Bjørn Røyrvik's page

1,705 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,705 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It would help if we knew how you think DW works, what your GM ruled and why you think that is wrong.

Area effects don't target individuals, so you can't use DW on it.
You might want to read up on aiming a spell


Quixote wrote:
Meirril wrote:
Back in 3.0 Greater Cleave let you take a 5' step if you killed an opponent with your cleave
I'm rather confident that this was not the case, even back in 3rd. There was a special ability called Supreme Cleave that allowed you to take a single 5ft-step each turn between cleaves (from the samurai prestige class, I think?), but that may have been 3.5

Eeeeeh it's not entirely clear. Great Cleave gave you unlimited cleaves in a round but no movement.

Supreme Cleave, a class ability for the Master Samurai PRC from Sword and Fist (3.0):
Supreme Cleave wrote:
Supreme Cleave: At 2nd level, the master samurai gains the ability to take a 5-foot step before making a Cleave or Great Cleave attack.

Now you can argue that the ability doesn't give you any more 5' steps in a round than you normally would, just that you can use your step between cleaves (that's my impression of RAI). It doesn't explicitly state this, but it doesn't explicitly give you more 5' steps either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vow of Peace does nothing to stop an avalanche since the feat specifies "a manufactured weapon" and avalanches aren't weapons, manufactured or otherwise.

Not being able to see the sun is silly because we have no stats for what sort of penalties to Hide/Stealth the sun has - that could easily be in the many millions as well.

As for the Knowledge checks, why aren't all the examples you listed DC 10 (or even less)?
It is perfectly possible for most people to manage to get by in game life by taking 10, since a DC 10 check covers a lot and and doesn't require any skill points invested to know.

Now if you want to argue that the Knowledge rules don't take into account locality, I am in total agreement.

Drown healing.
If you can't stop someone bleeding out, start drowning them. When they fail their save to hold their breath, they start drowning and are unconscious (0 hp) and unless rescued fall to negatives on the following round. So drown them one round then stop, because once your HP total increases you stop bleeding out.


Kayerloth wrote:

+1 to what Jeff has said. I have to dig around more but I see nothing in the PF rules that unequivocally states it one way or the other. I no longer have many of my old AD&D books but fairly certain it stated that the area must be contiguous with no dimension less than a 10ft cube as I recall some discussions about it among my gaming friends at the time.

PS And while my word is certainly not official (yours as the GM is) that's they way I've been doing since my AD&D days. My only advice is whatever way its done be consistent (and what's good for the goose is good for the gander).

No mention of contiguous areas in 1e, 2e or BECMI. The closest I could find to this was "sheets" rather than a singular noun. but this could just as easily be referring to the fact that it was similar to a Wall of Fire except three dimensional.

We've always played with it as contiguous, however.


thejeff wrote:
Quixote wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Which one is right?

As for the Golden Mean Fallacy: one side can be entirely wrong. One side can be entirely right.

Obviously the first is right. Which is more effective, though. I'd say in most low-stakes, armchair discussions, you make more (but still slow) progress by approaching people more in line with your second example. Though, of course, that's hardly a low-stakes situation.

And yes, one side can be right and one can be wrong.
But when both sides mean well and are composed of intelligent people, it gets a lot more compilated.

I mean, look at this thread. I think it's pretty clear that it's not so obviously cut and dry as some feel.

The problem with applying it here is that only one side is really an extreme: "Thou shalt not ever fudge."

There is no corresponding "Fudge everything, pay no attention to the dice" side. Other than as a strawman invoked by the first side.

Now, both sides may get overwrought and attack or insult each other, but if you look at the actual positions, it's hard for me to see any middle ground that isn't already essentially the second side's position.

You're missing the point. We aren't attacking Quixote's position on fudging, we are attacking the assertions that 'level-headed' arguments are a better choice to side with over vehement ones with no regard to actual content, and that the truth nearly always lies in between two positions.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The +5 bonus for the save is from the description of charm person. It states that if the target is threatened or attacked by you or your allies you get a +5 bonus to your saving throw.

Ah, that's where I was getting things wrong. I still tend to think of the 2e versions of spells instead of the PF ones. Didn't think to look at the spell text. Rather embarrassing mistake to make. Disregard most of my previous replies, then.

You are right, Bob, and your DM is wrong. Him actually threatening you and having the congregation move in weapons drawn is definitely a threatening act, and AOOs do not come into the situation at all. You should have gotten that +5 from the spell. I will also reiterate that even if you fail the save, any hostile action taken by the caster and his allies afterwards will automatically break the spell. I don't know if that was relevant but it is worth considering.

Ah, the joys of games where words have both their common meaning and specific rules meanings and the designers forget this when writing. (though I will say that the DM should have understood the difference in this particular case).


