There is NO comparison from game stats to real life. None.
Game stats are pure fabrication intended to make different characters with the same class play differently.
Even strength has NO real life comparison. Why? Because in real life your abilities are NOT static. In a surge of adrenaline a woman lifts a 2 ton pipe off of her trapped husband; In a color test a body builder has difficulty lifting much weight while staring at a pink card but finds such lifting easy when staring at a blue card; An adolescent boy goes on an intense training routine to double his lifting capabilities in two weeks; A former body builder turned couch potato finds he can't lift very much weight after months of laziness... ect, ect. Everything is relative in real life, I find I can handle moving furniture around easier if I am in a creative mood and impossible if I am in a depressed mood. In real life you have no strength stat, only a range of possibilities which are more or less likely depending on everything from mood to environment. The game CAN'T recreate that and will always fail at expressing reality in stats.
Well I read the first part of that monster post so far and found it false and misinformed. YOU are the driving force from the very start of the game. Driven by your very personal destiny to stop Diablo when the only clue you have to go on is the fallen star, you charge to Tristram to find it and the answers it MUST hold. What you don't realize at the start is you have someone else looking for this harbinger of fate in order to stop a hero from rising up... Belial, the lord of lies. To be honest I would have been severely disappointed if deception wasn't used against me by a villain who specializes in it. In losing Cain you form a bond with Leah, she feels like a friend now through shared loss, Cain being the driving force behind your quest in D2 and the most useful ally in D1 makes it personal to YOU and obviously for Leah this is her adopted parent she just lost. This IS important when you at the end of the story lose Leah herself to Diablo's machinations, making it feel like you just lost a friend and making your quest against Diablo MORE than just personal destiny/storyline but also about personal loss. And unlike the ungainly, tacked on, and unsatisfactory last act of D2, D3 leaves you yearning to resolve this betrayal of Leah in some real way... which I imagine will be the perfect gateway into the expansion.
The fear of any of these bosses from either game came not from their story but from their lethal capabilities. You want to fear the game? Try hardcore mode... I do. I pause and gather my wits before each boss fight and face down my very real fear that this may be the end of my character. I go over my build and my gear, I come up with a strategy, and I commit it all on the big and very dangerous fight. In D2 the bosses were the weakest opponents in the game. I know someone who defeated Bhaal on the highest difficulty by starting the fight and letting his skeletons kill Bhaal while he went and made a sandwich. You can't do that in D3. The real fights in D2 were against the elites who if they got the right set of abilities made your life hell getting past them. This is the same for D3 BTW, if you fight in softcore mode then the elites are your real problem and the bosses become only moderately difficult speed bumps.
As for the inclusion of NPCs? Cain drove the storyline in D2 much as Tyreal drives it in D3 (as information givers) and although I didn't play D1 I hear it had little story beyond being a dungeon crawl.
I will post more when I get around to reading the rest of his big post.
Well I can't say that GM didn't color my opinion a little or maybe even a lot. BUT I also prefer playing in groups that split the loot evenly rather than these altruistic communist style groups that distribute to the needy (which in the groups I played in tends to mean the party leaders best buddies not really the needy). It still pains me to remember one such group where I was playing a monk but hadn't had a magic item in three levels; a magic protection bracer dropped and I thought "at last! an item only I can use."(the mage already had a set) But the group consensus was to give it to the mage so he could sell it and get better mage stuff... Angry I demanded to know why it wasn't going to me since I was a melee combatant with the second worst armor class in the group. They said tough luck. I stopped showing up to that group. And ever since I prefer fair and honest treasure division to this tyranny of the majority style. So I suppose this touched two sore spots with me. I have no problem with altruism either I just feel it should only be done with an unanimous vote. If just one person objects then divide fairly instead. If the only big treasure drop happens to be an expensive upgrade to the fighters sundered weapon then expect dissent at the fighter claiming that sword free and clear, he should pay everyone else back the value of the shares he is using.
Also SKR said crafters should only craft for themselves to avoid unbalancing the game. If they do craft for others it counts against the crafter's WBL. Not that I agree with this bit but since he said it I bet many GMs will follow it.
RD this is a case of picking on "that guy". For whatever reason you ended up labeled as "that guy" either through power gaming or meta gaming or just not being as well liked as your fellow gamers. I have seen this mostly with younger groups but there is usually nothing you can do once you have been given the "that guy" label. You will have to accept that fair or not you will operate under stricter limits than those you play with. The only way out is to become the GM or quit the group.
Yeah I think I encountered as many as a dozen different play styles in university alone. This is NOT regional. People just play differently than the next group. We are all forced to make our own etiquette from scratch when we get together as a group to play.
That said, I do see a small difference in generational play styles. People who grew up on MMOs and social networking seem to approach things more specialized than people who grew up on single player RPGs or even those old timers who didn't have computers growing up.
I feel uncomfortable forcing someone to stay in a specified role. I know you probably agreed to play a certain role at the start of the game but to make that a campaign long commitment seems unfair. I guess the best thing would be to play something fun but complimentary to the group make up when making a new character. So I am NOT on the side of the people who would have such a huge issue with him over something as simple as the method he uses to select a character.
