|
Did you know that 4E killed the good old tradition of narratively flexible, rational rules that gave us I AM THE MOON, only to replace them with the abstract, rigid nonsense of Page 42 and the precision of pages-long examples about improvisation?quote:Anyone who played the previous edition knows that common sense was rooted out entirely. Nothing happens as one would rationally expect; everything happens as prescribed by the rules and then you have to rationalise it or handwave it away as you like or as best you can. People who haven't played it cannot understand how much of an uphill struggle it is, but even Mearls said it: the aim of 4E design was to protect the players from beginner/bad/rear end in a top hat DMs. The way to achieve it was to have the rules give an abstract but precise answer for every situation. Maybe a nonsensical one, but (because of the other sacred cow, Balance with a capital B) one that couldn't be questioned. But in this context the above rule [of having the DM rely on his common sense] is violated and that makes my head hurt. Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 27, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
Grog, in a sentence posted:You also apparently don't care if all [classes] are equally over/underpowered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
quote:The nominal head of D&D was fired every single year that 4th edition was in print. Despite the fact that Mearls was very vocal and bragged about his role in the process to fans, he wasn't actually head of D&D until 4th edition was poo poo canned. I love Frank so much. "5E is vaporware. Anyway, after 5E is released in a few months…" In the same loving paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Second Wind! ---- Emerikol;6322624 posted:I am sure it could be houseruled. The reason I'm not going to houserule it is that Wotc is making a concerted effort to end my playstyle. They are not offering alternatives and I apologize for not being clearer. Mike made it pretty clear there will not be any alternatives for second wind specifically. He did say that there would be alternative ways to use HD. A CONCERTED EFFORT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Finally got around to actually looking at those things, and OH MY HOLY DAWNFLOWER!! How the hell does a swarm of mosquitoes deal 2d6 damage plus 1d6 bleed????? Where are these mosquitoes spawning?? The Worldwound? Cue the science music!!! According to science, it takes around 400,000 mosquitoes all pulling their maximum capacity of blood to kill a human, but that's an ungodly number of insects (even minuscule ones) to attack an individual human. I'm having a bit of trouble tracking down real mosquito swarm numbers, but most of them probably aren't that big. Hell, the human body can't even fit that many mosquitoes on it at one time. My rough estimation is that an average human body could fit about 18,500 mosquitoes on it at any one time, assuming you're fully shaved and naked. Meaning you'd need to be Fully Covered in a new layer of mosquitoes 21 and a half times before you've lost enough blood to actually die (assuming you stand there and take it without killing any of them). As the internet is also not very forthcoming with how long it takes for a mosquito to fully feed, I'd put my estimation that this whole process, if done in as unrealistically efficient a manner as possible, would take probably about 20-30 minutes. Though, if after about the first 15 you said "screw this," you'd probably want to go to a hospital immediately and inject their entire annual supply of malaria vaccine. Oh! And turns out getting away from them wouldn't be too hard either, since the average mosquito's top speed caps at around 1.5 miles per hour. Meaning (Mathmathmathmath) the swarm would have a fly speed of 15 feet IF you round up. (Real number is 13.2 feet.) Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
For me, style affects the way I think about a rule. So a proscribed, identikit "block", while easy to understand, makes me think about magic in a regimented, technical, numerical way, rather than an eclectic, arcane, poetic way. I don't like spellbooks to look like spreadsheets, no matter how easy it makes things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
The last update leaned heavily on tech trends to attract new players. Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition, released in June 2008, tweaked the game in ways that some critics said made it too much like a video game. A wizard, for instance, could cast the same spell over and over again, ad nauseum, like a kid mashing the attack button on his Xbox controller. Old school fans were horrified, but the new edition did manage to attract some younger players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
I'm coming to dislike Sean's opinions more and more. Darkvision is pure gamism. It works because it works. No explanation. The very issue with infravision is that it is a natural explanation. I'm not for coming up with something different that has some basis for how it works. I do not believe dwarves are magical 24/7 so I'd like a natural explanation for how they see in the dark other than - they just do. Those kinds of answers are never satisfying for me. I don't mind that the world works differently but I want it to have a basis for how it works. It is why I prefer there to exist a theory of magic and not just have every spell be an arbitrary exception. I agree with SKR. It will never be in D&D ever again. Infravision though was not an oversight in the old days. They just cared about this stuff and nowadays the developers do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
The fighter did get screwed in the new save system a bit, that's for sure. And the infinite diversity in infinite combinations of the spell system is inherently problematic. So yes, these are real things. But compared to the limitations of the AD&D chassis or the huge fundamental problems with 4e or the incoherence we've seen with the 5e playtests, these seem like nitpicks. And that's kind of the thread topic. It seems that because 3e is so well-known (in part because of the OGL and in part because of its sheer popularity) it gets held to a higher standard. I wish people would take the level of scrutiny they apply to 3e, and apply it equally to other games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
