bound to not tolerate stupidity.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 19, 2015, 05:38:35 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 19, 2015, 06:01:00 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 19, 2015, 06:12:17 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 19, 2015, 06:13:39 pm
He would be lawful neutral, and exemplify the path of learning and intelligence. He may even be 'that atheist guy'.If I invent a "Paladin of Magic" class, what is his alignment? What does it radiate? Or how about a "Paladin of GP" :D
Paladin of magic is pretty simple. An aura of magic, as per detect magic.
Exactly. No Good, Evil, Law or Chaos radiated. He wouldn't have to be True Neutral, as he would be a champion of the use of Magic in all its forms, but he would do what's necessary to make Magic used more. He wouldn't necessarily make sure that Magic is used in all its aligned forms to keep some semblance of Balance, like that psychopath the Druid.
So I think he'd be bound to not tolerate stupidity.
I think there's alrerady a class for that.
Post by: Dutchling on March 19, 2015, 06:22:50 pm
There truly is no better feeling than seeing your opponent scoop after you vial in a Spirit of the Labyrinth in response to him casting Brainstorm.
Death and Taxes is a very aptly named deck :D
For those who do not play Magic:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Leafsnail on March 19, 2015, 07:06:43 pm
I mean the other day I was able to prevent a Show and Tell player from going off just because he was never able to cast a 3 mana spell.
Post by: Dutchling on March 19, 2015, 07:09:43 pm
Port is 150 dollars online and Wasteland 70. Waste will most likely get reprinted when Tempest Remastered comes out in May though, and I can only assume Port will get reprinted within a few years too...
Luckily Karakas is like 50 cents online, so I got that sweet Karakas + Mangara of Corondor action going already :P
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 19, 2015, 07:11:12 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 19, 2015, 07:12:36 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 19, 2015, 07:25:26 pm
Assuming you mean MTGO, my username is Dutchling...
nah, I don't have MTGO. Just ye olde cards. It was more a rhetorical thing anyway. However, if I acquire MTGO I will play with thee. On that note, HOW IS MTGO??? better and or worse than doing it face to face??? How is the card selection?
EDIT: I hear MTG - Duels of The Planeswalkers 2014 is best?
Post by: Dutchling on March 19, 2015, 07:31:18 pm
Card Selection is like 99%+ of the cards. I know some random Portal cards are missing, but I don't think anything relevant.
edit: Duels of the Planeswalkers is something entirely different. The Duels games have a very limited card pool, and other than 2015, very limited deck building tools. Other than the deck building part people seem to prefer 2014 yes. There is a free upcoming (presumably) Steam game called Magic Origins though. Don't know much about that.
Basically MTGO is the exact same thing as Magic the Gathering, but online.
Duels of the Planeswalkers has a simplified (you won't notice this 90% of the time) rules engines and has a very limited card pool and is mainly designed for playing against the AI or casually online. It's not a replacement for actual Magic. It is a great way to learn how to play the game however.
Post by: Toaster on March 19, 2015, 07:51:42 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on March 19, 2015, 07:54:33 pm
Post by: Toaster on March 19, 2015, 07:55:23 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on March 19, 2015, 07:59:39 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 19, 2015, 10:45:35 pm
It's not... great. If you want to grind for tournaments or draft hours on end it's amazing though. I also think Pauper and Block Constructed are played almost solely online. I prefer playing casual in paper though, but I'm currently trying out this budget Death and Taxes list. Definitely not playing in any online tournaments for the foreseeable future though.
Card Selection is like 99%+ of the cards. I know some random Portal cards are missing, but I don't think anything relevant.
edit: Duels of the Planeswalkers is something entirely different. The Duels games have a very limited card pool, and other than 2015, very limited deck building tools. Other than the deck building part people seem to prefer 2014 yes. There is a free upcoming (presumably) Steam game called Magic Origins though. Don't know much about that.
Basically MTGO is the exact same thing as Magic the Gathering, but online.
Duels of the Planeswalkers has a simplified (you won't notice this 90% of the time) rules engines and has a very limited card pool and is mainly designed for playing against the AI or casually online. It's not a replacement for actual Magic. It is a great way to learn how to play the game however.
Aaaah, ok I see. Well maybe i'll look into MTGO then. I understand the basics of magic, so while i'll get my ass kicked, I think I know just enough to be able to learn from my mistakes.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 20, 2015, 06:50:17 am
e: Apparently the top deck is monoblue Delver.
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2015, 06:52:02 am
I quickly found out Treasure Cruise is still unbanned there.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 20, 2015, 06:55:19 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2015, 06:57:54 am
Also Daze. Which is apparently 30 bucks online, not sure why.
Post by: Leafsnail on March 20, 2015, 06:59:55 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2015, 07:02:30 am
Can't say I play Delver. It's the one deck I despise (watching) most, although that's only really the UR variant.
Post by: Jimmy on March 20, 2015, 10:30:26 am
Alignment based damage eg. Holy weapons
Alignment based damage reduction eg. DR 5/good
Holy water and other alignment based consumables
Class alignment restrictions eg. Paladin
Detect alignment spells
Protection from alignment spells
Holy Word and similar spells
Holy Aura and similar spells
Consecrate/Hallow and similar spells
Paladin class features eg. Smite Evil
Spell restrictions eg. Lawful Good clerics summoning Chaotic Evil creatures
Atonement restrictions
Magical item effects keyed to alignment restrictions
These are just a few lists of changes I pulled off the top of my head that occur when you remove alignment from the game. It's hardly a small change, it's a significant homebrew adjustment. Ultimately the game you play at your table is yours to do with as you wish, and nobody can tell you how you should run your game. But I dispute the claim that removing alignment means just "two spells stop working." You fundamentally alter the game balance with a change like this. I hope you can see that saying "nothing special" happens when you remove alignment is wrong.
Post by: Tack on March 20, 2015, 10:48:40 am
Post by: Kadzar on March 20, 2015, 12:06:57 pm
-snip-Or you can play 5e, where where pretty much all you'd have to do is remove alignment restrictions on a few magic items. And paladins are actually awesome.
Post by: Sergius on March 20, 2015, 04:22:40 pm
Alignment based damage eg. Holy weapons get rid of it, or make it relevant only for undead or demons
Alignment based damage reduction eg. DR 5/good get rid of it, or make it relevant only for undead or demons
Holy water and other alignment based consumables make it work on undead and demons regardless of alignment
Class alignment restrictions eg. Paladin get rid of it, restrictions based on code of conduct
Detect alignment spells goes away, or change to detect unholy or whatever you want to make demons/angels/undead. (these don't even detect non-outsider alignments, only auras or intents in human/oids)
Protection from alignment spells same as above
Holy Word and similar spells change it so it only affects demons or undead, or get rid of it
Holy Aura and similar spells same thing, get rid of it or change it
Consecrate/Hallow and similar spells same thing, get rid of it or change it
Paladin class features eg. Smite Evil same thing
Spell restrictions eg. Lawful Good clerics summoning Chaotic Evil creatures ignore. or just not give the spell to the cleric/creature
Atonement restrictions without alignment, what's there to atone? make it relevant only for clerics/paladins or w/ever, which it almost is already
Magical item effects keyed to alignment restrictions get rid of them or change them[/quote]
Quote
it's a significant homebrew adjustment. Ultimately the game you play at your table is yours to do with as you wish, and nobody can tell you how you should run your game. But I dispute the claim that removing alignment means just "two spells stop working." You fundamentally alter the game balance with a change like this. I hope you can see that saying "nothing special" happens when you remove alignment is wrong.
You miss the point entirely. A spell is not a rule, it's a thing. A class is not a rule, it's a thing. A monster is not a rule, it's a thing. Adding or removing things is not houserule/homebrew, anymore than adding or removing castles is not a homebrew (playing Forgotten Realms without the city of Waterdeep is not a houserule). A houserule is saying: people fall unconscious when they're at half HP. Or, instead of half damage, a saving throw always avoids all damage. Those are rules. Saying "no holy weapons in this setting" or "no spells that grant flying", is not a homebrew houserule. Like inventing a new metal called Schwartz and giving some creatures a DR/Schwartz is not a houserule. Or adding "slime damage" to the list of damage types like acid, sonic... holy... etc.
Yes, removing the Alignment is a homebrew choice. But removing problematic spells that are problematic or incompatible is not, because you could do that regardless of whether you removed alignment or not!
If you don't want to remove alignment, I could just say:
"all non demons/undead/angels is true neutral regardless of ethos or cultural customs or classes, also any class can be true neutral. Also alignment doesn't dictate behavior and behavior doesn't change alignment". Your paladin still does good things, and is punished for doing bad things, but since he wasn't born an angel, he's True Neutral. There. Some angels can be dicks, and some demons can be rational, and they won't change alignment. No houseruling necessary, and all spells and effects work with no change.
EDIT: Actually, homebrew and houserules are different things, the former just meaning "not published", in summary: anything that you made. Even a map. Under that definition, a made up dungeon map that isn't published as part of a setting is homebrew, as is a custom class or spell. A houserule is actually changing mechanics. So yeah, good luck not homebrewing...
Post by: Tack on March 21, 2015, 12:09:06 am
-Purplesnip-.That would make the core rulebook a LOT bigger.
Post by: Bohandas on March 21, 2015, 12:30:14 am
EDIT:
Perhaps there could be a prestige class or feat tree allowing characters to become enlightened as to the constructed nature of alignments and thus be able to first ignore them and later to be treated as whatever alignment would be most beneficial to them at the time.
EDIT:
Verily! So much for all that!
Post by: Sergius on March 21, 2015, 09:01:25 am
-Purplesnip-.That would make the core rulebook a LOT bigger.
Yep. A whopping 2 sentences.
Post by: Tack on March 21, 2015, 09:30:17 am
I've been talking about ethics a lot lately.
I made a thread about it.
Post by: Flying Dice on March 23, 2015, 09:45:25 pm
I think that the ambiguity of the alignments would be a good theme to build a campaign around; and the idea that they are created by belief and thus inconsistent.A component of that first bit should be part of any good campaign anyways. But it's definitely an interesting idea, to directly tackle alignment (and the fact that things like Lawful and Evil are tangible realities rather than philosophical distinctions) as a construct of belief; a person from one culture could ping a person as Chaotic Evil where another would read them as Neutral Good purely because of differences in upbringing and social norms. Fantasy is almost always more interesting when it carries a good helping of reality in its guts.
EDIT:
Perhaps there could be a prestige class or feat tree allowing characters to become enlightened as to the constructed nature of alignments and thus be able to first ignore them and later to be treated as whatever alignment would be most beneficial to them at the time.
EDIT:
Verily! So much for all that!
Imagine that, a campaign where you could draw a line on a map where something is treated as "Evil" or "Good" in the sense of the metaphysics of the game purely based on where they are.
Post by: Jimmy on March 24, 2015, 06:45:19 am
Post by: Mephisto on March 24, 2015, 07:15:49 pm
Many sads were had. (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/gen-con-threatens-move-convention-gov-mike-pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/70393474/)
Post by: Flying Dice on March 24, 2015, 10:27:12 pm
Post by: Bohandas on March 26, 2015, 06:09:02 am
I think that the ambiguity of the alignments would be a good theme to build a campaign around; and the idea that they are created by belief and thus inconsistent.A component of that first bit should be part of any good campaign anyways. But it's definitely an interesting idea, to directly tackle alignment (and the fact that things like Lawful and Evil are tangible realities rather than philosophical distinctions) as a construct of belief; a person from one culture could ping a person as Chaotic Evil where another would read them as Neutral Good purely because of differences in upbringing and social norms. Fantasy is almost always more interesting when it carries a good helping of reality in its guts.
EDIT:
Perhaps there could be a prestige class or feat tree allowing characters to become enlightened as to the constructed nature of alignments and thus be able to first ignore them and later to be treated as whatever alignment would be most beneficial to them at the time.
EDIT:
Verily! So much for all that!
Imagine that, a campaign where you could draw a line on a map where something is treated as "Evil" or "Good" in the sense of the metaphysics of the game purely based on where they are.
I was thinking a little bit less pronounced than that. More along the lines of members of the Bleak Cabal being able to ignore alignment or members of the Mind[s Eye or Sign of One being able to mimic it.
EDIT:
or initiates in certain less reputable mysteries of the Greek panthe0n (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/57.php)
Post by: Tack on March 26, 2015, 06:21:40 am
Spoiler: WARHAMMER PAINTING WHATCHEMER (click to show/hide)
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on March 26, 2015, 04:18:03 pm
Post by: scriver on March 26, 2015, 05:04:08 pm
Post by: Tack on March 27, 2015, 01:41:37 am
Also cheers DF, I drink your praise like kool aid.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 08:58:48 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2015, 09:35:48 am
Post by: Sergius on April 01, 2015, 09:45:26 am
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UYsdjZcfHm4/mqdefault.jpg)
Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson answer questions about the new D&D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Post by: Baffler on April 01, 2015, 09:46:58 am
Post by: Tawa on April 01, 2015, 09:48:47 am
Post by: Arx on April 01, 2015, 09:51:34 am
Ok, according to this interview, they've already started doing some playtesting for the next version of D&D. They're naming it D&D Tomorrow (we can just call it 6th edition I suppose), and it will feature a new system of buffs that will be based on the concept of Freemium (you can spend money on the WotC score and get special cards that you then show to your DM for additional powers). They've already planned several expansions, a.k.a. Dungeon Lore Contributions (DLC).
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UYsdjZcfHm4/mqdefault.jpg)
Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson answer questions about the new D&D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Damn, didn't expect WotC to cave like that. Seems pretty impractical, too. Oh well. Yes, I know it's a joke.
Post by: Loud Whispers on April 01, 2015, 10:08:53 am
Post by: timferius on April 01, 2015, 10:47:24 am
Post by: Sergius on April 01, 2015, 11:04:16 am
Some people probably won't like the hard restriction against making house rules, but I don't think the police will bother with some gamers in a random basement brewing their own variants of D&D, so it's a law that probably won't be enforced. Much.
Post by: Tawa on April 01, 2015, 11:13:31 am
hard restriction against making house rulesWHAT HERESY IS THIS?
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 01, 2015, 11:43:21 am
The Horus Heresy started today, you know.hard restriction against making house rulesWHAT HERESY IS THIS?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 01, 2015, 01:39:43 pm
Post by: Tack on April 01, 2015, 02:51:13 pm
IS. NOTHING. SACRED.
This is the same plague that's beginning to befoul Warhammer.
Post by: nenjin on April 01, 2015, 03:28:32 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 03:56:24 pm
Post by: scriver on April 01, 2015, 03:59:08 pm
hard restriction against making house rulesWHAT HERESY IS THIS?
They clarified it in a hold post - they're going to make it so by using the DnD product/license, you agree to a legal contract of using the rules as is and only as is, ie no house rules or homebrew. They feel that the potential for "pirated campaigns" or "intellectual campaign piracy", so to speak, is too great.
Post by: Bauglir on April 01, 2015, 04:06:44 pm
To be fair, GWS mastered the art of making the fan pay a lot for a little at a time millennia ago.Well, yeah, but lately they've realized they were pricing themselves out of the market, so they opened up the intellectual property so that you only need to pay a very small royalty fee on earnings, started publishing 3D printer schematics for all their miniatures, and sell the actual figures for material + shipping + 5%.
In related news, D&D Tomorrow will be exactly the same as 4E. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UldMTTDJ4)
Post by: timferius on April 01, 2015, 04:08:19 pm
Hmm, it makes sense, good on them for protecting their IP. I wonder if they're going to go after Paizo and Pathfinder soon. Some blatant infringement there.hard restriction against making house rulesWHAT HERESY IS THIS?
They clarified it in a hold post - they're going to make it so by using the DnD product/license, you agree to a legal contract of using the rules as is and only as is, ie no house rules or homebrew. They feel that the potential for "pirated campaign", so to speak, is too great.
Post by: Reelya on April 01, 2015, 04:15:41 pm
They might not be able to stop you homebrewing in the basement but the license can stop you from sharing your creations.
Post by: Sergius on April 01, 2015, 04:18:51 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 01, 2015, 04:19:26 pm
Post by: Bauglir on April 01, 2015, 04:24:15 pm
Post by: Tawa on April 01, 2015, 04:25:16 pm
I finally have a reason to agree with the bronies.Maybe they can officially license all this stuff then and make you pay for DLC for settings. e.g. by banning house rules, no-one can upload e.g. a set of Dr Who house rules without getting shut down. But the WotC company can then license a Dr Who setting and sell the ebook for cash.
The bronies will fight against that tooth and nail. You know they love their homebrew MLP settings.
Post by: nenjin on April 01, 2015, 04:32:17 pm
To be fair, GWS mastered the art of making the fan pay a lot for a little at a time millennia ago.Well, yeah, but lately they've realized they were pricing themselves out of the market, so they opened up the intellectual property so that you only need to pay a very small royalty fee on earnings, started publishing 3D printer schematics for all their miniatures, and sell the actual figures for material + shipping + 5%.
In related news, D&D Tomorrow will be exactly the same as 4E. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UldMTTDJ4)
That sounds entirely too reasonable for GWS.
So it must be heresy.
Post by: timferius on April 01, 2015, 04:34:54 pm
Post by: RedWarrior0 on April 01, 2015, 05:17:53 pm
On the topic of things WotC is doing today, has anyone seen the MtG site? (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles)More importantly, that high-res Look at Me, I'm the DCI wallpaper (http://magic.wizards.com/sites/mtg/files/images/wallpaper/Look-at-Me%2C-I%27m-the-DCI_MR_2560x1600_Wallpaper.jpg)Spoiler: mark rosewater fans rejoice (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tack on April 03, 2015, 12:53:35 am
Well, yeah, but lately they've realized they were pricing themselves out of the market, so they opened up the intellectual property so that you only need to pay a very small royalty fee on earnings, started publishing 3D printer schematics for all their miniatures, and sell the actual figures for material + shipping + 5%.I feel we need a visible sign of the incredibly heavy sarcasm you must be laying on here.
Either that or link please.
Far as I noticed, GW released their next ed. of gameplay some 4 years early so that they could push new models (this being immediately after the CEO stepped down), and introduced the 'Super Heavy' class so that they could push new, BIG, EXPENSIVE models.
Hell, if I didn't know better I'd say they were introducing power creep too.
Why can't they just make a Warhammer online TBS which is exactly like the tabletop?
That would sort most of the balance issues, they'd pull a MUCH larger playerbase, they could FTP the game and microtransaction the models, and they could push the tabletop game in advertising Everywhere on it.
Urgh. I need to make a phone call.
Post by: Leafsnail on April 10, 2015, 05:15:14 pm
Post by: RedWarrior0 on April 10, 2015, 05:22:08 pm
Pro Tour Dragons of Tarkir has been pretty fun so far. There's a tonne of different decks floating around, and some really whacky rogue ones doing surprisingly well including RG Bees (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=383267), Mono-green Strength from the Fallen (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=380511) and of course 5-colour Chromanti (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=378516)flayer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=391928). The highlight was probably a successful on-camera bestowing of Chromanticore onto Soulflayer, resulting in an 8/8 Flying, First Strike, Vigilance, Trample, Lifelink, Hexproof, Indestructible creature.You visiting, playing, or watching the stream?
Post by: Leafsnail on April 10, 2015, 05:25:35 pm
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptdtk
I'll try and find timestamps for the chromantiflayer match and Owen Turtenwald losing to the crazy SftF deck (although that deck is currently 6th, we might see it on-stream again).
Post by: Sappho on April 10, 2015, 07:34:02 pm
I found a beat-up old copy of this game, made in 1984, at a yard sale for $1, maybe 10 years ago. I bought it on a whim. Turned out to be hands down the greatest board game I'd ever played. It comes with a big book which is mostly full of an analysis of the history of board gaming, only 2 pages of which are the actual game rules.
The goal is simple: fill the 4 center cups with your color pieces. There are 3 types of pieces, each of which has a specific type of move - but the pieces can change during play. It's a perfectly balanced game with a random start each time. Since the game is so unpredictable, you can never plan far in advance - you have to play creatively at all times. And whenever you think you've got your opponent on the ropes, something can happen to completely reverse the situation. It's part checkers, part chess, and part poker. A strategy board game where psychological warfare is a common tactic.
I've taught everyone I could find how to play the game. Spent most of this week playing against my grandfather (who only beat me once). Taught my mom today. Taught all my friends in Prague and we meet often specifically to play this game. And all this time, all these years, I had believed the game to be out of print and impossible to obtain. Just yesterday, however, I discovered the above link - you can still buy a new copy of this game from the creator, a German-born engineer, researcher, and author of books on "recreational mathematics" who currently lives in New Jersey. I immediately ordered a copy for my grandfather to play after I go back to Europe. It's not cheap ($45 including shipping to US, bit more for international), but for what it is, I swear it is absolutely worth it.
Actually, I'd really love to see a digital version of this game. It would be *great* for online play, if it wouldn't be too difficult to code...
tl;dr version: Playing this game makes me feel like Ender. If you can afford it, I highly recommend ordering a copy. You will not regret it.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 10, 2015, 07:54:25 pm
Post by: Mephisto on April 11, 2015, 07:15:58 am
Car Wars. (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/847271320/car-wars-classic-arenas)
If you like vintage games, that's all you need to hear. The story is basically irrelevant. You're a person in a car with weapons strapped to it. You shoot at other people in their own cars with weapons strapped to them. We play the 1991 card game quite often at work, which greatly simplifies the whole thing. That doesn't mean I'm not backing, though.
Post by: Tack on April 11, 2015, 08:31:12 am
In 40k news, I started working on my 3 heavy weapons teams only to realize they're duplicate sprues.
That means I'm gonna have three of the same guys with the same faces and the same actions, with slightly different postures depending on how much I care about it.
Well I care. So I'm currently trying to mod/kit bash them to drastically change their looks.
It is proving difficult.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on April 11, 2015, 09:06:56 am
In tabletop/board/card gaming news, I recently learned that Arctic Scavengers (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41933/arctic-scavengers) is getting a reprint which should be out around may or june. I'm quite giddy considering the game currently sells close to a hundred $/ with shipping no matter where I've looked.
Could be a fun first deck builder to get into if it sold at a more reasonable price.
Post by: Bohandas on April 11, 2015, 10:57:08 am
That board game sounds strangely interesting. I might mention it to my board game-fanatic roomate.
Most stuff by SJ Games is.
Post by: scriver on April 11, 2015, 11:45:18 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 11, 2015, 11:46:42 am
Post by: Bohandas on April 11, 2015, 11:47:23 am
Post by: Kadzar on April 12, 2015, 04:35:12 pm
Due to various other stuff going on at the time, I wasn't able to get in as much gaming as I'd have liked, but I had five-person a game of King of Tokyo (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/70323/king-tokyo) where just me and the last guy were left, and he won with points while on one hitpoint.
Then we had a game of Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10547/betrayal-house-hill) where, due to lucky tile placement, though the traitor was revealed relatively early, we killed him in about two rounds.
And finally, I played Dead of Winter (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/150376/dead-winter-crossroads-game), though not a full game; I replaced someone late in the game for one game and had to leave early for the next. From what I played, though, I could tell it was a pretty cool game.
Post by: Sergius on April 12, 2015, 10:54:59 pm
It feels like D&D proper (not that I personally have anything against 4th, but even 3.x feels a lot like a videogame with all the meta character "build" and wargame stuff), yet it also feels they tried to get rid of the stupidly big tables of feats, powers, skills, and ever-escalating ranks of everything. They even realized that you can knock a zero off from XP points required for each level and given in encounters and *gasp* it works exactly the same! Math is awesome that way.
Looking forward to gaming a bit more of that. I still probably prefer the more open-ended games like Fate, but this definitely falls into my Will Play Again list.
EDIT: It was indeed related to the Tabletop Day.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 12, 2015, 10:58:57 pm
Post by: Kadzar on April 13, 2015, 12:00:58 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 13, 2015, 08:45:05 am
Post by: Cthulhu on April 13, 2015, 09:14:44 am
I've been jonesing hard to play Exalted, wanting to watch movies like Hero. I want to play an unarmed grappling-focused guy who's the latest in a long line of masked martial artists, all sharing a name and a golden mask. His name is El Sol. He's a Luchador.
Edit: Again? Fighters were never d12 that I know of, they're d10. Barbarians are d12
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 13, 2015, 11:47:49 am
Post by: Sergarr on April 13, 2015, 12:13:57 pm
Oh yeah, so they were .I might do it anyway, they're mechanically still one of the weaker classes.Just give them ability to juggle opponents a la fighting games.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 13, 2015, 12:16:01 pm
They're mechanically still one of the weaker classes.What? 1d10+level healing as a bonus action and an extra action every short rest, plus full Extra Attack progression, plus either doubling or tripling your crit range, 4 d8s to enhance damage and control the movement of your enemies that refresh every short rest, or wizard (abjuration or evocation) spellcasting, which includes a teleport that accompanies Action Surge.
This isn't even including the seven (7) ability score improvements they receive.
They're not great, but they certainly don't suck either. They are solidly mid-teir.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 13, 2015, 01:36:31 pm
Post by: sjm9876 on April 13, 2015, 02:38:52 pm
That said, I haven't actually noticed any classes that are noticeably under/overpowered yet. Although I haven't seen all of them in action, or at higher levels.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 13, 2015, 03:05:04 pm
Post by: Tack on April 13, 2015, 03:15:43 pm
In Warhammer news:
1. Hobby
I'm still doing my modding on my IG Heavy weapons squad, but realized I'm missing the necessary legs for my final model. Probably am going to have to run them stock- which sucks.
2. Tabletop
Was going to be joining a friendly local tournament. Very glad I didn't. The lists are filled with Knight-Class-Cheese, along with the typical Nurgle bikesorcerer invisibility crud.
Not too happy. I know unbalance is always a problem (their motto is "it's supposed to be unbalanced, it's thematic") but superheavies will for a little while hold a dark place in my heart.
I say "for a little while" because I used to hate characters too. Not sure when that changed.
Post by: Sergarr on April 13, 2015, 03:20:04 pm
The biggest thing, though, is that the gap is smaller. I only have experience with Wizard play among 5e casters, but the new concentration mechanic pretty much kneecaps any chance of the old abuses of action economy that made them really nasty in 3.x.Last time I checked, necromancy spells a la "raise skeletons" have not had the "concentration" mechanic applied to them, which made it possible to raise gigantic hordes of skeleton archers killing everything on sight due to bounded accuracy.
Has this been fixed?
Post by: sjm9876 on April 13, 2015, 03:25:49 pm
The ranger in my group certainly has it's place - though I run a custom campaign, so I can fit in areas he can shine. Rangers are certainly something of a niche class.
Post by: Tawa on April 13, 2015, 03:29:15 pm
Rangers are certainly something of a niche class.Heh heh. Funny how starkly that contrasts 3.5, eh? They used to be effectively the meatier version of the Bard.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 13, 2015, 03:34:54 pm
To a point. Animate Dead needs to be recast every day now, so it is much harder to maintain a horde of undead.The biggest thing, though, is that the gap is smaller. I only have experience with Wizard play among 5e casters, but the new concentration mechanic pretty much kneecaps any chance of the old abuses of action economy that made them really nasty in 3.x.Last time I checked, necromancy spells a la "raise skeletons" have not had the "concentration" mechanic applied to them, which made it possible to raise gigantic hordes of skeleton archers killing everything on sight due to bounded accuracy.
Has this been fixed?
For instance, a fifth level Wizard can maintain 8 undead at the cost of their 3rd level spells, a tenth level Wizard can maintain 54 undead at the cost of all their 3rd to 5th level spells, and a 15th level Wizard can maintain 90 undead at the cost of their 3rd to 8th level spells.
That's with just Animate Dead, there's also Create Undead, but I'm not familiar with it.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 13, 2015, 05:06:24 pm
To a point. Animate Dead needs to be recast every day now, so it is much harder to maintain a horde of undead.The biggest thing, though, is that the gap is smaller. I only have experience with Wizard play among 5e casters, but the new concentration mechanic pretty much kneecaps any chance of the old abuses of action economy that made them really nasty in 3.x.Last time I checked, necromancy spells a la "raise skeletons" have not had the "concentration" mechanic applied to them, which made it possible to raise gigantic hordes of skeleton archers killing everything on sight due to bounded accuracy.
Has this been fixed?
For instance, a fifth level Wizard can maintain 8 undead at the cost of their 3rd level spells, a tenth level Wizard can maintain 54 undead at the cost of all their 3rd to 5th level spells, and a 15th level Wizard can maintain 90 undead at the cost of their 3rd to 8th level spells.
That's with just Animate Dead, there's also Create Undead, but I'm not familiar with it.
This, basically. You have to burn all of your spell slots to get a decent sized horde even at higher levels. This is a bigger deal than it was in 3.x because there are literally no tricks you can use to get more spells/day. You get your thing where you can refresh a couple slots 1/day after a short rest and that's it. No Focused Specialist Necromancer shenanigans; if you're a dedicated Necromancer all of your magic is going into the reanimation upkeep and any casting you do will be from wands and such.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 13, 2015, 05:23:08 pm
Not too happy. I know unbalance is always a problem (their motto is "it's supposed to be unbalanced, it's thematic")
The man who thought of that should be shot, preferably multiple times. The genepool would thank his killer.
Post by: Yoink on April 13, 2015, 11:37:04 pm
I remember playing Pathfinder (the same campaign where we whored out the halfling druid, incidentally) and the three of us (split party) were selling some magic item to a junk dealer when, surprise surprise, he fiddled with it and unleashed an ettin in the town's marketplace.Rangers are certainly something of a niche class.Heh heh. Funny how starkly that contrasts 3.5, eh? They used to be effectively the meatier version of the Bard.
From what I remember, the halfling got owned pretty much straight away, my half orc shot it with a hand crossbow then ran for his life, only to be smacked into unconsciousness with its club and have an entire market stall collapse on top of me. The DM was most amused when I tried to activate Orc Ferocity. >.>
So just the tiefling ranger was left, wielding some sort of detachable dual-bladed glaive-type-thing.
He managed to take down the ettin without a scratch. That was... rather embarrassing. This is the same ranger who later one-shotted a powerful demon just as it was jokingly saying "Let us negotiate," since our more-or-less good party had charged in and gone straight to fighting as opposed to trying to talk things through as we usually would.
He was known as 'the negotiator' after that. :P
Post by: Bohandas on April 14, 2015, 12:33:09 am
The biggest thing, though, is that the gap is smaller. I only have experience with Wizard play among 5e casters, but the new concentration mechanic pretty much kneecaps any chance of the old abuses of action economy that made them really nasty in 3.x.Last time I checked, necromancy spells a la "raise skeletons" have not had the "concentration" mechanic applied to them, which made it possible to raise gigantic hordes of skeleton archers killing everything on sight due to bounded accuracy.
Has this been fixed?
There were limits to how many you could control. Also, I don't remember Animate Dead conjuring up equipment, so you'd have to supply them with the bows if they didn't already have them when they fell.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 14, 2015, 02:26:36 pm
Quote
This is a war game like no other. Although the map is big (10 feet / 3.048 m) the game is smaller than other games (Europa for one). There are not as many rules as in ASL. And yet this is the biggest monster game out there for a number of reasons.
The game is detailed to a degree no other game has come close to. If using the full rules you keep track of every individual plane and pilot in the three year campaign. Each counter on the board representing a ground unit is composed of many units which are kept track of on logs. Supplies are kept track of and dispersed in a very detailed manner.
From the rulebook we read how to run a game. "CNA is a logistically-oriented game, and its play requires not only a lot of attention to logistics, but, if you will, a logistically sound methodology." It is suggested that you have 5 persons per side with the following duties.
Commander-in-Chief: responsible for strategic decisions and to settle intra-team disputes.
Logistics Commander: In charge of all supplies. Accepts supply requisitions from the others and keeps all informed of supply shortages. Is in charge of supply dumps, Third line trucks and some second line trucks and is in charge of Naval convoys.
Rear Area Commander: Gets the supplies to the front. In charge of security, reserves, prisoners and construction.
Air Commander: In charge of all planes and pilots. Is responsible for planning air missions and deployment of air bases.
Front-line Commander: Executes all attacks and troop movements in the front line. Helps with coordinating defensive efforts.
Playing time with 10 players is listed at 1200 hours.
Quote
Playing time with 10 players is listed at 1200 hours.
Quote
1200 hours.50 days. Straight.
We should get a game going.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 14, 2015, 02:33:33 pm
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 02:34:11 pm
Ofc. it'd most likely fall apart in the planning/org stages.To be fair, that's basically the entire game, if I'm reading it right.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 14, 2015, 02:36:49 pm
No, I mean the planning/setup for getting the game going at all, not the in-game logistics. :POfc. it'd most likely fall apart in the planning/org stages.To be fair, that's basically the entire game, if I'm reading it right.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on April 14, 2015, 02:50:34 pm
-snip-While we're on the subject of over-complicated board games, consider this World at War "session report". (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/940888/life-altering-game-deserves-kind-session-report) Note that if you're planning on reading the whole thing through, you should probably make some food, have water nearby, have a toilet handy, and set a reminder so you don't forget to pay your electric bill halfway through.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 14, 2015, 03:18:54 pm
Good lord, that's 20k words.-snip-While we're on the subject of over-complicated board games, consider this World at War "session report". (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/940888/life-altering-game-deserves-kind-session-report) Note that if you're planning on reading the whole thing through, you should probably make some food, have water nearby, have a toilet handy, and set a reminder so you don't forget to pay your electric bill halfway through.
Post by: Tack on April 14, 2015, 04:06:02 pm
Post by: Culise on April 14, 2015, 04:06:18 pm
The Campaign for North Africa (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/campaign-north-africa)Hee~. I've been interested in this game for years, but for various reasons, finding the game itself, much less other players, has been kinda sorta impossible for me. If someone ran this, I would be so, so interested, even if only to say, "I played a World War 2 board game where logistics are tracked down to the pasta rations for Italian soldiers."
We should get a game going.
Post by: Dutchling on April 14, 2015, 04:08:46 pm
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 06:06:09 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 14, 2015, 06:10:51 pm
Edit: Nope. Redirects to sketchy website, which redirects to even sketchier website.
Edit 2: I found a fan update of the game here (http://cna-group.proboards.com/#category-1).
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 14, 2015, 06:24:21 pm
Post by: Bauglir on April 14, 2015, 06:33:38 pm
Yeah, I'm not so much saying "look at this better thing you could do with your time" because that's silly, so much as "look at how much sheer effort goes into this hobby".Consider: You could play 8 games of The Campaign for North Africa, or just about become a world-class musician.
I think there are more world-class musicians than people who have played this game in its entirety, so in a way this is actually a more valuable use of time.
Post by: Bohandas on April 15, 2015, 03:12:44 am
Post by: scriver on April 15, 2015, 05:59:11 am
Although if I played the tabletop game I would be able to do fun stuff like insist all soldiers get a cow to milk their own milk every morning (I might he persuaded to go down to one she-goat if space is an issue, or order horse charges against tanks and machine guns, or make my loyal cat into a commander.
Post by: Leafsnail on April 15, 2015, 07:09:28 am
Interestingly you aren't judged on whether you win or not, but on how well you perform compared to the historical result.
e: also the AI is incredibly stupid, it frequently throws away bombers for no reason and also you can apparently wipe out a lot of the USN at Pearl Harbour due to how badly the AI handles it.
Post by: penguinofhonor on April 15, 2015, 07:24:26 am
Post by: Leafsnail on April 15, 2015, 07:39:03 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on April 15, 2015, 08:23:03 am
I could be misremembering things though. For obvious reasons it's been months since I read the opening of a WitP LP...
Post by: Leafsnail on April 15, 2015, 08:36:33 am
Post by: Flying Dice on April 15, 2015, 09:23:07 am
Post by: Fniff on April 15, 2015, 02:31:05 pm
I've got the itch for some IRC/roll20 style RP, but fooling around with timezones is difficult.
Post by: scrdest on April 15, 2015, 02:38:26 pm
Is there anyone within the European timezone that would be interested in online roleplaying?Maybe, yeah.
I've got the itch for some IRC/roll20 style RP, but fooling around with timezones is difficult.
Post by: BFEL on April 15, 2015, 02:52:14 pm
The idea is a senile little old lady who was the head of the Illuminati or somesuch. She spends her days crocheting in her house built on top of a portal to hell that is barely kept at bay by slowly failing magic wards. She is introduced to the party by inviting them in for a cup of tea, then taking them to her basement to fetch one of the several hundred macguffins she stores, and casually banishes a Shoggoth while doing so. She then forgets what she was doing, and invites them upstairs for tea.
Basically, she is the closest thing the setting would have to a Big Good, and everything she worked for is about to be destroyed by sheer old age and her failing memory.
Post by: BlitzDungeoneer on April 15, 2015, 02:54:09 pm
Is there anyone within the European timezone that would be interested in online roleplaying?If this is about what I think it is, definitely.
I've got the itch for some IRC/roll20 style RP, but fooling around with timezones is difficult.
Even if not, still probably interested.
Post by: sjm9876 on April 15, 2015, 03:22:45 pm
Is there anyone within the European timezone that would be interested in online roleplaying?Colour me a interested. Times and exams permitting ofc.
I've got the itch for some IRC/roll20 style RP, but fooling around with timezones is difficult.
Post by: Fniff on April 15, 2015, 04:22:50 pm
Colour me a interested. Times and exams permitting ofc.
If this is about what I think it is, definitely.
Even if not, still probably interested.
Maybe, yeah.Sweet! I'll PM you guys in a bit about what kind of RP would be your gig. I have a few ideas...
Post by: scriver on April 15, 2015, 08:42:26 pm
Edit: We've discussed the lack of Europe zoned games before, you see ;)
Post by: kilakan on April 16, 2015, 08:38:45 am
Post by: Ultimuh on April 16, 2015, 12:12:56 pm
I'm in Europe and interested. I think ultimuh might he interested too.
Edit: We've discussed the lack of Europe zoned games before, you see ;)
Yeah I might be interested.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 16, 2015, 05:58:03 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 16, 2015, 06:04:30 pm
There's nothing in the rules for it and it seems unlikely it'd be possible physically.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 16, 2015, 07:04:42 pm
That, and unlike a real helicopter the blade isn't actually connected to the character. Their STR and DEX is at whatever arbitrarily high number would be necessary to do
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cDKU-D4tq38#t=45) overhead
There's nothing in the rules for it and it seems unlikely it'd be possible physically.
[/quote]
"There is only RAW, it is impossible to extrapolate further values from the existing (and surprisingly accurate) measurements which are in the rules."
Also, "possible physically"? You're aware that past 4th-5th level or so PCs are literally superhuman, right? By 20th level they exceed just about every fictional character you can think of, including a number of gods. It's at the root of why the scaling is so broken: they used realistic measurements and feats for baseline humans to determine... what baseline humans could do. An average of 10 in ability scores is a vanilla human; a 1st-2nd level PC is already in the top 1% of human capabilities if they've got a decent point spread, even Elite Array. People like to talk about how D&D is so unrealistic &c. at high level play... but that's sort of the point. It's wrong to think of high level adventurers as mortals, because they effectively aren't; Epic-level PCs would fit into Exalted without too much difficulty.
Post by: Culise on April 16, 2015, 09:05:18 pm
In other words, mount decanter of infinite water rockets on each end of a 10' pole carved so that it'll generate lift once in motion (or a sword, if you really want, though a sword shaped to generate lift might not be as effective for actually fighting). Use that as the helicopter blade. Be prepared to be whacked by the DMG. ^_^
Post by: Bauglir on April 16, 2015, 09:08:27 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on April 17, 2015, 08:55:47 am
Also, the only reason helicopters need tail rotors is because of conservation of angular momentum. Spin the rotor without generating angular momentum, and you don't need tail rotors or contra-rotating propellers.
In other words, mount decanter of infinite water rockets on each end of a 10' pole carved so that it'll generate lift once in motion (or a sword, if you really want, though a sword shaped to generate lift might not be as effective for actually fighting). Use that as the helicopter blade. Be prepared to be whacked by the DMG. ^_^
Well that goes without saying. :P
Post by: Tack on April 17, 2015, 12:02:20 pm
So. Not. Happy. About.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 17, 2015, 12:11:34 pm
Anyone who got that gets a hug.
Post by: Bohandas on April 17, 2015, 01:06:31 pm
Also, the only reason helicopters need tail rotors is because of conservation of angular momentum. Spin the rotor without generating angular momentum, and you don't need tail rotors or contra-rotating propellers.
In other words, mount decanter of infinite water rockets on each end of a 10' pole carved so that it'll generate lift once in motion (or a sword, if you really want, though a sword shaped to generate lift might not be as effective for actually fighting). Use that as the helicopter blade. Be prepared to be whacked by the DMG. ^_^
You could also use a decanter of endless water to power a crude automobile; aim it down onto a little waterwheel that tuens the wheels.
Post by: Jimmy on April 17, 2015, 05:24:22 pm
Helicopter? Why bother when a flying carpet is only 20,000 gp?
Car? A cart with a permanent Animate Objects enchantment would never need refueling. Top speed would be about 48 miles per hour.
Movie theaters? No technology invented can beat a Permanent Image spell. Fill the audience with punters and simply concentrate to give them a show, including full 3D sight, sound, smell and temperature.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 17, 2015, 05:27:20 pm
Pretty much most mundane technology is duplicated or improved in D&D and would be far easier to create as a magic item or with a spell.What about staplers?
Post by: Jimmy on April 17, 2015, 05:28:11 pm
Post by: Sergius on April 17, 2015, 11:11:18 pm
Post by: Toaster on April 20, 2015, 09:30:33 am
physics.
Spoiler: We're about one step away now (click to show/hide)
Post by: timferius on April 20, 2015, 09:34:56 am
Post by: Flying Dice on April 20, 2015, 09:54:54 am
Post by: scriver on April 20, 2015, 10:26:48 am
Post by: scrdest on April 20, 2015, 01:00:21 pm
I don't know what you're talking about, that scene is completely logical.Please tell me you are not serious.
Post by: Tack on April 20, 2015, 01:40:04 pm
Post by: Sergius on April 21, 2015, 03:16:22 pm
Also, the door wasn't disintegrated, it was dodging the laser.
Post by: birdy51 on April 21, 2015, 11:11:42 pm
Post by: Jimmy on April 23, 2015, 08:07:37 am
Post by: Tawa on April 23, 2015, 03:49:32 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 23, 2015, 04:19:16 pm
Post by: Mephisto on April 24, 2015, 09:13:04 am
There are five days remaining on the Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/847271320/car-wars-classic-arenas/description) and it's tantalizingly close to a few stretch goals, one of which is two more maps.
Post by: Tack on April 24, 2015, 11:07:28 am
I can't help but think that I got excited about Hordemachine for nought.
Post by: Sergarr on April 26, 2015, 12:23:37 pm
Suboptimal play is good when you explicitly agree to it with all other people on the table.I'm not sure why you would even play the Monk in D&D 3rd edition or its forks, given how much do they suck in comparison to pretty much any other class in the game.Yes, why would you ever want to play anything that isn't tier 1, or maybe a tier 2 if the DM bans all those T1 primary casters? They're called rollplaying games for a reason, and you're not having fun if you're not trivializing the rest of the party, right?Spoiler: An aside (click to show/hide)
See, I fell into a similar trap before - that optimisation and roleplaying is a one-or-the-other situation.
Monk, is at the end of a day, a class. A bad one. You can build a unarmed fighter that works better than a monk and say "This guy is a monk of X temple," and play him as such. And you can't say that's wrong. If it talks like a monk, walks like a monk, and punches (better) than a monk, you can call it a monk even if it's not a Monk.
You played a Monk that had been significally buffed from it's original interpretation. Because if it's too weak that hinders roleplaying, too. A master of martial arts getting chumped by every fighter it comes across is probably antithesis to what you were intending.
There are silly things, like half-dragon half-minotaur half-ogre kobolds, yes. But aside from the really silly things like that an optimised character can provide opportunities. They have a weird combat style - who taught them it? How did they discover it? That sort of stuff still applies.
See, that's the point I was making. That setup was a perfect example of how to meet your baseline for rollplay when you're interested in RP -- the character contributes to the party in a meaningful way. When you want to do something but aren't sure if it's viable, you talk with your DM. And you optimize the shit out of it. The point being to lift a class that wouldn't ordinarily be very viable into a higher tier so that it is. Duh.
If you really want to argue that "no ur not allowed to play anything suboptimal," I'd say fuck your Fighters and Barbarians, you have to play a Warblade, glaivelock, Cleric, or Druid. What, you want to play a martial character without being a caster or using weeaboo fightan magic? Too bad, martial classes are trash.
This whole "bluh bluh you have to only play the best things every time" is, frankly, disgusting and rather detrimental to the medium. If someone wants to play a sword&board Fighter straight up to level 20, I'm going to smile and have fun rather than bitching at them about how they should have played a spiked chain AoO machine or a charger.
But this is starting to derail, so let's continue in the RPG thread if we're going to.
The problem is that a lot of people refuse to accept that classes like fighter and monk are objectively useless in comparison with the same-level wizard/cleric/druid. Anything they can do the magic classes can do better, and there are a lot of things that magic classes can do that are not even an option to non-magic classes.
There's this whole misconception that you can fix a Fighter by giving him more damage/HP, but it's wrong. He's still useless in most out-of-combat encounters, which BTW are the core of roleplay experience so the non-magic classes fail at roleplaying, too (what a surprise).
And Fighter is just such a trash name for a class. Every class in the game fights, so Fighter is conceptually limited to be below every single other class in the game just by his name alone. Monk has more potential, but the way he's implemented in D&D 3rd edition is beyond atrocious. The most obvious example of that is that Monks by default for some reason don't have proficiency with their fists. The "lol you can't use both spring attack and flurry of blows at the same time because that would be OP hurr durr" thing is also a fine example of why Monk is bad.
Really the game would benefit greatly if the classes Fighter and Monk were combined with the Paladin class into a single flexible Martial-with-occasional-magical-help character.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 26, 2015, 02:15:14 pm
That said, it's just as irresponsible to build a Batman wizard or CoDzilla without checking with the party. If you do that and everyone else is T2-4 classes, you're screwing them all over just as much as if you picked an un-houseruled T4-5 into a party full of T1-3s.
Post by: Tack on April 27, 2015, 12:57:03 am
Makes beefwalls much more useful in noncombat stuff.
Post by: BlitzDungeoneer on April 27, 2015, 04:11:27 am
How many people have heard of Dungeons: The Dragoning? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/DungeonsTheDragoning)
Post by: Naryar on April 27, 2015, 07:00:09 am
It's quite a bit of work.
Post by: XXXXYYYY on April 27, 2015, 08:01:08 am
I'm also making an Expert with max ranks in all 10 knowledge skills for a friend that wanted to play a NPC class for the hell of it. This may or may not be due to all the current party members being around as smart as a very dull brick.
Post by: Mephisto on April 27, 2015, 08:17:16 am
Been trying to adapt Mage: the Ascension to GURPS.
It's quite a bit of work.
I usually start out by seeing if anyone else has done the work. Turns out I surprised myself and did one better than finding a third-party netbook.
Ta da! (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/magetheascension/)
I kind of want to buy this somewhere and convert it to 4e now.
Also, the forums suggest Realm Magic from Thaumatology (which lists M:tA in its bibliography) as a good fit for Spheres/Paradox if you want something a bit more up-to-date.
Sorry, I have a thing for systems. GURPS is one of my favorites and I fondly remember playing Genius: The Transgression in college.
Post by: Bauglir on April 27, 2015, 10:18:22 am
So.It reads better than it plays, but that's still okay.
How many people have heard of Dungeons: The Dragoning? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/DungeonsTheDragoning)
Post by: Kadzar on April 27, 2015, 07:45:30 pm
The way we fixed that one was just to add Str to intimidate checks.This reminded me that one thing I like about 5e is that Backgrounds allow your beefwalls to be more than just beefwalls. As a Guild Merchant, my barbarian is able to persuade people without the threat of violence and have insight into people and situations, in addition to his normal class skills. You can pick up any set of skills from your background; like, if I had wanted to, I could have made my barbarian a Sage instead, so he could know about magic and history. And, by the rules, you can customize your background as much as you want to, or completely make your own (though you should probably try to make the skills make sense for it).
Makes beefwalls much more useful in noncombat stuff.
You also pick up tool proficiencies or languages and background features from your background, though these seem more DM/campaign dependent in their usefulness than skills.
I'm also making an Expert with max ranks in all 10 knowledge skills for a friend that wanted to play a NPC class for the hell of it. This may or may not be due to all the current party members being around as smart as a very dull brick.As a challenge, I'm guessing? Because, in all respects other than alignment restriction, a bard would be better for the job.
Post by: Naryar on April 28, 2015, 01:16:54 pm
Been trying to adapt Mage: the Ascension to GURPS.
It's quite a bit of work.
I usually start out by seeing if anyone else has done the work. Turns out I surprised myself and did one better than finding a third-party netbook.
Ta da! (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/magetheascension/)
I kind of want to buy this somewhere and convert it to 4e now.
Also, the forums suggest Realm Magic from Thaumatology (which lists M:tA in its bibliography) as a good fit for Spheres/Paradox if you want something a bit more up-to-date.
Sorry, I have a thing for systems. GURPS is one of my favorites and I fondly remember playing Genius: The Transgression in college.
I've been using Ritual Path Magic from Thaumatology, thinking of Realm Magic but too late. Also quite a bit of houseruling to make it look more like MtA.
Most of it is done, I have simply to convert Prime to a RpM-style Path.
Post by: Tack on April 28, 2015, 06:40:49 pm
Which is awesome, I've currently harpooned 3 flying creatures, two of them being bosses, with the only problem that they all without fail manage to snip my rope.
Getting kinda sick of this shit.
Post by: Bauglir on April 28, 2015, 06:51:14 pm
Post by: Tack on April 28, 2015, 09:33:34 pm
Post by: Jimmy on April 29, 2015, 05:49:48 am
Post by: Tack on April 29, 2015, 07:16:32 am
Also, I play 3.5+. Fabricate has to use the same amount of material as the raw material started with.
Is how I actually made my harpoon, by holding a bunch of javelins around a pitchfork and snapping my fingers. Was pretty cool in the moment.
Post by: Jimmy on April 29, 2015, 08:52:02 am
Fabricate's text says regarding the components:
Material Component
The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.
When you craft an item you pay one-third of the items price for the cost of raw materials.
Therefore if you let the 10 ft. chain be the original material, it costs three times the amount as the raw materials required to craft the item.
Thus using the 10 ft. chain as the original material, you can create a 30 ft. chain by the rules as written.
Post by: Flying Dice on April 29, 2015, 08:53:55 am
Post by: Sergius on April 29, 2015, 09:39:20 am
If you read the rules as written, it actually creates more materials when used this way.
Fabricate's text says regarding the components:
Material Component
The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.
When you craft an item you pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.
Therefore if you let the 10 ft. chain be the original material, it costs three times the amount as the raw materials required to craft the item.
Thus using the 10 ft. chain as the original material, you can create a 30 ft. chain by the rules as written.
Seems to me that it's telling you that the uncrafted materials are cheaper than the finished thing, not that you use one third of the mass of the item. And in industry, raw material can't be a finished product (in fact it would mean ore, not even ingots, as raw means as found in nature "unprocessed or minimally processed". But in a RPG I would probably allow ingots).
Raw materials -> intermediate material -> finished product.
Intermediate would be the ingots, then the chain links. The chain itself can be considered an intermediate product if you're using it to make something else, or a finished product if you're just going to sell it that way.
If you start with a finished chain you can make a finished chain of the same length, and you should pay for the full finished chain that you used, since it wasn't a raw material. In fact, you could say that since the raw materials of a completed chain are worth 1/3 of the price of the chain, you're in fact destroying the first chain, making it lose two thirds of its value, then using the raw materials. Or you're just saving work.
Post by: Culise on April 29, 2015, 09:55:33 am
Post by: Mephisto on April 29, 2015, 10:01:58 am
Indeed. I don't think the RAW covers overcharging for raw materials or paying for more-expensive finished goods to render them into raw materials. Usually, though, I hear the logic around Resurrection where it's paying 10,000 g for tiny diamond fragments, but by contrast, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone argue that buying a diamond the size of an ogre's head for a copper piece, to exaggerate a bit, would disqualify it from use for material components.
I have. Something about the inherent value of the reagent being what allows it to function.
In fact, that might even be a rule in GURPS IIRC and it even makes sense there. In order to enchant things into what are essentially mana capacitors, you base the capacity off of the cash value of the item. If diamonds are worthless, they won't make good power stones.
Post by: Culise on April 29, 2015, 10:06:14 am
"I've got 10 diamonds, and you can have the lot for 10 thousand."
"I'll pay 10 thousand for each."
"...OK."
"Great. Now we can have 10 Resurrections instead of one."
Post by: Sergarr on April 29, 2015, 10:32:07 am
Can you crash the market in order to disable some spells from being used for a duration of the crash?
Post by: Flying Dice on April 29, 2015, 10:49:33 am
Therefore, we can conclude that a conspiracy exists between all casters who use material components across all known planes to intrinsically tie magic to the continued use of gold coins as the currency. They're trying to leverage the importance of their magic to prevent economic development towards the use of fiat money.
Post by: BFEL on April 29, 2015, 01:58:48 pm
Therefore, we can conclude that a conspiracy exists between all casters who use material components across all known planes to intrinsically tie magic to the continued use of gold coins as the currency. They're trying to leverage the importance of their magic to prevent economic development towards the use of fiat money.I want a campaign based entirely around this concept.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on April 29, 2015, 02:09:35 pm
Post by: Arx on April 29, 2015, 02:22:31 pm
Of course, that's about 4 grams of plutonium, but still.
Post by: Dutchling on April 29, 2015, 02:28:42 pm
Speaking of Magic and gold, one of my friends recently calculated on a whim that Black Lotus cards are worth twice their weight in plutonium.Yeah I saw that on the frontpage of /r/MagicTCG too :P
Post by: Tack on April 30, 2015, 01:42:38 am
I heard about the one guy who lost his Black Lotus card in a fire and then tried to convince the insurance company that it was a $50k reimbursable loss.
No idea what happened after that.
In any case, our GM is very big on 'Spirit of the rules, not Letter of the rules'. For instance, my harpoon in the Rolladex says that it only grapples on a crit. I say 'Fuck that noise', GM goes 'Yeah that's pretty dull. Make it if you do more than X damage to them'.
However, if we try to exploit loopholes to make ourselves (more) overpowered, he'll shut it dow
n.
Creating mithril chain out of nothing is the exact same thing - especially as he's now put mithril in as a currency between gold and platinum.
Spoiler: The funny thing about that, for those who are interested (click to show/hide)
Why Magic Items cost gold. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Why_Magic_Items_Cost_Gold)Blown. Mind. Mine. Is.
Post by: Leafsnail on April 30, 2015, 02:26:39 am
Zing.Pretty sure you'd have to take out a special insurance policy on something like that.
I heard about the one guy who lost his Black Lotus card in a fire and then tried to convince the insurance company that it was a $50k reimbursable loss.
No idea what happened after that.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 30, 2015, 04:51:43 am
Highlights:
Another sorcerer option is coming, as are more options for the Four Elemental Monk.
As for Eberron, Artificer and Warforged are going to be altered majorly.
Post by: Jimmy on April 30, 2015, 09:19:36 am
Of course this also meant most players had a gentleman's agreement not to break the game, but enjoyed getting up to shenanigans occasionally.
Meanwhile, this week my Pathfinder wizard hit level 5 and just got Fireball and Haste, and we're about to explore the 3rd floor of an ancient dwarven ruin. Can't wait to fry some monsters!
Post by: Mephisto on April 30, 2015, 10:26:08 am
Post by: Sergius on April 30, 2015, 02:45:52 pm
Maybe whoever designed the spells deliberately pegged them to the currency; what the spell actually needs is a threshold of value based on common acceptance of the GP as legal tender as represented by commodities with ties to the effects of the spells. The magic can't run on the gold standard, or the descriptions wouldn't specify coinage. That said, it also specifies gold pieces, excluding silver, copper, and platinum.
Therefore, we can conclude that a conspiracy exists between all casters who use material components across all known planes to intrinsically tie magic to the continued use of gold coins as the currency. They're trying to leverage the importance of their magic to prevent economic development towards the use of fiat money.
Maybe magic just relies on the reflected sound of underground spirits?
Post by: Tack on April 30, 2015, 08:32:00 pm
Post by: Bohandas on May 01, 2015, 01:26:17 am
Maybe whoever designed the spells deliberately pegged them to the currency; what the spell actually needs is a threshold of value based on common acceptance of the GP as legal tender as represented by commodities with ties to the effects of the spells. The magic can't run on the gold standard, or the descriptions wouldn't specify coinage. That said, it also specifies gold pieces, excluding silver, copper, and platinum.
Therefore, we can conclude that a conspiracy exists between all casters who use material components across all known planes to intrinsically tie magic to the continued use of gold coins as the currency. They're trying to leverage the importance of their magic to prevent economic development towards the use of fiat money.
Or to prevent the develop,ent of high technology, as gold, copper, silver, and platinum are all very good electrical conductors
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 01, 2015, 01:58:10 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 01, 2015, 02:01:56 pm
WOTC released another 100 trinkets for their latest supplement. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elemental-evil-trinkets)Heh, that's cool.
Post by: Gentlefish on May 01, 2015, 02:15:07 pm
Quote from: article
95 A romance chapbook written in undercommon titled "Just one Layer of Grey".
I'm slain
Post by: Flying Dice on May 01, 2015, 03:11:19 pm
That self-heating teakettle sounds lovely.
Post by: Aseaheru on May 01, 2015, 06:43:14 pm
Post by: Jimmy on May 03, 2015, 06:32:14 am
Post by: Gentlefish on May 03, 2015, 06:36:30 pm
I love all three of them and I have a problem.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 03, 2015, 09:25:01 pm
Is there a better sheet-hosting service for dnd 3.5e than Mythweavers? It's really great in most respects, but recently we lost the ability to clone sheets (as far as we can tell) and we really need more boxes to hold modifiers, at least for stats. More modifier boxes for skills would be nice too.
Tempted to make a solution with a GoogleDoc's spreadsheet, but surely there's an existing solution...?
Post by: Tack on May 04, 2015, 07:50:19 am
On a critical hit (nat20, there's no AC+10 crits here), you can use the weapon to make a grapple check against the foe.
Which is basically just another level of redundancy between me and that freaking flying wizard who is taunting me.
Post by: chaoticag on May 04, 2015, 08:52:43 am
You need to take exotic weapon proficiency for the harpoon, since you're gonna want it as a melee weapon, and then you'll wanna take Throw Anything as a feat. Now, the thrown harpoon will be an improvised weapon, but with no penalty to use as one. It does lower the critical damage to x2. At eighth level, you get a bonus feat as a fighter, so take improvised weapon mastery and improved critical harpoon. Your thrown harpoon now deals 1d10 damage, and crits on 17-20 x2, while melee wise, it deals 1d8 and crits 19-20 x3 .
Side note: this seems pretty cheesy and depends on a couple grey areas of rules interpretation. Consult your game master before trying this build.