Claxon incorrectly said being helpless means you can't take actions.
It seems clear by the language of all the quotes used here that tied up and pinned are both helpless conditions. Nowhere does it say you can't take actions if helpless but still conscious. Although you may need to break free to effectively take some types of actions.
If you are looking for invisible things Prestidigitation worked in 3.5 and might still work in Pathfinder? I used it to create a soft rain of flower petals around me. However any prestidigitation created object vanished in 3.5 when it came into contact with stronger magic. So the square that had no petals falling into it was the square where the invisible guy was.
Was it unfair? Certainly!
I am reminded of a time when I was playing rifts and my little occult researcher was massively over shadowed by some gate guardians that the GM made to challenge a couple of the parties heavy hitters. I could have sulked that my attacks were pointless and whined to the GM... But instead during the fight I actually holstered my pistol and simply walked past the big fight to decipher the gate activation puzzle. It was perfectly in character to lose myself in mystic or scientific puzzles and fail to see the big picture going on around me, so I just went with it. The GM told me I had turned the whole encounter on it's ear by doing that. Now the guardian's were forced to focus attacks on a non-combatant and it placed them at a big disadvantage when the heavy hitters could free up those actions they were using for defense and open up on the guardians with all guns blazing. Sure I almost died. BUT I had fun and the group made sure I was equipped with a strong force field after that too; so it was a total win win situation.
Well Neverwinter and Star Trek online are both Perfect World MMOs so they have complete access to each other's code and development teams. It only makes sense they would end up similar.
That said I found it unimaginative and boring for an MMO. No specialness to keep anyone coming back. I doubt it will last long. I suspect it would be the first MMO on the chopping block if Perfect World decides to cut back.
Actually common real world sense would say an Axe is needed to chop through bones. In the real world it is the best weapon against something with the structure of bone. Why? Because it has a high striking mass just like a bludgeoning weapon but since it has an edge it focuses all that force on a thin line. So you can see why realism isn't included in the game, the game has the axe as slashing weapon; so no luck using realism in a game fight.
The current phone for free by contract is the iPhone4 which can't handle a 1gb ram OS, since is has 512mb. Since you would need to offer your OS on all currently offered smart phones then no you couldn't do this nowadays. Will the iPhone5 be the free phone in 5 years definately... maybe even the 6 or 7 depending how quickly they release. BUT if it IS still the iPhone5 then you couldn't still do this because the low end iPhone5 can't handle such an OS.
Actually win 7 would NOT fit on most smart phone running today after a quick review of their stats... yes on a top end iPhone5 sure but remember when you are making ONE OS to rule them all then you NEED it to fit on the smallest phones, NOT just the best. Maybe in 5 years... possibly, but now no way.
I doubt it would be possible. Think of the size and minimum specs needed for a good desktop OS and they simply wouldn't fit on a phone. Now if you shrink the program down to a tiny footprint needed for a phone it no longer has the power a desktop needs. And if you want to use the same OS for both then you NEED to use the tiny under powered version, meaning the desktop performance suffers.
Oh it IS a great roleplaying opportunity. Until some GM tries to force you into a little box of playing stupidly. That -2 can mean so SO many different things, the possibilities are vast. Far better to encourage player creativity and role play by letting THEM define the -2 rather than force them into the GMs little punishment box; which can only end badly.
I stick with win 7 as well... 8 = yuck.
So Julie Larson-Green of Microsoft wants to end flexibility in their OS because she is convinced ONE SYSTEM is the answer. I will admit any effort to improve mobile OS security I have to like, but that doesn't mean I want a mobile OS on my desktop... ~sigh~
Although didn't Microsoft a year or two ago have some talking spokesman out there saying they wanted to get rid of desktops and laptops completely in favor of tablets? If I remember that correctly (and it wasn't just conspiracy theory by a gaming magazine author) then it makes complete sense to stop supporting a separate OS for PCs.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
every player metagames in one way or another, such as by determining party roles or choosing feats upon level up, or when they distribute treasure to whomever has the most use for it.
This isn't metagaming. By definition metagaming is using knowledge your character wouldn't have. BUT your character does have knowledge of her own class features and abilities including those gained on level up. They probably wouldn't use game terms to describe them but they know them regardless.
It is cheating... let me explain.
- Researching has to be done ahead of time in game and/or with skill rolls. It doesn't sound like you did. So no go on the "I could research" idea.
All good groups divide treasure equally. It would be absurd not to. Reimbursement for expenses? That is folly, and a quick way for min/maxers to have an excuse to load up on expendables at the parties expense.
Let me amend that,
Carrying spare weapons is a false argument with regard to sundering.
I often carry a spare weapon. Why? Because sometimes you have to attack something that may have a rather unfortunate effect on the weapon attacking it... like oozes, slimes, and the like. So it would be foolish to use you main weapon in such an attack. This weapon is typically a very well made non-magical one so that is doesn't impact my WBL and can be repaired simply by the party wizard; like a masterwork sword.
