Lemmy's page

If they were both still young enough to be measured in years rather than decades (like if LoZ was only 5 to D&D's 16) then I'd agree. But now that it's 30 versus 40, I assert that "nearly as old" counts.

Sort of like how the older you get, the less creepy it is that one's significant other is 10 years younger than oneself. 26 vs 16? Super creepy. 45 vs 35? Lucky you, but whatever. 90 vs 80? Nobody cares.

Are you saying D&D and Zelda should date? Because I support that ship.

Does any post go unfavorited around here?

Feel free to start your own AMA, and even make that the theme, but we have a thread for trivia! It's called, "Did you know..." and it lives here in Off-Topic! It's pretty cool, most of the time!

I don't need to focus on useless trivia! Suddenly remembering useless facts that add nothing to the topic at hand is my super-power!

It's even in my character profile! Check it out! XD

Either way, let me, you and try omega zero, and you Nico's, should all answer the superpower/superhero/etc. question!

Huh?

Honestly, just being an Invulnerable Rager is usually enough... Good DR + Lots of HP = Awesome! The extra AC from Beast Totem also helps a lot.

Someone who always plays up the low Cha ends up being Jar Jar Binks. Players should show restraint and only play it up in small, character establishing doses.

One could argue that Jar Jar actually had a decent Cha modifier, considering how memorable he ended up being (although not in a positive light). He just had really low Int and Wis (and a terrible writer).

Low cha is... Someone completely forgettable. People notice their presence, but don't care about them or what they have to say.

Fascinating.

Isn't it? I should start a AMA thread just to share these fascinating(ly useless) pieces of trivia. XD

I can roleplay literally any alignment as a character fighting "for the greater good". From a pragmatic "big-picture-seeing" LG to a deluded CE criminal willing to commit all sorts of atrocities "for the greater good". Even an insane CN lunatic who thinks his nonsensical and meaningless actions actually have a beneficial impact on the world.

Try not to chain yourself too much. Accept the fact that you will disagree with your GM and fellow players on one aspect of morality or another. No two people on this world see every moral issue the same.

She manipulates plant biology, though... Far more likely, it's:

- Hair dye.
- Harley (or one of her kids) simply had children with another red-headed character. Which does open the possibility that Harley's kids married/had children with Ivy's children.

I'll let you know I'm delightful in parties! XD

(all that said, I do recall an episode of Batman TAS where Ivy had "children" that were actually plant golems made to look and act like humans).

EDIT: NINJA'd by Ashiel's EDIT.

As revenge, I'll point out that Harley never really left the Joker. She broke up with him a few times, but always ended up coming back (until he died at the hands of Tim Drake).

You know... I just now noticed your nametag is "Tactics Lion" written as a single word. oO

To this day I've been mentally reading if it were just a random made up word... And in my head it sounded something like "Tah-ctic-seeleeon" (Like tactic-"zillion", but with an "S" sound).

- - -

Also, did you know "AMA" coincidentally means "loves" (as in "she loves cheeseburger") in Portuguese?

Killing it isn't difficult... The problem is keeping it dead. Oddly, enough, per RAW, it dies if it falls victim to an effect that would kill it instantly (e.g.: suffocation). Not just "fall unconscious and bleeds". It DIES. But its regeneration brings it back...

Luckily, turning something into an undead removes all defensive abilities, including regeneration. That means, per RAW, turning the Tarrasque into an undead works. It'll stay (un)dead. Then, you destroy it (undead creatures aren't killed, they are destroyed).

I don't think that's the intention, though. it's meant to be a moving plot device. Not that it matters... By the time you're 25th level, the Tarrasque isn't particularly dangerous.

This summer marks 40 years of playing D&D for me

Lemmy wrote:

You know... This made me realize that 1 year from now, I'll have been playing RPGs for 20 years! That means I'll officially be a grognard! XD

Well now I feel very much the grognard after that statement.

I look forward to your guidance and advice on shooing kids away and recalling how much bluer the sky was "back in the day". ;)

How about Neutral options? If you resolve a lot of things neutrally, you get protection from extremes.

You know... Being neutral actually has quite a few perks (can't be detected or smitten as easily, can cast any aligned spell, etc)... But they are probably not as good as getting constant effects...

Hmmm... A less powerful, but more encompassing version of the Protection From [Alignment] spells?

You know... This made me realize that 1 year from now, I'll have been playing RPGs for 20 years! That means I'll officially be a grognard! XD

I can't wait to shout at kids on my lawn and reminisce about how everything was perfect when I was young!

Sorry, my bad. Still, it still supports my argument.

Just because you need a higher bonus to succeed on whatever task, it doesn't mean that task suddenly involves more roleplay. All it changes is your chance of being successful.

But, well... I said my opinion. The OP is free to do as he pleases, anyway.