Derklord has brought up the most important bits. Especially players not know how their own characters work (the number one source of time consumption during combat in one of my groups).

Notes notes notes. Make notes of everything you think you will need and then make some more. While improvisation in an important skill as a GM, I find that proper planning makes combat a lot smoother, faster and more fun for all. Common tactics, morale, specific enmities or superstitions that might impact combat, etc.
(Now if only I would take my own advice in this regard)

For most opponents, I tend to give passive abilities that I can add during preparation and not have to worry about in combat.
Ones with active abilities I try to make a note to remember to use them and what they do, and if necessary note down pre-calculated modifiers (e.g. attack and damage with and without Power Attack)
This may mean I have a long list of abilities on certain opponents in my notes, but it's better than forgetting and having to look up a particular creature or class all the time. As Derklord mentioned, spell cards and the like are useful, even if you have to make your own.

simplified Aid Another. If you throw a bunch of mooks at opponents, instead of rolling a ton of dice for attacks, roll one that is heavily aided. I rule that AA works automatically in combat, which speeds things up and makes weenie monsters a tad more useful. E.g. a group of 11 bog standard goblins is hardly a match for a PC after only a few levels. 11 d20 rolls to hit someone takes time and is boring. 1 attack roll with a +20 bonus on top of normal stats is fast and has a decent chance of striking even powerful PCs even if the damage is not amazing. Alternatively one goblin hero with a posse of spearmen at his back aiding his AC can help an otherwise overmatched but potentially troublesome opponent survive a round or two longer.
Adjust exactly how many aid and how many attack for optimum bonus/attack chances.
in short: fewer rolls and better use of allies.

Prerolled Stealth/Perception.
Keep a list of the Perception scores of your PCs and roll all this during prep time. Means you can describe how combat starts without the tedious and slightly immersion breaking of making your own rolls then asking players to roll and have them act surprised.


I'm saying you should read the AoO rules. This has nothing to do with Charm Person specifically, and nothing to do with distance from the player. Player vs. character distinctions are important.
I'm not even sure what ability you are referring to that would give you a +5 bonus to saves when threatened. What is it?

Going on what you have given me, with a few necessary assumptions due to lack of information, it sounds like the combat went like this:

1. You attack cleric. In this case you threaten each other since you both can make melee attacks against the other. You have used all your actions, so it's the clerics turn.

2. cleric moves away. You don't say how far he moved, so I have to make some assumptions. Probably a 5' step. He could have used a move action to move farther away, but if he was going to cast a spell, that would have meant he would provoke an AoO from you, so a 5' step is most likely
Unless you have reach greater than 5', you now no longer can make melee attacks against each other without moving closer. Hence you do not threaten each other.

3. 5' steps are free actions so the cleric still has a move action and standard action left. He calls his congregation and tells them to put themselves between you two. Talking is generally a free action, but spending a move action on it guarantees he can get the point across. A bunch of people between you grants cover, which also prevents you from threatening squares. The priest is probably doubly protected from AoOs made by you.

4. with a standard action left, the priest casts Charm Person.

Note that Charm Person is not a paralysis spell or a dominate spell. You are not helpless, nor do you mindlessly follow all orders. You look upon the caster as a trusted friend and are inclined to go along with seemingly reasonable requests, but that does not mean you automatically accept everything he does. He must make a Charisma check against you to convince you to do things you won't normally do, and hostile actions on his part immediately end the effect.


I think you are mixing up the common and mechanical uses of 'threatened'.
Mechanically, 'threatened' is short hand for 'squares where you can be struck by an Attack of Opportunity'.
Read up on AoOs.

It has little to do with general hostilities.


There you jumped from Fallacy Fallacy to Golden Mean Fallacy and pretended they are the same. Care to tell me what sort of fallacy that is?

To address your original claim about vehemence vs. 'level-headed'.
Side A: SLAVERY IS BAD!!!!!!!!! RABBLERABBLERABBLE
Side B: now if you calm down and think about it there are many good reasons for slavery, like cheap labor for unpleasant chores....

Which one is right?

As for the Golden Mean Fallacy: one side can be entirely wrong. One side can be entirely right.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It really depends on the setting, cultures and gods in question.
To use Mystara (of course) as a source of examples.

The empire of Thyatis is your typical late Roman/Byzantine knock-off, and one of its nearest neighbors is the superior empire of Alphatia. Thyatis really doesn't like Alphatia. Alphaks is an evil Immortal whose raison d'être is to destroy Alphatia. While worship of Alphaks is not legal in Thyatis, he has a fairly strong presence there as many feel that any god dedicated to destroying your hated enemy can't be all bad.

