# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## 5e isnt even D&D....

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

737 posts

- Page 22 of 30
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- …
- 30
- Next

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Thu May 17, 2012 2:18 pm

> CapnTthePirateG wrote:I would like to submit that while that particular group works, warlock, truenamer, wizard, psion, and incarnate aren't even close to the same power level.

Of course, you could make the argument that this (and the previous example) isn't a problem with mixing said power management systems, but that the classes themselves are not balanced with each other.
And that is indeed true, but I'd like to actually see someone balance "Some of my spells are 5th level, but some have to be 1st level" against "I can put all of it into 5th level powers" against "All of my powers are amongst levels 4 and 5, and unlike that first guy I recharge them all whenever I feel like it". You either end up making the powers as good as the Wizard, and they're better because their way of using them is better, or you make the powers worse and then the Wizards just say "Okay, now that I'm out, we take a nap".
Not to mention the fact that multiclassing Wizard and Cleric didn't have to be such an unfortunate mess (it didn't have to be - it was though), and Psion/Wilder was a smaller problem (they at least share the same points), but multiclassing a combination of Wizard, Psion and Warlord basically does have to be a mess.
So if you're having multiclassing, you want them to all share the same power schedule/format, so you can make the multiclassing process really painless. Even if you're not doing it, you want people to have powers of the same general ability, and not then have one class have a much better/worse way of using/regaining them.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

Winnah
  Duke
  Posts: 1091
  Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:00 pm
  Location: Oz

###

- Quote

Post by Winnah » Thu May 17, 2012 2:37 pm

Dominance heirarchies in most social animals can become very complex. Assuming that they carry over directly to human behaviour is a gross oversimplification, especially as human behaviour has evolved beyond the survival instincts of other species.
Terms like 'Alpha' are pretty ridiculous when applied to humans in the context of actual physical dominance. An Alpha Dog is typically the biggest, fastest, meanest dog. A human described as an Alpha (correctly or not) probably just refers to extroverted personality with an inflated sense of self importance and status. That general description does not make them more or less succeptible to intimidation, but it probably does alter the types of intimidation that would be more or less effective (again, a generality).
Though I have also met a few physically imposing extroverts in my time, the scariest people I know do not strut around like a squawking peacock. Probably because advertising threats would see you sectioned or arrested.
Top

tussock
  Prince
  Posts: 2937
  Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
  Location: Online
  Contact:
  Contact tussock
  Website Twitter

###

- Quote

Post by tussock » Thu May 17, 2012 3:33 pm

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:

> > Aryxbez wrote:Much as I like Iron Man, I would find it lame to be the standard for all fighter characters (even if kinda doing that for my 4th edition game), that's what something like a "Artificer/Gadgeteer/Gadget manknight/Batman" class is for after all. So, humor me, I'm up for asking since you basically offered.

> It's not so much that I hate the idea of this class in abstract so much that I hate the idea of this concept being used to enable grognard denial. Because you know that even if Conan needs his Sword of Omens, Phoenixfire Armor, Hermes Sandals, and Dragonzord Whistle they'll go out of their way to downplay it. The same thing already happens with Batman when he needs that extra gadgetry boost to do his faux-badass feats.

I'd be more in favour of "every (magic) sword is the sword of omens in my hands". It solves most of the problems around gear denial, in that you can deny a sword, armour, and shield the same you can deny the component pouch and spell book, but then we find a magic dagger and a scroll and we're PCs again.
And it doesn't even have to be crafting fluff or meditative joining or anything, it's just that magic swords in the hand of a Wizard are +1 and can hit ghosts, but the same thing in the hand of a Fighter is a +5 vorpal sword of speed and spell turning, bitches.
Which I guess is mostly just hiding the magic item chapter in the class descriptions, but whatever works to get everyone what they need without crappy DMs getting in the way.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Top

Wrathzog
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 605
  Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:57 am

###

- Quote

Post by Wrathzog » Thu May 17, 2012 5:00 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:You're "missing" the part where you are a fucking idiot. Remember, you're doing all this to defend sight unseen automagic failure of intimidation attempts in social challenges.

I actually addressed that specific situation too and you overlooked that as well.