10 years old. 2nd ed D&D.

...Although I soon moved on to 3.0. And not long after that, to 3.5. My brother GMed for me and my friends.

Dwarf. Oread kinda sucks.

Lemmy wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Athaleon wrote:

Empyreal Sorcerer works best, I think. I'm one of those people who thinks George Lucas diminished the character of Yoda by making him flip around with a lightsaber in the prequels.

How else is a Muppet character that small supposed to work as a "supreme lightsaber duelist"?

Using the Force to telekinetically wield his sword would've been cool.

That would make him look too much like a Darksider. Also it's not nearly as heroic or badass.

That's arguable... But in any case, is there any need for him to be a super-awesome lightsaber duelist? Isn't being super wise and having super powerful mind powers enough?

Athaleon wrote:

Empyreal Sorcerer works best, I think. I'm one of those people who thinks George Lucas diminished the character of Yoda by making him flip around with a lightsaber in the prequels.

How else is a Muppet character that small supposed to work as a "supreme lightsaber duelist"?

Using the Force to telekinetically wield his sword would've been cool.

One problem you might encounter is fighting enemies with Deflect Arrows or things like Snake Style. Admittedly, these aren't common feats... But they aren't all that rare either, depending on setting.

Besides, concealment will make you downright useless 50% of the time, while a more orthodox archer will at least deal some damage most of the time.

Hunter, Inquisitor and Emmpyreal Sorcerer. Possibly one or more of the psychic classes.

IMHO, the best part of Protection From [Alignment] spells is the blanket protection against possession and mind control. And that can be gained with a wayfinder and an ioun stone for mere 4500gp... So it isn't anything too powerful or exotic, IMO.

If you think it's too much... You could split the benefits from the spell and gradually give it to players who have a high enough character level and/or enough alignment points. Like... They get the bonus to AC at 6th level, the immunity to possession/mind control at 12th and the shielding against evil summons at 18th. Or you could base it on your "alignment scale". Or both.

Maybe their attacks could count as their alignment after a while... Almost as if they were slowly turning into creatures with the Good subtype. The advantage of basing it on character level is that it's easier to balance... Sure DR 2/Evil is really good at 5th level... Not so much at 12th. And so on. :)

And of course, you can use that in conjunction with the alignment scale.
e.g.: In order to get permanent Protection From Evil, you must be 6th level and have 7 "ranks" in the Good scale... Or something like that.

Well... It's a first level spell... It isn't all that good, honestly.

IMO, a good/evil deed should only count if it's actually large enough to count... Sure, holding the door open for your neighbor is Good and not returning that extra coin you got with your change is Evil... But are any of those acts enough to actually change that big "N" in your alignment chart?

I think there's a difference between being a generally nice person and being Good with a capital G. One of them is just being an overall pleasant person... The other is being notoriously and consistently Good. Someone obviously "Gooder" than the general population.

In any case... To facilitate your work, since there are no scaling levels of Good in the rules (it's all binary. Either you are good or you aren't), the perks should probably be dependent on level.

The existence of perks should be enough to make the players act out their alignment. Beware, though... This may lead to characters putting exaggerated emphasis on alignment out of fear of the GM taking away their toys (since there's no way to be sure what the GM thinks is "good enough"). That's how we end with Lawful Stupid Paladins.

My only thought on rulings or rule zero:

The more concise and well written the rules are, the less need for GM rulings, and less table variation (excluding homebrew, of course).

...and more time for the GM to spend on the part of GMing that's actually fun and interesting, like creating NPCs and dungeons. :)

IMHO, a balanced Summoner would be the APG Summoner with the following changes:

- Unchained Summoner's spell list.
- Limit on natural attacks: 3 at first level, 5 at 11th... Maybe 7 at 18th.
- Revised cost for a few evolutions (Pounce should cost more than 1p. Minor magic should cost less than 3).

There! No need to add alignment restrictions and halve the amount of evolution points!

Lemmy wrote:

And what's the difference between not rolling to hit because you don't have a 1 base attack bonus and not rolling to hit because you don't have a 3 base attack bonus?

Bazinga? You're actually supporting my point: From a role-play perspective, there's no difference from getting an additional attack at BAB +6 or +3 or +X. Mechanically, it's quite different... But getting more of fewer iterative attacks does nothing to encourage role-play.

But if the OP thinks this idea will make the game more enjoyable for him and his friends... Well. So be it. More power to him, I guess.

Hmmm... What if, once they are far enough along their chosen alignment, they were constantly under the effects of "Protection From [opposite alignment]" as a (Su) ability?

Is this for your own game?

If it's, then there isn't much need to tell where each bonus comes from, since you know how you built the character... That means you remove the names and description if feats that do nothing but give you a constant numerical bonus (Improved Initiative, Iron Will, etc).