Okay, had to double check this. Looks like a harpoon is a thrown weapon after all... Now I have the urge to make a Throw Anything fighter, or a javalin spam fighter.
Post by: Tack on May 04, 2015, 09:51:17 am
Much like a trident.
It can be thrown, just not any gigantic distances
Post by: Flying Dice on May 04, 2015, 09:56:29 am
Post by: Sergarr on May 04, 2015, 10:35:32 am
As far as I'm aware, the natural 20 triggers a critical hit in 3.0 and 3.5 as well, not AC + 10. (Source (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Standard_Actions#Critical_Hits))Actually not quite, it trigger a possible critical hit. To actually make it you need to make a critical roll. This ensures that if you can only hit on natural 20, then not every hit that you make is a critical.
Post by: chaoticag on May 04, 2015, 11:04:08 am
I think I'd prefer to take bolas over the harpoon in this case. Tripping is less powerful, but you can manage more of them with quick draw and a high enough BAB without giving up your standard actions to attack.
Post by: Tack on May 05, 2015, 11:47:27 am
But yeah, when a weapon has a grappling tag it means you get a free grappling attempt, rather than it meaning you can attempt a grapping attack with the weapon instead of a hit.This- but only on a crit.
Considering that it takes a full round action to reel your harpoon back to you, doesn't count for much that you get to take all your attacks.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 06, 2015, 01:35:50 pm
Minotaur race, Mariner Fighting Style, Swashbuckler Rogue Archetype, and Storm Sorcerer Origin.
Brief glance analysis:
Minotaur is kinda interesting: it has some cool things it can do with its horns as bonus actions when used with Dash and melee attacks.
Mariner is essentially a better version of Defense for those that use Light and Medium armor and no shield.
Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?
Storm Sorcerers seem to be designed to be short ranged damage dealers, based around retaliation.
Post by: Sergius on May 06, 2015, 02:05:37 pm
Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?
Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).
EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 06, 2015, 02:14:27 pm
Quote from: Flanking
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponents space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
That's actually harsher than what my group has been using, where a line between the two flankers' centers has to pass through the victim's space (touching the corner doesn't count). Oops. Fortunately we don't really flank much, our rogue was ranged and also retired.
I think there's some trick or feat in Complete Scoundrel which basically lets you get flanking bonuses while being on the same side of an enemy. Pretty weak for a feat, I think...
Post by: Sergius on May 06, 2015, 02:16:22 pm
Quote from: FlankingWhen in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
That's actually harsher than what my group has been using, where a line between the two flankers' centers has to pass through the victim's space (touching the corner doesn't count). Oops. Fortunately we don't really flank much, our rogue was ranged and also retired.
I think there's some trick or feat in Complete Scoundrel which basically lets you get flanking bonuses while being on the same side of an enemy. Pretty weak for a feat, I think...
There's no Flanking (or facing whatsoever, that's why I used double quotes) in 5E. Rogues get sneak attack on any enemy that's next to an ally.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 06, 2015, 03:30:00 pm
I'm building another 3.5 edition character. I can see why Warshaper has a bad reputation... Even trying to understand the intent rather than the RAW, getting about 7 natural attacks (bite, horns-gore, tail, and 4 sets of claws) for the cost of a move action each is really powerful. Plus immunity to stunning and criticals! All for a 1-level dip. And that's ignoring that, RAW, you could just keep spawning tentacles until your DM strangles you...
I think I'll take it anyway, and just use it with discretion. I'll be an ogre-mage (different from an ogre who is a mage), who can at-will shapechange into trolls, then I'll boost the troll's three natural attacks. Maaaybe grow some badass antlers, too, since I'm representing the quadruped (horse-totem) clan of ogres.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogreMage.htm
Our barbearian still runs around with 46 strength due to homebrew drugs and a homebrew rage-boosting amulet... I think an ogre-mage monk is fairly safe.
Speaking of rage-inducing rage, my previous character got reincarnated as a badass demon. But we were attacked by homebrew rage-inducing planar monstrosities, and we failed our will saves before we could kill them all. My character was forced to kill the party wizard *again*, and also lost all her defensive abilities like parrying and tumbling due to the rage. Our barbearian got yet another level of rage (essentially triple, thanks to the artifact) AND a dose of frenzy, which is yet another +6 strength AND haste (haste is banned by the DM, but not this). His strength modifier must have been about +23, and his BAB is 16 despite us being level 15 because "racial HD don't cost levels that's dumb". He paid 2 levels to be this:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm
Which granted 3 BAB and 2 feats along with its 4HD. Except the DM said the HD didn't count towards ECL. bluuurgh but that's okay! At least I can do all the min-maxing I want without ever feeling the least bit sorry :P Which turns out to be, some min-maxing, but no way am I ever using Lightning Mace again (if you threaten a critical, attack again. Hello, laminated serrated scimitars and Improved Criticals. And 1 level of warblade to rewrite the feat requirements... The DM told me to do this, I swear!)
Oh right, with that +39 or whatever, and my defensive abilities disabled by rage, I went down in two hits. 163HP and 10DR, meh. Though it didn't help that our wizard/11-headed-hydra blasted me with a gout of flame which we decided counted as one attack, despite it coming from 11 heads... Hence 10 fire resistance doing blast-all.
So yeah, Ogre-Magi 7 (yeah it *should* be 11), Warshaper 1, Druid 1, Monk 1, Sacred Fist 5. Shapeshift alt class feature for druid, so I can get another 4 natural armor and strength with a swift action (a level 1 animal companion would be a liability). Spellcasting of a level 4 druid, which means only 1 and 2 druid spells, but that's fine... If possible I'll take Practiced Spellcaster to boost my Caster Level to 8. That'll specifically help Barkskin (+4 natural armor instead of 2) and Resist Energy (20 fire resistance instead of 10). Resist Energy being crucial since Ogre-Magi have regeneration (fire/acid).
Yeah, I think this ought to work... Fits fairly well with what's happening in the campaign, too. Hopefully will live a bit longer than my last character, but that's what regeneration and CON bonus is for.
Edit:
Actually, hell, level 2 and 3 of Warshaper are great too. +4STR/CON, and +5 reach when I already have 10 as an ogre. If I transfer two levels there from sacred fist, I only lose one spellcasting level so I still have level 2 spells. I lose the sacred flames 1/day boost, but... It wasn't actually crucial like at all. And a second level in Monk would get me sweet sweet Evasion...
Ogre-Magi 7, Warshaper 1, Druid 1, Monk 1, Sacred Fist 5
Ogre-Magi 7, Warshaper 3, Druid 3, Monk 2
My unarmed strike damage roll plummets, but my strength is more important there anyway. And I'll be allowed to use monk weapons again, which can be enchanted. The only remaining question is, should I keep monk levels at all or should I trade them out for Tome of Battle levels? Pragmatically the answer is obvious, but keeping the monk levels is cooler and also so much simpler. I think they'll stay.
... Except, aw hell, a dip in swordsage gets me another WIS bonus to AC whyyyy.
Edit2: No no, I will resist. Besides, it would take 2 levels and technically requires light armor instead of unarmored. And I really don't want to choose maneuvers again. Even though taking a single level of a ToB class is so tantalizing, since you use half your other levels to determine what maneuvers you can take, and their strength... blargh.
Okay I'm sticking with monk but I'm totally asking for Bands of Blood Rage for +5 damage. It's cheesy for a monk with natural weapons, but at least it's not ToB.
Post by: Flying Dice on May 06, 2015, 04:24:41 pm
Quote
Whenever you roll a threat on an attack roll while using a light mace in each hand, you gain an additional attack at that same attack bonus.
The limiting factor on the feat is that you have to dual-wield light maces, which are less than impressive with their 20/x2 critical. It's already dangerous enough in a critmaster build even when it forces you to use a weapon that isn't good for crits. If your DM intentionally houseruled it so that you could use it with whatever, they deserve to be overrun by a swarm of munchkinlings because that's fucking stupid. :P
Post by: Rolan7 on May 06, 2015, 04:40:22 pm
Quote
You also have the flexibility to adjust your weapon training.
Each morning, you can spend 1 hour in weapon practice
to change the designated weapon for any feat you have that
applies only to a single weapon (such as Weapon Focus). You
must have the newly designated weapon available during
your practice session to make this change.
It's clearly meant for fighter bonus feats like Weapon Focus and Specialization, but... Yeah. This book is crazy, huh? Not taking anything from it this time around, character is complicated enough already.
Post by: scriver on May 06, 2015, 05:07:54 pm
Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?
Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).
EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.
Can't rogues only sneak attack once per turn? Swashbucklers get to add sneak attack to every attack. meaning at least two per turn, as any buccaneer with any sense of self worth would be dual-wielding.
Post by: Flying Dice on May 06, 2015, 05:34:20 pm
I know, it's crazy... My DM insisted that Warblade's level 1 Weapon Aptitude ability lets it work. And I think he's right:QuoteYou also have the flexibility to adjust your weapon training.
Each morning, you can spend 1 hour in weapon practice
to change the designated weapon for any feat you have that
applies only to a single weapon (such as Weapon Focus). You
must have the newly designated weapon available during
your practice session to make this change.
It's clearly meant for fighter bonus feats like Weapon Focus and Specialization, but... Yeah. This book is crazy, huh? Not taking anything from it this time around, character is complicated enough already.
See, I'd parse those lines to specifically refer to the Focus and Specialization trees both because they reference weapon training (which is explicitly what those feats are -- you've spend so much time working with that one weapon type that you're flat out better with it), and because they specify the "designated weapon". You designate a weapon when you pick Weapon Focus (Soup Ladle) or whatever, when the RAW say "Choose one type of weapon". Lightning Mace doesn't let you designate a weapon, it flat out tells you that you only get to use one weapon type.
It's like Weapon Finesse: having that feature doesn't mean that you can spend an hour training and then apply your Dex to attacks with a Fullblade. Could someone suddenly be able to use Deflect Arrows while dual-wielding daggers? Use Crossbow Sniper with a non-crossbow ranged weapon? Improved Natural Strike applied to manufactured weapons or Unarmed Strikes? Vae School for a weapon that isn't a whip or spiked chain?
So on and so forth. We've got a decent selection of feats that apply specifically to one type of weapon or attack which is not determined by the player, but by the author of the feat. I mean, if the DM's going to just shrug and let people go crazy, have fun with it, but I'd sure as hell not allow it. :P
Post by: Kadzar on May 06, 2015, 06:08:06 pm
I've downloaded the PDF for that, and I don't see any reference that seems to imply that they can Sneak Attack more than once a round. Having two attacks just gives them more opportunity to get sneak attack in (in case they miss with an attack).Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?
Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).
EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.
Can't rogues only sneak attack once per turn? Swashbucklers get to add sneak attack to every attack. meaning at least two per turn, as any buccaneer with any sense of self worth would be dual-wielding.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 06, 2015, 06:53:31 pm
The wording is "any attack", not "every attack". I think that my over hyping led to some confusion.I've downloaded the PDF for that, and I don't see any reference that seems to imply that they can Sneak Attack more than once a round. Having two attacks just gives them more opportunity to get sneak attack in (in case they miss with an attack).Swashbuckler might be one of the best Rogue Archetypes: "You can use Sneak Attack with any melee attack made against a target that has none of your allies adjacent to it." Can you say 'OP'?
Well, rules say Rogues normally sneak attack anyone within 5' of an ally, so if this is a replacement, it means you have to solo, while vanilla rogue "flanks". I don't think the number of viable targets for each case is too different. (except in the case of the Swashbuckler, he's most probably going to have to "tank" its target as well).
EDIT: actually NVM since this doesn't replace the regular Sneak, but since Rogues probably anyway sneak attack every round regardless. This just means the SB *can* solo if he wants and still gets the bonus. He loses the abilities of the alternative Archetypes - Thiefs is mostly utility, but the Assassin can auto-critical at least once every battle (if he isn't the last in initiative) with advantage at 3rd level.
Can't rogues only sneak attack once per turn? Swashbucklers get to add sneak attack to every attack. meaning at least two per turn, as any buccaneer with any sense of self worth would be dual-wielding.
Post by: scriver on May 07, 2015, 12:31:11 am
Post by: Bauglir on May 07, 2015, 12:32:53 am
Any/every, what's the difference? :P"I can kill anyone" vs "I can kill everyone" :P
Post by: Tack on May 07, 2015, 12:59:40 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 07, 2015, 01:02:04 am
I thought rogues could sneak attack as much as they have stabby-for.
Quote
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll.
Post by: Tack on May 07, 2015, 01:17:41 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 07, 2015, 01:21:46 am
Should we put 5e/3.5 tags at the top of our posts? :P
Post by: Sergius on May 07, 2015, 01:44:43 am
Seems to me that it just replaces the condition that the enemy needs to be adjacent to another one of my allies. It could conceivably be interpreted as replacing also the condition that it can only be done once, but that seems like a stretch to me.
Just in case, the Rogue is already balanced on the assumption that you can Sneak Attack every round, vs. pretty much every other class that gets extra attacks instead and using bigger swords. So, the Swashbuckler is just more fighty than the regular Rogue, with the restriction that it needs to be finesse and a single attack to the vitals or whatever. But the damage is about the same.
That's a confusion that I've been noticing.
Should we put 5e/3.5 tags at the top of our posts? :P
Well it would be nice since this is a general Tabletop thread and not just D&D, so very often people start suddenly talking about MtG or 5th Edition or whatever.
Post by: Tack on May 07, 2015, 02:58:56 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 07, 2015, 03:17:39 am
Post by: Aseaheru on May 07, 2015, 03:35:19 am
If not, does anyone know where I can get a copy of a PDF of the "No Surrender" supplement for only war, or barring that the units/rules/whatever new shit they dumped in it?
Also, does anyone know where I can find rules for aircraft for use in an only war game? Because besides the ork ones that show in final testament, there arent any.
Post by: scriver on May 07, 2015, 05:18:22 am
Any/every, what's the difference? :P"I can kill anyone" vs "I can kill everyone" :P
But to kill anyone, you must he able to kill everyone! ;D
Post by: Sergarr on May 07, 2015, 12:53:56 pm
I assume the order here is intentionally wrong? 8)Any/every, what's the difference? :P"I can kill anyone" vs "I can kill everyone" :P
But to kill anyone, you must he able to kill everyone! ;D
Post by: Tack on May 07, 2015, 10:25:44 pm
I hate to segregate the games, but should we make a 5e thread?
It's my understanding that irregardless of whether you make a 5e thread, 5e will still be discussed here.
Anyway:
Was wondering which is better - Only war or Dark heresy?
Post by: Fniff on May 08, 2015, 09:37:29 am
However, I'm having trouble deciding how one aspect of the Wizard should work: casting the spells themselves.
What would be the best way of bringing across the feeling of 'warping reality to satisfy your own desires'? I was originally having it so that you have to destroy a String in order to cast a spell, but that didn't quite make sense. I want something that gives the players an overwhelming sense of power that is ultimately limited by their own hubris.
Would anyone have any ideas for what would make an interesting game? This is a story-based game, so remember, it doesn't have to be balanced as long as it makes for an entertaining story.
Post by: Jimmy on May 09, 2015, 04:14:26 am
Post by: Fniff on May 09, 2015, 05:14:18 am
Thanks a lot, Jimmy.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 10, 2015, 06:03:13 am
D&D 5e, Fabulous death bringer's game.
Rolled for stats, got 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12.
Those are some shitty rolls.
Currently, I have three ideas on the table:
Svirfneblin Wizard, Necromancer, Conjurer or Diviner, not sure yet.
Half-elf Bard, because everyone loves a main-support.
Human Moon Druid, with the Observant feat to make a +2 Wis race.
The idea around each of these concepts is to build around a class that only needs one stat to work and don't rely on their own stats. Conjurers, Diviners and Necromancers rely the least on their own stats, since they either make things with independent stat blocks, or give others better rolls. Moon Druids just Wildshape and go to town; the stats of the original character are an after thought. With Bardic Inspiration being limited to Cha mod, playing a Bard could be difficult, but still useful.
The other classes wouldn't really work well with stats like this. With 14/12/10 or 13/13/10 in my main stats, fighters/barbarians/paladins/monks/rangers are all off the table, since they need decent stats in their attack stat and Con, and a casting stat, for those with that. Theoretically, I could roll an archer, but even then, I'm hurting for power and versatility. Cleric and Land Druid are too reliant on high ability scores in Wisdom, which I would have to cheese to even get to 14, which makes me uncomfortable. There's already a Warlock in the party, and I'm not too hot on Sorcerers, since the interesting ones (Favored Soul and Storm) require decent secondary stats. I don't feel like I have enough stats to pull off a skill monkey.
What's my best bet here? Wizard, Bard, Druid, or something I haven't thought of?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 10, 2015, 06:55:32 am
Post by: Tack on May 10, 2015, 09:02:54 am
Post by: scriver on May 10, 2015, 09:21:26 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 10, 2015, 02:11:53 pm
I'd say druid.Can you elaborate?
Post by: Rolan7 on May 10, 2015, 10:22:55 pm
Post by: Tack on May 10, 2015, 11:00:11 pm
Tack, it says 5e right at the top.
There's no races in 5e?
I will be honest I have no idea how 5e works.
Post by: Flying Dice on May 11, 2015, 12:06:34 am
Tack, it says 5e right at the top.
There's no races in 5e?
I will be honest I have no idea how 5e works.
There are races in 5e. There is (as-yet) no sea of easily abused races, templates, and racial templates in 5e.
Though the human variant is pretty sweet, swapping +1 to every ability score for +1 to two ability scores of your choice plus a feat and an extra skill proficiency.
Post by: scriver on May 11, 2015, 03:06:24 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 11, 2015, 03:16:38 am
If, big if, it's like 3.5, a druid with low wisdom isn't so bad. With wild shape replacing your physical abilities, you're only really suffering from low skill points and bonus spells. In 3.5, druid spells have relatively few save dcs compared to arcane spells I'd say. They focus on buffing characters rather than forcing saves, even if it's a buff that lets you throw weak fireballs for a few rounds. So a druid seems like a good choice when stat rolls are bad. BUT! (again, if it's like 3.5) you should consider prioritizing constitution, since wild shape in 3.5 doesn't change HP at all. You use the HP of your normal squishy form, despite what the animal's CON is. It's a weakness of elf druids.Having taken a look at the druid spells, it seems like I can really be effective without a high Wis.
Wildshape uses the shape's HP instead of the original. I plan to stay in Wildshape, so I can't debuff, since you can't cast spells in Wildshape till level 18, which means that I don't need a high DC. Buffing has been nerfed, since you can only cast one spell tagged "Concentration" at once, which most buff spells are. But if I start that before combat, or in the first round, I should have no problem. Even healing I restrict to out of combat with Goodberry, which is a flat 10 HP heal, split in any way you want. It even feeds people for a day!
Post by: IWishIWereSarah on May 12, 2015, 06:03:02 am
Wizard could be ok if you begin at higher level (no lvl 1 invocation).
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 12, 2015, 06:05:08 am
Post by: Spehss _ on May 16, 2015, 12:46:44 pm
I could go with a quest for a macguffin like Nethack's Amulet of Yendor or DCSS' quest for the Orb of Zot, but I feel that's kinda just a lame excuse to go in a dungeon and kill and loot. I like the idea of a quest against a great evil, like ADOM with the quest to close the gates of chaos, or Angband with the goal of killing Sauron and Morgoth, but I can't think of a big bad evil guy or a source of evil for my own roguelike.
Post by: Sergarr on May 16, 2015, 01:10:44 pm
Oh, and also about sweet, sweet pirate loot.
Post by: sjm9876 on May 16, 2015, 01:31:57 pm
Plotwise... they tend to arise naturally from the setting, and I pick ones that look cool.
Sadly, none of this applies that much to roguelikes, as all the detail would go massively to waste. You might be able to take inspiration from the Forgotten Realms setting or something similar (I think it has a wiki) as they tend to have big bads in abundance.
Post by: Yoink on May 16, 2015, 01:47:58 pm
Question for DMs, how do you go about making a good setting and plot? I'm trying to make a roguelike and I keep going back and forth on plot ideas.
I could go with a quest for a macguffin like Nethack's Amulet of Yendor or DCSS' quest for the Orb of Zot, but I feel that's kinda just a lame excuse to go in a dungeon and kill and loot. I like the idea of a quest against a great evil, like ADOM with the quest to close the gates of chaos, or Angband with the goal of killing Sauron and Morgoth, but I can't think of a big bad evil guy or a source of evil for my own roguelike.
I'll be the bad guy! You can make your roguelike about an epic quest to slay the villainous, menacing, incredibly handsome Yoink.
Post by: Toaster on May 16, 2015, 02:33:43 pm
Post by: scrdest on May 16, 2015, 02:43:55 pm
Actually... make the protagonist the bad guy. Stealing the Epic Loot for... well, Nefarious Porpoises.Question for DMs, how do you go about making a good setting and plot? I'm trying to make a roguelike and I keep going back and forth on plot ideas.
I could go with a quest for a macguffin like Nethack's Amulet of Yendor or DCSS' quest for the Orb of Zot, but I feel that's kinda just a lame excuse to go in a dungeon and kill and loot. I like the idea of a quest against a great evil, like ADOM with the quest to close the gates of chaos, or Angband with the goal of killing Sauron and Morgoth, but I can't think of a big bad evil guy or a source of evil for my own roguelike.
I'll be the bad guy! You can make your roguelike about an epic quest to slay the villainous, menacing, incredibly handsome Yoink.
Post by: Kadzar on May 16, 2015, 02:46:32 pm
Post by: scrdest on May 16, 2015, 02:47:38 pm
Those lazy porpoises should steal their own epic loot.I know, right? But that's why they are Nefarious.
Post by: Radio Controlled on May 16, 2015, 04:00:39 pm
Could make a bunch of templates and then make each game mix and match so that each pantheon is different, with different gods with their own mix of abilities.
Post by: Spehss _ on May 16, 2015, 04:19:53 pm
Make it your quest to slay the pantheon of gods, those fickle beings who toy with the lives of mortals for their amusement. Make it the player's job to free his kind of the pantheon's whip, to break their chains and bring freedom to the lands.This was one of the ideas I had, actually.
Could make a bunch of templates and then make each game mix and match so that each pantheon is different, with different gods with their own mix of abilities.
Basically after the player character beats the BBEG in the depths of the dungeon they unlock a "portal" leading even deeper into the depths, which is revealed to be a prison built by the gods and abandoned during the creation of the fantasy world. The gods sealed the great evil which is the magical source of all evil ever through the magic of plot demanding it, and after the gods sealed it they build the big-ass dungeon and mountain on top of it--as a security measure-- and ditch it. The player dives through the dungeon, killing all manner of evil thing and eventually killing the BBEG and having the option to enter the prison and try to kill the source of evil forever. To make it so it isn't a straight jump from "final boss" to "extra endgame super hard boss" with no other threats in between I thought of having the gods try to intervene and force the player to leave the prison or kill them, giving a reason for extra uniques with even more unfair ways of killing the player with the plot excuse being that it's the gods going all out to stop the player from freeing even greater evil into the world.
So gameplay wise it presents a kind of optional "boss rush" after beating the main plot and story wise it presents an epic scale climax of a mortal character killing gods in the name of destroying evil and saving the world.
Post by: Fniff on May 16, 2015, 05:23:58 pm
The player was once a minion of the dark lord that ruled over the lands. However, a great hero led an army and killed the dark lord. Now the player has to descend into the monster-filled dungeons of his former lord and gather the hidden components for a dimensional gate at the bottom of the dungeon.
You could then add an FTL-style issue where the hero's forces trickle down into the dungeon and take it over as time goes on.
And for once, it can be a literal dungeon, with the monsters being the horribly tortured and mutated prisoners now free and looking for vengeance.
Post by: Culise on May 18, 2015, 09:09:08 am
Make it your quest to slay the pantheon of gods, those fickle beings who toy with the lives of mortals for their amusement. Make it the player's job to free his kind of the pantheon's whip, to break their chains and bring freedom to the lands.Then make the final end boss your
Could make a bunch of templates and then make each game mix and match so that each pantheon is different, with different gods with their own mix of abilities.
Post by: Sergarr on May 18, 2015, 07:54:18 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on May 18, 2015, 08:16:14 pm
Aside from that, it would depend on how your group handles those rolls. I've read a few stories that would have ended much differently if the players weren't using fumble/success charts that altered what happened on natural 1/20's.
There are also the rare instances where you are put up against things that you can't harm without that natural twenty. In such cases, it's probably the DM's fault.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 18, 2015, 08:19:17 pm
I wonder how would 3rd edition D&D change from having natural 20's not auto-succeed and natural 1's not auto-fail?They aren't in normal 3rd or 3.5e, far as I know, it's just an extremely common houserule. It certainly isn't the case in 3.5e.
Natural twenties are only an automatic success when attempting to hit things in combat. A 1 is not an automatic miss.
Post by: Sergius on May 19, 2015, 12:19:56 am
Neither is a critical, technically, that's actually a function of the threat range (all threat ranges just happen to overlap with the natural 20). There's a subtle distinction... yeah for all intents and purposes "natural 20 means critical threat" could be said, but it's an oversimplification.
No such thing as a critical miss in RAW. Even as a house rule, having 1 being automatic critical failure is too much, you'd have to "confirm a miss" or something. Also it penalizes martial classes with multiple attacks per round (a high-level warrior with 5 attacks per round would get a critical failure every 4 rounds :P).
Also when confirming, natural 1s or 20s are irrelevant per RAW, if a roll of 20 + BAB +bonuses would miss, it means you can't crit that target with your current BAB, and you can confirm a crit even on a roll of 1 + BAB+bonuses.
So yeah. Crit failure is house-rules. Because watching a fighter hit himself is hilarious apparently.
EDIT: Right... about removing auto-hit/auto-miss... well, it would just mean that it's impossible to hit some creatures/NPCs with enough armor because levels.
In some games this works, Fate for example, you NEED enough bonus to beat defense (both roll but if the target's defense is 9 ranks above your attack - not exactly very plausible unless you burn advantages/points - you just can't hit. Unless you burn your own points. Realistically nearly everyone is in the 0-4 skill range, unless some kind of giant monster that must be killed using teamwork or other tactics. But I digress, there just isn't an auto-hit.
EDIT2: Not sure why I posted all that rant about criticals, I'm just sleepy, it's time for bed already. Also automatic success/failure also works for saving throws, just not skill checks. I guess I just wanted to point that natural 1 automiss is not a houserule, critical failure is.
Post by: Sensei on May 19, 2015, 01:21:08 am
Post by: Jimmy on May 19, 2015, 05:52:24 am
From the d20 SRD:
Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
The results of the change largely depend on action economy and the typical actions the characters take. If you're fighting a single enemy, the fact that you have more actions means you have a greater chance of 20's, and given there's no consequence for a 1 except a miss, it means you end up gaining an advantage. If you typically use abilities that don't require attack rolls, then this reduces the advantage. If on the other hand you typically fight large amounts of enemies with more actions than you, for example if your DM is fond of using large hordes of creatures in place of one big one, you end up at a disadvantage.
Post by: Sergius on May 19, 2015, 09:22:24 am
Post by: Gentlefish on May 19, 2015, 05:24:55 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on May 19, 2015, 10:26:54 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Eh, considering the recent alignment arguments, maybe I should have rethought this.
Post by: Nerjin on May 19, 2015, 10:45:06 pm
I would wager any amount of money that it has some sort of "That used to be a thinking creature" sentiment attached which is foolish to me.
A zombie is a tool if it's following commands. If I use a Zombie to save an orphanage I have committed an evil act. But if I don't use a zombie but, due to lack of zombie for whatever reason, am unable to save the orphanage but I try REALLLY hard... It's a good act.
Moral systems like that annoy me because they look at the ideal [to some people's minds] and say "This is the way it should be no matter what" without keeping in mind that "how it should be" isn't always "how it is".
But to answer your question: Undead are true neutral as they lack the intelligence to make moral choices. They are as alignment charged as a Cat. Intelligent Undead, on the other hand, should be viewed as how they act.
If a Vampire is working for the common good while asking for donations of blood so that they can control their hungers they would be as morally upstanding as a group of adventurers who ask for lodging so they may keep themselves in proper shape. Arbitrarily saying 'that vampire is evil' "Why?" 'Because all vampires are evil' really ruins a lot of potentially interesting setups for me.
One good example I've seen of how necromancy with zombies could be good is if the dead bodies are used to make sure an entire city can live in luxury. You live life really well while necromancers control the corpses of the dead as a sort of servant. You donate blood to the vampire lords who run the city [and get monetarily compensated] and when you die your body is added to the servant pile. (Note: The zombies all wear masks so you'd never know if dear Uncle Mortimer were one of them but... I found it a super cool idea).
Sorry if that came off as rambly I'm tired as heck and get somewhat miffed at arbitrary designations of evil.
Post by: Spehss _ on May 19, 2015, 10:54:00 pm
Here's another relevant story I found to make up for it. (https://i.imgur.com/rAdm2.jpg)
Post by: Rolan7 on May 19, 2015, 11:05:20 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 19, 2015, 11:21:52 pm
Post by: Toaster on May 19, 2015, 11:27:49 pm
Post by: wierd on May 19, 2015, 11:58:17 pm
Interestingly the Necromancy spell school has life-wards and detection spells which are mostly useful *against* undead. And "enervation", which is a Necromancy ray of negative energy, isn't evil. A "Necromancer" doesn't have to create undead, they can be a powerful force against the undead. Or just enjoy shooting people with negative energy via enervation, which isn't evil... although... a victim killed by enervation becomes a free-willed wight, based on the negative energy rules.
What always bothered me, was that table top games of this genre almost never include the obvious use of magic to understand, use, and control LIFE, as opposed to death, and death magic.
I agree with you that necromancy should not immediately be considered evil, nor should the undead. There are any number of reasons why a re-animated corpse might not be evil, especially if any vestiges of the original personality are there, such as with a lich. (For instance, consider the Buddhist tradition of ancient times of creating "Living Buddhas" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu). It seems plausible for a very powerful cleric to create and maintain a powerful warding or blessing spell for an imperiled people by willfully becoming an undead and enshrining himself in such a fashion.)
Likewise, the "vivomancy" I wish was more frequently present in tabletop games could be used for unspeakable purposes, and not just really powerful healing and resurrection spells.
Post by: Sergius on May 20, 2015, 01:26:22 am
In this case "negative energy" is associated with evil (not equals evil, but it's always the good clerics that channel positive "cure" while evil clerics channel negative "inflict" wounds).
But usually the raising dead = evulz goes back to most of the horror movie and witch hunt stuff and devil worshipping stuff, etc, I suppose. But take Planescape, I don't think the Dustmen are evil, and you sell your corpse to be raised and stuff after death. So it all comes down to stereotypes: if playing the Hero vs Evil Necromancer villain trope.
Despite that, I think there was a kind of "deathless" anti-undead that were infused with positive energy and defaulted to good? But I don't think there were any unintelligent "deathless" and it was more a Class than a category of animate corpse. I suppose if it was extended to all things necromantic, unintelligent deathless would go around giving flowers to little girls and petting puppies while not being controlled, just like skeleton can do good while controlled but just go LOLMURDERKILLOKTHXBYE when left on its own.
Post by: scriver on May 20, 2015, 02:00:31 am
A case could be made for intelligent undead, I agree. But generally, I tend to think of it as the Negative Energy being an inherently corruptive force and that once you basically become a direct link to the Negative Energy plane, there won't be much left of your person that was like it was before. I've also thought (while I'm fairly expecting that this will lead to inconsistencies with the rest of the setting) that once you go undead, your soul is destroyed, and the Negative Energy sort of just seeps into the you-shaped hole in your "soul space", creating something that is very much like you, and definitely based on you, but also very different.
But yes, there are examples of individual exceptions where a person has been able to overcome the "corruption" of te Negative Energy and become a Good undead creature. Liches, at least. Probably vampires. And yeah, then there's the Baelnorn, the Good elven liches. I don't really like those at all, they reek of "special awesome Elven magic that enables us to do things you can't so we can be super special because elven magic!" and I don't think that is particularly interesting.
And lastly, there is the implication that one could potentially create the equivalent "Good" undead by using Positive Energy ( or perhaps Neutral by using both Positive and Negative energy and making sure the streams do not cross). I'm not sure this has been explored by any DnD setting in any particular way, unfortunately.
Fakedit: ninja'd by Sergius. Apparently it may have been explored?
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 20, 2015, 03:26:19 am
Quote
Deathless is a new creature type, describing creatures that have died but returned to a kind of spiritual life. They are similar in many ways to both living creatures and undead. However, while undead represent a mockery of life and a violation of the natural order of life and death, the deathless merely stave off the inevitability of death for a short time in order to accomplish a righteous purpose. While undead draw their power from the Negative Energy plane, the deathless are strongly tied to the Positive Energy plane, the birthplace of all souls. In fact, the deathless are little more than disincarnate souls, sometimes wrapped in material flesh, often incorporeal and hardly more substantial than a soul in its purest state.
Post by: scrdest on May 20, 2015, 04:01:56 am
If I ever DM'd a custom setting for DnD, I'd make a good (morally) Evil (negative energy) god - in other words a decent guy of a god that just happens to be tied to Negative Energy for Reasons (TM) - just to mess with preconceptions.
Post by: Ogdibus on May 20, 2015, 04:33:30 am
What always bothered me, was that table top games of this genre almost never include the obvious use of magic to understand, use, and control LIFE, as opposed to death, and death magic.
Likewise, the "vivomancy" I wish was more frequently present in tabletop games could be used for unspeakable purposes, and not just really powerful healing and resurrection spells.
I was lucky enough to have played a game with "Life" magic, and actually explore it's use. Most of it was just healing and buffs with some control type spells, but you could also do things like create temporary soulless beings and transfer souls, or turn people into monsters. If you got spells from the divine tier, that humans can't actually cast, you could do things like make souls, a new genesis, or terraform. It was also split between two schools, so it wan't even humanly possible to synergize the high level spells. You can get around that being human issue, but it's risky. I actually botched the first attempt, but managed not to kill myself.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 20, 2015, 05:23:13 am
In other words, DnD tows the 'BUT MUH DEATH' line, therefore, by default, not-death is bad unless exceptions are specifically made.Sounds a bit like Wee Jas.
If I ever DM'd a custom setting for DnD, I'd make a good (morally) Evil (negative energy) god - in other words a decent guy of a god that just happens to be tied to Negative Energy for Reasons (TM) - just to mess with preconceptions.
Post by: Tack on May 20, 2015, 07:34:39 am
Lich appears before us, hits us with a DC35 Mass Hold Person spell and then offers to fight us. If we win, we get his help, if we lose, it's gg.
Apparently he's making this one almost impossible to win, and has written a bunch of stuff in case we lose and become undead thralls.
I mean, that's cool. I'm glad we don't have a paladin. But still.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on May 20, 2015, 07:45:09 am
I recall reading a greentext or something from /tg/ where a necromancer used the magic to communicate with his dead ancestors and past family members. No enslavement, just an old man who talks with his family beyond the grave. Can't find it.HERE
Here's another relevant story I found to make up for it. (https://i.imgur.com/rAdm2.jpg)
HERE IT IS AND YOU CAN ALL JUST BOW DOWN TO ME (http://i.imgur.com/fXLS1kp.png)
WHEN YOU CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU WANT.
YOU FRIGGIN FIND IT.
*cough*
Post by: Spehss _ on May 20, 2015, 10:43:39 am
OH HEY, THAT'S THE ONE. NICE FIND!I recall reading a greentext or something from /tg/ where a necromancer used the magic to communicate with his dead ancestors and past family members. No enslavement, just an old man who talks with his family beyond the grave. Can't find it.HERE
Here's another relevant story I found to make up for it. (https://i.imgur.com/rAdm2.jpg)
HERE IT IS AND YOU CAN ALL JUST BOW DOWN TO ME (http://i.imgur.com/fXLS1kp.png)
WHEN YOU CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU WANT.
YOU FRIGGIN FIND IT.
*cough*
...WHY ARE WE YELLING?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 20, 2015, 10:45:42 am
Post by: Bohandas on May 20, 2015, 10:50:19 am
Despite that, I think there was a kind of "deathless" anti-undead that were infused with positive energy and defaulted to good? But I don't think there were any unintelligent "deathless" and it was more a Class than a category of animate corpse. I suppose if it was extended to all things necromantic, unintelligent deathless would go around giving flowers to little girls and petting puppies while not being controlled, just like skeleton can do good while controlled but just go LOLMURDERKILLOKTHXBYE when left on its own.
The Deathless are primarily an Eberron thingy.
Also, the rules never explicitly state what happens when unintelligent undead do when not controlled, whether they go all zombie apocalypse, or go dormant, or continue to follow the last order from when they were under control.
Post by: Sergius on May 20, 2015, 12:54:41 pm
Despite that, I think there was a kind of "deathless" anti-undead that were infused with positive energy and defaulted to good? But I don't think there were any unintelligent "deathless" and it was more a Class than a category of animate corpse. I suppose if it was extended to all things necromantic, unintelligent deathless would go around giving flowers to little girls and petting puppies while not being controlled, just like skeleton can do good while controlled but just go LOLMURDERKILLOKTHXBYE when left on its own.
The Deathless are primarily an Eberron thingy.
Also, the rules never explicitly state what happens when unintelligent undead do when not controlled, whether they go all zombie apocalypse, or go dormant, or continue to follow the last order from when they were under control.
Not sure on former editions, but 5th edition has a class that raises undead and controls them for a while, and can keep control of a maximum number per day, if he doesn't, they don't die or anything, just keep on going on their default behavior, which apparently is just shuffle their feet and attack everything on sight. Which I suppose is what evil dungeon keepers do when they populate their dungeons.
EDIT: I suppose "uncontrolled undead" would act as indicated by their monster entry, same as any random undead found in a dungeon.
Post by: Bohandas on May 20, 2015, 01:07:33 pm
Despite that, I think there was a kind of "deathless" anti-undead that were infused with positive energy and defaulted to good? But I don't think there were any unintelligent "deathless" and it was more a Class than a category of animate corpse. I suppose if it was extended to all things necromantic, unintelligent deathless would go around giving flowers to little girls and petting puppies while not being controlled, just like skeleton can do good while controlled but just go LOLMURDERKILLOKTHXBYE when left on its own.
The Deathless are primarily an Eberron thingy.
Also, the rules never explicitly state what happens when unintelligent undead do when not controlled, whether they go all zombie apocalypse, or go dormant, or continue to follow the last order from when they were under control.
Not sure on former editions, but 5th edition has a class that raises undead and controls them for a while, and can keep control of a maximum number per day, if he doesn't, they don't die or anything, just keep on going on their default behavior, which apparently is just shuffle their feet and attack everything on sight. Which I suppose is what evil dungeon keepers do when they populate their dungeons.
EDIT: I suppose "uncontrolled undead" would act as indicated by their monster entry, same as any random undead found in a dungeon.
Mindless undead don't really seem to have much in the way of described default behavior either; or rather the default behavior of zombies and skeletons seems to be beong controlled by the spellcaster who created them
Post by: Sergius on May 20, 2015, 01:36:34 pm
Even a setting book like Forgotten Realms doesn't seem to specify. There's a "Tome of Necromancy" thing out there with some options but I don't think it's anything official, just some random joe's post in a forum that was transcribed.
So I guess the official position is "whatever the table agrees they do".
Post by: Toaster on May 20, 2015, 01:49:49 pm
Post by: Sergius on May 20, 2015, 01:53:20 pm
I think it would be funny to polymorph into one and then attack a room full of undead then run out and watch they all kill each other.
Post by: scrdest on May 20, 2015, 01:54:06 pm
Post by: Jimmy on May 21, 2015, 06:30:00 am
Any spell with the [Evil] subschool is an evil spell. Many, many necromancy spells fall into this camp. A cleric that worships a Good deity cannot prepare these spells, period, because their deity forbids them. Casting a spell with the [Evil] subschool is an evil act.
As an example, here's the classic one:
Animate Dead
School necromancy [evil]; Level antipaladin 3, cleric/oracle 3, sorcerer/wizard 4; Domain death 3, souls 3
Since it carries the [Evil] subschool tag, it's an evil act to cast this spell and your alignment can change from doing so.
Compare to the following:
Inflict Light Wounds
School necromancy; Level antipaladin 1, cleric/oracle 1, inquisitor 1, witch 1
Even though it's a necromancy spell, casting Inflict Light Wounds isn't an evil act. A cleric that worships a good deity can freely prepare and cast this spell with no risk of alignment change (unless he's using it at your local orphanage).
Necromancy as a school isn't an entirely evil school. Many spells are evil in it, but that's just a side point.
As for non-evil undead, you'll find that many templates allow the intelligent undead creature to retain their previous alignment, meaning they can remain neutral or good aligned even as an undead creature. For example, the Ghost template in Pathfinder, which says it's unlikely but possible:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/ghost (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/ghost)
When a soul is not allowed to rest due to some great injustice, either real or perceived, it sometimes comes back as a ghost. Such beings are in eternal anguish, lacking in substance and unable to set things right. Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evileven the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.
Post by: Tack on May 21, 2015, 06:47:27 am
Post by: thegoatgod_pan on May 21, 2015, 08:15:28 am
Something as jarring as necromancy would have to be dealt with culturally: one way or the other.
Post by: Tack on May 21, 2015, 08:59:53 am
HERE IT IS AND YOU CAN ALL JUST BOW DOWN TO ME (http://i.imgur.com/fXLS1kp.png)
Honorary Footkerchief right here.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bohandas on May 21, 2015, 07:47:26 pm
Likewise, the "vivomancy" I wish was more frequently present in tabletop games could be used for unspeakable purposes, and not just really powerful healing and resurrection spells.
Back in the 3e days one of the forumites of WoTC's official D&D message board posted stats for a custom demon that uses positive energy to rebuke and command the living and give people cancer, but I'm pretty sure that thread has surely either been lost in one of the several reorganizations of their forum in the intervening years or deleted because it was too old.
(I might have a downloaded copy saved somewhere, but the most likely location of said copy is either in one of the stacks and stacks of poorly labeled and poorly organized backup dvds in my room or more likely on an old hard drive from my first laptop whose file allocation table got corrupted that I've been meaning to have the data recovered from but I keep avoiding sending in to get worked on because he hard drive also has furry porn and grey-market music files on it; either way I'm not likely to find it any time soon)
Post by: Jeshin on May 21, 2015, 09:29:58 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0loSZFsyoQ
Post by: Redzephyr01 on May 22, 2015, 09:35:36 am
One of the monsters in the "Elder Evils" sourcebook (Ragnorra, I think) uses positive energy to do something sort of like that, but on a ridiculously huge scale. Like, planet-wide scale.Likewise, the "vivomancy" I wish was more frequently present in tabletop games could be used for unspeakable purposes, and not just really powerful healing and resurrection spells.
Back in the 3e days one of the forumites of WoTC's official D&D message board posted stats for a custom demon that uses positive energy to rebuke and command the living and give people cancer, but I'm pretty sure that thread has surely either been lost in one of the several reorganizations of their forum in the intervening years or deleted because it was too old.
(I might have a downloaded copy saved somewhere, but the most likely location of said copy is either in one of the stacks and stacks of poorly labeled and poorly organized backup dvds in my room or more likely on an old hard drive from my first laptop whose file allocation table got corrupted that I've been meaning to have the data recovered from but I keep avoiding sending in to get worked on because he hard drive also has furry porn and grey-market music files on it; either way I'm not likely to find it any time soon)
Post by: Rolan7 on May 24, 2015, 05:32:43 pm
He also had a magic amulet, fortunately not important, which gave him a +1 attack and damage. We arrived at that having 5 hit points.
Where the heck are the rules for this??
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 24, 2015, 05:34:48 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on May 24, 2015, 05:48:43 pm
Post by: Dutchling on May 24, 2015, 05:53:37 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on May 24, 2015, 05:54:37 pm
Armour has an amount of hardness equal to its material's defined hardness. In the case of mithral, it is 15 in Pathfinder, plus an additional 2 hardness per enhancement bonus, which would be 6, for a total hardness of 21. I'm not sure if hardness would apply in this situation, however.
The hitpoints of mithral would be 30 per inch of thickness, according to the Pathfinder core rule book. I do not know how that factors into armour, however. Armours have a base amount of health equal to the amount of base armour bonus it provides, multiplied by 5. Enhancement bonuses increase this health by 10 for each bonus it has. You would be correct in giving it thirty hitpoints from its enhancements.
I wouldn't know about the amulet though. The closest I could find would likely be either the base stats for rope or chain, plus its bonuses for being magic. Chain has 5 hitpoints, and rope has 2.
Post by: Neonivek on May 24, 2015, 06:02:06 pm
+3 Mithril chainshirt has
21 Hardness 50 hp
A Magic Necklace... is better to be considered to have 10 hardness and 5 hp
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 24, 2015, 06:02:56 pm
Each point of enhancement bonus gives it +2 hardness and +10 HP.
So it'd have 21 hardness and 50HP for a chain shirt +3.
----
The material something is made of gives it stats based on it's thickness.
You can find tables for it here. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD3e:Breaking_Items_%26_Attacking_Objects)
Equipment like chain shirts and so on have the stats already given. You can find them on the srds (legally). No doubt they're in the books, too.
Post by: Neonivek on May 24, 2015, 06:05:56 pm
Just to chime in
Energy attacks get divided by 2 before they apply to hardness... UNLESS the material has a specific vulnerability to it.
So the acid damage by the ooze would get halfed against the object.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 24, 2015, 06:21:53 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on May 24, 2015, 06:28:10 pm
I think I understand it better now. I also forgot that he's a huge nonhuman creature, which probably explains the 100+30 HP instead of 20+30.
The hardness being based on thickness just confused me, like we were supposed to determine hardness from thickness. It's probably intended to be the opposite.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 24, 2015, 06:29:56 pm
Quote from: Black pudding
Acid (Ex): The creature secretes a digestive acid that dissolves organic material and metal quickly, but does not affect stone. Any melee hit or constrict attack deals acid damage, and the opponents armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately unless they succeed on DC 21 Reflex saves. A metal or wooden weapon that strikes a black pudding also dissolves immediately unless it succeeds on a DC 21 Reflex save. The save DCs are Constitution-based.
The puddings acidic touch deals 21 points of damage per round to wooden or metal objects, but the ooze must remain in contact with the object for 1 full round to deal this damage.
Odd number to split in half then if they intended the damage to be halved.
Post by: Neonivek on May 24, 2015, 09:52:21 pm
You can interpret it as to mean it is a special acid that doesn't get split in half.
Or you can interpret it to mean that it does 10.5 damage when split in half... meaning that it does 1 damage to metal for every full round it is in contact... but magic weapons are immune.
There are a few monsters where everything just boils down to "It is up to the DM" and this is one of them. (The Mimic is another example)
Post by: Gentlefish on May 25, 2015, 04:42:12 am
Post by: wierd on May 25, 2015, 12:18:33 pm
(I guess an actual evaluation of acid resistence would be too nerdy for pen and paper types. You know, evaluating what kind of acid it is for its ion exchange capacity, the number of valences not filled in the acidic solution, the concentration of the solution, and the electronegativity of the substance being damaged... because that's how you REALLY determine acid damage rates IRL. I understand this is a game, but it's a game that already uses tortured rules and tables and charts. A simple chart can render this problem into an easy damage lookup, based on some features of the event. But no, we have magic acid that never gets saturated, and can eat anything, no matter what.)
Post by: Sergarr on May 25, 2015, 12:44:18 pm
Just take a look at repeated failure of 4e devs to fix up the infamous Skill Challenge rules, and you'll see that, too.
Post by: wierd on May 25, 2015, 12:51:14 pm
Post by: Arx on May 25, 2015, 12:52:52 pm
Post by: Neonivek on May 25, 2015, 12:53:34 pm
Just don't expect to have too much fun.
Post by: chaoticag on May 25, 2015, 12:53:46 pm
Pen and paper RPGs were not meant for people with knowledge of physics or mathematics, and weren't designed by them, too.Well, for the most part. There are some (http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-137298.html) companies who's designers have then left the TRPG to become rocket scientists. Or well, there's at least one company that did so. I'd still like to get my hands on a copy of Phoenix command or Living Steel just to see what people were talking about, but I'm not sure how many books survived or if the shipping would be worth it.
Post by: scrdest on May 25, 2015, 12:53:51 pm
The thing is, adding organ damage would be another roll or two on successful attacks and a table of results.See: FATAL :P
Post by: wierd on May 25, 2015, 12:55:52 pm
A little iOS or Android app on a tablet would more than suffice.
Post by: penguinofhonor on May 25, 2015, 12:57:16 pm
Post by: Sergarr on May 25, 2015, 01:04:44 pm
Most of that "untapped potential" has already been exploited by people who are much more skilled, at least in mathematics area. The result of said exploitation is called "video games" :PThere's technology today to enable Pen and Paper lookups of even very complex sets of data happen in seconds.
A little iOS or Android app on a tablet would more than suffice.
You know, I think there's a lot of untapped potential for P&P games that include a computer aspect for handling any simulation that would be tedious for the players to work out.
Post by: wierd on May 25, 2015, 01:12:10 pm
(or sell some gimicky device that can tell what dice were rolled inside of a button-popper dice roller, that can feed data to the app.)
If I were going to do this, I would do it with the OPTION of allowing manual dice roll imputs, but with the preference of auto-dice roll simulation by the DM, coupled with some template hybrid material types with appropriate names: "Large oak chest with iron hinges", etc. It would then be up to the DM to make scenarios with appropriately chosen materials, or to derive appropriate materials for the computer to simulate.
The idea is to have the computer aspect be painfully easy to use-- Pick a scenario event by ID number (since you will have needed to supply it tables to do its simulations anyway), some optional meta flags (Like "Object thrown" instead of "Item smash") then press the CALCULATE button. It displays dice roll values for the event, and damage values given. With some polish, it can even give the "wear" on your weapons, if any.
For the "Video games" argument-- Not exactly. That COMPLETELY replaces the DM with a computer. You cannot give off the wall commands, and get the DM to translate that into workable inputs. Computers just cant do that yet. Instead, this would be a tool for the DM to help manage very complex simulations.
Post by: chaoticag on May 25, 2015, 01:18:19 pm
There's also Fantasy Grounds for Tabletop software alongside maptools and roll20, which offer dice rolling and macro setting. You can damn near automate a game in some of those.
Lastly, battletech has megamek, which more or less takes care of all the rolling for you.
Post by: Bauglir on May 25, 2015, 01:35:23 pm
I highly encourage it!
EDIT: The main advantage this offers over Roll20 and similar is that you're able to design and implement features that simply wouldn't work in a tabletop game; you don't have to ape the advantages of a pen-and-paper system, because you're no longer concerned with that.
Post by: Sergarr on May 25, 2015, 01:45:07 pm
although I had planned on going for more of a narrativist thing than a simulationist onedefine "narrativist" and "simulationist"
Post by: Bauglir on May 25, 2015, 02:06:00 pm
A simulationist approach to design would be to produce rules that build a coherent world, and would only require for stories that various footholds be built in. You need rules that create outcomes, or guide the GM in designing outcomes, for any particular situation the rules can accommodate even if you don't know the expectations people have going in. To do this, you would prefer not to handwave details, but instead provide as much information as you can for people to work with.
At least that's how I tend to see the distinction; they aren't so much mutually exclusive as they are different philosophical emphases. For example, I made a decision to have carrying capacity define the heaviest object you can carry, not how much total weight you can carry. I did this even though a computer allows easy computation, because what I really wanted to avoid was players having to fuss about in their inventory to figure out what to drop and what not to. Still, some kind of carrying capacity serves a narrative purpose because it tells you whether or not your Ogre buddy can actually carry off the solid gold door the GM forgot could be used as loot, so I didn't just discard the concept entirely. This serves as a nice middle ground for what I want it to do, but it's not really that good for a simulationist game because it leads to weird situations if you stress test it; "You mean I can carry a million 50 pound suits of armor, but if I want to pick up that 51 pound rock I'm screwed?"
Post by: Fniff on May 26, 2015, 11:47:16 am
Go on in there if you're interested in some European-timezoned madness..
Post by: BlitzDungeoneer on May 26, 2015, 11:50:47 am
I made a thread for a Roll20 game I'm going to run... And you pick the game! (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=151006.0)HeheheahahahaAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
Go on in there if you're interested in some European-timezoned madness..
I've been waiting so goddamn long for this...
Post by: Tack on May 26, 2015, 12:28:47 pm
(You know, evaluating what kind of acid it is for its ion exchange OH MY GOD -SNIP-)(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/dc/dc5c14123a7aef1cd122835cdb12e21a2cf8dd395108de520c2ecd111ee4cd6b.jpg)
I mean I'd say something about the problems with the mixture of generalizing and being patronizing, but... You people never seem to learn anyway.
Sick burns aside, you are a 'pen and paper type' as well. No matter how nerdy it gets, there will be pen and paper types who are just as nerdy as you. Dis Amerikah!
3sorry5meThem's fightin' words
I am going to forgo my "stay away" mostly because for once... this thread is staying on topic and not delving into card games all of a sudden.'Table Top' is a very broad wassit. I figure it's mostly wargames, card games and pen & paper RPG's.
Someone also did some stuff on Settlers of Catan or Mansions of Madness or one of the bloody munchkin games here I dunno.
Post by: Dutchling on May 26, 2015, 12:30:28 pm
Post by: wierd on May 26, 2015, 12:46:43 pm
(You know, evaluating what kind of acid it is for its ion exchange OH MY GOD -SNIP-)(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/dc/dc5c14123a7aef1cd122835cdb12e21a2cf8dd395108de520c2ecd111ee4cd6b.jpg)
I mean I'd say something about the problems with the mixture of generalizing and being patronizing, but... You people never seem to learn anyway.
Sick burns aside, you are a 'pen and paper type' as well. No matter how nerdy it gets, there will be pen and paper types who are just as nerdy as you. Dis Amerikah!3sorry5meThem's fightin' wordsI am going to forgo my "stay away" mostly because for once... this thread is staying on topic and not delving into card games all of a sudden.'Table Top' is a very broad wassit. I figure it's mostly wargames, card games and pen & paper RPG's.
Someone also did some stuff on Settlers of Catan or Mansions of Madness or one of the bloody munchkin games here I dunno.
So, in other words, what you are saying is..
(http://www.troll.me/images/incompetent-boy-child/too-many-big-words-i-dont-understand.jpg)
I fail to see why I need to apologize for your failures. ;)
(I am teasing! I'm not really this big of a douche, honest.)
Post by: Radio Controlled on May 26, 2015, 12:51:29 pm
Chunky salsa rules ftw!
((Also, peeps, please spoiler those huge images if you could, thanks. Or at least when you quote them.))
Post by: Tack on May 26, 2015, 12:56:03 pm
But that stuff is fun and simple. I throw it in my zombiegames... Which I suddenly desperately want to run again.
... Anyway, I would assume acid that hits harder is more acidic, and the D-damage rating is based on what it has hit and where.
Things which are resistant to acid, meanwhile have acid resistance.
You can explain even the most basic rules on a scientific basis if you only ignore any scientific basis.
I fail to see why I need to apologize for your failures. ;)If you're failing to relate your smart words to dumb people, you don't deserve them.
Go practice your precis.
(It's ok. It reminds me of my homeland.)
Post by: wierd on May 26, 2015, 12:58:20 pm
There's abstractions, and theres "bullshit abstractions", basically. "Yeah, acid magically stops and vanishes after X rounds" is a bullshit abstraction. "You can only take so many punches to the face before your face caves in dude" is not.
Post by: Arx on May 26, 2015, 01:02:54 pm
But, opinion. I stand by what I said about simplifications, though. If the game's fun and doesn't take years to play, handwavium is tolerable in certain amounts.
Post by: Tack on May 26, 2015, 01:14:02 pm
"You can only take so many punches to the face before your face caves in dude" is not.
Disagree. Critical Existence Failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) is a bullshit abstraction.
Post by: Radio Controlled on May 26, 2015, 01:31:12 pm
Hitpoints break much more laws of reality than the way acid works.
Post by: Tack on May 26, 2015, 01:53:29 pm
Post by: i2amroy on May 26, 2015, 01:57:18 pm
Plus I mean the typical face is made of much sturdier stuff than the typical fist.Eh, your face is probably a pretty bad example of that, since it has tons of things (eyes, nose, ears) that are weaker than a fist is (though it also has tons of things that are sturdier).
The way I always have seen it is that if a calculation ends up taking more time than the joy the realism creates than it isn't worth it. As such I'm totally okay with BS abstractions in physical gaming the vast majority of the time, because it just isn't worth the time it would take to micromanage those rules. On the other hand if you were playing with computer aid then I could see changing a lot of them to be more realistic, since the computer could track and calculate all the little bits for you.
Post by: Tack on May 26, 2015, 03:20:08 pm
That wasn't sarcasm.
We must invent this.
Post by: Bauglir on May 26, 2015, 04:55:48 pm
But yeah, inventing that thing Tack described would both solve this and be something amazingly worthwhile. I heartily endorse this endeavor.
Post by: kilakan on May 26, 2015, 05:02:22 pm
I find hitpoints a much more bullshit abstraction than the properties of the acid used. To use your example: after that first punch, you might get a blue eye, limiting your vision, affecting your combat capabilities. Far as I know, hitpoints don't model that.I always kinda like the way wh40k handled hitpoints where it's more of a measure of 'yea you are badly hurt in that area but nothing serious. ala bruising' then after the HP is gone you start taking critical hits like loosing eye's/fingers/breaking bones/ect.
Hitpoints break much more laws of reality than the way acid works.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 26, 2015, 05:41:33 pm
I find hitpoints a much more bullshit abstraction than the properties of the acid used. To use your example: after that first punch, you might get a blue eye, limiting your vision, affecting your combat capabilities. Far as I know, hitpoints don't model that.I always kinda like the way wh40k handled hitpoints where it's more of a measure of 'yea you are badly hurt in that area but nothing serious. ala bruising' then after the HP is gone you start taking critical hits like loosing eye's/fingers/breaking bones/ect.
Hitpoints break much more laws of reality than the way acid works.
You can get bruised via bullets to your unarmoured head three times, but if you get shot in the carapace-armoured leg after that, it'll come off.
Realism.TM
That said, trying to get too realistic is kinda pointless. I'd be impressed if a system simulated things to a dwarf fortress level... but I don't think I'd play it.
Post by: Bauglir on May 26, 2015, 06:12:48 pm
Then there were some mitigating schemes that allow heroes to temporarily ignore their wounds, and shit like that, in order to help keep the whole thing from turning into a "rich get richer" kind of thing where victory depends on first blood more than anything else.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 26, 2015, 10:51:14 pm
That said, trying to get too realistic is kinda pointless. I'd be impressed if a system simulated things to a dwarf fortress level... but I don't think I'd play it.Such a thing exists. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=142957)
Post by: SalmonGod on May 27, 2015, 12:01:17 am
In my last game (5th edition D&D), we homebrewed a system where we had two HP pools.
One for your shallow bruising type HP. Most damage take from this pool first by default. This pool healed quickly on its own (100% with a full day of rest), but couldn't be helped much by magical healing.
