I didn't say it had to be Bob.
But why does it have to be me? Maybe because I don't enjoy the optimization game. Maybe because Bob builds really tweaked out combat monsters and that's not where I want to go.
Why always the assumption that the only solution to an imbalance within the party is for the players of the less optimized characters to learn how to make even more powerful characters. To get more system mastery. Why is it always assumed that more optimization will make the game better?
More optimization->harder challenges-> more optimization-harder challenges, etc.
As I said before, as you make the challenge harder and harder you rule out more an more concepts. Both in build and in roleplaying terms. If I have to play at my skill limit to survive, not only are there more character concepts that just aren't viable, but I have to optimize my character's actions too. I can't play characters that make mistakes, that have weaknesses (except the build kind that you trade off for other strengths).
I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.
And by "modern RPGs", you mean at least since the mid '80s when I started playing.
Also remember that Dead Shot suffers from the same problem Vital Strike does: You only add the weapon damage dice for each "shot". Criticals, magic bonuses and other static damage only apply once.
It works out being a lot less than the full attack it would replace.
And it costs grit.
If I found the iterative double-barreled shots too powerful, and I'm not sure I would, I'd probably just house rule against that, rather than changing the reload rules and affecting everything else.
Clarifies and makes sense. Thank you.
I'm far more interested in players doing clever and interesting things during the game than in even clever and interesting ways of building characters.I also prefer somewhat easier games/combats because that allows me to use less optimized characters and to do those more interesting things in the game, rather than always making the most tactically optimal choices.
Also don't forget you can only use Lightning Reload once per round. If you need to reload more than that to get your full attack sequence, you'll need to use cartridges or Rapid Reload.
I'm not at all sure how it all interacts with Advanced firearms, but I thing your tables with Lightning Reload are wrong. It does not just drop the time by one step as you have it.
Lightning Reload wrote:
as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point
You don't actually spend the grit point each time you reload. You just have to have 1 point left in your pool. Several other deeds work this way.
The main issue I have with the Stormwind Fallacy is that it only goes one way. You can come up with a cool roleplaying concept for any build, however optimized.
You can use optimization techniques on any concept, but that won't get some concepts up to the top power levels.
The farther your game gets ramped up in difficulty, the fewer concepts can be made effective enough to survive it.
Elladan Sindanarie wrote:
And if you actually enjoy the challenge of optimization, rather than just having a powerful character, you can use your skills to bring a weak class or concept up to par rather than taking a strong one into the stratosphere.
I was wondering about that too.A pure sandbox approach can get close to PCs picking the fights, but even there the GM has a very large say. Players tend to pick between possibilities the GM has set up, based on information the GM has given out.
Even then the GM has a large influence on the actual encounter: The party may choose to go after the Orc outpost rather than the troll cave, but they don't get to decide whether the orcs are all in your face melee types or if they also have archers and shamans.
Of course, he could have just been assuming modules and that the GM shouldn't change encounters based on party makeup.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm not sure anything suggests it isn't. And that would be far more in keeping with Catholic theology.
The more I look into this, the less I think it was about salvation.
"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Everyone can do good. Even those who do not believe are capable of good. That's where we can meet. Not meeting in heaven, but meeting in good works.
Not an answer to "Can atheists be saved", but "Can they be good moral people without God". Which seems obvious to me, but I've heard it seriously argued by theists.
Yeah, but what was a little sexist in the past might be completely unacceptable now. What is a little sexist now might have been a ground breaking moment for equality 50 years ago.
I wouldn't phrase it as "Star Trek wasn't sexist, but it is now because of Abrams", but as "Star Trek had been becoming less sexist over its history, but has reversed that now because of Abrams."
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
One more time: The players get this. That's why in the OP, they all looked at the Cleric when asked about a blocker. That's not the problem.
The problem is none of them want to play that character, because they think it's a boring role. Killing them off won't change that opinion. It may make one of them suck it up and play the BSF in the next game, but it won't make them realize it can be a fun role.
Except the fluff not being memorization makes the "you can't remember how to pick your nose today" and "extreme senility" response pointless.
You do realize that "memorization" and "forgetting" haven't been part of the fluff for prepared casting since 1E and it was arguable then.
The current rules use "prepare".
Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it.
Because D&D is the dominant brand. It was the first. It's the only one with any name recognition outside the hobby. It's the common denominator. Among gamers, the vast majority started playing D&D. It may not be their favorite, but it's usually acceptable. I was a fan of GURPS for awhile, my buddy really like Hero, even for fantasy. I couldn't stand Hero, he didn't like GURPS, but we were both happy playing D&D.