> Me wrote:If we rewind back to The Duke scenario (which honestly won't work outside of heroic tier), the party is reporting TO the Duke and then asking for His help. The Duke holds the power in this relationship. Not only that, but he's obviously narcissistic (I don't have the book, but I'm pretty sure that making a successful history check involves you retelling him his favorite story about himself), which means he's probably not going to react well to being threatened.
> On top of all that, if you think to [try] an insight check, you find out that using intimidate results in an auto-failure. This isn't some random booby trap, it actually fucking makes sense if you take the time to step back and analyze the situation.

There isn't anything magical about this. There's nothing contrived about the problem (other than that it says that it's usable at any level, which really isn't true).
Is it that fucking insane to say that Intimidate is not an all-purpose social tool? That using it in the wrong situation actually results in making the situation worse?

> Sure, they might ultimately be made an international pariah or go to jail for the rest of their life or something, but they certainly would have made things shitty for you.

Hurm... so basically it comes down to risk analysis. The Impact and Probability also need to be factored into the check. A low impact threat is unlikely to force anyone's hand (do it, fucker, I'll get another bowl of cheerio's). A low probability threat falls into the same boat (No one on Fox News cares about a lying stupid [slur]. Try it, you're not convincing anyone).
I'll think about this, thank you for your input, Frank.

> Winnah wrote:Dominance heirarchies in most social animals can become very complex. Assuming that they carry over directly to human behaviour is a gross oversimplification, especially as human behaviour has evolved beyond the survival instincts of other species.

While I agree that stuff like this is definitely complex and interesting, the comment isn't particularly pertinent in a discussion about a pen and paper RPG.
Good luck modeling something as complex as human social interactions on a large and small scale. It gets worse when you throw Non-human races into the mix. Also, I hope your DM is able to accurately portray the distinct psyches of every NPC in the world.
Or, we can keep it simple and use terms that most people can understand, like Alpha or Beta type personalities.
Personally, I use the Meyers Briggs personality types to describe my NPC's.

> Though I have also met a few physically imposing extroverts in my time, the scariest people I know do not strut around like a squawking peacock. Probably because advertising threats would see you sectioned or arrested.

Well, yeah. That's because Unknown qualities tend to be scarier than Known qualities. You know what the Loudmouth Douchebag's going to do, he's going to punch you in the mouth and then throw you in a dumpster. He's told you all about it.
But that quiet guy in the corner? You have no idea what he's capable of. You can only assume the worst. Does he have a knife? A gun? Maybe he's fucking crazy. Maybe he knows Aikido. Oh god, he's staring at me.
PSY DUCK?
Top

ishy
  Duke
  Posts: 2404
  Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ishy » Thu May 17, 2012 8:54 pm

> Wrathzog wrote:That using it in the wrong situation actually results in making the situation worse?

That is called failing your intimidate check. (+ perhaps a penalty to the check for the situation)

> Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game

> Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.

Top

WPharolin
  1st Level
  Posts: 25
  Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:34 am

###

- Quote

Post by WPharolin » Thu May 17, 2012 9:38 pm

The idea that intimidate requires the right situation is retarded. The Doctor should be able to intimidate the Daleks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYoLG_iP9Ec
Top

Aryxbez
  Duke
  Posts: 1036
  Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:41 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Aryxbez » Thu May 17, 2012 9:52 pm

> Wrathzog wrote: I like you man. I like the way you roll. Not jumping to conclusions and being calm and analytical.
> But yeah, I do support the existence of Intimidation as a social option. I just want the rules to be clear that it only works in very specific situations. Primarily you need to possess the perception of having the Power and the Intent to make your target's life miserable if they don't do what you want.
> The second aspect comes down to your target's personality type. Alpha-Types aren't likely to bow down without an obvious and considerable show of force. A Beta-Type, on the other hand, is going to be far easier to impress.
> If we rewind back to The Duke scenario (which honestly won't work outside of heroic tier), the party is reporting TO the Duke and then asking for His help. The Duke holds the power in this relationship. Not only that, but he's obviously narcissistic (I don't have the book, but I'm pretty sure that making a successful history check involves you retelling him his favorite story about himself), which means he's probably not going to react well to being threatened.
> On top of all that, if you think to an insight check, you find out that using intimidate results in an auto-failure. This isn't some random booby trap, it actually fucking makes sense if you take the time to step back and analyze the situation.