The standard modifier is completely broken. A feeble character of sufficient level can break down a door. The same problem that existed specifically with BAB/THAC0 and saves in earlier editions now applies to everything. Remember that article about how 3e actually simulates basic things like applications of strength and everyday skills up through level 6 or so? 4e totally fails that test. You've got at-will magic for everyone, you've got self-healing for nonmagical characters, you've got minions whose basic numbers don't withstand any scrutiny at all, beginning characters with triple hit points. Any one of those could be considered world-breaking. Again, how they compare to each other is a downstream consideration. If you can't make one balanced character on an island, you can't balance two characters against each other. In 3e (and earlier editions) there are some (if not many) balanced characters and creatures, and some unbalanced ones, things that maybe should be corrected in some way depending on context. In 4e, there are no balanced characters/creatures to begin with; zero. The more dynamic and less inflationary mechanical structures of 3e (and to be fair, the earlier editions and the relatively flat math we've seen from 5e) are much more inherently balanced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Let's just say for the sake of argument that for a medium humanoid that the meat part is hit points up to their constitution score. All hit points above that score represent these other things. I am of the proportional school of thought on this. I see each hit as removing some from the top and some from the bottom. What is removed from the bottom may in fact be fractional at times. If a fighter has 64 hit points and takes 8 damage then 2 of that damage is meat and 6 is other stuff. So when healing occurs what is happening is the meat is being restored and by default the rest automatically comes back. That is why I favor proportional healing based upon the level of the target. Your CLW will actually do more hit points when cast on a 10th level character than it does on a 2nd level character. You can't remove from the top without removing some smaller part from the bottom. I mean YOU could but I would not. My view would not allow it is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Now this is just my opinion but I do believe it is based on a lot of experience and interaction with the gaming world. From forums, to cons, to fellow gamers. Still it is not absolute proof. I believe that the martial healing issue is a big issue. I think Mike Mearls like you does not see Second Wind in the same light. He has said there will be modules in the DMG to dial down HD and he also went on almost a one man crusade to stop the Warlord class from being it's own class. Like dissociative mechanics, he probably doesn't fully understand. Maybe like you there are people on the fence on Second Wind. I think you could sum up the rest of those things you mentioned and not even be a blip on the martial healing radar as far as interest goes. The reason I have hard feelings about it is that it is so easy to fix and offer an alternative. Already we have a lot of other things on the simple fighter that are objectionable. Both the fighter and rogue have issues. It would have been so easy to say - "Look we know we have a segment that is highly sensitive to some of these mechanics. Let's make sure that at minimum there is a fighter and a rogue subclass that supports them. They are of the types that you give them those two classes without any problems and they'll buy into the rest of it." It really would be that easy. What is sad is that even a few thousand people like my stage of life not buying into the game is going to cost them half a million dollars in sales. People in their 40's and 50's have the money. I guarantee you I spent more than 90% of the people who loved 4e spent. I hated 4e. It just took me some time to realize what I hated about it. It would have taken a developer all of a week to provide the necessary options for our playstyle. Is a weeks time worth half a million dollars in sales? And to be honest, I would guess that the desire far exceeds a few thousand people. I am just not sure how many are as determined as I am about it. Some play buy the game holding their nose and still wish they had those options. After the bitter fights over surges in 4e, if they can't realize that some people want old fashioned hit points and old fashioned recovery then they are lost. Honestly. Insane or evil or stupid, take your pick. I say "evil" in a "for bad reasons" way not as in "Hitler".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
the setup posted:I've got a friend who's running a Pathfinder game (currently at 5th level). I am playing a wizard. I want to build constructs. I don't want to wait for 12th level to make said constructs. How do I get to make constructs early? the punchline posted:I'd like to print this post, put it a nice frame and show it to anyone who ever asks me the question, "What do you mean by player entitlement?" It would firmly answer any question they might have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Not enaugh people have said orcs. 2d4+4 damage at first level can kill if lucky 90% of players on one hit. God saves you from a crit. On a 18+. And many have forgotten the worst part. Ferocity. They can go up to -12 befor dieing. That gives them hipotetical 18 Hp. For a 1/3 CR. Did i mentioned darkvision too? The -1 will save is the glass jaw. The +5 to hit as well is really nice. Here is a secret interpretation to kill orcs ferocity says it allows you to stay concious if oyu are below zero hit points if you deal between 7-11 points of nonlethal damage to the orc ferocity doesn't say it works here or anything about nonlethal damage at all as they still have positive hp and would then start draining it while positive which makes no sense. So use a heavy flail and the bludgeoner feat from ultimate combat. Of course some Gm might not see it that way. This does have interesting implications on evolution because when an orc without magic is damaged into negative hp it will probably die on its own but its family members also probably fight with it so it helps them reproduce by proxy. === Pathfinder leads to brain damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Giving some Advantages & Disadvantages to PCs who will begin as Slaves Hey there, I'm hoping you can give me some feedback about the Advantages & Disadvantages I'm planning on giving my PCs in a new game where they'll all begin as Gladiator Slaves based on where they were born and how long they've been slaves. Here are my ideas: Born into slavery by parents who were both slaves themselves or by single parents who had a child by a free person Advantage: +2 bonus against Disease, Sickness and Nausea. Advantage: +2 bonus to Fortitude Advantage: +1 bonus to one Class Skill of your choice Advantage: Need only 2.3rds the amount of sleep as a normal member of their race (rounding to nearest .5). Humans, for example, would only need 5.5 hours of rest to gain the benefits of a full rest instead of 8 hours like normal. Likewise, Elves would only need 2.5 hours of rest instead of 4 like normal. Advantage: +4 bonus to Intimidate against new guards Advantage: 1 bonus Feat – Has to be justified in background and approved by DM Disadvantage: -4 penalty to Will against Illusions Disadvantage: -4 penalty to Will against Compulsions Disadvantage: Start with 1,500 gp fewer than the normal amount for Level 4 characters. 