One for vital wounds, where you're really getting seriously hurt. Take from this pool after the other one is gone, or on critical hits (which applied directly to this pool instead of doing extra damage)
On every hit to this pool, the DM would (usually unless game circumstances pre-determined something specific) roll to see which body part was effected and assign a disability associated with it.
Each critical wound was recorded separately, and the disability would remain until it was healed. Critical wounds would heal very slowly, and would usually require healing checks to heal correctly. This is what magical healing (which was limited compared to vanilla) would be for, and would still require heal checks and most likely some time.
The first pool is supposed to represent your fatigue. The idea being that a seasoned warrior learns through experience how to position and move themselves such that harm is minimized; rolling with punches and the like. As you level, you get better at doing this, and combined with the general energy and hardiness represented by your constitution determines how long you can keep it up. But once you're worn down to a certain point, you just don't have it in you anymore to protect yourself properly, and you start taking blows full force. And critical hits just represent especially cruel blows that get past your defenses, regardless of how fresh you are.
Honestly nothing too original. There are other systems that do stuff like this. We just shoe-horned it into D&D with the specific flavor we were going for, and it worked out pretty well. A bit more book-keeping, but nothing too cumbersome. I was playing a Necromancer/Ranger with lots of healing skill, and designed a Mold Flesh (guess what that did) cantrip for myself, so I got to perform lots of dramatic surgeries and stuff. Had to weather a couple interesting situations with one eye blinded and a shattered shoulder. Good stuff.
The best thing about it, besides making HP feel like less of an absurd abstraction, was it changed the problem games like D&D tend to have with the healing role. Where a healer character doesn't do much other than act as a backup group HP pool that everyone draws from during combat, and the role is not only boring to play but has a disproportionate effect on the pace and length of combat.
Post by: Naryar on May 27, 2015, 03:51:02 am
Of course it is noticeably better if you add an optional body locations wound system. So you can actually cripple legs, arms, lose eyes, hands, etc.
I still abstract it to "every wound is a torso wound unless NPC's/players/traps actually aim for other locations" for quickness of play.
At least people aren't bags of HP's like in D&D.
Post by: Sergarr on May 27, 2015, 04:02:33 am
Post by: Boltgun on May 27, 2015, 04:09:12 am
Plus it makes the game interesting as players gets scars and old wounds over time.
We recently played a game with no hit points but open sets of light/heavy/deadly wounds, it was annoying because I was to arbitrarily decide that the players won/lost.
Post by: Fniff on May 27, 2015, 04:58:17 am
Why even use hit points at this rate? Just convert all weapons into save-or-wound/die. After all, armour is abstracted in that way, so why not do the same with weapons?Because turning big numbers into small numbers is fun.
Post by: Tack on May 27, 2015, 08:49:00 am
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2015, 10:50:27 am
Why even use hit points at this rate? Just convert all weapons into save-or-wound/die. After all, armour is abstracted in that way, so why not do the same with weapons?
Welcome to the issue with Mutants and Masterminds
Where every fight ends with an anti-climax because even bosses are generally defeated within a few turns.
But rather just watch any movie. How many of them end in like 1 or 2 moves?
Post by: scrdest on May 27, 2015, 11:56:36 am
I've thought that a way to play with the abstractions of HP would be to not make it a direct measure of health, but survivability instead - a concept a'la Luck - depleted Luck means not that you have such-and-such number of wounds, but that, depending on the weapons in question, Something Lethal Happens - if it's a firefight, you get a headshot, or if it's a swordfight, you didn't manage to evade that one last strike, but if you were bleeding, for example, you bleed out.Why even use hit points at this rate? Just convert all weapons into save-or-wound/die. After all, armour is abstracted in that way, so why not do the same with weapons?
Welcome to the issue with Mutants and Masterminds
Where every fight ends with an anti-climax because even bosses are generally defeated within a few turns.
But rather just watch any movie. How many of them end in like 1 or 2 moves?
Since it's a (marginally) more tangible thing than Magic Health Count, it could be used as a basis for some interesting mechanics. For example, a cover system would be very simple - it would simply tack on a bunch of temporary HP for the purposes of being attacked from the cover's direction, and attacks would damage those temporary points, whereas being flanked would still deal damage to normal HP. Armor could be similar except omnidirectional.
All attacks would deplete a certain amount of HP - because eventually your luck will simply run out - but the various stats would, for combat, raise it - plus would in different ways come in handy out of combat - so a high-AGI and equally high-CON character would fight the same, but when you had to climb a tree the first one would be the one to call, whereas the second would be called to dive.
Some abilities could represent crazy stunts, and so would be essentially cast from HP.
Post by: Neonivek on May 27, 2015, 11:58:14 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on May 28, 2015, 11:36:17 am
Post by: Tack on May 28, 2015, 11:49:00 am
A druid shapeshifted into a pterodactyl and caught me out of mid-air whilst I was falling because a flying invisible lich had dispelled the Flight that our cleric had magnanomously thrown on me.
So I nailed the climb check to catch myself on the pterodactyl, nailed the ride check to ride her and then flew up to the lich, harpooned it, nailed the ride check to dismount as a free action, hauled this lich down through a 120 foot fall, took the damage on the chin like a boss (14 hp left), grappled it, tanked the cold touch (2hp left), pinned it and proceeded to punch it in the face whilst he successively failed concentration checks to blink away.
I WAS LEVEL SEVEN. (Mythic 4 *cough*)
Congrats, you made an Ogre shonen protagonist. :PWHO'S SHONEN NOW!!?
Our GM is a good sport when he keeps up with this kind of stuff. I do it amusingly often.
His choice quote for me is 'STOP THE BOAT!!! ...I'm going fishing"
Post by: Yoink on May 29, 2015, 01:43:52 am
It had a picture of some barbaric-lookin' dude clad in furs and such and promised gritty combat and a low-fantasy setting.
I think it may have had 'Iron' in the title but I am unsure. It wasn't Iron Throne, I know that much.
Post by: chaoticag on May 29, 2015, 05:48:06 am
Post by: Sergarr on May 29, 2015, 05:57:05 am
Iron Heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes)
Quote
It was written by Mike Mearls
Yoink, I'd suggest you avoid playing that system, or else you'll suffer from sheer badness.
Post by: chaoticag on May 29, 2015, 06:24:08 am
Post by: scriver on May 29, 2015, 08:04:52 am
Post by: Reelya on May 29, 2015, 04:32:07 pm
Consider an acid that you determine (however you want) should do a total 40 points of damage and the ongoing damage should last around 8 combat. you can either apply this @ 5 points of damage per turn, or you could start higher and keep track of the damage that needs to be dealt by the acid each round. So, the acid could start out doing 10 points of damage per round, and reduces to 1 point of damage per round by the end, but you work it out so that the average and total damages are the same.
The real problem lies in the fact that the outcome is the same either way. So you've added extra complexity and record keeping, yet the outcomes have not changed, and the faster acid damage near the start gives the players less rounds to try and do something about the acid, thus it reduces gameplay options.
So the idea of gradually decreasing acid damage fails the test of adding anything interesting to the game. Even if the realistic model is implemented, it will just end up being an extra set of tables to look up, that have pre-computed acid values in them, and won't actually amount to a discussion of the pros and cons of different acid chemistry.
Post by: Jeshin on June 02, 2015, 05:22:59 pm
Just saw this on the escapist the other day, looks pretty neat and might be useful for any tabletop runners.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 08, 2015, 05:06:25 pm
My DM wants us to come up with stories for our characters, but I can't quite figure out how my character could have gotten to where he his.
Post by: scrdest on June 08, 2015, 05:51:37 pm
Just curious: how do some people come up with their character's back-stories?One half character concept and one half asking yourself questions about the various things you've established already. Let's say you have a wizard. Why did he become a wizard? Why [something in the answer] is a thing? Change lines of thought - where he could be from? What was it like there? Eventually it sorta congeals into something coherent.
My DM wants us to come up with stories for our characters, but I can't quite figure out how my character could have gotten to where he his.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 08, 2015, 07:01:58 pm
Another player plans to take a prestige class that never leaves their home country, and we are quite a ways away from it. Plus he doesn't really act within their tenants.
Post by: Rolan7 on June 08, 2015, 07:58:58 pm
Post by: Flying Dice on June 08, 2015, 08:12:56 pm
Just curious: how do some people come up with their character's back-stories?Here's my process:
My DM wants us to come up with stories for our characters, but I can't quite figure out how my character could have gotten to where he his.
I decide, in crunch terms, the sort of character I want to play for the campaign, from anywhere as broad as "I want to into magic" to as narrow as "I want to be a perfectly optimized charger." Flip a coin for gender, roll dice for height/weight. Pick eye and hair color. Put all of that together into a general description. That's the broad strokes of the simple stuff out of the way.
Now, I figure out what my character's drive is -- what is the fundamental purpose of their life? Generally, I try to go for something that meshes with the crunch. From the combination of core goal and the roles they serve in the party, I derive personal characteristics. Then, I try to figure out how they got to where they are in life. Remember, stories will emerge naturally from realistic characters and their interactions.
Another way to go about it is to just build their backstory with a 5e sheet. It's got a really straightforward four-box framing device for characters which any half-competent RPer can easily translate into a more nuanced character.
Post by: tonnot98 on June 08, 2015, 09:41:01 pm
It was messy.
Post by: Flying Dice on June 08, 2015, 09:45:15 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on June 08, 2015, 10:48:27 pm
My brother's barbarian got raped to death by a friend's spirit whale.Only in a pen and paper tabletop rpg, ladies and gents. Quality gameplay! Fun for the whole family!
It was messy.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on June 08, 2015, 10:48:59 pm
watFATAL
Post by: Spehss _ on June 08, 2015, 11:05:18 pm
ftfywatFATAL-ity
Post by: Sergius on June 09, 2015, 09:17:28 am
watFATAL
Ah, he probably had a low A.C. score then (not armor class).
Post by: Tack on June 09, 2015, 01:27:31 pm
Just curious: how do some people come up with their character's back-stories?Here's my process:
Mine is the direct opposite:
First up I've never played a woman in anything I've played. No idea why, but it's basically tradition now.
So I go - What do I want to play/What does this group need more of - that gets me my class.
Then I skip straight to the backstory. I throw a complication straight on the empty table and away we go.
Complications: He's an idiot/He's rash/He's pretentious/He's insane/He's uncompromisingly evil.
Put that in, and let that guide the stats you make for them. Chances are you can still minmax them pretty effectively whilst working around that.
After that you try to figure out WHY they have that particular character trait
Are they insane? Maybe something horrific happened to them or their family.
Are they stupid? Maybe they've lived a very sheltered life.
The GM usually gives you a reason for being there, so you just tweak the last year or so of your backstory to shunt in there as needed.
From there it's just filling in the little blanks with dramatic/funny stuff as needed and away you go.
My personal two triumphs would be:
The Xenophobic lizardman paladin I created for a high-rp game I played.
(Humans were spreading throughout his home swamp which would usually have been anathema to them, so he considers them some kind of highly-adaptable vermin)
- And a funny half-orc berserker who grew up with a very soft heart and lawful mindset, underneath a very evil and manipulative baron von father figure.
("Never fear! 'Tis the duty of the nobility to cull the peasantry", "But those humans are slaves! This is horrible! Humans make TERRIBLE slaves! Nobody likes minotaurs- use minotaurs!")
Post by: scrdest on June 09, 2015, 04:11:26 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 09, 2015, 05:06:29 pm
Not as bad as the cleric/rogue though. Prestige classing into a class that requires that the members' true identities are never known. Even more difficult is the fact that you aren't even supposed to be able to tell one member apart from another, yet he wants to make a name for himself. Hell, this class isn't even supposed to leave their home country without good reason, yet he has never even once set foot within its borders.
Plus his backstory is logically impossible to have occurred.
Post by: scrdest on June 09, 2015, 05:24:16 pm
I think I got my character figured out, but it's a bit difficult to validate the prestige class I want to take.That... sounds like a shoehorn either way you try to tackle that. I mean - outside of game mechanics, what in-character reason this character could possibly have in joining that particular organization? If the skills aren't fluffwise bound to active membership, you might make him a rogue member of whatever that is, whose ambitions made him leave or betray or whatevs the main, with proper consequences.
Not as bad as the cleric/rogue though. Prestige classing into a class that requires that the members' true identities are never known. Even more difficult is the fact that you aren't even supposed to be able to tell one member apart from another, yet he wants to make a name for himself. Hell, this class isn't even supposed to leave their home country without good reason, yet he has never even once set foot within its borders.
Plus his backstory is logically impossible to have occurred.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 09, 2015, 06:01:54 pm
They're called Gray Gardeners. (http://archivesofnethys.com/PrestigeClassesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Gray%20Gardener) Or Gray Wardens, if you want to avoid copyright issues, which some fan-sites do.
It blends a bit of both inquisitor and rogue, and he's taking it for min-max/optimization reasons. Hopefully no cheating reasons. Hasn't mentioned a very good in-character reason beyond stating the fact that the character likes anonymity. Despite trying to make a name for himself. Examples include continuing to try to steal some very renowned boats, and he insisted we take a fortress-island through force. He even initiated the attack. He's supposed to deflect attention from himself, not draw it.
Post by: Bohandas on June 09, 2015, 07:17:57 pm
Baron Von Father sounds like the name of a villain-that's-a-parent-figure-symbol in a kids movie.
Or an unlicensed knockoff of Darth Vader
Post by: Flying Dice on June 10, 2015, 12:10:10 am
The requirements to enter don't actually mention anything about meeting with the organization or anything, oddly. It doesn't even require that a member be present when you complete the action that is required. the action in question being to execute a sentenced criminal, and explicitly states that it does not matter if the executed was innocent or guilty.
They're called Gray Gardeners. (http://archivesofnethys.com/PrestigeClassesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Gray%20Gardener) Or Gray Wardens, if you want to avoid copyright issues, which some fan-sites do.
It blends a bit of both inquisitor and rogue, and he's taking it for min-max/optimization reasons. Hopefully no cheating reasons. Hasn't mentioned a very good in-character reason beyond stating the fact that the character likes anonymity. Despite trying to make a name for himself. Examples include continuing to try to steal some very renowned boats, and he insisted we take a fortress-island through force. He even initiated the attack. He's supposed to deflect attention from himself, not draw it.
1. Take a level in the PrC.
2. Ambition is to "make a name for himself."
3. Hunt down and kill all other Gray Gardeners.
4. All deeds attributed to the organization are now linked to his alter-ego as faceless-murderer-man.
Attention is deflected from his true identity, and his disguise becomes famous. Have your cake and eat it too, the creative person's guide to meshing good fluff with minmaxing.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 10, 2015, 11:21:29 am
A dhampir oracle, despised for his heritage, finds refuge with the only ones who would accept him: an undeath worshipping cult called the Whispering Way. Hoping to learn more about his curse and the mysteries of Juju, he heads off to explore the Mwangi Expanse, where practitioners of the magic are said to reside. Along the way he ends up forced to work on a pirate ship, where the adventure starts.
The problem player's story is a bit shit. He's a kasatha, which are desert - dwelling race of aliens that have no idea how they got to the planet and want to go home. The PP is the son of the matriarch, and was poised to become the first male leader of the kasatha. Before that could happen, he was exiled and is now hunted by his people because he accidentally discovered a way back to their planet.
A bit like saying that you were to become king of the drow until you accidentally discovered a way to blot out the sun. Or that you were to become the next God-Emprah' of Mankind until you accidentally discovered a way to kill the gods of Chaos.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on June 10, 2015, 11:30:25 am
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 10, 2015, 11:31:45 am
Post by: Bohandas on June 10, 2015, 05:20:28 pm
I don't think problem player will be able to come up with a sensible story. I know my story, at least, but I don't know how good it is.
A dhampir oracle, despised for his heritage, finds refuge with the only ones who would accept him: an undeath worshipping cult called the Whispering Way. Hoping to learn more about his curse and the mysteries of Juju, he heads off to explore the Mwangi Expanse, where practitioners of the magic are said to reside. Along the way he ends up forced to work on a pirate ship, where the adventure starts.
The problem player's story is a bit shit. He's a kasatha, which are desert - dwelling race of aliens that have no idea how they got to the planet and want to go home. The PP is the son of the matriarch, and was poised to become the first male leader of the kasatha. Before that could happen, he was exiled and is now hunted by his people because he accidentally discovered a way back to their planet.
A bit like saying that you were to become king of the drow until you accidentally discovered a way to blot out the sun. Or that you were to become the next God-Emprah' of Mankind until you accidentally discovered a way to kill the gods of Chaos.
Well it's like a "war is peace" type thing, like how the leaders in 1984 had no real intention of winning their war because as long as it continued they could use fear-mongering and jingoism as tools of manipulation. Or like the Republican party, once they successfully got slavery banned they didin't really have a purpose anymore and so they've spent the last century and a half or so just aimlessly hanging around causing trouble.
Post by: Nerjin on June 10, 2015, 05:32:58 pm
Post by: Culise on June 10, 2015, 08:36:01 pm
Disdain as you like, but be fair about it; there's not much aimless about the Republicans. The Republican party been a bastion of business more or less since its inception, courtesy of the Whiggish side of its ancestry, which was absolutely cemented not with Reagan, but with McKinley; the only difference was if it was big business or small business. If anything, apart from its flirtation with abolitionism by way of the Free Soilers side, its marriage to social conservatism is the more recent phenomenon.I don't think problem player will be able to come up with a sensible story. I know my story, at least, but I don't know how good it is.
A dhampir oracle, despised for his heritage, finds refuge with the only ones who would accept him: an undeath worshipping cult called the Whispering Way. Hoping to learn more about his curse and the mysteries of Juju, he heads off to explore the Mwangi Expanse, where practitioners of the magic are said to reside. Along the way he ends up forced to work on a pirate ship, where the adventure starts.
The problem player's story is a bit shit. He's a kasatha, which are desert - dwelling race of aliens that have no idea how they got to the planet and want to go home. The PP is the son of the matriarch, and was poised to become the first male leader of the kasatha. Before that could happen, he was exiled and is now hunted by his people because he accidentally discovered a way back to their planet.
A bit like saying that you were to become king of the drow until you accidentally discovered a way to blot out the sun. Or that you were to become the next God-Emprah' of Mankind until you accidentally discovered a way to kill the gods of Chaos.
Well it's like a "war is peace" type thing, like how the leaders in 1984 had no real intention of winning their war because as long as it continued they could use fear-mongering and jingoism as tools of manipulation. Or like the Republican party, once they successfully got slavery banned they didin't really have a purpose anymore and so they've spent the last century and a half or so just aimlessly hanging around causing trouble.
Post by: Yoink on June 10, 2015, 10:53:20 pm
I don't think I ever saw the ad, never owned a copy of dragon until DnD insider, but are you talking about Iron Heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes)?Oh yeah, that's the one! I know nothing about it apart from what I read in the ad, but it seemed cool. Thanks! :)
@Scriver: I've played The Riddle of Steel and it is awesome, but it certainly wasn't that. Iron throne is apparently a sequel/successor to TRoS, actually.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 11, 2015, 12:12:45 am
Post by: Neonivek on June 11, 2015, 12:14:51 am
Since ordinary zombies and skeletons are mostly pale imitations of their living counterpart.
Post by: Sergarr on June 11, 2015, 02:13:53 am
Seriously in dnd necromancers are REALLY not scary.Pfff. Real scary necros use allips.
Since ordinary zombies and skeletons are mostly pale imitations of their living counterpart.
Post by: Gentlefish on June 11, 2015, 02:16:58 am
Seriously in dnd necromancers are REALLY not scary.Pfff. Real scary necros use allips.
Since ordinary zombies and skeletons are mostly pale imitations of their living counterpart.
Oh man. Fuck allips. that entrancing babble and CHA drain is killer.
Post by: Sergarr on June 11, 2015, 02:59:16 am
It's WIS drain, but the effect is kinda the same 8)Seriously in dnd necromancers are REALLY not scary.Pfff. Real scary necros use allips.
Since ordinary zombies and skeletons are mostly pale imitations of their living counterpart.
Oh man. Fuck allips. that entrancing babble and CHA drain is killer.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 11, 2015, 08:35:11 pm
Base skeletons are alright, but base zombies are weak, since they are perma-staggered. Once you can slap on some variants, they get a bit better. Fast zombies are would be a good example. Or bloody skeletons, which refuse to stay down until they are finished off with positive energy or are doused in holy water. Though my water naga is just a base skeleton, and still has quite a bit of fight left in it, but I don't disagree that it lost a lot when it was animated compared to when it was living.
Though intelligent undead are much better than other types, they have the threat of potentially becoming free of their servitude, and turning against their former masters, making them a risky ally at best. Unless you somehow make an agreement with them, though they may still turn against you because "all undead are teh eeeevvvuuuuulllz!" in Pathfinder, aside from un-errata'd juju oracles.
Post by: Neonivek on June 11, 2015, 08:52:53 pm
Pretty much any intimidating Necromancer usually is using DM powers :P or has some sort of artifact or device.
Quote
aside from un-errata'd juju oracles
Assuming it is there to be errata'd. If there is one MAJOR fault with Pathfinder it is that it often gives you a lot of content but without a sense of where it should be used.
A lot of content is "meant" for NPCs or made for one specific adventure path... or one specific adventure path enemy (Vampire template being the major one).
Or heck are just flat out unfinished or unsupported by the game's current content.
Totemic Druids being the prime example of this whole thing. They get HUGE penalties for a benefit that disappears.
Post by: Bohandas on June 11, 2015, 09:06:20 pm
True but a Necromancer who can pull off undead like that usually isn't one "playing by the rules"
Pretty much any intimidating Necromancer usually is using DM powers :P or has some sort of artifact or device.
The Master of Shrouds prestige class looks like it might be helpful in making a dangerous necromancer, but I can't say for certain because I haven't been in a game where someone has played one. The True Necromancer class could also be dangerous, if not for its necromantic powers than for the fact that it's basically a Mystic Theurge with additional powers just tacked on on top; same caveat though.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 11, 2015, 09:08:37 pm
Quote
Necromancy spells that create undead lose the evil descriptor when you cast them. Mindless undead created by your magic are of neutral alignment, while thinking undead possess your alignment.
It was eventually removed, and stated to be an oversight. While trying to find the official statement, I discovered that there was apparently a much older oversight that accidentally allowed paladins to follow Asmodeus, Lawful Evil deity of devils.
Though there are still fringe cases of non-evil undead. Ghosts are stated to be neutral, and a shadow can be any alignment, if you are a Shadowdancer. Your shadow minion shares your alignment. Additionally, the undead created by a Dirge Bard are not evil, though that is likely because they aren't created, but are likely closer to animated objects, manipulated through the power of heavy metal.
Post by: Neonivek on June 11, 2015, 09:19:36 pm
No mindless creature can truly possess an alignment.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 11, 2015, 09:47:21 pm
Though I do wonder if a Juju Oracle would get a different reaction from the undead they raise due to sharing an alignment.
Would the undead still be predisposed to avoid their creator, and prefer to be running around being a dick like other intelligent undead, or would they just turn to the oracle and go "ayy, lmao!" and be best buds?
Post by: Neonivek on June 11, 2015, 10:11:59 pm
Quote
I personally think that any undead with an intelligence above an animal's should be able to pick its own alignment like any other fully sapient creature
That is true.
Though usually the methods to become an intelligent undead is just so corrupting either immediately or over time that you are pretty much bound for evil. Especially since even if your "good" you are still comprised of negative energy.
Post by: Bauglir on June 11, 2015, 11:23:21 pm
The True Necromancer class could also be dangerous, if not for its necromantic powers than for the fact that it's basically a Mystic Theurge with additional powers just tacked on on top; same caveat though.I would strongly recommend against this, unless by "dangerous" you meant "is playing on Hard mode". You wind up 5 caster levels behind as a result, because not only do you lose levels from multiclassing to qualify, the PrC drops a level from each progression as well. So you're 2 to 3 spell levels behind at any given time, and the versatility generally isn't worthwhile unless you plan to engage in some obnoxious cheese to get level 9s and a high CL anyway. To put it in perspective, a Fighter who takes Leadership, and whose cohort takes Leadership, has more powerful spellcasting options than you do. I mean, Leadership is a terrible feat for any DM to allow, but still.
EDIT: That said, if it works for the campaign's power level, a player can go for it. I kneejerked on that one; optimization is not mandatory. That particular class just grates on me, though. Much recommend Dread Necromancer as a base class over that.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 11, 2015, 11:29:49 pm
And leadership can be cheesy, depending on the circumstances. I know of one exploit that allows an unlimited amount of cohorts. Take the PrC Noble Scion. At second level in the PrC, your cohort is allowed to be only one level below you, instead of two. At level 10, your cohort is allowed to be the same level as you. Now give your cohort leadership, and give them the PrC, rinse and repeat.
It's also the only companion that a certain player would want to allow in the game. Apparently animal companions, familiars, and mounts are simultaneously over and underpowered, and should never have been introduced into the game, let alone have their own archetypes, but an entire extra player character is just fine.
Post by: Neonivek on June 11, 2015, 11:39:39 pm
Quote
Now give your cohort leadership
That instantly right there is a big "no no"
But beyond that... That tactic doesn't work for one specific reason: You find cohorts you don't make them.
Post by: Bauglir on June 11, 2015, 11:40:43 pm
It was the major inspiration for one of my many abortive attempts to rewrite the entirety of Arcane Spellcasting through alternate base classes that specialize by school. Good times.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 11, 2015, 11:54:32 pm
He's got a strange attitude towards the game. He hasn't even played the majority of the classes he adamantly claims are terrible. Necromancers are terrible build ideas, Oracles are just shitty clerics, clerics are shitty wizards, sorcerers are shitty wizards, alchemists don't make sense because potions shouldn't mimic spells. The only thing I agree with is that advanced firearms are kind of bull, since they always target touch. Basically, if it isn't a battlefield controller that can shut down the encounter with a flick of the wrist, it is shit.
He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on June 12, 2015, 01:16:23 am
He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.That sounds like Treantmonk. I don't think they ever said to act like a god, but that you have the power of one as a wizard.
This one, maybe? (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xjPIOH8F8a0l74BdDF7Q23nCfZ-YX68Xr6JmmtznMw4/edit)
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 12, 2015, 01:20:25 am
Quote
- and they will feel like "they" won. That's the point - you're God after all, let the mortals have their victory.
If others can complete an encounter without his help, then they have won by their own merit, and he is not God, and that's not good. For him, anyways.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on June 12, 2015, 01:26:44 am
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 12, 2015, 01:28:30 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on June 12, 2015, 02:08:23 am
Maybe have a dungeon where magic is sapped, and any use of it directly powers up the enemy. Or maybe an area where magic dun work period.Well, that seems a bit much, especially if there are other magic users around.
Does that wizard dude have any weak points?
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2015, 02:09:46 am
I mean, ideally, any encounter should only be completable with the help of the entire party, but I imagine that he's pushing to the other side of the spectrum, where he can solo things.
Well... it depends.
Early on a wizard is basically the win button but he can only hit that button so many times...
Post by: Radio Controlled on June 12, 2015, 02:11:18 am
Maybe have a dungeon where magic is sapped, and any use of it directly powers up the enemy. Or maybe an area where magic dun work period.Well, that seems a bit much, especially if there are other magic users around.
Does that wizard dude have any weak points?
If nothing else, it forces them not to just go 'apply magicks until solved' at problems. Maybe give 'em a puzzle or something, a difficult maze, whatever.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on June 12, 2015, 02:15:35 am
Perhaps one of those 'face your greatest weakness wooooooo'Maybe have a dungeon where magic is sapped, and any use of it directly powers up the enemy. Or maybe an area where magic dun work period.Well, that seems a bit much, especially if there are other magic users around.
Does that wizard dude have any weak points?
If nothing else, it forces them not to just go 'apply magicks until solved' at problems. Maybe give 'em a puzzle or something, a difficult maze, whatever.
And then it turns out the answer is friendship or something.
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 02:07:22 pm
Does that wizard dude have any weak points?If nothing else, another wizard with a better Initiative check. But it doesn't sound like he actually knows what he's doing, and therefore cheats, if I'm remembering correctly. So, most likely there's plenty to exploit there. You could probably get him with a Slinger whose stones have Silence cast on them; most spells have vocal components and he doesn't strike me as the type to have bothered to prepare a Silent Dimension Door.
Post by: Arx on June 12, 2015, 02:17:15 pm
Post by: Arx on June 12, 2015, 02:17:37 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2015, 02:21:10 pm
Of course, he could have Silent Cast, or whatever that feat's called.
Silent Spell. It allows you to cast a spell that has verbal components silently.
Post by: NullForceOmega on June 12, 2015, 02:21:26 pm
No more mage-fuckery.
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2015, 02:24:52 pm
Antimagic field, sor/wiz 6, cleric 8, magic 6, protection 6
No more mage-fuckery.
Or just have the dungeon constantly rumble with strong howling winds... forcing constant concentration checks.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 12, 2015, 02:39:21 pm
Post by: Sergarr on June 12, 2015, 02:42:10 pm
He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.You mean, wizards aren't gods? *shock*
Post by: Tawa on June 12, 2015, 02:45:23 pm
Well, he is playing Pathfinder. Wizards suck slightly more in PF from what I've heard.He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.You mean, wizards aren't gods? *shock*
...That reminds me that I've never actually played Pathfinder. I want to try it someday.
Post by: Helgoland on June 12, 2015, 02:46:15 pm
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 02:57:43 pm
Antimagic field, sor/wiz 6, cleric 8, magic 6, protection 6I see you aren't familiar with typical wizarding headgear - you make a cone out of Adamantine tall enough to contain you and make contact with the ground, and cast Shrink Item on it, selecting the clothlike option. You wear this as a hat. As soon as you enter a surprise AMF, Shrink Item is suppressed, the cone expands to full size and drops down. It blocks line of effect, allowing the wizard within to teleport out. This is why wizard hats are pointy.
No more mage-fuckery.
Plus, AMF is the first thing people think of when they think of ways to fuck a wizard over, and that means it's the first thing the wizard figures out how to thwart (perhaps by learning Invoke Magic, a spell in Lords of Madness that can be cast as a swift action inside an AMF to allow the wizard to cast another spell that turn within the AMF). Silence tends to work better, because Silent Spell carries a hefty drawback (counts as a level higher) and nobody expects it to be relevant.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 12, 2015, 02:57:44 pm
Though he plans to be a wizard again soon, and be an even more evil one than our current necromancer wizard. That's going to suck, because the party's current wizard is lawful evil, and has actually managed to make the DM get up and leave the room because he was making things too dark.
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2015, 02:58:38 pm
Well, he is playing Pathfinder. Wizards suck slightly less in PF from what I've heard.He once read a farcical min-max guide on wizards that jokingly claimed that by playing a wizard, you are a god, and that you should act like it in-game and out. I don't think he realized it wasn't meant to be serious.You mean, wizards aren't gods? *shock*
...That reminds me that I've never actually played Pathfinder. I want to try it someday.
Uhhh Wizards in 3.5 didn't suck... In fact you could say Wizards suck more in pathfinder because all the other non-magic classes suddenly can pull their weight.
There are a lot of magic combinations in 3.5 that are nearly broken without too much book diving, and their "instant kill" capability is much higher than in pathfinder.
Post by: Tawa on June 12, 2015, 02:59:09 pm
Gaaah.
Post by: NullForceOmega on June 12, 2015, 03:00:05 pm
Antimagic field, sor/wiz 6, cleric 8, magic 6, protection 6I see you aren't familiar with typical wizarding headgear - you make a cone out of Adamantine tall enough to contain you and make contact with the ground, and cast Shrink Item on it, selecting the clothlike option. You wear this as a hat. As soon as you enter a surprise AMF, Shrink Item is suppressed, the cone expands to full size and drops down. It blocks line of effect, allowing the wizard within to teleport out. This is why wizard hats are pointy.
No more mage-fuckery.
Plus, AMF is the first thing people think of when they think of ways to fuck a wizard over, and that means it's the first thing the wizard figures out how to thwart (perhaps by learning Invoke Magic, a spell in Lords of Madness that can be cast as a swift action inside an AMF to allow the wizard to cast another spell that turn within the AMF). Silence tends to work better, because Silent Spell carries a hefty drawback (counts as a level higher) and nobody expects it to be relevant.
And I see you are unfamiliar with the DM principle of, 'NO'.
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 03:02:05 pm
And I see you are unfamiliar with the DM principle, of 'NO'.Oh, heavens, no, I love that one, but if we're going that route than I think we can all agree that AMF is an entirely superfluous step. Generally, when you have problem wizards in the first place, Rule 0 is not terribly well-applied.
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2015, 03:03:41 pm
Not that the bell protects the wizard from the antimagic field... at all.
Post by: NullForceOmega on June 12, 2015, 03:03:57 pm
And yes Neo, I know that, and it is one of the silliest attempts to meta I've ever heard.
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 03:09:34 pm
Well yes, I can certainly agree with that, but the tools have been provided to allow you to control players that have gone over the wall, so be prepared to use them. I guess that is what I was actually trying to say with the spell quote.Ah, yes, well that's certainly fair enough.
And yes Neo, I know that, and it is one of the silliest attempts to meta I've ever heard.
The bell does work, however. AMF's area of effect is a spread; it doesn't penetrate barriers. And you don't have to use Adamantine (that's mostly an element of class; a more practical Wizard will just cast Wall of Iron and Fabricate it into the appropriate shape), but you do have to deal with the fact that the ground is not perfectly flat; this will require some mechanical skill to create a cone whose base is loaded on some sort of retractable bearings that allow it to adjust to the particular surface on which it lands to whatever tolerance blocking Line of Effect requires.
It's just really stupid. Sort of like trying to set up an instantaneous package delivery service by setting up a line of Commoners with readied actions to hand the package to the next person in line, it technically works by the rules, but it shouldn't and fuck you for trying.
Post by: Fniff on June 12, 2015, 03:10:54 pm
Post by: Toaster on June 12, 2015, 03:13:03 pm
Post by: NullForceOmega on June 12, 2015, 03:19:01 pm
Well yes, I can certainly agree with that, but the tools have been provided to allow you to control players that have gone over the wall, so be prepared to use them. I guess that is what I was actually trying to say with the spell quote.Ah, yes, well that's certainly fair enough.
And yes Neo, I know that, and it is one of the silliest attempts to meta I've ever heard.
The bell does work, however. AMF's area of effect is a spread; it doesn't penetrate barriers. And you don't have to use Adamantine (that's mostly an element of class; a more practical Wizard will just cast Wall of Iron and Fabricate it into the appropriate shape), but you do have to deal with the fact that the ground is not perfectly flat; this will require some mechanical skill to create a cone whose base is loaded on some sort of retractable bearings that allow it to adjust to the particular surface on which it lands to whatever tolerance blocking Line of Effect requires.
It's just really stupid. Sort of like trying to set up an instantaneous package delivery service by setting up a line of Commoners with readied actions to hand the package to the next person in line, it technically works by the rules, but it shouldn't and fuck you for trying.
Emanation, not spread. As for the meta, that kind of silliness would definitely be blocked at my table (especially a feat/spell that could mysteriously negate the basic function of an AMF, likewise I don't allow most supplements, they're terrible), and repeating it would get you booted from my group.
Post by: Fniff on June 12, 2015, 03:22:07 pm
So no consulting the Necrotelicomnicon?Mention of Mrs Cake is also banned.
Post by: Neonivek on June 12, 2015, 03:27:20 pm
Quote
The bell does work, however. AMF's area of effect is a spread; it doesn't penetrate barriers
It isn't a barrier until it fills up an entire block.
But lets see... a Level 20 Wizard can shrink 40 cubic feet.
Which isn't enough to pull off the plan.
Post by: Sergarr on June 12, 2015, 03:41:01 pm
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 03:44:59 pm
Emanation, not spread. As for the meta, that kind of silliness would definitely be blocked at my table (especially a feat/spell that could mysteriously negate the basic function of an AMF, likewise I don't allow most supplements, they're terrible), and repeating it would get you booted from my group.Rats, my memory was off. Still, that's a bit worse for the AMF, though, since it also means it doesn't go around corners (fiddling with the base of the cone is thus probably unnecessary as long as you wear sufficiently tall shoes).
I, too, would either disallow that sort of nonsense from happening or warn the player that they're breaking the Gentleman's Agreement and can expect similar horseshit to be used by the antagonists. Depends on the type of game and the players; in the right context that sort of one-upsmanship can generate a pretty fun game, but it's not the sort of thing that works well if one player is trying to force it on everyone else for shits and giggles (even if that player is the DM). So a responsible DM does have to prevent it if it should crop up that way.
Although, many supplements are actually better-balanced than Core because the devs knew what the hell they were doing toward the end. You'll note that the Cone of Anti-Anti-Magic is Core-Only horseshit. There are valid power reasons for banning them, but they have more to do with the fact that any widening of the field of options makes it likelier that two things will interact in ways the designers never expected to do something stupid than with any inherent awfulness of splatbooks. Still, I've never had to deal with a situation where it was easier to ban a splatbook than an asshole.
The biggest problem with using AMF against wizards is that it's a spell, meaning that non-magic characters actually cannot use it, barring magical scrolls/items. Also, as it is a spell, nothing prevents the wizard from casting it first and using some metamagic to exclude himself from the area-of-effect...I wouldn't say that's the biggest problem, but it certainly is one. :P
Post by: Tack on June 12, 2015, 04:43:25 pm
Post by: Bohandas on June 12, 2015, 04:46:39 pm
Post by: Bauglir on June 12, 2015, 05:01:01 pm
Nobody mentioned how much an adamantium hat would weigh.Very little, actually. 1/4096th of its normal weight, assuming the clothlike composition doesn't change its weight at all. Assuming it weighs 10 pounds, and Adamantine is as dense as gold for some reason, you wind up with about 33 cubic feet of metal to work with. So you can get a cone of metal that's 7 feet tall with a 5 foot diameter base and is 6 inches thick and still have some room to work. Of course the shrunken cone is less than 6 inches tall, so to achieve proper wizard fashion you might have to sew it onto the tip of a mundane hat.
It's so stupid.
EDIT: I did the volume calculation on the cone wrong, the Adamantine could actually be twice as dense as gold and it'd still work.
EDIT: A 10 pound hat would be a huge pain in the neck though.
Post by: scriver on June 12, 2015, 05:43:59 pm
Post by: Bohandas on June 12, 2015, 08:52:00 pm
Nobody mentioned how much an adamantium hat would weigh.
Wait, DF adamantium, D&D adamantium, or Marvel Comics adamantium?
Post by: Aseaheru on June 12, 2015, 09:16:21 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on June 14, 2015, 04:44:13 am
In more interesting news, Errata for the 5e PHB and basic rules (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf) has been released.
Edit: Also, D&D for kids is so cute. Critical DAW! (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/MonsterSlayers_v2.pdf)
Post by: tonnot98 on June 14, 2015, 12:52:06 pm
Just curious: how do some people come up with their character's back-stories?I just copy characters that I've had in succession games.
My DM wants us to come up with stories for our characters, but I can't quite figure out how my character could have gotten to where he his.
Post by: Tack on June 14, 2015, 05:24:35 pm
But... when you get a mental disease, it's on a card stuck to your forehead like in celebrities.
There are no bonus points for guessing it. Only more clarity on your hopelessness.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 14, 2015, 05:44:39 pm
Thinking to start a Call of Cthulhu game.Call of Cthulhu game on the forums? I'd be up for trying that.
But... when you get a mental disease, it's on a card stuck to your forehead like in celebrities.
There are no bonus points for guessing it. Only more clarity on your hopelessness.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 19, 2015, 01:30:46 pm
Post by: Bohandas on June 19, 2015, 01:41:13 pm
But... when you get a mental disease, it's on a card stuck to your forehead like in celebrities.
Is that like indian head poker?
Post by: Cthulufaic on June 19, 2015, 01:53:18 pm
Double post. Does it matter if I mix DnD versions? I'm finding cheap rulebooks and stuff that may be either 3e or 4e. If it's not worth it I won't waste money. Opinions?I mean I usually mix and match stuff, but sometimes I do need to plan things ahead if things like spells and magic items start to conflict with each other and the rules. Other times though I can improv and it (usually) turns out OK.
Post by: Naryar on June 19, 2015, 01:58:43 pm
Double post. Does it matter if I mix DnD versions? I'm finding cheap rulebooks and stuff that may be either 3e or 4e. If it's not worth it I won't waste money. Opinions?
They're not the same system, although you can implement 3e in 4e and vice versa.
Also 4e... don't.
Post by: Arx on June 19, 2015, 02:22:20 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on June 19, 2015, 02:40:00 pm
Post by: scriver on June 19, 2015, 02:47:58 pm
Post by: Arx on June 19, 2015, 03:13:54 pm
Post by: Dutchling on June 19, 2015, 05:49:14 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on June 19, 2015, 06:03:34 pm
---
I really want to play 5th edition but it is surprisingly hard to find or run a game.
5th Ed is right now VERY early level / Late Level heavy... Basically the range of level 6-14 are barren.
Mind you it is great that they actually decided to support the low levels as much as they do (A lot of the time it feels like 3.5 was meant to start at level 5 or 10)
But I've probably never looked at a first edition monster manual and felt so unequipped to run a game. THEN AGAIN the monster manual might as well be the adventure path monster manual.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 19, 2015, 06:38:37 pm
But I've probably never looked at a first edition monster manual and felt so unequipped to run a game. THEN AGAIN the monster manual might as well be the adventure path monster manual.Couldn't you use monsters from 3.5 or 4? The monster manual is just basically stat sheets for monsters, right, I wouldn't think there'd be any huge differences between editions for monster stats.
Post by: Neonivek on June 19, 2015, 06:56:21 pm
But I've probably never looked at a first edition monster manual and felt so unequipped to run a game. THEN AGAIN the monster manual might as well be the adventure path monster manual.Couldn't you use monsters from 3.5 or 4? The monster manual is just basically stat sheets for monsters, right, I wouldn't think there'd be any huge differences between editions for monster stats.
5th edition is drastically different. You might as well just make your own monsters for 5th edition. Which frankly I'd love to show everyone my creations.
Post by: Kadzar on June 19, 2015, 07:13:54 pm
Double post. Does it matter if I mix DnD versions? I'm finding cheap rulebooks and stuff that may be either 3e or 4e. If it's not worth it I won't waste money. Opinions?Even if the rules don't match up, older rulebooks can be useful because they often contain setting information and cool ideas that didn't make the transfer to newer editions. I don't know 4e faired as far as setting information since I only own a couple of books and only skimmed through a few others, but the books I own tend to be filled with a lot more rules than flavor (though I don't have any setting-specific books).
Regardless of what edition you're going for, it's a good idea to do a little online research to get a feel for if they're any good or not.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 19, 2015, 07:20:01 pm
Post by: Neonivek on June 20, 2015, 07:14:29 pm
Is that so far after reading the monster manual it has done a good job at trying to make sure that as the CR goes up that monsters actually do feel, with some notable exception, like they are getting more epic.
I kind of hope that trend continues.
Post by: Nerjin on June 20, 2015, 07:32:53 pm
Post by: Cthulufaic on June 20, 2015, 07:49:57 pm
So I've really gotten into deckbuilders. Are there any really good deck builders I should keep an eye on? I would enjoy something for 2+ players with a fantasy theme but I'm up for anything. Just figured this'd be an okay place to ask.I wish I could help but I never really understood what anyone means when they say a Deck Building game rather than just a card game. I think Magic the Gathering counts?
Or you could just play Catan :P
Post by: Nerjin on June 20, 2015, 07:56:31 pm
Deckbuilders are things like Dominion or Star Realms.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on June 20, 2015, 08:27:17 pm
Post by: Nerjin on June 20, 2015, 08:28:04 pm
Post by: Kadzar on June 20, 2015, 10:19:15 pm
Post by: Mephisto on June 20, 2015, 11:59:56 pm
I would enjoy something for 2+ players with a fantasy theme but I'm up for anything.
I don't get to pimp Thunderstone Advance often, so that's what I'm going to do.
The base is pretty much Dominion - buy new cards using currency based on which cards you drew this turn. There are a few big differences, however.
- No useless estates
- There's a cave of evil badness just outside of town
- You're one of the town's protectors, so you use your money to gather and equip a militia, leveling them up as you beat back the enemy
Post by: chaoticag on June 21, 2015, 04:45:31 pm
Spoiler: Summary of the events (click to show/hide)
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on June 22, 2015, 12:00:34 pm
I wish I could help but I never really understood what anyone means when they say a Deck Building game rather than just a card game. I think Magic the Gathering counts?
I believe the semantic folk like to differentiate deck construction games (Magic, Netrunner, etc.), games where you build the deck before playing, and deck builders (Dominion etc.), games where the deck is built up during gameplay.
Then we can ponder whether games with deck building mechanic are automatically deck builders or not. Stuff like Mage Knight and City of Remnants. I'd argue no, or at least they're not pure deck builders since they have so many other mechanics in as well. Might as well call Catan a card game because it has resource cards, you know.
I don't get to pimp Thunderstone Advance often, so that's what I'm going to do.
The base is pretty much Dominion - buy new cards using currency based on which cards you drew this turn. There are a few big differences, however.
- No useless estates
That sounds a bit like missing the point of estates. Or does TA have useless VP cards in as well in some other form? Either way, I don't want to rain on Thunderstone. It's a game I'd like to try if given the chance.
The much hyped Arctic Scavengers reprint is supposedly going to be released next week (at US/Gencon I believe, naturally a while longer for it to hit brick & mortar/cross the ocean). I'm looking to grab that up when it comes out, sounds like a cool game. Not as much variance as Dominion, at least not without the new Deception expansion, but it adds some bluffing and more interaction. No idea if that ends up working or not, can't comment on that until I actually get the game and have it hit the table a few times.
Post by: Mephisto on June 22, 2015, 01:27:34 pm
I don't get to pimp Thunderstone Advance often, so that's what I'm going to do.
The base is pretty much Dominion - buy new cards using currency based on which cards you drew this turn. There are a few big differences, however.
- No useless estates
That sounds a bit like missing the point of estates. Or does TA have useless VP cards in as well in some other form? Either way, I don't want to rain on Thunderstone. It's a game I'd like to try if given the chance.
The VP cards in Thunderstone are the monsters that you slay. Yes, some are useless. Some are worth money and/or have abilities you can use on your turn, however. Some of the more annoying ones also have penalties.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on June 22, 2015, 01:43:38 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on June 22, 2015, 01:56:30 pm
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on June 23, 2015, 01:06:13 pm
How similar is Dominion to Ascension? I own Ascension: Rise of Vigil and the expansion and it's really fun. I've got another deckbuilding game coming in the mail from Kickstarter (I hope). I like the genre and would definitely be interested in exploring it some more.
Haven't played Ascension, but I've watched enough reviews to know the deal.
Dominion v Ascension:
-Dominion has a static set of 10 "kingdom" card piles (you choose/randomize from a larger amount prior to the game), as well as default money, curse and VP piles. Basically you can plan your game ahead better, since there's not going to be any surprise cards coming up all the time from an unknown deck.
-Dominion is played until a certain VP pile is depleted OR when three card piles are depleted. This gives the player (I assume) more control on when to end the game than in Ascension. VPs are also all useless so there's an incentive not to buy them too soon since they just clog up your deck.
-There are no "constructs", all the cards you play get discarded at the end of your turn.
-By default you only have one buy action and one "action" (ie. you can play any one action card). Many strategies involve buying cards that provide you with +buys and/or +actions. So you might end up with a hand of 3 really cool actions but you can only play one of them (and remember, your entire hand is discarded at turn end regardless). This creates and interesting choice to be made.
I'd say it's different enough to warrant a purchase. Also dominion is basically THE original deckbuilder, I'd urge you to give it a few plays just for that. But then I do enjoy old films and DOS games as well.
There's the base game, standalone expansion "Intrigue" and probably a big box or two that come with base+expansions. I think the base set of cards is better, but if your local store only stocks Intrigue don't feel bad for buying that either. Expansions do add to the game, but base is very playable by itself for good while so don't feel pressured to get any right away if you're on a budget.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on June 24, 2015, 01:00:35 am
Post by: Salsacookies on June 25, 2015, 08:17:01 am
Here's a preview PDF.
http://www.outlandarts.com/The-Mutant-Epoch-RPG-preview-spring2011v2.pdf
Post by: Tack on June 29, 2015, 03:45:26 am
I am sick to death of my warhammer group and their hypercompetitive bullcrap.
I don't know if I've just played too much with people who are more towards the fluff end, but for some reason I just get incredibly irritated whenever I play with these people. They pull the cheesiest, cashiest forgeworld crap out of their asses for these fights, and I don't even want to turn up with my list because I can't compete.
Reposted here for more familiar audience.
I figure the 40k thread is more fluff-wise.
Point being, when I chose my army I looked at them all, got some input and decided on what sounded coolest to me.
I've just bought a tank which I have zero reason to get past 'tourney competitiveness'. It is not why I got in the hobby.
Why does Australia have to be so sparse...
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on June 30, 2015, 01:44:21 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 30, 2015, 08:36:46 pm
How do groups deal with multiple players going for thematically similar builds or characters?
This would be the second time in a row that I've chosen to make the same type of character with the the same playstyle, and with the exact same player no less.
While this isn't an issue at the moment, the last time we tried similar characters he had stopped to create a new character, because we were more or less the same. I don't want to take the fun away from another person again.
Post by: Tack on June 30, 2015, 09:52:37 pm
While this isn't an issue at the moment, the last time we tried similar characters he had stopped to create a new character, because we were more or less the same. I don't want to take the fun away from another person again.
I would say usually it's a 'no'. But if you two really get along and it's high-RP, you could probably sell it if your personalities are different enough.
But personally I like to leave no niche unfilled. Intperson, Wisperson, Chrperson, Strperson, Dexperson. That way all of your thematic angles are covered, and the GM can't throw 'It's a heavy thing' at your party of wizards.
No idea how large your group is though.
How's the player base in your area, any chance of finding/forming a group that concentrates on the cool/fluff factor over competitiveness?Afaik there's a lot who play it in my city. But the only places I'm going to find them are instore, and if they're instore then they're very likely the competitiveness-type people.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 30, 2015, 10:01:33 pm
I would say usually it's a 'no'. But if you two really get along and it's high-RP, you could probably sell it if your personalities are different enough.
But personally I like to leave no niche unfilled. Intperson, Wisperson, Chrperson, Strperson, Dexperson. That way all of your thematic angles are covered, and the GM can't throw 'It's a heavy thing' at your party of wizards.
No idea how large your group is though.
Group size varies from anywhere from four to six or seven players.
The problem is that two incredibly similar playstyles make things a bit boring, even if they are flavoured differently. When it's time for combat and one person says "I do this!" and the other one says "I do what he does!", it tends to make for boring play after a while. Especially if one of them ends up outshining the other by being more efficient, optimized, or powerful, which is why he swapped characters in the last campaign. Jujumancer too stronk for generic grave-humping necromancer to keep pace.
Post by: Spehss _ on June 30, 2015, 10:18:47 pm
Surely wizards would have magic to pick up heavy things. I thought DnD wizards were gods. :PWhile this isn't an issue at the moment, the last time we tried similar characters he had stopped to create a new character, because we were more or less the same. I don't want to take the fun away from another person again.
I would say usually it's a 'no'. But if you two really get along and it's high-RP, you could probably sell it if your personalities are different enough.
But personally I like to leave no niche unfilled. Intperson, Wisperson, Chrperson, Strperson, Dexperson. That way all of your thematic angles are covered, and the GM can't throw 'It's a heavy thing' at your party of wizards.
No idea how large your group is though.
Post by: BlackFlyme on June 30, 2015, 10:26:27 pm
They get treated with about the same amount of respect though.
Post by: Bohandas on July 01, 2015, 01:49:03 am
Surely wizards would have magic to pick up heavy things. I thought DnD wizards were gods. :PWhile this isn't an issue at the moment, the last time we tried similar characters he had stopped to create a new character, because we were more or less the same. I don't want to take the fun away from another person again.
I would say usually it's a 'no'. But if you two really get along and it's high-RP, you could probably sell it if your personalities are different enough.
But personally I like to leave no niche unfilled. Intperson, Wisperson, Chrperson, Strperson, Dexperson. That way all of your thematic angles are covered, and the GM can't throw 'It's a heavy thing' at your party of wizards.
No idea how large your group is though.
Only for a half hour or so per day. Then they rest.
EDIT:
Maybe that's why god rested on the seventh day. To recover his spells.
Post by: Jimmy on July 01, 2015, 06:08:06 am
Post by: Spehss _ on July 01, 2015, 10:26:37 am
New guy joined my weekly D&D group. I really shouldn't have been drinking so much last session, because right now we've just slaughtered four prison guards in the middle of an underground dwarven city in our rather ill-thought attempt to spring his NPC friend from the labor mines, and there's a legion of dwarven centurions right behind us. Thank god my wizard has Fly, Invisibility and Gaseous Form spells prepared as a "screw-you-guys-I'm-going-home" escape plan in case things go badly.Sounds like some dwarfy escapades.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 03, 2015, 12:21:45 pm
I also played Sword and Skull earlier this week, which is like pirate Monopoly. Except you have two characters you can move (which adds some strategy) and you can fight people. It's very enjoyable and the mechanics are pretty easy to get.
Post by: NobodyPro on July 05, 2015, 09:55:11 am
Post by: Tack on July 05, 2015, 11:08:51 pm
Not sure how the ruleset is going to look though. No formations? Will be odd.
In other news:
Splurging on new paintbrushes! Goddamn they're hard to get on this tiny island.
I've heard amazing things about Raphael 8404's and Winsor and Newton Type 7's.
Apparently Kolinsky Sable is the only way to go for wargaming painting.
So far paying ~$80 for 4 brushes.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on July 06, 2015, 01:22:36 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on July 06, 2015, 01:31:56 pm
Paint, though, is the expensive part. I can get brushes, but I really don't want to accidentally buy the wrong colours.
Post by: Arx on July 06, 2015, 01:39:39 pm
Post by: Tack on July 06, 2015, 07:34:32 pm
But when you're trying to paint the iris on an eyeball on a head the size of a pinhead, I'll take whatever help I can get.
V Edit: Be an arts & crafts nerd, paint things for rich RPG nerds, and the hobby almost pays for itself.
Post by: Bohandas on July 06, 2015, 08:32:20 pm
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on July 07, 2015, 08:13:21 am
That's why tabletop Warhammer isn't for me. I don't have the money or the patience to be an RPG nerd and an arts & crafts nerd
For me it's just the cost of getting an army, then expanding that army, then being excited to start up another army... It would just go on and on, I know myself. Plus it's easy to set up a board game night with a few friends, whereas none of them have any miniature wargaming armies. Though I've heard that Warmahorde is (relatively speaking) cheap...
But lately I've seen plenty of cool paint jobs on minis, even from beginner type posters. Since I own a fair few games with miniatures, I'm itching to get some tools and start painting too. Seems like an amusing way to spend an afternoon or ten.
Post by: Tack on July 07, 2015, 09:08:24 am
Edit: Kolinsky Sables arrived.
They feel like... paintbrushes.
Post by: tonnot98 on July 09, 2015, 12:35:39 am
One of the cards was "Destroy a kingdom", this wiped out the entirety of the kingdom's existence, even history. We wiped out hell itself, which was attacking earth.
Another was "Claim a kingdom", the guy that got this took over the pirate kingdom, which was the second faction that our group was fighting against. After that, we couldn't find anything to do.
We ended up pulling more cards, getting rich, going blind, going mute, getting raped and knocked up (even though almost all of us were male), and pooping our pants. Hurray for the deck of mini things, savior of the planet.
Post by: Aeax on July 09, 2015, 01:43:48 am
Post by: Bohandas on July 09, 2015, 01:52:23 am
QuoteIf you are talking about 3.5, "The Tenants of the Blackguard" is not something that actually exists. Blackguards don't have any sort of code equivalent to the paladin one. The closest to that they have is the simple requirement to be evil to take class levels
If a blackguard does an action that is good... They fall.
They better hope they don't have friends, allies, loved ones, or anything of the sort.
Not doing evil is TOUGH but do-able. Not doing good is basically nonsense.
Isn't that just Randian Objectivism?
In DnD, the DM just made the majority of the world boring by making a knock-off deck of many things, called the deck of mini things. Basically the same thing, but with less drastic results.
One of the cards was "Destroy a kingdom", this wiped out the entirety of the kingdom's existence, even history. We wiped out hell itself, which was attacking earth.
Another was "Claim a kingdom", the guy that got this took over the pirate kingdom, which was the second faction that our group was fighting against. After that, we couldn't find anything to do.
We ended up pulling more cards, getting rich, going blind, going mute, getting raped and knocked up (even though almost all of us were male), and pooping our pants. Hurray for the deck of mini things, savior of the planet.
That sounds cool.
Could you post the effect table?
EDIT:
Also, your DM might be interested in looking up online copies of the (formerly) (semi-)famous homebrew items "Zagyg's Deck of Not So Many Things" and the "Ultimate Bag of Beans"
Post by: Sergarr on July 09, 2015, 01:56:19 am
That sounds cool
getting raped and knocked up (even though almost all of us were male), and pooping our pantsThis doesn't sound very cool to me.
Post by: Spehss _ on July 09, 2015, 02:00:44 am
In DnD, the DM just made the majority of the world boring by making a knock-off deck of many things, called the deck of mini things. Basically the same thing, but with less drastic results.
One of the cards was "Destroy a kingdom", this wiped out the entirety of the kingdom's existence, even history. We wiped out hell itself, which was attacking earth.
Another was "Claim a kingdom", the guy that got this took over the pirate kingdom, which was the second faction that our group was fighting against. After that, we couldn't find anything to do.
We ended up pulling more cards, getting rich, going blind, going mute, getting raped and knocked up (even though almost all of us were male), and pooping our pants. Hurray for the deck of mini things, savior of the planet.
So, if a deck of mini things was enough to make your world boring, is the deck of many things just insanely overpowered or what?
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 09, 2015, 02:06:45 am
Post by: Kadzar on July 09, 2015, 02:47:03 am
Hey does anyone know any board games where you can design your own spaceship and battle with them?I don't know of any proper examples, so, please, if someone else does, speak up, but Brik Wars (http://brikwars.com/) might qualify. It's more technically considered a wargame, and not specifically about spaceship combat, though you can stat up anything with the system. You might have to adjust the scale, though, if you don't want to have to use mini-figure scale spaceships (smaller-scale models would probably be a good thing to have even if you do use minifig-scale ships just for the sake of proper combat distances).
The game might not have the sort of granularity you want, though, and it's very unserious in every way. Also, I don't know what sort of board game you're even looking for, if you're possibly looking for something like X-Wing (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103885/star-wars-x-wing-miniatures-game) (the pictures make it look like it's played on some sort of grid. I don't know; I've only ever heard of it or seen people play it occasionally in my general vicinity). So hopefully this post has been helpful, or something very nearly approximate to the sort.
Post by: Mlamlah on July 09, 2015, 02:49:19 am
Yes, but it is also almost never seen, and most players don't want to try their luck against the world-ending nightmares it can conjure forth.
