There's a huge swing in how tough monsters are based on how well the GM plays them. I'm confident that I could play orcs as challenging over several levels depending on whether I used such things as traps, ambush from cover, scouts, etc.
No doubt, but it strains any kind of credulity to suddenly have the Orc version of Ghenghis Khan materialize as the PCs approach what was previously a disorganized rabble of raiders and cut throats. Or that the "Evil league of Orc NPC Heroes" just happened to be in the area that week. An orc tribe of 50+ members should have a couple higher level leaders, but still rarely powerful enough to really challenge a group of PCs in the 8-12th levels, which is about where magical NPC gear becomes a glut, IME.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
[I had a GM who ran Palladium Fantasy for a long time who thought that you would take more electrical damage from wearing full plate armor.
He also made modifications to the game that REQUIRED munchkining in order to not fall behind and die in every encounter.
And he kept handing out weapons that did more and more damage. I was given an axe that did 5D20 damage. and the average person would have like 45-120 hit points total.
To be fair, Palladium as a company was infamous for putting out games with that kind of crazy power creep from book to book -- it may not have been 100% your GM's fault.
Anyone who b!&&~es about 3.5's splat power creep clearly never played Rifts.
Anyone who b%##*es about 3.5's splat power creep clearly never played Rifts.
You can have my Glitterboy Armor when you pry it off my cold dead corpse :)
What I'm talking about is that in a game where NPC humanoids are going to continue to be a challenge to the PC they typically start having gear that is appropriate for their CR.
You can still have CR 1/2 Orcs for the the PCs to roast but if you want to continue to use Orcs then they have to have PC levels and NPC appropriate gear.
That means that if you start using stuff like using a number of Orc Barbarian 8s to challenge your level 10 PCs then they need to have stuff that a 8th level humanoid barbarian would commonly have. That generally means at least some of the big six magic items.
It doesn't take that many fights against CR appropriate humanoids to start collecting a large number of low end magic items (like swords, potions, wands, etc).
Now you could have it where PCs quit encountering hostile Orc tribes entirely after a certain level but I personally think that one of the strengths of 3.x is that humanoids continue to be relevant far longer than they did in previous editions.
Intrinsic bonuses is a possible solution to this problem but ultimately it's hard to justify a lack of low end magic items in a setting where magic gear is pretty much required for humans and humanoids to compete.
I can see that, but in that case, instead of 8-10 CR8 orc barbies, I'd have 1 CR 11 barbarian, with his Wyvern mount, Ogre Magi advisor, and half-sister Oracle. Sure, action economy, blah blah, but at some point, 8-10 dudes just get in each others way, and provide no meaningful challenge individually, if that makes sense?
You can have my Glitterboy Armor when you pry it off my cold dead corpse :)
Anyone who b%##*es about 3.5's splat power creep clearly never played Rifts.
Or when the mage fire bolts you for 100-400 SDC while you are out of the armor.
Repairing Gltter Boy armor is expensive!
In regards to Vuron, et al's discussion a level 5 adept (tribal shaman) orc caster is just as likely to take craft magic arms and armor as any PC caster so why exactly wouldn't there be magic weapons popping up among monstrous humanoids from that CR on?
Now why any "self respecting" PC race merchant would buy "Foul Orc (goblin, hobgoblin,etc) weapons" even magical ones for close to market value...
Remember many Crusaders used Scimitars and the like they took as trophies from their campaigns against the "heathens" and used the Long-sword only for ceremonial purposes thereafter. It may be legit for PC's and other "Soldiers of Fortune/ Dogs of War" to use such foul items but cultural prejudice may make getting fair market value for them problematic. Much in the same way a bunch of goody goody PC's selling a weapon or magic item that is "evil" enough to produce negative levels should be problematic. Why re-equip the opposition? Now of course all of this is Playstyle driven not RAW, which for many is problematic.
I prefer using sentient enemies more than creatures. This means that yes, there is often equipment. However, it tends to be a level or two behind the adventuring party in general.
My approach is thus, I mix very powerful and very weak everywhere. When they are traveling, they are generally able to pick up on the very powerful adversaries before hand (when you're a big bad mama level 15 hobgoblin squad, you don't really bother to hide unless you have a specific mission), so the PCs notice them, and can avoid them (say when they're level 8). By the same token, the level 4 goblin band usually notices the PCs and goes 'Oh frack!' and runs and hides.
This means that the PCs generally know about the hobgoblin city for 6 or 7 levels before they begin to interact with them regularly, so the versamilitude is kept. As far as equipment from NPCs goes, I tend to give out WBL more as equipment captured from enemies than big piles o' loot in dungeon rooms. I find it keeps the story more believable.
Yes, it leads to a lot more low level magic items laying around. So what, that just means that they get traded around a lot more. I put it down to '3000 years of people making a magic +1 weapon every month' and those magic weapons surviving more often than not. After awhile, they're flooding the market. The prices are already deflated for the low level magic stuff, which is why a +1 is only 1000gp.
|
Magic Item purchase is RAW.Magic items available for purchase aren't RAW because those rules are guidelines. The rules even call them guidelines, and go so far as to say magic items might not be available for sale at all if that's the way the GM has the campaign set up.
