@Alarm - hmm double shrink effects on Miranda then. Pity Reduce Person doesn't actually work ... :-P (or maybe we house rules that?)
@2.0 - I think I'm in camp Lily with this one. Could be awesome! Once they have hammered out the kinks and released a bit of stuff it'll probably be fun.
But there's always this odd feeling that all fighters will have been bullied and gave a weird aunt (if those backgrounds are the strongest :-P).
We'll see :-)
Edit: since I bumped us to a new page with an post just a few min old:
Ah, yeah, normal traits it was fine enough, I was mostly referring to the racial traits/alternate racial traits...
That list was shorter, and some options clearly superior...(and others should not have been tied to race, but background) - I think that splitting that part into actual steps you composite together gives more flexibility to create a character envisioned.
As in, that orphaned human scholar who grew up in a monastery could finally be distinctly different from the tribal human barbarian with a huge family and hunting experience.
Rather than Bonus Feat+Skilled.(or Dual Talent, Focused Study, Silver Tongued, Eye for Talent - I think those 6 make up 90%+ of the racial traits I have seen choosen for Humans) - know what I mean?
I would expect you have several steps on character creation and get to pick from a pool during each step, allowing you to make more individualized characters with boni that make sense for the background you create...i hope :)
You mean how in Pathfinder suddenly a ton of Paladins were Fey Foundling Tieflings(Pit-Born)? ^_^
Or a ton of casters Samsarans with a mystic past life?
^_^
It'll all work out. Those bullied fighters with the nasty aunts will surge, then recline when nobody picks them for games because they are too cliche :)
Yes exactly. But if the 'background flavour bonus' is a bigger and more important that will only make it more pronounced.
I noticed how much I really disliked it recently when a game handed out free story feats. There were many cool stories that gave irrelevant bonuses and uninteresting ones giving stellar buffs. (And a few in between.) And that was an odd feeling.
Personally I'd like to see more decoupling of flavour and mechanics. But that's just my opinion :-)
Well, I like the coupling of flavor and mechanics as a means to express that flavor in-game. I often find myself spending a ton of skill points simply to make the character decent at something they are supposed to be decent at.
A theoretical solution would be a complete decoupling and plain options with reasoning provided by the player. That kind of power would not be used responsibly, though, I think.
So this? I like. It's true that stronger boni will compound the problem, but that's were balancing comes in. As long as you have 2 or 3 tempting options for each concept, things will work out.
Get a better ability boost but weak options in other field? Or normal ability boosts but flexible and strong options for skills? Or moderate for both but access to a exclusive Feat Chain(like Eldritch Heritage(Mythic version), or the Animal Ally one)?
By allowing certain options to appeal to concepts while being mutually exclusive, a lot of shenanigans can be shut down from the start, but at the same time offer a lot of possible directions.
*shrug*
It's all speculation, but I'm cautiously optimistic from reading that teaser - I THINK they will get it right after the playtest. :)
Yes but maybe I want my fisherman rogue to be from cheliax instead of Galt. If mechanics and flavour is decoupled that isn't a problem. But if that awesome +3 fished trait is Galt only things get wonky. I mean if I only wanted to make the best fisherman rogue I could just write Galt on the sheet and be done with it anyhow. But now ...
I mean it's probably not a big problem if you ask nicely and talk to your players and gms and so, but it still feels odd and against the customization pr/3.5 thrive on. I mean they changed arcane Archer from elf only using that justification, so why go back now?
Just a few more totally off topic thoughts :-P
Ah, but there you go. If you mean to "min-max" and make the fishiest rogue in the world, it makes sense that he can't have been born in a mountain village and spent his youth wandering through the desert.
"Oh, it's the first time I've seen a fish. Guess I'm a natural."
The problem with mechanics/flavor decoupling completely is that it takes responsible players...otherwise you can simply give everybody a +3 to perception and nicely ask them to pick up something that distinguishes their characters from each other.
That said, since I only ever run homebrew campaigns in face-to-face-games, I've never been a big fan of region-locked options. But it DOES allow additional flavorful gimmicks by controlling certain interactions(and preventing 'broken' combinations while allowing some significant boni).
I can see value on both sides of the coin. But in real life, I am used to dealing with dirty min-maxers who would be utterly incapable of using freedom responsibly. *sigh*
The problem is if there aren't any other fish-things to take. Can't even be a trained or useful fish-rogue. Unless you have that fish-trait from Galt...
But yeah responsible players are probably handy to have : )
Aye, hence why I said, things should be interlocking.