Personally i find playing with the nature of the cosmos delightful.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on July 09, 2015, 03:10:18 am
Hey does anyone know any board games where you can design your own spaceship and battle with them?
Eclipse (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/72125/eclipse) is heavily inspired by Master of Orion and has similar ship building/customization available.
And then there's Galaxy Trucker (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31481/galaxy-trucker), but you don't really design a ship so much as you just slam it haphazardly together. It's also not really a PVP thing, you all just ride your ships and see who weathers the dangers of the galaxy best.
Post by: timferius on July 09, 2015, 08:35:23 am
God I love galaxy trucker. The mad dash to building something resembling a space-worthy vessel, then having all your crew eaten on the first challenge thing due to poor quarters placement. Good times.Hey does anyone know any board games where you can design your own spaceship and battle with them?
Eclipse (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/72125/eclipse) is heavily inspired by Master of Orion and has similar ship building/customization available.
And then there's Galaxy Trucker (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31481/galaxy-trucker), but you don't really design a ship so much as you just slam it haphazardly together. It's also not really a PVP thing, you all just ride your ships and see who weathers the dangers of the galaxy best.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2015, 09:02:58 am
QuoteIf you are talking about 3.5, "The Tenants of the Blackguard" is not something that actually exists. Blackguards don't have any sort of code equivalent to the paladin one. The closest to that they have is the simple requirement to be evil to take class levels
If a blackguard does an action that is good... They fall.
They better hope they don't have friends, allies, loved ones, or anything of the sort.
Not doing evil is TOUGH but do-able. Not doing good is basically nonsense.
Isn't that just Randian Objectivism?
Wow necro. Anyway this was already refuted for 3.5. Blackguards aren't paladins of tyranny or slaughter (who do have ridiculous evil codes). They just have to be evil - when they take the levels (they also don't have to be fallen paladins, it just rewards that). They can even become good without losing their powers, technically. Like how bards keep their powers if they stop being chaotic, they just can't advance. Whereas barbarians lose the ability to rage if they become lawful.
Our group had much hijinks with the "Take A Chance" dice. They eventually gave the world a moon (secretly growing the power of devil worshipers, as it turned out). Mainly they just spawned terrible creatures though, which lead to the destruction of many taverns. One of my best characters had a waterskin which rolled a random liquid each time it was drunk from, often forcing reflex saves. Whenever we got bored we'd take a drink/roll the dice.In DnD, the DM just made the majority of the world boring by making a knock-off deck of many things, called the deck of mini things. Basically the same thing, but with less drastic results.
One of the cards was "Destroy a kingdom", this wiped out the entirety of the kingdom's existence, even history. We wiped out hell itself, which was attacking earth.
Another was "Claim a kingdom", the guy that got this took over the pirate kingdom, which was the second faction that our group was fighting against. After that, we couldn't find anything to do.
We ended up pulling more cards, getting rich, going blind, going mute, getting raped and knocked up (even though almost all of us were male), and pooping our pants. Hurray for the deck of mini things, savior of the planet.
That sounds cool.
Could you post the effect table?
EDIT:
Also, your DM might be interested in looking up online copies of the (formerly) (semi-)famous homebrew items "Zagyg's Deck of Not So Many Things" and the "Ultimate Bag of Beans"
Post by: Sergius on July 09, 2015, 09:15:40 am
So, if a deck of mini things was enough to make your world boring, is the deck of many things just insanely overpowered or what?
Yes, but it is also almost never seen, and most players don't want to try their luck against the world-ending nightmares it can conjure forth.
Reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deck_of_many_things there doesn't seem to be any kind of world-altering events of that magnitude. Every card seems to do something to the person drawing it, probably outside the rules or equivalent in power to a Wish, but the largest scale thing I've seen there is "gains a small castle".
Post by: kilakan on July 09, 2015, 09:20:16 am
Hey does anyone know any board games where you can design your own spaceship and battle with them?Traveler is a sci-fi DnD style game with the most recent iteration of it by Mongoose Publishing having pretty indepth and intense ship design/combat
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpgs/traveller/core-rulebooks-accessories/traveller-core-rulebook-722.html (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpgs/traveller/core-rulebooks-accessories/traveller-core-rulebook-722.html)
Warhammer 40k rpg Rogue Trader also has some ship design/space combat in it.
So, if a deck of mini things was enough to make your world boring, is the deck of many things just insanely overpowered or what?Yes, but it is also almost never seen, and most players don't want to try their luck against the world-ending nightmares it can conjure forth.
Reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deck_of_many_things there doesn't seem to be any kind of world-altering events of that magnitude. Every card seems to do something to the person drawing it, probably outside the rules or equivalent in power to a Wish, but the largest scale thing I've seen there is "gains a small castle".
Yeah the Deck of Many Things doesn't really do anything nearly as intense as what your GM did, and even when it does such as 'Void card-your characters soul is teleported to a remote plane leaving his body catatonic" it's still more to create adventure...
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 09, 2015, 09:21:29 am
In DnD, the DM just made the majority of the world boring by making a knock-off deck of many things, called the deck of mini things. Basically the same thing, but with less drastic results.
One of the cards was "Destroy a kingdom", this wiped out the entirety of the kingdom's existence, even history. We wiped out hell itself, which was attacking earth.
Another was "Claim a kingdom", the guy that got this took over the pirate kingdom, which was the second faction that our group was fighting against. After that, we couldn't find anything to do.
We ended up pulling more cards, getting rich, going blind, going mute, getting raped and knocked up (even though almost all of us were male), and pooping our pants. Hurray for the deck of mini things, savior of the planet.
Less drastic? Much of that sounds far, far more drastic than anything from the Deck of Many Things (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#deckofManyThings), which only really affects the drawer of the card. It's a good way to destory your character, but it doesn't just eliminate a kingdom or give you one.
Oh, ninja'd by Sergius and kilakan.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on July 09, 2015, 10:34:59 am
God I love galaxy trucker. The mad dash to building something resembling a space-worthy vessel, then having all your crew eaten on the first challenge thing due to poor quarters placement. Good times.
Lost half of my colossal crew last night because of an epidemic. It really is in a league of its own.
Here's a 40 minute playthrough of the game + two expansions, in case anyone wants to see some silly gameplay:
https://vimeo.com/67845608
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Kadzar on July 09, 2015, 11:15:03 am
Well, if you're going for roleplaying games, then Stars Without Number (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/86467/Stars-Without-Number-Free-Edition) is an even more D&D-like version of Traveller (specifically Basic D&D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set)). From what I know of Traveller, the rules are a bit less in-depth (there's only one type of drive, the spike drive, which goes from levels 1-6, and instead of powerplants, power is determined by the hull type), but there's certainly an element of ship-building there. And the PDF is free, so you can check out and use the whole base game without having to pay anything.Hey does anyone know any board games where you can design your own spaceship and battle with them?Traveler is a sci-fi DnD style game with the most recent iteration of it by Mongoose Publishing having pretty indepth and intense ship design/combat
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpgs/traveller/core-rulebooks-accessories/traveller-core-rulebook-722.html (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpgs/traveller/core-rulebooks-accessories/traveller-core-rulebook-722.html)
Warhammer 40k rpg Rogue Trader also has some ship design/space combat in it.
If you want to compare it to Mongoose Traveller, that has an online SRD (http://www.traveller-srd.com/), which will show basic elements of the rules without the fluff or book-style organization. Also, here's link to the American version of the Traveller core rules in you're from here or the conversion rate would work out better for you (doing an online conversion, it would cost $6 more for me to order from the British version of the site). It doesn't have an ebook version available like the British version of the site does, but the price for that is beyond what I'd pay for a digital format anyway.
Looking it up on DriveThruRPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/56586/Traveller-Main-Rulebook?manufacturers_id=45), the PDF price is a bit better there, and it's very much discounted if you buy it with a book. Since it's on DriveThruRPG, the book version is almost certainly Print-On-Demand, just so you know. I've gotten books from the site in the past, and I'd say they're very good quality, but I've only ordered small black-and-white softcover books so far, so I can't give a fair assessment of larger or different types of bindings or how colors work out, other than for the covers, which are a very nice full-color printing. Although it seems the DriveThruRPG version of the book is in B&W anyway. Not sure if the officially printing is different.
Post by: Aeax on July 09, 2015, 07:09:00 pm
Eclipse and Galaxy Trucker are fun though.
Post by: Kadzar on July 09, 2015, 08:16:39 pm
Anyway, the reason I came here was to share a cool set of hex map templates (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/2z1q4x/hex_map_templates_based_on_5e_dmg_with/) made to work with the guidelines of the Province, Kingdom, Continent maps mentioned in the 5e DMG. It's not the exact size specified the DMG, (this set (http://blogofholding.com/?p=6751) is the right size, although it doesn't have any sort of numbering on the hexes for reference) but it's the right scale and should work just as well for the purposes. You may or may not want to increase the amount of stuff you put on there, but, then, that's also true of the official setup (http://blogofholding.com/?p=6741).
Since I'm sharing Blog of Holding stuff, I figure I might as well also mention this nice random encounter chart template (http://blogofholding.com/?p=6808) he made that encourages you to use random encounters that are more than just monsters.
Also, since I'm sharing hex map stuff, I figure I should share this thing that can make numbered hexes in any size you want, outputting it as SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format. That same site also has a GIMP script (http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/gimp/hexgimp/) that will let you make pretty TSR-style hex maps in GIMP, and a random generator (http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/wildgen/) that will output such a thing randomly. At it also has other things that aren't really related to hex mapping.
Moving on, we have Welsh Piper's hex templates (http://www.welshpiper.com/hex-templates/) which aren't made for the 5e DMG scales (especially since it came out several years before 5e), but it's a set of numbered hex templates, so it's within the theme here. And, anyway, he has a nice guide for making hex map terrain and such. (Part 1 (http://www.welshpiper.com/hex-based-campaign-design-part-1/) and Part 2 (http://www.welshpiper.com/hex-based-campaign-design-part-2/))
Post by: Toaster on July 09, 2015, 11:41:29 pm
Post by: scriver on July 20, 2015, 03:40:17 am
Its major weakness is that for the most part that d10 is all it is going to get unless the class gets something that allows them to apply more damage to it.This, pretty much. The only build that improves it beyond 1d10 direct damage is going to have much better options for blasting. If you're in it for optimizing and want a cheap ranged attack UXLZ already underlined the typical method.
Whereas anyone who uses a dex score can turn that crossbow into a damage machine.
1d10? It gains dice faster than Fighters gain attacks. It ends up doing 4d10, just as Fighters end up doing 4dX+Z (over four attacks). The problem is that once again it forces Fighters to optimize to even keep up with what Wizards get by default. The martial one-handed weapons all do 1d8 damage (even the Longbow only does 1d8, by the way). Only two-handed fighters can get d10 or more base damage. Unless you go two-handed and/or optimize your attributes the Fighter won't be able to outdo the Wizard at reliable, every-turn damage dealing, which is what the Fighter is supposed to be good at. Add to that that it is elemental damage from a longer distance than most ranged weapons. And I simply do not understand why a Wizard should be able to use such a powerful weapon at will without any drawbacks at all.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2015, 03:50:59 am
We are also going to ignore the Barbarian because he laughs at this discussion :P
But sure... lets just use a typical fighter and give him four attacks versus a typical wizard... add in the scores.
Fighter has about a 16 strength and will max it out by the time he gets four attacks (without trying)... so 20 I believe is the max.
So the Wizard gets 4d10 max damage
While the Fighter gets 4d8+20 damage
But lets just assume the Wizard is the damage build... so
4d10+20 versus 4d8+20 seems a bit lopsided
But the fighter also gets magical weapons so... it will be something like
4d8+8d6+24 versus 4d8+20
Hmm I am noticing a damage gap between an optimized wizard and an unoptimized fighter here with just standard attacks...
Post by: scriver on July 20, 2015, 03:56:30 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2015, 03:59:47 am
The Wizard doesn't need to go up to the enemy as is, he can spam 1d10 attacks from 120 feet away. That's part of what I'm complaining about.
And that Longbow fires 150 feet away, or 600 feet with a penalty.
Post by: scriver on July 20, 2015, 04:20:28 am
I'm not saying the Wizard should not be able to cast a spell from 120 feet here, by the way. I'm saying he shouldn't be able to cast a d10 fire damage spell from that far away at cantrip level.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2015, 04:47:34 am
And the Javalin's beef is that you can use it as a melee weapon as well.
Versus 1d10 (average 6) at 120 feet
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 20, 2015, 04:52:30 am
If I ran a 5e game, nerfing firebolt to 1d6 I think would be the first change I make.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2015, 04:56:22 am
It still comes down to the fighter's main trick is damage and the fighter requires magical gear to do better than a wizard's cantrip.
It really doesn't... Magic Gear just knocks the ball out of the park... Fighters out perform wizard cantrips pretty much immediately when it comes to cantrip power.
The nerf to 1d6 would be a hilariously bad nerf for the Wizard and would actually make the Evocation build useless (as you would make Evocation go from good to terrible).
The fighter's damage is 1d8+3 at first level versus a wizards 1d10... an average of 8 versus 6... and that is before applying the fighter's specialties that can add damage or give him a better chance to strike.
Post by: scriver on July 20, 2015, 04:59:11 am
1d8+dex (average 8 ) damage at 150 feet for 0.025 a gold... with the option to snipe someone from 600 feet away at a disadvantage.
And the Javalin's beef is that you can use it as a melee weapon as well.
Versus 1d10 (average 6) at 120 feet
You are comparing the very best ranged weapon with a basic Wizard cantrip, which pretty much only reinforces my point that Fighter characters will have to be optimized to keep up with what Wizards gets by default.
And really, don't ignore that the cantrip does elemental damage while the Longbow only does Piercing, the very least useful damage type of all.
Post by: Arx on July 20, 2015, 05:00:18 am
My DM has been experimenting a bit by making firebolt inflict collateral damage on friendlies standing too close to the caster or target though, which certainly changes the dynamic, although it doesn't really fix it.
It still comes down to the fighter's main trick is damage and the fighter requires magical gear to do better than a wizard's cantrip.
It really doesn't... Magic Gear just knocks the ball out of the park... Fighters out perform wizard cantrips pretty much immediately when it comes to cantrip power.
The nerf to 1d6 would be a hilariously bad nerf for the Wizard and would actually make the Evocation build useless (as you would make Evocation go from good to terrible).
The fighter's damage is 1d8+3 at first level versus a wizards 1d10... an average of 8 versus 6... and that is before applying the fighter's specialties that can add damage or give him a better chance to strike.
The thing is that wizards have other spells too. Fighters can't really compare to the raw damage output of spells like burning hands at low levels.
Post by: Neonivek on July 20, 2015, 05:07:10 am
Stop acting like the character is optimizing by picking a 50 gold bow.
1d8 is the standard damage of a fighter's attack. So that is what I use.
And a Fighter typically starts with a +3... So that is what I use.
And a fighter either gets a +2 to hit, damage, or AC... do I don't add that.
Versus a Wizard who gets 1d10 and that is it.
Quote
The thing is that wizards have other spells too. Fighters can't really compare to the raw damage output of spells like burning hands at low levels
We are ONLY comparing Cantrips versus ordinary attack.
Otherwise I'd have to bring up everything else a Fighter has over a wizard.
---
But if it makes you guys so concerned... Fighters can get the exact same Cantrip at level 3.
---
I also checked...
Fighters can Start with a Longbow... it is their standard attack.
---
Don't get me wrong, I am pretty sure the Wizard out damages the Fighter, though I haven't really checked.
I just don't think the Wizard gives fighters a run for their money with cantrips... or any martial class really.
Though as I said... the Barbarian laughs at this discussion. :P
Heck Wizard doesn't even have the best cantrips.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 20, 2015, 10:32:42 pm
A first level Fighter's basic melee attack don't exist in a vacuum.
Post by: scriver on July 21, 2015, 10:52:57 am
Post by: kilakan on July 21, 2015, 11:22:52 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2015, 11:59:11 am
Wizards are already in more than enough relative danger being a squishy wizard. If you want to cancel out a firebolt mechanic's range than just use close quarters dungeons and encounters. That or bring up the fact that firebolts light nearby material on fire as part of the ruleset. That way the wizard might be a bit more nervous after his clothes caught fire on a bad miss or two.
Tight quarters? When was the last time you seen a 120 foot arena? That is a 24x24 square area... and that is just minimum, the actual size would have to be something much larger. A lot of characters don't even have vision that goes that far.
Though a Wizard pretty much needs to go into tight quarters early on anyhow because a lot of his good starting early spells require at least to be 15 feet from an enemy. This gets a little more relaxed later but for the most part it is long ranged.
So if a Wizard wants to 'play it safe' and fire his cantrips from long distance, he is going to be doing subpar damage compared to what he really could be doing. Well I say 'safe' because as a Wizard going far away from his armed backup to plink at enemies from afar is incredibly risky... unless they are with him, in which case the distance is intentional and gives the entire party some time to plink at the enemies before they close in.
Now Warlocks though knock this out of the park with 1d10+cha + super range... buuuuut they are supposed to be a sort quasi caster/fighter. So it doesn't exactly count.
Post by: kilakan on July 21, 2015, 12:01:14 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2015, 12:03:58 pm
I was referring to what scriver as said, for your game all my characters are gonna develop claustrophobia at this rate ha!
Look I have to build around the Cavalier... >_>
The game gives only TWO counters to the Cavalier... and one of them is bracing weapons which are terrible!
Post by: kilakan on July 21, 2015, 12:14:34 pm
Alternatively larger pit traps work too.
Post by: Neonivek on July 21, 2015, 12:35:31 pm
We could also fight druids, rangers, or anyone else who can influence animals with magical ability. Turn his horse against us works as well. That and brace weapons also kinda counters me.
Alternatively larger pit traps work too.
Yep just put in some opponents just to counter one character :P
It would have to be dominate animal which is a 3rd circle druid/Shaman spell anyhow. Since Charm animal would do nothing since charge doesn't "attack".
Brace weapon's ultimate weakness is that they need to be braced. Which works excellently if the Party is fighting a cavalier, but not so much if a party is against an enemy... but I'll get creative.
Man this is getting kind of odd... The Cavalier is meant to be balanced specifically by countering it. Heck I already had to DM balance it from 3x damage.
Mind you dungeon environments tend to keep Cavaliers rather... balanced as well as ordinary enemies as long as I remember to hit the horse.
I need to ask that player to help me remember to hit the horse with AoEs because quite a few times the horse should have been at risk of dying from bomb rain.
Post by: kilakan on July 21, 2015, 01:10:54 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 21, 2015, 01:26:33 pm
Post by: kilakan on July 28, 2015, 06:48:17 pm
The games I know how to run are as follows:
Pathfinder
DnD 5e
Wh40k (dark heresy, Rogue Trader, Only war)
Mongoose's Traveler
Exalted
Shadowrun
Paranoia
Will learn and gm other games by request though if there's enough interest.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 28, 2015, 08:05:51 pm
It includes:
Quote
To be honest, the most interesting things are the subclasses and the subraces. Other than that, sounds kinda boring. To me, not worth the $40 they want to charge for it.
- Immersive Adventuring: This campaign sourcebook provides players and Dungeon Masters material for creating vibrant fantasy stories along the Sword Coast.
- New Character Options: The book offers new subclass options, such as the Purple Dragon Knight and the Swashbuckler, for many of the classes presented in the Players Handbook, as well as new subraces and backgrounds specific to the Forgotten Realms.
- Adventure in the Forgotten Realms: Discover the current state of the Forgotten Realms and its deities after the Spellplague and the second Sundering. Youll also get updated maps of this area of the Realms.
- Compatible with Rage of Demons storyline: Make characters for use with the Out of the Abyss adventure and fight back the influence of the demon lords in the Underdark below the Sword Coast.
- Insider Information: Learn the background behind locations, such as Luskan and Gracklstugh, featured in the upcoming digital RPG, Sword Coast Legends, from n-Space.
Post by: scriver on July 29, 2015, 04:04:08 am
Part of me wants to say the Purple Dragon Knight was also previously released as part of some adventure campaign. But I'm not 100 on that.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 29, 2015, 09:37:08 pm
The only thing more optimized than having Con as a caster stat would probably be Dex. At least at early levels. Thankfully, I don't know of any Dex based casters.Sounds interesting conceptually, though.
*nostalgia mode activate*
Like Firetop Mountain, the turn-based PHP or email game where each player-wizard would submit a gesture for each hand each round. An example spell was
F S S D D
Wriggle-finger snap snap pointing-digit pointing-digit
Casts a fireball at a target! Takes 5 turns, but does 5 damage and instakills a targeted ice elemental. Woe betide you if there's an active ice storm, though!
Plus the formula for magic missile is S D (snap pointing-digit) which totally procs in turn 4 for 1 damage (thwarted by shields or counterspells, but useful for taking out summoned creatures). Yep, gestures can work for multiple spells, only limit is you can only *complete* one spell per hand per turn.
There's also the c (clap) which requires both hands. Good luck weaving that into your strategy! Also, if you ever used the P (proffered palm) with both hands at once... even by accident... you officially surrendered and were ejected from the match. Which was often a good idea, as dying had a hefty penalty (might have even been permadeath for your ranking). A truly unique game, I'm amazed that the main site is still up and seems unchanged: http://www.gamerz.net/~fm/Main/
I also love the > gesture. It's a dagger. You shank the other wizard for 1pt of damage. Weak but wonderful, and you can keep casting with the other hand.
Also, long shot and mostly off topic, but there was an old movie I saw long ago. I think it was black and white. Most wizards had to cast by speaking and waving their hands. The more advanced wizards could cast through gestures alone. I think the movie was about a wizard who managed to cast without either... through sheer thought. Might have been a villain, not sure. Wondering whether anyone remembers what the movie was called.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on August 01, 2015, 06:56:17 am
This shit is fractal, I swear.
Post by: Tack on August 01, 2015, 07:40:31 am
As in - as compared to the current Dark Heresy?
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2015, 08:21:32 am
Dumbo, I saw you in the chat. If you name your character Mordeci then you've pretty much made the same character I made for Glowcat's old game.
Post by: Tack on August 01, 2015, 08:32:09 am
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on August 01, 2015, 09:24:10 am
Yes! There are eye lazorz!I'm still uncertain how I had forced what should have been a high-born noble traverser of the Warp to become a quiet, brooding warrior tracker with a penchant for hunting rare creatures.
Dumbo, I saw you in the chat. If you name your character Mordeci then you've pretty much made the same character I made for Glowcat's old game.
Especially considering I only have universal Pistol proficiency.
Post by: kilakan on August 01, 2015, 09:33:21 am
Quite plausible you are a brooding warrior tracker who specializes in pistols with that prof.
Post by: scriver on August 01, 2015, 01:43:33 pm
Post by: Tack on August 01, 2015, 10:18:02 pm
End up having a really awkward conversation about how much I dislike playing against him.
Basically most games against RM1 start with 'Dude pick up some models, I'll pick up some similar ones and we'll go ham for 20 mins'.
Games against RM2 involve 30 mins of point buy, warlord traits, outflanking, various counter tactics, him misinterpreting a bunch of rules I then have to get out the book and call him on, and me playing a bunch of rules as written in my favor so I can squeeze all of the advantage out of the game, and consequently the fun.
Which I've now explained to him in a brutally honest manner. So... *wrings hands*.
Next stop, Sad thread.
Post by: scriver on August 02, 2015, 03:43:27 am
Post by: Jimmy on August 02, 2015, 04:38:36 am
Our party has been stuck on a boat for five sessions. I am so damned sick of the same tactical map every single encounter (of which there are plenty). I've honestly been considering fireballing the boat and letting the damned thing sink just so we can have a new map for a change.
Post by: Sergius on August 02, 2015, 09:23:38 pm
It's pretty annoying. Luckily we're Evil Moustache-Twirling Villains so at least we can diplomacy with them, but I've never felt so uselessly
(well, TBH this "50 NPC encounter" seemed pretty one-sided and not meant to be won by combat, but minor skirmishes shouldn't pose such a huge challenge, should they?)
Post by: Tack on August 06, 2015, 04:31:49 am
Bought a bunch more imperial guard stuff, and finished my ministorum priest.
So yay!
Post by: itisnotlogical on August 06, 2015, 07:22:48 am
From the DND thread:The only thing more optimized than having Con as a caster stat would probably be Dex. At least at early levels. Thankfully, I don't know of any Dex based casters.Sounds interesting conceptually, though.
*nostalgia mode activate*
Like Firetop Mountain, the turn-based PHP or email game where each player-wizard would submit a gesture for each hand each round. An example spell was
F S S D D
Wriggle-finger snap snap pointing-digit pointing-digit
Casts a fireball at a target! Takes 5 turns, but does 5 damage and instakills a targeted ice elemental. Woe betide you if there's an active ice storm, though!
Plus the formula for magic missile is S D (snap pointing-digit) which totally procs in turn 4 for 1 damage (thwarted by shields or counterspells, but useful for taking out summoned creatures). Yep, gestures can work for multiple spells, only limit is you can only *complete* one spell per hand per turn.
There's also the c (clap) which requires both hands. Good luck weaving that into your strategy! Also, if you ever used the P (proffered palm) with both hands at once... even by accident... you officially surrendered and were ejected from the match. Which was often a good idea, as dying had a hefty penalty (might have even been permadeath for your ranking). A truly unique game, I'm amazed that the main site is still up and seems unchanged: http://www.gamerz.net/~fm/Main/
I also love the > gesture. It's a dagger. You shank the other wizard for 1pt of damage. Weak but wonderful, and you can keep casting with the other hand.
Also, long shot and mostly off topic, but there was an old movie I saw long ago. I think it was black and white. Most wizards had to cast by speaking and waving their hands. The more advanced wizards could cast through gestures alone. I think the movie was about a wizard who managed to cast without either... through sheer thought. Might have been a villain, not sure. Wondering whether anyone remembers what the movie was called.
That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would be going strong nowadays, with chat games like Mafia and dice-rolling plugins for Skype and all that. I'm surprised that cursory Googling hasn't turned up any variations or revivals of that game, although they may be buried under results for "Warlock of Firetop Mountain", a Fighting Fantasy novel.
EDIT:
I just emailed the server, and it's still totally up. According to the server, there's currently five accounts. That's it. No indication how old any of those accounts are or when they were last active, though at least one must be (relatively) recent since it's linked to a Gmail account.
Post by: Toaster on August 06, 2015, 08:03:35 am
Back in the strategy gamers corner of the tabletop, which is possibly just me.
Bought a bunch more imperial guard stuff, and finished my ministorum priest.
So yay!
I'd totally be in your corner if anyone I knew played too! Yay for finishing miniatures!
Post by: Tack on August 06, 2015, 04:34:29 pm
They have been expensive visits. But I hold out hope that I won't spend money sometime. Plus i get stuff done.
Post by: scriver on August 07, 2015, 05:45:49 am
Post by: RedWarrior0 on August 07, 2015, 08:37:57 am
Post by: scriver on August 07, 2015, 09:40:58 am
In other news, there's yet another DnD movie in the works (http://www.warnerbros.com/studio/news/warner-bros-pictures-and-hasbro-partner-dungeons-dragons-feature-film-franchise-based).
Post by: kilakan on August 07, 2015, 10:09:50 am
Post by: Neonivek on August 07, 2015, 10:11:14 am
Ohh wait... Hollywood is bad at making fantasy movies. Of COURSE!
Post by: Kot on August 07, 2015, 02:59:37 pm
On the other hand, the whole "Free rules for everyone!" is nice. I wonder how long it'll last, but at least they've stopped paying Ward Ł10 per codex to lick each pageNo.
Spoiler: For your viewing displeasure (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE SPELL JAM (click to show/hide)
COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE AGE OF SPELL JAM
Post by: scriver on August 07, 2015, 05:13:06 pm
Post by: kilakan on August 07, 2015, 05:29:11 pm
I don't really even know.
Post by: Execute/Dumbo.exe on August 07, 2015, 05:32:10 pm
Yeah.. that post gave me cancer, cured it and than gave me cancer again.I think the point of that post was that some people disagree with that new medieval Warhammer expansion.
I don't really even know.
Post by: Kot on August 07, 2015, 06:04:27 pm
I think the point of that post was that some people disagree with that new medieval Warhammer expansion.Not some people, but a lot of them. Also it's not expansion, they "ended" (like, in End Times) old Warhammer FB and replaced it with new one that is dumbed down, has rules that make your army better if you're acting like an idiot, added retarded names for everything (just because some of old ones couldn't be copyrighted) and is generally dash for money.
EDIT: Oh, and it slaughtered previous lore and new one tends to lack any sense.
Post by: ZebioLizard2 on August 07, 2015, 06:13:30 pm
I think the point of that post was that some people disagree with that new medieval Warhammer expansion.Not some people, but a lot of them. Also it's not expansion, they "ended" (like, in End Times) old Warhammer FB and replaced it with new one that is dumbed down, has rules that make your army better if you're acting like an idiot, added retarded names for everything (just because some of old ones couldn't be copyrighted) and is generally dash for money.
EDIT: Oh, and it slaughtered previous lore and new one tends to lack any sense.
More like some people screaming very , very loudly.
Post by: Kot on August 07, 2015, 06:14:10 pm
The louder you are, the more right you are. Duh.I think the point of that post was that some people disagree with that new medieval Warhammer expansion.Not some people, but a lot of them. Also it's not expansion, they "ended" (like, in End Times) old Warhammer FB and replaced it with new one that is dumbed down, has rules that make your army better if you're acting like an idiot, added retarded names for everything (just because some of old ones couldn't be copyrighted) and is generally dash for money.
EDIT: Oh, and it slaughtered previous lore and new one tends to lack any sense.
More like some people screaming very , very loudly.
Post by: ZebioLizard2 on August 07, 2015, 06:20:41 pm
The louder you are, the more right you are. Duh.I think the point of that post was that some people disagree with that new medieval Warhammer expansion.Not some people, but a lot of them. Also it's not expansion, they "ended" (like, in End Times) old Warhammer FB and replaced it with new one that is dumbed down, has rules that make your army better if you're acting like an idiot, added retarded names for everything (just because some of old ones couldn't be copyrighted) and is generally dash for money.
EDIT: Oh, and it slaughtered previous lore and new one tends to lack any sense.
More like some people screaming very , very loudly.
Certainly works for congress.
Though at the same time, I'm not going to argue there is some incredibly dumb things there are in the lore (though plenty of dumb things in the previous as well). Though some of it was intentional for the rules, But could have been communicated in a much better fashion that they were intended to be silly instead of baffling people with riding/talking horses.
Though I'm hoping the actual books contain some decent rules..Because as is the rules are crap, who honestly thought removing all sense of balance by removing points!?
Post by: Kot on August 07, 2015, 06:26:24 pm
Though at the same time, I'm not going to argue there is some incredibly dumb things there are in the lore (though plenty of dumb things in the previous as well). Though some of it was intentional for the rules, But could have been communicated in a much better fashion that they were intended to be silly instead of baffling people with riding/talking horses.Well, don't get me wrong, the thing is that they replaced FB with something almost completly different (Muh grimdark peasants ;-; ) and dropped support (despite saying they wont) of Old World. It could be okay as a new, smaller spin-off FB, but it's horrible as a replacement (it literally stopped being Grimdark, which is core trait of Warhammer, and became Noblebright) and it was pulled off in a horrible manner. But hey, there were signs (as early as removal of Squats from 40k) that warned us that this may come one day. I fear that next thing they're going to make is to change 40k (put a finger to your enemy head and say BLAM loudly to pass leadership check!) significantly, and if they do... oh boy, there will be shitstorms.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on August 07, 2015, 06:27:07 pm
I... what? How does that work then? What limits army size?
Though I'm hoping the actual books contain some decent rules..Because as is the rules are crap, who honestly thought removing all sense of balance by removing points!?
The player's money?
Post by: ZebioLizard2 on August 07, 2015, 06:30:39 pm
I... what? How does that work then? What limits army size?
Though I'm hoping the actual books contain some decent rules..Because as is the rules are crap, who honestly thought removing all sense of balance by removing points!?
The player's money?
Well...I think Wounds were what they used at Warhammer world? They basically want you to be fair to each other or something.
Post by: Kot on August 07, 2015, 06:40:01 pm
Well...I think Wounds were what they used at Warhammer world? They basically want you to be fair to each other or something.Nothing enforces that except maybe for enemy player willingness to play with you.
Which can be compared to this, except with every piece costing money. A lot of it.
">turn up to chess tournament
>make it to round 3, begin placing my pieces on the board. Opponent does the same
We've each got our 16 pieces out
>glance over at his, they're all painted like shit with the ultramarine logo on most of them
>he has six knights and four queens
>he's still setting up
>brings out a fuckload of bishops
>as he's doing this, I call over one of the rules checkers. obviously my opponent doesn't know what he's doing, he is only 6 after all
>rules checker hands me a printout of a PDF
>rules checker says it's fine, and warns me after I make a fuss
>look back down at the board. his entire half of the board is full. all 32 squares full of rooks, bishops, knights and queens. not a single pawn
>ask him where his king is
>"oh I didn't have enough room on the board, so my king's in reserve"
>I'm playing white, but apparently we roll to start
>but he gets to roll with ten dice. I only get eight
>he wins
>deep strikes a bishop onto my king
>checkmate"
I honestly don't mind the setting change from grimdark to something that allows for everyone to actually fight it a bit without it always being on the peak of utter destruction in five minutes. I didn't see anything saying they would support Old World at all though.The thing is that nothing was really on peak of utter destruction until End Times and stuff like that, everything was in balance before. And the game being grimdark was one of major selling points for some people at least, but apparently today people are bored with it and preffer Noblebright that makes you vomit.
And there was saying they will support Old World, as there are vidya games in it (Total Warhammer), but they proably aren't going to do it anyway. At least it doesn't look like it.
Post by: ZebioLizard2 on August 07, 2015, 06:53:34 pm
Quote
The thing is that nothing was really on peak of utter destruction until End Times and stuff like that, everything was in balance before. And the game being grimdark was one of major selling points for some people at least, but apparently today people are bored with it and preffer Noblebright that makes you vomit.
So you've entirely forgotten the fact that Archaon and the Storm of Chaos was basically ten minutes away. It was never in balance, it was just static with everything about to come down on everyone's heads.
I enjoyed the Grimdark myself, but I don't mind the newer point of the setting as well.
Post by: Kot on August 07, 2015, 07:26:32 pm
I enjoyed the Grimdark myself, but I don't mind the newer point of the setting as well.If only people who enjoyed Grimdark FB weren't left on ice.
Also the Storm of Chaos and End Times and whatever would work if someone actually succeeded at something, instead of failing all the time because Grimdark.
Post by: Fniff on August 07, 2015, 07:56:52 pm
In the test I have a band that consists of a bluegrass fiddler, a jazz trumpeter, a blues singer, and a industrial keyboardist.
Any ideas what this would sound like? And would it rate above 'hipster nonsense'?
Post by: sambojin on August 07, 2015, 10:10:07 pm
"Stay-on-Target"
3x B-wing Blue Squadron (scrappers)
w/ Fletchette Cannon, Fire Control System
(stress+, long range if needed, furball, all the targeting to not whiff shots)
3x26=78pts
1x A-wing Green Squadron (cheap commander)
w/ Squad Leader, Chaardan Upgrade, A-wing Test Pilot, Stay on Target
(extra actions for scrappers or afterthought movement, but you can't have both at once)
21pts
99pt build. One highly mobile commander to give free actions and stay out of the way (and awesome red movement bumping if needed in the 2-3 speed range), three scrappers that are able to joust, swarm efficiently, or occasionally stress-tap larger targets (YT 2-ship builds).
What do you think of it game-wise? I could sub in another standard B-wing if the commander sucks, or drop lots of fire control systems as well and grab an ion turret Y-wing for a Phantom hard counter. But I think this build will give plenty of options and fun, with some action control and firepower.
So, is it competitive?
edit: Also vaguely thinking a C3PO B-wing/e2 as a tank ship as an option. *must do 2 damage to you* before anything bad happens is pretty scary for a B-wing to have. But there's something to be said for not whiffing shots and free actions (do them barrel rolls. While you re-target and shoot. Because you can.). Thus the above.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on August 08, 2015, 07:52:01 am
Relatedly, if you're situated near a thriving X-Wing community, you could probably just pop in and try a demo game to see if it's actually fun.
Post by: scrdest on August 08, 2015, 08:05:47 am
On an unrelated note, I was testing out character creation in a Monsterhearts homebrew (Yes, a homebrew of a homebrew). The focus of the homebrew is on being in a band, and so it includes a few things like that in the character creation. I may have made something odd, though.Depending on the level of virtuosity, either bluesy or jazzy. Bluegrass has been cross-pollinated with jazz and jazz musicians extensively study blues stylings; musicians' genre is mostly a theoretical background - whose ideas they've studied, how they analyze certain elements - so it's pretty much a matter of whose ideas are getting picked up on as the three genres are intertwined.
In the test I have a band that consists of a bluegrass fiddler, a jazz trumpeter, a blues singer, and a industrial keyboardist.
Any ideas what this would sound like? And would it rate above 'hipster nonsense'?
The keyboardist is the odd one out; depending on skill and force of personality he'd either switch genres to fit, contribute some outside-perspective ideas or make it sound like an industrial remix done on the go.
Post by: Fniff on August 08, 2015, 08:34:45 am
On an unrelated note, I was testing out character creation in a Monsterhearts homebrew (Yes, a homebrew of a homebrew). The focus of the homebrew is on being in a band, and so it includes a few things like that in the character creation. I may have made something odd, though.Depending on the level of virtuosity, either bluesy or jazzy. Bluegrass has been cross-pollinated with jazz and jazz musicians extensively study blues stylings; musicians' genre is mostly a theoretical background - whose ideas they've studied, how they analyze certain elements - so it's pretty much a matter of whose ideas are getting picked up on as the three genres are intertwined.
In the test I have a band that consists of a bluegrass fiddler, a jazz trumpeter, a blues singer, and a industrial keyboardist.
Any ideas what this would sound like? And would it rate above 'hipster nonsense'?
The keyboardist is the odd one out; depending on skill and force of personality he'd either switch genres to fit, contribute some outside-perspective ideas or make it sound like an industrial remix done on the go.
I bet there is Industrial Jazz somewhere. You could describe Cop Shoot Cop as that, at least.
Post by: Tack on August 08, 2015, 08:56:37 am
It's an honor system, you each evaluate eachother's models to see if someone's trying to cheese your ass. Better for friendly games, terrible for tourneyfags.
Though speaking of which, 40k tourneys sometimes have arbitrary points to scale down the cheese. I.E. Titan league.
Farseer = 1 tourney pt. +1 jet bike, +1 telepathy, +2 invisibility.
Ergo making two point-restrictions on the game.
Post by: Sergius on August 08, 2015, 12:01:32 pm
Gonna post my "awesome" theorycrafted list before I actually get into the game. X-wing Miniatures Game. Is it actually fun? And worthwhile blowing $100-200 on miniatures? They're not too bad as ornaments as it is, and it's cheaper than Warhammer anyway.....
You may wanna watch this, unless you already have: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mxPFHBCfuU
Something I don't like much about that game is that it uses geometry and rulers for all the gameplay :P
Post by: Neonivek on August 08, 2015, 03:50:17 pm
It will be pretty hard to top it. Maybe they will invent a game where you have to whip the player you like the least.
Every single time it went to my turn it was nothing but non-stop criticism on every single thing I did. I just wanted to skip turns after a while and even just veto out of even being included in other character roleplays.
They didn't even let me skip, because they didn't see the rules on skipping turns.
Doesn't help that even if I did like it my turns were 1/10th shorter then everyone elses turns... So I'd sit through three hours until it got to me, then do my 10 minute turn and then wait another 3 hours. A sort of bitter sweet thing because on the one hand it will be three hours before my turn was back, and on the other hand I was sitting through endless amounts of non-involved roleplaying. Which wasn't aided by the fact that my character was delegated FAR to superfluous before the game even started.
Post by: Kot on August 08, 2015, 03:52:53 pm
Well Fiasco is probably the worst roleplaying experience I ever had... >_< in terms of a system.Next edition Warhammer 40k Dark Eldar will be proably like that.
It will be pretty hard to top it. Maybe they will invent a game where you have to whip the player you like the least.
Post by: kilakan on August 08, 2015, 03:53:36 pm
Well Fiasco is probably the worst roleplaying experience I ever had... >_< in terms of a system.They already did, it's called eclipse phase.
It will be pretty hard to top it. Maybe they will invent a game where you have to whip the player you like the least.
Post by: sambojin on August 08, 2015, 05:54:00 pm
Far as worth goes, who would you be playing with? It seems to be one of those games that people play for the tourney scene. Does your local store/whatever have well populated X-Wing nights?
Relatedly, if you're situated near a thriving X-Wing community, you could probably just pop in and try a demo game to see if it's actually fun.
There's a couple of games clubs within driving distance (admittedly the Gold Coast isn't exactly a thriving TT gaming hub, but there's Logan and Brisbane near enough by). There's too much stuff for people to do in other areas around here :)
I'm also roping my sister into a few games. She's a star wars fan, but not really a TT fan. At worst, they're slightly overpriced figurines that have some cool factor and won't be considered clutter.
For the worth, it's hard to say. I can spend $100-200 dollars at a pub on a good day, yet only get a hangover and eventual liver failure from it in the long run. But I still do it, and quite enjoy myself.
Post by: Kadzar on August 08, 2015, 07:00:31 pm
Well Fiasco is probably the worst roleplaying experience I ever had... >_< in terms of a system.I haven't played Fiasco myself, but this sounds more like a problem with the people you were playing with than inherent flaws in the system. Though I haven't read the rules myself, so maybe there is something in there about how you have to unfairly criticize other players and take a long time on your turn just stroking your own ego. Though I really didn't get that impression from the TableTop episode they did of it.
It will be pretty hard to top it. Maybe they will invent a game where you have to whip the player you like the least.
Every single time it went to my turn it was nothing but non-stop criticism on every single thing I did. I just wanted to skip turns after a while and even just veto out of even being included in other character roleplays.
They didn't even let me skip, because they didn't see the rules on skipping turns.
Doesn't help that even if I did like it my turns were 1/10th shorter then everyone elses turns... So I'd sit through three hours until it got to me, then do my 10 minute turn and then wait another 3 hours. A sort of bitter sweet thing because on the one hand it will be three hours before my turn was back, and on the other hand I was sitting through endless amounts of non-involved roleplaying. Which wasn't aided by the fact that my character was delegated FAR to superfluous before the game even started.
Post by: Neonivek on August 08, 2015, 10:56:42 pm
You sure seem to assume a lot about what happened in the game without actually being there. Did I set fire to their houses too?
Post by: Culise on August 08, 2015, 11:02:39 pm
Really? My 10 minute turns of endlessness? :PI'm pretty sure that's a generic "you," not a specific "you." The whole "spend a long time...just stroking your own ego" kinda belies the notion that your 10-minute turns could qualify, especially if the other players took up three hours by contrast, and the whole "unfair criticism" thing merely lines up with your own stated complaints about them. Unless you're saying that the rules really did specifically said "Neon is a jerk." (I kid, I kid) :P
You sure seem to assume a lot about what happened in the game without actually being there. Did I set fire to their houses too?
Post by: Kadzar on August 09, 2015, 12:25:26 am
But anyways, my point is that sometimes who you play a game with can unfairly color your opinion of that game, especially when they play it wrong. Like the two occasions my D&D group tried out FATE games and basically tried to play it like it was D&D. There was too much focus on combat, and the GM still had the D&D mindset that everything we face should be straight up beatable in combat, rather than sometimes being something you need to run from or that you might get beaten by, since in that game being defeated doesn't necessarily mean death or TPK. FATE might still be a shit game, but I'm not so sure I can really make that judgment call from the experience I had.
Post by: Neonivek on August 09, 2015, 12:27:24 am
It was a horrible combination for me because in order for me to have fun I'd need to stop caring. But if I stop caring I lose interest.
Since ultimately the best option would be for me to bow to what everyone else wanted my turns to be.
Post by: Tack on August 10, 2015, 11:38:32 am
Spoiler: Behold. I have fixed Warhammer 40k (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Hmm (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on August 10, 2015, 11:48:06 am
Post by: Kot on August 10, 2015, 11:58:08 am
Post by: Tack on August 10, 2015, 01:24:25 pm
oh noe
Post by: Toaster on August 10, 2015, 02:40:34 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'd love to see you roll up to a SRS BZNS store/tourney with your gear decked out like that, just to see how much rage you can cause.
Post by: Kot on August 10, 2015, 02:56:26 pm
Good flashbacks. Also, put tiny googly eyes on your infantry.
Post by: Toaster on August 10, 2015, 03:06:47 pm
Post by: scriver on August 10, 2015, 03:17:03 pm
Post by: Bauglir on August 10, 2015, 03:33:25 pm
Post by: Jimmy on August 19, 2015, 06:04:22 am
1. Prepare a bunch of pieces of paper in advance with Explosive Runes
2. In combat, summon a low level minion with Summon Monster
3. Give the minion the paper
4. Tell them to go over to the bad guy and read what it says
Post by: BigD145 on August 19, 2015, 09:10:11 am
Latest stupid Wizard strategy idea in Pathfinder:
1. Prepare a bunch of pieces of paper in advance with Explosive Runes
2. In combat, summon a low level minion with Summon Monster
3. Give the minion the paper
4. Tell them to go over to the bad guy and read what it says
You can basically do that in the original WizWar, except summons can cast any spell at all, which opens up the possibility of them surviving to cast another turn.
Post by: Neonivek on August 19, 2015, 11:16:27 am
Post by: Tack on August 19, 2015, 11:36:24 am
Post by: Culise on August 19, 2015, 11:51:26 am
1. You can intentionally flub your dispel roll. By default, dispelling your own spells is an automatic success for targeted dispels, and you get the choice for area dispels.
2. You can trigger all the explosive runes simultaneously. This one applies to some degree to the hand-delivered version ("oh, your minion only had time to read the first one before it exploded") as well, but this one either relies on either the use of an area dispel targeting all of the runes simultaneously (put them on separate sheets of paper and call them separate objects) or the runes chain-reacting. This one's the focus of a common house-rule fixing this in order to reduce the more ridiculous nature of runebombs in general.
Alternately, you don't need your minion to read it. Just tell them to try to
EDIT: Disable, not erase. The question of whether destroying the material a rune is written on or the writing of the rune will trigger the rune or simply cause it to fizzle is...ah, shall we say, a viable point for rules-lawyers.
Post by: Neonivek on August 19, 2015, 11:55:06 am
Post by: Culise on August 19, 2015, 11:58:22 am
They can fail on purpose..Thank you. With that confirmed to be unchanged in Pathfinder, that's definitely a viable alternative, then. ^_^
Post by: Tack on September 12, 2015, 03:34:03 pm
We went "sweet, immortalisation!" And provided all of our various characters' tragic back stories.
Cut to now, we find out that she had ignored all of it, and basically just rewritten the plot so that the NPC she'd spent the game hitting on (very old lich, very uninterested) falls in love with her toon and they happily forever after.
This has negatively affected my views on fanfic writers.
Post by: scriver on September 12, 2015, 06:30:40 pm
Now watch the sex scene again.
Post by: Yoink on September 14, 2015, 10:36:07 am
With black
Post by: Twinwolf on September 14, 2015, 10:39:26 am
Oh, and out of curiosity, has anyone here ever played Maid RPG? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/MaidRPG?from=Main.MaidRPG) It sounds hilarious and awesome.
Post by: Tack on September 14, 2015, 11:04:47 am
>.>
*slowly raises hand*
Yeah, ok, defying expectations here a little but yes I did. Best part of that game IMO was the rule of 'if you can sell it, you can play it'.
Basically meaning you roll on whichever stat/skill is relevant, and if you, the player, can explain to the GM that actually THIS skill/stat is relevant here, then sure, you can roll off that.
So I had a character who was a total ditz and terrible at everything with an infinitely high luck stat, and waltzed through the game having outrageous fun. IMO, the fun in the game isn't progressing through the game, but creating an awesome maid-cast you'd be happy to see in your shoddy slashfic harem comedy of choice.
Ours were great.
Post by: SeriousConcentrate on September 14, 2015, 02:51:42 pm
Post by: Twinwolf on September 14, 2015, 02:54:08 pm
But I don't have the rulebook and I'm broke.
Post by: Yoink on September 14, 2015, 09:13:03 pm
Lord knows the games we did play ended up involving enough maid-related shenanigans...
Post by: Rolan7 on September 14, 2015, 10:15:25 pm
Viscera Cleanup Maid Detail RPG when?
Post by: Mephisto on September 15, 2015, 08:22:44 am
I think I'm doing it wrong. I ran one adventure using my general system of choice (GURPS) but it's a little complicated for a newbie GM to teach to four people who have never heard of it.
I wanted something easier so, in my brilliance, I decided to read the Ars Magica books a coworker gave me. The one-shot adventure I read said character creation would take four hours and you should instead use thirty minutes to hand out and explain the packaged pre-gens. I finally decided to move on when I realized that everyone probably doesn't want to play a mage and everyone probably doesn't want to have to create multiple characters.
That brings me to RuneQuest. I finally picked up the core book after buying about eight others. I haven't given it a cover-to-cover reading yet (I'm in the process) but it should be just close enough to D&D for them to be somewhat comfortable - stats are mostly 4d6b3, except for Int and Size (2d6+3 but I'll probably do 3d6b2 + 3 just to keep with the roll and keep theme), a big equipment list, and two books of monsters that I've found thus far. The only sticking point I've found thus far might be character advancement being skill-based. I'm not sure if base attributes can ever be raised and I don't think characters can ever gain more hit points.
But hey, the character sheets look nice and will likely force me to throw out my multifunction inkjet and get a laser printer of some type.
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on September 15, 2015, 09:25:07 am
Well *someone* has to clean up the blood.
Viscera Cleanup Maid Detail RPG when?
When I finish reading the rules and make up the scenario, that's when.
EDIT: You know, I probably shouldn't be so surprised that Maid RPG is so fetishistic. Yet at the same time I am.
Post by: Sergius on September 15, 2015, 09:39:52 am
Post by: Bohandas on September 15, 2015, 10:29:36 am
Cut to now, we find out that she had ignored all of it, and basically just rewritten the plot so that the NPC she'd spent the game hitting on (very old lich, very uninterested) falls in love with her toon and they happily forever after.
Wait, were you playing Toon?
Post by: Mephisto on September 15, 2015, 10:37:26 am
Cut to now, we find out that she had ignored all of it, and basically just rewritten the plot so that the NPC she'd spent the game hitting on (very old lich, very uninterested) falls in love with her toon and they happily forever after.
Wait, were you playing Toon?
More generally, toon is sometimes used to refer to a player character of any system. No, I don't know why.
Post by: Tack on September 15, 2015, 10:38:54 am
But no I was playing Pathfinder.
I think I'm going to start a Fate "mini-campaign" with some friends ripping off the setting of either the X-Universe or Star Control II.Also thinking of trying out a Fate game based on the Witcher, or the Discworld series.
Post by: Twinwolf on September 15, 2015, 10:40:11 am
Post by: Rolan7 on September 15, 2015, 11:04:08 am
... Well, there's Zarla's fanfics and art, but they're mostly quite silly. Though she did add some depth to the VUX. Better than what SC3 did with them.
Post by: Sergius on September 16, 2015, 12:38:44 am
It would be open ended tho, not a laundry list of 100 things that must be done.
I'm not completely sure they're game for a scifi game tho. I think they're more into D&D and Vampire.
Post by: Mephisto on September 16, 2015, 07:21:30 am
And now there's a mysterious bundle up for $25 with no explanation - the RAINN RPG bundle (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/156002/Rainn-RPG-bundle) - with all proceeds going to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.
At about the same time, they put up the RAINN Fiction bundle (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/156005/RAINN-Fiction-BUNDLE) and RAINN Comic bundle (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/156003/RAINN-Comic-BUNDLE) but those aren't really tabletop-related.
Post by: Bohandas on September 16, 2015, 12:59:27 pm
Post by: Mephisto on September 16, 2015, 01:12:37 pm
Post by: Bohandas on September 16, 2015, 01:40:24 pm
Cut to now, we find out that she had ignored all of it, and basically just rewritten the plot so that the NPC she'd spent the game hitting on (very old lich, very uninterested) falls in love with her toon and they happily forever after.
Wait, were you playing Toon?
More generally, toon is sometimes used to refer to a player character of any system. No, I don't know why.
I've not encountered that before
Post by: Sergius on September 20, 2015, 03:06:45 pm
Heck, if I do SC2 I'm going to rip the entire story verbatim. Well, the "goals" or whatever. I'm pretty confident none of the possible players have played it.
It would be open ended tho, not a laundry list of 100 things that must be done.
I'm not completely sure they're game for a scifi game tho. I think they're more into D&D and Vampire.
I have decided I will go ahead with a Star Control II campaign despite of my table's setting preferences, but I will adjust it to match the genre, so if they're dead set on a swords & sorcery campaign I'll just pretend they're fantasy races and the galaxy is an ocean with islands/continents and I'll figure out the tech as some combination of gnomish inventions and magick. This could actually turn out pretty fun.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on September 20, 2015, 03:08:03 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on September 20, 2015, 03:14:03 pm
Post by: Sergius on September 20, 2015, 03:19:52 pm
In the extreme case of non-aliens/races I would have to do some silly faction reskinning of the aliens as humans/mutants.
Yeah and even if not, that sounds really cool. I can almost imagine most of the SC2 races being adapted to fantasy with some adjustments. If you want any help hashing out details, please PM me!
Sure, that will be appreciated :) I'll let you know if it ever takes off and what setting style has been decided.
Post by: Mephisto on September 21, 2015, 09:56:30 am
Quote from: TCBoE
We do not deign to acknowledge the slanderous propaganda spread by the stunted humans who call themselves dwarves. The little miners have always had a rather, shall we say, biased outlook on history and the true workers of reality. They call themselves the finest creatures to grace the worlds--with bodies like that, we suppose one would have to have an active fantasy life.Literally Trump with a larger vocabulary.
Post by: Tack on September 21, 2015, 10:29:33 am
We're doing game modules, so models are required.
Spoiler: I provided (click to show/hide)
Also in 40k news.
My Imperial guard army has gotten away from me slightly.
Spoiler: Yes, we have a games room. (click to show/hide)
But I am a swarm army, what can I do?
Post by: Yoink on September 21, 2015, 11:58:51 am
Army's looking good, too!
Post by: scriver on September 21, 2015, 12:02:52 pm
I can dig that :v
Post by: Arx on September 21, 2015, 12:06:20 pm
So in DnD/Pathfinder news I recently made a fire mage.
We're doing game modules, so models are required.Spoiler: I provided (click to show/hide)
I probably haven't been painting longer than you, but I've been at least looking at painted miniatures for about five years and that one is one of the nicest ones.
Post by: Tack on September 21, 2015, 07:08:07 pm
Oh.. ah... thank you. *sheepish*I probably haven't been painting longer than you, but I've been at least looking at painted miniatures for about five years and that one is one of the nicest ones.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I meant it was mostly drybrushing... Comparatively, painting between the lines is much harder, some of which I had failed to do.
Sounds like you have an awesome house setup, there. :)Yeah, I've kind of let shit pile up all over our tables though...
You have an X-Wing in your army?Thanks! Now I've figured out what colors to paint it.
I can dig that :v
Post by: scriver on September 21, 2015, 08:15:43 pm
I hope his book says "I prepared Explosive Runes this morning".
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 21, 2015, 08:35:52 pm
Post by: Tack on September 22, 2015, 12:58:32 am
So.. um.. thanks.
Also I'm pretty sure the glowy rune on the book is Storms/Wrath.
Doublealso me getting paid for that stuff was just a one-off. I wouldn't say I'm yet good enough, but mostly Straya's too empty.
Post by: penguinofhonor on September 26, 2015, 05:08:00 pm
I had a blue/black/red Eldrazi deck. I used all three colors about evenly, which can be risky, but it really only screwed me over once. And I won that game, too - with four red cards in my hand and no mountains. I managed to open up a decent amount of exiling and processor cards (which use up exiled cards for a bonus effect) to work with each other consistently and I have to say it was really fun. The exile stuff basically adds another resource to deal with on top of mana, and it changes up how the game feels.
And in my winnings I got a foil full-art mountain, which is sweet.
Post by: Mephisto on October 01, 2015, 05:54:43 pm
See, I've got an RPG bookshelf. It's quite full at the moment and I promised my wife I wouldn't buy anything I already don't have at least one book for until we move into a house with a spare room I can commandeer. Just over the past week, this has forced me to pass up complete boxed sets of Ravenloft and Forgotten Realms, Alternity, and City of Brass. Today, I had to pass up Spirit of the Century and both 7th Sea core books, both of which I've played in college and quite enjoyed.
So, rather than any of those neat things, I nabbed an adventure for the Arcanis d20 setting.
I think I have a problem.
Post by: Kadzar on October 01, 2015, 11:46:38 pm
Post by: Mephisto on October 02, 2015, 07:00:16 am
Post by: Toaster on October 02, 2015, 08:24:02 pm
I would like to hand in my "I'm an adult" card while keeping my current pay please. That or just stop going to Half Price Books.
See, I've got an RPG bookshelf. It's quite full at the moment and I promised my wife I wouldn't buy anything I already don't have at least one book for until we move into a house with a spare room I can commandeer. Just over the past week, this has forced me to pass up complete boxed sets of Ravenloft and Forgotten Realms, Alternity, and City of Brass. Today, I had to pass up Spirit of the Century and both 7th Sea core books, both of which I've played in college and quite enjoyed.
So, rather than any of those neat things, I nabbed an adventure for the Arcanis d20 setting.
I think I have a problem.
What, you can't hide them somewhere until you move?
Post by: Mephisto on October 02, 2015, 08:40:21 pm
What, you can't hide them somewhere until you move?
I've been leaving one shelf on my bookcase empty. I suppose I could put all of the books I don't care about on that one for the cats to get all furry.
It wasn't so much a "no more games" promise, it was more like "until I get a game room, I'm limited to one bookcase".
Post by: Sergius on October 04, 2015, 10:36:07 pm
So now, I'm gathering some data from my memories of the game and the intertubes, got the basic "endgame" (I looked a walkthru and it all boils down to "blow up the Sa-Matra!" - tho a different conclusion would be possible, if the players are clever enough to come up with an alternative and succeed at it). Other than the required items (a bomb, freeing a certain species from a shield, and safely acquiring a Talking Pet) pretty much everything else would be open ended.
I'm actually going to expand it a bit backwards, with a "prequel" sequence/adventure/"tutorial?", where the players find out and activate the Precursor factory in Unzervalt, then fast forward to 15-ish years later.
I'm not sure how I'm going to handle space combat - I'm thinking just using regular skill rolls to either use multiple Flagship systems, which should have enough guns or whatever for all players whenever they just want to straight-up shoot, and of course pilot escorts that they've acquired. I know that I'll have to add face-to-face encounters somehow too, I suppose it will be about 50%/50% whenever some MacGuffin location is visited.
Post by: Rolan7 on October 04, 2015, 10:50:05 pm
I also like the idea of multiple ways to resolve the campaign. The original was very open for exploration and growth, but the main quest was... mostly linear. Besides finding allies to assist.
