Here's the part that is confusing people.
"When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier (using all applicable modifiers on each roll)"
The important part is the last sentence. It's says if you have a x4 crit multiplier, you roll the dice 4 times and you add all of the appropriate modifiers to each die roll. Then you add all of those die rolls together for a total. The key words are on EACH roll. That's staggeringly clear to me.
Savate Defense.
Oh I mean Savate? No I don't. Savate is the sporting form of Savate Defense. Savate has (iirc from a few years back) 4 basic punches and 4 basic kicks. It's a sport that you can also use as a fighting style, much like Boxing.
Savate Defense is a full featured martial art with locks, holds, throws, ground game, and a lot more than 8 strikes. It also has an awesome history that should be the basis of some martial arts backstory, even if it is probably half fake.
Basic story (And almost assuredly "elaborated"): Way back in the day, Sailors cruised the Med from Marsialles, a wretched hive of scum and villany. Now most of the time, the sailors were bored, and drunk, and had not a lot to do. So like most bored, drunk guys throughout history, they invented an incredibly stupid game. It was basically, "You stand there on the rolling deck, and I'll kick you. If you fall, I win. If you don't, you get to kick me!" From that basic game of Chausson, it evolved over the years gaining a stick fighting style (Cane du combat), a northern and southern style, and the integration of English Boxing for punching techniques. And after almost ceasing to exist during World War 2, it was reborn and modernized (something that continues today) into both a sport, and a full fledged street fighting style of martial art like Kajukenbo or Kenpo.
Savate, it's not just about Batroc the Leaper. ;)
Our witch is a blend of leader and controller. She's the main healer in the party currently, but she also handles some batlefield management through evil eye and her other spells.
Hobbun wrote: Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
I don't think anyone is saying that the abilities themselves were broken. Getting them for a trivial payment however...
I liked shape spell and the elemental admixture abilities, sure, but it didn't need to be wrapped in a shiny glossy package that laughed at you if you took those last 5 levels of wizard.
Jumping on the bandwagon with my anecdotal 2 cents; after Archmage was available, I never saw a single player opt out of it to take levels 16-20 as a wizard. It was too good.
And since it is something that is replicable (mostly) by feats and fluff, this circles around nicely to the "Why do we have this as a PRC again?"
For the record, I'm just fine with the rule as presented. I don't care one way of the other that it's in the book, and considering that the goal of the game is beating up people and taking their stuff, I'm not going to draw some moral line in the sand if it now includes hookers, sacred or profane, coming along for the fun.
But here's what bugs me about this thread:
1) Aligning moral equivalencies. One thing that has been a pillar of the dungeonesque adventure game since its inception is beating up people and taking their stuff. Period. If you are repelled by it, you should play something else. So using this as some sort of foil to the idea of something that has not been a pillar of the genre (like prostitution in whatever form), is disingenuous.
2) I'm really tired of the assumptions that the only person who could possibly be offended is one of those nasty uptight christians. For shame. Congratulations for taking the assumptions of the OP and darn near godwining them with your response. I didn't see a single "I'm offended because of my religion" statement once in this thread, but I saw a whole lot of defenders of the rule trotting it out and beating that nag for all they were worth. Argue the merits (or lack thereof) of the arguments. Making ad hominem attacks is really just the quickest way of saying "I give up"
So in conclusion: IMNSHO, the rule is fine, if you don't like it don't use it. If sacred prostitutes offend you so much, either remove them from the setting, or hey, maybe set up some non-sacred ones to provide a system of context and comparison for your pcs. Once they see Mary "no nose" streetwalker and compare her life to that of Sister Sally shags-a-lot, they might turn the campaign in a direction you didn't anticipate by cleaning up the town and getting Mary into the church.
Lasty...
Unclench. It's a game. Have fun.
Deussu wrote: proditor wrote: How is this a problem? If Sho Kosugi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0467563/)is in my game, and he wants to sneak past 50 mook-level guards, they probably DON'T have any chance to spot him. Moreover, they shouldn't.
Sorry, I don't get this move towards mediocrity thing that people seem to want out of skills. If I invested 20 levels in stealth, I think the least I can expect is that the 10th level guy who didn't specialize in Perception has basically no chance to spot me.
Hm, I might have particularly chosen Stealth vs. Perception as my target. As you know, a whisper gnome from 3.5's Races of Stone can acquire a Hide bonus of +16 at 1st level. Some skills are simply just too easy to boost. And hiding with all kinds of dumb tricks, like XPH's Cloak Dance which gives you concealment, thus you are able to hide... practically in plain sight.