So you can either get +fishies from the region.
Or +fishies from a upbringing mutually exclusive with the region.
Or +fishies from a profession stacking with both region and upbringing.
So you can have +2 fishies in more than one way, but you can't have +3 fishies by simply maximizing fishies.
So, you can be from Galt, or you can be Fishermans kid(doesn't stack since everybody in Galt descended from someone fishing in the rivers), but you must have worked as a Fisher yourself, then you are max fishies!
Of course, if you are from Galt, you could also be a merchants kid, and be better at haggling for prices.
But if you are a Fishermans Kid from Osirion, you would be better at standing environmental heat.
^_^
Mm that's good.
Problem is really that there's only one of the fishing options that is actually printed. And that one is only available on the fifth sunday of the month if a goat has crossed your path and the argus and the moon is in alignment.
I mean I really wouldn't mind if there were options for most skills and celestial alignment combinations. But that's usually not the case ... (and imagine the glorious table to contain all that! Wondrous!) :P
Using a algorithm to support the distribution process to make a balanced set is actually quite doable with some computer magic.
I think the bigger question is if they WANT something like that. But one can always hope...*shrug*
Yeah, my worry is that if you make things -too- finely detailed, you wind up causing issues. Like, hey, you're from galt, so you MUST be a fisherman, because Fishing is the only galt trait.
I hate wasted ink. Things like making feats for just one class? Totally not forward thinking, and will in turn require more ink to say 'oh and you can also take this specific list of cleric-only feats and sorcerer-only feats.' Which just leads to more ink for the sake of making things backwards compatible. Then on top of that, what if you miss this one feat that's perfectly fitting, and someone out there wants to take the feat that's perfect, but their DM is RAW, so now you can't take the feat that's a natural fit for your character because you're not a Sorcerer+Cleric but instead are a Sorcerer-Cleric.
Keeping too tight a leash on things will result in a lot less white space. And white space is what makes characters work.
Sorry, you can't be a fisher from Vudra. Ever. Because apparently they don't have water there, so you don't know what water is. In fact, you're afraid of water, because you might fall into it and go into the forever. So you can't have proficiency with fishing, and in fact, the concept of fishing is so terrifying that you're imposed with a -3 penalty to will saves for realizing that water exists outside of cups.
But in all seriousness, I -really- don't like several of the changes. Like 'Reaction' and 'Class-only Feats', and Themes if they keep them like starfinder did them.
Hm. Well, you got more insight into that...
I thought it meant you would have multiple galt options, AMONG them the fisherman one.
Same with the Feats, I could have seen Variant Multi-Classing as a Feat Chain locked into certain backgrounds, for example...
something that adds certain options useful to a number of builds but available to all.
As said, I meant options made to multiply emergent options at each step, rather than the fixed stuff you have now.
So I can fully understand your concerns, but I believe(and hope) that that's not the path they are planning to take.
Awww, Mordred, we're your players, and as such, it's no chore on our part to crush your hopes and dreams. It's the least we can do for all that you do for us!
"Aye...aye...it's give and take, give and take..."
*whistles the melody part of Bohemian Rhapsody going 'Thunderbolts and Lightning'*
Will formally update tomorrow - but nothing changed about the previous area. It's essentially the middle of the night and only a 'skeleton crew' mans the proverbial ship. Most people are off-duty and still following their regular biorhythm, that is to say, asleep.
What I am trying to say: You may want to consider where to head next- :)
I'll try and make sure to update on the weekend :P
Right now, feeling a bit...uncomfortable.
Without going into details, I will need to point a finger at 1-3 people on Monday morning and whoever I point at will lose their jobs.
I do not feel comfortable with that.
Pick your boss!
In all seriousness, that sucks. Especially if it's literally 'pick who goes'. :(
Ugh, that's rough. The worst thing about being in a power dynamic at work is giving good people bad news. The second worst thing is giving bad workers bad news.
I'm going to be traveling for work for the next few days. May not be able to update until Wednesday or Thursday.
Yeah that doesn't sound fun.
Aye...thing is, that's not usually my job. But I'm a systems specialist and had to look into an incident that cost us a 7-figure sum. Management wants to know who was responsible.
They don't want to hear that it was a mistake that was easy to miss. 3 people were equally at fault, by not realizing what happened in their respective systems.
We do have elaborate logging, there's no doubt. So, yeah. I didn't sign up for that. But in-depth analysis to avoid repetition of mistakes, unfortunately, is in the job description. :/
So...thanks.