Further ideas PM'd (;
Post by: Sergius on October 05, 2015, 12:31:17 am
Also, keeping with the spirit of SC, I think I'm going to have PCs (and NPCs/mooks) absorb damage using their own resources.
So you don't attack a ship, you attack the crew (individual named characters or a mob).
Combat would be more or less like this:
Player 1: I shoot the cannons! (roll attack)
Player 2: I also shoot some cannons!
Player 3: I'm in the Shofixti fighter thingy. I shoot (roll attack)
So, anyone can attack another ship at all times (unless prevented by some status or something). Also, since people are targeted, not ship hull or whatever, everyone has to roll their own dodge. Moving the ship would have to need some consensus, but essentially one player uses his "move action" or roll for extra speed and everyone else on board that ship cruises along.
Ship size will dictate how many players can be in a ship. By default, the Flagship can carry all the characters. Also maybe upgraded to carry extra mooks.
EDIT: This may sound OP but I don't intend to make ship battles 1-vs-1. If the Flagship gets 4 character doing actions it's not going to be just them vs one fighter or drone at a time.
Post by: timferius on October 07, 2015, 10:13:13 am
Post by: Fniff on October 07, 2015, 11:54:58 am
As for escaping the mansion... Well, the specter is their parent. They want to follow them to their homes because they miss them, but sadly they just cause more chaos and destruction.
I have a feeling it's been done before, but it's not too cliché.
Post by: Mephisto on October 07, 2015, 12:05:18 pm
It starts out as a group of college students going on a camping trip, whereupon they get chased/eaten by werewolves.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: timferius on October 07, 2015, 01:38:22 pm
Is this cliche? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0loSZFsyoQ)Saw that actually haha. It's one of the three default games you can download off the dread website actually. It's cool, but less goost and more monster. I love the ending though, keeps you guessing.
It starts out as a group of college students going on a camping trip, whereupon they get chased/eaten by werewolves.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Fniff on October 07, 2015, 02:30:56 pm
Anyone got any ideas for fictional characters that fit that criteria?
Post by: Toaster on October 07, 2015, 03:23:45 pm
Post by: Fniff on October 07, 2015, 03:28:16 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on October 07, 2015, 03:29:46 pm
Maybe him?
Post by: Rolan7 on October 07, 2015, 03:36:40 pm
Post by: Mephisto on October 07, 2015, 03:37:39 pm
Post by: Fniff on October 07, 2015, 03:46:51 pm
The Joker is driven by irrational whims, and follows them for its own sake, not for gain.I don't think he feels quite right. Coyotes (As the faction is called) aren't really the same brand of crazy as him. The Joker kills a man cos he didn't like him. Coyote kill a man because they don't want him squirming about while they eat him.
Maybe him?
The Harkonnens maybe?
This may be a bit old-school, but Leisure Suit Larry was recognizable at one point. If you're not sure what his base urge is, I'll tell you when you're older.Meanwhile, both of these are fairly spot on. Vladimir Harkonnen is the perfect example of what I was thinking, even though they wouldn't look like a hideously fat floating spaceking, more like a grotesquely thin cannibal. Leisure Suit Larry seemed a little light, but it would be funny if he was presented as an example of a 'good' Coyote.
Hm, the Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth popped into my head as another reference point. If you chalk their appearance up to mutations and change their lair from a fairy's house to a bombed out hellhole, that kinda lines up.
Post by: Bohandas on October 08, 2015, 12:15:24 am
I'm trying to match popular fiction characters to three factions of NPCs in a post-apocalyptic setting. You know, so that the factions are easier to explain. What I got stuck on was coming up with a character that is utterly driven by base urges and will do anything to satisfy them.
Anyone got any ideas for fictional characters that fit that criteria?
The Duke of Blangis
NSFW (http://supervert.com/elibrary/marquis_de_sade/120_days_of_sodom)
Post by: timferius on October 08, 2015, 11:07:53 am
Post by: Tack on October 09, 2015, 12:19:06 pm
Also, doing terrain.
I've been trying to create a broken boat with warpstone (unobtanium) spilling out of the cargo hold, as though a freak lightning storm has teleported it a few hundred feet above some poor sod's house. (Probably not how warpstone works but whatever)
Unfortunately having issues figuring out how to make it "break right". Dropping it sounds like the easy solution, but I figure it won't come down like a real X-ton longboat would.
That's a thing, right? Shit doesn't break to scale?
Edit: doh. Real boats aren't matchsticks fixed with PVA
Post by: Mephisto on October 09, 2015, 12:28:09 pm
It seems like a cool idea to me but none of my campaigns last long enough for it to be worth purchasing any.
I will say the scents (at least the ones I smelled) are spot-on.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on October 09, 2015, 03:05:12 pm
Unfortunately having issues figuring out how to make it "break right".
Do you have a clear idea of how you want it to look or are you still struggling to figure that out? Plenty of shipwrecks at google images for you to browse through if it's the latter.
Post by: scriver on October 09, 2015, 06:55:45 pm
Post by: Tack on October 09, 2015, 07:29:21 pm
Unless someone in the past has decided to airdrop a ship onto land, I doubt I'll find one which gives me what I'm looking for.Unfortunately having issues figuring out how to make it "break right".Do you have a clear idea of how you want it to look or are you still struggling to figure that out? Plenty of shipwrecks at google images for you to browse through if it's the latter.
Post by: Toaster on October 09, 2015, 08:58:53 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on October 10, 2015, 07:35:35 pm
Post by: strawberry-wine on October 17, 2015, 12:16:12 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 17, 2015, 01:11:19 pm
Post by: Arx on October 17, 2015, 01:16:07 pm
I was in a comic book store today and I saw a book for Mouse Guard RPG, which seems to have a vaguely similar setting to Redwall. Has anyone played it? It looked pretty interesting.
I have! Alas, my experience was tainted by poor circumstances, players, and GM (don't ask how we got all of those at once), but it seems like it could be a lot of fun. Equally though, I got the impression (still not necessarily accurate) that there were a number of cool concepts that weren't properly fleshed out. As far as I recall, it also tends toward being heavier on roleplay than rules, but...
I wish I could give a more concrete analysis, but the couple of times I played it really were set up amazingly terribly.
Post by: Emma on October 18, 2015, 03:47:46 am
Has anyone played any interesting print-and-play tabletop games recently? I'm looking around for some good ones but don't know where to start :-[
I listened to some podcasts, She's a Super Geek, about them and Doll by Ginger Goat Games and Witch House by Tao Games seemed pretty cool. Doll does cost money though.
Anyway, I played my first game of D&D recently! My parents took a little convincing but let me go over to a friend's house and play there. I played an extremely incompetent Wizard and running away was very satisfying. :P
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on October 18, 2015, 03:56:15 am
Has anyone played any interesting print-and-play tabletop games recently? I'm looking around for some good ones but don't know where to start :-[Does Risus fit your criteria? (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)
Post by: penguinofhonor on October 18, 2015, 07:03:52 am
Thanks for the help. Sounds like a game with potential. I've read there's a second edition coming out, so I'll probably read the reviews of that and maybe buy it then.
Post by: Kadzar on October 18, 2015, 06:55:40 pm
Has anyone played any interesting print-and-play tabletop games recently? I'm looking around for some good ones but don't know where to start :-[I haven't played any, but I've come across a few.
Console: Handheld (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/65941/Console-Handheld?src=slider_view) is Valent Games's (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/28/Valent-Games) pocket version of their video game-themed title Console (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/904/Console?manufacturers_id=28&it=1) (also available in Super Console (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/3479/Super-Console?manufacturers_id=28&it=1) format). They also have several other pocket games, and almost all are Pay-What-You-Want, which means you can just put in "0" if you want.
Then there's Dungeon Delvers (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/118558/Dungeon-Delvers), which is basically a 1-page D&D-style game, also Pay-What-You-Want.
Lady Blackbird (http://www.onesevendesign.com/ladyblackbird/) is a bit larger than the others I've mentioned, coming in at 16 pages, but they're mostly character sheets with the rules printed on them, so I think it pretty well qualifies for print-and-play. Also, it's a game I hear a lot of praise for.
From the same designer of Lady Blackbird comes Lasers & Feelings (http://www.onesevendesign.com/laserfeelings/), a 1-page space game. And I've also found a hack of it called Tactical Waifu (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/157352/Tactical-Waifu), which is about anime girls (PWYW product).
If you're just looking for a game that doesn't require the players to have books at all to play or understand the rules, Apocalypse World (http://apocalypse-world.com/) and games derived from it like Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/) have playbooks (http://apocalypse-world.com/AW-basicplaybooks-legal.pdf) that (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3269630/dwdotcom/Dungeon_World_Play_Sheets.pdf), like Lady Blackbird, have character sheets that contain all the rules players will need to know (actually, I guess they'll also need the Basic Move sheets). It's possible you might even be able to get away with just using the playbooks, though I haven't checked. At least once you've learned the rules I think you can run with just that.
Post by: Tack on October 18, 2015, 07:25:01 pm
Should be fun.
Post by: Arx on October 19, 2015, 12:27:07 am
Post by: Jimmy on October 22, 2015, 02:51:08 am
Anyway, I played my first game of D&D recently! My parents took a little convincing but let me go over to a friend's house and play there. I played an extremely incompetent Wizard and running away was very satisfying. :P
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Better yet, next time try an incontinent wizard!
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on October 22, 2015, 02:53:35 am
The two don't have to be exclusive.Anyway, I played my first game of D&D recently! My parents took a little convincing but let me go over to a friend's house and play there. I played an extremely incompetent Wizard and running away was very satisfying. :PBetter yet, next time try an incontinent wizard!
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on December 31, 2015, 03:15:38 am
Pls send help.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on December 31, 2015, 03:17:46 am
Post by: Emma on December 31, 2015, 05:19:39 am
Post by: Jimmy on December 31, 2015, 05:55:48 am
Post by: Helgoland on December 31, 2015, 08:11:11 am
Also, what do you guys think of shaving as a way of torturing orks, who in this setting have a rather thick black pelt? I want a bit of backstory for my guy, something along the lines of 'I detest violence' *does horrible and rather violent thing*
Post by: scriver on December 31, 2015, 08:22:17 am
Post by: Helgoland on December 31, 2015, 09:51:26 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on December 31, 2015, 01:30:39 pm
Post by: Kot on December 31, 2015, 03:33:46 pm
I think I asked my DM about an Orc fur coat for my previous character... He was opposed :PYeah, check if he can stop you now.
Post by: Tawa on January 09, 2016, 09:09:16 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 09, 2016, 09:11:24 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on January 09, 2016, 09:17:00 pm
Any suggestions for a character class to use on an extremely powerful magician figure in D&D 3.5?Wizard
Post by: Tawa on January 09, 2016, 09:20:48 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 09, 2016, 09:28:14 pm
Oh, wait, you know what? Never mind. I have the perfect idea.
Wizard?
Post by: Tawa on January 09, 2016, 09:33:38 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 09, 2016, 09:34:12 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 09, 2016, 11:01:14 pm
Spoiler: 1d6 Handle Animal Fumble Chart (click to show/hide)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 09, 2016, 11:09:49 pm
I'd make that diplomacy rolls, not all CHA-based rolls.
Then again...I'm kind of the one playing a sorcerer in that campaign.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 09, 2016, 11:40:10 pm
Post by: Mephisto on January 10, 2016, 08:51:32 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 10, 2016, 12:37:45 pm
Animal ignores you and wanders off. If bound, it escapes its bonds, within reason. It returns in 1d6 days. If searched for, the animal turns up in 1d4 hours. Otherwise, on an odd roll, it returns pregnant, or with a pregnant mate, or the appropriate version for animals that do not give birth to live young.
Post by: Yoink on January 10, 2016, 01:12:23 pm
Also, this thread! I've been meaning to post here for a while.
Went to a tabletop RPG meetup a while back, after not having played for at least a year or two.
Was pretty good, I was a bit nervous of course but I and a few other newcomers to the group played a bit of some casual homebrewed dungeon crawler. Certainly looking forward to joining an actual campaign within the group, they have multiple games going on at a time.
It was just good to be gaming again, mainly. :)
Post by: Tack on January 10, 2016, 01:22:41 pm
Which actually makes me a little bit sad. All of our homebrew is on hold for the next many-years.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 12, 2016, 03:55:51 pm
Post by: Tawa on January 12, 2016, 04:02:07 pm
WOTC released a 5e SRD. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)Oh, hey. Cool. I think I might have to participate in a 5e game at some point now.
Is this one missing any critical information? I remember 3.5's SRD didn't have rules for crucial bits like leveling up or starting gold.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on January 12, 2016, 04:22:43 pm
WOTC released a 5e SRD. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)Oh, hey. Cool. I think I might have to participate in a 5e game at some point now.
Is this one missing any critical information? I remember 3.5's SRD didn't have rules for crucial bits like leveling up or starting gold.
They didn't seem to have starting gold, but something like this for example (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) seems to show what changes a level up brings?
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 12, 2016, 04:32:23 pm
SHILLSHILLSHILLSHILLSHILL (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147892.msg5983653#msg5983653)WOTC released a 5e SRD. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)Oh, hey. Cool. I think I might have to participate in a 5e game at some point now.
Is this one missing any critical information? I remember 3.5's SRD didn't have rules for crucial bits like leveling up or starting gold.The most notable missing components are a few subclasses, and backgrounds. Both can be found through other avenues easily, if you know where to look.[/subtext]
Post by: Tawa on January 12, 2016, 04:40:52 pm
They didn't seem to have starting gold, but something like this for example (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm) seems to show what changes a level up brings?Eh, that doesn't have everything; the 3.5 SRD doesn't have any experience point tables, mention when players get feats, or when you get ability score increases.
SHILLSHILLSHILLSHILLSHILL (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=147892.msg5983653#msg5983653)Exce--
I will be accepting 4 players./me bides his time
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 12, 2016, 05:03:55 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on January 12, 2016, 05:10:00 pm
That was about a year ago. I wouldn't be shilling it if I weren't interested in another player. And judging how the party almost got curb stomped by little not than a bakers dozen of kobolds... They could use some help. :PYes, that.
Post by: scriver on January 12, 2016, 05:27:05 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on January 12, 2016, 05:51:04 pm
That was about a year ago. I wouldn't be shilling it if I weren't interested in another player. And judging how the party almost got curb stomped by little not than a bakers dozen of kobolds... They could use some help. :PI'd be tempted to join again if Sweetpea didn't fail so completely to be interesting.
Post by: Emma on January 12, 2016, 06:15:10 pm
WOTC released a 5e SRD. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)Released the day before I was going to run my first game too! This is excellent news.
EDIT:
So I started running this game last night and I should have known that my players are fucking idiots who decided to murder three innocent commoners when they were caught trying to steal back the money they lost in gambling.
Post by: Tack on January 17, 2016, 12:14:37 pm
I'm following the Paladin around, hoping he can find me people to kill.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 19, 2016, 04:01:51 pm
Also, the adventure is randomized: where you go, what you fight, and all that stuff is decided by a pack of cards.
Post by: nullBolt on January 19, 2016, 04:33:17 pm
Nudge nudge wink wink look at my signature.
Post by: Toaster on January 19, 2016, 04:53:48 pm
Post by: nullBolt on January 19, 2016, 04:55:21 pm
Anyone here played Risk Legacy? How playable is it with less than 5 people? (I doubt I can get 5 in- probably just 3 or 4.)
Probably have the same problem Risk always has with too few players: One player steamrolls and wrecks the rest and there's nothing everyone else can do.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on January 20, 2016, 09:23:12 pm
Anyone here played Risk Legacy? How playable is it with less than 5 people? (I doubt I can get 5 in- probably just 3 or 4.)Looking at BGG, I'm seeing people say that you definitely want at least 4.
Post by: Bohandas on January 21, 2016, 02:32:53 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 21, 2016, 02:36:43 am
Post by: Bohandas on January 21, 2016, 02:38:05 am
I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.
What about prudes and wet blankets?
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 03:08:43 am
I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.
What about the people who falsely accused Max Temkin of being a rapist?
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 21, 2016, 03:15:25 am
They'll learn to like it!I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.What about prudes and wet blankets?
I don't have answer to that, because I stopped giving a crap about internet outrage a while ago. Who said who did what, this time?I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.What about the people who falsely accused Max Temkin of being a rapist?
Post by: nullBolt on January 21, 2016, 03:25:02 am
I don't have answer to that, because I stopped giving a crap about internet outrage a while ago. Who said who did what, this time?I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.What about the people who falsely accused Max Temkin of being a rapist?
The rough timeline is:
- Some random woman who Temkin went to college with accuses him of raping her, ten+ years after the fact. This was on social media, not a police submission and it was just outside of the statute of limitations on rape so she can't be told to go the police..
- He, with the help of Zoe Quinn (what a shock that name came up!), writes a blogpost (https://archive.is/IUAPt) stating that he's sorry she felt that way but it never happened and they never even had sex.
- RockPaperShotgun puts up an article by Robert Florence (https://archive.is/4F017) trashing Cards Against Humanity which then turns into a rant about how awful Max Temkin is for saying that it never happened because he should allow baseless accusations to float around endlessly or something.
- Before RPS put that article up, it was pretty much a non-story but they decided to float false rape accusations out to a much wider audience.
- Twitter outrage, social media bullcrap etc etc on both sides of the fence.
Post by: Jimmy on January 21, 2016, 03:37:19 am
Hey, at least he didn't have to seek political asylum at Ecuador's embassy.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 21, 2016, 03:50:50 am
Post by: RedWarrior0 on January 21, 2016, 11:54:00 am
I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.Here! Basically, my problem with the game is that a lot of the humor is the shock value, and the jokes tend to get old after a while. Since basically the whole point of the game is the jokes, when those get old the game gets stale. The first few times were fun, and then it just got sorta... meh.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on January 22, 2016, 04:09:42 am
Cah is something you pull out, play a round or two with, laugh, put away, and forget about for a few months, really.I don't know if anyone doesn't like CAH.Here! Basically, my problem with the game is that a lot of the humor is the shock value, and the jokes tend to get old after a while. Since basically the whole point of the game is the jokes, when those get old the game gets stale. The first few times were fun, and then it just got sorta... meh.
Post by: penguinofhonor on January 22, 2016, 09:47:04 am
Post by: Flying Dice on January 22, 2016, 02:37:43 pm
But yeah, CAH's fun.
Post by: Yoink on January 23, 2016, 07:48:28 am
CaH is great fun, although I haven't played it properly- only some shitty online version. Oddly enough, I played that with a bunch of people in the same room... we just didn't have cards. I should probably buy a deck for the good of the household.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on January 23, 2016, 04:16:13 pm
Post by: Tack on January 24, 2016, 05:58:39 am
Meanwhile, our cleric decided on their patron deity: Calistria, goddess of beauty and lust.
So we literally have:
Oracle of the streets,
Cleric of the sheets.
Post by: Rolan7 on January 24, 2016, 08:41:48 am
Post by: Jimmy on January 24, 2016, 09:13:03 am
And a Rogue of the cheats.
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2016, 09:25:41 am
Now you just need a bard of the beats.It's 50 Copper all over again...
Post by: Urist Mc Dwarf on January 24, 2016, 09:39:47 am
Post by: Tack on January 24, 2016, 04:43:33 pm
Religiously.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 24, 2016, 05:10:28 pm
Post by: Tack on January 24, 2016, 06:04:15 pm
Post by: RedWarrior0 on January 24, 2016, 06:04:27 pm
Clerics do it on their knees.Relevant (http://magiccards.info/scans/en/tp/226.jpg)
Religiously.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on January 24, 2016, 06:17:46 pm
Barbarians do it a number of rounds per day.Oh, I like that. That's really good.
Holy shit that's hilariousClerics do it on their knees.Relevant (http://magiccards.info/scans/en/tp/226.jpg)
Religiously.
Post by: BlackFlyme on January 25, 2016, 03:51:25 pm
What is with the priority table? Why would anyone ever not go for priority A when making a character? The book says you choose which priority you want when making your character, but I don't see why anyone would choose B through E except when limited by the GM.
What exactly does a Technomancer do? They book hasn't really elaborated on it yet beyond being Deckers who don't need a cyberdeck. All I'm getting from it so far is "Congratulations, you are capable of shitposting on the internet through sheer power of will!".
Post by: Tack on January 25, 2016, 03:59:02 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on January 27, 2016, 01:33:55 pm
Heh, they actually have a stat-block for super-soakers. Was it always like that, or is it a newer edition inspired by the "Squirt Gun Wars" story I've heard from time to time?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on January 27, 2016, 01:54:29 pm
Post by: BlackFlyme on January 27, 2016, 02:04:29 pm
It quickly became an arms race between the players and the GM to try and thwart the water-gun method/keep the water guns useful.
By Spoony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8) Some of his stories are great.
Post by: Xardalas on January 27, 2016, 02:31:51 pm
TL:DR of it is that some ShadowRun players filled water-guns full of chemicals and a compound that allowed chemicals to be absorbed through the skin, rather than whatever original contract method was.
It quickly became an arms race between the players and the GM to try and thwart the water-gun method/keep the water guns useful.
By Spoony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8) Some of his stories are great.
That is amazing.
Post by: Mephisto on January 27, 2016, 03:16:02 pm
TL:DR of it is that some ShadowRun players filled water-guns full of chemicals and a compound that allowed chemicals to be absorbed through the skin, rather than whatever original contract method was.
It quickly became an arms race between the players and the GM to try and thwart the water-gun method/keep the water guns useful.
By Spoony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8) Some of his stories are great.
If only I knew about that back when I played Shadowrun.
Post by: Emma on February 10, 2016, 12:57:37 am
Post by: 94dima94 on February 11, 2016, 12:10:17 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: BlackFlyme on February 11, 2016, 12:25:35 pm
Quote from: Combat Casting
You are adept at spellcasting when threatened or distracted.
Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability when casting on the defensive or while grappled.
Quote from: Concentration Checks
When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type.
Quote from: Casting Defensively
If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a concentration check (DC 15 + double the level of the spell you're casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.
Not completely necessary, just really good early game or for characters that do not have the best casting attribute. For example, an Inquisitor doesn't need an Wisdom higher than 16 to be able to access all their spells, since they only get up to level 6 spells.
You will probably need to cast on the defensive at some point, though. Just about every spellcaster will find themselves in such a situation at least once. Though again, it isn't 100% necessary to take; it just helps.
Full Arcane Spellcasters (able to cast spells level 0 to 9) typically won't be hurting for feats, since all they really need is their spells, and they don't have the Base Attack Bonus to be able to perform other forms of combat as effectively as other classes.
Clerics are still casters though. They get up to level 9 spells and all. They just have the Base Attack Bonus and Hitdie to be able to be more combat-like than full Arcane or Psychic casters.
And Magus is a funny one. It was a Hybrid class before they were cool.
Post by: Tack on February 11, 2016, 12:31:58 pm
I wish to make a sniper-slayer who uses a firearm.
This whole build seems to revolve around Sniper's Goggles (Can make sneak attacks from >30ft), which'll be a cool 10k.
However the only decent sniper option I've found seems to be the Slayer.
Was wondering if there was an acceptable way to make a Rogue Unchained, Ninja or Gunslinger sniper with the same sort of sneak-attack mechanic dealio that my current idea has.
It's being a mild pain, I'll say that much.
Post by: 94dima94 on February 11, 2016, 12:34:17 pm
It seems like this WAS something I should take early, but still, it looks like the GM just didn't care that much about roleplaying.
Post by: BlackFlyme on February 11, 2016, 12:42:18 pm
It's a bit of a shame, since player-driven stories can be pretty good. There is even a line of Story Feats to drive the characters towards their respective goals, though completing the Story tasks is impossible without the DM's cooperation.
As for Sneak-Attacking, there is a Rogue Talent to increase the range by 10ft each time you take it, and the Sniper Archetype for the Slayer can always sneak attack while in their weapon's first range increment. The Rogue Sniper Archetype, on the other hand, loses Trap Sense to increase their SA range by 10ft at level 3 and every 3 levels after.
Post by: Tack on February 11, 2016, 12:57:17 pm
|40ft|1d12|
And eventually move up to a double hackbut
|50ft|2d12|
As it's the best range you can get on an early firearm.
Doesn't really stack up to the 100ft of a longbow or 80-120ft of a crossbow sadly.
Also sniper's goggles:
"The wearer of these goggles can make ranged sneak attacks from any distance instead of the normal 30 feet." invalidates the rogue option a bit.
Which Sucks, as I'd really rather play an unchained rogue than a slayer.
(Fakeedit: Nevermind, someone else claimed rogue.)
Post by: BlackFlyme on February 11, 2016, 01:33:55 pm
Had a game with two Necromancers once. Another with two Maguses. And two Paladins.
Sometimes, people even pick the same Race. Less of an issue, so long as they aren't any of the special-snowflake/rare races.
I've always wanted to play a Skinwalker, but races with multiple variants are banned because you basically get to pick-and-choose your starting attribute bonuses with them. And the Skinwalker variant names are kinda cringey.
A few other races are banned as well. If they aren't in the Advanced Race Guide, they aren't allowed.
Post by: Cruxador on February 11, 2016, 01:52:10 pm
TL:DR of it is that some ShadowRun players filled water-guns full of chemicals and a compound that allowed chemicals to be absorbed through the skin, rather than whatever original contract method was.Seems like a waste of the chemical. Better use would be to route it into the fire sprinklers, and then trigger them. As long as it only damages things like flesh, and not electronics, that would make for an incredibly easy run, after the part where you do that setup. Provided there aren't any knight errants in watertight armor, anyway.
It quickly became an arms race between the players and the GM to try and thwart the water-gun method/keep the water guns useful.
By Spoony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8) Some of his stories are great.
Post by: 94dima94 on February 11, 2016, 02:06:24 pm
TL:DR of it is that some ShadowRun players filled water-guns full of chemicals and a compound that allowed chemicals to be absorbed through the skin, rather than whatever original contract method was.Seems like a waste of the chemical. Better use would be to route it into the fire sprinklers, and then trigger them. As long as it only damages things like flesh, and not electronics, that would make for an incredibly easy run, after the part where you do that setup. Provided there aren't any knight errants in watertight armor, anyway.
It quickly became an arms race between the players and the GM to try and thwart the water-gun method/keep the water guns useful.
By Spoony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8) Some of his stories are great.
later in the story, that happens. Corporations start adding chemicals to sprinklers to fight the players, among many other things.
Post by: Cruxador on February 11, 2016, 02:49:19 pm
later in the story, that happens. Corporations start adding chemicals to sprinklers to fight the players, among many other things.At that point though, you might as well just use explosives for localized destruction. The sprinklers are useful to runners because they use existing infrastructure to get a wide spread of effect, but the corporation doesn't want a wide spread, which could cause needlessly costly damage. What's more, it's an unexpected move; much of its utility is that it's unexpected. It can be countered by a raincoat if it's coated in the right stuff (wax is a good bet) if you know it's coming.
Post by: Jimmy on February 12, 2016, 12:03:57 am
So, I recently started playing Pathfinder, and I need an advice:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Sounds like your biggest problem is between the DM screen and the DM chair.
I would usually ask to speak with the DM privately or send him an email to discuss building your character. I'd say that I really didn't want to take this feat since it's not something that suits my character, and while I appreciate his (or her) help for new and inexperienced players, I understand the downsides of not picking that feat and I'm really okay with the risk. I'd point out that at the end of the day, the DM has veto rights on anything and everything in the game and absolute control over every aspect of the world and the challenges the party faces. By contrast, as a player you have only one thing you control: your character. You'd like to be able to express that control by building your character your own way, even if it's not the most logical or powerful way possible.
Post by: BlackFlyme on February 12, 2016, 12:08:40 am
Those are typically made with an expected party of four players who are inexperienced to somewhat experienced, and are not very optimized.
Post by: Neyvn on February 12, 2016, 01:27:25 am
I am cool with anything...
Post by: 94dima94 on February 12, 2016, 11:02:18 am
If the DM's going by published Adventure Paths and Modules, you should be fine most of the time anyways.
Those are typically made with an expected party of four players who are inexperienced to somewhat experienced, and are not very optimized.
No, I REALLY think he is using something he either made up or took from various stuff. When I said I was trying to play the first episode of Runelords with my group, his answer was "Wow, congratulations, it's a really complicated adventure to try!". So probably he wrote something himself, also because he said we would do something really simple to start, so probably he wrote everything.
Post by: Delta Foxtrot on February 12, 2016, 07:05:47 pm
Anyone interested in playing some boardgames through that of Tabletop Simulator???
I am cool with anything...
I'd be willing to buy it in some future sale. I'm able to schedule something up for most nights around 1900 GMT onwards. No access to VOIP hardware unfortunately, just in case that's important for anyone. How do games work? I see Steam shows a very small number of games for sale on it, I assume content is mostly pirated/grey area?
I would of course be willing to attempt any number of existing free services as well:
https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/On-line_Games
Some of my physical favourites:
1v1 - Tash-Kalar
3+ FFA - Cyclades, Chaos in the Old World, games like that. Good amount of conflict with some of that modern design elegance (ok not so true for CitOW).
Ghost Stories trumps Pandemic but I don't think I'd care much for co-ops in a virtual environment.
I'm open to euros and dungeon crawls as long as people aren't obsessed over winning and optimizing everything. Just wing it, I hate it when games overstay their welcome.
Post by: BlackFlyme on February 12, 2016, 07:13:35 pm
No, I REALLY think he is using something he either made up or took from various stuff. When I said I was trying to play the first episode of Runelords with my group, his answer was "Wow, congratulations, it's a really complicated adventure to try!". So probably he wrote something himself, also because he said we would do something really simple to start, so probably he wrote everything.
Rise? Complicated?
Maybe if you accidentally bought the original version, meant for D&D 3.5, rather than the Anniversary edition, which uses Pathfinder. Or vice-versa, trying to use the Pathfinder version for 3.5.
Post by: Tack on February 12, 2016, 07:59:11 pm
Ok, Rogue got unclaimed so I'm free to once-again use my sniper.Weeeell. My guy's gonna start with a musketI wish to make a sniper-slayer who uses a firearm.As for Sneak-Attacking, there is a Rogue Talent to increase the range by 10ft each time you take it, and the Sniper Archetype for the Slayer can always sneak attack while in their weapon's first range increment. The Rogue Sniper Archetype, on the other hand, loses Trap Sense to increase their SA range by 10ft at level 3 and every 3 levels after.
This whole build seems to revolve around Sniper's Goggles (Can make sneak attacks from >30ft), which'll be a cool 10k.
However the only decent sniper option I've found seems to be the Slayer.
Was wondering if there was an acceptable way to make a Rogue Unchained, Ninja or Gunslinger sniper with the same sort of sneak-attack mechanic dealio that my current idea has.
|40ft|1d12|
And eventually move up to a double hackbut
|50ft|2d12|
As it's the best range you can get on an early firearm.
Doesn't really stack up to the 100ft of a longbow or 80-120ft of a crossbow sadly.
Also sniper's goggles:
"The wearer of these goggles can make ranged sneak attacks from any distance instead of the normal 30 feet." invalidates the rogue option a bit.
Which Sucks, as I'd really rather play an unchained rogue than a slayer.
I'm thinking to go unchained rogue for the skill unlocks.
(Perception: Distance DC+ to perception checks go from +1/10ft to +1/60ft
Stealth: -10 to sniping DC (From 20, or 10 with Sniper, and enemies attacked after using stealth are always flat-footed.)
Added to that I got given some GM-privileges. I have a sort of carry-over from some gunslinger class skills without having to put a rank into gunslinger, and as long as I take amateur gunslinger, I can then take further gunslinger grit deeds as feats,
(specifically dead shot: Full round attack, roll all attacks on the one bullet and add damage dice together)
Post by: Mephisto on February 12, 2016, 09:09:59 pm
I should probably stop backing RPGs on Kickstarter given I don't actually have a group to play with. It looks, feels, and smells nice (if you've had a book fresh off the presses, you know what I mean), however, with full-color images scattered throughout.
Post by: Dutchling on February 15, 2016, 11:09:55 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 15, 2016, 03:27:47 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 15, 2016, 03:38:27 pm
It's that a good thing, or a bad thing?Depends on your opinion of sphincter mana.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on February 15, 2016, 03:42:49 pm
I don't know what that is.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 15, 2016, 07:21:02 pm
Post by: Culise on February 15, 2016, 07:25:57 pm
...The hell does wasteland add to your mana pool?I think that's the new colorless symbol, though I haven't played since...the new Ravnica? I know I stopped before Khans, at least, and I heard they were doing something with colorless for the new Eldrazi sets. At any rate, Tempest Wastelands definitely added colorless, so that's my guess if these are reprints.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on February 16, 2016, 02:00:57 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 16, 2016, 05:02:02 pm
Yeah, it's to distinguish between colorless mana (as in, in your pool) and mana costs (as in, the number on top). Mostly because they added some Eldrazi that have a strict colorless requirement, seen here (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=407517).To be more precise: it distinguishes colorless mana (the one in your pool, and in the case of a few eldrazi, in the cost of cards/abilities) and generic mana (only ever a cost).
I actually taught a friend of mine MtG a few months ago, before the new symbol, and he was super confused colorless and generic mana had the same symbol, so I guess it makes sense. I never really noticed it before though.
Post by: Cruxador on February 16, 2016, 08:30:52 pm
...The hell does wasteland add to your mana pool?Mana that is specifically colorless, as RedWarrior says. It functions essentially as a sixth color, but Wizards assures us that it is not.
Post by: Tack on February 16, 2016, 09:06:41 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 16, 2016, 09:15:16 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 16, 2016, 10:18:23 pm
So... is colorless mana just another mana type then?Functionally, yes.
It's mana that can't be used in costs that require colored mana. The new rules thing now is that there are costs that require colorless mana (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=407513)You never could pay colored mana costs with any mana other than that specific color, though. You could argue that they already made colorless into a sixth color by making "colorless only" requirements in the first place, and I do agree that this was a kind of odd design choice, but the solution is not to perpetuate it by making a symbol for the color.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 16, 2016, 11:42:16 pm
They're making it permanent because it makes the rules more consistent. Colorless mana generation is now represented the same way that colored mana generation is, and the same is true for costs. Also, numbers in bubbles originally represented both the least versatile mana type (colorless) and the most versatile mana cost (generic). Now these different concepts have different symbols.
Post by: Culise on February 17, 2016, 12:28:55 am
I completely kid, but if I recall, Sixth Edition really did inspire some people to quit due to how it streamlined the rules.
Post by: Cruxador on February 17, 2016, 03:01:32 am
Colorless mana generation is now represented the same way that colored mana generation is, and the same is true for costs.That it's represented that way is only logical because it works that way now; it is functionally no longer colorless, but a new color.
Quote
Also, numbers in bubbles originally represented both the least versatile mana type (colorless) and the most versatile mana cost (generic).The relevance of the distinction is not really compatible with usage of the word "originally"; it's a quite modern thing.
It's still silly. On another note, what the heck is up with these keywords? Back in the day, cards said exactly what they did, and that was that. I mean, defender? All you had were walls, and rightfully so. Lifelink? Vigilance? Pah. And don't even get me started on this "stack" nonsense...what was wrong with interrupts or timing, anyways?It's not just a matter of streamlining, it also got away from the playing for lore and just plain fun, and towards tournament and competitive play, which now dominates the game. They made some overtures of heading back in that direction since then, mostly by pushing the neowalkers but also when they changed a lot of names back (I wanna say this was in 2010 but now don't remember exactly) but and there's actually been some swing back that way again, but it's definitely not a major focus any more.
I completely kid, but if I recall, Sixth Edition really did inspire some people to quit due to how it streamlined the rules.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 17, 2016, 05:46:21 am
And "originally" is certainly applicable because the distinction has existed since the very beginning of the game. Sol Ring (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=40) from 1993 produces mana of the least versatile type and has a mana cost of the most versatile type. Originally it said "Add 2 colorless mana to your mana pool" with no bubble because they knew colorless mana was not the same concept as a generic cost and therefore didn't want to represent it with the same symbol used in mana costs.
The number bubbles only got used for the both things after Wizards consciously decided to blur the lines between the two concepts on the card Nantuko Elder (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=29870) in 2001, primarily because colorless costs hadn't been a thing in the 8 years the game had existed. It wasn't decided based on the most consistent system, it was a decision based on how they didn't use part of the system that could technically exist (colorless costs). Now that colorless costs are getting used, they revisited the decision and decided to iron it out once and for all.
Post by: Dutchling on February 17, 2016, 06:24:16 am
Colourless being an effective sixth mana has nothing to do with it. It's just a bunch of Eldrazi cards from a single set that use it as a colour, nothing we'll see again for a while I assume.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 17, 2016, 12:38:48 pm
So grey mana costs (numbers in bubbles) aren't colorless...
Colorless is a sixth mana type exactly the same as any colored mana, except that it has usually been unusual to generate?
That's dumb and confusing. Even if they had to use the grey color, they should call it grey. Not colorless, which obviously everyone will associate with unrestricted mana costs.
Frankly I thought that we manually converted colored mana into colorless mana in the process of paying a number-in-bubble cost. I think I got that impression from playing the Shandalar video game...
Post by: Cruxador on February 17, 2016, 01:22:17 pm
No, it's logical because it works similarly and it's represented similarly. Before, adding two green mana to your mana pool and two colorless mana to your mana pool were functionally very close but symbolized by two different things.Before, they were functionally identical for the purpose of anything that wasn't green.
Quote
And "originally" is certainly applicable because the distinction has existed since the very beginning of the game. Sol Ring (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=40) from 1993 produces mana of the least versatile type and has a mana cost of the most versatile type.It costs mana of no particular color and costs mana of no particular color. Yes, that functions differently if it's an input or an output, but it's still the same shit.
Quote
Originally it said "Add 2 colorless mana to your mana pool" with no bubble because they knew colorless mana was not the same concept as a generic cost and therefore didn't want to represent it with the same symbol used in mana costs.Nope, that's just not how people thought back then. "Colorless" wasn't a key word but literally meant mana without color.
Quote
The number bubbles only got used for the both things after Wizards consciously decided to blur the lines between the two concepts on the card Nantuko Elder (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=29870) in 2001, primarily because colorless costs hadn't been a thing in the 8 years the game had existed.I'm pretty sure that wasn't a conscious decision to make it not a sixth color, but merely a move towards more symbols and less wordiness, this was also when a great proliferation of keywords appeared.
Colorless is a sixth mana type exactly the same as any colored mana, except that it has usually been unusual to generate?And unusual to use. In essence it's a new mana type cobbled out of bits of gameplay that previously existed.
Post by: Leafsnail on February 17, 2016, 01:25:20 pm
It costs mana of no particular color and costs mana of no particular color. Yes, that functions differently if it's an input or an output, but it's still the same shit."Any color" and "No color" are distinct concepts. The fact that so many people have trouble with it is evidence that the old system was confusing and needed change.
The issue with calling it "grey" is that there are cards in the game that care about the presence or lack of color, so you can't imply that colorless is a color.
Post by: Cruxador on February 17, 2016, 03:46:14 pm
Well, now they are. That's a thing that happened more or less since Eldrazi.It costs mana of no particular color and costs mana of no particular color. Yes, that functions differently if it's an input or an output, but it's still the same shit."Any color" and "No color" are distinct concepts.
Quote
The fact that so many people have trouble with it is evidence that the old system was confusing and needed change.You could just as easily call it a sign that it was dumb to make that distinction in the first place.
Quote
The issue with calling it "grey" is that there are cards in the game that care about the presence or lack of color, so you can't imply that colorless is a color.When a recipe calls for a fruit, you don't use a tomato, and when it calls for a vegetable, you may. Nonetheless, a tomato is formed from a flower and contains seeds.
Post by: Gentlefish on February 17, 2016, 03:49:29 pm
As far as I remember, most colorless cards (up until the eldrazi loving) were constructs and artifacts. Having no color was specifically a benefit because you could use any mana to play them and thus they fit into most if not all decks.
Post by: Leafsnail on February 17, 2016, 05:40:18 pm
Well, now they are. That's a thing that happened more or less since Eldrazi.They always were 100% distinct. If a card had "1" in its cost that meant "pay this with any kind of mana". If a card added "1" to your mana pool that meant "add a flavor of mana that can't be spent on colored costs to your mana pool".
There has been no functional change, the only difference is it's now a lot clearer how mana works.
When a recipe calls for a fruit, you don't use a tomato, and when it calls for a vegetable, you may. Nonetheless, a tomato is formed from a flower and contains seeds.This is a weird analogy and I don't understand what point you are making with it.
Post by: Cruxador on February 17, 2016, 10:12:27 pm
If a card had a one in the cost, that meant it cost one mana of non-specific color. If a card added "1" to your mana pool it meant "add one point of mana of no particular color to your mana pool". It's the same shit, conceptually.Well, now they are. That's a thing that happened more or less since Eldrazi.They always were 100% distinct. If a card had "1" in its cost that meant "pay this with any kind of mana". If a card added "1" to your mana pool that meant "add a flavor of mana that can't be spent on colored costs to your mana pool".
Quote
You can refer to it as different and, by classifying it differently, call on it in different situations because you're calling on the classification you've given it. But even if you choose to classify it counter to its nature, that doesn't change its actual properties.When a recipe calls for a fruit, you don't use a tomato, and when it calls for a vegetable, you may. Nonetheless, a tomato is formed from a flower and contains seeds.This is a weird analogy and I don't understand what point you are making with it.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 18, 2016, 04:50:46 am
"No particular color" means either "no color" or "any color" depending on context. Yes, there is some conceptual similarity, which is why the system worked without any huge problems for 15 years, but it is still inconsistent. Colorless mana worked differently as an output or input while colored mana worked the same either way.
Post by: Tack on February 18, 2016, 07:23:59 am
Cool.
Post by: Cruxador on February 18, 2016, 01:41:41 pm
That's like saying blue mana and red mana are the same shit because they're both "not green".With regards to greenness, they are. With regards to blueness (or redness) they aren't. That's why if neither of those existed, it would be a change to add redness to the game.
Quote
You're just describing it in a way that's intentionally vague.It's intentionally reflective of the degree to which a distinction mattered in the past.
Quote
Seriously, you could easily interpret "Add one point of mana of no particular color to your mana pool" as adding one mana of any color to your mana pool.You'd have to be singularly stupid to interpret "no color" as "any color".
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 18, 2016, 02:26:49 pm
Post by: Dutchling on February 18, 2016, 06:03:12 pm
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a magician who studies generic manas, I am telling you, specifically, in magic, no one calls colorless manas generic manas. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "generic mana family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Manae, which includes things from manna to leylines to purple manas.
So your reasoning for calling a colorless mana a generic mana is because random people "call the artifact ones generic manas?" Let's get tapping and paying life in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A colorless mana is a colorless mana and a member of the generic mana family. But that's not what you said. You said a colorless mana is a generic mana, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the generic mana family generic manas, which means you'd call leylines, purple mana, and other manas generic manas, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
Post by: Neonivek on February 18, 2016, 06:12:47 pm
In terms of mana... Basically Colorless is just raw magic, completely unrefined and good only for empowering spells without shaping them itself.
It is why the majority of colorless creatures are artifact creatures.
For something to specifically require colorless mana as "colorless mana" (as in it cannot be colored mana) is to somehow give it a special power.
Post by: Mephisto on February 19, 2016, 04:10:34 pm
Looking at their list of desired items, I could get $150-200 out of it. I would very much like to keep my books in functional book format, however, and getting paid peanuts for doing the hard bit of something they're going to turn around and sell doesn't sit right with me either.
Post by: Rolan7 on February 25, 2016, 12:53:16 am
My group (haven't played with them since uh October or so) are starting a Vampire: Requiem campaign. The problem character from our dnd game is not invited, and he was the reason I left so now I'm back in.
We have three players including me. We decided on the Ordo Dracul. The DM described them as the "edgy" covenant, but we spent a couple hours reading their book and decided they were actually pretty decent. Mad scientists, Tzeentch followers. Here's out party, and keep in mind I am pretty drunk:
Best friend: Usually picked the wizard, chose a Gangrel. He chose Gangrel in VtM:Bloodlines as well. He is a very, almost unnaturally chill person... but in RP he enjoys STRIP THE FLESH, SALT THE WOUNDS
But also supporting other PCs because he is a good friend.
Sexy friend-of-friend with girlfriend: Picked """good""" monk before, has DM experience, chose (Ventrue) Malkavian. He's... It's possible I have a *minor* crush on him. He likes to make gay flirts. But I'm no homewrecker. He's ready to be the party face as an insane Ventrue, except for intimidation (the Gangrel) or underworld (me)
Me: Probably Mekhet, since I think Nosferatu is probably problematic. I've always been really good at keeping track of the setting in the DND game, cataloging details and reminding the other players about the quest hooks. I started the wiki even... I'd be the repository of knowledge, and the sneaky spy.
MY QUESTIONS: Are we doing this alright? We've all played the VtM:Bloodlines video game, and the Gangrel (super-geek player) has been sharing details of the New World of Darkness for a few weeks. We're probably mostly going to face Invictus (possibly because I emphasized how Ordo Dracul gets along with the pagans and the cathars) and maybe some Sanctum. In fact, it's an Invictus city (Charlotte, a close but somewhat remote town to us as players).
I think we're looking forward to a talky game, using intimidate/zany persuasion/stolen secrets to get our way. Particularly as recently embraced childes enlisted into the local Ordo Dracul out of desperation. Most early combat is likely to be ghouls I expect, since the local praxis(?) is Invictus.
ALSO: I don't know what bloodline to pick, yet. Mnemonics (?) are hilarious of course, but maybe OP?? I trust myself not to abuse it, but what other bloodlines would work well here?
Post by: Jimmy on February 25, 2016, 02:47:33 am
Post by: Mephisto on February 25, 2016, 03:55:33 pm
I vastly prefer physical books but that might be too good to pass up. I was planning on stopping by a local Half Price Books after work. If they don't have much Pathfinder stuff, I might just pick it up anyway. Even if I were to never use the PDFs, I'd save a few bucks off of the Beginner Box.
Speaking of game bundles, I used to really enjoy the Bundle of Holding. (https://bundleofholding.com/presents/Castles) I've probably posted about them before but they seem to have gotten much more expensive since I last purchased a few years ago. It's still cheap compared to full MSRP, though.
So I apparently lied. I should probably not purchase any more games, despite HPB having Burning Empires, Hero System 5th Edition, and some (like the name says) half-priced D&D 5 books.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 03, 2016, 03:41:06 am
Sorry, kinda giddy. I was really worried but it was a lot of fun. I and one of the other players did a great job rapidly finding the rules in the PDFs, while our GM wove a great little story for each of our characters in sequence.
One character was a bouncer at a bar. She tried to bounce a gangrel, and actually did some damage. now she is teh gangrel
The other character was a conwoman. She "returned" a TV from the Good Will to Best Buy then hung out at a hotel bar. A Malkavian seemed like an easy mark. Now she is the Malkavian...
Except OH wow it went screwy. Her sire wandered off right before dawn, leaving her in the room alone. His brother told her to "oh shit, uh just hold still for a second I'll be right back". So she left (because these people were crazy and she was starving). Absolutely *massacred* someone in the elevator. Almost died when it opened up to the lobby. Went to the top floor and waited. Eventually the sheriff came to clean up the masquerade and-
She *shot* the sheriff right in the chest. She got staked. Woke up and finally had everything explained to her. Tres Malky.
My character was basically a shadowrunner for a hacker group. Not so great with computers but super sneaky. He was hired to go in and hack some servers, really just doing it for the challenge.
Here's where it gets weird. He went to the security room to deactivate the cameras. Started rolling awful. Half-sees his future sire (aka "Senpai") mindwiping a guard and looping the cameras. Tries to hide but is muttering out loud, senpai mindwipes him and moves on. After which he shoots the guard with what turned out to be a full ounce of LSD, and gets really confused that the cameras are already looping. Disappointing first impression, Senpai noticed but ignored him ):
Then he goes down to the servers and suddenly I'm rolling aces. Sees through senpai's invisibility, assumes senpai is a LSD hallucination (my character didn't *remember* doing any, but has a huge memory gap and is seeing weird shit). Senpai is hacking servers, my character sneaks past and hacks several other servers first. Manages to stay hidden until Senpai leaves the room.
Then senpai returns, apparently realizing something was up. Catches me, but is impressed that he didn't notice me (: Frankly assumes I'm a vampire, or someone's "ghoul". "Er, I'm a guy" "...Right." Leaves me in peace, still thinking I'm working for another vampire. I escape without difficulty, mission complete.
... Later he realizes his mistake, or part of it was just a test. The next morning something he left on the computers jumped onto my flash drive then onto my computers, rooting them. I try to ask my friends for help and only get a message from bite2nite "WE KNOW". Try to kill my drives and buy an airplane ticket, but my card is apparently flagged as "detain and question".
I flee to a hotel and use the public computer to desperately email one of my contacts. Reply: "TICK TOCK". Night's falling. I decide I'm stuck in an LSD trip this whole time, and hide in a bathroom stall.
I hear him coming, but don't see him. It only hurt for a moment...
Wake up later in a hotel room. Cold, sore, so hungry. He's typing away on a laptop. Glances up, tosses me a blood pack. I don't even question it.
Later: "So... You're dead!" *session ends*
Post by: Andres on March 03, 2016, 05:28:22 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 03, 2016, 05:32:29 am
I'll dig up a link later
Post by: Sergius on March 03, 2016, 07:42:28 am
Are there any good tabletop stories I can read? I read All Guardsmen Party which was based on Dark Heresy and I enjoyed it a lot.
Old Man Henderson is a good read...
Post by: Fniff on March 03, 2016, 02:00:34 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 03, 2016, 02:07:12 pm
Lamia Child (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Lamia_child). A version of the Orc Baby dilemma.
Stories about fucking with the DM:
Oscar (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oscar). I can't really spoil anything, but it's a good read.
Today I must become That Guy, Part 1 (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/18004136/), Part 2 (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/18010759/), Part 3 (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/18029935/), Part 4 (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/18032393/). A story about a terrible/creepy DM, tentacle rape and F.A.T.A.L. in space. Go read it. You have been warned.
Post by: i2amroy on March 03, 2016, 02:09:34 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 03, 2016, 02:20:16 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on March 03, 2016, 02:28:45 pm
Post by: Mephisto on March 03, 2016, 03:01:52 pm
I don't know what personal pronoun to use in this case. Anyway, this person who doesn't talk about RPGs much has the best overview for the worst RPG ever elsewhere on the channel.
SilverClawShift Archives (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?116836-The-SilverClawShift-Campaign-Archives).
That's a name I haven't heard in many moons. Do go read this if you haven't.
Post by: Spehss _ on March 03, 2016, 03:46:00 pm
my personal favorite (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Reginald_%22Ragin'_Reggie%22_Dempsey), "Ragin' Reggie" Reginald Dempsey. A man, his fists, and hordes of zombies.This is good shit and I highly recommend it.
Post by: Kadzar on March 03, 2016, 04:09:48 pm
An explanation of the game: it's basically like Exalted or the Immortal part of BECMI, but relatively simple rules that make it possible to challenge such high-level characters. It's by the guy who made Stars Without Number (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/86467/Stars-Without-Number-Free-Edition), and, similar to that game, there will be a free version that has all the rules you need to play and a deluxe version (which is what the Kickstarter provides) with 40 pages of extra optional content. These include things that help people wanting to add more of an Exalted feel to their game, such as Godwalkers (basically Warstriders, but non-copyright infringing), divine martial arts, and rules for theming characters as various Exalted types.
Here's the link to the beta files (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4qCWY8UnLrcRGxjSmFqSWEyMk0&usp=drive_web), which the author has explicitly allowed backers to share.
Post by: Andres on March 03, 2016, 08:57:21 pm
Ah, I forgot about that one. I read it a long time ago, months before I found AGP. It was a good read.Are there any good tabletop stories I can read? I read All Guardsmen Party which was based on Dark Heresy and I enjoyed it a lot.
Old Man Henderson is a good read...
But wow, that's a lot of stories. Thanks for the recommendations, everyone.
On a semi-related note, I'd like to ask about two games: Exalted and Pathfinder. I don't know the first things about them regarding the fluff. I looked into them and found giant walls of text.
Post by: BlackFlyme on March 03, 2016, 09:42:57 pm
All you really need to know are the core races and core deities. The races are Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Orcs and -Elves. They are the most populous races, with Humans being the forerunner by far. The world is a clusterfuck of mini-factions, guilds, and nations.
It's recovering after a series of apocalyptic events, including a number of massive fuck-off hurricanes larger than most countries, with one permanent one to serve as a momento for everyone, called the Eye of Abendego.
An alien capital ship crashing into the world and staying mostly intact after the crash, with its internal factories still churning out robotic murder machines and sapient Androids, which are playable races, and somehow have a soul because nanomachines, son.
And lets not forget the literal hole to the Abyss in the northern part of the world, now known as the Worldwound, that continually spouts out demons.
Also, the patron God of humanity, Aroden, may or may not have died. He's not answering any prayers, and has since been replaced by a Paladin of his. Who ascended to deity status the same way he did. I'm sure that will bode well in the future. Actually, a few mortals stole his idea. There are many ascended mortals, from a Monk who meditated until he became too swole for this world, to a pirate-queen who got bored with normal targets, and started swashbuckling her way through the different planes instead, reaching deific powers along the way.
There's more, but these come to mind as the more major events.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 03, 2016, 10:05:01 pm
Spoiler: All you need to know about Pathfinder's political geography (click to show/hide)
Post by: Rolan7 on March 03, 2016, 10:07:58 pm
https://1d4chan.org/images/e/e7/PathfinderExplained.jpg
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 03, 2016, 10:25:43 pm
Post by: Yoink on March 04, 2016, 12:33:26 am
I just reached Part 2, and I agree! Quite entertaining. :)my personal favorite (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Reginald_%22Ragin'_Reggie%22_Dempsey), "Ragin' Reggie" Reginald Dempsey. A man, his fists, and hordes of zombies.This is good shit and I highly recommend it.
Edit:
SilverClawShift Archives (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?116836-The-SilverClawShift-Campaign-Archives). Possibly my favorite of any out there if you haven't read it already. (Small note, the third story was never actually finished, but the first two are glorious and some of the little short stories are fun too).Hm... reading this now, and I do believe I've read it before. Not sure if I read the whole thing, though, so I guess I'll read on and find out.
Post by: Cruxador on March 04, 2016, 02:30:37 am
Since it's come up, I'll mention Demigods Story (http://imgur.com/a/pnWYj#9jPhO2M). I found that in the comments section of the Godbound Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/godbound-a-game-of-divine-heroes) (which I've backed), given as an example of the sort of story that game could emulate.Cheers, that was a fine story and one I'd not read before. I'll keep an eye on this new game coming out; before I get more into it, what's it like mechanically?
An explanation of the game: it's basically like Exalted or the Immortal part of BECMI, but relatively simple rules that make it possible to challenge such high-level characters. It's by the guy who made Stars Without Number (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/86467/Stars-Without-Number-Free-Edition), and, similar to that game, there will be a free version that has all the rules you need to play and a deluxe version (which is what the Kickstarter provides) with 40 pages of extra optional content. These include things that help people wanting to add more of an Exalted feel to their game, such as Godwalkers (basically Warstriders, but non-copyright infringing), divine martial arts, and rules for theming characters as various Exalted types.
Here's the link to the beta files (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4qCWY8UnLrcRGxjSmFqSWEyMk0&usp=drive_web), which the author has explicitly allowed backers to share.
Post by: Andres on March 04, 2016, 05:59:39 am
Post by: Fniff on March 04, 2016, 07:45:00 am
Post by: Rolan7 on March 04, 2016, 09:56:10 am
First page: http://darkencomic.com/?webcomic_post=20031216
It's the author who makes Widdershins now (the art improves a lot, of course).
Post by: Kadzar on March 04, 2016, 08:49:36 pm
The base rules are pretty much a classless version of D&D Basic Set (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Basic_Set) with three types of saves like the kind introduced in 3.5, but renamed (so Fortitude is Hardiness, Reflex is Evasion, and Will is Spirit).Since it's come up, I'll mention Demigods Story (http://imgur.com/a/pnWYj#9jPhO2M). I found that in the comments section of the Godbound Kickstarter (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/godbound-a-game-of-divine-heroes) (which I've backed), given as an example of the sort of story that game could emulate.Cheers, that was a fine story and one I'd not read before. I'll keep an eye on this new game coming out; before I get more into it, what's it like mechanically?
An explanation of the game: it's basically like Exalted or the Immortal part of BECMI, but relatively simple rules that make it possible to challenge such high-level characters. It's by the guy who made Stars Without Number (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/86467/Stars-Without-Number-Free-Edition), and, similar to that game, there will be a free version that has all the rules you need to play and a deluxe version (which is what the Kickstarter provides) with 40 pages of extra optional content. These include things that help people wanting to add more of an Exalted feel to their game, such as Godwalkers (basically Warstriders, but non-copyright infringing), divine martial arts, and rules for theming characters as various Exalted types.
Here's the link to the beta files (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4qCWY8UnLrcRGxjSmFqSWEyMk0&usp=drive_web), which the author has explicitly allowed backers to share.
Though that's just the basic framework of the system, and can easily be replaced. The real meat is in the Gift system, in which you gain a number of powers from what is basically your godly domains, and these are either constant benefits or require you to Commit Effort. This means you must temporarily spend a point of Effort (a resource pool you gain more of as you level up) to gain the effect of a Gift, and you can't use that Effort point again until you reclaim it. Generally you can reclaim Effort at any time, which ends the effect, but, if the Gift says, "Commit Effort for the scene" or "Commit Effort for the day", you can't reclaim it until then, even if the effect is much shorter than that.
Then there's the Influence and Dominion system, which are used to change Facts (kind of like Fate system Aspects) about the world, with more points required depending on the size of the change (the table starts at Willage level and ends at Realm level, or "the whole world") and a multiplier for the plausibility of the change. Influence is much like Effort, a finite but reusable resource (which, like Effort, increases as you level up) which only has effect so long as it's committed. Dominion can be used for more permanent change, though it gets used up when spent, but it's much more renewable, as it's gained like experience points (and, in fact, a certain amount of Dominion must be spent to level up) or from the worship of followers.
Also, like in one of the creator's other games, Scarlet Heroes (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127180/Scarlet-Heroes), while enemies do damage to the players' hitpoints, against anything other than other Godbound, players will do damage directly to hit dice. And, once a round, players can roll something called a Fray Dice, which can be used to deal extra damage against foes with less hit dice than the players. To keep things for going overboard, even though normal D&D damage dice are used, the amount of damage is actually less because it's compared to a chart that goes from 0-4 for each dice rolled, unless, in the case of some Gifts, the damage is meant to be read straight (in other words, don't use the chart and just read what the dice says).
Post by: Cruxador on March 05, 2016, 01:03:04 am
Post by: Kadzar on March 05, 2016, 12:13:39 pm
So in short, a D&D knock-off with bells and whistles? A shame that solid concepts are limited that way, but probably worth keeping an eye on nonetheless.Yeah, the author likes to make things D&D-based so that they're easily compatible with other stuff (so you can easily use monsters from other games without having to convert them or incorporate these demigods or Gifts or artifacts into a regular D&D game).