4,500 gp in this case, not 6,000 gp Born in the slums of Bergovitsa and kidnaped into slavery recently A: + 1 bonus to two Class-Skill of your choice A: Additional +1 bonus to one non-Class-Skill of your choice A” +4 to use Diplomacy to Gather Info in Bergovitsa A: +2 Damage bonus against Guards and Guard Animals A: 1 bonus Feat – Has to be justified in background and approved by DM D:: -4 penalty when using social-skills against upper-class citizens. D: Requite 1.5 amount of sleep as standard to your race for a full rest. D:: Start with 1,000 gp fewer than the normal amount for Level 4 characters. 5,000 gp in this case, not 6,000 gg Born in the slums of Bergovitsa and kidnaped into slavery many years ago A: +2 bonus against Disease, Sickness and Nausea A: +2 to bonus to Fortitude, Reflex or Will of your choice. A: +1 bonus to two Class-Skills of your choice A: +4 bonus to Intimidate against new guards A: +2 Damage bonus against Guards and Guard Animals A: Need only 2.3rds the amount of sleep as a normal member of their race (rounding to nearest .5). A: 1 bonus Feat – Has to be justified in background and approved by DM Disadvantage: Start with 1,500 gp fewer than the normal amount for Level 4 characters. 4,500 gp in this case, not 6,000 gp Disadvantage: -4 penalty to Will against Illusions Born in the wilds outside Bergovitsa and kidnapped into slavery recently A: +4 bonus to Handle Animal against guard animals A: +2 bonus to Heal (self & others) A: +1 bonus to three Class-Skills of your choice A: +1 bonus to two non-Class-Skills of your choice A: 1 bonus Feat – Has to be justified in background and approved by DM A: Standard Amount of Gold D: Requite 1.5 amount of sleep as standard to your race for a full rest. Born in the wilds outside Bergovitsa and kidnapped into slavery many years ago A: +2 bonus to Handle Animal against Guard Animals A: +1 bonus to two Class-Skills of your choice A: +1 bonus to two non-Class-Skills of your choice A: +2 Damage bonus Guards and Guard Animals A: Need only 2.3rds the amount of sleep as a normal member of their race (rounding to nearest .5). A: 1 bonus Feat – Has to be justified in background and approved by DM D: Start with 1,000 gp fewer than the normal amount for Level 4 characters. 5,000 gp in this case, not 6,000 gp Disadvantage: -4 penalty to Will against Illusions What do you think? What should I add? What should I get rid of? Accepting all opinions! Thanks a lot!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
From the the name is the thing category:quote:@mearls mentioned in the Unboxing that the simple subclass for Fighter is called Champion. It was called Warrior in the playtest. Furthermore the Weaponmaster from the Playtest is now a Battlemaster. Keep in mind; the mechanics aren't different. It's the name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
quote:I have played many (hundreds...) of games and have never felt the need for control markers. You tend to know anyhow which centers you have. And besides; you have a written record of all movements so you can check up on which were in which centers last. Never buy a game made after 1980.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Won't someone please think of the poor NPCs, that absolutely exist and aren't just PART OF THE IMAGINARY GAME IT'S REAL IT'S REAL IT'S REAL TO ME, DAMMIT. ~*~ quote:I imagine that 4e minions must spend a lot of time at bars drinking and commiserating with each other about how the PCs are playing "rocket tag" with them. Hopefully they never get in bar fights. quote:I am not sure 4e minions think of themselves as such -they are the heroes of their own stories, sadly their stories are not the ones we are telling. And right here is where it falls apart. If they are the heroes of their own stories that makes them heroes; whose stories could just as easily be the ones being told by the play-of-game. That you've instead chosen to tell the story associated with the PCs means nothing; those other guys are still just as much heroes as the PCs in the eyes of the greater game world - and should logically have the stats (and h.p.) to reflect it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
quote:So, it fails in just about every aspect of a simulation, and it is more of a fantasy role playing game than a rules-as-physics simulation of a world? :p The terms "fantasy roleplaying game" and "world simulator with rules as physics" are synonyms. That being said, that's not what I was saying. Whether a minion corresponds to anything in reality or not is not the point. The point is that it isn't balanced with something that is not a minion (and probably not with most of its fellow minions either). If classed characters aren't balanced with minions, solos, and all the rest, what does it matter how they compare to each other. Comparing a fighter to an orc or giant is a lot more pertinent than comparing him to a wizard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
quote:Things "off screen" have no hit points, since hit points are a gameplay convenience and stuff "off screen" is, by definition, not being played at the time and thus needs no gameplay convenience. Come on, now. Surely, regardless of their gaming philosophy, ENWorlders understand object permanence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
I just don't think original D&D would've gotten off the campuses. The "flash" (and controversy) of AD&D moved it forward. Also, basic D&D pushed it into toy stores and toy departments (although a couple of AD&D books I own have "Toys R Us" price-stickers on them). When you're 12 and confronted with BASIC (with some admittedly goofy-looking pictures of gumby-like heroes fighting a dragon) or ADVANCED (scantily clad woman in clutches of demon, wizard and knight doing their thing), which is going to resonate with you more?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Apple Mummy posted:
Grogtax: Khatoblepas posted:Okay, so, I'm curious: How are the PCs supposed to deal with that? Like put yourself in their position here. Do they do the same thing until the entire multiverse is filled with Ice Assassins and Gated Solars? Emperor Tippy posted:The best way is deliberately leave critical weaknesses that are covered on yourself with gear or spells and then Mind Rape yourself to forget about those weaknesses and how exactly your items protect you against them before putting a Craft Contingent Wish on yourself to restore your Mind Raped memories in the event that you ever see a copy of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
If you think about it, a focus on balance is kind of against the spirit of D&D. The concept of balance under discussion really applies mostly between different PCs and their builds. The concern is the possible resentment if one PC out-performs another, or if one PC is noticeably weaker. You can't "balance" a fight between four PCs and a huge dragon - you can only try to make it a fair fight. In the D&D game in spirit, the PCs are supposed to be a team, not competing with one another for who does more damage to the monster. Who cares if the thief did much damage to the skeletons - we wouldn't have gotten the secret door open without him. I'd say balance is not nearly as important to game design as making sure a thing you designed does what you and your players expect from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Someone is upset that fake daddy WotC didn't tell him it was okay to play D&D his way. Emerikol posted:If they had seriously tried to address my playstyle and failed I'd be far more willing to houserule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
I am having to restrain myself from responding to this post at EnWorld because I honestly do not think I could do so without getting banned. It's like, either intentionally pedantic bullshitting for the sake of rhetoric, or 3.X really does cause brain damage.Ahnehnois posted:[Whose line is it anyway is] a game show. The same format is also commonly used by comedy clubs and theater groups. There are plenty of other similar games that revolve around making stuff up surrounding preset prompts of some sort. quote:Of course, many competitive games also aren't balanced between participants/competitors. Take Mafia for example; several defined (and totally unequal) roles create an engaging dynamic. Same post, in response to someone saying that all player options should be roughly balanced. quote:What about good ol' basketweaving? Is that supposed to be on the same level as using a sword? Trying to balance apples and oranges is doomed to fail. Even adopting a very limited, restrictive, dungeon-based setting still opens D&D up to a variety of capacities that will never be balanced with each other. A point in performance can't really be compared with a point in a saving throw to the level of rigor that would be required to enforce that level of balance. Likewise, a druid can't really be compared with a rogue to that degree. Someone quotes Gygax saying that, yes, in fact, we were trying to make a balanced game. quote:So...if magic is restrained, everything's fine right? I mean, no one anywhere is arguing for unrestrained magic (which to me, sounds synonymous with at-will spells, so maybe someone is).  quote:What you're referring to as asymmetry however, while it may be a perfectly good model for wargames, is not appropriate for a roleplaying game. A roleplaying game is about the characters, not the players, and should be judged in terms of the characters' world and not the players' experience. The players certainly aren't competing with each other (unlike with a wargame), so as @Savage Wombat notes, balance between them is irrelevant. So basically, balance in D&D is not important because nobody handicaps Usain Bolt in competitive sporting match and D&D system mastery is kind of like that, and also of course D&D is nothing like a competitive sport so we don't have to worry about balance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Chaltab, if you can read ENworld without wanting to pop Ahnehnois in the face... Well, you probably have him blocked. That pedantic sperglord is something special. JRRNeiklot posted:For me, it's not just one issue. There's a plethora of things that add up to too many things to houserule. There's too many things that break immersion. Second wind is just one of many rules that each on it's own might not keep me away from 5e, but taken together, by the time I remove them all, there's not much left. Also, I don't always dm, it's not always up to me what rules to exclude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Chaltab, if you can read ENworld without wanting to pop Ahnehnois in the face... Well, you probably have him blocked. That pedantic sperglord is something special. Alright, this isn't all that common, but it's not the first time I've seen it in this thread; can we please not imply that people who fit the grogs.txt moniker (be they Edition Warriors, misogynists, etc) might have Asperger's or are autistic? It's pretty demeaning to people with said disorders to be lumped in with jerks and bigots, and even if said jerks were autistic, it's primarily not because of that. I can bet that 99% of the people perpetuating toxic memes in the hobby are doing it for other reasons, such as prejudiced views, nerd elitism and tribalism, and their big egos making them unable to admit to being wrong on the Internet. And although the last example is more a case of being over-analytical than bigotry, I remember an earlier post describing sexist posters on GiantITP "sperging out" or something to that effect. Grog tax: quote:2nd edition was around for 21 years, it is the last true pure role playing game. The others are nothing more than glorified board games. Libertad! fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:Alright, this isn't all that common, but it's not the first time I've seen it in this thread; can we please not imply that people who fit the grogs.txt moniker (be they Edition Warriors, misogynists, etc) might have Asperger's or are autistic? It's pretty demeaning to people with said disorders to be lumped in with jerks and bigots, and even if said jerks were autistic, it's primarily not because of that. I can bet that 99% of the people perpetuating toxic memes in the hobby are doing it for other reasons, such as prejudiced views, nerd elitism and tribalism, and their big egos making them unable to admit to being wrong on the Internet. quote:You probably could have copied this from my own suggestions I put out some time ago on the wotc boards. I've said over and over again that it goes beyond just finding a way to make it work. There is a principle at work. As easy as it would be for me or for you to create a houserule, it would be just as easy for Wotc to create a houserule. Failure to do so says something. It says they will not support my playstyle or that of many others who feel the same way about hit points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