Why thank you kindly, imagine only time not so calm is when it's someone like Shadzar, whom doesn't partake in honest discussion of any kind. Also part of what I go to the Gaming Den for, least the analytical part anyway. Fair enough that the intention of rules should be clear, and ideally not as narrow if the skills themselves aren't things as specific as "Use Rope" (so intimidate could include stuff like "shonen hero" concept, or inspiring people as Frank has proposed).
Sounds like "personality type" could simply be represented by resistance or Immunity, to Fear Effects (albeit the latter sounds a little lazy). If nothing else, it's arbitrary bonus to resisting the Intimidate check, or can always do what most DM's like doing: make it an absurd DC. As the Intimidate skill is to represent the illusion of intent and power, their DC is to represent this Duke's "Alpha-dog persona", and perhaps if the system expanded, to show modifiers for those that have a standing of actual leverage over the player. Such traits shouldn't be immutable, provided a PC's Intimidate skill check could actually succeed against this DC, restricting a doable option kinda goes against what a tabletop RPG is about. Yes, even when he's now helpful attitude, in 3rd edition his personality doesn't change ("the target retains its normal attitude" says SRD), and it's detailed to be rather limited help, so for whatever reason need duke to do something for them. I'm sure a decent amount of interpretations could be made for why the successful check sways this dude (impressed with the PC's audacity, aiding isn't that big of a deal/loss if it's needed so badly, help now, demand explanation later, etc.). After all, even in 4th edition, they let you Intimidate a giant, 24/7 ragin Demon Prince with a DC of 40, so that he'll listen to whatever party has need to say to him. I suppose if a DM is really sold on idea of making NPC's immune to certain interactions like Intimidate here, could make it something if they'd be considered an "overwhelming threat" like 4-5+ levels/CR (or whatever represents their challenge level), then they have immunity to Fear or what have ya.
I suppose one more thing to consider in the Duke scenario, maybe don't have to intimidate him, but if ye have his entire guards fearing/respecting the PC too much to want to place action against the PC, then he might just comply not to lose favor, or now lacking a piece of needed leverage to maintain his stance.

> Wrathzog wrote:
> Well, yeah. That's because Unknown qualities tend to be scarier than Known qualities. You know what the Loudmouth Douchebag's going to do, he's going to punch you in the mouth and then throw you in a dumpster. He's told you all about it.
> But that quiet guy in the corner? You have no idea what he's capable of. You can only assume the worst. Does he have a knife? A gun? Maybe he's fucking crazy. Maybe he knows Aikido. Oh god, he's staring at me.

To me, this sounds like the quiet guy simply just has a higher Intimidate bonus than the loudmouth. One could say this "bragging" were reckless Intimidate checks that the Loudmouth has now wasted, or perhaps his negative reputation giving him enough of a penalty to fail on his checks (or enough bonus to be resisted for the target). Also that description you gave, has kinda given me an answer as to why Bluff gives a synergy bonus to Intimidate checks.

> ishy wrote:

> > Wrathzog wrote:That using it in the wrong situation actually results in making the situation worse?

> That is called failing your intimidate check. (+ perhaps a penalty to the check for the situation)

Oh, and I can agree with ishy here, however believe had conveyed it prior, in that "afterwards" the overall situation with that guy is going to be much worse in the future.
Last edited by Aryxbez on Thu May 17, 2012 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
Top

Wrathzog
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 605
  Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:57 am

###

- Quote

Post by Wrathzog » Thu May 17, 2012 11:13 pm

> Ishy wrote:That is called failing your intimidate check. (+ perhaps a penalty to the check for the situation)

I would compromise with handing out significantly large situational bonuses or penalties based off of defined states, statuses, or whatever as long as certain combinations of states, statuses, or whatever could possibly result in Impossible situations.
I think people would be okay with that as long as everything is predictable and transparent.

> WPharolin wrote:The idea that intimidate requires the right situation is retarded. The Doctor should be able to intimidate the Daleks.

I don't agree. It's like saying that you can use a Hammer for any household project. While hammers are certainly a versatile tool, you're not going to use it when you need to paint your walls (well, I guess that could work, but it's really not ideal).
Also, that clip is hilarious.

> Aryxbez wrote:If nothing else, it's arbitrary bonus to resisting the Intimidate check, or can always do what most DM's like doing: make it an absurd DC.
> ...
> I suppose if a DM is really sold on idea of making NPC's immune to certain interactions like Intimidate here, could make it something if they'd be considered an "overwhelming threat" like 4-5+ levels/CR (or whatever represents their challenge level), then they have immunity to Fear or what have ya.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what the right/elegant solution is here. I think I'm stuck with D&D's social rules in my head and there's just really nothing good to work off of there.