Also, certain subsystems are so divorced from the base rules that you can use them with other games; especially the faction rules are such that you could use them even in games that have nothing to do with demigods.
Post by: Arx on March 05, 2016, 02:40:06 pm
It's a webcomic instead of writing, but Darken Comic was heavily based on an evil-party campaign the author actually played in.
First page: http://darkencomic.com/?webcomic_post=20031216
It's the author who makes Widdershins now (the art improves a lot, of course).
Read through this this morning. That was really excellent. I've rarely been so invested in characters, which is impressive given the whole 'evil' thing. Also Lyam is amazing.
Post by: miauw62 on March 05, 2016, 04:41:55 pm
So far, we've got Tamiyo's Journal (http://magic.wizards.com/sites/mtg/files/EN_SOI_InteriorPage_K7sDPqwALp.png), which looks like a nice commander card. Turn spare mana into cards, or if you don't have any tutoring? Yes please.
We've also got literally a shard of glass (http://magic.wizards.com/sites/mtg/files/EN_SOI_InteriorPage_Xv4aSswbmB.png). I'm not even joking.
Also some sweet 1W removal that that kills everything with the same name and puts a clue token onto the battlefield for every dude it kills.
Evil Avacyn is here! (https://36.media.tumblr.com/bf04c0c60eda22ac17bdb04bcce397eb/tumblr_o3lg4rETJ11u9beo8o1_1280.png)
Post by: Spehss _ on March 05, 2016, 08:39:59 pm
However, I'd prefer physical copies over PDFs, and I've read that most of the materials can be found for free for reference on http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
I suppose I could just print out the PDFs if I needed them in physical copies, but that could cost a decent amount of ink and paper, depending on book lengths.
Opinions? Is Pathfinder a good choice of DnD-like rpg game?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 05, 2016, 08:44:04 pm
That said, you can pretty much make whatever you want as a character, due to aforementioned bloat giving your infinite options.
If you're into powergaming you can make pretty broken characters, should you wish.
Post by: Spehss _ on March 05, 2016, 09:06:22 pm
It's basically modified dnd 3.5, with all the issues that entails - poor balance and six metric tons of bloat.I'm a total newbie, so I'm not familiar with powergaming, aside from what I've read online making it seem really boring. I do like the idea of making
That said, you can pretty much make whatever you want as a character, due to aforementioned bloat giving your infinite options.
If you're into powergaming you can make pretty broken characters, should you wish.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 05, 2016, 09:33:06 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on March 05, 2016, 09:51:37 pm
I'm... uncertain Sir Bearington is anything other than a particularly amusing greentext, to be honest. I wouldn't say the rules actually support it.Just an example. The idea is that it made me realize tabletop rpg games were more than just rolling dice and getting loot.
And from what I've read online, rules can tend to be handwaved, depending on the players in the group.
Adding to the earlier discussion/link dump on rpg stories. Shoggy the Seldom Dog. (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/32461889/)
Post by: Rolan7 on March 05, 2016, 10:02:21 pm
A decent DM tells a good story.
A good DM tells a good story while following the rules.
A great DM works with the players to form a gestalt reality. (my DM is great)
A poor DM just follows the rules and is going nowhere.
A bad DM is going somewhere regardless of what the players do.
A magical DM is bringing the players to their magical realm.
Post by: Culise on March 05, 2016, 10:06:56 pm
Magical DM...LSD...in...brownies. Check.
Post by: Jimmy on March 05, 2016, 10:13:32 pm
Noh (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Noh). Read if you want to blaw like a newborn.I liked that idea, I just might steal it! I don't usually do the "you find a room full of now-orphaned goblin children" trope, but this one seems pretty good.
Post by: Yoink on March 06, 2016, 07:23:51 am
*writes down notes*You know, I think that would make for a most enjoyable gaming session, honestly.
Magical DM...LSD...in...brownies. Check.
As long as the DM was at least somewhat sober. :P
Post by: scriver on March 06, 2016, 09:28:00 am
Post by: Tack on March 06, 2016, 12:14:37 pm
Not truly awful, but a few moments of getting cockblocked killed the vibe, and I didn't attempt anything awesome after that.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 06, 2016, 01:14:25 pm
Post by: Cruxador on March 06, 2016, 02:06:13 pm
So I found out my Local Game Store closed its doors for good last November.Alas, this cruel mistress. With one hand she giveth, with the other she taketh away. The age of the internet is one of poverty as well as prosperity.
Post by: Jimmy on March 06, 2016, 05:23:04 pm
Post by: miauw62 on March 06, 2016, 06:35:56 pm
Anyway, that store is basically the concentration of nerds in this town. They play mtg once a month and also have a DnD campaign, so I'm lucky to have found them.
Post by: Tack on March 06, 2016, 08:39:44 pm
My town has a single LGS, which also doubles as a video game store and a store for pens and folders and stuff.
Anyway, that store is basically the concentration of nerds in this town. They play mtg once a month and also have a DnD campaign, so I'm lucky to have found them.
Yeah my old town had an anime store which doubled as the LGS and was the vibrant nerd-hub of the town.
Post by: Kadzar on March 06, 2016, 09:36:41 pm
Post by: Yoink on March 07, 2016, 01:21:43 am
Blackjack and hookers optional, but recommended.
Post by: Cheesecake on March 07, 2016, 05:57:57 am
I need help getting stats for regular kids. They're Commoner class until they begin Adventurer Academy, but I'm giving them really high numbers in one stat that their archetype uses.
So is an 8 in all stats, with like a 12-14 in one stat, reasonable for mysteriously-gifted human kids?
Post by: Jimmy on March 07, 2016, 06:21:44 am
Maybe this means some of you guys should start your own gaming stores?Considered it, but doubt the demand is high enough in my local area market to justify the setup costs and advertising budget. I couldn't afford rent on a major shopping mall retail outlet and survive for more than two years at a negative GP margin, and a minor retail outlet simply wouldn't generate enough business to meet costs.
Blackjack and hookers optional, but recommended.
Post by: Sergius on March 07, 2016, 11:47:55 am
So I'm running a game on another forum using 5e rules. It's about humans running away from a nuclear world war into a fantasy world where humans didn't exist. The protagonists are a party of kids going to what's basically Adventurer Academy. Think of it as D&D Harry Potter.
I need help getting stats for regular kids. They're Commoner class until they begin Adventurer Academy, but I'm giving them really high numbers in one stat that their archetype uses.
So is an 8 in all stats, with like a 12-14 in one stat, reasonable for mysteriously-gifted human kids?
How about, roll the stats normally using whatever 5E method (random, preset), then give each stat 1d6 "negative levels" of some sort for young age or something. Well, if they're going to grow up during the campaign or something. Otherwise, just use a smaller array I suppose.
The standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
You could do something like 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, 8 as suggested in this link (http://tribality.com/2016/02/19/younger-characters-for-dd-5e/). Not sure if there's an "objective" array you could come up with, they all seem pretty arbitrary.
Post by: Tack on March 07, 2016, 11:58:01 am
Maybe this means some of you guys should start your own gaming stores?
Blackjack and hookers optional, but recommended.
Something about pen & paper gamers, gambling and sex which doesn't seem to mesh.
Post by: miauw62 on March 07, 2016, 05:59:43 pm
Post by: GiglameshDespair on March 07, 2016, 06:33:02 pm
Post by: Culise on March 07, 2016, 06:40:56 pm
pen & paper, mtg with ante and hentai?
Well, MtG does technically have a rule specifying that the removal of one's pants is faster than a mana source. :P
Post by: Neyvn on March 08, 2016, 04:37:16 am
From this post over the next 6 or so hours.
Post by: Cheesecake on March 08, 2016, 07:01:04 am
snip
snip
Thanks! This is just what I needed.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 10, 2016, 03:01:42 am
The next night, after watching a bit of Blade 2, we got hungry and decided to sneak out for a bite. Particularly since the Malkavian woke up as some famous mobster named Frankie. (He didn't seem to notice or mind being in a woman's body). I was a little hesitant, but it had been almost 24 hours, and nobody was watching the hall. Besides, not like a 1STR Mekhet like me could stop the Malkavian and Gangrel even had I wanted.
Basically we went bar hopping. Turns out vampires can totally get drunk by spending a little blood to digest. At the first bar we came close to causing a masquerade violation, because "Frankie" had a pile of over a dozen shots with more coming. Keeping in mind "he" was actually a fairly light young woman. Fortunately the Gangrel was a former bouncer, and we had been enjoying a single drink each. I talked to "Frankie" as the gangrel dragged "him" out.
It was around this time that the gangrel thought she saw someone tailing us, but wasn't sure enough to mention it. I assume the local vampires were keeping tabs on the newbies, possibly concerned.
Kinda understandable. Being buzzed, buzzed, and blind drunk, we... kinda failed to hire some hookers in a parking garage. Since we had no cash at all left on hand. Some burly men approached us at which point Frankie started waving his revolver around. We dragged him off while the bouncers backed away quickly.
A few hours later we found a quieter bar on the outskirts of town. This time we didn't drink... blood. Frankie told a huge drunk guy "he" had some pretty friends outside looking for fun. Worked perfectly, the Gangrel pulled the dude into the alley (though he almost shook free, actually!) We took turns, and finished the night almost full. Though we all got really drunk from the blood alcohol!
We didn't kill the guy, but Frankie actually lost a humanity point for stealing the guy's wallet and not being at all sorry. Being a Ventrue, he almost gained a new derangement too, but lucked out.
Frankie and I flubbed out streetwise+wits spectacularly, having no idea how to get back home. The Gangrel actually got 4 successes on 4 dice (and as Gangrel, the dice didn't explode and 1's would have been negating!). Rather appropriately, the former bouncer led our drunk asses home where we watched Blade 2, Blade Trinity, and started Bladerunner before falling asleep.
We only got 3 experience but eh, we didn't exactly foil any plots. Just managed to feed without getting ourselves killed.
Ironically I didn't drink anything but virgin V8 juice. I had a fresh bottle of rum but didn't feel any desire for it, was having plenty of fun already.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 10, 2016, 05:04:53 am
Post by: Mephisto on March 10, 2016, 08:40:29 am
I finally decided to ask some coworkers if they wanted to play in a different type of group. As I've said, I've got lots of games. I've played two of them (one of which through Mythic Game Master Emulator (http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/page14/page9/page9.html) so I'm not entirely sure it counts). My idea was to pull a book off of the shelf, make characters, and then run through a one-shot or short adventure before starting the process again with a new system.
And now I have a problem. The number of games coupled with various work-related depression shenanigans result in analysis paralysis. As 2/3 coworkers started with D&D 5th Edition, I considered going way back to Basic Set, 3d6 straight down, etc. It was made for a different age, however. I don't think I could run a game where first-level magic-users and clerics have one and zero spells per day, respectively.
Post by: Jimmy on March 10, 2016, 08:58:53 am
Or, y'know, something less crunchy like homebrew. You can do a lot with the 5e advantage/disadvantage mechanics, for example. Honestly, unless they're all super-nerds, it's probably best to save breaking out the retro gaming rules for the old grognard crowd and keep things fast paced.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 10, 2016, 06:15:58 pm
Amused happy rant:
I'm pretty sure I even saw one discipline (vampire power) that *did* specify what to do with a tie, but it's hard to search these books. They are ABSURDLY wordy, bits of mechanics sandwiched between long tracts of fluff. The main 9 stats are explained between three interlaced short stories. It's kinda great, but it makes it hard to find hard rules.
Oh and then the clanbooks just intentionally retcon certain aspects of the setting. And I don't mean all the clans claiming Rasputin (though they do), I mean the main book says you have to feed the victim blood immediately after they die in order to make a new vampire. The Mekhet book is like "Haha people think that but it's wrong, you can embrace victims who've undergone total mummification and sat in the ground for like a week."
And the Armory book! "Contrary to popular belief, suppressors can be made for all firearms, including shotguns and revolvers". That popular belief? THE CORE RAW lol.
Basically the rules are a lot softer than 3.5e and we're really enjoying that so far. I'm still sick of Tome of Battle hijinks, so many hard rules interacting with each other in weird ways. Rules lawyering was fun for a while but I got tired of *having* to do it just to resolve every battle. I wasn't even using the weird complicated rules (until the last few sessions).
Edit: Well we haven't done much combat yet to be fair, but it's relatively simple. Most interactions are really just "Add an appropriate stat to an appropriate skill, whatever the Story Teller approves you using, roll that many d10 and count successes". With roll20, super easy.
Er so yeah what do we do for ties?
Post by: Twinwolf on March 10, 2016, 06:18:47 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 10, 2016, 06:35:58 pm
Almost all of what we look up is vampire stuff. Like being low on blood and thinking "Hey do I need to make a roll to resist hunger frenzy". Or "Can I adopt a bloodline at 1 potency or do I need 2". I coulda sworn we need 2, but then I couldn't find that rule later despite several minutes of searching. But it's cool, the rules are soft so it really didn't matter either way. Bloodlines are fun and fluffy after all, mine is pretty unhelpful (mnemosyne) but it's nifty and flavorful for my espionage character.
On the other hand, I just found the actual grapple rules and oh jeez. We weren't doing it right. They're pretty much equivalent in complexity with the 3.5e ones, similar in many ways... Not actually all *that* bad, but likely to slow things down if things go wrong.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 10, 2016, 08:46:26 pm
I think it has to do with combat systems being turn base, and trying to resolve these two folks in their separate initiative order from the rest.
Post by: Mephisto on March 10, 2016, 09:38:55 pm
There are no such thing as good grapple rules. Not even in Wrestling focus RPGs, which their entire combat system are about the grapple.
Lies. My system of choice has an entire supplement (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/martialarts/technicalgrappling/) dedicated to the subject. Can you say the same?
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 10, 2016, 10:03:53 pm
*See F.A.T.A.L.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 10, 2016, 10:07:24 pm
I mean sure it's a complicated thing, but the last thing I want is an entire book dedicated to it
I want the rules to be as simple and understandable as possible, considering how complicated it is. At the expense of realism. Perhaps with optional rules for added realism, if the group wants.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 10, 2016, 10:11:49 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 10, 2016, 10:14:01 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on March 10, 2016, 10:14:18 pm
Post by: Mephisto on March 10, 2016, 10:21:52 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on March 10, 2016, 11:25:49 pm
Apparently druids can have a shark for an animal companion. What.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 10, 2016, 11:27:53 pm
Other options: Porpoise, squid. Probably other stuff at higher levels.
Edit: Technically different, but paladin with shark mount: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0479.html
Post by: Spehss _ on March 11, 2016, 12:02:01 am
I guess there's spells that could be used so the shark could breathe air and levitate, that'd solve the two most glaring problems for a shark out of water. Maybe an enchanted amulet item.
Post by: Toaster on March 11, 2016, 12:35:34 am
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 11, 2016, 12:41:17 am
Characters with super strength or elasticity or the like have grapple modifiers so massive it may as well be "Grapple Modifier: +Yes"
Like I think the sample Brick character has like over +20 or so.
Post by: Jimmy on March 11, 2016, 12:46:22 am
If we're optimizing it:
Druid Animal Companion: Shark
Spells: Anthropomorphic Animal + Permanency (Int = 3, land speed, retains bite attack)
Equipment: Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone (survive without air)
Total: 25,500 gp to run around with a shark-man animal companion that bites stuff.
Post by: Gentlefish on March 11, 2016, 01:02:38 am
Land Sharks have been a thing in D&D since the Gygax days.
If we're optimizing it:
Druid Animal Companion: Shark
Spells: Anthropomorphic Animal + Permanency (Int = 3, land speed, retains bite attack)
Equipment: Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stone (survive without air)
Total: 25,500 gp to run around with a shark-man animal companion that bites stuff.
Sorry but I've thought about this. You only need two spells: Aboleth Lung and Sky Swim. Neither can be permanent, but the magic items aren't (too) expensive.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 11, 2016, 02:04:38 am
E: For that matter, any sort of corruption system would work just as well.
Post by: Yoink on March 11, 2016, 02:43:23 am
Heh, stupid city-dwellers, they'd fall for anything. :P
Post by: MrWiggles on March 11, 2016, 04:21:59 am
Does anyone have a nice, simple, yet fully featured Insanity system? Any game should work; I just need a base.Insanity in games tend to be treated as a Health Pool 2, except you're given role playing weights when you reach thresholds inside of it.
E: For that matter, any sort of corruption system would work just as well.
Call of Cthulu is the grand daddy, but also arguably the most zany, as the type of thing you can get, are genetic, or environmental and dont have to relate to what caused you to become stressed.
Black Night Agents has a sanity system, that more grounded but its still just a Health Pool 2.
Eclipse Phase has a sanity system, that seems to be pretty heavily influence by CoC. Though that game lets you heal physical damage pretty quickly with crazy nano medicine or changing physical body, and its mental stress that really lingers.
The stand alone Delta Green system has a pretty nifty Stress System. It still treats it as Health Pool 2, with rp weights when you reach threshold however, its ties it in with your Relationships. You can use your relationships to soak stress damage, which can then lead you to becoming more detached from them. Representing your withdraw from your humanity. And when you take a certain category of Stress you can become deaden to it, but you no longer gain stress from it.
Red Markets, at least to the alpha I am listening to, it stress system is pretty neat. When you're out on a mission and you suffer a break from Stress, you get to pick 3 option. Catatonic, Flight or Fight. And each time you break with Stress you have to pick one, but a different one and I think if you exhaust them, you're insane, I think?
Post by: Rolan7 on March 11, 2016, 10:15:16 am
Basically if you do a bad thing (even if you're forced or coerced) you have to roll a degeneration check. If you *fail* the check, you rationalize what you did, and your moral character erodes. If you pass the check you feel true regret and maintain your values. Like most WoD rolls it's expected for the storyteller to add modifiers based on how the player RPs the situation. Like, one of our party stole a guy's wallet for no reason and explicitly didn't give a crap: He got a -2 which meant basically no chance to pass (there was a slight chance of his conscience speaking up, I guess).
Thing is, now that he has 6 humanity instead of 7, he never has to roll degeneration for petty theft again. He'd have to do grand theft, like burglary, or something worse like assault. Most vampires stabilize at about 5 humanity apparently, where any amount of theft is okay but arson or manslaughter still worries their remaining conscience.
It's actually related to sanity because, every time a character loses humanity, they have to roll for "derangement". If they can't keep it together, they get a psychological problem from their inner turmoil. Typical example is vampires believing they hear the souls of their victims for several hours after feeding. This can happen from particularly traumatic events too, though, like a character who nearly dies gains a phobia. There's a long list of possible derangements, and it can be random or up to the storyteller.
Edit: So in a nutshell: WoD characters can go crazy from seeing traumatic things. But if they get jaded and amoral, they become resistant. Though vampires with high humanity get interesting benefits, if they can maintain it. Regaining lost humanity costs a lot of experience points.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 11, 2016, 06:43:52 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 11, 2016, 08:16:57 pm
And there are mechanics, though... yeah it's mostly stuff that probably doesn't come up in regular play, like "how long you stay in torpor". But also "how easy is it to stay awake during the day". And at 4 humanity you noticeably look like a corpse without makeup, and at 2-3 humans instinctively know "within minutes" that they're "in the presence of a monster".
Of course, my allies merit is for fellow hackers... Some of which apparently got ghoulified as part of my embrace... I'd probably be fine, but I'm aiming for 5 anyway (Robbing civilians is fine, but not major arson). Maybe even 6, since my character is well-off and primarily steals secrets instead of cash. It's about the rush anyway, not the wealth.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 11, 2016, 08:27:13 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on March 12, 2016, 12:12:43 am
Questions about skills. Book describes assigning skills based on the character's skill ranks per level by class and bonus from the int modifier. Then lists skills in the class page. A barbarian gets 4 ranks per level. So a level 1 barbarian gets 4 ranks for starting skills. My barb has an int modifier of -2. Does this mean I only have 2 ranks or do I simply not get any extra ranks from int bonus for each level? And can I only select skills for my barb from the list of skills described in the class page for the barbarian?
Post by: Rolan7 on March 12, 2016, 12:31:39 am
Apparently Pathfinder did a weird thing (compared to 3.5e) such that you can spend your skill points in cross-class skills with no penalty. You just get a +3 bonus on every class skill that you have any ranks in.
(By comparison, in 3.5e it cost two skill points to buy a rank in a non-class skill)
Post by: Jimmy on March 12, 2016, 01:21:29 am
Also remember that any permanent increases in Intelligence modifier retroactively apply bonus ranks to skills in Pathfinder. If it's from an item, such as a Headband of Intelligence, your skill bonus is by default a random Knowledge skill without the item being specifically crafted to grant something different. If the increase is from another source such as a level increase or a Wish spell, you can choose where the skill ranks get spent. This still doesn't allow you to exceed your natural maximum for ranks in a particular skill however.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 12, 2016, 03:15:55 am
Huh I'm interested to hear more about that! We're all new to the whole system though, just finished our second session, so we're taking it seriously.
And there are mechanics, though... yeah it's mostly stuff that probably doesn't come up in regular play, like "how long you stay in torpor". But also "how easy is it to stay awake during the day". And at 4 humanity you noticeably look like a corpse without makeup, and at 2-3 humans instinctively know "within minutes" that they're "in the presence of a monster".
Of course, my allies merit is for fellow hackers... Some of which apparently got ghoulified as part of my embrace... I'd probably be fine, but I'm aiming for 5 anyway (Robbing civilians is fine, but not major arson). Maybe even 6, since my character is well-off and primarily steals secrets instead of cash. It's about the rush anyway, not the wealth.
Well, just remember universal rule Zero. Play the game how you want. WoD had /lots/ of books and lots of supplements. That added more secret societies inside secret societies. In the book I particularly named, there were powers for stopping and reversing time. And some vampire cult has access to a city in the ghost realm, that gets nuked with an atomic bomb, because there are ghost versions of atomic bombs...
Post by: Sergius on March 12, 2016, 10:20:03 am
On other news, this sunday my RPG group could be playing in my Star Control 2 campaign. First session/episode/thing is going to be 10-8 years before the game event, players are kids trying to sneak into the Unzervalt Precursor factory and kickstart the whole Flagship construction thing (so they're basically The Captain, except several). After which there will be a time skip to year 2155 and junk.
I think I'm going to use the whole Atomic Robo rules as is. Skill modes, infinite "science" skills, maybe even allow that Brainstorming mechanic. For the start episode, I'm only let them use the 2 lower Skill Mode slots (standard modes only), then when they grow up they can add a third mode, even a Weird one. And shuffle all 3 modes as they see fit. Maybe even swap one out.
Like I think I mentioned before, Space Battles will just be the PCs standing on some sort of movable map zones (the ships), and attacking / getting attacked individually. So damage to ships = damage to crew (very Star Controlly!). Depending on ship size, the ship could have one or two groups of Mobs in addition to named characters. Ships blow up if everyone inside dies (PCs getting "taken out" without dying will need to get handled in a per-case basis). For the global zone map for space battles, I'm thinking a circular planet zone, with another ring zone around it, surrounded by 4 or more zones in a circle, and another complete ring on the outside. To imitate the wrap-around nature of SC2 battles.
I just hope they all don't decide to play Scion instead in the last moment.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 12, 2016, 11:14:51 am
Post by: Sergius on March 12, 2016, 11:28:33 am
Then I realized, the only skills used in SC2 are Turn Left, Turn Right, Primary and Secondary :P
So, yeah, the focus will have to change a lot for proper roleplaying, doesn't seem that weird to focus on less shooty stuff.
Also, more off-ship stuff will definitely be needed.
I am very excited to hear about that campaign!! Star Control 2 is a great setting, and it sounds like you've put a lot of work into mechanics specifically for it.
EDIT: Less work than you think, actually. Could probably fit it in half a dozen post-it notes. I'm sorta going out of the way trying to do as little "system hacking" as possible, and conveniently enough it fits with how ship damage is handled in SC2 :)
FakeEDIT1.1: Another thing, to avoid dropping the players in space and tell them "yeah go wherever", I'm going to try to give them a more focused play. Well, sorta like missions. Not that I'll give missions, but they decide what to do before leaving port, then run the whole thing as a scenario over 2-3 sessions, until the moment they finish whatever it is they set out to do (explore a specific sector, find a race, find a clear spindle, I dunno) and then they end up either back home or at some other docking point in the story. I hope that doesn't feel like a railroad, but I want "episodes" to have at least some semblance of structure. No "going back to refuel" every 2 hours or whatever :P
Easier to run scenes that way I suppose. For example, give them a conflict scene, a talky scene, and a challenge scene in whatever order.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 13, 2016, 02:43:59 am
But we only got a paltry 3 XP for our first outing. (The second session. Nothing for the first session, our embrace).
Yeah I know we haven't accomplished anything of note yet... But still, I *DESPERATELY* hunger for experience. Upgrading my primary attributes would be absurdly expensive, I just want to buy relatively cheap cross-class upgrades. IE, strength and melee weaponry.
I can wait. But every time the Skype pings, I get a little rush.
I can't wait to see how things go now that "that player" is gone. Well, and we're playing a system that's completely different from 3.5e...
Post by: Fniff on March 13, 2016, 04:14:34 pm
Does anyone have any recommendations for interesting faction systems in other RPGs that I could rip off?
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2016, 03:43:40 am
Honestly I don't think the 3.5 grappling rules are actually that complex... :/ It's... Er A couple of checks and then you have a list of actions you can do? Once you get used to it it's really not any harder then normal combat.Compare them to the 3.5 swordplay rules though: Roll one die, add a modifier that's written on your character sheet, and see if it beats a number already calculated for the enemy monster. One roll, everything all nice and sorted ahead of time.
Now compare either of them to, say, Song of Swords.
Post by: Harry Baldman on March 14, 2016, 09:18:38 am
I'm homebrewing a NWoD-based communist spy thriller. I'm lacking systems for factions, which I think should be more active (I.E. rules for interactions between factions) than the vanilla systems.
Does anyone have any recommendations for interesting faction systems in other RPGs that I could rip off?
You could check out the faction system in Stars Without Number as a starting point. It's pretty loose from what I've gathered, but apparently pretty easy to port into other games as well.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 14, 2016, 10:02:17 am
Honestly I don't think the 3.5 grappling rules are actually that complex... :/ It's... Er A couple of checks and then you have a list of actions you can do? Once you get used to it it's really not any harder then normal combat.Compare them to the 3.5 swordplay rules though: Roll one die, add a modifier that's written on your character sheet, and see if it beats a number already calculated for the enemy monster. One roll, everything all nice and sorted ahead of time.
Eh, that's a sword strike at it's very base, and even then it's not like, massively more simple then a grapple. Once you start adding in situational feats modifiers buffs class abilities and other effects it can quickly rise to be even more complex (of course, the same could be said for grappling, but w/e). If you're using a martial class then your sword play can become even more complex then spell casting!
Post by: Tack on March 14, 2016, 10:47:57 am
The DM has encouraged creativity with our character design, so I play a gearforged sniper.
Gunslinger 1 (Musket Master) - Unchained Rogue (Sniper).
So far, it's freaking fun. I use a 3rd party gun (Jezail), so I get a staggering 60ft of range (longbows are 110, muskets are 40).
It's fun. I do nothing but called shots and fuck people up with my 2d8+2d6 kapow. (Then a turn of reloading, but who's perfect?)
Gearforged, in other news, are magical clockwork constructs.
Their only real downside is the staggering 2k gold every two levels "memory wheel" tax.
In return I'm immune to basically every meatbag ailment, switch out sleep for 4 hours maintenance, and most importantly cannot be fatigued, exhausted or burdened.
Which is good, because traditional horses can't carry me.
So it's pretty fun that my party rides ahead and I catch up a day later, trodding through the night with an oversized rifle slung over my shoulder.
I Like creativity.
(Right up until someone remembers I'm basically X from Y)
Post by: scrdest on March 14, 2016, 12:02:07 pm
I'm homebrewing a NWoD-based communist spy thriller. I'm lacking systems for factions, which I think should be more active (I.E. rules for interactions between factions) than the vanilla systems.Check out Night's Black Agents core and the Double Tap supplement. As a spy-thriller-based system, it has a ton of information on the operations of the kind of groups you'd be looking for, structure - pyramid-based, with increasing reach of power, i.e. top level being transnational, then national, down to members only able to project power within a single city, and such.
Does anyone have any recommendations for interesting faction systems in other RPGs that I could rip off?
Double Tap has ideas on handling factions teamed up as part a larger organization breaking down relations and eventually openly feuding so that the players can dismantle said antagonistic organization by letting it tear itself apart rather than having to do it yourself top to bottom.
Post by: Kadzar on March 14, 2016, 02:29:06 pm
If you want a simpler faction system (from the same author), the one from Godbound (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4qCWY8UnLrcRGxjSmFqSWEyMk0&usp=drive_web) is pretty good.I'm homebrewing a NWoD-based communist spy thriller. I'm lacking systems for factions, which I think should be more active (I.E. rules for interactions between factions) than the vanilla systems.
Does anyone have any recommendations for interesting faction systems in other RPGs that I could rip off?
You could check out the faction system in Stars Without Number as a starting point. It's pretty loose from what I've gathered, but apparently pretty easy to port into other games as well.
Post by: Cruxador on March 14, 2016, 02:41:38 pm
If you're using a martial class then your sword play can become even more complex then spell casting!Well, comparing a sword strike to the act of casting a single spell, anyway. Not compared to casting the full breadth of spells available with access to metamagic and other casting feats.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 15, 2016, 12:54:11 pm
So already we have all the complexity of a martial character, plus the complexity of several lists of unique not-spells to cast. Sorta like a bard... Well, it gets a lot worse. Many of these abilities simply replace a standard action, which is fine. But then there are a bunch of lingering buffs/effects, "stances" which alter your combat rules passively, and then a huge set of "reaction" abilities which completely grind the game to a halt. Oh, that ogre is charging at me? Hold up! I have Diamond Rhino Faces The Mountain or whatever, I get to roll to make it bounce off and fall down. Let me just look up the specific roll, factor in my martial
Sudden Leap let the user leap as a swift action, which totally messed with battlefield control. Once per combat the barbearian (or my short-lived dervish) would roll a jump check, consult the jump table, and get to move that far as a bonus. Well technically the barbearian could recharge that mid-combat, but I'll get to that.
I think there was one that literally triggered when the enemy hit you with an attack, letting you take an attack of opportunity on them. Except there was also a feat in complete warrior that did the same, I think? Either way the barbearian (with his fuck-off 40 ft range, jesus christ) would take AoOs as enemies attacked, tripping them usually, but if an enemy did somehow manage to hit him, he would counterattack *twice*. And we actually had a major argument over the order the attacks procced in, because one of the books was vague about it.
So yeah, the Tome of Battle really slowed down combat by combining the slowest aspects of martial and spellcasting. That's the main reason I hated it, even when I used it. But also? It was BS in other ways.
These classes can't wait to recover their spells daily like proper casters. Instead, they each have *their own way* to recover. From memory:
Warblades (like our barbearian) get the least spells known and prepared at once, but they can recharge one per round with a swift action "flourish"... Or I think, simply by striking somebody. Such bs.
Swordsages (like my dervish) had to meditate for a full round, I think. So basically I got all my spells back after every combat - and picked the spells from a much larger set of lists. Oh, there wasn't one list... there were like 8 schools, and each class had access to different ones. I think swordsages got all but 1-2, and exclusive access to some schools that are basically just combat sorcery. Shooting flame, blinking or going invisible with shadow, it was crazy.
Crusaders were WEIRD. I'm pretty sure they had to roll EACH ROUND to randomly see what abilities they had available for the round! Maybe it was per encounter, I don't know, but it was a hilariously complicated roll of course. Fortunately we didn't use them.
So yeah, these special snowflakes got their abilities back with a "short rest" before that was a thing, or the warblade basically just kept using them will-nilly. These abilities that interrupted the game constantly. This was kinda frustrating as a cleric, and I don't know how the wizard felt. I think we just tried to bear it, since we both knew that primary spellcasters are OP at later levels (which we were entering).
But surely the barbearian warblade didn't have access to many abilities, since he only took a 1 level dip? HAHA, this is where it just gets weird! These insanely OP and overcomplicated classes are specifically designed to be dipped into! When you dip, you effectively get a bonus of half your other levels! And I don't just mean to your
But that just really cheesed me off as a primary spellcaster, where any bit of multiclassing absolutely crippled my main ability. Even the special prestige classes essentially had taxes on advancing in casting.
It's a shame really, because the book had surprisingly good fluff. I like the idea of making martial characters relevant at later levels, and this tries to do that... By making them whacky casters with generously scaling abilities. I think I see a lot of the Tome of Battle in PF and 5th edition, where I think these concepts were executed better. And spellcasters got in on the fun too (thinking of cantrips).
Post by: Spehss _ on March 15, 2016, 03:02:29 pm
Since all my pathfinder shit is currently in pdf format I guess that means I'd need to take my laptop in order to bring along the rule books.
Post by: BlackFlyme on March 15, 2016, 03:10:18 pm
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ here is the official player reference document. It only really tracks core stuff though, not any splatbook or module material.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ is good for looking things up, though sometimes they don't mark third-party stuff, and due to licensing reasons, they omit copyright names.
http://archivesofnethys.com/ tracks things much better, and is allowed to mention Pathfinder specific material, such as deities.
Post by: MrWiggles on March 15, 2016, 08:17:04 pm
So, as a total newbie to playing tabletop rpgs, what materials should I be expected to bring to a game group, such as a group at a local game shop? I'd think I would need for a pathfinder game to bring the core rulebook, character sheet + extra paper and/or notes on character + pencil, and a set of dice.Your own dice. Lots of gambler fallacy with gamer and dice. Dont touch other folk dice without permission. Bring pencils, and a note book for note taking.
Since all my pathfinder shit is currently in pdf format I guess that means I'd need to take my laptop in order to bring along the rule books.
And some sorts snack item.
And a smooth 20 dollar bill for the GM. To you know gain illicit favors from them. Or handies under the table. Whatever your fancy.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 15, 2016, 08:22:47 pm
And a smooth 20 dollar bill for the GM. To you know gain illicit favors from them. Or handies under the table. Whatever your fancy.Bring two, in case you want both.
Post by: nenjin on March 15, 2016, 08:32:14 pm
Long and short of it is, the party is on a vengeance quest to find and exterminate the Ork Freebooter Kaptin wot smashed their home world. They've followed his trail to the edge of Imperial space and beyond. The Captain is a madman who makes big decisions on a whim. A lot of drug smuggling was done pretty much the instant the party left Imperial space. An Imperial colony may have been savagely enslaved and sold to aliens, only to be bought back later and given their freedom. An ancient human AI definitely was attacked to the point it self-destructed rather than leave its remains and its city as spoils to the crew. A saboteur on the ship was caught, lobotomized, made into a servitor and currently scoops up dog poop on the bridge. His name is Diddles. The ship is about to travel to an ill-omened system in search of a man who can sell them Warp Navigation charts so they can explore the system further and track down the Ork Freebooter Kaptin.
Post by: Toaster on March 15, 2016, 09:33:54 pm
If I've never DMed before and wanted to try to do so for three players who haven't played any tabletop RPGs before, how much trouble am I likely to get myself into if I invented a quick and dirty system based off Roll to Dodge (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=19.0) rules? I'd rather not try to DM something like D&D that I've only ever played once before ages ago (as in 2nd edition ages ago.) I have a sort of vague idea for system implementation in my head, but before I sit and flesh anything out I'd like to make sure I'm not biting off more than I can chew.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 15, 2016, 09:42:19 pm
Random thought question:
If I've never DMed before and wanted to try to do so for three players who haven't played any tabletop RPGs before, how much trouble am I likely to get myself into if I invented a quick and dirty system based off Roll to Dodge (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=19.0) rules? I'd rather not try to DM something like D&D that I've only ever played once before ages ago (as in 2nd edition ages ago.) I have a sort of vague idea for system implementation in my head, but before I sit and flesh anything out I'd like to make sure I'm not biting off more than I can chew.
You could probably make that work.
Maybe you should check out a game called Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/about/about-fudge/fudge-overview.html), which is supposedly pretty simple, and only needs a handful of six sided dice. Basic rules are free, too.
Post by: Cruxador on March 16, 2016, 12:49:51 pm
I'd agree except for the Tome of Battle.Design-wise it's onlly sort of 3.5, but yeah, it does endeavor to do somethign about this.
Quote
First off, maneuvers are practically spells.Not this fucking bullshit again. I thought people got tired of ill-conceived rants about this when we got a new edition to war over instead. And we have TWO new editions now. Fuck.
Most have supernatural or even spell-like effects (literally casting fire, bolstering teammates, removing status effects etc).[/quote]The ones that are supposed to be supernatural, yes. The ones that aren't, no. The book lists one of the most supernatural schools first, which can give a false impression, but the system overall isn't magical in nature.
Quote
So already we have all the complexity of a martial character,ie zilch
Quote
plus the complexity of several lists of unique not-spells to cast. Sorta like a bard... Well, it gets a lot worse. Many of these abilities simply replace a standard action, which is fine. But then there are a bunch of lingering buffs/effects, "stances" which alter your combat rules passively, and then a huge set of "reaction" abilities which completely grind the game to a halt. Oh, that ogre is charging at me? Hold up! I have Diamond Rhino Faces The Mountain or whatever, I get to roll to make it bounce off and fall down. Let me just look up the specific roll, factor in my martialYou have specific actions you can do and you can assume specific modifier-sets. And it's all in D&D's tedious but simple system. It's only going to slow you down if you don't know what your character can do.spellcasting"initiator" level...
Quote
Warblades (like our barbearian) get the least spells known and prepared at once, but they can recharge one per round with a swift action "flourish"... Or I think, simply by striking somebody. Such bs.Calling something bs without justification has as great value as saying "I dislike a thing", because that's literally all you're doing. Applying terminology from one system to another only makes sense when the systems actually work the same; when they don't it's disingenuous and all it really conveys is that you don't understand either system.
Quote
So yeah, these special snowflakes got their abilities back with a "short rest" before that was a thing, or the warblade basically just kept using them will-nilly.Yes, a martial character can use his martial abilities "willy-nilly". How strange, to think that there's no arbitrary restrictions on sword moves!
Quote
These abilities that interrupted the game constantly.They're part of the game. It's not like that guy that's on his phone half the time.
Quote
This was kinda frustrating as a cleric, and I don't know how the wizard felt.If you think this is bad, you should try playing a martial character in a game with spellcasters. Tome of Battle brought martial characters up to a fraction of the level of casters.
Quote
it's broken as fuck.For 3.5 standards, not really. Tome of Battle is definitely vastly less broken than the core player's handbook, anyway.
Quote
But that just really cheesed me off as a primary spellcaster, where any bit of multiclassing absolutely crippled my main ability. Even the special prestige classes essentially had taxes on advancing in casting.This is a separate issue, the systems aren't intertwined at all.
Quote
I think I see a lot of the Tome of Battle in PF and 5th edition, where I think these concepts were executed better.It's almost like a decade of game design and playtesting makes a difference.
Quote
And spellcasters got in on the fun too (thinking of cantrips).They did in 3.5 too, that's what Warlocks were.
So, as a total newbie to playing tabletop rpgs, what materials should I be expected to bring to a game group, such as a group at a local game shop? I'd think I would need for a pathfinder game to bring the core rulebook, character sheet + extra paper and/or notes on character + pencil, and a set of dice.Maybe also some money to chip in for snacks, it depends on your group.
Since all my pathfinder shit is currently in pdf format I guess that means I'd need to take my laptop in order to bring along the rule books.
Are you the DM? It's typically on them to carry the books around. Usually we just use our phones/tablets to look stuff up if needed.This is neither typical nor good manners for a player.
Random thought question:Designing a system is harder than running a system you're unfamiliar with. If you want a simple system, I recommend Simple d6 (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Simple_D6_-_Third_Edition) but simple systems aren't the best choice for every group. Getting theatrical and roleplaying can be difficult, and not everyone has the confidence to do it right off the bat. A somewhat heavier system like D&D can provide framework that helps people like that, although alcohol can fill this role as well. A more beer-and-pretzels game with comedy aspects (like, for example, Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)) can also get people going well.
If I've never DMed before and wanted to try to do so for three players who haven't played any tabletop RPGs before, how much trouble am I likely to get myself into if I invented a quick and dirty system based off Roll to Dodge (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=19.0) rules? I'd rather not try to DM something like D&D that I've only ever played once before ages ago (as in 2nd edition ages ago.) I have a sort of vague idea for system implementation in my head, but before I sit and flesh anything out I'd like to make sure I'm not biting off more than I can chew.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 16, 2016, 01:27:12 pm
My problem with it was the way it screwed round economy. The enemy turn got absurdly bogged down by the barbarian's counters, though to be fair he was already a trip-focused character with absurd range. But even if was using strikes, the most straightforward abilities, they tend to rack up all sorts of weird status effects to keep track of. Like not being able to make AoO, losing their move action, their weapon does -4 damage now... And the stances and boosts are even worse.
Whereas my cleric and the wizard were basically just casting healing or evocation. Practically every enemy was undead, so status effects were almost entirely impossible. Eventually I adopted the Tome of Battle myself, and the wizard player made a shapechanging transmutation specialist, out of pure frustration with sitting on our thumbs all battle.
I can see some factors that would make our case particularly bad. But really this is a *massive* bag of buffs to martial characters (without making casters less squishy at low levels). A level 14 barbarian took a single level of warblade and essentially gained 8 levels of combat-casting. A master of DPS *and* battlefield control *and* utility abilities like "moment of a diamond mind" where he got to use his concentration check for will saves.
Whereas my dual-wielding dervish (swordsage) was using Desert Wind boosts to get some extra d6s of fire damage on every strike, moving with a swift action via sudden leap, and... Ah, yes. Keeping a counter of crits because of Blood In The Water, which gave me a +1 to attack *and damage* for every crit of my dual laminated serrated scimitars. Crit range 14-20. Plus the "Shadow Blade" ToB feat (not to be confused with the Shadow Blade Technique in the same book) let me do dex to damage, so that was nice.
I'm not especially complaining that it was powerful, but keeping track of all the modifiers for even a single full attack was nightmarish since they changed every time I crit (and as a dervish, I was full attacking every round while moving). And that's without any counters letting me act on the enemy turn!
But again, our case was particularly bad for several reasons. I just don't think this was particularly well balanced, and I can't imagine it *not* slowing down the game a lot. It wasn't fair to the other players.
Post by: Cruxador on March 16, 2016, 02:14:19 pm
Whereas my cleric and the wizard were basically just casting healing or evocation.Well no wonder they weren't contributing much.
Quote
But really this is a *massive* bag of buffs to martial characters (without making casters less squishy at low levels).Which is fine, considering martials were very weak and someone whose role allows him to stay away from the front lines doesn't need to be too tough.
Quote
A level 14 barbarian took a single level of warblade and essentially gained 8 levels of combat-casting. A master of DPS *and* battlefield control *and* utility abilities like "moment of a diamond mind" where he got to use his concentration check for will saves.And is still less powerful than a competently played druid, for example, who had a better range of abilities from level ~10. What's your point?
Quote
Whereas my dual-wielding dervish (swordsage) was using Desert Wind boosts to get some extra d6s of fire damage on every strike, moving with a swift action via sudden leap, and... Ah, yes. Keeping a counter of crits because of Blood In The Water, which gave me a +1 to attack *and damage* for every crit of my dual laminated serrated scimitars. Crit range 14-20. Plus the "Shadow Blade" ToB feat (not to be confused with the Shadow Blade Technique in the same book) let me do dex to damage, so that was nice.Most of that is stuff that you can put on your character sheet, though, and thus during play is abstracted as "my attack number". The only thing which isn't is your Blood in the Water modifier, which is one number that works the same way each time. If you have a hard time keeping track of what the number was, it would be easy to devise a physical token of some sort to keep it organized.
I'm not especially complaining that it was powerful, but keeping track of all the modifiers for even a single full attack was nightmarish since they changed every time I crit (and as a dervish, I was full attacking every round while moving). And that's without any counters letting me act on the enemy turn!
Quote
I can't imagine it *not* slowing down the game a lot. It wasn't fair to the other players.The same could just as well be said for magic, if you'd used it for anything beyond moving HP up and down.
Post by: RedWarrior0 on March 18, 2016, 11:23:12 pm
DPS *and* battlefield control *and* utility abilities
Grease? Charm Person? Color Spray? Sleep? Silent Image? Ray of Enfeeblement? GLITTERDUST?[/i] Web? Invisibility (which can buff allies, as well)? Slow? Ray of Exhaustion? Haste? Fly? Stinking Cloud?
All of those are level 3 or less Wizard spells, all in core. I challenge you to make a level 5 character from Bo9S who can match that, or even higher for non-Bo9S martial characters. Not just in 1v1 combat (although Fly should make this easy except against someone with a significant money advantage), but in situations that actually show up. Non-combat roles. Dealing with a large number of enemies. Going around problems rather than through them.
Post by: Jimmy on March 19, 2016, 12:59:23 am
Post by: Cruxador on March 22, 2016, 11:08:20 pm
Post by: Tack on March 23, 2016, 12:25:41 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 23, 2016, 12:58:22 am
And some people just want to pretend to be an adolescent girl going shopping. There's only a certain degree of variance in playstyle that a game can take before becoming a mess.And this logic is shit. If you'd like me to, I'll elaborate, but my basic point is two fold; A. If variance in play style is a bad thing, you'll have to remove all classes from the game, and play Commoners, because every class gets something unique. B. If your game is such that nonspellcasters aren't played because they aren't effective, then your point is coming from a skewed perspective, and you'll have a hard time convincing everyone else that it's valid in a wider context.
Post by: Cruxador on March 23, 2016, 03:25:13 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on March 23, 2016, 11:57:13 am
Post by: Sergius on March 27, 2016, 08:58:36 pm
I decided we were going to use the Atomic Robo RPG rules. I started explaining the differences between the rulesets, I was still planning to play a not-so-camp space opera with all starting characters as terran humans, but the players really liked all the crazy stuff in the AR game/comics. So, long story short, they came up with these characters:
- A mad scientist (specializing in robotics, nanotech and something else).
- A robot (built by the scientist) who is also a secret agent.
- A cyborg martial artist / delivery guy / action chef (with science specializing in gastronomy) - he also has a cyber cat that releases an EMP burst if you rub it really hard
- A dragonborn(TM) with occult(?) powers who looks like a human for now. His origin story is basically Hellboy.
Also since everyone is 12 years old, I only let them fill the lowest 2 modes (kinda like archetypes, you get 3 total). Also the robot is also a kid so he's this guy:
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/cartoonnetwork/images/a/ab/Robot_Jones_300.gif/revision/latest?cb=20110518214607)
The other kids's concepts is essentially their grown up versions, so for now they probably just run around in grade schoolyard shouting "I'm a ninja spy!" or whatever.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on April 07, 2016, 07:19:26 pm
Post by: Yoink on April 07, 2016, 07:50:13 pm
Small update on the Fate Star Control/ Ur-Quan Masters game.How is this going?
I decided we were going to use the Atomic Robo RPG rules. I started explaining the differences between the rulesets, I was still planning to play a not-so-camp space opera with all starting characters as terran humans, but the players really liked all the crazy stuff in the AR game/comics. So, long story short, they came up with these characters:
Sounds like it'd be great fun. :)
Post by: Tack on April 10, 2016, 04:07:06 pm
Post by: Sergius on April 10, 2016, 05:59:02 pm
Small update on the Fate Star Control/ Ur-Quan Masters game.How is this going?
I decided we were going to use the Atomic Robo RPG rules. I started explaining the differences between the rulesets, I was still planning to play a not-so-camp space opera with all starting characters as terran humans, but the players really liked all the crazy stuff in the AR game/comics. So, long story short, they came up with these characters:
Sounds like it'd be great fun. :)
Hadn't been able to get together and play for the past 2 weeks, for several reasons, including last week I had to move out from my apartment, and today we had national elections.
Hopefully, next week we'll be able to play some of this, if people don't prefer to play D&D fantasy boardgame wossname.
Post by: Cruxador on April 10, 2016, 07:23:03 pm
Post by: Jimmy on April 11, 2016, 06:26:05 am
Post by: MrWiggles on April 11, 2016, 07:16:46 am
Venture Bros game, probably a one shot, using the (to be soon printed) Delta Green or Trail of Cthulhu systems.
So basically, as the GM, I can do the fun zanny, over the top, pulpy costumes villain and indian jones boulder trap. But then the system is a hard edge to that.
As part of what Venture Bros does, is they have all the larger then life stuff, but they don't forget the human cost and psychic harm caused by these antics.
Post by: Mephisto on April 11, 2016, 07:31:13 am
In case anyone didn't hear yet there's a third edition of unknown armies (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atlasgames/unknown-armies-third-edition-roleplaying-game) coming.
For anyone who is unaware, this is being made by Atlas Games, the creator of Feng Shui (1 & 2), Over the Edge, and the Gloom card game. They also did Ars Magica 5th edition.
I had starred this project before but the quoted post got me to actually go check some reviews. I'm now a backer. Hopefully they send out the PDFs of the previous editions at some point before April 2017 to tide people over.
How about this for an idea.
Venture Bros game, probably a one shot, using the (to be soon printed) Delta Green or Trail of Cthulhu systems.
So basically, as the GM, I can do the fun zanny, over the top, pulpy costumes villain and indian jones boulder trap. But then the system is a hard edge to that.
As part of what Venture Bros does, is they have all the larger then life stuff, but they don't forget the human cost and psychic harm caused by these antics.
Something like Adventure! (https://rpggeek.com/rpg/725/adventure) might also work, if you redo some of the 1940s pulp stuff.
Post by: chaoticag on April 11, 2016, 07:47:22 am
In case anyone didn't hear yet there's a third edition of unknown armies (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atlasgames/unknown-armies-third-edition-roleplaying-game) coming.Huh. I was talking about it with a guy at a con the past weekend who was GMing a 2nd edition runequest game. It's funny how a lot of these things seem to pop up when I consider them semi topical. Or it might just be funny how often I talk about these things. Unfortunately, likely going to put this on the group of games I prolly have no hope of playing (no matter how much I want to).
Post by: Mephisto on April 11, 2016, 08:04:05 am
2nd edition runequest
And now for the most important question.
Chaosium or Mongoose?
Post by: chaoticag on April 11, 2016, 08:25:03 am
Post by: Cruxador on April 11, 2016, 12:23:36 pm
It's also being made by Greg Stolze, the creator of Unknown Armies, and other things.[/quote]In case anyone didn't hear yet there's a third edition of unknown armies (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atlasgames/unknown-armies-third-edition-roleplaying-game) coming.
For anyone who is unaware, this is being made by Atlas Games, the creator of Feng Shui (1 & 2), Over the Edge, and the Gloom card game. They also did Ars Magica 5th edition.
Post by: Fniff on April 17, 2016, 07:28:53 pm
Post by: Yoink on April 17, 2016, 08:04:03 pm
I always get it confused with that vampire RPG. Unless it is that vampire RPG. I don't know. >.>
Post by: Rolan7 on April 17, 2016, 08:07:17 pm
It's New World of Darkness, mostly.
Edit: And I'm very interested, but I can't commit right now... I might sign up tomorrow though.
Post by: Fniff on April 17, 2016, 08:16:13 pm
For the uninitiated, could you give a run-down of what Chronicles of Darkness is, exactly?Basically what Rolan7 said. Gothic horror urban fantasy RPG, vampires werewolf demons wahey, the usual. This time it's set in Ireland during the mid-19th century.
I always get it confused with that vampire RPG. Unless it is that vampire RPG. I don't know. >.>
@Rolan7: Great, can't wait to see what you come up with.
Post by: Sergius on April 18, 2016, 10:31:55 am
Two players showed up. One was an "aspiring mad scientist" who had some sort of nanites that could deconstruct/build stuff as an Aspect, the other was a cyborg ninja delivery guy, with a cyber cat sidekick. Except that in the intro both were 12 year olds; so instead of nanites he had some sort of flying legos that kept running out of batteries, and the other guy wasn't a cyborg yet but he had a Tamagotchi tied to a remote control car.
They lived in the improvised colony of Unzervalt, and attended school. They were the oldest kids (the colony was only 12 years old also). I used the history school class to give some background exposition, then one of their classmates called "Jimmy Proton" (maybe not his real name), who looked and acted essentially like a more annoying version of Kyle's cousin from South Park, told them he had found a cave into the wossname research project (underground vault where kids weren't allowed) but that a huge monster scared him off, and he ran away. But only he knew the "coordinates" to the cave, and needed their help.
They haggled about what share of the "treasure" each would get. This was basically throwing larger and larger numbers which had no semblance to percentages, so they all agreed to sneak out of school. Mr. Mad Scientist Wannabe tried to use his "nanobots" to hack the teachers holo-projector, but they ran out of energy before reaching it (his skills were focused in biotech and not hacking or electronics or whatevs). So the Cat Kid (he hadn't thought of a name yet) tried to use his cat to pick up the nanobots (jury-rigging a sort of "snow plow" attachment from a ruler and some rubber bands using Robotics), but they made too much noise, the teacher noticed, asked who was doing so much racket, and they used Deceived to pin it on other kid, which made the teacher take him to the detention room or wossname.
With the way clear, they snuck out of the classroom, went with Jimmy to the mountain side (right where the guarded checkpoint or door to the archeological site), and he basically searched all on the side of the mountain trying to find the cave. In the end they arrived to a part of the wall with a very conspicuous cardboard sheet covering something. "I camouflaged it!".
They wanted to ditch him, but he said only he knew "the password" to get in. So they went in, and arrived to a medium sized cavern. The password was another piece of cardboard with a keypad drawn on it with magic marker, so they tore it down.
They were ambushed by three of some kind of porcupine-rabbits (the "huge monsters", really about the size of a labrador). One of them backstabbed Jimmy with a quill, and he fell face down on the floor yelling "agh, my allergies".
This started a conflict, with the kids using improvised weapons (cat guy had a "sword" made from circuit boards glued to a stick, the other threw rocks). First one went down almost immediately, then Mad kid started throwing rocks to another one, hitting it in the eye. So the critter got mad, picked up the rock with his fluffy paws and threw it back dealing some decent damage.
This went on for a couple more exchanges, until finally the critters went down or fled. They treated Jimmy with his medication (Mad had to search his pack and use Biotech to find out what meds to use, he ended up mixing a bunch of them. Fun stuff) He didn't feel so well so decided to go back home.
They kept going until they reached a huge cavern, they had to climb down but managed to make it easier by using notice to find a safer path, athletics to go down, using a jump rope to tie to each other. The cavern was full of scientists, there was ancient construction all over the place, and there were makeshift buildings all over (even on the cavern walls) made by the colonists.
They keep sneaking around reaching a tent where they spied a Professor Jules Farnsworth trying to hack into a Precursor AI computer (a sort of block of metal that changed between different shapes such as D&D dice), and moaning that he made no progress in the decade he had been trying.
The PCs found a small generator outside, they moved a few switches and made the lights and equipment in the tent short out. He ran out angry trying to find the "tech" that kept doing that joke on him, and they got inside.
Immediately, the computer started "playing" with them by changing shape, with the cyber cat, to the nanites, and asking if they wanted to play chess or Global Thermonuclear War on a screen that formed on the surface.
While they were distrated, the Professor returned and caught them, but rather than being mad kept asking how they did that. The computer asked if they wanted to "initialize" with a Windows yes/no dialog and he said "YES DO IT!" so the kids complied.
After this was mostly a long cutscene, where there was a sort of Earthquake, lots of robots started emerging and scaring people and knocking off buildings and picking crates of stuff. Long story short: professor was yelled at and threatened by Captain Burton, the de facto leader of the colony. In the end, she calmed down, saw that the robots were building something, Farnsworth took credit, let the kids come and go as they wanted to secretly help him with the AI, and 8 years later the construction stopped and made a half-completed but huge Precursor Tug. (pretty much the events of the videogame's manual intro).
This is more or less where we left it, so next session it's going to be Adult PCs and their adventures, In Space.
Post by: Tack on April 18, 2016, 10:41:12 am
It's rather sad really.
Post by: Cruxador on April 25, 2016, 01:20:46 am
Post by: Emma on April 25, 2016, 04:37:56 am
Someone's running an awesome Steelheart-inspired Superhero FATE game. I'm so psyched, but it's being run online by amekou, so I can't really do it 'cos times.I'd be happy to run a similar style of game, FATE in a Steelheart-inspired universe, if there's interest and people are willing to put up with my fairly mediocre DMING.
It's rather sad really.
Post by: Fniff on May 03, 2016, 05:12:03 pm
Anyone have any tips on keeping up the pace in Roll20 and in roleplays in general?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on May 03, 2016, 05:19:22 pm
So, I'm running a roleplay on Roll20. Everyone is having fun but the pace is slow, scenes dragging and suchlike. It seems to be rooted not in fiddling with the rules as I would expect but the actual roleplaying. I've noticed this with Roll20 games but not with IRC or realtime games, and I'm not sure what causes it.Might it just be the particular players?
Anyone have any tips on keeping up the pace in Roll20 and in roleplays in general?
Post by: Fniff on May 03, 2016, 05:22:14 pm
Post by: kilakan on May 03, 2016, 06:47:25 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on May 04, 2016, 09:40:11 pm
I think it's more that you can say a paragraph in like... 10-15 seconds but actually typing it for the normal person takes a minute or two. Generally r20 text games get slowed down by that, and people wanting to proof read what they are typing.Aye...
Post by: Tack on May 05, 2016, 02:50:00 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 05, 2016, 01:20:30 pm
I think it's more that you can say a paragraph in like... 10-15 seconds but actually typing it for the normal person takes a minute or two.That applies to IRC as well, though.
Post by: Cthulhu on May 05, 2016, 02:48:52 pm
Post by: Yoink on May 06, 2016, 05:45:28 am
I'm suddenly jonesing for black crusade or rogue trader, preferably not with me at the helm since I always have to GM if I want to play something I want to play.Same here.
I'd offer to host something, but I'm a rookie GM and running a campaign in such a defined setting is really daunting...
Post by: Cthulhu on May 06, 2016, 08:16:18 am
Post by: Cheesecake on May 06, 2016, 08:41:37 am
I'm suddenly jonesing for black crusade or rogue trader, preferably not with me at the helm since I always have to GM if I want to play something I want to play.Same here.
Same.
Post by: Tack on May 06, 2016, 10:35:08 pm
Rather keen to. Let us know if we hunt down a wild GM?
Post by: Cthulhu on May 07, 2016, 02:40:42 pm
I'd like to try to break that habit with something more open-ended like RT or BC. Something heavily PC-driven.
Post by: miauw62 on May 16, 2016, 03:14:42 pm
- Next block will be set on Kaladesh
- Commander 2016 will be 4-color
- Intro decks will be two per set and be headed by a planeswalker
- Fat packs cost 3$ more and contain an extra booster. They also lose the useless cardboard deckboxes.
