Bloat Creep's page

Your goat ruined my magical tea party by eating all the special snowflake cookies.

Stabby Stabberson Stabs the Stabbed!

Less Talk More Stab!

I won't but Unchained, and I definitely won't buy ACG. :-)

But those are as yesterday as it gets we have Occult Adventures now.

HWalsh wrote:

Cheesy can have a lot of different meanings. It doesn't have to be powerful or over powered at all.

Example: The Half-Vampire Vampire Hunter who struggles against their own bloodlust is cheesy. It's cheesy because it is over done.

Monkey Gripping two great swords is cheesy because it is silly. It's utterly absurd.

Fey Foundling on a Paladin is cheesy now because its simply over done in Pathfinder.

Cheesy simply has so many definitions.

Cheese and cheesy are two different things. The former, at least in gaming context, implies sleazy rules exploit. The latter either means gamer cheese or being campy.

Mmmmm. Ham and Cheese

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

knightnday wrote:

The Sword wrote:

Here is a general question...

Is it easier to role play...

Jack the human rogue 5?

Or

Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?

Or is it exactly the same?

The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.

On the other hand, explanation is part of roleplaying. So more "color" makes it easier to come up with ways to express your character. That's why detail is so useful, and why gimmick improv works so well.

I'd say the latter is a little bit easier to roleplay as-is, but only because you gave all the info in the build. If Rogue Jack had an amount of effort put into his story equivalent to the effort put into Android Jack's build, they'd be exactly the same.

As-is, Rogue Jack just has a lazy player. If you switched the levels of effort, Rogue Jack would become the easier PC to roleplay.

Maybe so. But then, we're given little else other than what The Sword has offered, so it is hard to say that #1 is lazy or whatnot, anymore than saying that #2 threw darts at a group of ideas and mashed them into a character.

While the results of #2's dart throwing gives them some color, from the various threads we have running around I'd wager that #2 would run into some trouble at some tables, where #1, despite being lazy/boring/ordinary, might squeak through. Except tables that hate rogues in general. Then they are both equally in trouble.

The test is skewed, however. We're not given anything about #1 except that he is a human rogue level 5 named Jack. He's a blank slate that you can put anything into, which makes him, at least for my money, easier to RP because he can be just about anything you want right out of the gate.

The Gate is OP.

Irontruth wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

If you have to set aside the rules in order to have fun/story, then the rules are bad.

It's like saying "My car is awesome. It breaks down a lot and is in the shop, but I enjoy walking so it doesn't matter."

D6 got unbalanced when people didn't apply the rules. Particularly the multi-tasking one. Or when the GM let a players make everything about their character as opposed to the adventure and the team.

No, the game was unbalanced.

In addition, the method of getting a resolution number (rolling a pool of d6 and adding all the numbers together) creates unwieldy gulfs between different characters at different skill ranks. If you have a test that all the characters are presented with, such as jumping over a gap (as an example), for a character with 6D, the task is most likely ridiculously easy, while the character with 2D is at risk of falling to their death.

The problem can be common to skill based games, but I've found that the method of adding d6's together exacerbates the issue.

In comparison, Shadowrun's number of successes method creates a smaller gap. This both allows for more specialization (because bigger gaps are more forgiving) and makes creating challenges easier for the GM. For example, I think I could basically keep the stats the same, but swap over to a # of successes instead and have a smoother flowing system that's also easier to challenge the whole group with as the GM.

The damage system is clunky and just needs to be redone completely. We had way too many Wookies that would just eat thermal detonators and not care (or maybe get stunned).

The balance issues aren't bad if you only ever have characters with 6D in something. Once you have some people with 8-10D, it just makes anyone else irrelevant in that skill, even someone with 5-6D, but it isn't their primary specialization.

Spoken like someone who glanced at a rules summary but didn't actually read them, let alone play.

Hint: PCs don't have pools that large.

Then where will I swim?

Could you take a level of wizard for the spell book and then retrain out of the class but keep the spell book?

Oreoband1t wrote:

Yes I'm sure, it was mid tier 6 people in party mostly level one and level two, with a level seven fighter. So we went for mid tier. Thx I will look into making my rogue better Stat wise and gear. Not sure what this unchained is some of you mentioned.

The book "Pathfinder Unchained" has rewrites of several classes, including a better designed version of the rogue. It's PFS legal and is generally considered strictly better than the core rulebook rogue.

Unless of course you are playing in the Core campaign then it's even more useless.

Faqratta: This exotic blade deals 1d8 damage at medium size and has a crit range of 9-20 x4.

Cheese is my favorite topping.

Mmmm, more hitdice.

PFS Replay

mmmmmmythic radiation levels, crunch, crunch, crunch

Ew, Can't Touch This

"Stormwind Fallacy? What book is that in?"

Sounds like a fun game of grab and poke to me!

This topic has a CON of about 6,000,000 that's for sure.

I found the end!

I found the end!!!

Matt Thomason wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Can't you blame both?

If it was a stated design goal of the system, yes. However, it appears that the system was intended to be the way it is.

If I give you a rolling pin and rather than using it to roll out dough you kill someone, is that the fault of the rolling pin designer or the user?

Obviously the user, but the marketing guy just realized there was a larger market out there...

MorE! MoRe!