Vanya is the patroness of war and conquest. Think a super competitive by-the-books wargamer. While not actually evil as such, anyone dedicated to mass conquest is not good. She attracts the sort of fascist might makes right type of character you unfortunately always find. Part of the accepted Immortals of Thyatis and very popular, perhaps the most popular. People attracted to a sense of accomplishment, brotherhood and belonging, and building up the empire tend to be attracted to Vanya. Note that conquest doesn't need to involve bloodshed.

Thanatos simply wants to kill all life. An immensely old and powerful Immortal, he is patient and focused. His sects are illegal in Thyatis, but some people still flock to him. The resentful who want revenge on everyone, the power hungry who are willing to accept any deal to advance their goals, the mad, (and probably the disaffected youth who think it sounds cool and edgy). Conquered people who want revenge on Thyatis could easily turn to Thanatos in hopes of destabilizing the empire.

Nyx has no real presence in Thyatis, nor is she particularly evil, she is merely incompatible with most living morals. She is a creature of darkness and undeath, and she wants to darken the world and turn the living undead. She wants this because she values the beauty of darkness and undeath rather than from any hatred towards light or the living. in fact, she considers the living akin to children that can grow up to beautiful undead some day. In short, the ultimate goth god.
Anyone who needs the protection of the night or wants to have extra help to ward off undead may well send a prayer or offering her way.
Side note: one of Nyx's closest friends is her bitter rival in divine politics: Ixion likes light and hates undead. Despite this, the two get along well as long as they don't talk shop.

Religious freedom laws are a knotty issue. Unlike real world issues, D&D gods really do exist and their cults really do have power beyond politics, and ethics, in most settings, really is a fundamental component to the multiverse instead of mere social construct. Do you allow any religion, including horrible ones, or do you allow just the ones that say what you want them to say? Is there a matter of multiversal balance that needs maintaining (e.g. Dragonlance) or is it basically an all out war where one side can potentially win (most other settings)?
Will outlawing certain gods make them more likely to harm you or less?
As a general rule, you can bet that any religion that threatens the rulers is bound to be made illegal, or at least very unwelcome. There wil also be the odd super jealous god who demands complete attention, like a super-powered whiny spoiled brat. There is unlikely to be an idea of freedom of worship that must be preserved. Gods whose ultimate aims actively work against the long-term interests of its worshippers (Tharizdun, GOOs, this Rovagug fellow, etc.) are likely to be universally banned.

Mystara has pretty much every conceivable variation on religious laws.
Glantri has outlawed all religion. The cynical will say it's because they have enough to do with their own plotting that to add a ton of new dimensions and factions to the eternal intrigue is too much even for them. The other Immortals will say it's because Rad (the Immortal who secretly runs the place) doesn't want people messing with his experiements.

You have monolatrist nations, like Hule, a theocratic hell-hole. The nations of the shadow elves, orcs and Azcans corrupted by Atzanteotl accept no other patron (amusingly enough, these groups have little to no contact with each other and would probably kill each other on sight if they did, even knowing they worshipped the same Immortal). In all these cases only the one Immortal is allowed in their respective nations.

Uncorrupted shadow elves have only one god because he's the only one that bothered to help them in need, so they don't need to enforce rules about religion. The dwarves of Rockhome and its colonies were created by Kagyar and are probably entirely devoted to him, but don't prevent the rare visitors from worshipping their own gods.

You have an actual monotheistic nation (totally-not-Arabia, with totally-not-Islam and totally-not-Muhammed) that is more 'golden age' Islam than IS, but still non-Eternal Truth religions are at best tolerated, at worst attacked on sight.

Thyatis is open to most religions that aren't actively disruptive or harmful to social order. Thyatis once had a thriving cult to the aforementioned Ixion, who is generally considered to be a decent sort, but it got politically troublesome and quite disruptive, and was banished. Most Immortals are allowed, but it has a set of very popular ones that people in general worship. Some Immortals are illegal, as mentioned, usually on the basis of being too disruptive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main issue of secret identities is that you have to be pretty much locked into a single location and have lots of non-work friends/family/jobs with significant screen time for it to mean anything.
For the most classic example, remove Clark Kent's family, job at the Daily Planet, Jimmy Olsen and Lois (etc.), and you'd have him be basically Superman all the time. Clark Kent is Kal-el's attempt to be normal and that only works if he's actually interacting with mortals.

Without knowing anything more about the characters and campaign, all advice will be shots in the dark. So for one shot in the dark, taking inspiration from Superman, this is the PC's chance to be a normal person again. At 16th level you are powerful. You're probably quite famous too (depending on the setting), so getting anything done in town without everybody crowding around you can be a pain. With a secret identity you are just another normal guy who can meet people, go to parties, live a quiet life without everything you do being gossiped about.
Stories would be typical hang out with 'mundane' friends, get into trouble, and try to solve the issue without giving away your true power.
The sort of story that requires quick thinking and improvisation as well as pure game mechanical power.