- Planechase Anthology
- "Draft Packs" consisting of three boosters to be released with Conspiracy 2
My prediction for how Kaladesh will look. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIIMJ9tUc8)
Post by: Jimmy on May 17, 2016, 05:42:29 am
Post by: Arx on May 17, 2016, 06:22:02 am
Post by: Cruxador on May 17, 2016, 02:25:54 pm
Post by: Tack on May 17, 2016, 09:32:52 pm
Post by: Jimmy on May 18, 2016, 05:26:52 am
Post by: Tack on May 18, 2016, 05:40:02 am
Literally quality. Or better than quality. Like, a catchphrase or something.
Post by: Jimmy on May 18, 2016, 06:30:06 am
[INTRO:YES]
Bay12 = Beyond Quality.
Post by: Yoink on May 18, 2016, 06:59:44 am
The only answer to that is, depending on who you ask, either 42, 420, or "Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
*shrug* I think Conan's answer is far more acceptable.
Post by: Jimmy on May 18, 2016, 07:18:39 am
*For given values of healthy
Post by: Tack on May 18, 2016, 08:40:32 am
Post by: Spehss _ on May 21, 2016, 08:14:55 pm
Also, is "spells per day" the number of total spells of that level that can be cast that day? Say I have 2 different lvl 1 spells, spell A and spell B, prepared at level 2. Can I cast Spell A and Spell B only once that day? Would I need to prepare two instances of Spell A to cast Spell A twice in one day? Or could I cast either Spell A twice or Spell B twice or Spell A and Spell B once?
Post by: Culise on May 21, 2016, 08:25:06 pm
2. Spells per day is the total spells of that level that can be cast in a day, not including any extra spells per day you gain from your INT bonus (r.f. Ability Modifiers And Bonus Spells table, which can also be found by scrolling down on this page (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/gettingStarted.html#table-1-3-ability-modifiers-and-bonus-spells) of the online OGL). If I recall properly, you do need to prepare two instances of Spell A in Pathfinder if you want to be able to cast Spell A twice, just as in D&D 3.5, though don't hesitate to correct me if that's incorrect.
Post by: Tack on May 22, 2016, 01:25:54 am
Druids on the other hand have all spells forever available and just have to prepare daily.
Post by: Spehss _ on May 22, 2016, 01:44:35 am
Wizards do actually only know a certain number of spells- they can copy new spells into their spellbooks from anywhere though.But they can choose any spell listed in the section of the core rulebook for wizard spells, right? No restriction based on spell category (except if they have a specialty school and are trying to learn a spell from one of their chosen "bad" schools which makes the spell take 2 spell slots to prepare) for what spell they can learn and prepare aside from level limitations?
Post by: Tack on May 22, 2016, 01:53:50 am
Post by: Sergius on June 09, 2016, 11:09:58 am
Our heroes, already having built the Precursor Tugboat/Flagship thing, with the help of a friendly precursor AI, set course to Earth, which they found encased in a red shield.
Anyone who has already played Star Control 2, most of the story went without many deviations. Combats were stupidly easy, like, the entire flagship (with one attack per player plus one for the nigh-useless crew) versus a single damaged Ilwrath, a single Slylandro probe. I suppose it's ok for a tutorial fight. Next time it's going to be the players vs 5 ships or something.
They found the decoys on the moon, tracked the signal to Pluto, were they had to go on foot because something was jamming sensors from the surface.
As they approached a crater, they found a huge Spathi ship, which killed ensign Kowalski with its defense turrets before they could manage to get inside it (they tried to dissolve the lock with nanites, but the Spathi captain agreed to open the door if they cut it out. He also apologized for the accident with the "automated" turrets).
Inside the ship, they walked thru one of the crew compartments, which was filled with cheap plastic Spathi mannequins, modified to send lifesigns to biosensors. Eventually they go to the bridge. One of the PCs snuck under the floor and to the captain's balcony/thingy that was isolated, while another PC climbed on the class to get to the captain, which he desperately tried to discourage with the windshield wipers and washer fluid.
Eventually, they captured him, tied him up, found out his name was Fwiffo, and was the only one left "guarding" Earth, but he got too scared of the sneaky hunams and hid in Pluto. After volunteering all the information about his homeworld, secret password, etc, they managed to recruit him ("huge ship protecting me? where do I sign up...").
In the end they set course for Spathiwa (encountering the lone probe along the way), and that was the end of the session (couple sessions actually).
So, in the meantime before our next session, been trying to think up a way to set up battles in space, using some sort of board. I came up with this thing:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Made up a bunch of rules for the planet, but basically you move one space normally, and roll if you want to move more than one, which is just typical Fate. Then the center zone has some special rules. A ship can only move once regardless of how many characters are controlling it.
(oh yeah, and the outer ring spaces are connected to the one on the opposite side)
I've been working on the ships-as-gadgets from the Atomic Robo ruleset, so I think I may have something going on there. Also made a bunch of decals from all the ship sprites, now I can make tokens 8)
Anyway, back to the regular programming.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 01, 2016, 04:18:01 pm
Pathfinder players, I need help for my brother.
He's going to be playing a game (I'm not in) in which the DM is challenging players to create strange, wild, potentially OP characters using the Race Builder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/raceBuilder/racialTraits.html) rules.
The idea is to go hog wild and find advantages.
As a starting point, he wants to play a strong character. Probably a plant. He considered minotaur, but it's a bit "overplayed". So some manner of treant... I assume with high reach, because apparently that's cheap as hell, but I don't know pathfinder at all.
He's also looking at Rock Throwing which seems pretty great for a strong slow character.
We were talking about Ent, but I think he was hoping for something even more unusual. Remember, the DM is specifically looking for oddball stuff.
(thanks that update Sergius, how has it been going since then? I hope it's working out)
Post by: Sergius on July 01, 2016, 06:31:22 pm
One good piece of feedback I got from our regular DM-guy was that I should treat each "Issue" (2-3 session-long, minor milestone or whatever we call it) as a separate Adventure/Module, rather than just have an open world and drop clues for where to go next.
I did find a VERY useful diagram here (http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m297divHBl1rn1cvho1_1280.png), which I'm going to use to come up with said "Modules".
Post by: Toaster on July 01, 2016, 07:43:34 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 01, 2016, 07:46:23 pm
Post by: Tack on July 01, 2016, 08:09:26 pm
Post by: Jimmy on July 01, 2016, 09:15:10 pm
Minmaxers... Unite?
Pathfinder players, I need help for my brother.
He's going to be playing a game (I'm not in) in which the DM is challenging players to create strange, wild, potentially OP characters using the Race Builder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/raceBuilder/racialTraits.html) rules.
The idea is to go hog wild and find advantages.
As a starting point, he wants to play a strong character. Probably a plant. He considered minotaur, but it's a bit "overplayed". So some manner of treant... I assume with high reach, because apparently that's cheap as hell, but I don't know pathfinder at all.
He's also looking at Rock Throwing which seems pretty great for a strong slow character.
We were talking about Ent, but I think he was hoping for something even more unusual. Remember, the DM is specifically looking for oddball stuff.
(thanks that update Sergius, how has it been going since then? I hope it's working out)
How many racial points does he get? What class does he want to play? What level are we starting at? What amount of magical items does he have access to? Does it include custom items? Can't properly min-max without this info.
Personally I'd drop the Large size idea, since getting that is as simple as drinking a potion of Enlarge Person. You want to ideally pick stuff that isn't offered by any other easily accessed spell or ability, and will apply to almost all situations.
As an example, here's a compilation of stuff I'd put on my shortlist of must haves:
Lucky, Lesser (2 RP) - Flat +1 on all saves that stacks with everything and can't be bought
Spell-Like Ability, Lesser (1-2 RP) - Gain a 1/day spell from any first or second level list. Creativity is key here, but focus on stuff you can't get in potion form, like the Shield spell.
Spell-Like Ability, Greater (3-4 RP) - Gain a 1/day spell from any third or fourth level list. As above, but gets incredibly good when you consider options from the Paladin list like Greater Angelic Aspect or Holy Sword, as well as stuff like being able to cast Stoneskin or Restoration without a material component cost. Creativity is rewarded with this.
Flight (4 RP) - Having flight is an automatic win against some types of enemies, especially at low levels. Worth the cost, though not more than once.
See in Darkness (4 RP) - Screw light and concealment, this means you never have to worry about vision based troubles again, though watch out for invisibility.
Finally, all the stat increase options are good, but my favourites are Dexterity and Constitution, plus the caster stat if you're playing some form of spellcaster or Strength if you're playing a melee character. +2 Dexterity is equal to +1 initiative, +1 AC, +1 reflex saves and +1 on a bunch of skills, and so it's always a good investment. More Constitution is always a good thing, and then you put your final +2 into the stat that matters most to your character role, be it weapon damage or spell saving throw DC.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 01, 2016, 09:40:06 pm
I can probably convince him to take spell-like-abilities, but it'll be a bit tough.
Mostly I think he wants to play a strong melee character with long reach, but also some options, and probably he wants at least *some* ability to negotiate with people. As a player he's damn good at that.
Post by: Sergius on July 02, 2016, 01:26:01 am
It's two diagrams, and both of them are really neat.
Well, one of them is a map actually.
Unless a map counts as a diagram. No idea...
Post by: Jimmy on July 02, 2016, 03:04:31 am
Argh sorry, I thought I said. 30 points.In that case, +2 Strength, Dexterity and Constitution for 12 points, Lesser Lucky, Flight and See in Darkness to take you up to 22 points, then a greater and a lesser spell-like ability and 2 RP to spend wherever you want, such as +1 natural armor or Shadow Resistance to gain cold and electricity resistance 5. Or swap the lesser SLA for a second greater instead. Seriously, what other thing can you take that equals gaining low-light vision, darkvision 60 feet, DR 10/evil, immunity to acid, cold, and petrification, resistance to electricity and fire 10, a +4 racial bonus on saves against poison, protective aura and truespeech as supernatural abilities, a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves against evil creatures, grant all your weapons the ability to bypass DR/good, and a fly speed of 60 feet with good maneuverability for one minute per level once per day? Or hell, just the ability to cast Teleport 1/day as a SLA (4th level Summoner spell) can save your damned bacon pretty often.
I can probably convince him to take spell-like-abilities, but it'll be a bit tough.
Mostly I think he wants to play a strong melee character with long reach, but also some options, and probably he wants at least *some* ability to negotiate with people. As a player he's damn good at that.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 02, 2016, 03:36:16 am
Also does anyone have a link to a digital copy of Eclipse Phase new book, X-Risk?
Post by: RedWarrior0 on July 02, 2016, 01:16:43 pm
An at-will SLA of a low level might be nice, too. There's some good battlefield control and buff spells through the first three levels. Haste and Heroism are level 2 spells through Summoner and Bard; the former starts to pick up once it starts hitting a bunch of allies, and the latter is basically a permanent +2 morale bonus to attacks, saves, and skills, forever, for the entire party.Argh sorry, I thought I said. 30 points.In that case, +2 Strength, Dexterity and Constitution for 12 points, Lesser Lucky, Flight and See in Darkness to take you up to 22 points, then a greater and a lesser spell-like ability and 2 RP to spend wherever you want, such as +1 natural armor or Shadow Resistance to gain cold and electricity resistance 5. Or swap the lesser SLA for a second greater instead. Seriously, what other thing can you take that equals gaining low-light vision, darkvision 60 feet, DR 10/evil, immunity to acid, cold, and petrification, resistance to electricity and fire 10, a +4 racial bonus on saves against poison, protective aura and truespeech as supernatural abilities, a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves against evil creatures, grant all your weapons the ability to bypass DR/good, and a fly speed of 60 feet with good maneuverability for one minute per level once per day? Or hell, just the ability to cast Teleport 1/day as a SLA (4th level Summoner spell) can save your damned bacon pretty often.
I can probably convince him to take spell-like-abilities, but it'll be a bit tough.
Mostly I think he wants to play a strong melee character with long reach, but also some options, and probably he wants at least *some* ability to negotiate with people. As a player he's damn good at that.
Post by: Culise on July 02, 2016, 02:08:29 pm
Post by: Spehss _ on July 03, 2016, 06:44:49 pm
I'm kinda just throwing vowels and consonants together to see what works. Feel like they're all weird sounding names. (Im, Glod, Dulzen, Drer, Ztan, examples I just came up with on the spot). Also not sure what to do with last names. Using the same trick just seems like using gibberish for a full name.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 03, 2016, 06:52:30 pm
Foreign languages can be used to give a name related to the character.
Or just give them, well, names similiar to those that already exist, whether modern or historical.
Post by: Urist Mc Dwarf on July 03, 2016, 06:56:12 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 03, 2016, 07:26:55 pm
Post by: Tawa on July 03, 2016, 08:35:52 pm
I used to punch random words into Google Translate, but then I realized how silly I'd sound if any of my players spoke the relevant language and started using Behind the Name instead. Long before that, I would lightly mash keys on my keyboard until I found something I could corrupt into a name. I stopped doing this when I realized a week after coming up with a plot-important NPC that his name looked (although not sounded) like a double entendre.
Also, on last names; you can get away with using regular words in foreign languages here, and with some characters (e.g. warrior cultures, Britain analogues) you can manage just putting two English words together, Luke Skywalker-style.
Post by: Spehss _ on July 03, 2016, 09:04:35 pm
I use this website. (http://behindthename.com/random/)Wow, great website.
In about 10 minutes I got a short list of names I could use, and with the help of google translate and some good old language corruption I managed to throw together a last name of Skjeggsbar, from Skjeggs (scandinavian for beard) and Barbar (scandinavian for barbarian according to google).
Arnborr Skjeggsbar sounds like a decent fantasy name for a dwarf barbarian, yeah?
Post by: Emma on July 04, 2016, 03:22:40 am
Post by: Jimmy on July 04, 2016, 05:32:41 am
Post by: scriver on July 04, 2016, 05:59:19 am
Since I got ck2 I've spent much time mulling over their name lists when naming my children in-game, so lately I've also come to use those lists a lot when deciding over names for other stuff. They're not super extensive but I think it helps to have the names listed side by side on the same page.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 04, 2016, 07:21:22 am
Huh, from the previous replies it seems as though I'm the only person here who doesn't bother with names and just calls their NPCs "Cloaked man who definitely won't betray you".
Generally the rule is the DM will come up with cool names, and then the players remember none of them and just call them "that elf" or "the guy with the eyepatch"
Post by: Criptfeind on July 04, 2016, 07:23:45 am
Post by: Tack on July 04, 2016, 09:19:28 am
Huh, from the previous replies it seems as though I'm the only person here who doesn't bother with names and just calls their NPCs "Cloaked man who definitely won't betray you".This. Half of my quests are given by 'the dude with the fritalian accent'.
That being said, any NPC with an actual name usually just gets given a pisstake nickname anyway.
Post by: Kadzar on July 05, 2016, 03:10:35 am
If that doesn't meet my needs I just look up "(specific race here) name generator" and can usually find something good.
If you just want random letter combinations, Springhole (http://www.springhole.net/writing_roleplaying_randomators/sf_namegens.htm) works well, and there's also Rinkworks (http://rinkworks.com/namegen/fnames.cgi), and Yafnag (https://dicelog.com/yafnagen).
Post by: Jimmy on July 05, 2016, 05:09:55 am
Post by: Kassire on July 05, 2016, 07:34:49 pm
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 05, 2016, 10:34:22 pm
Post by: MrWiggles on July 07, 2016, 11:13:24 am
From the excerpts I've seen, they managed to make RIFTS even more of a clusterfuck. How the hell do you even manage that? It's not like Sembieda wasn't doing a good enough job on his own.How is that possible? Like, and this is being generous, 50 percent of Rifts clusterfuck is that its pladium. Is it from having to just stretch out Apoc World system to cover... kitchen sink of rifts?
Post by: Fniff on July 07, 2016, 06:10:21 pm
At the same time, I'm thinking of starting up an Apocalypse World game. Would anyone be interested?
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 07, 2016, 09:49:47 pm
From the excerpts I've seen, they managed to make RIFTS even more of a clusterfuck. How the hell do you even manage that? It's not like Sembieda wasn't doing a good enough job on his own.How is that possible? Like, and this is being generous, 50 percent of Rifts clusterfuck is that its pladium. Is it from having to just stretch out Apoc World system to cover... kitchen sink of rifts?
What I've seen the main problem is that there are implied rules that don't actually exist. So it indicates that you should be handling something a specific way, but fails to actual explain the methodology it expects. But since I have sworn off buying anything related to palladium and RIFTS I only have some excerpted text (from the intro, character creation, and the main rules) that may not be giving me enough to form a solid opinion. That said, I have seen a lot of other Palladium players and RIFTERs who have the same sentiment, so I stand by this analysis.
Post by: Tack on July 09, 2016, 03:23:01 pm
I like BW's stats, chats and funds better, but the one thing which is turning me off is that player characters never really start off more Special- they just start off more Old.
It's rather annoying all-told.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2016, 05:18:11 pm
I know there's a "d20 system" but from what I've heard that just means "A family of games which are basically DND.
Including Pathfinder.
D20 is a good die though
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 09, 2016, 05:23:29 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2016, 05:46:09 pm
Roll20 makes it easy though. Heck last session we rolled like 200 4d10 rolls to see whether our dumbass gangrel could tear down a radio tower before the police arrived.
[[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]][[{4d10!}>8]]
Technology~
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 09, 2016, 05:59:42 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 09, 2016, 06:10:35 pm
Mostly because it's a fun, platonically intimate venue.
Also because I want the art to survive past the techpocalypse. If it does happen.
But every Wednesday I will happily watch my friend conveniently roll 38 threshold dice 8 times. Because technology does help, for now.
Post by: Tack on July 09, 2016, 11:38:40 pm
Otherwise, yeah, we roll.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 10, 2016, 12:00:51 am
I love how Pathfinder and DND both worship the d20, such that the sites are d20psrd and d20srd.
I know there's a "d20 system" but from what I've heard that just means "A family of games which are basically DND.
Including Pathfinder.
D20 is a good die though
Basically, everything with vaugely 3.5 d&d rules was a d20 game. And a few things that weren't quite (like True20).
The idea was that the d20 system had this Open Game License thing which meant a lot of companies could use the 3.5 D&D system/engine for whatever stuff they wanted (with some strings attached, I'm sure). For a while it was quite a fad, and even some games had d20 alternatives, like star wars and world of darkness. Nowadays I think only pathfinder is really left.
Post by: Jimmy on July 10, 2016, 03:56:42 am
Post by: Emma on July 10, 2016, 04:54:09 am
Post by: Toaster on July 10, 2016, 09:17:44 am
Post by: Tack on July 10, 2016, 09:37:53 am
Got a mate with some cool crystal-shaped dice though.
Post by: Jimmy on July 11, 2016, 07:30:59 am
Post by: Neonivek on July 11, 2016, 07:34:04 am
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/dungeons-and-dragons-dice-gauntlet
I am actually frustrated that the vast majority of non-online GMs will outright refuse all forms of electronic dice.
Which only bugs me because... well... counting 10d6 dice is quite the feat... especially when you might have to do it several times in a round... and sometimes the dice will have dots and numbers
Where electronic dice can often do the rather insane dice rolls some games ask for (32d6 three times! No, not lying) and count it instantly.
There is kind of a reason why White Wolf uses the d10 "Only 8 or higher is a success" (or is it 7 and up?) and typically doesn't make you roll damage.
---
Ehhh I am only really frustrated because outside that my group would almost make fun of the fact that I am slow doing math in my head...
Post by: Arcvasti on July 11, 2016, 05:10:36 pm
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 11, 2016, 05:12:22 pm
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 11, 2016, 06:20:04 pm
The best part of tabletop gaming is picking up a heaping handful of damage dice and cackling maniacally.
Why else would you learn the fireball spell?
Post by: Rolan7 on July 11, 2016, 06:21:18 pm
Which could actually be pretty neat! Different, though.
Post by: Cruxador on July 11, 2016, 09:27:05 pm
Ehh, reasonably high granularity of results, not as cumbersome as rolling 2D10 as D100 or an actual D100. Seems like a good die to base your mechanics off of to me, certainly less cumbersome than rolling ND10 or D6 and then counting successes and failures.Also way more swingy than 2d6, which I'd put at a point against it, with no counterpoint in favor.
I only play 'at the table' and I ban computers during sessions, so no silly rolling programs for me (or any of my players).That seems like an awfully arduous restriction, considering all the super useful stuff that's digital these days. Did you have a lot of problems with people screwing around before?
The idea was that the d20 system had this Open Game License thing which meant a lot of companies could use the 3.5 D&D system/engine for whatever stuff they wanted (with some strings attached, I'm sure). For a while it was quite a fad, and even some games had d20 alternatives, like star wars and world of darkness. Nowadays I think only pathfinder is really left.Pathfinder isn't really "left", it isn't from that cycle at all. It was made afterward as a reaction to 4e, pandering to change-resistant grogs who didn't want to be in an old system.
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 11, 2016, 09:44:11 pm
Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?The idea was that the d20 system had this Open Game License thing which meant a lot of companies could use the 3.5 D&D system/engine for whatever stuff they wanted (with some strings attached, I'm sure). For a while it was quite a fad, and even some games had d20 alternatives, like star wars and world of darkness. Nowadays I think only pathfinder is really left.Pathfinder isn't really "left", it isn't from that cycle at all. It was made afterward as a reaction to 4e, pandering to change-resistant grogs who didn't want to be in an old system.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 11, 2016, 09:47:47 pm
Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
Post by: Tawa on July 11, 2016, 10:40:57 pm
3.5 is simulationist. It's a pretty solid game and a large chunk of modern RPG memes are based on it; DM of the Rings was written as though the players were playing it. The primary issue is huge power disparity in classes; if your wizard or cleric doesn't deliberately hold back their full potential, your fighters and rogues and stuff are going to feel pretty insignificant. Also, there's a fair amount of rules clutter; moving silently and hiding are separate skills, for example. There's also an alarming amount of splatbooks, and practically anybody who's trying to optimize will take a couple of prestige classes at minimum.
4e is World of Warcraft. The game is meant to be run as that sort of hack-and-slash sort of campaign Gygax hated; almost none of the "powers" characters have are described to have any usage outside of combat and the game expects players to quickly load up on magic items for no reason. Also, there's a lot of really stupidly-written rules, like, Iron Heart Surge* level stuff; Rogues have a power that lets them run past enemies to make them attack themselves, and Vampires are a class. It's not impossible to have fun here, but the game doesn't really lend itself to the kind of character- or plot- focused gameplay that D&D pioneered in the first place.
Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD.
* Iron Heart Surge was an ability for a certain 3.5 class whose wording implies you can use it to stare into the sun and not go blind, or dive into the ocean without holding your breath and not drown.
Post by: Gentlefish on July 12, 2016, 03:41:00 am
Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
3.0, 3.5 (Specifically, Eberron): Has the Talenta Sarrash (https://eberron-hok.obsidianportal.com/items/talenta-sharrash) (d10, 19-20/x4, reach).
Pathfinder: Does not have the Talenta Sarrash.
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 12, 2016, 03:45:19 am
Ehh, reasonably high granularity of results, not as cumbersome as rolling 2D10 as D100 or an actual D100. Seems like a good die to base your mechanics off of to me, certainly less cumbersome than rolling ND10 or D6 and then counting successes and failures.Also way more swingy than 2d6, which I'd put at a point against it, with no counterpoint in favor.
Why would I want stable results when chance is involved? Characters generally receive bonuses to rolls in D20 based games, that's all the safety net they need when rolling for effect.
I only play 'at the table' and I ban computers during sessions, so no silly rolling programs for me (or any of my players).That seems like an awfully arduous restriction, considering all the super useful stuff that's digital these days. Did you have a lot of problems with people screwing around before?
When tabletop gaming the only things that should be at the table are pencils, paper (character sheets and notes), dice and the game books the DM has authorized. Everything else is a distraction and is forbidden. It is not a matter of whether or not people are screwing around, it is a matter of basic respect, if you aren't paying attention to what is going on at the table you shouldn't be there. I've been doing this for twenty years and my experience is that every additional item brought to the table is a detriment to gameplay, I want my players focused and involved.
Post by: scriver on July 12, 2016, 08:39:04 am
Another reason Halflings are great.Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
3.0, 3.5 (Specifically, Eberron): Has the Talenta Sarrash (https://eberron-hok.obsidianportal.com/items/talenta-sharrash) (d10, 19-20/x4, reach).
Pathfinder: Does not have the Talenta Sarrash.
Post by: 94dima94 on July 12, 2016, 09:39:45 am
One of the players (the rogue) now throws 4 dice whenever she hits a sneak/flanking attack; she throws all the dice one by one.
By now it's not a problem, but I wonder whether she will give up later, or keep throwing singular dice even when the number reaches 9 or 10.
This scares me, because she already said that, when this character dies/retires, she wants to try some kind of magical blaster, and that would imply a LOT of dice every turn...
2 other players like to throw dice one by one too, but they give up when it gets to 4 or 5 dice at the same time; I have no idea why would anyone want to do this... isn't throwing lots of dice together the best part of a powerful attack?
Post by: Kadzar on July 12, 2016, 01:32:50 pm
Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD."A medium" is a little generous. If anything is a medium between 3.5 and 4, I'd say it's 5th edition, which borrows a lot of design ideas from both (and some new stuff). Pathfinder, at least talking about the core rules (they may have done new and interesting things with supplements since I stopped paying close attention to them), doesn't have short rest-based abilities, a recoverable pool of extra hitpoints for all characters (healing surges/hit dice), hit chance based on character level and ability scores rather than class, etc. that, like them or not, were taken from 4th and incorporated into 5th. What does Pathfinder have, besides a condensed skill list?
Post by: Tawa on July 12, 2016, 01:45:53 pm
I was primarily referring to how a lot of the classes Pathfinder adds (and even some that already existed in 3.5) have abilities not entirely unlike 4th ed. powers (Swashbuckler Deeds and the thingies Gunslingers do with their Grit come to mind, for one.)Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD."A medium" is a little generous. If anything is a medium between 3.5 and 4, I'd say it's 5th edition, which borrows a lot of design ideas from both (and some new stuff). Pathfinder, at least talking about the core rules (they may have done new and interesting things with supplements since I stopped paying close attention to them), doesn't have short rest-based abilities, a recoverable pool of extra hitpoints for all characters (healing surges/hit dice), hit chance based on character level and ability scores rather than class, etc. that, like them or not, were taken from 4th and incorporated into 5th. What does Pathfinder have, besides a condensed skill list?
But you're definitely right, "medium" is far from the best word here. It's a very 3.5-ish medium, I suppose?
Post by: Tack on July 12, 2016, 03:27:03 pm
Or something... Right?
Post by: Kadzar on July 12, 2016, 04:08:30 pm
You mean effects-wise? Because their usage is nothing like 4th's At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility system (which 5 thankfully abandoned except for a few mostly reasonable class abilities). Gunslinger/Swashbuckler is more like a conditionally-refillable version of the Monk's ki pool (which is most likely where 5e got the idea for its Monk's use of ki points).I was primarily referring to how a lot of the classes Pathfinder adds (and even some that already existed in 3.5) have abilities not entirely unlike 4th ed. powers (Swashbuckler Deeds and the thingies Gunslingers do with their Grit come to mind, for one.)Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD."A medium" is a little generous. If anything is a medium between 3.5 and 4, I'd say it's 5th edition, which borrows a lot of design ideas from both (and some new stuff). Pathfinder, at least talking about the core rules (they may have done new and interesting things with supplements since I stopped paying close attention to them), doesn't have short rest-based abilities, a recoverable pool of extra hitpoints for all characters (healing surges/hit dice), hit chance based on character level and ability scores rather than class, etc. that, like them or not, were taken from 4th and incorporated into 5th. What does Pathfinder have, besides a condensed skill list?
I'm not saying Pathfinder hasn't made some advancements (though the base game very much still resembles 3.5 more than anything else), I'm just saying I don't think it took all that much design direction from 4th.
Post by: Tawa on July 12, 2016, 04:21:44 pm
Post by: RedWarrior0 on July 12, 2016, 10:13:57 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 12, 2016, 10:27:09 pm
I'd say that Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with some token differences and significantly more free content.
And you know... significantly improved classes and level up system.
Post by: Tack on July 13, 2016, 02:28:47 am
Is Masquerade or Requiem better?
Post by: Mephisto on July 13, 2016, 07:11:08 am
Got onto WoD.
Is Masquerade or Requiem better?
This (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Differences_between_Vampire:_The_Masquerade_and_Vampire:_The_Requiem) gives a good overview if you don't care about the nitty gritty nWoD vs oWoD differences.
Post by: 94dima94 on July 13, 2016, 09:03:13 am
I'd say that Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with some token differences and significantly more free content.
And you know... significantly improved classes and level up system.
Especially the level up system: 3.5 had a lot of "empty levels" in the class progressions; in Pathfinder 99% of the levels give you SOMETHING related to your class, even if that it's only a power-up for one of your class abilities. Also, reaching level 20 gives a great "ultimate ability", so you are rewarded for investing in that (less relevant, because the majority of games don't reach level 20 and then go on much longer)
Post by: Tawa on July 13, 2016, 12:53:40 pm
Post by: Gentlefish on July 13, 2016, 11:56:49 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on July 14, 2016, 01:08:34 am
Post by: Jimmy on July 14, 2016, 08:21:24 am
Post by: Tack on July 14, 2016, 08:36:17 am
Fighter>Archer x5
Sorceror> x5
Arcane Archer x10
Archetypes are fun.
Post by: Jimmy on July 14, 2016, 08:40:40 am
Challenge: Build an optimized ranged combat character using nothing but the PHB and DMG.
Power level: Tier 3. No game breaking abilities, dies if stupid, but has a few tricks to keep things interesting.
Good at: Ranged Weapon Combat, Two Weapon Fighting, Stealth, Reflex and Will Saves, Concealment Bonuses
Bad at: Will Saves, Rogue Skills (unless investing high Int in stats), Social Encounters
Build Breakdown:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cruxador on July 16, 2016, 07:29:24 am
Having issues with deciding between the Fate Core system, or Burning Wheel.Did you consider jury-rigging aspects and fate points into Burning Wheel?
I like BW's stats, chats and funds better, but the one thing which is turning me off is that player characters never really start off more Special- they just start off more Old.
It's rather annoying all-told.
Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?I'll give it a try, why not?
3.5 is good in that it has a whole lot to work with. Like, there's a fuckton of books. You can also adapt 3.0 stuff to it, for even more. I've done this for exactly two 3.0 books ever, neither of which were super mechanical, but it's an option. One of my favorite things 3.5 has that no other edition has is rules for adjusting it to use as a wargame, by way of an abortive attempt by Wizards to break into that market. That said, 3.x is dreadfully unbalanced. Pathfinder I haven't really played enough to give a fair shake, but it's largely the same thing anyway. The default tone differs slightly, people seem to care about default setting more, though it's quite generic and the political structures are often poorly considered. There's more impact on development from the foibles of individuals, as is common to a small studio. It claims to be more balanced, and I suppose it probably is, but it's still quite poorly balanced in a lot of ways.
4e is in many ways a different game. It's very balanced and very solid from a combat perspective, but the combat portion of it isn't really designed to be roleplayed out, but to be played with an eye to optimal, which has lead to groups that mostly play hack and slash demeaning it for impeding role playing. A lot of this perception is due to a positive aspect it's a lot easier to GM and build balanced encounters so players no longer have the benefit of a significant margin for error when GMs just go easy on them, and can't bitch about the GM picking a bad encounter when everything goes delta foxtrot. That means that being tactically optimal (and optimizing in general) takes center stage a bit more since in 3.x it was pretty much all out the window. I consider this to be the best of these three versions, in that it's still a good system if you want to do the specific thing that it aims to be good at whereas 3.PF has been surpassed in pretty much every way, but I wouldn't pick any of these as a first choice of system for any game that I can think of.
I was talking about my own taste. I prefer less swingy rolls because they're more realistic and they make particularly high or low rolls stand out more when they happen. I don't like flat rolls because they make crits commonplace and therefore not that big of a deal.Ehh, reasonably high granularity of results, not as cumbersome as rolling 2D10 as D100 or an actual D100. Seems like a good die to base your mechanics off of to me, certainly less cumbersome than rolling ND10 or D6 and then counting successes and failures.Also way more swingy than 2d6, which I'd put at a point against it, with no counterpoint in favor.
Why would I want stable results when chance is involved? Characters generally receive bonuses to rolls in D20 based games, that's all the safety net they need when rolling for effect.
I only play 'at the table' and I ban computers during sessions, so no silly rolling programs for me (or any of my players).That seems like an awfully arduous restriction, considering all the super useful stuff that's digital these days. Did you have a lot of problems with people screwing around before?
When tabletop gaming the only things that should be at the table are pencils, paper (character sheets and notes), dice and the game books the DM has authorized. Everything else is a distraction and is forbidden.[/quote]That seems like an awfully arduous restriction, considering all the super useful stuff that's digital these days. It might be worthwhile to try not doing that for a while and see how it works, rather than drawing an ideological line in the sand. You could well find that having everything on a tablet and searchable is way more effective than having a constellation of other paraphernalia to dig through every turn.
Quote
It is not a matter of whether or not people are screwing around, it is a matter of basic respect, if you aren't paying attention to what is going on at the table you shouldn't be there. I've been doing this for twenty years and my experience is that every additional item brought to the table is a detriment to gameplay, I want my players focused and involved.The same arguments could apply to having books, dice, paper, and pencils at the table. Or anything really, taking this to its logical conclusion there should just be you and your players, with nothing in between. And then you might as well put down the game and take it to the bedroom.
Post by: Tack on July 16, 2016, 07:38:48 am
Weirdly enough no, I've only tried putting FoRKing into Fate.Having issues with deciding between the Fate Core system, or Burning Wheel.Did you consider jury-rigging aspects and fate points into Burning Wheel?
I like BW's stats, chats and funds better, but the one thing which is turning me off is that player characters never really start off more Special- they just start off more Old.
It's rather annoying all-told.
Post by: 94dima94 on July 16, 2016, 08:27:31 am
When tabletop gaming the only things that should be at the table are pencils, paper (character sheets and notes), dice and the game books the DM has authorized. Everything else is a distraction and is forbidden.
I get the general concept, and I agree, but this leaves out a LOT of useful things.
(What if a player wants to use fiches to keep track of his points, for instance? Also, music, or sound effects. If done right, those only help the game.)
And it's quite hard to say "No cellphones allowed" if we have to check the rules of the game every 2 minutes on the wiki anyway, because there is always a feat or a skill that you need to read carefully before using it.
Also, if someone doesn't care about what is currently happening in the game, he doesn't really need an external distraction. I saw a player who started reading one of the rulebooks while he was waiting with nothing else to do, while talking to another player who was doing nothing in that scene, and discussing a new character he wanted to build. Luckily it ended immediately, before I had to stop them, but it happens.
Post by: Cruxador on July 16, 2016, 09:51:53 am
I'd recommend it. I haven't either with BW, but it seems like the biggest thing you'd need to do is rejigger the mechanics of invoking aspects. Then just make all lifepaths count as aspects, and decide about further aspects as you normally would for FATE.Weirdly enough no, I've only tried putting FoRKing into Fate.Having issues with deciding between the Fate Core system, or Burning Wheel.Did you consider jury-rigging aspects and fate points into Burning Wheel?
I like BW's stats, chats and funds better, but the one thing which is turning me off is that player characters never really start off more Special- they just start off more Old.
It's rather annoying all-told.
Post by: Tack on July 16, 2016, 10:21:39 am
Which could be a pain.
Post by: Cruxador on July 16, 2016, 03:36:27 pm
Ehh, I'd assume aspects fill the role of both life paths and beliefs/instincts.General advice, not just for game design but for life: If one of the potential ways it could be done would be a pain, don't do it that way.
Which could be a pain.
Post by: Tack on July 16, 2016, 03:59:34 pm
GO TELL BEN FRANKLIN THAT.Ehh, I'd assume aspects fill the role of both life paths and beliefs/instincts.General advice, not just for game design but for life: If one of the potential ways it could be done would be a pain, don't do it that way.
Which could be a pain.
MURICA
Post by: Andres on July 18, 2016, 06:02:38 am
Post by: BorkBorkGoesTheCode on July 18, 2016, 06:09:20 am
Is Pathfinder just supposed to be Dungeons and Dragons except more difficult?Pathfinder is supposed to be a continuation of Open Game Dungeons and Dragons.
Post by: Jimmy on July 18, 2016, 06:18:10 am
First, it's a system built around 3.5e Dungeons and Dragons, arguably the most popular of all tabletop rules systems. It aims to maintain the spirit of the system after WotC moved on with their newer versions and stopped publishing official 3.5e content.
Second, it aims to balance the game power creep to a moderate degree. It revised a bunch of rules that made 3.5e easily exploited, especially for spellcasters. It buffed the utility of a lot of combat maneuvers for melee types and gave them access to heaps of new tricks. It also introduced disincentives for creating the horribly mutant multiclass builds that were popular flavours of the month for 3.5e.
Finally, it makes the majority of its content open source, so it draws a big crowd of players simply because they can access the rules they need for free without buying a million splat-books, unlike 3.5e.
As a system Pathfinder still has all the crunchy-ness that 3.5e veterans love, but also a simplistic front-end that's not so intimidating for new players. It's not perfect and can still be terribly broken by the
Post by: scriver on July 18, 2016, 06:23:02 am
In practice, I think the expectations on your characters' abilities is a bit higher in pathfinder than 3.5, but not as much as "like 3.5 but harder" makes it sound like in my head.
Pre edit: ninja'd, but I don't care! I'll post if I want to!
Post by: Sergius on July 18, 2016, 11:23:47 am
Post by: RedWarrior0 on July 18, 2016, 12:09:38 pm
You also get optional extra customization for classes called Archetypes, which I don't think existed in 3.5 as a mechanic. Basically trading class abilities at certain levels. Wizards get those on top of schools, which already grant unique powers rather than simply affecting spell memorization.Not in core 3.5, but Unearthed Arcana had alternate class features, and I'm pretty sure several other books did, as well.
Post by: Tawa on July 18, 2016, 10:21:05 pm
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 18, 2016, 10:24:43 pm
Alongside vats of acid filled with sharks that breathe acid
Post by: Gentlefish on July 18, 2016, 10:46:05 pm
Yeah, there were variant classes in 3.5, but they were pretty esoteric. Almost nobody used them outside of more specialized builds IIRC.
One of my favorites, though, gave up Druid's wildshaping for Monk's bonus to AC and ranger's favored enemy
Post by: Culise on July 19, 2016, 12:13:36 am
And Cloistered Cleric was also not necessarily specialized, but was a major staple for most optimization in that class that wasn't specialized in getting into the thick of battle and whacking everyone with a mace or the like. Not that clerics really needed a power boost, mind. I suspect any lack of popularity for Cloistered Cleric was simply because everyone had Core, while not everyone had Unearthed Arcana (even with it included in the SRD).Yeah, there were variant classes in 3.5, but they were pretty esoteric. Almost nobody used them outside of more specialized builds IIRC.
One of my favorites, though, gave up Druid's wildshaping for Monk's bonus to AC and ranger's favored enemy
Outside of that, though, yeah. I don't think most class variants saw much use outside of either flavour-oriented builds or highly-specialized melee builds (I'd have to look more into optimized barbarian builds, but I think one of the totems saw a lot of use in chargers).
Post by: Jimmy on July 19, 2016, 05:41:45 am
Post by: RedWarrior0 on July 19, 2016, 05:52:42 pm
Funny thing about barbarians, there were two sets of totem ACFs. One of them, the lion totem granted pounce, which is indeed very effective on a charger.And Cloistered Cleric was also not necessarily specialized, but was a major staple for most optimization in that class that wasn't specialized in getting into the thick of battle and whacking everyone with a mace or the like. Not that clerics really needed a power boost, mind. I suspect any lack of popularity for Cloistered Cleric was simply because everyone had Core, while not everyone had Unearthed Arcana (even with it included in the SRD).Yeah, there were variant classes in 3.5, but they were pretty esoteric. Almost nobody used them outside of more specialized builds IIRC.
One of my favorites, though, gave up Druid's wildshaping for Monk's bonus to AC and ranger's favored enemy
Outside of that, though, yeah. I don't think most class variants saw much use outside of either flavour-oriented builds or highly-specialized melee builds (I'd have to look more into optimized barbarian builds, but I think one of the totems saw a lot of use in chargers).
Edit: It was normal totems, in Unearthed Arcana, and Spirit Totems, in Complete Champion.
Post by: Cruxador on July 22, 2016, 05:46:17 pm
Quote
it's a fun way to spend a weeknight with friends.People have had fun with FATAL. Saying you can have fun with friends isn't really a quality of the system, it's a quality of spending time with your friends.
Post by: scrdest on July 22, 2016, 08:29:16 pm
One could make the case that FATAL players don't have friends, they have accomplices :PQuoteit's a fun way to spend a weeknight with friends.People have had fun with FATAL. Saying you can have fun with friends isn't really a quality of the system, it's a quality of spending time with your friends.
Post by: Tack on July 22, 2016, 09:15:25 pm
On the scale of munchkin > Hybrid, Pathfinder is a weeknight.
Post by: scriver on July 23, 2016, 08:19:21 am
Post by: Cruxador on July 24, 2016, 04:44:47 pm
One could make the case that FATAL players don't have friends, they have accomplices :PI mean, I wouldn't say there's such a thing as a dedicated FATAL player. But people have run fechts in it that were a good time in the same vein as watching a terrible movie.
Post by: MrWiggles on July 26, 2016, 06:29:34 am
There was at one point a dedicated FATAL forum. When that infamous review, and author rebuttal and review rebuttal happen, that community was buzzing bees for a bit.One could make the case that FATAL players don't have friends, they have accomplices :PI mean, I wouldn't say there's such a thing as a dedicated FATAL player. But people have run fechts in it that were a good time in the same vein as watching a terrible movie.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 26, 2016, 10:36:31 pm
There was at one point a dedicated FATAL forum.I'm going to need a link to that.
Post by: miauw62 on July 27, 2016, 01:04:46 pm
Any advice on what system to use and general advice? tfw you ask this in the middle of a FATAL discussion
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 27, 2016, 01:32:59 pm
Post by: miauw62 on July 27, 2016, 01:40:57 pm
Post by: Fniff on July 27, 2016, 01:53:30 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 27, 2016, 02:03:03 pm
Post by: sjm9876 on July 27, 2016, 02:03:33 pm
Post by: miauw62 on July 27, 2016, 02:26:06 pm
Post by: Tack on July 27, 2016, 02:53:02 pm
Oh wait, no drinking.
Post by: miauw62 on July 27, 2016, 03:02:46 pm
Post by: Tack on July 27, 2016, 03:34:30 pm
Makes the group bond a lot better for future sessions too.
One of my best memories was a pseudo-stranger group made up of friends-of-friends, the GM kept trying to get RP going but it never got of the ground. One week the GM says we're going to have a late session. We're all cool with it so we turn up at 7 to munchkin and shots.
Never had a problem after that. Once you've screamed at a fellow player "I'M A HAEMAPHRODIDIC DWELF AND YOU CAN KISS MY SLEEK HAIRY ASS", everything else is no longer daunting.
But if I've heard right 5e is prett kick-down-door-ish, so will probably be fine.
Post by: Oneir on July 27, 2016, 07:39:24 pm
- $1: VtM: revised edition and five clanbooks
- $8: Storyteller's handbook, more clanbooks, Guide to Sabbat, The Book of Nod
- $15: Mind's Eye Theatre, yet more clanbooks, mystery box
- $33: fancy pants pins
Post by: Sergius on August 14, 2016, 09:26:06 pm
After that, next session we go back to Star Control. Time to start writing some sort of scenario. Hopefully it'll be more focused if we go less open world and more "adventure module" style.
Post by: Arcvasti on August 14, 2016, 09:30:22 pm
We just finished up a scenario, of about 3 sessions, of The Secrets of Cats, where the players play as cats which secretly use magic to protect their humans from eldritch forces that they cannot perceive.
this sounds wonderful
Post by: Sergius on August 14, 2016, 10:54:28 pm
We just finished up a scenario, of about 3 sessions, of The Secrets of Cats, where the players play as cats which secretly use magic to protect their humans from eldritch forces that they cannot perceive.
this sounds wonderful
Cat magic is usually fueled by killing a small animal and then hiding it in a shoe or something. 8)
Post by: BFEL on August 29, 2016, 09:16:38 am
Thon GoldSkull, cleric specializing in "prepaid resurrections"
Basically, some spoiled noble brat wants to do something dangerous like a duel to the death or autoerotic asphyxiation so he pays good ol' Thon (half in advance) to be around in case things don't go his way.
All the fun, none o the consequences!
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on August 29, 2016, 09:22:19 am
Post by: Criptfeind on August 29, 2016, 09:56:42 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on August 29, 2016, 10:02:49 am
Post by: Parsely on August 29, 2016, 11:15:44 am
That's an interesting read, although it really doesn't make any sense, economically, logistically, and even the base premises of killing oneself to avoid danger.Yeah it doesn't make any god damn sense. How are you safer if you're all dead? Not to mention you can't travel!
Post by: Tack on August 29, 2016, 02:03:15 pm
As well as now you've only got a couple of 3rd level clerics between you and the hereafter.
I mean, yeah, relevant, not practical.
Also relevant (http://imgur.com/bTT8giV)
Post by: scriver on August 29, 2016, 03:35:23 pm
At least if you were alive you would be able to try to run away if shit hits the fan.
Post by: Jimmy on August 29, 2016, 11:28:50 pm
Seriously, by any logical measure all trade in high cost goods is going to be conducted via teleportation magic. Size and quantity also isn't an issue with Bags of Holding and Portable Holes being things that are fairly common. Same day delivery over 900 miles, or further for multiple castings.
Post by: Rolan7 on August 29, 2016, 11:39:40 pm
The only benefits I see are saving money on provisions, and I guess having a nice time in the afterlife during the trip. For several hundred gold. That would buy a lot of creature comforts in life, even on a boat or convoy.
Also I assume the "lose a level or HD on being raised" rule stopped being a thing in whatever edition they're using.
And listing the effects of "cure disease" as a valuable benefit... just lol
Post by: Jimmy on August 30, 2016, 12:23:41 am
Post by: Cruxador on August 30, 2016, 12:33:32 am
I think any discussion about the state of a D&D world economy is swiftly going to descend down a rabbit-hole of madness and illogical conclusions. A book standard CR 1/3 goblin carries 54 gp in equipment alone (short sword, short bow, 20 arrows, leather armor, light wooden shield), about a year and a half of wealth for a standard untrained laborer. Why anyone works at a trade instead of just hunting for a lone goblin once a year is beyond me.Because goblins are only pushovers if you're a badass adventurer.
Not to say the economy isn't dogshit.
Post by: scriver on August 30, 2016, 05:55:43 am
But yes the reason most peasants or tradesmen don't go fighting goblins has more to do with how they only have 1d4 or d6 health.
Post by: Tack on August 30, 2016, 06:21:36 am
An all-peasant hunting party could potentially make war upon some goblins and sell the keeps to be rich for a little while- but then you have to start thinking about logistics for the aforementioned army.
Post by: 94dima94 on August 31, 2016, 07:27:56 am
Actually this gave me an idea for a low-level quest: a group of goblins are planning revenge over a group of farmers who thought about this and killed a few goblins. Protect the village and kill the goblin raid coming towards them.
Post by: Criptfeind on August 31, 2016, 08:09:25 am
Why would you murder yourself and risk someone not bringing you back when you can just have a 9th level wizard Teleport you wherever you need to go? Book price for a Teleport spell is 450gp which is close enough to the cost of the weird death-travel thingy listed that it's simply not worth the hassle, and gets you there instantly, no wait involved.
Seriously, by any logical measure all trade in high cost goods is going to be conducted via teleportation magic. Size and quantity also isn't an issue with Bags of Holding and Portable Holes being things that are fairly common. Same day delivery over 900 miles, or further for multiple castings.
Well, you're paying hundreds of gold in exchange for time in this case, and to move a reasonable amount of goods now you're stacking up thousands of gold in storage devices. Combine that with ninth level wizards being extremely rare and now we know why no one uses teleport ether!
Also for the economy thing the one silver piece that so many people talk about is simply the lowest level of total no skill work. Like you'd expect someone who's just moved into a city from a farm or something to do. Once you start applying the profession rules to npcs you'll find that a family can make a really quite reasonable amount of money relatively quickly. Like, that goblin carrying around 25 gold in equipment sounds like a lot but it really only represents a few months of work for a peasant family, and hunting down a goblin is a lot more dangerous then plowing the field for a bit.
A lot more exciting of course, which is why we have adventurers! Which even a small village should be able to make enough excess to pump out a fully equipped level 1 party fairly regularly.
Post by: miauw62 on August 31, 2016, 10:29:22 am
Kaladesh seems really really really hype. We've got dwarves, implications of matter being teleported through space using the Blind Eternities (e.g. interplanar portals), another artifact block...
I'm also really looking forward to what Mechanic E will turn out to be. Apparently it's something they've been trying to find a place for since Mirrodin.
In addition to that, they just announced the next block, which appears to be some sort of Egyptian-themed plane ruled by motherfucking Nicol Bolas.
Post by: Cruxador on September 03, 2016, 10:08:38 pm
But yes the reason most peasants or tradesmen don't go fighting goblins has more to do with how they only have 1d4 or d6 health.Well, I was thinking in terms of logic rather than game mechanics, since the former is the less mutable of the two. There's a good pleb vs goblin battle in Hai to Gensou no Grimgar where a party of five starting adventurers show peasant-tier skills in a fight against a goblin, which I think is a good idea of how it should go down generally. Really, that whole show is applicable to this situation.
Also, goblins are not the kind of creatures who would say "Those humans came here to kill us and steal our gold... well, what can you do about it? Let's forget about it".That's assuming your players want to side with the villagers, who arguably brought this on themselves. High-minded players might prefer to favor the goblins who, while probably not innocent are at least the victims here.
Actually this gave me an idea for a low-level quest: a group of goblins are planning revenge over a group of farmers who thought about this and killed a few goblins. Protect the village and kill the goblin raid coming towards them.
Post by: Jimmy on September 04, 2016, 12:01:25 am
Even a peasant can, by the rules, gain one free simple weapon proficiency, and with their wealth typically tied up in their property, I'd estimate most would pick a weapon such as a club, quarterstaff or sling which has no base cost involved. With three to five peasants in a party slinging stones at a goblin, you'd likely find them capable of killing it before any of them suffered a fatality. Of course they probably leave that to the town guard instead, but for small hamlets without a strong defending force, a peasant mob would probably be capable of handling defence of their homes against a goblin band.
Post by: scriver on September 04, 2016, 06:49:01 am
Post by: Arx on September 04, 2016, 06:52:54 am
so how about them ridiculously expensive pieces of cardboard.
Kaladesh seems really really really hype. We've got dwarves, implications of matter being teleported through space using the Blind Eternities (e.g. interplanar portals), another artifact block...
I'm also really looking forward to what Mechanic E will turn out to be. Apparently it's something they've been trying to find a place for since Mirrodin.
In addition to that, they just announced the next block, which appears to be some sort of Egyptian-themed plane ruled by motherfucking Nicol Bolas.
Energy looks interesting. Fabricate seems like a pretty decent mechanic as well, although I don't know enough of Magic to say much.
Post by: Criptfeind on September 04, 2016, 07:02:44 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on September 04, 2016, 09:00:37 am
I think any discussion about the state of a D&D world economy is swiftly going to descend down a rabbit-hole of madness and illogical conclusions. A book standard CR 1/3 goblin carries 54 gp in equipment alone (short sword, short bow, 20 arrows, leather armor, light wooden shield), about a year and a half of wealth for a standard untrained laborer. Why anyone works at a trade instead of just hunting for a lone goblin once a year is beyond me.
Even a peasant can, by the rules, gain one free simple weapon proficiency, and with their wealth typically tied up in their property, I'd estimate most would pick a weapon such as a club, quarterstaff or sling which has no base cost involved. With three to five peasants in a party slinging stones at a goblin, you'd likely find them capable of killing it before any of them suffered a fatality. Of course they probably leave that to the town guard instead, but for small hamlets without a strong defending force, a peasant mob would probably be capable of handling defence of their homes against a goblin band.
Goblins tend to go in groups - SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) says their smallest groups are 4-9 gobbos in a gang, and with their underdog nature, I doubt many goblins travel alone in human lands.
Suddenly, that group of peasants is in a lot more danger.
The goblins have more HP and AC, and their superior weapons compensate for their small size.
They're also got points in hide and move silently, as well as the alertness feat by standard, meaning they're better at ambushing the peasant party than the peasants are at ambushing them.
With a sling, presumably the peasant buys some lead bullets, or else they're only doing 1d3 damage with a -1 to hit, so at the least they'd be spending 1sp.
Using a club or quarterstaff brings their damage up to par with the goblin, but then they have to fight in melee something that is tougher, harder to injure, and probably more skilled, as well.
Once the battle is over, how many of the peasants have died? Was it worthwhile, compared to a less interesting but much safer career of farming? Can they get back to safety without encountering anything else, which might be inclined to hostilities?
They can now go into town and sell the goblin gear. To who?
Who wants old goblin gear? It's probably not well looked after, the majority of adventurers and warriors are Medium, so they don't want it. How many halflings are in town to buy crappy second-hand leathers and weaponry?
Is the armourer or weaponsmith going to buy it? Well, he could, but he doesn't have a huge amount of prospective customers for it, so perhaps he offers less than half value for it (as the standard selling is half value). Do the peasants accept? After all, they risked their lives, but no one is going to buy it out on their farm, and they have no use for it themselves, unless they're going to raise some child soldiers. Less and less profit.
Of course, goblins aren't the only danger out in the wilderness. There's all sorts of dangerous and deadly creatures lurking out past the beaten path. Better hope you don't encounter something more deadly than a few gobbos, since your club might not do much to a troll.
----
If nothing else, most people don't want to engage in life-or-death battles. They're not going to go out looking for trouble with superior enemies, when they could bunch together some copper coins and a cheesewheel or two and hire a couple of burly men professional in violence to go kill them instead.
Defending their homes, I imagine the peasants have the advantage of cover and their backs being against the wall to spur them on - but if the goblins are actively attacking a hamlet, they probably have the advantage of numbers. Goblins are cowardly sorts, after all, and like to hold the advantage. If there's only a few, they're more likely to attack people on their own or steal animals or crops.
I guess it depends what the goblins are there for. If they want just to steal anything valuable like food, they're not going to attack hamlets, because there's more danger in it - rather than running, the peasants will be forced to fight, and so the risk to the goblins is much higher. They're cowards - they don't like lots of danger. They'll rustle cattle and steal crops. Perhaps there'll be a fight occasionally, and some goblins and peasants will die, but it'll rarely escalate, because neither peasants or goblins want to have a big battle. If the goblins do too much, then the peasants will organise a mob or hire warriors - or both - and the goblins will have to fight at a disadvantage or run.
If they want the land, then they'll be there in much greater numbers, beyond the capacity of a hamlet of peasants to reasonably deal with. The peasants will take what they can and leave, appealing to their lord for help, and trying to hire some warriors or adventurers to deal with the goblins if the lord isn't interested.
At least, that's how I think of it, on both fluff and crunch terms.
Post by: miauw62 on September 04, 2016, 09:24:18 am
Energy really depends on what they print with it. It really seems like a build-around mechanic. However, since KLD only has three mechanics, it's probably pretty pushed.so how about them ridiculously expensive pieces of cardboard.
Kaladesh seems really really really hype. We've got dwarves, implications of matter being teleported through space using the Blind Eternities (e.g. interplanar portals), another artifact block...
I'm also really looking forward to what Mechanic E will turn out to be. Apparently it's something they've been trying to find a place for since Mirrodin.
In addition to that, they just announced the next block, which appears to be some sort of Egyptian-themed plane ruled by motherfucking Nicol Bolas.
Energy looks interesting. Fabricate seems like a pretty decent mechanic as well, although I don't know enough of Magic to say much.
Fabricate is probably the least exciting, but neat. It's a typical +1/+1/token mechanic. Probably mostly ment for Limited, and probably the mechanic they'll swap out for something else in Aether Revolt.
Vehicles are really weird and im excited to see how they'll play.
Post by: Sergius on September 04, 2016, 06:21:56 pm
The Safe Ones gave the PCs a quest to rid their planet of the Evil Ones, savage creatures that had eaten a large amount of their population a few centuries ago and forced them to relocate to the moon. The players set up some traps in the planet, aided by a sample of Fwiffo's DNA of deliciousness. They lured one of the beasts into it (which turned to be some sort of giant teddy bear that moved with the grace and fierceness of a sloth). As they were analyzing the beast, a group of four drone robots attacked, killing Ensign Rico. The drones played a pre-recorded message, that the intruders where to cease and desist trying to ruin their amazing prank, death being the preferred way to cease and desist.
The Ninja player used his ninja skills to climb a tree and then jump onto one of the drones, attacking it with his sword, while the other player, aided by one redshirt + his decoy (technology adapted from the captured Spathi ship - the Spathi fill half their crew pods with decoys to lure the fire away from the real crew) took potshots at the other pair of drones. The lander itself also shot at the robots but was mostly ineffective (redshirts suck at shooting. And other skills. And not dying). I use the same rules from the computer game, btw: ships, landers etc get destroyed or at least seriously damaged and disabled if they run out of crew, otherwise they're undamaged. All damage goes directly to the people inside.
After destroying one of the drones with massive damage, I ruled that he could steer the crashing drone into the other one of that pair, by overcoming a Vehicles check. And exactly that happened, to which even more Fate points were piled on which caused the destruction of both drones.
Eventually they destroyed the rest, and salvaged the pieces to try and figure out where they came from (inside the planet) and who programmed them.
In the end this played out rather well, I think I managed to make the scene a lot more fun than just capturing some helpless creatures, while still making the point that the Spahi are defenseless cowards and easy prey for the lamest of predators.
The players were throwing out all kinds of solutions at the end, from using superscience to make the Spathi less delicious to these creatures, to make a virus to make them more harmless, or making a zoo or whatever. We'll see how that plays out next game.
Post by: Yoink on September 04, 2016, 06:34:32 pm
Adventure title: Seven AdventurersHahaha, nice.
And I thought those samurai were unruly... that would be sheer chaos. :))
Post by: Rolan7 on September 04, 2016, 07:43:54 pm
Another session of Fate of the Ur-Quan today. The heroes arrived at Spathiwa, where they contacted the Spathi High Council (a.k.a. the "Safe Ones"), who after being given the "Secret Spathi Cypher" asked them where they got it. Captain Fwiffo immediately proceeded to lock himself in the restroom of his Eluder, while the crew was trying to get him out. (for some reason the restroom in the Spathi ship had a large steel vault door with multi-factor security and all ventilation shafts leading to it trapped by deadly devices).Heehee.
Can't be too safe from THE ULTIMATE EVIL! Its scariest attribute is that it's never been observed, after all.
The Safe Ones gave the PCs a quest to rid their planet of the Evil Ones, savage creatures that had eaten a large amount of their population a few centuries ago and forced them to relocate to the moon. The players set up some traps in the planet, aided by a sample of Fwiffo's DNA of deliciousness. They lured one of the beasts into it (which turned to be some sort of giant teddy bear that moved with the grace and fierceness of a sloth). As they were analyzing the beast, a group of four drone robots attacked, killing Ensign Rico. The drones played a pre-recorded message, that the intruders where to cease and desist trying to ruin their amazing prank, death being the preferred way to cease and desist.Huh! Neat twist. Makes sense to change things up in case they're familiar with the source material.