I'd really hesitate to say D&D is dominant because it has a Vancian magic system.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Or possibly just good intentions without the tyranny. It is possible, you know.
The quote claims that tyranny with good intentions is the most dangerous kind. It does not claim that good intentions are bad. You've still got to show me the tyranny.
Or is it just that anything done for the good of a minority group is "political correctness", which means it's always bad?
Thinking about it a little more: I think I like casting having a fundamentally different mechanic than physical combat. It gives a different feel to the two things if they work differently.
As long as it's openly metagame, I'm more cool with it.
Still, I'm not really sure resting after a serious fight is all that metagame. It doesn't usually happen in real life but that's more because we don't get per day abilities. If I get in a fight with a bear in the woods, I'm not going to rest there over night. I'm going to get out of the woods and to a hospital. Or lie there and call for help. :)
"2 hours of adventuring"? The problem with the 15-minute adventuring day is that it's pretty much built in to the game. You can't run an 8 hour adventuring day unless most of it is travel time. You might spend that time travelling to the dungeon, exploring it and going back. You're not going to spend it exploring any reasonable dungeon. Not without resting. Even 2 hours is 1200 rounds. If you play through 5-6 combat encounters with a few minutes of searching and bandaging between them, you probably haven't taken an hour and you're probably running low on resources. If the combats are easier, you'll get through a few more, but you'll probably do it faster.
I really can't imagine an 8 hour adventuring day, unless it's 95% unadventful travel. How many sessions would it take to play out?
Not every random encounter has to be a fight. Especially those way out of CR range ones.
If you roll up a dragon for a low level party, they can just see him flying overhead. They don't even have to run away, just don't try to draw it's attention.
They get a bit of "There's dangerous stuff out there", without taking up much time or resources.
And there's a big difference between the government banning you painting your house flamingo pink and your neighbors shunning you (and maybe your business) if you paint your house flamingo pink.
Or, to go back to the business at hand, between the government forcing Rush Limbaugh off the air because he's an offensive a!*%&@$ and people complaining to his advertisers and him losing revenue because he's an offensive a$+~$%*.
Yeah, the difference there is that Nixon's enemies list was a real thing, that he used to attack his political enemies. Not suspected terrorists, justly or not, but domestic politicians, reporters and activists.
Obama has a kill list, which I think is a bad thing. But it's not political rivals, it's been used solely on people affiliated with terrorists. Very loosely in some cases. With bad intelligence in others. Again, I think it's a very bad thing. But not something Darryl Issa needs to worry about, no matter how many investigations into Obama scandals he cranks up.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature over there somewhere. It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
That's interesting. It needs a little work: How does it interact with creatures who can't make Stealth checks, for example.The difficulty to Notice is lower, only the -4 to Perception, but that's not a bad thing really. Sneaking by someone without alerting them would rely on Stealth even if you're invisible.
The interesting thing from the POV of this discussion is that almost the same language is used as the invisibility section we're talking about: "locate" instead of "notice", "over there somewhere", "almost impossible to pinpoint" and the same +20 DC modifier to pinpoint, but here they make it clear that the Pinpoint is +20 to the Locate Perception check.
The black raven wrote:
I think I specifically used it as a parallel, where it could be used in-group without offense, but was insulting used by outsiders.
It's the same with many things. Any insult should be offensive to anyone, but words in and of themselves are not insults. It's all about context. Back in my high school days, my friends and I might refer to each other as geeks in a complimentary way. If one of the jocks called us that, he meant it as an insult and we took it that way. Jock probably works the same way from the other side, though the power dynamic was different.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Wait. The team that wasn't allowed to go did this?
Along with some kind of weird implication that anything relating to homosexuality has to be the second kind. Never explicitly stated, but obviously there in all the posts that say something like "We don't deal with homosexuality in our games because we don't go into sex. It's just fade to black."
Not carmachu or anyone in particular, but it keeps coming up.
<Takes all rulebooks, throws them away>No restrictions left. All the options you could possibly want. Let's make up characters and start playing.
All the rules are restrictions. But without them there isn't a game. At best there's a story. At worst there's two kids on the playground yelling "I hit you!" "No, you missed!"
All of which, without more information, translates to guess what the GM (or module writer) was thinking.
1) Oops, wasn't ground pressure trigger, but magical motion sensor. Splat!