Now that I think of it, Stealth itself should get some sledging. I admit that being a superior sneaker is something one would likely to seek for. At the current time it's just too easy with certain builds.
On another point, diplomacy is a constant DC, yet a lot better than it was in 3.5. Since synergies were taking out, it balanced the skill somewhat. I might still see those Marshal/Warlock's roaming around with their +19 diplomacy. Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now, my bad. You're more into limiting some of the more egregious tack-on synergy things, not nerfing someone who got their ranks the old fashioned way; earning them.
Yeah, I'm on board with that, and after a Sho Kosugi and a John Houseman reference, I'll return you to your regularly scheduled program, "The Facts of Life." (Wow I'm old....)
I'm on board for 4/6/8 as well. Rogues may not absolutely need 8 anymore, but it allows them to retain their status as skill monkeys, which is part of the charm. Actually, I think with the drawdown in the number of skills, it makes it more likely to see an actual Rogue linguistics expert who wasn't just taking the ranks to get to a PRC.
And that, to me at least, is a good thing.
Deussu wrote: One thing the 4th edition fixes in a moderate way is the ridiculous gap between a trained stealth user and a normal dude. There's very little or no chance for the normal dude to spot the stealth user. A quick fix would be to decrease the ridiculous amount of synergies and other bonuses received from here and there. How is this a problem? If Sho Kosugi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0467563/)is in my game, and he wants to sneak past 50 mook-level guards, they probably DON'T have any chance to spot him. Moreover, they shouldn't.
Sorry, I don't get this move towards mediocrity thing that people seem to want out of skills. If I invested 20 levels in stealth, I think the least I can expect is that the 10th level guy who didn't specialize in Perception has basically no chance to spot me.
Philosophical rant aside, I see merits in both systems, but I'd like to see one more iteration that might be able to blend them both. Not sure how though...
While D&D isn't strictly medieval European, a lot of the published settings sure skew that way.
My group and I just get annoyed at the assumption that to be a martial artist, you HAVE to be an Asian flavored martial artist. We currently have a Paladin/Monk dual class who specializes in the local Savate variant. Another who is a pankration expert, and a third who uses a style similar to boxing crossed with wrestling and nicknamed "Panzerfaust".
It's a personal thing for our group, but it also means that when we do make it ot the other side of the world and encounter an Asiatic setting, it becomes a point of similarity as opposed to familiarity. "Ah, interesting, your whipping cat's tail is similar to my order's fouette." As opposed to, "Oh, yeah, Joe knows Leaping Moon Tiger, they have an exchange monastery in Greyhawk City."
How do you guys feel about a situational bonus to some of the rolls?
ie: Somone constructs a really good argument for a debate or really anything requiring let's say a Knowledge roll, so you give them a +2 circumstance to that part of the check.
Or
Someone RPs their delivery really well and even the DM is ready to just agree before remembering that the DUke is still annoyed about that whole "midnight fencing" incident between the PC and his young daughter. SO for delivery, he gets a +1 cuz the Duke is still honked after all.
wrecan wrote:
Well, common sense? Sure. I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophy" though. That seems more like a Knowledge.
I think you're right. I was trying to go for a Zen feel, but that still entails some training as it were.
wrecan wrote:
*SNIP WELL DETAILED EXPLANATION*
Only through actually role-playing the scenario would the DM be able to determine which approach the players are using and only through role-play would the players be able to actually affect things. The dice are used only when the DM is unsure how a NPC might react.
Making PCs rely on multiple abilities and multiple skills...
Ah, gotcha. That's pretty spiffy. This seems like a pretty rules light system overall, with complimentary skills/rolls when needed if I followed correctly.
Do you see any reasons why you might want to increase the structure or is your preference to leave it mostly to the DM with outs for when they get stuck?
As a follow-up, how would you apply this to something like a debate? More structure, or mostly DM interaction?
(Sorry for all the questions, but to meme it, "Your ideas intruige me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.")
wrecan wrote: *SNIPPED for space* This allows a variety of players to participate in social encounters, based on their Skill set and their Abilities. Moreover,not every approach is good for every scenario. Heavy circumstance bonuses and penalties should apply. For example, trying to get a goblin to sympathize with the... Gotcha, and yeah, that seems like a good idea. It allows the specialists in a given area/stat to excel.
Random thought: What do you think about adding something similar to common sense/philosophy to Wisdom?
How do you see resolution? Working off a tri-stat system, do you see it as a split based on what you want to achieve?
IE: My PC has a high INT, and I need to convince the duke to loan us troops to guard something while my party knocks out the main threat. So I could use Knowledge to lay out the why, then Diplomacy to finish the deal?