I don't so much fudge rolls as I fudge rules. Usually this is to get things to move along if a particular scene is taking so long it isn't fun any more.
The uncooperative but minor official who is standing in the way of the plot progressing and no other obvious things to do? He 'failed' his save against Charm Person. Let's get on to the important bits of the game.
One really long, drawn out fight where the outcome is obvious and everyone is just wasting time towards the end? Probably just cut-scene it.
It's late and we need to end the session? Whoops, looks like I forgot to note some damage on this guy, he's actually dead now.
On a couple of occasions I've even added a few hp to an opponent when what is supposed to be a challenging enemy is killed without being able to do anything. It doesn't end up changing the outcome in any meaningful way, it's just a consolation prize that the baddie gets the chance to do something.

Apart from that, we live and die by the rules and the dice. Sometimes the PCs roll s@#+ and feel useless. Last session of RHoD the sorc cast six spells on a dragon and SR took care of all of them. Sometimes the opponents roll s++@ and flail about like fish on land while the PCs are criting right and left. Sometimes PCs die, be it heroically or embarrassingly pointlessly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coidzor wrote:

everything I've seen so far mostly indicates that they largely kept with the wibbly-wobbly ill-defined mess on the nature of undeath they inherited from WOTC and, through WOTC, TSR.

I've long been convinced that you can make a strong case for the ancient Egyptian concept of the soul being how many (default) settings work.


Skeksis are old news


You could just steal from Threshold #1, the fanzine for Mystara.
The very first article is detailed demographic of the country of Karameikos (the default 'starting adventurer country') which takes into account things like official sources, mediaeval demographics, terrain, different races and settlement types and the history of the nation.

Yes, the Mystara fanbase has people who actually sit down and crunch the numbers instead of just arbitrarily assigning them.


avr wrote:
There's no obvious way to remove that though. Maybe via remove curse, or dispel magic? It doesn't say.
Mudfoot wrote:
And you need to specify whether the target can read a scroll or other non-linguistic inscription.

I assume these two posts were addressed to me.

1. There is a duration and it's a magical effect, so it stands to reason that can be removed by anything that can remove magic will work. Not to mention that it's a reverse form, so it cancels and is canceled by Comprehend Languages. Most spells do not bother to say they can be removed by Dispel Magic, and ones that can specifically be removed by other spells like Remove Curse or Break Enchantment tend to state this.

2. a) By 'scroll' I assume you mean a spell scroll. Depends on if you count spell scrolls as being based on language. If so, then you can't read them.
b) Non-linguistic inscriptions are, as you say, not languages, so the spell that confuses languages would probably not work on them.


Converted from 2e

Confuse Languages
(Transmutation)
Level: Alchemist 1, Bard 1, Psychic 1, Shaman 1, Sor/Wiz 1, witch 1
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of soot)
Range: touch
Target: 1 creature or piece of writing
duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving throw: special (Will negates or none)
Spell Resistance: yes

You render one creature unable to understand spoken or written language. The target is allowed a saving throw to resist this effect. Alternatively, you render one inscription incomprehensible. This effect allows no saving throw.

Related to this, there is babble, the reverse form of tongues, which renders all speech incomprehensible in an area.

1e/2e: for all your 3.x needs.


Let's look at the older rules.

Dragon Magazine # 26
- Must be 14th level or higher
- Must have magic jar, trap the soul, enchant an item
- must create the phylactery with at least 2000 cp worth of materials (insert 1e ad hoc crafting rules). The phylactery is called a 'jar'.
- create a potion consisting of:
- 2 pinches pure arsenic
- 1 pinch belladonna
- phase spider venom less than 30 days old
- wyvern venom less than 60 days old
- blood of a dead humanoid infant killed by phase spider venom
- blood of a dead humanoid infant killed by a mixture of arsenic and belladonna
- the heart of a virgin humanoid killed by wyvern venom
- 1 quart vampire blood
The potion is mixed by the light of a full moon, added to each other in the order listed.

Roll percentile dice!
% result
1-10 all hair falls out. no other result
11-40 coma 2-7 days, but potion works
41-70 Feebleminded. Each attempt to remove the feeblemind has 10% chance of killing target. Potion works
71-90 Paralyzed 4-14 days, 30% chance of 1d6 Dex drain. Potion works
91-96 Permanently deaf, dumb or blind. Wish to remove condition. Potion works
97-00 Dead. Hope you can be resurrected.

This version doesn't create new bodies, it inserts the soul of the lich into corpses near the phylactery. Corpses receive a saving throw, modified by their in life alignment. Lich can retry once per week until successful on its own corpse, but other corpses are immune after a successful save. If in a body other than its own, the lich has limited abilities until it finds the remains of its original body and consumes those. The only way to completely destroy the original body is to disintegrate it. Returning to a jar costs a level and if its level went lower than 11 the lich died the next time it is returned to the jar. They cannot level up or use scrolls.