If you only give the players one way to do something important (e.g.: acquiring essential plot information), then it's your fault for they being helpless when that one way fails.

Knowledge checks are just one of many means PCs have to acquire information. Diplomacy and divination spells are common alternatives. And you don't have to require a check for everything. If the check is easy (or unimportant) enough, just assume they succeed. Knowledge checks should give them additional useful information. They are not supposed to be the only way to know where to go next to get the plot moving.

NEVER make plot advancement depend on a single check. Always have at least 2~3 alternatives.

And what's the difference between not rolling Diplomacy because you don't have 1 rank and not rolling Diplomacy because you don't have 3 ranks?

Either way, you're not rolling because you don't have an arbitrary number of ranks assigned to Linguistics. Again: There's no more (or less) role-playing involved... All you managd to do was discourage character variety.

But, hey... If your goal is for everyone to have ranks in thr exact same skills, you're on the right track!

And if you want to sacrifice player fun and character variety for realism... Well done!

Honest question:

How is investing 3 ranks instead of 1 any more role-playing? It takes longer and costs more resources... But it doesn't change anything about roleplay.

In fact, I think it has quite the opposite effect. It's just another reason for players to stick to the usual skills and never break the mold. I often invest in Linguistics because it's a fun skill... If my GM used your rules, I surely wouldn't even consider doing it.

If you want to add variety and role-play to your game, then reward it. Making it more costly and less effective will achieve the exact opposite result.

I thought that episode eighteen was incredibly powerful. The sheer humanity of that episode, as Subaru finally hit rock-bottom, and finally began to climb back up, was awe-inspiring. It really cemented what I already knew: that this show is one of the greats, at least for me.

episode 18 was definitely very powerful... My point is that it (fortunately) didn't make me feel miserable, like pretty much every episode since the "election" arc started. :P

It was an emotional episode... Only it has a more positive tone. Before episode 18, this arc was very emotionally draining. Everything backfired and every character suffers and/or dies gruesomely... It was getting quite exhausting, actually.

Wait... Was that... A 2nd episode of Re:Zero that doesn't make me feel miserable every step of the way?!

I almost can't believe it!

Now... If only Subaru could see that Rem is best grill... All would be perfect.

Frosty Ace wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.

I don't think that's true. Like... even slightly.

The difference between a d8 and d10 HD is an average of 1 HP/level. And the fighter doesn't have channels or heals.

Or summons/undead minions to take the hit for them.

Lemmy wrote:

Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?

This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video=game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!

100% this. Essentially what I've been trying to say in my corruption thread. Nuance and change over long periods of time is what makes a good story, not doing it in he course of one day.

Exactly... The cool things about (good) stories about corruption is how the "evil" made is nearly (or completely) harmless at first, so the one falling down the alignment chart takes greater (and riskier) chances when using evil.

*Heals children with Infernal Healing*
- Hey! there are no downsides to this! The children are healthy again and no one got hurt! Maybe we shouldn't judge things based on their power source, after all...
*Raises an army of undead to fight an invading army*
- Well... It's not nice to twist the souls of the departed, but it's just temporary, and the invaders were driven away, so all is well when it ends well.
*binds a demon to depose a tyrant and take control*
- I suppose summoning demons to our world is risky and can lead to trouble... But something had to be done about that tyrant... And I'm in total control of the demon, so it won't cause any harm.
*Sacrifices an innocent to gain power.*
- Well... That was bad, but with this new power I can defend hundreds, maybe even thousands of innocents, so it's ok...

And so on...

This is how corruption should work. Little by little, step by step... The corrupted character "falls" by being willing to go just a little farther than he went before... And before he realizes, he's deep into full evil territory and can't even pinpoint the moment when he got there.

OTOH, having your mind completely changed to hell and back again because you cast 3 spells in the same day is idiotic.

"Well... The evil wizard enslaved angels to fight us, so I'll use Protection from Good to allow us to get past the angels and punished the wicked mage... Oops! There goes my 3rd casting! Now I want to kill puppies! On the upside, the wizard became good after enslaving so many angels, so now he's a virtuous paragon of justice!"

Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?

This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video-game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!

It's my experience that exercising isn't all that hard. It's just super unappealing. I'd much rather be doing almost anything else rather than exercising. I tend to get the most exercise when I'm getting it as a side effect of something unrelated (such as being on my feet all day at work and walking around a lot). When presented with options of exercising or doing something like playing games with my friends over Discord, well...

The weights can wait. >_>

In my experience, the hardest part is actually starting the exercises... Once I finally manage to get up and start, I have no problem continuing it.

But getting up is so freaking difficult... XD

And Crunchyroll recently added the old Street Fighter II anime movie!

Remember to watch it in widescreen so that you can see Akuma... Sitting by the road, eating bread. But still... It's Akuma!