Would you be able to blend rolls for an effect?
Same example; I start with the Knowledge skill, but finish with a WIS based Perception check to point out the benefits to the duke.
Zombieneighbours wrote: proditor wrote: Zombieneighbours wrote: proditor:
You refering to acting the part of your character as roleplaying, when roleplaying also includes a great many other skills such as Character empathy and metagame avoidence to name only two.
Set really has summed up the way a lot of people feel.
You can ignore this system, so why do you have a problem with it being there for those who want it.
No, I'm done trying to explain this. The analouges being presented have ranged from ridiculous, to the outright insulting. Apparently if I want someone to actually play a role, I'm going to exclude women and the handicapped by Set's last post, the one you said summed it all up so well.
So let's get back to talking about the system.
You the one who is saying that a person who has less social acumen shouldn't be playing a bard. So you know, the guy with aspergous is out, last i checked that was a disability in my country. He is just taking your own comments on it to there logicial end point. No, I said the system shouldn't be a crutch for poor roleplay. I even provided examples. Twice. Every example provided about how this is exclusionary has focused on things other than actually playing the game. So, ya know, invalid analogies.
As for Aspergous, well other than that brand of Autism seeming to preclude any cognizance of the actual game aside, if they can communicate with the GM and the players, what's the issue? Again, this is not a logical end to the argument. Most of the examples presented have been like comparing grapefruits to gasoline. Sure, they both start with G, but ingesting one of them can kill you. The most accurate analogy so far has been that if you have no head for tactics or tactical movement, maybe you shouldn't play the fighter.
I've tried twice now to get the conversation back on track only to have it deflected.
Now I'll ask you, do you want to actually discuss your original proposition, or do you want to argue more?
What are your ideas for the system?
Zombieneighbours wrote: proditor:
You refering to acting the part of your character as roleplaying, when roleplaying also includes a great many other skills such as Character empathy and metagame avoidence to name only two.
Set really has summed up the way a lot of people feel.
You can ignore this system, so why do you have a problem with it being there for those who want it.
No, I'm done trying to explain this. The analouges being presented have ranged from ridiculous, to the outright insulting. Apparently if I want someone to actually play a role, I'm going to exclude women and the handicapped by Set's last post, the one you said summed it all up so well.
So let's get back to talking about the system.
Set wrote: Zooroos wrote: I'm growing a bit tired of this constant arguing really. Without ill intentions, I'm beginning to feel that a social conflict system for this thread would be a nice addition to the present conundrum... :P That's the conclusion I've come to as well. :)
I can't cleave down two Bugbears in a single swing of my adamantine greataxe, I can't Summon Celestial Giant Bees from the Heavenly Honeycomb, and I can't finesse the precise combination of flowery words and seductive posture necessary to get Elle Bundchik to leave Tom Brady to be my sex-kitten.
But I do sometimes play Barbarians, Wizards and / or Bards who *can* do these sorts of things, and I don't see any reason why I should be forbidden from playing a social character just because I personally am Elle Bundchick-less.
Should I tell the player in a wheelchair that he's not allowed to role-play a speedster unless he can run a six-minute mile? Should I tell the woman who wants to play a burly Ranger that she can't do that until she proves to me that she can pee standing up?
Meh. If all I 'role-play' is someone exactly like myself, who is limited to not doing anything that I can't do myself, then it's hardly 'role-playing,' is it? It's 'me-playing.' I play me the rest of the week. When I pick up the dice, I want to play someone else, someone who may be stronger, smarter, uglier, weaker, dumber, better-looking, alien, magical, or otherwise *different* than myself.
I don't think that the game requires a special 'social class,' so much as a set of social skills that are a little less wonky than the current Diplomacy skill, which can be tweaked to insane levels.
Ya know this point is being missed so completely I'm not even sure it's worth explaining.
But yes, if you want an alternate system, one with "manuevers", you're going to need something more robust than one roll (or evne counter-rolled) result.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what might constitue some of these moves?
Would there be a potnetial split depending on whether this was contentious, like a debate or negotiation, as opposed to a more social event? Or would the need to "win" mean that all of the encounters are contentious?
Zombieneighbours wrote: Both I and Wrecan, and i think everyone else who's argueing for a conflict system has said we would want it to be optional. A fact which you continuely ignore.
As for its a 'social game' arguement.
There are social/mental qualities which are judged on system, not player ability, in exactly the same manner as the strength arguement.
For instance, real world willpower has no influence on character will save.
That you are asking for remains an anomalye.