I wonder if it's even the same group. Drone robots seem to hint otherwise.
The Ninja player used his ninja skills to climb a tree and then jump onto one of the drones, attacking it with his sword, while the other player, aided by one redshirt + his decoy (technology adapted from the captured Spathi ship - the Spathi fill half their crew pods with decoys to lure the fire away from the real crew) took potshots at the other pair of drones. The lander itself also shot at the robots but was mostly ineffective (redshirts suck at shooting. And other skills. And not dying). I use the same rules from the computer game, btw: ships, landers etc get destroyed or at least seriously damaged and disabled if they run out of crew, otherwise they're undamaged. All damage goes directly to the people inside.That's a good explanation for the lander not ruling the show, it being full of useless redshirts.
Interesting that you're keeping the crew=HP mechanic though.
After destroying one of the drones with massive damage, I ruled that he could steer the crashing drone into the other one of that pair, by overcoming a Vehicles check. And exactly that happened, to which even more Fate points were piled on which caused the destruction of both drones....Hm. I have theories. Your players don't view this thread, do they?
Eventually they destroyed the rest, and salvaged the pieces to try and figure out where they came from (inside the planet) and who programmed them.
In the end this played out rather well, I think I managed to make the scene a lot more fun than just capturing some helpless creatures, while still making the point that the Spahi are defenseless cowards and easy prey for the lamest of predators.Sounds like a great campaign! And I have unfairly high expectations for anything in the Star Control universe. Thanks for sharing (:
The players were throwing out all kinds of solutions at the end, from using superscience to make the Spathi less delicious to these creatures, to make a virus to make them more harmless, or making a zoo or whatever. We'll see how that plays out next game.
Post by: Sergius on September 05, 2016, 12:45:21 am
The Safe Ones gave the PCs a quest to rid their planet of the Evil Ones, savage creatures that had eaten a large amount of their population a few centuries ago and forced them to relocate to the moon. The players set up some traps in the planet, aided by a sample of Fwiffo's DNA of deliciousness. They lured one of the beasts into it (which turned to be some sort of giant teddy bear that moved with the grace and fierceness of a sloth). As they were analyzing the beast, a group of four drone robots attacked, killing Ensign Rico. The drones played a pre-recorded message, that the intruders where to cease and desist trying to ruin their amazing prank, death being the preferred way to cease and desist.Huh! Neat twist. Makes sense to change things up in case they're familiar with the source material.
I wonder if it's even the same group. Drone robots seem to hint otherwise.
Well they do pilot a ship called a "drone" 8) so maybe it's a variant of the same technology, but automated. And tiny.
The Ninja player used his ninja skills to climb a tree and then jump onto one of the drones, attacking it with his sword, while the other player, aided by one redshirt + his decoy (technology adapted from the captured Spathi ship - the Spathi fill half their crew pods with decoys to lure the fire away from the real crew) took potshots at the other pair of drones. The lander itself also shot at the robots but was mostly ineffective (redshirts suck at shooting. And other skills. And not dying). I use the same rules from the computer game, btw: ships, landers etc get destroyed or at least seriously damaged and disabled if they run out of crew, otherwise they're undamaged. All damage goes directly to the people inside.That's a good explanation for the lander not ruling the show, it being full of useless redshirts.
Interesting that you're keeping the crew=HP mechanic though.
Yeah I've made no effort to hide that mechanic, we even joke about it all the time. We're not going for "immersion" exactly here, just fun, heh.
After destroying one of the drones with massive damage, I ruled that he could steer the crashing drone into the other one of that pair, by overcoming a Vehicles check. And exactly that happened, to which even more Fate points were piled on which caused the destruction of both drones....Hm. I have theories. Your players don't view this thread, do they?
Eventually they destroyed the rest, and salvaged the pieces to try and figure out where they came from (inside the planet) and who programmed them.
Nah, pretty sure they don't even know this website exists. Can't guarantee a random Googling of names won't land them here. Either way they don't know much about the computer game, they just know I based the campaign on it.
In the end this played out rather well, I think I managed to make the scene a lot more fun than just capturing some helpless creatures, while still making the point that the Spahi are defenseless cowards and easy prey for the lamest of predators.Sounds like a great campaign! And I have unfairly high expectations for anything in the Star Control universe. Thanks for sharing (:
The players were throwing out all kinds of solutions at the end, from using superscience to make the Spathi less delicious to these creatures, to make a virus to make them more harmless, or making a zoo or whatever. We'll see how that plays out next game.
My pleasure, glad you're finding it interesting. It'll be probably several weeks until next episode tho, we're doing some sort of weekly round-robin gamemastering between 2-3 GMs.
BTW, the redshirt that was handling the decoy/dummy was essentially this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4MPKCbfVU4
Post by: Cruxador on September 06, 2016, 10:47:33 am
(lengthy post on goblin ecology that I'm omitting here for length)Considering these things, it makes a lot of sense how in the generic Japanese settings, you get orders of knights going around to subjugate monsters.
Post by: Andres on September 11, 2016, 02:35:39 am
Post by: Arx on September 11, 2016, 06:20:02 am
Certain talents have a broad variety of spells, like elementalism, and other are much more specific (like balefire), but correspondingly more powerful.
You can choose to invest a certain amount of power into each spell, kind of like metamagic feats I guess, where you use up a slot of a higher level. Not sure exactly what the logistics are.
There's a class called a wilder, which is in some ways like a wild magic sorcerer. They can cast magic even when out of spell slots, but must pass a concentration check (and a fort save if they fail the concentration check). There's a table of the horrible things that can happen, including at the extreme losing your ability to cast at all, with less extreme variants and stuff.
It's kinda neat, but nothing incredible.
(Pulled roughly from here (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/classic/rev_5299.phtml).)
Post by: Tack on September 11, 2016, 12:31:53 pm
Post by: Arx on September 11, 2016, 12:39:48 pm
So where's the insanity mechanic?
This is apparently something that can happen to Asha'man, but the review doesn't expand on it.
Post by: Tack on September 11, 2016, 12:41:41 pm
Quote
Prestige classes: Again the name and a short descriptionHehehehehehehehe
Aes Sedai: If you want to be really good, take this class. Lots of spellcasting bonuses, these women could be really scary.
Asha'man: Basically male Aes Sedai, they have better casting abilites in combat but are a bit less versitile than Aes Sedai. Very, very little less. A powerful prestige class. The only problem is the MADNESS. Very dangerous.
Post by: Sergius on November 21, 2016, 12:42:24 am
Now we started fleshing out the terran faction, substituting for "Tesladyne", adding skills and aspects and so on. I let them pick any name, they went for the Seńor Vorpal Kickasso alliance...
Post by: TheBiggerFish on November 25, 2016, 02:57:22 pm
Now we started fleshing out the terran faction, substituting for "Tesladyne", adding skills and aspects and so on. I let them pick any name, they went for the Seńor Vorpal Kickasso alliance...Ha!
Also, that game sounds really cool.
Post by: Shub-Nullgurath on December 17, 2016, 09:56:47 am
Post by: Tack on December 17, 2016, 10:13:15 am
Post by: Sergius on December 17, 2016, 10:47:54 am
Thinking about running an Atomic Robo game (in setting) over a forum such as this or Hangouts or something, eventually.
Post by: Mephisto on December 17, 2016, 03:14:16 pm
But social skills are something I do not have.
Post by: Cruxador on December 18, 2016, 01:16:55 am
And although I'm not playing this, I'm working on a magical girl game, more or less directly inspired by Magical Burst, which I intend to have to 1.0 by the end of March. For anyone interested, a link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TmWonJIbPfqCWwOUKN7H2RrjBSkevnyq_eoGiGIWfy8 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TmWonJIbPfqCWwOUKN7H2RrjBSkevnyq_eoGiGIWfy8)
Post by: Mephisto on January 18, 2017, 03:27:37 pm
I'm not sure if all hucksters are supposed to be Gambit expys but that's what I ended up with. Now I just have to decide how far I personally want to go. I'm improving on my card riffling skills but have not yet determined if I want to wear the cowboy hat with small wooden skulls on it to the game.
Post by: Cruxador on January 18, 2017, 03:32:18 pm
My gaming drought is finally coming to an end. While it wasn't exactly my first choice, I've got a Deadlands Reloaded game on Saturday. Seriously, I live in the home of Gen Con. Finding a non-Encounters non-PFS game should not be this difficult.It's a good second choice if your cowboy hat with actual little skulls is at the cleaners.
I'm not sure if all hucksters are supposed to be Gambit expys but that's what I ended up with. Now I just have to decide how far I personally want to go. I'm improving on my card riffling skills but have not yet determined if I want to wear the cowboy hat with small wooden skulls on it to the game.
Post by: Cruxador on February 15, 2017, 10:02:05 pm
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2006613790/song-of-swords-tabletop-roleplaying-game
Post by: Tack on February 15, 2017, 10:20:05 pm
Someone tried to get me into a different tabletop kickstarter (Clockwork angels, someone?), but it's generally pretty rare that they'll take off in Australia so I end up with nobody to play with.
Post by: Cruxador on February 16, 2017, 12:23:02 am
Interesting.This one has a decent internet community, so you can do it the roll20 way. But yeah, if you want to do it around an actual table, probably sell your group on it first. That's the problem with smaller games in smaller markets.
Someone tried to get me into a different tabletop kickstarter (Clockwork angels, someone?), but it's generally pretty rare that they'll take off in Australia so I end up with nobody to play with.
Post by: Shub-Nullgurath on April 01, 2017, 01:25:48 am
(https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/015/837/147/f264cbbef048b9f70317cec564475076_original.jpg?w=1024&h=576&fit=fill&bg=000000&v=1489340683&auto=format&q=92&s=e3c2e26ceaa05ca72c134828df29e98f)
Post by: Toaster on April 04, 2017, 05:54:54 pm
Castles of Burgundy is near the top of the list of games I want to try at the moment.
Post by: Gentlefish on April 04, 2017, 06:50:43 pm
Anyone played any good board games lately? I've always been a fan of the idea, but it's just recently I've started any serious attempts at building a collection.
Castles of Burgundy is near the top of the list of games I want to try at the moment.
Villages (http://www.fridgecrisis.com/villages.html) isn't quite a board game, but it's a pretty awesome table-top card game to play with freinds!
Post by: MrWiggles on April 04, 2017, 07:01:11 pm
Anyone played any good board games lately? I've always been a fan of the idea, but it's just recently I've started any serious attempts at building a collection.You can get tabletop simulator, off of steam and play lots of different board games.
Castles of Burgundy is near the top of the list of games I want to try at the moment.
But if you're looking a quick list. DC Deckbuilding game, Talisman, Settlers of Catan, Arkham Horror.
Post by: Toaster on April 04, 2017, 07:24:30 pm
You can get tabletop simulator, off of steam and play lots of different board games.
I have that, actually. Was going to play online with one guy, but he seems AWOL recently. Boo.
Also noted.
Post by: MrWiggles on April 04, 2017, 07:46:15 pm
Post by: Kadzar on April 04, 2017, 08:07:04 pm
Anyone played any good board games lately? I've always been a fan of the idea, but it's just recently I've started any serious attempts at building a collection.If you want a good idea of what a game is like in play, Wil Wheaton's Tabletop (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7atuZxmT956cWFGxqSyRdn6GWhBxiAwE) is pretty decent. For a more varied review show, I tend to prefer Shut Up & Sit Down (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyRhIGDUKdIOw07Pd8pHxCw), which doesn't go into the details of play as much, but has short episodes and has covered a lot more games. They also have written reviews on their website (https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/).
Castles of Burgundy is near the top of the list of games I want to try at the moment.
As for game recommendations, I don't think you could go wrong with Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards: Duel at Mt. Skullzfyre (or just Epic Spell Wars), King of Tokyo, and/or Betrayal at House on the Hill (though it's probably the most complicated of the three). All of them are good for playing with both casual and hardcore board gamers. If you can gather a decent-sized group to play on somewhat regular basis, Zombicide and it's fantasy spin-off Zombicide: Black Plague are quite good (not that the game is too terribly complex, but playing well requires a good understand of the rules and a lot of tactical thinking, and games of it tend to go on longer than a casual player would probably be comfortable with).
Post by: Toaster on April 04, 2017, 09:08:40 pm
I'm moderately looking for some sort of area control wargame type, with Memoir 44 being in my sights as one option. I've always loved the concept of tabletop wargaming, but the majority of them are frightfully expensive to break into.
Pandemic is sitting on my shelf just waiting for my girlfriend to feel well enough to come over and play. Yes, I see the irony.
EDIT: I also caved and backed Dinosaur Island (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pandasaurus/dinosaur-island-1/description) on kickstarter based mostly on theme.
Post by: Sergius on April 05, 2017, 10:54:25 pm
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on June 13, 2017, 03:48:19 am
Post by: Andres on July 02, 2017, 12:53:05 am
Post by: Yoink on July 02, 2017, 02:24:22 am
I lost, both games, and I'm still struggling to come to terms with my defeat. It's eating me up inside. :-X I think perhaps I should get some serious practice in, that I might win a rematch or two and redeem myself next time I'm visiting family.
Post by: Tack on July 02, 2017, 02:38:31 am
Spoony said that the Wheel of Time magic system is very good. Anyone know why? How does it work?if it's the 3.5e wheel of time, I very rarely and barely got to play, but can remember having fun with my asha'man
10/10 would fracture world again.
Post by: scriver on July 02, 2017, 06:14:19 am
Post by: Andres on July 02, 2017, 06:35:22 pm
I haven't watched much Spoony but from what I've seen I've gotten the impression he does not care for 3.5 very much.He likes 3.5, it's 3e that he thought sucked. 4e he thought was meh and he hated 5e due to the decreased complexity, increased balance, and lower mortality.
Post by: prefuzek on July 02, 2017, 06:52:02 pm
Anyone played any good board games lately? I've always been a fan of the idea, but it's just recently I've started any serious attempts at building a collection.If you've got a big enough group (best with 6 or 8) you should definitely try Space Cadets: Dice Duel (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/142079/space-cadets-dice-duel). Two teams flying spaceships in a dogfight with no turns - just frantic dicerolling, bad communication, hilarious mistakes, and a lot of stress. It works surprisingly well - it's some of the most fun I've ever had playing board games.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on July 03, 2017, 01:15:35 am
EDIT: Kharadron Overlords look meh--too much cheese in the previews.
Post by: Cruxador on July 04, 2017, 11:54:57 am
What complexity does he think is decreased? Aside from lacking splat bloat, I don't see a lot of limitation there. Character options and basic rules are a lot more modular.I haven't watched much Spoony but from what I've seen I've gotten the impression he does not care for 3.5 very much.He likes 3.5, it's 3e that he thought sucked. 4e he thought was meh and he hated 5e due to the decreased complexity, increased balance, and lower mortality.
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 04, 2017, 11:57:08 am
I find it odd increased balance is seen as a downside.I haven't watched much Spoony but from what I've seen I've gotten the impression he does not care for 3.5 very much.He likes 3.5, it's 3e that he thought sucked. 4e he thought was meh and he hated 5e due to the decreased complexity, increased balance, and lower mortality.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 04, 2017, 12:52:25 pm
http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-1/
There's some stuff I don't agree with or don't know either way, but I thought it was an interesting first impression. My least favorite parts are when he brags about how lethal the game used to be.
Edit: It's very long, obviously, and the actual review sorta starts at 4:33. And even then there's a lot of rambling about the physical book's smell, heh. I like his rambling but he does go on a lot.
Post by: Neonivek on July 04, 2017, 12:54:56 pm
Believe it or not "You just die" wasn't invented by the Tomb of Horrors. Save and die? PLEASE! Real monsters just kill you flat out.
In some ways this coooouuuld work... But given the amount of work each character requires and the amount of emotional investment it takes to flesh them out, it just doesn't work in the player's favor to play that deadly.
Post by: SeriousConcentrate on July 04, 2017, 04:25:29 pm
Classes other than Initiate of Sevenfold Veil are actually viable? HORRORS. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE NOW.I find it odd increased balance is seen as a downside.I haven't watched much Spoony but from what I've seen I've gotten the impression he does not care for 3.5 very much.He likes 3.5, it's 3e that he thought sucked. 4e he thought was meh and he hated 5e due to the decreased complexity, increased balance, and lower mortality.
Post by: Culise on July 04, 2017, 05:45:38 pm
Well, sure. There's always the kobold Master of Many Forms, whose sole weakness is the GM throwing rulebooks at your head. :PClasses other than Initiate of Sevenfold Veil are actually viable? HORRORS. THIS GAME IS TERRIBLE NOW.I find it odd increased balance is seen as a downside.I haven't watched much Spoony but from what I've seen I've gotten the impression he does not care for 3.5 very much.He likes 3.5, it's 3e that he thought sucked. 4e he thought was meh and he hated 5e due to the decreased complexity, increased balance, and lower mortality.
Post by: SeriousConcentrate on July 04, 2017, 06:02:10 pm
Post by: Shook on July 04, 2017, 06:32:36 pm
Spoiler: The Dude Omelette (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tack on July 04, 2017, 11:52:29 pm
Woah.
Also, Mage party much?
Post by: Shook on July 05, 2017, 05:48:51 am
Post by: SOLDIER First on July 05, 2017, 05:52:26 am
Post by: Parsely on July 05, 2017, 11:08:34 am
SO, time for a tale from Shadowrun. This happened some sessions ago, but it's definitely still worth mentioning. Spoiler because minor wall of text. Also maybe not for the very faint of heart, but come on, we're in the dorf fortress forums, none of us have that issue. :vJeebus.Spoiler: The Dude Omelette (click to show/hide)
Post by: Oneir on July 05, 2017, 06:55:23 pm
My least favorite parts are when he brags about how lethal the game used to be....OK, yeah, definitely not going to spend my time watching that if that's what he's going to go with. Seconding all that's been said about excessive lethality being an iffy aspect of the hobby at best, but can I just point out nothing stops him from playing a more lethal game? Complaining that other people are playing in a way they enjoy is so completely snobbish.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 05, 2017, 07:03:13 pm
The main thing that actually worried me, as someone potentially being in a 5e game soon, was the advantage system. Also elements of the class system. Basically things that seemed over-simplified. I'd give timestamps if I had them, so I'll summarize:
the entire advantage system vs modifiers, wtf
Wizards casting in full plate with a 1 level fighter dip
I'm also worried about the abundance of useful and deadly cantrips, but I'm almost sold. Almost.
Post by: Shook on July 05, 2017, 08:03:34 pm
In all honesty though, as iconic as the d20 is for tabletop roleplaying, i'm actually not that big a fan of it in action. It's satisfying to roll, and nailing a 20 is always awesome, but i don't like the flat distribution of results; a seasoned veteran has as high a risk of a natural 1 as a complete rookie. That's also partly why i like the advantage system, since it messes with the otherwise flat probability curve. In a group i once played in (Cypher system, also d20-based), we actually ended up switching to 2d10 instead, which i found more enjoyable even though there were fewer exceptional results. It did make their appearance all the more exciting, however. :v
I thinkkkkkkkkkkk the "pool of d6's" system that Shadowrun uses is my favourite so far. If you're unfamiliar with it, here's the short version: Roll all your d6's for that skill test, count 5's and 6's as hits. If your hits meet a certain threshold (sometimes dictated by an opposed roll), you succeed. If more than half your dice are 1's, it's a glitch. If you get a glitch with no successes, it's a critical glitch. Modifiers are generally handled as dicepool bonuses or penalties. What i like about this is that your risk of glitches scales with your dicepool, so that a rookie is MUCH more likely to fuck up than a veteran, and i like this because IT MAKES SENSE.
Post by: Jimmy on July 06, 2017, 02:14:07 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 06, 2017, 03:55:32 am
Oh, yeah. And he's pretty obnoxious about it, though he's clearly playing that up for comedy.Sure, if the wizard is willing to put stats in str, otherwise useless, and miss out on their capstone ability.
The main thing that actually worried me, as someone potentially being in a 5e game soon, was the advantage system. Also elements of the class system. Basically things that seemed over-simplified. I'd give timestamps if I had them, so I'll summarize:
the entire advantage system vs modifiers, wtf
Wizards casting in full plate with a 1 level fighter dip
I'm also worried about the abundance of useful and deadly cantrips, but I'm almost sold. Almost.
Post by: Cthulhu on July 06, 2017, 07:38:44 am
I like 5e, but only because there's nothing notable about it. My biggest complaint is that it goes too far into GM fiat. I have lots of story-driven rules-lite games I can play, Wizards. I play D&D for crunchy grid-map combat.
Post by: Criptfeind on July 06, 2017, 08:04:04 am
Post by: Rolan7 on July 06, 2017, 12:04:30 pm
Sure, if the wizard is willing to put stats in str, otherwise useless, and miss out on their capstone ability.Why strength? Carrying capacity?
My group did point out that most wizards prioritize dexterity for their ranged touch attacks, so they tend to be dodgy like rogues instead of "tanky" like fighters (and armor does jack against magic, in particular).
Still though, if casting in full plate isn't worth one level, kinda sounds like armor is pointless.
You also get +2 proficiency, a fighting style (+2 to ranged attacks, for example), and an extra "second wind" well of 1d10 HP. And a d10 HD, though wizards apparently get d6 now... pah.
The wizard capstone, IF you lose it by being capped at 20 or something, is... two bonus 3rd level castings per day? wowzers
Post by: Cthulhu on July 06, 2017, 12:09:23 pm
Legolas should be jacked.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 06, 2017, 12:19:43 pm
Besides, spells like mage armor and shield exist, which is at least as good as chain.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 06, 2017, 12:27:58 pm
Also I figured out what Giglamesh meant about strength - heavy armors have strength levels! Full plate slows you down considerably if you don't have 15 strength. So, yeah.
I dunno. If a wizard regularly needs full plate armor, he might be doing something wrong.Heh yeah, but good archers in DND do add their strength bonus to arrows (if the bow is designed for their bonus).
Besides, spells like mage armor and shield exist, which is at least as good as chain.
I did have a compound bow as a child that was pretty easy to draw (and especially hold), though that involved pulleys and had equally pitiful force. Fun for a child to do short-range target shooting, but faaaaar too light to hunt with.
Also jeez I happened to see Fighter level 2, their "action surge". Extra action (refilled by short rest), which includes spellcasting. Doesn't help survivability as much as level 1 but still, nice.
I'm not complaining, actually, I like that spellswords/battlecasters/etc are actually reasonably possible in this.
Post by: Criptfeind on July 06, 2017, 12:46:50 pm
Why strength? Carrying capacity?
My group did point out that most wizards prioritize dexterity for their ranged touch attacks, so they tend to be dodgy like rogues instead of "tanky" like fighters (and armor does jack against magic, in particular).
Still though, if casting in full plate isn't worth one level, kinda sounds like armor is pointless.
You also get +2 proficiency, a fighting style (+2 to ranged attacks, for example), and an extra "second wind" well of 1d10 HP. And a d10 HD, though wizards apparently get d6 now... pah.
The wizard capstone, IF you lose it by being capped at 20 or something, is... two bonus 3rd level castings per day? wowzers
If you don't meet the strength requirements of armor, it gives you a -10 movement speed penalty. Ranged spell attacks in 5e use the spellcasters casting ability, so for wizards for a "ranged touch attack" you'd be rolling with your int bonus, not your dex. Touch attacks in general don't really exist, armor will work against ranged spells that target ac. Armor is Okay (probably better then 3.5) however just like 3.5 mage armor is a thing that exists and doesn't stack with armor.
Multiclassing as a whole simply doesn't work like what you're envisioning. It has requirements and doesn't give you absolutely everything from the secondary class. Multiclassing into fighter requires that you have a strength or dex of 13, when you multiclass into fighter you don't get heavy armor anyway, only medium and light. This puts you, max, 2 points of ac ahead of mage armor, in exchange for an entire level of spellcasting progression. Proficiency is based on level not class and everyone at the same level always has the same.
Multiclassing into fighter maybe gives you 2 ac if you have the best medium armor and a not high dex score. On average +2 hp, weapon proficiency. shield proficiency. The ability to use some sorta weapon slightly better. (Do you really think it's that useful for a wizard to be able to shoot a bow better? I think the +1 ac looks best to me...) and a non scaling second wind. Realistically that's 4-5 armor that'll over time quite probably become less valuable as you increase your dex score and a small amount of extra hp to play around with. In exchange you've slowed down your spellcasting progression and will always be a weaker spell caster then a straight wizard (this is especially notable on levels where you'd normally gain the next level of spell, but you'll always have less spell slots and a lower recovery then a normal wizard.) It certainly makes you a bit tanker, as one would expect, and I don't think it's crippling to your spellcasting, but neither do I think the tanking ability is automatically worthwhile.
Post by: Kadzar on July 06, 2017, 05:25:35 pm
Otherwise, everything else Criptfiend said still applies, including the Dexterity or Strength requirement, since multiclassing requires you to have at least a 13 in the scores required for both classes.
Post by: Cruxador on July 07, 2017, 01:32:55 am
I dunno. If a wizard regularly needs full plate armor, he might be doing something wrong.Anyone who regularly needs armor (or a weapon, for that matter) is doing something wrong. People who live nice lives where they have everything under control rarely make for good stories, though, and they most definitely don't have adventures.
Post by: scriver on July 07, 2017, 01:50:25 am
Post by: Kadzar on July 07, 2017, 06:29:04 pm
Not to say building to use armor as a Wizard is a bad thing, but it's not a thing that all Wizards are going to strive for, since there are better things for a Wizard to build for. But 5e is such that, even if you don't have the most optimized build, you can still contribute, so you can have a plate mail wizard if you want, and you might do pretty well, but not all the best Wizards are going to be found wearing plate mail.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 07, 2017, 06:37:04 pm
I dunno. If a wizard regularly needs full plate armor, he might be doing something wrong.Anyone who regularly needs armor (or a weapon, for that matter) is doing something wrong. People who live nice lives where they have everything under control rarely make for good stories, though, and they most definitely don't have adventures.
If a wizard has someone waving a sword in front of his d4 hp face, he's probably dead or going to be dead. Wizards typically have no armor, barely a weapon nor the skill to wield it any good, and usually can't use spells in melee (you know, the one good thing wizards get). That's why he's graced with spells to prevent that. And why he has a fighter in his party.
Post by: Parsely on July 08, 2017, 12:08:41 am
Post by: SeriousConcentrate on July 08, 2017, 12:24:17 am
Post by: Jimmy on July 08, 2017, 01:35:59 am
"You get an AoO! You get an AoO! Everyone gets an AoO!"
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 08, 2017, 04:09:59 am
Post by: Twinwolf on July 08, 2017, 07:45:45 am
I'm not actual sure that would trigger AoOs. From what I recall forced movement does not.Shhh, don't ruin it, it's too great :P
Post by: Parsely on July 08, 2017, 10:47:31 am
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 08, 2017, 03:48:48 pm
We called him the flex mage, and all his somatic spell components were just him flexing his muscles. Like, he'd strike a pose (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/bodybuilder-flexing-muscles-pointing-side-retro-24511527.jpg) and a lightning bolt shoots out of his outstretched hand.
Post by: Tawa on July 08, 2017, 04:40:51 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Cruxador on July 08, 2017, 08:51:53 pm
That image is in reference to a specific exploit build though, making use of cancer mage and a specific disease and a bevy of other things to turn your casting stat to strength, then get a specific disease that makes you gain strength, avoid the negative effects of the disease which would otherwise destroy you, and end up with an indefinitely increasing casting stat.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is 3.5, naturally.
Post by: Oneir on July 09, 2017, 09:18:07 am
I'm also worried about the abundance of useful and deadly cantrips, but I'm almost sold. Almost.
Just to hit this last point -- cantrips are good, but they're not abundantly good. They're basically an option to do something without spending resources, either because the stakes are low or because you're tapped out. In general, casters don't get great at will damage (warlocks are an exception, but they lose a lot to make Eldritch Blast so good), even though cantrips are scaling beyond a d3 cold damage from 3.5.
Utility-wise, most cantrips are minor, and while ritual casting exists (certain classes can cast certain spells, e.g. identify, over 10 minutes and not have to spend a slot) the casting time means you're sacrificing something even if you're not sacrificing limited resources.
Post by: Criptfeind on July 09, 2017, 09:27:26 am
So really, infinite cantrips are there to solve the level 1 wizard issue of being useful in like one encounter per day. They aren't really anything to be worried about. Although I'd say their range is a little bit long. Other then that. It's just the ability to do basic okay actions.
Post by: scriver on July 09, 2017, 11:08:53 am
I would be more okay with it if it was the equivalent of a short sword or a club or something. The backup weapon.
Post by: Oneir on July 09, 2017, 12:08:20 pm
Math-wise, remember that going up a die only bumps your average damage by a single point, versus adding 3 or more for being buff, or 7 for being buff and having the right fighting style.
Post by: wierd on July 09, 2017, 12:20:39 pm
That means it cannot be something strenuous to the caster. It's the equivalent to doing jumping jacks or something-- It is the activity that the caster uses to practice channeling arcane energies. Unless the caster practices by shooting down birds, or blowing up bottles, most cantrips will be harmless things like making pretty colored lights, or silly sounds.
If you are creating a caster with a very unusual cantrip (fireballs? Really?), you need to be able to explain why this caster practices by throwing fireballs around, and how he has managed to avoid catching his house on fire during an uncontrolled training session where he loses focus or concentration.
Upon getting a real and good explanation for it, I would then nerf it and say it is stuck at base level, and cannot be overcharged with additional dice.
Post by: Kadzar on July 09, 2017, 12:51:54 pm
But, anyway, in my experience, having that extra dice of damage just brings attack cantrips up to the point of "not quite a total waste of an action" for casters at higher levels (I'm talking like level 7, which is where my players are at right now). Fighters and other non-magic-users are still going to be doing the significant majority of at-will damage, and mages will only really shine when they're expending actual spell slots. Really, trying playing with the rules as written before you go changing things (and with classes that don't get bonuses to cantrip damage, so you don't get skewed results).
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 09, 2017, 12:55:54 pm
If you are creating a caster with a very unusual cantrip (fireballs? Really?)
I need to show you my character named... Tim. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJZK6rzjns)
Post by: Parsely on July 12, 2017, 12:50:11 am
Post by: RoseHeart on July 12, 2017, 09:32:22 am
Can we also talk about how underappreciated and awesome Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://Betrayal at House on the Hill) is?Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe my first impression was correct. I played the creator of this game. The creator of this game is a dick.
Post by: Tawa on July 12, 2017, 11:29:47 am
Holy ancient quote, Batman!Can we also talk about how underappreciated and awesome Betrayal at House on the Hill (http://Betrayal at House on the Hill) is?Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe my first impression was correct. I played the creator of this game. The creator of this game is a dick.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 12, 2017, 04:40:01 pm
Alternative: Forum Gamers have long memories.
Post by: Yoink on July 12, 2017, 07:41:20 pm
What's it like?
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 12, 2017, 07:50:15 pm
It's a kitchen sink game, magic, technology, dimensional travel, aliens, demons and so on. The rules are really kind of broken to hell and back. The setting itself is interesting and fun, but the product as a whole is poorly written, completely unbalanced, and needs to be houseruled into basic functionality.
If you have a good group and are more interested in the setting and cool stuff than well paced and satisfying combat, it is fun to play, but if you want any kind of rules-heavy play just stay away, really.
Post by: scriver on July 13, 2017, 08:49:03 am
Post by: Sergius on July 13, 2017, 05:19:38 pm
Anyone played Rifts? Are you supposed to capitalise the name or not?
What's it like?
I bought every sourcebook.
It's pretty bad.
Nowadays I only read it if I need to be angry about something. Like, if I want to vent, I read the section about how 3 missiles can be dodged but 4 is just impossible. Or the one about how other games are stupid because they don't have exactly 15 character levels.
The setting is maybe good if you want to play it using some other ruleset.
Post by: Yoink on July 13, 2017, 05:50:55 pm
Are you guys directing these complaints to a particular edition, or just the game in general? I'll try to make a character and see how that goes.
Post by: Sergius on July 13, 2017, 07:59:59 pm
Interesting. I've only been reading the lore/setting so far, haven't reached the actual crunch.
Are you guys directing these complaints to a particular edition, or just the game in general? I'll try to make a character and see how that goes.
I'm not sure there's any actual difference between editions other than some cleaning up. I got my game in Y2000, so I have whatever edition was out at that time.
Post by: Oneir on July 13, 2017, 08:08:57 pm
Post by: NullForceOmega on July 13, 2017, 09:22:09 pm
I haven't tried the Savage World system, but I've heard some mixed things about it, so I can't really comment on it. My personal feelings are that the setting itself is good (barring all of Siembieda's writer fiat), and if you like it, it will be fun to play with, but the mechanics are completely godawful bad, and should be either houseruled into obeisance or you should use another ruleset entirely.
Post by: Sergius on July 14, 2017, 12:09:57 am
I'd say there are three things about Rifts that really annoy me. The first two are completely superficial and are related to formatting, errors and tone. The last one is mechanics.
Going into specifics:
(spoilered because as I said, these 2 are really pet peeves of mine and don't reflect the actual quality of the rules. Those are terrible, but that's not spoilered)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
#3: here we get to the meat of the issue. Rules are a mess. They make no sense... character generation takes forever, to fill the skill lists for example. Classes aren't just unbalanced, they are not even fit for the same game. Like, one class comes from a 80's saturday morning cartoon and has the power of friendship and reading books, and the other is MurderKillRoboto that can one-shot buildings with nuclear missiles and is a dragon who also reads minds. And a Jedi. But has a 5% penalty to the Accounting skill so that balances out.
I thought I had more to say about the rules, but it has been a while since I actually read them. I do remember hating them a lot, and not even compared to other games that "did it better"... they just make me angry for some reason.
Arguably the best part of the game are the sourcebooks, like you can get the Japan book and make a cool full conversion cyborg with a dragon body, or there's some fun backstory about Brazilian leopard men and stuff. The "Rifts in Space" sourcebooks for Phase World are also really cool, but they apparently don't even take place in the same dimension as Rifts Earth or something because Rifts Earth outer space doesn't exist or something (or at least you can't get from one to the other except by some magic portal), so essentially it's its own game and characters shouldn't just transfer over. The core book mentions that "because of rifts, races from other Palladium books can also be in Earth" which is barely touched on. But this adventure booklet told me that character X was an Elf and I had no idea how to stat him (because I didn't own PFantasy), it was just completely out of place, because no effort is made at all to actually make you feel like there are dwarves or elves palling around with MegaDamage guns. It's almost a sidenote.
EDIT 2: Hm, there's this post at story-games that describes a lot of the stuff that's being mentioned here, so probably it's a good idea to just check this out and save some time: http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/9965/sell-me-on-wait-for-it-the-palladium-system-i-kid-you-not
Post by: Quartz_Mace on July 15, 2017, 03:32:55 am
I've mapped out a heavily-Roman inspired (with notable exceptions) world, which features a country called the Merchant Republic of Formkatta. My original campaign idea involved the PCs toppling the current ruler who is a despot, but I figured this is too much for characters who are starting at level 1 and don't have much stake in the world, yet. My new idea is to run a shorter, local campaign in this country, while planting seeds for the power struggle campaign if they wish to pursue that afterwards.
As such, I want them to face a rather small, but still challegning and interesting threat. Here's my idea:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tack on July 15, 2017, 01:29:10 pm
There was a bunch of stuff around the idea of it getting more powerful as it gets more validated by positive actions, but also becoming more unruly.
But yeah. Lost the page. Will have to be contented with my tiny parahrwphS m
Post by: Quartz_Mace on July 15, 2017, 03:17:25 pm
Also, I don't feel my first post made the assassin's motivations entirely clear. He killed that bard for a few reasons:
1. He was trying to sleep and could hear the music from his house.
2. He's already an assassin, so what better way to fix the problem?
3. He hates bards. He goes out everyday and does honest, dangerous work. Bards sit around singing and telling stories and get paid to do so!
Post by: andrian on July 15, 2017, 06:28:41 pm
I've wanted to combine those two ideas for awhile, using a system like DnD 5e or Pathfinder. I don't know how it'd work, really, but I think it could be fun. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to make that work?
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 15, 2017, 06:38:35 pm
Hi everyone, relatively new to the forums, but I'm a huge fan of tabletop and DF.
I've wanted to combine those two ideas for awhile, using a system like DnD 5e or Pathfinder. I don't know how it'd work, really, but I think it could be fun. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to make that work?
The obvious answer would be to just set it in a Mountainhome. Players would all be Dwarves. You can use the guide in the DMG or just closest equivalent to make monsters from DF in 5e.
You lore could be taken from worldgen.
If you wanted to model alcohol dependency just homerule something like every player must drink at least one alcoholic drink a day or suffer a level of fatigue or something. Perhaps after three days to prevent undue annoyance. This stacks until the player drinks and cannot be cured otherwise.
Post by: andrian on July 15, 2017, 06:55:16 pm
Hi everyone, relatively new to the forums, but I'm a huge fan of tabletop and DF.
I've wanted to combine those two ideas for awhile, using a system like DnD 5e or Pathfinder. I don't know how it'd work, really, but I think it could be fun. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to make that work?
The obvious answer would be to just set it in a Mountainhome. Players would all be Dwarves. You can use the guide in the DMG or just closest equivalent to make monsters from DF in 5e.
You lore could be taken from worldgen.
If you wanted to model alcohol dependency just homerule something like every player must drink at least one alcoholic drink a day or suffer a level of fatigue or something. Perhaps after three days to prevent undue annoyance. This stacks until the player drinks and cannot be cured otherwise.
Ooh, I like that! I guess I'd have to play DF for a bit and write down designs for procedurally generated creatures like titans and forgotten beasts... or make up a table for generating them on the fly, maybe.
Post by: wierd on July 15, 2017, 08:10:56 pm
Gives you skeleton for campaign setting, bestiary of a sort, and a primer on local politics.
Post by: andrian on July 15, 2017, 08:51:33 pm
Any other suggestions for that sort of thing?
Also, I'm wondering if I can program a procedural monster generator for 5e... Feed it all the Beast stats, and then some templates to modify them, and come up with an algorithm for putting them together.
Post by: IronyOwl on July 15, 2017, 10:07:20 pm
Dwarven justice and medicine in general.
Zoos containing actual animals and also invaders.
Post by: Tack on July 16, 2017, 06:04:52 am
-A lot of 'nonsensical and silly things' is just your input as a GM. A system won't help you with that.
Likewise a monster generator is all you.
I was going to suggest using BW to simulate your dwarfplayers, but you've said you're using DnD & PF.
So I'm not really sure what suggestions could even be offered.
Sounds like crazy fun though, good luck.
Edit: Pathfinder Kingmaker might help with settlement building.
Post by: Jimmy on July 16, 2017, 07:38:28 am
...As a fellow DM, I advise to plan for unexpected complications.
1. What happens if the players capture your assassin alive and attempt to intimidate the name of his employer out of him?
As a player, if I saw a bard get assassinated out of the blue, I'd wanna know why. I'd chase down the killer, deal him a bit of nonlethal damage and knock him unconscious, then strip him of his weapons and tie him up. Once I've got him somewhere safe, I'd squeeze him for everything he knows to chase down what's really going on here. Prepare a good backstory for your assassin if he ends up getting caught instead of killed.
2. What happens if the players decide the dagger is too much trouble and try to sell it instead?
If I was given this magic dagger as a player but it was so troublesome to maintain, honestly I'd just sell it and cut my losses. Sure, it might have cool magic stuff, but if it's gonna give me a hard time I'd rather get a few copper and be rid of it than face the trouble of it stabbing random people in the street and getting me thrown in jail. Magic items should be stuff your players want to keep, otherwise they'll toss them as soon as they turn out to be annoying.
If I can give you one piece of advice, it's that you wanna give the players a clear goal and an incentive to reach that goal.
For example, my current game, I opened with a choice of three different adventure hooks. The first option was a dwarven merchant that was offering a bounty on a group of orc raiders that had attacked a caravan on the road near town. The second was a local businessman that desperately needed a band of hired mercenaries to transport sensitive cargo to a nearby town. The final hook was a local nobleman that needed hired thugs to clear his silver mine of a kobold infestation. I left it to the players which job they wanted to take, having prepared all three encounters. This let them start with a clear goal and a reason they would work together. They ended up taking the orc job, discovering the ruins of an ancient castle where the orcs were camping, clearing out the orcs and then working to take the castle and rebuild it to make it their own stronghold. The dwarf paid them their commission, then mentioned the reason he'd moved into town was that he was seeking information about his brother who had founded a dwarven outpost nearby but suddenly stopped writing home, etc. Once they're working together, you've got a clear reason for them to continue.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 16, 2017, 08:07:16 pm
Edit: Pathfinder Kingmaker might help with settlement building.Just a heads up, Kingmaker is essentially Spreadsheets: The Tabletop Game, unless you use a digital tool. There are a few floating around, like this one (https://daddydm.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/kingmaker-the-app-its-here/). It's a bit rough around the edges, especially with the map editing, but it will get the job done.
Post by: Cruxador on July 17, 2017, 03:17:10 pm
I believe he's referring to a recently kickstarted computer game, not a pathfinder update to the old tabletop classic.Edit: Pathfinder Kingmaker might help with settlement building.Just a heads up, Kingmaker is essentially Spreadsheets: The Tabletop Game, unless you use a digital tool. There are a few floating around, like this one (https://daddydm.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/kingmaker-the-app-its-here/). It's a bit rough around the edges, especially with the map editing, but it will get the job done.
Mind you, I only reached this conclusion after being pleasantly surprised at the implication that the latter existed, and searching for it.
Post by: andrian on July 17, 2017, 03:22:03 pm
Post by: Tack on July 17, 2017, 08:46:12 pm
I was referring to the adventure module
But boy am I keen for the computer game.
Post by: Cruxador on July 20, 2017, 02:22:46 am
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on July 20, 2017, 09:53:15 am
Post by: Cruxador on July 21, 2017, 01:35:00 am
This seems to be the complete set of Kingmaker rules. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/kingdomsAndWar.html)Thanks a lot, I'm obviously not used to locating pathfinder resources. And holy fuck, you weren't kidding about spreadsheets. I'm going to read through the whole thing and see what I like, but from a brief peek into the beginning it's already looking like a lot of things would need to be pared down. And it's not super compatible with what I've been doing since it's made from a post-westphalian perspective of nation-states rather than feudalism.
Post by: hops on July 21, 2017, 11:23:36 am
Post by: RoseHeart on July 21, 2017, 11:43:18 am
Post by: GiglameshDespair on July 21, 2017, 12:07:41 pm
Maybe not so worthwhile.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 21, 2017, 04:09:57 pm
Post by: RoseHeart on July 21, 2017, 11:53:31 pm
Three months is barely a necro in the worst circumstances, much less something so specific.
This. And really to be frank it is the thread where people will meet up for tabletop play by post games. Really relevant.
Post by: Cruxador on July 22, 2017, 12:13:32 am
Post by: milo christiansen on July 22, 2017, 12:20:43 am
Post by: RoseHeart on July 22, 2017, 12:26:16 am
Yeah, really old and outdated. Also the only real way to play if everyone is in different time zones or no one can make a strict schedule...Makes sense. I'm just being selfish. I just want more people to come to forum games and roleplaying. >:D
Post by: Tack on July 22, 2017, 02:11:27 am
Yeah, really old and outdated. Also the only real way to play if everyone is in different time zones or no one can make a strict schedule...This. As an Aussie, PBP is basically one of my only options.
Post by: Jimmy on July 22, 2017, 02:52:13 am
Post by: Cruxador on July 22, 2017, 07:12:48 am
Yeah, really old and outdated. Also the only real way to play if everyone is in different time zones or no one can make a strict schedule...If your options are to spend two months in a single adventure and then probably to never finish another, or to sporadically have adventures with only partial groups at irregular times, you're still better off with the latter option.
Post by: Azrayel on July 30, 2017, 02:11:19 am
I've created a d100 Dieselpunk tabletop roleplaying game called Akroydiesel Age RPG. The latest version of it will always be available on this discord server (https://discord.gg/RKRtKD5) but I can also upload a snapshot on request, posting the link here or elsewhere. I'd rather not having a permanent public-facing link of a wide variety of reasons but also occassionally make threads for it on 4chan's /tg/ board.
Anyone interested in playtesting, taking a look, or letting me know I'm an idiot feel free to PM me here/contact me in the discord. This is a crosspost so I cannot promise I'll see every reply in-thread, though I'll make an effort to.
Post by: RoseHeart on September 04, 2017, 08:55:26 pm
IMO, RTD is defined by the gradient between total failure and total success. In DnD, if you roll a 9 on a DC 10 roll, you just fail, that's it. The same would happen if you had rolled a 2 or a 6. But in RTD there are at any given time six unique different things that could happen every time you roll a die, which means more unintended consequences, more odd situations. The fact that the characters don't ONLY succeed and fail, but fail utterly, half-succeed, get carried away... it opens up so many different possibilities, that not even the GM could have seen coming. You trade the players' and the GM's control over the plot for the RNG's control, and often she's better at coming up with stories than we ever could be.
I was wondering if someone who knows D&D could confirm something stated in this quote: in D&D, rolls are binary fail/succeed scenarios with no gradation, true?
Post by: SOLDIER First on September 04, 2017, 09:01:33 pm
However, there are some instances (and every such instance is specifically noted on its page, i.e. Acrobatics for how far you can jump straight up) where failing or passing a DC by a certain amount has additional consequences/boons. They're usually noted like "if you fail the DC by five or more", or "for every 5 higher your roll was than the DC".
Post by: Rolan7 on September 04, 2017, 09:06:58 pm
Failing to grapple something by 5 or more points *appears* to work, but will rapidly come loose. Fail by less 5 points, and you know you need to try again.
We never did it much, but this is a good opportunity for secret DM rolls. /gr in roll20, only asking the player for their bonus. That way the player doesn't have metaknowledge about the rope's stability... Which applies to other things like stealth, though stealth is pretty binary RAW.
Post by: Cruxador on September 04, 2017, 10:17:07 pm
Post by: Jimmy on September 05, 2017, 04:20:17 pm
Also, Knowledge skill checks typically give more information the higher you roll, usually for every 5 points you exceed the check.
Post by: Sergius on September 06, 2017, 12:25:24 am
I also don't remember if you can jam a lock if you also fail by too much. Am I getting D&D mixed up with Morrowind?
EDIT: here it is (both failing and succeeding by a large margin, 3.5 edition I think):
"If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally."
And exclusive for rogues:
"A rogue who beats a trap’s DC by 10 or more can study the trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (along with her companions) without disarming it. "
Note that these are based on results of the roll rather than an increased difficulty set beforehand.
Post by: Mech#4 on September 06, 2017, 12:32:50 am
Locks couldn't get jammed in Morrowind. You could try over and over as long as you had enough uses in your lockpicks, often necessary to as success was percentage based on your skill level.
Post by: Tack on September 06, 2017, 01:38:35 am
Post by: Mephisto on September 06, 2017, 10:10:20 am
http://drivethrurpg.com/product/220354/HarveyRelief-BUNDLE
Post by: Mephisto on September 13, 2017, 06:51:04 pm
https://www.humblebundle.com/books/warhammer-rpg-books
Post by: SalmonGod on September 14, 2017, 12:48:30 am
Really wanting to play something other than D&D, though... still fascinated by Eclipse Phase and Burning Wheel, and worried I'll never get to play them.
Post by: Tack on September 14, 2017, 04:20:23 am
I, however, used my knives at every opportunity and my knives skill soared so high I was quickly a whirling dervish of death.
Which isn't really what you want from a story game.
Alternatively, just been playing Imperial Assault, and it's awfully hard.
Specifically doors. Doors are hard. Hard as nails.
Post by: Parsely on September 14, 2017, 08:23:38 am
Alternatively, just been playing Imperial Assault, and it's awfully hard.Explain.
Specifically doors. Doors are hard. Hard as nails.
Post by: Fniff on September 14, 2017, 09:12:02 am
Perhaps Imperial Assault is about playing someone without hands. A common challenge is opening various doors.Alternatively, just been playing Imperial Assault, and it's awfully hard.Explain.
Specifically doors. Doors are hard. Hard as nails.
Post by: My Name is Immaterial on September 14, 2017, 09:27:38 am
If I heard this guy right, it's because of how turns work. You have to get everyone in front on the door, and then open it at the start of your turn so you can handle the flurry of lasers coming your way. IIRC, there's no breaching charges or anything, which makes it way harder.
Post by: Tack on September 14, 2017, 02:20:04 pm
For my complaint we recently had a mission where we had six turns to blow open a door manually, which had armour five.
Thankfully though, we had the option to free two allied saboteurs, which were able to do a whopping 2d3 damage, and therefore actually were able to hurt the damn thing unlike the rest of us.
My sniper who had the second-most pierce was able to burn all of his abilities every turn and do one damage to it on a 9+
We had four turns.
It had eight health.
Doors suck.
Post by: Sergius on September 15, 2017, 01:06:55 am
First we played a custom-built setting (using Spark of Fate to build) about an agency investigating supernatural events abroad in the 80's. After that, we played Save Game, which is about old 8-bit videogame characters fighting some sort of corruption, and today we finished a 3-4 session adventure of Aether Sea, where I played a goblin pilot together with an elf wizard saving some planet from some bomb or something. Pretty fun.
Post by: Tawa on October 25, 2017, 04:10:09 pm
Post by: Parsely on October 25, 2017, 05:45:27 pm
Would anybody be interested in a game of play-by-post Diplomacy on the forum?My friend was talking about it the other day. How much time investment is there and how easy is it to learn to play?
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 25, 2017, 06:26:17 pm
Time-investment varies, though given that it's play-by-post I can't imagine that it's too high. Orders are simple to do, so most of your time is being sucked up by shooting PMs out to the other players. I'd be surprised if it's more than 30 minutes a day, especially in the late game when a few players are eliminated and the major alliances are ironed out.
Post by: Parsely on October 26, 2017, 11:26:30 pm
Post by: Tack on October 27, 2017, 08:17:00 am
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on October 27, 2017, 08:37:05 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on October 27, 2017, 10:22:59 am
I thought it was a game which relied on zero luck.
There's luck in you or others fucking up. It happens.
Post by: Reelya on October 27, 2017, 01:09:46 pm
Would anybody be interested in a game of play-by-post Diplomacy on the forum?
Sure.
We've run a few of those. However, one day I'd like to try the variants as well:
http://www.diplomatic-pouch.org/Online/variants1.html
Quote
Chaos (Michel Ferion)
A 34-player variant which uses the standard map. Every player starts out with one home supply center. Standard Diplomacy rules apply except that a player can build in any owned supply center, not just the home center.
Quote
Diplomacy Royale (John Pitre)http://www.diplomatic-pouch.org/Zine/S1997M/Pitre/Royale.html
This variant can be used with any map. The rules have been heavily modified to include blood lines, royal families, marriages, binding agreements, titles, and more.
Quote
Exchange Diplomacy (Bruce Duewer)
A variant that combines ideas from the Payola and Bourse variants. Each player is an investor, trying to win the game by getting the largest stake in the winning power or coalition of powers in the Payola game which is going on.
I kinda dig this one too. The basic idea is that you can buy or sell shares in different nation's military ventures.
Post by: Toaster on October 27, 2017, 05:45:53 pm
QuoteExchange Diplomacy (Bruce Duewer)
A variant that combines ideas from the Payola and Bourse variants. Each player is an investor, trying to win the game by getting the largest stake in the winning power or coalition of powers in the Payola game which is going on.
I kinda dig this one too. The basic idea is that you can buy or sell shares in different nation's military ventures.
If you like that game, Imperial 2030 is a board game that runs off that same idea. (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/54138/imperial-2030)
Post by: MrWiggles on October 28, 2017, 09:40:40 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on November 10, 2017, 11:43:56 pm
And now that I'm here, I really want to find a weekend game to join up with. I miss role-playing so much. I don't think I'm likely to find anything local among friends. Anybody got any good leads before I start randomly stumbling about the internet looking for one?
Post by: Trekkin on November 11, 2017, 12:28:46 am
And now that I'm here, I really want to find a weekend game to join up with. I miss role-playing so much. I don't think I'm likely to find anything local among friends. Anybody got any good leads before I start randomly stumbling about the internet looking for one?
Well, are you looking for tabletop games as in board games or tabletop games as in D&D-style pnpRPGs? Because if it's the latter, you might have more luck in the thread for them, too (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=151000.4680).
Post by: SalmonGod on November 11, 2017, 12:56:24 am
And now that I'm here, I really want to find a weekend game to join up with. I miss role-playing so much. I don't think I'm likely to find anything local among friends. Anybody got any good leads before I start randomly stumbling about the internet looking for one?
Well, are you looking for tabletop games as in board games or tabletop games as in D&D-style pnpRPGs? Because if it's the latter, you might have more luck in the thread for them, too (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=151000.4680).
Gah, you're right. I knew we had such a thread that's usually floating somewhere in the first couple pages of GD. Came on this one first, and Tabletop is synonymous with PnP RPG in my mind. Because board games don't really need to specify that, do they?
Post by: Trekkin on November 11, 2017, 01:03:14 am
And now that I'm here, I really want to find a weekend game to join up with. I miss role-playing so much. I don't think I'm likely to find anything local among friends. Anybody got any good leads before I start randomly stumbling about the internet looking for one?
Well, are you looking for tabletop games as in board games or tabletop games as in D&D-style pnpRPGs? Because if it's the latter, you might have more luck in the thread for them, too (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=151000.4680).
Gah, you're right. I knew we had such a thread that's usually floating somewhere in the first couple pages of GD. Came on this one first, and Tabletop is synonymous with PnP RPG in my mind. Because board games don't really need to specify that, do they?
I always thought that tabletop games were a superset of board games so as to include card games (especially deck and tableau builders).
Post by: SalmonGod on November 11, 2017, 01:09:18 am
Post by: Trekkin on November 11, 2017, 01:53:39 am
I hear that from people a lot, but I've never thought of roleplay as a board game. There can be a board game element if you break out a map and miniatures for crunchy encounter stuff, but that's a sideshow. I've never even done that much, preferring things more freeform and story-focused. The essence of the game is impromptu, collaborative storytelling. I know I'm in the minority on that, though.
Are you, though? Certainly no one I've ever played with has ever actually used minis and maps in any regimented way, and I've only used any kind of crunchy combat rules once in the past three years for all of one half of one round of D&D 5e. We don't play FATE or DramaSystem, but honestly every system we do play has more or less morphed into one of the two with additional subsystems, and it's the same for everyone I know barring one determined Pathfinder group.
Post by: SalmonGod on November 11, 2017, 01:59:28 am
I hear that from people a lot, but I've never thought of roleplay as a board game. There can be a board game element if you break out a map and miniatures for crunchy encounter stuff, but that's a sideshow. I've never even done that much, preferring things more freeform and story-focused. The essence of the game is impromptu, collaborative storytelling. I know I'm in the minority on that, though.
Are you, though? Certainly no one I've ever played with has ever actually used minis and maps in any regimented way, and I've only used any kind of crunchy combat rules once in the past three years for all of one half of one round of D&D 5e. We don't play FATE or DramaSystem, but honestly every system we do play has more or less morphed into one of the two with additional subsystems, and it's the same for everyone I know barring one determined Pathfinder group.
That's been my impression talking with other gamers, and going to Gencon almost every year. Seems like most people do combat-heavy adventure stuff and like their grid maps. And I rarely meet anyone who plays anything other than D&D/Pathfinder, which is the most oriented towards that stuff.
Post by: Arx on November 11, 2017, 04:57:55 am
Post by: scriver on November 11, 2017, 05:14:13 am
I hear that from people a lot, but I've never thought of roleplay as a board game. There can be a board game element if you break out a map and miniatures for crunchy encounter stuff, but that's a sideshow. I've never even done that much, preferring things more freeform and story-focused. The essence of the game is impromptu, collaborative storytelling. I know I'm in the minority on that, though.
In Swedish, apart from the word literally meaning board games ("brädspel"), we have a more broadly applicable word, "sällskapsspel", meaning sorta like "company games" (as in keeping another company), which I feel role-playing games fit very nicely into. But if translated, I would still translate it to "board games" since it is the closest equivalent.
Post by: Cruxador on November 11, 2017, 09:16:45 am
card games, rpgs, and also tactics games like Warhammer. That's what people lump in the most. But it does also include board games even though those aren't as far down the rabbit hole of nerdery.I hear that from people a lot, but I've never thought of roleplay as a board game. There can be a board game element if you break out a map and miniatures for crunchy encounter stuff, but that's a sideshow. I've never even done that much, preferring things more freeform and story-focused. The essence of the game is impromptu, collaborative storytelling. I know I'm in the minority on that, though.
Are you, though? Certainly no one I've ever played with has ever actually used minis and maps in any regimented way, and I've only used any kind of crunchy combat rules once in the past three years for all of one half of one round of D&D 5e. We don't play FATE or DramaSystem, but honestly every system we do play has more or less morphed into one of the two with additional subsystems, and it's the same for everyone I know barring one determined Pathfinder group.
That's been my impression talking with other gamers, and going to Gencon almost every year. Seems like most people do combat-heavy adventure stuff and like their grid maps. And I rarely meet anyone who plays anything other than D&D/Pathfinder, which is the most oriented towards that stuff.
Post by: scriver on November 11, 2017, 09:26:27 am
*Settlers of Catan intensifies*
Post by: Sergius on November 12, 2017, 03:23:06 pm
And now that I'm here, I really want to find a weekend game to join up with. I miss role-playing so much. I don't think I'm likely to find anything local among friends. Anybody got any good leads before I start randomly stumbling about the internet looking for one?
Well, are you looking for tabletop games as in board games or tabletop games as in D&D-style pnpRPGs? Because if it's the latter, you might have more luck in the thread for them, too (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=151000.4680).
Gah, you're right. I knew we had such a thread that's usually floating somewhere in the first couple pages of GD. Came on this one first, and Tabletop is synonymous with PnP RPG in my mind. Because board games don't really need to specify that, do they?
This thread is just fine for tabletop roleplaying games.
Currently, I'm playing a Fate Discord game on thursdays. We're sort of going thru all kinds of settings rather than one long campaign. We're just finishing up the Tower of the Serpents and after that we're probably going to try one with knights of the round table with giant robots.
Post by: birdy51 on November 12, 2017, 07:16:29 pm
Not entirely the right thread. Ignore!
Post by: Tawa on February 03, 2018, 02:49:07 pm
Post by: hops on February 06, 2018, 10:45:49 pm
Post by: Cruxador on February 07, 2018, 02:14:20 am
Hi, can anyone recommend me a tabletop system that can work with a "single person controlling multiple PCs" situation?Literally any can, but Ars Magica is built for it.
Post by: StevieRay on January 04, 2021, 03:01:04 pm
Hi, can anyone recommend me a tabletop system that can work with a "single person controlling multiple PCs" situation?
Like TeamViewer?