(And for the record, if I claim I found nothing, they'll snapshot server states and go for fourth-level support in our systems supplier - which will quickly find said information...but then I can line up together with them for being unable to do the job I get paid for.)
You know they say you should really blame processes not people. But that's probably not what they want to hear right now :P
Good luck!
I'd suggest taking Miranda's route, if possible. Figure out if it's something they were trained to look for, if the system in place is set up to adequately safeguard against this event.
It isn't uncommon for bad things to happen because of lack of training... And they're more likely to get some sort of demerit rather than outright fired if you can find a way to suggest they simply weren't going above and beyond. :)
If you can't do that... It becomes clear that they did in fact overlook something that cost a large sum of money.
The processes are, unfortunately, not at fault. Those same interfaces and system functionalities are utilized by dozens of processes millions of times daily. They run automated. But if you get faulty data, you are not expected to trust the process blindly(if no verification was necessary, that step would be automated) and use that without questioning it.
*sigh* I do appreciate your inputs, but it just makes it harder. It's not MY boss out for blood. The source is...4 levels higher in the hierarchy. They don't even know the systems. And don't particularily care about lengthy explanations.
Hmhrm. Still dealing with the fallout?
We'll wait for you of course but a small update or heads up would be nice : )
Headsup here, update forthcoming today.
Yeah, been dealing with the fallout and 2 other issues, one related. A very small 'perfect storm', certainly, but one nonetheless.
I took some time off to focus on those things - I figured it would only be 1 or 2 days so did not write a notification, but ended up being gone for a week. Sorry, there.
No worries, it happens. I'd honestly be surprised if that smoking mess at your job didn't have issues after the main event.
No worries we still like you :-)
@choices - Miranda's bluff isn't stellar, but I'm still learning that way just because it was the plan. Should we go for that?
The fact that Boros is almost automatically going to trip an alarm here makes me think it's probably better to attack. If we didn't have Boros just sneaking along behind us, I'd almost suggest we double down and ask them for the interrogation room and their specialized tools for airtight confessions. Then with the door closed and the not-demon in the room with us... ha, and hiya.
BUUUUUT.
Sneaking about would be a lot easier if the guards would cooperate by rendering themselves deaf and blind on command -_-.
Mordred, need a ruling here.
Bull Rush says I can't move the target back if there's a solid obstacle in their path. However, if my intent is specifically to give the target a good, hard check into/against that very obstacle (see here at about 0:30 for a good example), could I do so? If need be, I want to be able to give one of those guards a good, hard (hopefully consciousness-depriving) hit dead into the wall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a few monster and class abilities dealing with such situations.
The basic gist being that on those cases where movement is prevented by obstacles, usually both obstacle and target of the movement are instead dealt 1d6 points of damage per increment of movement remaining + knock prone.
I am fine with that handling. It's not superior to regular attacking due to the relatively low damage(running someone through with a sword will usually be more deadly compared to tackling them into a wall), while providing some utility(e.g. in potentially knocking down a target).
Obviously, also, while I am for creative combat maneuvers, we wouldn't want to supercede trip. So instead of automatic tripping, if you bull rush someone into an obstacle, you get to make a free trip attempt not provoking as part of that same action - with all strings attached(more legs make it harder, fail high enough and you may go down etc...).
For sake of example: Say you try and tackle that Medusa into a Statue. You slam into her with enough force to push her back 3 squares...since there's a statue right behind, she instead takes 3d6 damage. You can also attempt to use your momentum to try and floor her...but that naga-like body and the dice work against you, and instead, it's you on the ground next to a very angry stoner lady...
I'll try and put a note regarding that into overview eventually :)
as with all house rules, I do think, right now, that it could work nicely that way, but reserve the right to edit or adapt that ruling.
Xd6 seems a lot high, making it so that a natural 19 bull rush gains a lot of appeal over hitting them with your axe. At higher levels, it becomes less of an issue as, if you don't invest in bull rush, you generally fail to bull rush.
Shield Slam is a feat that I use often on my ranger, and it bakes the knocked prone into the free bull rush.
I think damage on bull rush should be restricted to class features and environmental effects, personally.
I'm no rules guru by any stretch, and further hesitate to bring reality into the game, but mass + momentum is still going to knock some dust loose for the one on the receiving end. Maybe make the damage default to nonlethal for the average Joe PC who just needs to put someone down in a rush, with a bonus to the trip equal to the number of dice (or a penalty on the CMD equal to some portion of the damage suffered)? That'll preserve your class features and environmental effects, right?