Or maybe it wasn't crushing walls at all, but something else that left the blood and bones.
I don't like playing "Outthink the GM". It's not as bad for disarming as for finding traps, since you don't have to apply your whole list of trap finding measures every step of the way. But it's still a game in which I can't use my characters abilities, just my own.
Personally, I'd rather just have less traps. I've never really enjoyed them. I've never played Tomb of Horrors, but I've read it. Even reading through it, I can't tell how you're supposed to figure out half the traps.
Let's put it another way then: Explicit or otherwise "adult" material is an entirely separate issue from having characters who are homosexual or otherwise diverse in sexual preference.
Broken Arrow wrote:
So you're equally opposed to things like
Sex and romance are major motivators for people, both in fiction and in real life. Not referring to them in the game materials would be very weird.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
"Get rid of labor laws" is not a compromise between "Get rid of labor laws" and "Strengthen labor laws"
John Kretzer wrote:
It's not so much that all your role models have to be exactly like you, it's when there aren't any that it becomes hard.
To take it to the extreme, if all the postive role-models available, everyone who's held up as a success, as someone to emulate, are straight white men, it's much harder for the gay black female to see herself having a chance at reaching that goal. While that's an extreme example, it isn't that long ago it was fairly accurate, at least for women who didn't want a traditional female role.
So it's not so much, all my heros have to be gay, for example, but it's nice if there's an example showing that gays can be heros.
When you're a straight white male, as I am, you're so surrounded by examples of people like you that it's easy to take to role models who don't match you, because you're overwhelmed with those that do.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Of course, 1st edition also survived about 10 years with only a handful of new classes and less new crunch than 3.x.Similarly 2E lasted 11 years with few new base classes, though it started the splatbook explosion and introduced kits.
The vast explosion of classes and prestige classes in 3.x only kept it going for 7 years, with a reboot in the middle, allowing them to rerelease all the old material tweaked.
4th also had plenty of new classes and only lasted about 5 years.
I'm not sure the evidence shows that it's new classes (or even new mechanics) that keep editions going.
Personally, I hope their business model can survive on more fluff and less crunch. More APs and modules and setting books and the like. Less new classes and feats and spells and such.
The more options and combinations of options you have the harder it is to keep it all coherent and vaguely balanced. Feature bloat is a bad thing
Andrew R wrote:
Are we talking about Paizo's use of homosexuals?Or about players having flame wars about controversial issues?
Likely they'll bribe the ruling class of the country to look the other way for violations of any labor laws that do exist. Or even human rights violations.
There's some pretty good evidence that resource extraction is bad for poor countries in everything but the very short run.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Capitalism works fine for the rich. It even works, in some senses, for the economy as a whole. Without some counter balance, it also keeps the vast majority of the population in abject poverty, working and dying in horrendous conditions.
Then we changed that and the middle class ballooned. People worked less hours, educated their children, lived longer, were able to retire. We became a consumer society because more than just a tiny minority had leisure and money for things beyond the bare necessities. And the rich didn't really suffer. They stayed rich. It was a little harder to get good servants, but they got all sorts of technological gadgets to make up for it.
Now some have forgotten how much of that change was the result of union struggles and the resulting government regulation. They just assume it's the natural result of a free market and will continue and expand if we just stop using the government (or worse, unions) to interfere.
Not necessarily true of art or even of movies in general, but it's going to be hard to make a D&D movie, which is by definition a special effects laden action-adventure movie, without spending a lot of money on it.If you plan to spend a lot of money without convincing your financiers you care about making a lot of money, you're not going to get your movie off the ground.
And therefore, once he's left the cover of the wall, he not only loses the modifier for being behind the wall, but if nothing else grants the ability to use stealth, he can't use it.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Yes. Though it's been argued that it's not intended.
Part of the reason it's kind of silly to be so adamant about "Oh no! you can't possibly sneak up on someone in the light. It would break everything. Unless you use a second level spell to do it, then it's fine."
Pinky's Brain wrote:
Of course, you could argue that one part of the Stealth skill is timing your movements to match the observer glancing away.
So, for those saying "There's nothing wrong with rules":
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Thing is, we know where "Whatever the market will bear" leads us, in the absence of government regulation and union pressure. We saw it during the early industrial age. We see it today in factories in the 3rd world.Sweatshops. Wages that are barely enough to keep workers alive. Horrendous working conditions. Fire escapes & windows locked to keep workers from sneaking breaks. Exposure to toxic chemicals and wastes. Child labor.