Dude... Who cares if it's "weeb", "snowflake" or "mary sue"? Play the character you want yo play! Stop worrying about what labels some grognard or another might or might not give your character and just freaking play the character you want to play!

In the words of Hitchens' editor, "That Christopher had friends who were evangelicals is testimony to his intellectual tolerance and largeness of heart, not to any covert religiosity." (Not that I claim to be half the intellectual powerhouse that Hitchens was.)

Oh, I agree. There's nothing wrong with having people with different religious views... I just wouldn't be very interested in going into a hyper-crowded religious event. I find most religious congregations to be rather boring, even more so when one doesn't share their faith... But most importantly, I hate crowds. I lived in huge cities most of my life... But i still hate overcrowded gatherings. :P

What do you do to discourage thread necro?

Turn the forums into hallowed ground?

You know... I once played an horror game for Wii. It had two measurements of fear/spookiness.

The "fearmeter" measure how often you get scared... To me it was pretty low. 15~20%, or something... But it also had a "sissymeter", which told you how intensely you moved around when you got spooked. Mine was over 90%!!!

You know what that means?

Some day... I'll german supplex someone who spooks me. XD

Hey! My friend found my save on his Wii... My fearmeter was 12%. My sissymeter was 94%!

I don't know if I should be proud or really embarrassed. XD

PS: Outlaw Star rocks! I found it many years ago while looking for "stuff similar to Cowboy Bebop"... And while they aren't all that similar past the type of setting where the story takes place, Outlaw Star remains among my favorite anime to this day.

There's a trait that lets you use Wisdom instead... That's the closest I can recall.

EDIT: But at least it's true, Lemmy!

@137ben: Have you looked at the Occult classes? Their entries are longer than 5E's combat chapter!

Yeah... Occult classes are needlessly complicated. Shaman is also pretty bad in that regard...

Cuup wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

Cuup wrote:

Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?

Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?

FYI, the Paizo CEO is a woman ...

It's almost like the entire story was made up.

But I read it on the internet!

Then it must be porn!

Lemmy wrote:

Huh... I thought you were an atheist. Was I mistaken, did you convert or do you have another reason to go to church?

You're not mistaken, and I did not convert. I went as something more along the lines of an anthropology outing. It's not every day you see 50,000 people get together for something other than a sports event or political rally, after all.

I still don't understand the allure, but I see your point.

You were obviously replying to my argument. And intentionally misrepresenting it.

But you know what? I don't care. I believe my argument is clear enough to anyone who doesn't intentionally misunderstand it. So I won't participate in this discussion anymore. I don't care at all about Master Craftsman, anyway. It's just another poorly designed feat for me to ignore.

My response is also ultimately the same: If you want to have a honest discussion, then just read my damn posts and stop attacking damn strawmen!

Seriously... Don't you ever tire of misrepresenting my argument? When did I say a single feat should make a non-caster capable of crafting just as well as a full-caster?

How exactly is "spending a single feat to still not be as good at crafting" or "spending twice as many feats to be (almost) as good at crafting" the same "crafting like a full caster"?

Lemmy wrote:

Except casters gain CL for free.

Your point? They're casters. If you want caster goodies, you play a caster. Don't be a martial and complain you're not a caster.

Do you not read my posts past the first two words? Or did a strawman steal your girlfriend and now you're sworn to attack them at every opportunity?

MC gives you CL without being a caster for the purposes of magic item crafting. Which, that is actually a mechanical benefit. Just because you can't roll a d20 with it right away is secondary.

It doesn't give you CL... It allows skill ranks to count as CL in one very specific way... A way from which you can't benefit. At all.

You need yet another level and yet another feat just to be able to enjoy half the benefit.

Lemmy wrote:

No it sounds like MC is a s%!@ty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.

Same as you would if you rolled a caster and never took a crafting feat. The whole point of the MC feat is to put you on a path so you can do magic item crafting. That's it. It does that job fine.

Except casters gain CL for free. They aren't spending feats or any other resource for them. And their CL has many other benefits, they don't exist merely to be used with a feat you don't have. And if/when they do get a crafting feat... They spend a single feat and gain the full benefit.

MC does it job... But it does it badly.

Because you're trying to do something that is otherwise impossible in the game without that single feat. There is a necessary trade off.

A trade off is not the same as "a tradeoff + yet another unnecessary tradeoff".

There is also a practical benefit to the Master Craftsman feat. Take a paladin. The soonest they can take Craft Magic Arms and Armor is level 9. With MC, you can grab it at level 7.

And all it cost them is a whole feat... The scarcest resource in the game... Very practical, indeed. And let's not forget they could do the same with a trait.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Feats break the rules of the game as part of their purpose. There is no reason to have a fear that does nothing by itself.

Then, it sounds like the MC feat is doing its job just fine.

No it sounds like MC is a shitty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.