> I suppose one more thing to consider in the Duke scenario, maybe don't have to intimidate him, but if ye have his entire guards fearing/respecting the PC too much to want to place action against the PC, then he might just comply not to lose favor, or now lacking a piece of needed leverage to maintain his stance.

And you're right, eroding the Duke's support should be something you should be able to do in a social encounter, but D&D doesn't really allow for that kind of granularity.
I'll have to think about this. Maybe find a meatier social encounter system.
PSY DUCK?
Top

Foxwarrior
  Duke
  Posts: 1614
  Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
  Location: RPG City, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Foxwarrior » Fri May 18, 2012 12:49 am

> WPharolin wrote:The idea that intimidate requires the right situation is retarded. The Doctor should be able to intimidate the Daleks.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYoLG_iP9Ec

You have opened my eyes to how nice and easily bossed around the Daleks are. Or maybe it's just that they don't know how (or why) to only partially kill a hostage.
Top

...You Lost Me
  Duke
  Posts: 1854
  Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

###

- Quote

Post by ...You Lost Me » Fri May 18, 2012 4:18 am

Alternatively, you've just seen how terrible the Dr. Who script writers were/are...

> DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.

> Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.

Top

Desdan_Mervolam
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 985
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Desdan_Mervolam » Fri May 18, 2012 10:43 am

Naw, that was at an established point where the Doctor had pretty much killed all the Daleks personally, and the only thing left other than that (Previously unknown) armada there was one sad little Dalek in some rich imbecile's basement. The bad writing point came later where they kept finding new Daleks who had somehow missed the purge over and over again. But at this point, the Doctor was a really seriously credible threat to the Daleks that they really should be shitting their tank-bodies over.
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
Top

ishy
  Duke
  Posts: 2404
  Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ishy » Fri May 18, 2012 11:50 am

Isn't that just because the Daleks are really popular for some reason?

> Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game

> Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.

Top

Mask_De_H
  Duke
  Posts: 1995
  Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Mask_De_H » Fri May 18, 2012 10:52 pm

I like the part where Crawford jokes about the fighter being the wizard's teabitch and nobody corrects him or attempts to prove that this is not the case.

> FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.

> K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.

> Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.

> Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.

Top

ishy
  Duke
  Posts: 2404
  Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ishy » Sat May 19, 2012 12:46 am

Yeah someone should have told him that real wizards drink coffee

> Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game

> Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.

Top

OgreBattle
  King
  Posts: 6819
  Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by OgreBattle » Sat May 19, 2012 8:32 am

> ishy wrote:Isn't that just because the Daleks are really popular for some reason?

they're like living neckbeards made of metal. and they can't climb stairs.
Top

malak
  Master
  Posts: 263
  Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:10 pm

###

- Quote

Post by malak » Sat May 19, 2012 8:53 am

> CapnTthePirateG wrote:http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/32323 ... wford.html
> Mearls speaks more. Apparently it's not a crossbow at-will, it's still useful outside of combat. For destroying the scenery. Ok, thats, erm, different than 4e I guess.
> Also, fighters only get nice things if they take the right feats. But they're balanced, because, Mearls said so, and he'd never lie to us.

That interview is horrible.
What, no AoO unless you take a feat? They are 'not concentrating on flanking'? How is that not going to make positioning less interesting.
Conditions - what? paralyzed means ... you're paralyzed. But they won't be adding a clear mechanical description of it's effect, nooo. But, hahaha, there's now a condition called intoxicated.
Also, 'character customization' is not done. What? That's like announcing a video game where 'the programming' is not done. Making even remotely balanced and fair options and their interactions work is the hard part.
Yeah, it's not like it's a new thing that they fail, but I'm still surprised how much fail they manage to accumulate.
Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Sat May 19, 2012 8:54 am

> malak wrote: Yeah, it's not like it's a new thing that they fail, but I'm still surprised how much fail they manage to accumulate.

Not to mention that they're admitting it.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

ishy
  Duke
  Posts: 2404
  Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ishy » Sat May 19, 2012 10:36 am

I'm actually impressed that their first test has no customization and pre-written scenarios. It seems like they have a vague clue how to actually test stuff.

> OgreBattle wrote: they're like living neckbeards made of metal. and they can't climb stairs.

If I grab a dictionary definition of Neckbeard I get this:

> In programming jargon, a neckbeard is someone who enjoys working in lower level languages for the sake of being manly. Neckbeards typically favor Unix, VI, and AD&D.

So yeah if they favour AD&D it suddenly makes sense.

> Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game

> Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.

Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Sat May 19, 2012 10:58 am

This is more apt. Particularly the second definition submitted (2, not 1.B), where it specifies the lack of hygiene and social skills.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

ishy
  Duke
  Posts: 2404
  Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ishy » Sat May 19, 2012 12:41 pm

Sounds exactly like AD&D players to me, well except perhaps the tolerated part.

> Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game

> Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.

Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Sat May 19, 2012 2:17 pm

> malak wrote:

> > CapnTthePirateG wrote:http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/32323 ... wford.html

> That interview is horrible.
> What, no AoO unless you take a feat?

I really like how in order to get around the fact that interrupts are annoying and take up table time they have decided to make your interrupts dependent on actions you used last turn and carry costs into next turn. Because nothing lowers table time like stopping someone else's turn to do multi-turn accounting.

> Conditions - what? paralyzed means ... you're paralyzed. But they won't be adding a clear mechanical description of it's effect, nooo. But, hahaha, there's now a condition called intoxicated.

As far as I can tell this is a lame attempt to butter up the people who were deeply offended by the fact that all the 4e conditions were essentially interchangeable +2s to hit or something. So to swing the pendulum way back in the opposite direction they are promising no numbers at all and just having the DM and the player having an argument as to what the fuck happens every time a condition comes up.
It'll be like the arguments about whether the Sleeping Ogre Rule applied to Hold Person. But for every single effect in the game.
-Username17
Top

CapnTthePirateG
  Duke
  Posts: 1545
  Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

###

- Quote

Post by CapnTthePirateG » Sat May 19, 2012 2:38 pm

Is it just me, or is this entire game seem to be set up around the principle of "bullshit the MC?"
Incidentally, my friends and I have been preparing all kinds of silly "use this instead of that" arguments.

> OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
> -Sarpadian Empires, vol. I

Top

tussock
  Prince
  Posts: 2937
  Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
  Location: Online
  Contact:
  Contact tussock
  Website Twitter

###

- Quote

Post by tussock » Sat May 19, 2012 3:07 pm

They probably do need some "no defence", "no offence", "stay put", and "-2" terms of art, keywords. But they can still use them like regular words in proper sentences.
26 conditions like 3e is bullshit anyway. 3 or 4, tops. Write out the rest in full as they're needed. The arguments happen either way, does free action protect you from paralytic poisons if they're cast as a spell? The answer is no one cares. Flip a coin.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Top

Aryxbez
  Duke
  Posts: 1036
  Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:41 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Aryxbez » Sat May 19, 2012 4:24 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:
> It'll be like the arguments about whether the Sleeping Ogre Rule applied to Hold Person. But for every single effect in the game.

I'm not familiar with this "sleeping ogre" bit, says in the 3rd edition description that he breathes normally, and I didn't find anything in the SRD that would indicate otherwise that the ogre wouldn't be entitled to a saving throw.
I had the same thought as Frank about having to track lost actions next turn. Although like to think if combat itself is quick and can keep it to losing only one action for ones next turn, then I think it shouldn't be "too bad", otherwise enough lost actions, and it's kinda like losing your next IP in Shadowrun.
Also I guess I can understand conditions relying on bit of common sense, however also sounds like it's going to require looking up other things just to know the full implication of what the condition "does". Such as the Paralyze example saying how to refer back to spellcasting that requires you be waving around your arms and the like. Speaking of limbs, do the eye stalks on a Beholder count as "limbs" or is the Paralyze condition implying it's going to do jack squat to their spellcasting?
What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
Top

ModelCitizen
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 593
  Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am

###

- Quote

Post by ModelCitizen » Sat May 19, 2012 7:35 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote: I really like how in order to get around the fact that interrupts are annoying and take up table time they have decided to make your interrupts dependent on actions you used last turn and carry costs into next turn. Because nothing lowers table time like stopping someone else's turn to do multi-turn accounting.

Borrowing against your next turn is how it works now - take an Immediate, lose your next Swift. It sounds like they just want to allow interrupts to sometimes take up your next Standard or Move instead. I don't know if that makes the game faster but it's a decent way to proof against PCs setting up harmless attacks on themselves to trigger interrupts. If you have an interrupt that lets you move your land speed when someone attacks you, then you can run faster by training your pet gerbil to bite you every round. But if the interrupt costs your next move action, that doesn't work.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

737 posts

- Page 22 of 30
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- …
- 30
- Next

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS