Search Posts
It didn't help that the best party composition is in fact four rogues: two frontliners with max dex/evasion with all the evasion equipment and focusing in dodging (those two survived the fighter's challenge without even trying), and two ranged rogues in the back with maxed strength for whopping damage.
Combat was one of the least interesting parts of PS:T so if they'd upgrade it to turn-based and made it more tacticool that'd be great.
I have it in my wishlist and there is a shop page for it. I didn't notice it on greenlight.
Didn't slip under my radar. I'm looking forward to it. :D It is also on Steam btw.
I am disappointed by this development. It means I will have to upgrade my PC soon. I was so happy with consoles keeping all the requirements down. :(
RE the OP: The framework (not the 'code of Hammurabi' XD) is shoddy, needs patches in certain places and has various holes which doesn't hold up the entire structure. Why can we not discuss a broken framework?
Just as horrible as DNF, all you need to know.
EA mad a bad decision with Origin, considering they already had a bad reputation. But since people will keep buying some of their games they get the leeway to do dumb stuff.
Trade TWF for the domain powers of one (or both) of his domains, that is a fair tradeoff. TWF isn't that good anyway, I disagree with giving him a severe tradeoff with reduction in spells. I can even see TWF as possible domain powers, perhaps for a war/battle subdomain.
I'm not sure how much of that post was or wasn't pulling our leg, since JrK hasn't bothered to answer the two replies asking him what he DOES watch if ... well, basically everything on TV should have died after its first run. Yes I feel like responding now. XD
Seinfeld, Heroes, Star Trek (any), Star Wars Clone Wars, CSI (any), all those american sitcoms revolving around a dysfunctional relationship (King of Queens, According to Jim, Anger Management etc.), 'reality' tv, talent shows, Big Bang Theory, the Nanny, Fawlty Towers, any of those 60's shows like MASH, Knight Rider, Dukes of Hazzard, Lost, any hospital series, any and all soaps (including modern variants like Sex + City, Desperate Housewives), the A Team, The Walking Dead, The X-files, Doctor Who, Angel, Buffy, Charmed, Dexter, Battlestar Galactica, 24, Stargate (both) and House. That's just off the top of my head.
Since everyone will have a +1 at least from somewhere eventually, it would instantly ruin every spell that gives a bonus to anything useless, it would remove the need for many magic items and it would render plenty of feats useless. Why take Weapon Focus when you can have a +1 - +5 weapon?
The new cool stuff of the day would be magic weapons, cloaks of resistance, a piece of armour or bracers of magic armour and a few skill boosting items. Whatever brings the biggest bonus wins, but outside these items you need (and do not benefit from) anything for numbers. There would be a great deal more horizontal advancement of course, everyone would get more different options because the normal spell/feat slots are available for something else. All in all it also requires a huge rewrite of the monster book.
For melee Zero I recommend sticking to a few melee skills that will work most of the time (Execution is the most important one) but not relying on it. A good mix is to pick a few gun skills from Cunning. Since all the melee skills multiply each other the most important ones are Counter Strike, Execution and Killing Blow. Strategy is to shoot guys until Deception activates, then run behind someone, wait till the timer runs low, and backstab one. Run away if it does not kill.
I didn't even know people were rage warring over this. It is called the Stormwind Fallacy. That is has a name coined should tell you everything, but it has been around in the rpg community for a while. There is a reason some of the first replies were 'both'. What I see as harmful is that by posing the question in the thread like this, and by making people contribute their comments on this, the idea is perpetuated that there it is possible to prefer one over the other, while in reality they have inherently nothing to do with each other. And you can actually tell by the replies that the majority of posters do believe in a schism between these two concepts. People actually mean different things (even if they don't realize it) when they say 'rollplay versus roleplay', and it has more to do with pet peeves, playstyles and experiences with jerks as players or gms than it has with an imaged tension between rules and playing. If you pose the question as 'what is your playstyle' you get a much more meaningful discussion, that doesn't focus on "rules vs acting" because it doesn't restrict anyone to either of those choices. For instance, I find the possibility of modelling any character concept in the ruleset of the world important, and being able to connect the rules with my character in a non-metagame way (I am not a 'fighter'). Furthermore I like structure in the GM story, with less room for GM having to make stuff up on the fly just because the players want to do something outside the box. I want mechanically sound encounter design so that there is an actual tactical challenge in combat. That answer is not possible given the question. The answer has equal elements of rollplay and roleplay, that contribute to making a better experience. Those concepts are not at odds at all. I do not prefer, and indeed cannot prefer, any of the two because the question is meaningless.
The way in which you ask the question contributes to the perpetuation of this nonsensical 'war' which has been raging here and elsewhere. I want to see it as harmless, but I really don't. Or perhaps it is merely a symptom.
The question is based on a false dichotomy and is as ridiculous as asking a person whether he would rather have his lungs or his heart working in order.
It's not that expensive, that hyperbole is misplaced. Wizards don't require much equipment anyway. The real question is why to leave open slots when you can have scrolls.
The real difference is Scribe Scroll and the ability to do that with any spell in the spellbook (once prepared). That translates into not having to prepare any utility spells.
First thing is to get into your head that the whole thing isn't that complex or hard, there's just a lot of it. Everything basically boils down to 'd20 + X meets target number or not'. I'd further recommend to read the combat chapter, and read it well. It isn't that much, but it is the only part of the book everyone needs to know. Then, make sure you know every detail pertaining to your character. Class abilities, skills, spells and so on. Write stuff down on index cards so you can easily grab the ability you are going to use with all important rules right in front of you. It is mostly a matter of attitude. If you go into this with a motivation of 'I hate reading' or 'Rules are for the weak' then you're not going to learn any of this, except maybe through practice. If you have a hard time sifting through all the options, try sticking to a concept you had in mind when building a character. If you want to do a certain thing well (for example: be a good combat ranger), read one of the guides.
And here I clicked expecting this to be about the awesome computer game Darklands from 1992. I am disappoint. Thread can continue now.
Sorry, but by that logic according RAW you cannot choose to sit on a chair or do a little dance either. Demanding an opponent is just rules malarkey. Assuming the helpless state to receive a coup-de-grace is as simple as saying "my character willingly accepts the the blow". Committing suicide is well simulated by the coup-de-grace rule, given that you might involuntarily survive due to a Fort save. Mechanically it should be easy to allow 'normal' hits like that as well, but that is not as well-supported by the rules. However, if you are hurting yourself with the intention of triggering some power or gaining an advantage or such nonsense, you are well advised to exercise the GM arbiter role to say NO (even to yourself). I'm thinking of a barbarian that gains rage powers from damage on self, then starts hitting himself to start the battle with powers. Situations such as the turn-undead move as posted above are acceptable.
My dips are always to mechanically fit the concept I had in mind. I mostly use rogue/martial combinations when that happens. I'm a simulationist, and I refuse to let the class name determine the flavour. Levels are an abstraction, that have no direct bearing in the game, only indirectly through the abilities gained. When I take my first multiclass level, my character doesn't suddenly change, it is just to reflect better what he already is. When I am a fighter/rogue of some combination, I am NOT a 'fighter/rogue', I am a warrior who uses some dirty fighting techniques and have some skills in my utility belt. I was that before I took the rogue level. If I take wizard/rogue, I am NOT a 'wizard' who had a sudden interest in 'rogue', I am a nifty spellcaster who dabbles in some skillmonkeying. I was that before I took the rogue level. For me, the classes do not exist in the game world, only the abilities that actually interact with the world. Sometimes the terms for classes and the names ingame to describe stuff overlap, sometimes they conflict. For instance, we happen to have an elven fighter in a party, with archery specialization and decent survival skills. That fighter is constantly referred to as 'the ranger' because that's what his actual role is for us in-character. Similarly, a Sorcerer may be referred to as a 'mage' just as much as a Wizard could be.
The total recall mindwarp aspect would have been interesting in both movies if it would have played an actual role. In both movies all it really does is throw one half-hearted scene which should make you question everything but doesn't, and gets swallowed in all the action. Which is what the movies are actually, action flicks. As action flicks go, the first movie is so much better, as it isn't trying so hard all the time. Having a lead like Arnie makes it all fun in an over-the-top way.
Depends on their mass. They are not different from any other mass object, except for when you enter their event horizon.
They can be elemental. RE: Guns:
Qua brands I find Dahl almost completely worthless (specials can be decent). The bursts are too inaccurate to be good. Recoil is too much of a factor. You can make some nasty builds with Tediore and the reload-bombs, but it isn't my cup of tea. Hipfire with Hyperion shotguns and pistols is just too good. It ends up my staple for everything not-sniper/closerange. I love gunzerking with two Hyperion pistols. I even dig the Hyperion snipers even though the first shot is hard to get on target. I cry inside cause I expected the rotating-barrel guns to be awesome but they are not. I have always loved gatling guns in any game.
I wanted to comment about the lack of any build up but then I saw you wrote it pretty much as segments. That's exactly how I experienced it, a bunch of segments with some good elements (but repeating the melodies for a minute or two doesn't help). Then again, one of the reasons why I think neo-prog stinks. Looking at the segments separately, it shows great promise. You seem to have a decent grasp of making each instrument fill a niche so that they work together. If there is one thing to contribute, it would be to find some way of not repeating the riffs during segments, but make micro-build-ups. At this point, as soon as you have heard 10 seconds of a segment, you've heard the entire thing. Now that I think of it, it sounds like it is written with a singer/lyrics in mind. I don't like that kind of songwriting anyways, but lyrics/singing would probably a good addition. If it uses a different melody.
Worst. Dropzone. Ever. That's why they owe Gandalf a favour.
Actually, looking the number of death for carbon monoxide inhalation that happen every winter thank to bad heating systems, not noticing is fairly easy. the change in the room air is gradual and you fail to notice it. Actually, no. Carbon monoxide inhalation is a totally different ballgame, because it is technically a poison. CO steals your oxygen meaning acute lack which you don't have time to detect. And when you detect it there's nothing you can do about because it already entered your bloodstream and prevents your blood from giving out the oxygen present in it. The air going stale in a room is more comparable to climbing a mountain, also in timeframe. That is definitely noticeable. That is why that decompression room is also a moot point. The room is clearly established by OP to have a slow suffocation effect, stretched over hours. When you get back in normal air, the difference will be nearly instantaneous, unlike with CO.
I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't notice the air going bad, and find it silly to let dice determine if they notice before the crucial point. I also find it hard to believe that room is so tightly isolated that no oxygen can come in from outside. I assume the door was closed again after the mantis ran. Also, unless this is specifically called out as not possible, you can rouse people from sleep by taking a standard action.
Thread has convinced me to go low BAB = +1/3 per level. FYI I use fractional stats.
Classic case of 'trailer spoilers entire movie' and it looks like it has an extremely shallow plot too.
I was going to point to the injury/strain explanation of HP as made by EvilLincoln but I see he has already posted. If you missed it scroll up to read his post.
Well, that has convinced me that the greatsword/spikes combo isn't necessarily unbalanced. That's a build with a hefty investment in Dex though. I wonder how much of a difference it makes to have a more Str-focused build, for instance when using a ranger. Also, I wonder how a double weapon TWF build stacks up to this, since it does benefit from focus et al. on one weapon. It seems a more optimal choice than greatsword/spikes.
... and all of a sudden I'm wondering what kind of electrical potential you could get out of a few dozen slugs of mithral and adamantine sandwiched together in lemon juice. ... BUT I. ... THIS IS.... WHERE DOES .... ... I'm totally going to use this for my steampunk setting. :o
0. To not define the woman in any way by her relations with men, but on her own personality. Then apply any of the reasons why strong heroes are strong.
Yes. Games from way back are a good measure for today's prices. ... XD
Or a low-strength vital strike one-shot switch hitter with a heavy crossbow.
On the other hand, the religious system in Darklands was amazingly awesome. There is also the tribunal religion in Morrowind with its many saints.
...I dig your choices. Any chance we can see your improvements to the rage powers/rogue talents? Weren't you the guy who really liked my previous set of houserules? :P Granted I posted them a while back... Most of the talents/powers are in there if you still have the files.
Every day I work on a new version of an overhaul, currently doing an E6 version. Some of the things that are in all my versions:
Sent PM, check inbox.
That's why I don't own a console buddy. :D #steamsaleftw
1. Self defence is never an evil act (in itself).
If the conclusion is that you performed an evil act, I cannot see how one can use those arguments to defend the action of the cleric. Thus feeding into a loop of evil vs. evil acts, which would make your action justified as neutral and perhaps even good. Conversely, if you were a bystander while above paladin is killing said innocent person and intervene, I would certainly not call that an evil act, even if it involves killing said paladin (who can be very tenacious as we all know).
Lvl 10? Better give up the armsrace, you cannot compete with the casters. You are now a distraction for them, and a decent tracker/utility person.
I just give everyone 10 at first level, then average rounded up for every class level including first. Slightly more beefy at first which isn't a problem.
Well admittedly, the best way to keep a close look at her is to raise the child themselves, right? :D I'd say the nunnery and taking care of it yourself are on par. Both have risks and benefits.
But she's a witch.... BURN HER!!! I'm more appaled by the Paladin's lack of looking at the bigger picture. If he lets this child could and it performs evil, he's responsible for that. He should be taking a real close look at what happens to the child, and be the first to arrive when it does perform evil. Too many people in this thread are using metagame knowledge to damn an act as evil or not. You can only speak about morality in the face of party knowledge. Since they don't know the child has no particular evil tendencies, the moral thing to do would be to play it safe and not let the child go without keeping a close eye. Straight murder would be going too far, but making sure a suspicious child is kept in check isn't an evil act. The first thing to do should be to learn more about hag children.
Still not worth that ridiculous price. But cool that they added bots.
It's like a scripted event in games. Annoying.
They presented me with an analogy that if a couple park rangers were in the woods and heard the "scream" of a mountain lion, they might not at first realize what it was. If someone told them what it is, they would then "roll" to see what they know about mountain lions from their education. That's a good analogy. Now let us apply it to the situation: Party = rangers.
Did an NPC come to tell them that it was a Wendigo? Nope. => no reroll. |