No, there were a lot of arguments for including it core at the beginning. I'm not ignoring anything, though congrats, you're climbing the list. EDIT: My apologies, that was inappropriate. I'm just short=tempered today.
Again, real world willpower does not enhance, add, detract or fundamentally change the experience of a role playing game. Social interaction, and social ability however, does. Feel free to make tons more inappropriate comparisons, the long and short is that if you're a lousy RPer, you are going to detract from other player's enjoyment.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being obstinate about this, but I really don't think a system that turns "Um, so nice rack" into...
My love is as a fever, longing still
For that which longer nurseth the disease,
Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,
The uncertain sickly appetite to please.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I desperate now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
And frantic-mad with evermore unrest;
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly express'd;
For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.
Adds to the system. Because a system that fakes it, doesn't encourage the player to grow and stretch their RP muscles and to try and expand their social interaction. It makes 4 rolls, you get to bag the princess, and oh by the way, bring back the cheetoes from the Kitchen.
Now...
That said, what about a system based off of the CMB as a core, but with different potential moves. I know someone joked about Debate dodge, but to keep things somewhat similar mechanically, might this be a good starting point?
Skyler Brungardt wrote: proditor wrote:
So I'll reiterate this one more time.
I am not against there being a social combat system for those that get their jollies making die rolls to see how witty they are, but I am against it being a core mechanic.
Got it. Not a core mechanic. I agree.
And I'd like to see what kind of system we can come up with. I agree, I'd like to see what people have up their sleeves.
Zombieneighbours wrote: I disagree.
In this case, proditor argues that ones personal social ability should should limit ones ability to play or not a social character. Despite there being a social stat in the game which reflects the characters social ability.
At no time would we expect our strength(the dominate stat in combat) to be treated in the same way.
The fact that ones tacticial ability can also in practice effect a combat, does not disqualify the previous statement.
Character and player are not the same entity and should not be treated as such by the rules.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Surprsingly if you want to move a heavy weight, you don't look at the 98 pound weakling and suggest they give it a shot.
Now, since this is a social game, and you had to completely ignore that RL strength has no impact in this social game to make your argument, I'll refer back to my argument of "I don't care if your sheet says you have an 18 CHA and you made every roll on this insane flow chart for social interaction, the matron mother is not going sleep with you because you said 'Hey babe, nice webs.'"
It's one thing to ask me to suspend my disbelief, it's another to hang it by the neck until dead.
So I'll reiterate this one more time.
I am not against there being a social combat system for those that get their jollies making die rolls to see how witty they are, but I am against it being a core mechanic.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
To which the logicial counter is that in that case, the 'stength 8' player shouldn't be playing a fighter.
Why do we have this one thing, this odd little anomoly of social skills being hard skilled.
If this where maelstrom, and i had to use my physicial skills at larp fighting, i wouldn't care about hard skilled socialise.
But every, every, everything else in DnD is based on mechanics.
Actually that's not the logical counter on any level. It's not even analagous.
I don't remember any version of D&D requiring any physical action beyond rolling dice and writing things down as opposed to, ya know, roleplaying, which does require some level of social interaction and social capability.
And see, this isn't Maelstrom, or any other LARP. And additionally, not even all LARP's require actual combat, or even light touch. Heck some forbid it...
So by all means keep your dice pool inspired flow chart of social interaction out of my roleplay please.
What they currently have is a quick mechanic for resolution to keep game play moving along. That is what the game needs as a core mechanic. If you want something else, put it in a splat book.
Huh.
I can see that there are some folk out there who would get something positive from a Social Combat/Resolution system. I can also see that there are at least an equal number that would rather pound sensitive parts of their anantomy flat with a potato masher rather than use said SC/R systems.
So make it an option.
Making it part of the core rules would be a HUGE mistake IMHO. This is a not some flawed dice-pool abomination from the 80's. This is a modern retread on a game that at it's eseence, boils down to defeating the forces of fantasy evil, and taking their stuff. For a lot of us, any complex social interaction is handled by roleplay, and the thought that playing our PC to the hilt, arguing well and cogently, only to have it blown by a roll in some byzantine system for having a debate is a slap in the face. Heaven forfend a roleplayer is actually judged on, ya know, roleplaying...
You can say that it's not fair that the socially inept guy who can't speak well needs a system to play his CHA 18 Bard. I'd counter that he shouldn't be playing a bard. I don't expect the social butterfly of my rp group to suddenly whip up a Gangrel in WoD, so why am I expecting the guy that likes to crush things to suddenly wax poetic about the merits of social equality and the redistribution of wealth in a feudal society?
Make it an option, not a core rule.
|