So theres a NEXT livestream, i feel its cheating but its so easy to just dump grog directly from the chat:quote:Hakarb: Sadly some players end up expecting to be railroaded into plot, it bums me out when I have to forcefully snag players onto plot hooks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
quote:I think we're going to have to consider issues like these differences in GMing philosophy. I may not invest as heavily in the well-being of Terry the Butcher as my players invest in their characters in general... but when they encounter him, I will be trying to make him as valid and interesting a character as I can and I will be invested in his survival. That's my job as a GM - to breathe life into the NPCs as the players do the same with their PCs. It has been my experience that the gaming is much more fun that way. I may play a set of orc raiders differently, but then, none of them are likely to have an ambition of becoming a dancer rather than a butcher. Their motivations are more about personal glory and plunder, even at the risk of grave personal harm. quote:The difference, I think, is that if my players use Diplomacy on him to get a better price, I don't feel like my agency over him is being abused. That's over and beyond the fact that I want to make him an interesting character. The practical fact of the matter is that he's onscreen for maybe 15 (hopefully memorable) minutes, and the PCs are there all the time. "The difference, I think, is that if my players use Diplomacy on him to get a better price, I don't feel like my agency over him is being abused." Whereas I do. My agency over Terry is already considerably limited in that I don't get to use Diplomacy (or similar) rolls against the PCs; my only recourse for Terry is to try and roleplay my way into or out of whatever situation I or the PCs want to put him in. For example the PCs can try and Diplomacy their way to a better price for his beef but Terry can't Intimidate them out of his store or Diplomacy them into buying a few cuts of pork to go with said beef.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Know what's super weird? When non-wizards get things or do things! ~*~ Rogues and skills have been an oddball pretty much since skills had been added to the game. The erudite wizard that's expected to be the font of knowledge on everything from ancient languages, everything from other planes, the secrets of the lost civilizations, how to read a map, and so many other things, so long as they were a knowledge skill, something dealing with magic, or other planes, and yet they got 1 skill point. Then you had the rogue. A class that rarely has much in the way of education, and yet ended up with a boatload of skills that could equal the rest of the party. Now it's true that the skill bloat that occurred had the rogue using the vast majority of those for their roguish talents, or at least that's what the designers expected. In our groups most of the time, a large number of them only learned a few traditional rogue skills if any, and then used the rest to become experts in multiple fields. It got so bad that 3 of the GMs houseruled that only 1/4th of a rogues skill points could be used for electives, the rest had to go to a list of rogue appropriate skills. Later they also give wizards bonus skill points to be used for wizardly approved skills as well. Things like spellcraft, concentration, appropriate knowledges, etc. Well, it looks like a lot of the skill bloat is gone, though even with a slight reduction in skill points, they are still doing pretty darn good as they don't have to waste a ton of them dealing with the skill bloat. (Tumble, balance, search, spot, rope use, and a number of others that were redundant, or way too specific.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
First, thanks Libertad!  I'd not been sure whether sperging was based on aspergers or a euphemism for masturbation I was unaware of, so it had been making me uncomfortable. If it's aspergers then I agree it should definitely stop.Now for grog. GITP has a thread on a power tripping gender bending DM right now. It's not quite as bad as you'd expect - but have some  quote:Boys play with soldiers, girls play with dolls. Even in video game design men are usually the coders and women take up writing and art. I don't see why biological differences can't make up the bulk of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
quote:Hahaha, what? The overall system of the [Warhammer 40k] Imperium is feudal at best, republican at a stretch, but best described as despotic on average. How you manage to get "fascist" in there is just... what? Have language lost all meaning, boiling entire ideologies down to pejoratives?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
There's no question that many of the adventures in my world embrace the fantastical. Speaking only of the online campaign, I have had the party meet a humorous ghost, jump all over my world in a teleportation booth, staged a war with an undead army, walked the party through Constantinople while in the Ethereal plane of existence and razed a town with worms from hell and a massive giant hundreds of feet high. I do not feel that a campaign must consist of mundane events. It must, however, be grounded in reality. There is one reason for this - the players are grounded in reality. In solving problems, they will turn again and again to what they've learned throughout their lives. That experience must have nothing to grab onto - else the world will be hopelessly divorced from meaning. Arguments will become constant - or the DM will have to employ his or her fiat constantly - because the players don't know what's real. Yesterday, Matt introduced me to a rather remarkable concept, apparently a meme from 3rd edition. I will allow him to explain it: "The 'peasant rail-gun' is an example of rules abuse in 3rd edition D&D. It works by taking a literal wording of the rules, and then applying real-world physics to the effects that situation would create. It works like so: "In 3rd edition you can hand an object to another character as a free action. In game terms, this means you can hand a potion to a buddy, and still move and attack in the same round. A free action takes "no time" and it is the "no time" wording that is abused. "So, you create a line of peasants a mile long. The how doesn't matter, there are several ways to do it from paying them a days wages to taking the leadership feat and boosting the parameters that earn you followers. Now what you do is that you have the peasants pass an object such as an arrow, a crossbow bolt, or an iron rail down the line, one by one. "Remember, passing an item is a free action. The peasants can each pass the rail with the action taking no time within the span of a 6 second round. When the object reaches the last peasant, he throws it at a target. "Now, enter the physics. You have just instantaneously accelerated an object to 1 mile per second. The speed of the object when it is thrown must take that acceleration into account. It stands to reason that it will impact the target at that speed, as there is not enough time for proper deceleration. The result is that whatever you were targeting is likely obliterated due to the force of impact from an object travelling at that speed." Matt then goes on to say that no good DM would allow this, and he's right. For my purposes today, however, I feel that it's necessary to ask a logical question that defies the 'gun' on its own level. 1) presuming that it does accelerate as it passes from hand to hand, at some point, the speed of the transfer will increase past the point where the receiver is able to direct it accurately to the next person in line; the object will 'get out of control,' and must be dropped, or an accident will occur where the next peasant in line will be speared and perhaps killed by the rail. 2) Why is there any presumption that the object will increase speed? The object from the first pass is considered to be moving 3 feet in zero seconds, and this speed does not cause the object to threaten the first person it is passed to. Therefore, upon what basis does acceleration occur? A whole number cannot be divided by zero, but nevertheless, 3/0 = 3/0 x 1000. There is no acceleration. Unless I've seriously goofed at math again, and that may be possible. The larger point would be that once we have begun messing around with logic and physics in the game, we quickly create a circumstance where everyone has a premise for argument, while no demonstrable evidence exists. Quickly the campaign descends for a time into bickering and zero gain, while role-play becomes a game of rule-twisting and not running characters. Matt is right. No good DM would allow this - but not because it is silly or dangerous or gamebreaking, but because it is an example of players playing the wrong game. For all the people who claim that role-play is about fantasy and not reality, abstraction and not simulation, as soon as we depart from actuality, the game stumbles and falls. Which brings us back to Averroes in the 12th century: God cannot make a Euclidean triangle with more than 180 degrees. No matter how 'fantastical' the ideals of our world, math is still math. I have yet to see any DM sit down to work out an alternative computational system that does not include, in any degree, the math we already use. That would be really something. What is the value in saying that 'math is math'? It is the recognition that if I step into your world, I would expect certain principles to remain in place. Wood, for instance, would still burn by virtue of carbon combining with oxygen, which would then turn to a gas that would manifest as fire. The campfire, out of doors, would still burn at a temperature of less than 900 degrees, depending on the type of wood used. It wouldn't burn at 1100 degrees. If it did, because the DM said, "Open fires in my world burn at 1100 degrees," it would take very little time before ever engineer in the game figured out a way to make that 200 degree difference break the world. Having stipulated one change in physics, you gently caress everything. Yesterday, I argued that people in certain professions think in a certain way, and I received comments that I did not print that were pure speculation that I was wrong. Not all cops do think the same way, I was told. Nor do all peasants. We are not all alike. I find that very interesting. Not because it is right or wrong, but because it clearly speaks to a perception of experience gained, a perception of culture and a perception of how the game is meant to operate. Let me begin with the last of those, and for the moment allow me to accept the premise that all peasants are not the same. Since the assertion is there because we have been all taught that we are special snowflakes in school, allow me to extrapolate from the original assertion and argue that no peasant is the same as any other. After all, two peasants being the same is as politically incorrect as all peasants being the same, since we are still labelling one human being as being exactly the same as another. Wait a minute. Human being? This is a game. A ridiculously complex game, with millions of variables and an elaboration of setting that is impossible to create down to the last individual peasant. The party is moving through the country; they meet a peasant; they know, from this DM, that the peasant is necessarily unlike every other peasant in the world, so the party says . . . what, exactly? They dare not suppose that the peasant is tired from a long day's work, or that the peasant is poor, or has little combat skill, or that the peasant in any way reflects all the characteristics we have associated with peasants from the dawn of history. This peasant is different. How? What makes this peasant different? If we give the peasant more money, why would he be a peasant? If we give this peasant artisan skills, then why has the artisan-turned-peasant decided to dress as a peasant? That can't be very comfortable for him. The shoes alone are murder. And do all artisan-turned-peasants continue to dress like peasants? Wouldn't this make them all the same? I dare the reader to come up with 30 examples of peasants that would still look like peasants, but not be like any other peasant. And having done that, please come up with 120 million more, because this is approximately how many peasants I have in my world. I simply haven't got the time, so it would be useful to have that list. Please designate addresses. That will also be helpful when running my world. Since I have a lot of really interesting people to create for my game, I find it rather useful to present and think of peasants as, well, peasants. This works as a good shorthand for my players, as when they see someone dressed as a peasant, doing peasant things, they understand who and what they're dealing with. Granted, the party might meet someone, someday, who looks and acts like a peasant, who is really a powerful fighter, pretending to be a peasant, until the last moment when the party is surprised by the peasant that can really fight! Only, why has my fighter not noticed the peasant's anterior and middle deltoids, or the tensile strength of the peasant's brachioradialis, muscles that I have been trained to look for in my opponents when engaging in hand-to-hand combat? How is it this peasant is in fighting trim enough to threaten me, yet there's no signs of his having developed weapon-using muscle groups as opposed to farming muscle groups? Is it possible to be a strong fighter without these features being obvious? Have we got another example of a campfire that burns at 1100 degrees? Because if we do, then this game is going to get broken pretty fast. All right, let's look at our perception of culture. Let us suppose that the guardsmen of our town, like peasants, are all different. Guards are individuals, not carbon copies, so we shouldn't expect a guard to act like a 'guard.' Let me say that I, for one, do not want to be in charge of this rabble. If bad writing has done real damage to culture, it is this: the understanding that, if we're watching a movie about a cop, a politician, a soldier, a doctor, a lawyer, a writer, an adrenaline junkie or the 'one,' we are watching a film about a person who is 'just like me.' This, of course, sells. If we write books or movies about actual lawyers talking about the actual law, the average person is going to feel stupid almost immediately. This does not sell. The principles of profiting off art, therefore, demand that characters be ordinary enough to be identified with, while at the same time contesting continuously with authority in order to touch base with the average viewer or reader, who's biggest problem in life is being told what to do all the time. Fighting the system feels good. Watching or reading about others fighting the system encourages us to believe that we are not alone. Except that there are millions of people who are part of the system, who are not fighting it, who are rather happy with the system because they don't have the time or the inclination to read books or watch movies about why the system is an oppressive hateful thing. These people are in the minority. But they are also in charge. They are the people that the average doofus wishes he or she could rebel against - only they don't, because the average doofus is far too dependent on the system. To sort out who belongs in charge, we have a method. If you behave in a way that is in keeping with our principles, you're allowed to belong. If you are allowed to belong, then we will let you push around people who don't belong. If you start behaving in a way we don't approve, then we will drop you back into the doofus pile. Oh, and remember - never, ever, gently caress with people who belong. Those are the rules. Everyone in charge knows these rules intimately. That is why they are in charge. They love the rules. They think the rules are great. Unlike a film, where someone in charge breaks the rules almost immediately upon the start of the story, people in actual control almost NEVER break the rules. They don't want to. So why do all guards act alike? Is it because they are alike? No. It is because they know the rules, and they'd rather be a guard than a doofus. They know they can use their status to improve their lives, of course. But they don't push around 'real people.' Oh, certainly someone occasionally fucks up or steals from the wrong people or otherwise makes themselves unwanted. We should keep in mind, however, that while this happens commonly in our system, that is partly because there's a real chance that you won't get caught. If you're a cop, you don't live night and day in a barracks. You don't live in a very small world, where every person you meet every day knows you and knows every one of your buddies. You don't live in a world where the spoken word is the only communication. You don't live in a world where, if you screw up your job, they kill you. Without a trial. If you're 25 and still at your job, you're one of those who has learned not to gently caress up - and you've seen all the other people who are bad at it executed, one by one. You're much more motivated to do your job in that culture - in large part, because you have no other job you'll be allowed to do, even if you want to leave. The alternative job is called 'living in a gutter, depending on people who don't care about you for food.' Yeah. We have a perception of culture that is based upon living in a very, very soft culture. There is a cure for that. If the reader feels that not all guards are 'alike,' I recommend joining the police force. Get back to me then. Fine. That leaves us with a perception of experience. I've already mentioned fighters building up certain muscle groups. Along with that, there are certain stances, patterns of behaviour needed to stay alive on the battlefield, habits gained through the maintenance of weapons and armor, a perception about people who are not as combat-capable as you and so on. As before, if you're a fighter and you are 25 years old, there are certain behaviours you've come to adopt because those behaviours kept you alive while others around you were dying. Think of it this way. Were all the vets that came back from Vietnam the same? No. You know what made them similar, though? It was all the poo poo they saw in Vietnam that you never saw. When combat vets see each other, they see differences. But when they look at you? They just see the same pathetic, tubby, soft ignorant doofus that they see everywhere else. And you make them sick. Or, at least you did for a time, until they began to get used to you. They still don't 'get' you. You're mostly stupid and devoid of any value, and easily broken in half. So don't bug them. Try to imagine a guard in a role-playing game talking to soft, breakable you, the reader of this post right now. Try to imagine how . . . annoying you seem. The guard may be different from other guards, but from the guard's perspective that isn't a difference the guard is interested in showing you. You don't rate that kind of consideration, maggot. So shut the gently caress up and move your butt along. They're tired and at the end of their shift, or at the beginning of it, or there's still half of this goddamn shift to go, and they ain't paid to stand here to start conversations with maggots. Their job is to shovel maggots out the door or in it, and that's exactly what they think of you while they're doing their job. The peasant is no different. The peasant knows his people, he knows his place in the world, he knows what he's allowed to say and he knows that chances are he isn't going to live to old age. He knows every time he takes this wagon out on the road to carry a load, it is probably his last. Try to imagine that every time you walk out the door on your way to work, you say goodbye to your family understanding that your chances of dying on this trip are about 1 in 40. He probably makes only three trips a year. Every one of those trips is fraught with danger. He's managed to live to the age of 35 and so he knows there ain't gonna be many trips left. But god loves him, so he's going to heaven. And now he sees four rough, powerful, armed men on the road. Well gently caress. Does it matter at this point if the peasant is a unique snowflake? No. No, he's pretty sure that his luck has finally run out. He hasn't got a weapon. What would be the point? If the bandits attack, there's going to be at least half a dozen, and he's not going to fight them off. If he tries, then that's just another thing on his conscience when he has to meet his maker. Better to accept. That's what he's been taught by the church all his life. Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Islam, all the same. You're a peasant. You're not going to live forever. Work hard. Be honest. Your next life will be better than this one. This is a perception you develop when everyone that exists in your world has power over you. This is the perception you develop as all your life you hear about people on the road being killed. Or taken away and sold. Or raped, when there's nothing you can do. You've lived to 35, but a lot of others haven't, and you know you're lucky. This is what makes all peasants 'the same.' It isn't their personality, or what they believe, or any of the crap we've introduced in the 20th century about feelings. It's the world you live in. The one that defines what you're allowed to expect. That's all you get. Better learn to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
You fighters should be thankful that wizards are there to deal with all that hard stuff. quote:For full casters. Who get to play the rock-paper-scissors game. Well, yes. Having that level of depth for every class could easily be off-putting to less experienced players. There is a place at the table for the ones who just want to roll to hit/roll damage and not worry about saves, immunities, SR, creature type, line of effect, area of effect, friendly fire, and all the other fiddly mechanics casters have to worry about. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Like you said the xp chart could easily be tweaked which i would do putting it back to 3.0 or 3.5 standards. Yes in most games you could level up stupid fast because of the cr chart mainly. Personally i killed off the cr chart and im using 2e monster xp and rp earned xp. I personally like it when players go "#@$& im level 1" over anything but thats just me lol. Evil dm speaking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
We start with a reasonably interesting thought...quote:The GM is not playing a game. The GM is, in fact, part of the game's system. She is the part that cannot yet be automated. This thought is surrounded by vast quantities of academic-sounding waffle that I'm not going to reproduce. The phrase "vis-a-vis" makes an appearance, which is always a warning flag. Then... quote:
Wait, let me test that: "The GM is not running (?) a religion. The GM is, in fact, part of the religion's tenets. She is the part that cannot yet be automated." ...no, that's just babble. quote:What I'm trying to accomplish is a union of myself and the rules - not unlike the union of mentality and physicality, or the left brain and the right, that we experience as human beings - heuristically governed by a set of artistic and ethical values. Since the rules themselves do not possess artistic or ethical consciousness, it's clear that I must be the source of those things. I see that as the biggest part of what I'm here for. Let's face it: If the system had insight, artfulness, fortitude, resourcefulness and compassion, in addition to general knowledge and storytelling skills, it wouldn't need me. I'm aware that I'm opening myself to accusations of anti-intellectualism, but I think treating GMing as some sort of mystery art form is seriously overthinking it. quote:
His emphasis. And then we get into the true meat of this discussion: "It's all about me and how wonderful I am." quote:I do recognize that Discipline and Service are not everyone's cup of meat. In fact only a tiny minority of people in any field pursue excellence in anything approaching a disciplined fashion. Most people prefer to act in modes which keep things simple and convenient. I am not those people. They are not me. I'm describing a path of Discipline and Service in the creation of Art - my own and yours if you want it - the very thought of which causes kneejerks to occur in some people. quote:I'm a GM. And I'm a rarity even among them, to the point where some of my peers consider my approach to fall somewhere between dangerous and "toxic". For the record, in 30 years of running games this way I have never had a single player react to my approach with even the least bit of hostility or confusion about it. Only GMs respond in such ways, and only certain ones. quote:So I stand here as a relative outsider to what have become your "new traditional" assumptions (and you as a community do have those - I touched on that very briefly before, but I won't do it again in this thread because it deserves its own). I think that's what makes me seem both (a) so familiar and (b) so loving odd to some of y'all. From where you stand, I probably fall into an Uncanny Valley. Roleplaying games are short of critical thinking and rigorous analysis, it's true - but sitting about going 'I'm an Artist on the far end of the bell curve!' dressed up in a few thousand words of academic verbiage ("this is a position paper") is neither of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
quote:The RAW for throwing shields is that it's a free action to loose and throw, but it makes no mention of actually making an attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
quote:0/10 would not bang.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
quote:For this month, I was going to spill some ink about earning XP for finding treasure. I had nearly 2,000 words in place, all ready to go. Something else, however, had been stomping around in my little attic and making so much noise, I felt compelled to go upstairs to find out what it was. So here we go. The post that I did not intend to write.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:51
|
|