Wizard's Spell Compendium
Mostly the same as above, but they added Nulathoe's ninemen to required spells and a 100 000+ gp research cost.
The ingredients are the same as above except that they removed the infant blood (wussies!) and change them to:
- heart of a humanoid killed by the arsenic/belladonna mixture
- reproductive organs of 10 giant moths, dead less than 10 days.

Potion is sparkling black with blusish radiance and must be drunk within 7 days of creation, and over the course of six rounds the changes occur. Once a potion works, you don't die or transform quite yet. Craft the phylactery in no more than nine days (insert 2e crafting rules), using EAI, then TtS, and NN and MJ within 10 minutes of each other. Your soul is drawn into the phylactery and you lose one level and the top three spell levels are wiped clean from your memory until you have rested 1d6+1 days in your own body. Now you are a lichnee (I'm not quite dead, sir) until you die. After this, the same as the DrMg version, including failure chance for potion. No mention of inability to increase level or use scrolls. Phylactery can be anything.

Van Richten's Guide to Liches
Phylactery must be an amulet worth at least 1500 gp, The interior (it must be able to contain things) is engraved with the wizard's sigil and filled with silver. Spells required are enchant an item, permanency, magic jar and reincarnation.
The potion is less specific, but said to contain arsenic, belladonna, nightshade, heart's worry, the blood of any number of rare venomous creatures, then the following spells must be cast: wraithform, cone of cold, feign death, animate dead, permanency. No fancy table, just a System Shock to survive the process and hope you don't fail because if you do you are dead and gone for good. No Wish can help you now.


The first half of the seasons was definitely the better of the two. The second half, while it had a few bright sports like the Bollywood number, was more like the older seasons of LoT - a lot of stupidity and pointlessness (pointless annoying character, thy name is Gary).

It remains to be seen if John sticks around for the next season. Much though I like the character in general, I think I would prefer him to leave. He's better as a loner than a team player.


Slim Jim wrote:
Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:
As was stated by others please drop the stat roll vs. point buy discussion.

I have gone through every post on the first page of the thread, and not a single person has made such a request (and only one considered it off-topic -- and that is a consideration I do not agree with; see below). The advice to avoid die-roll-generated characters was proposed by Derklord, and the immediately-following post was from the OP (almost four hours later, so I doubt he missed Derklord's comment), and it read in its entirely: "This info is all super helpful, thank you all for the advice/resources so far!"

Then I guess I'll have to throw in with the die-rollers: D&D needs rolled characters for my sake. I've had far more fun with rolled stats than point buy or (shudder) array. Most of my players agree, or don't much care either way. Sure, sometimes you get s~+! characters in good groups, sometimes you get god characters. Never has this significantly impacted gameplay or enjoyment.

And this whole discussion falls into the trap I tried to warn of in of my first point in my last post: Fun is the Number 1 priority. What works for a group works for a group and you shouldn't worry if other people don't like it. If your group likes point buy, fine. If your group wants to roll, fine.

By all means be aware of what others have found problematic in order to fix easily issues that may pop up, but don't assume that because some people find something problematic that it is inherently so for everyone.


DeathQuaker wrote:

I don't know why Ray didn't just tell the police officer the immediate truth (apart from humor's sake) -- someone dropped a jar and it rolled under the brake. That is totally a believable thing to happen on an old RV.

This bit is actually the most believable bit of the episode for me.

Some people just naturally try to come up with what seems to them to be a believable story but which sounds nuts to everyone else. I have one of these in my gaming group. He loves to play social characters but his attempts at bluffs and persuasions are just plain whack to everyone else.


Some general philosophy.

The game is supposed to be fun
If everyone is having fun, you are Doing It Right. If people are not having fun, you are Doing It Wrong. Finding out what people like can take some trial and error, so don't be afraid to ask for opinions and change things that are unpopular. All other advice is for the purpose of achieving this overriding goal.

Rule Zero
The rules, including dice rolls, are meant to enhance fun, not reduce it. If a rule (either from the rulebook or informal table behavior) is making the game less fun over all, alter or eliminate it. If adding new rules would make the game more fun. do so. Of course, determining what is 'fun' is a doctorate in itself, and determining how things work together, and personal preference vs table preference, etc. is a pain in the arse.

Trust
A good GM is trusted by their players. While they may make unpopular decisions in a specific instances or put PCs in unpleasant situations, on the whole the players should feel the GM prioritizes their players' enjoyment of the game and will act honorably for the fun of everyone, not just themself.
Likewise, players should be trusted by their fellow players and GM. Sometimes people make honest mistakes, sometimes they try to cheat. How to handle cheaters is a whole other mess of advice, but the short answer is tackle it head on out of game and see if things can be resolved amicably.


No. 'Checks' are rolls to see if you hit a specific number, while caster level is a static component of spell power. It's the Dispel Magic that is making the caster level check, not the WoF.
If WoF had asked you to make a caster level check and add the result to the damage, you could add Otherworldy Kimono's bonus to that and its difficulty to dispel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I got a bit choked during GotG 2 but using "Father and Son" is cheating.
Didn't give a damn about the characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ehhhhh.

A cross between Ledger and Nicholson, methinks. Good actor, but what we've seen of the character looks pretty tame and uninteresting. I dislike giving the Joker an origin story. Part of what makes him good is that whatever he was before is mysterious and possibly irrelevant to what he is now.

I know Leto wasn't terribly popular but it was a take on the character we 8or at least I) hadn't seen before and I would like to see where they could have taken him.


*insert joke about incorrect use of player vs. character *

Short answer, yes. Take any undead in the game, allow player to play it. Done.

If you want an undead race balanced against core races, you're out of luck in PF core. The best thing to do would be to introduce the necropolitan. Just remove the bit about giving them d12 HD and you're good to go.


Good to see the show again. A rather weak episode compared to the rest of the season but that's only because the other episodes have been very good.
Were this Flash or Arrow it would have been the high point of the season.


Generally I'm in the camp of number 3. If s@~! happens, it happens. The notable exception is if a TPK occurs because I as the GM have messed up somewhere, like given faulty information that causes bad choices, if I've misread an ability the enemies have, if I've made bad calls during the fight, etc. TPKs that are on the players or the dice are fine, those that are on the GM are not.

Never 2 do unless this is plainly stated to be how things work when you start the game. Then find out why it only works for the PCs and no one else.

There is also option 6:

6. Fudging.
Sometimes a quiet fudge here and there can be the difference between a hard fight and a TPK. The boss has fewer hp than the notes say, he rolled a bit worse on a ST, he made a poor tactical choice for whatever reason, etc.

One thing I did when faced with a TPK was bring in backstory. One of the PCs was a princess and her great-uncle was a powerful sorcerer who was grooming her to be a potential heir (mostly just a convenient guinea pig), and though the PC had run away, the great-uncle kept a magical eye on her adventures and exploits and when he discovered she was dead and her friends weren't in any condition to bring her back, he intervened and killed the baddies, left the other PCs to live or die as their stabilization rolls dictated and spirited his great-niece away (the less said about his experiments on her the better).

Then the remaining PCs had to get themselves back to full strength and quest to save their friend from the unpleasant great-uncle. Technically an arse-pull solution to a TPK, but one which had background character justification and, most importantly, lead to more story down the road.


I'd rather no movies were Citizen Kane, but that's just me.
The first JW movie (haven't seen the second) had good action but I don't think I can call it a good action movie. Everything that wasn't action was a total drag to sit through. Not 'uninspired but serviceable' like so many movies but actually so bad I did stuff other than pay attention to the movie when there wasn't any action on screen.


Whatever RAW says, I'd allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My gf thought the movie was ok, for much of the same reasons I did. The most poignant feminist point, according to her, was all the sexist s@&+ she had to go through on Earth and how she figuratively told everyone to go f$#* themselves and showed she was better than anyone, woman or no.
Unlike Diana, who grew up with only love and support, kick-ass female rolemodels and mild androgyny, Carol was continually told she wasn't good enough (usually because she was a girl), and she proved everybody who told her that wrong.
The flashbacks to all the times Carol fell when younger and the finale showing her getting back on her feet was actually the only bit of the movie that made me like the character as anything more than a generic cocky OP MC.

Putting it in the 90s might not have been necessary for the story itself, but does work well for the MCU as a whole because Carol has to be an established badass who can be a credible threat to Thanos, and who doesn't setting-wise get thrown in last minute. Now she's got the power, some time to master her control and personality, and reasons why she wasn't around for anything else that has happened on Earth recently.

Oh, and I am really, really sick of this (usually American?) thing of telling people to not think but go with their feelings. I truly hate this cliché and every time it gets trotted out my enjoyment of a work takes a serious hit.


Irontruth wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

cqc fight scenes (the unfortunate tendency in some MArvel movies of being filmed too close to the action and wanting to move the camera around all the time to prevent you from getting a good look at things).

This isn't just the MCU. American fight choreography has always been kinda bad. Prior to the 90's, it just lacked all sorts of technical proficiency. A few good starts in the late 80's and 90's elevated it briefly, but then the Bourne Identity was made. Parts of it are actually decent, but it also presented people with a fast-paced frenetic style, and that style makes it easy to cover up poor fight scenes.

There's also a lazy technique of filming with 2 cameras, it's something that's used to help catch errors, or ensure that it's being framed well, but directors have started to just use it for cutaways (before this second cameras film was actually rarely used). If you watch the Black Widow interrogation scene in the first Avengers it's pretty obvious.

I know. And it's not like all the cqc action in the Marvel movies is bad. just enough of it and (seemingly) it's getting worse as time goes on.

The DCU has managed to have good fight/action scenes in pretty much everything they've dpme. Say what you will about the movies otherwise, the action has always been very good. Snyder, whatever faults he may have, knows how to do superhero action, and the others they have hired for the other movies have done a good job as well.

Irontruth wrote:


But you find all these sins in most movies. The only movies off the top of my head that give you consistent wide shots of action (recently) are Mad Max: Fury Road and the John Wick movies.

MMFR is one of my favorite action movies in forever. John Wick has good action but suffers in everything else.

Also Atomic Blonde, by the action choreographer of John Wick and starring Charlize Theron, has some great fights. Very good, underrated movie.


Just got back from the movie, and it was OK+. Pretty standard Marvel fare, not their best, not their worst.

The good: some decent spaceship and pew-pew stuff, Goose

The Meh: Carol, the 90s, Coulson, obvious secret baddies are obvious, the skrull

The Bad: Fury (nothing but a joke), cqc fight scenes (the unfortunate tendency in some MArvel movies of being filmed too close to the action and wanting to move the camera around all the time to prevent you from getting a good look at things).


The problem with this sort of thing is these people are all one-trick ponies. At will, in some cases quite powerful, but still rarely more than can be modeled with a single spell or Su ability.

Ben's ability was basically Evard's Black Tentacles, and the only other ability we've seen Klaus have is an inconstant Speak With Dead, so either a cleric with a special spell, or a wizard with a special spell (or Limited Wish).

Do you count TSR/WotC as 3rd party?
Plenty of spirit-based spells to choose from there. If we could use 2e spells it would be easier, since you could use Summon Spirit instead of Speak with Dead, and variants on spirit summoning/communication, binding, etc..


I read Simak's "Shakespeare's Planet" a couple days ago. A fun little story, but it suffers from a common occurrence in SF/F, that the build-up is better than the resolution. Still a good read, as is everything else I've read by him.


Reverse Gravity used to have an area with unlimited ceiling, so maybe your GM was just remembering the old version. Goodness knows my older players and I have made similar mistakes.


blahpers wrote:

Honorable mention:

Mythic character with Divine Source retrains into cleric of themself.

One of my players' characters has a cohort who is a paladin of the PC....and the PC isn't a god. Yet. Or never. And neither of them know it.

Time travel gets weird.


Weirdest thing I've played in any game: a sentient photocopier called zzzzzzzDONK! - in TOON.

I don't really have any strong desires of weird stuff to play these days. Mostly I am fine just playing, since I mostly GM.
I don't really have a limit to how silly or weird it can get, I just want it to fit the game being run.


The physics of the medium are one thing, but the main point of the skill in both Fly and Swim are how to move your body effectively in that medium, which has zero applicability to knowing which controls to use on a craft. The fact that piloting small boats isn't hard has nothing to do with swimming. That just means the DC to do it isn't high.
Any sort of flying has a much higher base DC than floating around on water.

Let's put it another way: do you really feel that someone should be able to swim because they can pilot a ship?
Or that a drag racer can do well in a 100 m sprint because both are about going very fast in a straight line over flat ground?


Has any RPG publisher ever kept publishing an 'obsolete' edition at the same time as a new one?
The closest I can think of is TSR when they had B/X-BECMI and AD&D, but that was more like branching lines of development, and it didn't work out for them economically.

Anyway, converting adventures from one system to another is pretty easy* so publishing ones for multiple systems shouldn't be necessary. Even if you stick to P1, if you want more APs, I can't imagine that adapting P2 to P1 can be a problem.

*as long as you know the target system pretty well


Dave Justus wrote:

My thought would be that for maneuvering in the air the fly skill, with perhaps a modifier would work out. The basics of aerodynamics and stuff like that are the same.

By this logic knowing how to swim should be the same as piloting a boat or submarine.

I hope we can agree that is not the case.


Um, why can't they use Piloting to fly the ship?
The description of the skill allows you to use it to, you know, pilot it. And navigate.
And shoot the pew-pews.

Or did you mean to say "But without the pilot skill from Starfinder"?

Personally, I'd introduce Piloting but not allow them put ranks into it without some actual practice. They don't have teachers, training sims, training vehicles, and they have no cultural background to indicate how this might work, so anything they do to learn the skill is with the ship itself, and probably going to end horribly.


"Daddy"
"Mommy"
"Sweetie"
"Auntie"
"Uncle"
"Brother"
"Sister"
"Honey"
[daughter/son]
"g+$+#@mit, get back here you little brat!"

All these have occurred in my games.
And if/when my current players' characters ascend you can add the perpendicular pronoun to the list.


lemeres wrote:

I think you might be safe if you throw some Scottish accents for the general populous.

a quick and pretty introduction to a few.

Far more fun is if you can pull off a proper Doric accent.

Accents are fun, and there's a reason my players like to sink at least a few points into Linguisitics in my games.


I'm mostly the GM so my characters are not very many or all that often.

Currently: Viconia, 7th level bard in RHoD set in Norwold.
The only player and therefor character who knows anything about Mystara, and the only one who has played through the adventure before, so I take it upon myself to throw in tidbits of lore at every opportunity. Likes drink and being sarcastic at the enemy.

Aranwaroo
Wookie heavy gunner in a SWTOR FFG SW game. Unlike all other wookies, he bothers to wear armor - the cheapest and easiest. He has a thin, tight armor with all his fur sticking out around the head and hands. Likes: his big gun, shooting Sith and shooting Imperials. Dislikes: Sith and Imperials
Gimme a break, I only played him for three sessions.

and....(thinks long and hard)

Some 3.5 rogue in an abandoned game from a few years back. Can't remember her name, only that she rarely got to SA things*.
Can't remember much about her other than that she didn't like slavery.

*I would have suspected the GM of creating encounters that f+!&ed over my characters if it isn't for the fact that it would be very much against how he comes across in all respects. My supercharged could only charge three times in his career, being constantly stymied by terrain or positioning otherwise, and one of the three times he could he went up against someone who had Sidestep Charge. My rogue met nothing but elementals, constructs and undead after the first combat.


Bloodrealm wrote:


Probably because Old English is an almost entirely different language.

FTFY.

For those a bit unsure of what OE is, and how it relates to ME or EMdE.

Some Old English
in writing

the most famous bit of Middle English

Some Early Modern English

Note that the older a language is, the more guesswork is involved in recreating sounds, and you can find wildly varying attempts at pronunciation and intonation. An actual person from 9th C England would no doubt be sorely puzzled by our atrocious attempts at their language.


Depends on the god. Some probably want a unique, exaggerated titles and constant epithets to stroke their egos (Oh magnificent One, Unparalleled in all the Multivers, please ....) Others are probably fine with a simple "Lord" or "Great One" or something.

On the subject of PCs telling gods to stuff it:

:

In one game the gods came to earth for certain reasons, and rather than stop a pointless civil war started taking sides. My character was fed up with this b!!!+&!%, and strode up to them and said something to the effect of:

"What the hell?!? Why are you doing this? You're supposed to be better than us and You squabble like children, wasting the lives of your followers for petty pride. Now act like gods worthy of worship!"

Nevermind that speaking in this way was grave blasphemy and no one would have batted an eye if my PC and his entire clan was eradicated for such insolence, While the gods never actually admitted their mistake, they did stop the fighting and got one with the business they had come to do. And intense religious debates and exaggerated plays sprung up about the whole incident.


Marc Radle wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Too much showing off people I don't really care about and too little action.

I'll watch it, just to get it over with.

You know ... man, dude ...

I'm not a big sports fan, I personally am not into basketball at all. I think I'm going to go find a basketball forum somewhere and then post how boring some popular player is, how much a team everyone else is enthusiastically talking about stinks, or maybe how I guess I'll watch some big game even though I hate both teams, you know ... just to get it over with.

Holy crap on a cracker dude ...

To clarify my position:

I have generally enjoyed the Marvel movies - some have been less than good but most have been fun - but I'm feeling a little fatigued by them. They are very safe and by-the-numbers, and while that has worked well, it also gets old after a while and Marvel has been cranking these movies out like there's no tomorrow.
They have in general been quite entertaining, with some exceptions. The problem is the only ones I actually like are Cap and Tony (and Rhodey and Spidey, to a lesser extent) and by now I am OK with them being retired. I don't care about the other characters. Thor borders on likeable but that's all the actor and not the movies or character. The rest are mostly in a "they're OK, I guess" category with a few genuinely annoying ones, like the entire GotG cast and Scott.
What has made the movies fun is decent superhero action and braindead plots.
So a trailer that tries to make me want to see a movie by assuming an emotional connection to the characters I don't really care about doesn't work for me.

The Snap is obviously going to be undone somehow and I don't care about who most of the ones who 'died'. All I'm here for is the end of the story and hopefully some good flashy action that isn't yet another superhero slapfest.


Too much showing off people I don't really care about and too little action.

I'll watch it, just to get it over with.

1 to 50 of 1,705 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>