...any GM who gives his players chests full of gold pieces and then stops them from buying cool magic items with the cash is failing to obey the rule of cool.Shopping isn't cool. It's tedious.
Yeah, you've got me.
We should stop players from spending the treasure they get, probably make them spend ages planning how they can spend it without damaging the local economy.
Because that's the original point that I was arguing against.
You either make item buying fun or quick, or both.
I tend to favour not giving money but rather handing out cool items as treasure but I also run APs to save me time and they tend to have a fair bit of cash and items that need to be sold.
Rather than making players jump through hoops and telling them that it wouldn't be 'realistic' for the merchant to take their money I just let them buy away.
Claims of magic items are rare flies out of the window when the party comes to the metropolis carrying 50 +1 longswords.Agreed, but who GAVE them to you? (Gave in the sense of your party ended up with them, not gave as a gift or anything). Just because your DM is unimaginative doesn't mean the game is borked.
Mind you, I have made that mistake as a DM before, and taken advantage of it as a player a couple times too. Since then? The party often runs across a lot of "usable only by X race/Y class/Z alignment" gear. IMO, if there IS in fact an evil genius behind this whole thing, it's be pretty dumb of him NOT to make his minions gear only they could use. Kind of like the Fingerprint locks on guns :)
You can change it up to 5 magic longswords, 5 magic shields, 5 magic armors, 5 magic cloaks, etc. The point is that when you face powerful foes that use items, you are likely to collect magic items that then need to be sold/traded off.
Take the Sins of the Savior (RotRL5), just in the Halls of Wrath the party is likely to collect:
As for items that can only be used by specific types of individuals, that is fine with a limited application. But when it is every single NPC , the game master in that case becomes a bit too much of a DM (douche-bag master in that case) for my taste.
As the title says, what misconceptions make you want to scream?I had a GM who ran Palladium Fantasy for a long time who thought that you would take more electrical damage from wearing full plate armor.
He also made modifications to the game that REQUIRED munchkining in order to not fall behind and die in every encounter.
And he kept handing out weapons that did more and more damage. I was given an axe that did 5D20 damage. and the average person would have like 45-120 hit points total.
If he hadn't built the power creep so high, and had such a skewed way of looking at things, the game wouldnt require us to NEED an axe of 5D20 damage.
It's times like this that help me feel grounded as a GM
Dunno about the rest, but its RAW to take more damage from lightning effects in palladium if you're wearing metal armor...
You can change it up to 5 magic longswords, 5 magic shields, 5 magic armors, 5 magic cloaks, etc. The point is that when you face powerful foes that use items, you are likely to collect magic items that then need to be sold/traded off.
Great googley moogley that's a lot of crap!!! Then again, APs to me give out a lot of stuff, since they rely on the Pathfinder Standard world, where magic items ARE more common. I tend to run home brews where magic gear is less common, and "magic merchants" largely non-existant. I make up for it by allowing a lot of commissioning of items, and having customized but believable treasure hoards.
As for items that can only be used by specific types of individuals, that is fine with a limited application. But when it is every single NPC , the game master in that case becomes a bit too much of a DM (douche-bag master in that case) for my taste.
Agree and disagree- if it is an ARMY of bad guys, makes perfect sense to standardize. Now for the elite guys? yeah, customization will be big, but for the infantry types, even up to the "elite" mass combat units, standardization rules. Less expensive, less training time, etc.
I actually have that in my game world. There's two big trading houses. Enterium Ltd., and the House of Horsanik. Both have vast trading routes. Both houses have massive trading stores in major cities (100,000 plus people or larger cities). Imagine a big brick shaped building, 4 stories tall. As you enter, you leave all weapons in a bin, all magic users get a bracelet to wear that reacts to magic being cast. Then, you can walk around the store and shop for all their oddities. They only handle high end stuff in these places (1000gp+ items).If they don't have what you want, they'll take your name and request, and for a small fee (100gp) they'll send out a call to any other cities to see if any other stores have it. If they do, they'll work out immediate purchase and delivery options. If not, they'll offer to find it for you for 10% of the purchase price as a finder's fee. If they can't find it, they'll guarantee to find someone to make it. If they fail, they give you a refund +5%.
That would make a sweet adventure path all by itself: characters working for one of the trading houses to obtain hard-to-find artifacts for interested buyers. Competing against agents working for the rival house.
That would make a sweet adventure path all by itself: characters working for one of the trading houses to obtain hard-to-find artifacts for interested buyers. Competing against agents working for the rival house.