Carrying spare weapons is a false argument. Because if the GM is not destroying them then you may as well still use your main weapon at the -2 rather than pull out a weaker weapon which is likely at least -1 or more compared to your main weapon anyway and which will likely also be sundered down to an additional -2. IF the GM IS destroying weapons then cut your losses and go unarmed or let the GM destroy your backup as well. Weapons and armor are very pricey and difficult to impossible to repair. Each destroyed piece will send you deeply below WBL. Yes you will find more stuff but that stuff is divided evenly between the party. You will always be poorly equipped compared to the rest of your team after the sunder happy GM gets done with your now very poor fighter.
Someone may have covered this but using sunder to break the item instead of destroy it is a lot less debilitating, and for an enemy that wants your gear it makes sense. That way a mending spell can fix it.
I believe you need make whole for magical items. But if it is just broken then you don't need the double level scroll just the regular level one. Still it makes NO tactical sense for a sunder attempt if all he wants to do is apply "broken". That condition is just a -2... the fighter is not likely to need a backup weapon if that is how you use sunder. As I said it is a waste of NPC actions to use it this way.
Using sunder to broken condition an item is a waste of actions. At best you are going to give the target a -2... If the item was so overpowered it triggered that rare sunder attempt by the GM then clearly a -2 isn't going to change the battle much. In fact the NPC would likely have made a better impact by simply striking the PC. The only way to remove the item from the encounter is to destroy it. No the real reason to apply broken condition during a fight is to tax the melee characters by requiring them to buy high level make whole scrolls.
You don't need a special build to sunder... but you are partially right Are, if the GM is using sunder as a standard tactic as some (not all) on here advocate, then there likely will be more NPC sunder specialists than normal and you are right that would increase the treasure drops... BUT this only fixes things for the wizard not the fighter. The longer sunder is employed the wider the WBL gap between the wizard and the fighter will get. EVEN if you just use it on rare occasions to remove that one big suit of armor or that viscous weapon you are still knocking the fighter's WBL down by a substantial amount every time you do so. Over time your wizards will come out nicely geared while your meleer's lag behind by a little or a lot depending on how frequently you employ the sunder tactic.
I have myself said sunder is ok to use to remove an item that puts the bad guys at a severe disadvantage but since the tactic is unfair it better be just that one item and ONLY if the bad guys truly suffer with the item around. If it is just a suit of armor with a difficult to hit AC I might just give the NPCs a buff that lets them hit it better rather than cut the rug out from under the poor fighter using that armor.
Well intentional or not melee characters ARE being unfairly punished by the sunder happy GM. Like I noted earlier mages have little to worry about. They don't usually have massive ACs, don't rely on expensive magic weapons, and their spell casting gear is non-magical and can be repaired in moments for free as long as you keep mending in memory.
BUT WBL does matter. Look at it from the poor (or soon to be poor) fighter's perspective. You have a big expensive suit of armor, big expensive shield (or off hand weapon), and a big expensive main weapon. They are high level items and largely impossible to get Make Whole spells for. Up to this point ms wizard and mr fighter have the same WBL. But their GM discovers Sunder and decides to start using it in his campaign. In the next fight the fighter loses his armor and main weapon while the wizard loses her spell component pouch. One quick spell later and her pouch is fully repaired, while the fighter switches to a backup weapon that is underpowered for his level but still usable. He also has to go armorless till they find a new suit for him. Skip ahead several fights and the only thing the wizard lost that costs any money to fix is a couple wands but since they are lower level they can be made whole without too much cost. While the fighter has lost all of his big expensive items and all of his magical back ups. Even the gear they found to replace his sundered stuff has itself been sundered. They are now hitting the final fight and the fighter's WBL is horribly nerfed while the wizard's isn't. Assuming they survive they now equally divide the remaining treasure. Since treasure items were sundered they both end up with rewards that are lighter than expected so the wizard falls slightly below WBL, but the fighter is FAR below WBL since he already lost almost all his WBL in the sunder fights he is going to have to go back to town and barter what little rewards his share earned into substandard replacements for the big items he needs to function effectively. If the GMs sunder mania continues the fighter will likely retire and make a monk because fighters can't function under such a GM.
If you are looking for thread tie in's metagaming isn't the appropriate one... WBL is. Because nothing removes WBL faster than a sunder happy GM. Give it a bit of time and all your 15th level heroes will have left is a rusty orc iron short sword and some stale rations. Not what they are expected to have to face the sort of challenges a 15th level group should face.
The same avid point buyer answered that question as well "As long as you stick with a SAD build there is NO value of point buy that is worse than rolling, because you can always start with an 18 pre-racial." Of course his logic fails to hold when faced with MAD characters, but his point is valid. Since you only need one stat you can always buy down enough to get the 18.
If you want tighter stat distribution then use more dice. The probability bell curve gets sharper the more dice you use. So 1d16+2 is more unpredictable than 3d6 which is more unpredictable than 5d4-2.