|
Lemon-Lime posted:
I think there's a clear aesthetic that is common for anime, but at the same time not all anime has that aesthetic. And even then, that aesthetic varies heavily between studios and eras.
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 18:43
|
|
at people trying to argue that "anime" is a single aesthetic.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Alternately, invent a fantasy sport with exactly 4-6 players, none of whom is the "main star guy" if you want to have in-party balance. Basketball. Got it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
If you make something, you should at least be allowed to have a say in how other creators represent and use it. If you don't protect your ideas in that regard, you can get Pathfindered easily.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Shardmind kick rear end. The rest of the PHB3 races besides them and Minotaur felt kinda half baked though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Honestly, its hard to blame them. By then most iconic traditional player races, and some nontraditional ones, had been tapped. Lemme do a quick demographic breakdown. PHB1 had the holy quartet of human, dwarf, elf, and hobbit. It had Eladrin as an attempt at reconciling two separate elf motifs of "tricksy woodsman" and "pretty mage", tieflings and dragonborn as new experimental options, and also included half-elves. Classwise, it had a martial defender, two martial strikers, a martial leader, a divine leader, a divine defender, an arcane striker, and an arcane controller. Coming out first, I can see why people were turned off. It lost a lot of good options like druid, bard, and half-orc, even if some like sorcerer and gnome I can't really mourn. However, each class had a clear niche and inspiration besides maybe ranger, but tbh I can never understand the ranger's deal in DnD. PHB2 took what PHB1 did and expanded it perfectly. Gnomes became more than lovely dwarves, half-orcs got to be better than a stack of penalties. Shifters were great for being wildmen and devas are probably the most interesting concept across both books. Goliaths are a bit redundant with half-orcs, but giants are cool so whatever. The classes are where things really get interesting. The primal source was off to a great start with reps for all four roles, bard and sorcerer got kickass reimaginings as leaders and strikers, and divine got unorthodox yet really interesting concepts like monastic assassin and voice of the gods to fill in the striker and controller slots. This is the peak of 4E ideawise in my books. Most every niche but arcane defender and martial controller is represented, and tbh a martial controller would likely be a defender. The classes explore beyond the base concepts and hit upon other interesting core motifs without straining credibility too much. PHB3 only had 4 races, so I guess being 2 for 2 isn't bad. Wilden are weirdly designed and step on the shifter and gnome toes super hard, and githzerai/githyanki/githwhatever have always been my least favorite part of the whole planescape deal. Deva fit their monastic role so much better. Shardmind are brilliant though, and if you're gonna add another I AM THE STRONG race minotaur are a fun choice. Kinda would've preferred goblins though. Goblins always get ripped off. Classwise, I could not tell you which class had which role even if you gave me the cheat sheet. Instead of tackling the two unused roles they doubled down on divine leader and primal controller, too. I do dig that they made a proper ranged class, though. Especially one that supports thrown weapons. I love how Monk was implemented, too. Using leverage, wit, and stability to target an opponent's non-armor defenses is brilliant, and gives a unique melee niche. So is having unmatched mobility. I'm liking the PHB3 more than I remembered, but it still left me cold halfway through when every other book left my imagination pumping nonstop. And that's not even getting into hybrids. I can see why to many this is where the downturn starts, but having some cool classes after two other PHBs and a hefty supplement schedule isn't too shabby.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
How would a ranged defender differ from a controller, really? They always seemed kinda like similar implementations of the same motif of lockdown and manipulation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Another thing I liked about 4e is that different role/power source combinations spurred the creation of new archetypes like the avenger. Agreed. Some people say it doesn't feel as natural of a base class, but I don't see how "templar" is any harder to sum up than the difference between a wizard and sorcerer, or what exactly a ranger does. Honestly I wouldn't mind expanding striker into Artillery (Sorcerer-style), Skirmisher (Rogue or Avenger style), and Brute (Barbarian style), similar to the monster roles. I bet you could get some interesting archetypes applying 4 power sources to 6 roles like that without stepping on too many toes. That'd be, what, 24 classes assuming no overlap by the end of it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:An evade tank that punishes enemies that attack allies? That makes sense. I can see an Xcom style overwatch ability coming into play here, or maybe shooting down an opppnent's ranged attacks with your own. It could be an interesting niche for, say, an Arcane Archer, warping into and out of the fray and raining down lockdown effects with various elemental arrows. Melee controller?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:That was the Brawler fighter, aka BBRRROOOOOOOCCKKK LLEESSSSSSNNNAARRRR gently caress it, I'm sold. Have Monk as the unarmed fightman, and Brawler as the unarmed wrestleman who Irish Whips people into each other, grapples them for super fine-tuned movement control, and suplexes them onto a room's traps.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
I always find it weird when people say imbalance is only a problem for high level players, and imply its their fault for reading too much into a system. Balance issues are even worse at the low end, where instead of knowing how to work around an issue people are more likely to think "I suck" or "this game sucks."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
My thought: I want to train my punchman to be a better punchman, but manifesting that only through adding a +1 to my punchmanning stat sounds boring. Choosing between different techniques and abilities is way cooler, and gives more option variety.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I'm glad Pathfinder is treating it with the care needed, but also isn't this literally the big "ok but for reals don't do this" regarding charm spells? Like, how long until we start seeing "non-coercive enchantment spells?" Apparently that's literally the spell's only effect, because Pathfinder needs thousands of turbo-specialized spells nobody ever takes. Although . . . "This spell doesn’t override the targets’ normal sexual preferences or other limitations. If romantic feelings are incompatible for this reason, the creature instead feels an intimate platonic bond with the other."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
I don't know a ton about the WoD. Does anyone have a primer on Beast and what made it / its first draft so skeezy?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
I can see that being good advice for, you know, spooky ghosts. Not literal goddamn abuse holy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Just from the widely disparate themes and reactions of many others, I feel like this project started as commentary on the cycle of abuse, but also started as a "society says you're a monster so own it" idea. Then the two infused like toothpaste and orange juice because while each idea has some problems on its own, together they become insanely skeezy and regressive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Someone really needs to take away the social media keys. Well maybe if the magic deer picked a better PR head this wouldn't have happened.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
So what's the difference between the old World of Darkness, the new World of Darkness, and the new old World of Darkness?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
That makes sense. So when new stuff is released for the WoD lines, is it for the new old WoD, the old new WoD, or just for whatever the developers feel like writing for?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
There's a lot of the same DNA, so really I'd say that depends on if your group plays DnD for the combat or the story.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
It seems like a natural evolution of streaming culture to me, tbh. Streaming is already about feeling like you're hanging out with a bud and shooting the poo poo over video games. Expanding that to goofy improv with your friends seems like a pretty clear extension, especially when its something that you, too, can do with a bit of charisma, imagination, and expensive rulebooks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
The takeaway I'm getting from this is to kitbash the nWoD with WWWRPG.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Yeah, 3.5 is dead enough with Pathfinder, 4E, and 5E picking its bones in various ways. 3.0 is just worse 3.5, so its disco levels of dead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 18:25
|
|