Well, consider the implications of someone bullrushing Lily. Her CMD will be atrocious at all levels, so a dedicated bull rusher won't fail. Then it rapidly becomes how many great swords of damage the guy can inflict by shoving Lily into an ally.
I'd be personally hesitant to make bullrushing a go-to for damage over just hitting the thing. (In addition to the shove-off-cliffs opportunity)
Well, that's the thing, I'm talking specifically about checking someone into an object that isn't going to give under the ensuing impact. Not at all the same as Lily being shoved into an ally, who would like go down in a tangle themselves under those circumstances.
Damage vise it seems a bit like free Vital Strike. It's extra damage but ... Not much. Or super dangerous either.
So I'm up for trying it out at least. Now if we encounter tons of True Strike -> Bull Rush then we might have to look things over.
Bull Rushing person A into person B usually means you must make another Bull Rush check against the new target (at a minus) to move then, else you stop.
So hopefully this means person B merely helps stop the pushing of person A. :-)
Blerp I sure hope Lily and Varu are ready for their Oscar grade performance now :-P
Aye, i understand the worries, but I think it will 'fail' as a go-to for damage.
First, there are no 'riders' attached. You don't add strenght, magical enhancements, dexterity, feat boni etc...
Considering expected damage output of martial classes at different levels, that should not be a serious issue. Consider being pushed into a wall with a CMB that beats your CMD by 15. That's 20 feet of movement, tackled straight into a wall, 4d6, or an average of...14 damage(3.5x4) - not neglectable, but nothing impressive. Especially considering that it won't scale up, needs the target to stand right next to a useable obstacle...and potentially could backfire.
You will soon be level 4, and the expected single-target damage output does not seem out-of line.
I may be wrong, which is why I specifically reserved the right to alter the call made.
Also, as pointed out, rushing someone into an Ally won't work - they are not immobile obstacles, and instead both would be pushed...and if someone goes out of their way to rush someone into a wall, they may easily set themselves up for flanking.
So overall, I think it will be situational enough to not be a primary go-to option and have little enough impact to not overshadow alternatives.
That said, yeah, could have been easier to simply go with regular charge/weapon damage and simply flavor it as a tackle - but lets see where this goes.
(For what it's worth, I do like creative uses. Example: If you mean to grapple someone in a way rendering them unable to shout, I feel that should be an option available to anybody - wether you succeed to keep the jaw closed shut in that sleeper hold or not is a completely different question and you probably won't be able to completely silence them without specialized training - so depending on perception, someone over in the next room might still hear - but if you accept that getting that grip(and maintaining it) might be more difficult than simply grabbing the target somewhere on the body, that "called shot" would seem a very reasonable use to me instead of requiring specialised training for trying to prevent someone from speaking(except, of course, alien anatomys where that may fail depending on available knowledge-.)
So . . . would it be possible to start the surprise round? We collectively suck at stealth, bluffing, and performance, particularly as we have our less stealthy members trying to be stealthy. And I had in mind just getting a few moments of surprise--I have to think the guards know each other well enough that we can't pull off the ruse for long.
I have to be honest, I'm a little worried about going down this bull rush path knowing that it'll get used against us. But it sounds like we're trying it? If so, Varuzhan's planning to unleash this weapon to demonstrate its power.
I get decent Stealth roll, and what does the party do? Suck at bluffing and want to get on to the violence already -_-. I hope Lily can pull off a monster lie here.
So our total is 47 and average (rounded) is 12, unless I miscounted. Let's hope the guards dice choke :-P
Oh! And happy Easter if you care :-)
Well, if this goes horribly pear-shaped on us, at least it won't be my scrubby roll that did it :D. Also, I'm thinking that the ruling I requested in regards to that bull rush/wall check might not be a last-ditch plan B option for much longer.
Very close - For the record, they both barely made their check against the 12 average. Their talk response is flavor, and was not actually influential for this.
If both would have failed the check, you could have passed, if one had succeeded and the other failed, the choice (surprise with no init penalty, or bluff) would have been repeated once.
Varuzhan might want to use Command to make the guard drop the whistle as soon as he picks it up (to make the guard use up an action). Would that work?
If Miranda lands a good blow, though, Varuzhan might just follow up with an attack.
Let's hope the poor luck that jumped from the rest of the party to Boros continues on to the guards as soon as possible :-)
Oh, so you lot jinxed me then? Couldn't stand to see the soldier get the good roll on the party's effort to be sneaky, eh? How petty of you all :p.
I'm helping! :O