I actually have that in my game world. There's two big trading houses. Enterium Ltd., and the House of Horsanik. Both have vast trading routes. Both houses have massive trading stores in major cities (100,000 plus people or larger cities). Imagine a big brick shaped building, 4 stories tall. As you enter, you leave all weapons in a bin, all magic users get a bracelet to wear that reacts to magic being cast. Then, you can walk around the store and shop for all their oddities. They only handle high end stuff in these places (1000gp+ items).If they don't have what you want, they'll take your name and request, and for a small fee (100gp) they'll send out a call to any other cities to see if any other stores have it. If they do, they'll work out immediate purchase and delivery options. If not, they'll offer to find it for you for 10% of the purchase price as a finder's fee. If they can't find it, they'll guarantee to find someone to make it. If they fail, they give you a refund +5%.
That was my eventual plan. :) But I had to move. I'm keeping it in reserve for my next PF game.
I removed some posts. Putting words in each others' mouths isn't cool. Please stop doing it.
Claims of magic items are rare flies out of the window when the party comes to the metropolis carrying 50 +1 longswords.Agreed, but who GAVE them to you? (Gave in the sense of your party ended up with them, not gave as a gift or anything). Just because your DM is unimaginative doesn't mean the game is borked.
Mind you, I have made that mistake as a DM before, and taken advantage of it as a player a couple times too. Since then? The party often runs across a lot of "usable only by X race/Y class/Z alignment" gear. IMO, if there IS in fact an evil genius behind this whole thing, it's be pretty dumb of him NOT to make his minions gear only they could use. Kind of like the Fingerprint locks on guns :)
You can change it up to 5 magic longswords, 5 magic shields, 5 magic armors, 5 magic cloaks, etc. The point is that when you face powerful foes that use items, you are likely to collect magic items that then need to be sold/traded off.
Take the Sins of the Savior (RotRL5), just in the Halls of Wrath the party is likely to collect:
15 +2 mithral chain shirts
15 +1 greatswords
16 spellbooks
6 +2 breastplates
6 +1 greataxes
wand of lightning bolt
wand of clairvoyance/clairaudience
+4 mithral breastplate
+1 flaming ranseur
amulet of natural armor +2
belt of giant strength +2
gloves of dexterity +2
headband of intellect +2
ring of protection +2
ring of resistance +3 (acts as cloak of resistance) As for items that can only be used by specific types of individuals, that is fine with a limited application. But when it is every single NPC , the game master in that case becomes a bit too much of a DM (douche-bag master in that case) for my taste.
I had this conversation for roughly 60 seconds with my DM at the end of our last game (somewhere in Hook Mountain Massacre), by this time we have collected roughly a dozen +1 Ogre Hooks (or whatever they were). Who in our party of medium sized creatures are going to use those? No one, but they represent thousands of gold, and they have to be part of the treasure of the adventure. No one is going to buy them, but if they don't, we just got nothing out of beating up a ton of Ogres.
Since the last couple pages have been an education in one-upsmanship how about an on topic outlier?
What aggravating misconceptions about rules make you want to scream?
People that claim they have zero house rules whilst treating published guidelines as rules and published rules as guidelines.
If the DM wants to consider Touch Spells as something that doesn't require attack rolls, he should be allowed (I went through a Tier 1-2 module as level 7 with a bunch of level 1's and nearly died due to the GM Vampiric Touching me without rolling attack rolls against my AC 21 Touch AC. I asked "did you succeed on your touch attack?" he said "Yes" (without rolling) so I figured it was good enough for me.Restating my point, if you and the DM disagree with a rules interpretation. Accept the GM's view.
..or he could learn the rules. If I can look in a book and show you how something works then the DM is either doing it wrong, yeah I said it, or he has a houserule which everyone should know about before the game begins.
PS:My annoying misconception is for the notion that rule 0=DM can do what he wants so shutup and don't ask any questions or go home and don't come back/find another DM/etc...
PS:You were a lot more civil than other posters who say don't question with the DM "ever", so my ire was not directed at you. I just like consistency.
Keep in mind we know that math alone proves nothing, but to deny it has a place is not wise, IMHO.Sorry for making you look. I had a brief search and didn't turn up anything. Please understand I'm not trying to harsh on anyone's buzz. Some people get their kicks in a different way than I do, and that's totally fine. Few of us on these boards deny the usefulness of mathcraft, especially when creating an "optimized" character. It's just that some (I) don't believe its utility extends as far as others do.
The fallacy integral to *some* people's approach to mathematical analysis is twofold; the overly simplistic algebra used by posters on these and other boards assumes hypothetical, "average', or otherwise subjectively determined conditions instead of taking a holistic approach, and the derivations of the term "optimize" are used unilaterally, as though (pseudo)objectivity somehow trumps the subjective play experience.
Simply put (from your thread),
A minority of the community wields mathematics (at times poorly executed, though not always) as a cudgel. All too often these are the same people who lack social graces, and end up getting ostracized — not because of their math, but their demeanor.Zo
I will put it this way. We know the math does not run the game, but it has an important place in proving certain things such as potential for damage, and what not. Since damage is a part of the game it matters, but we also know it can't account for things like creativity. When you are online it is hard to be creative, because it is often limited by the DM, but the numbers are always going to be what they, so just because someone uses math a lot on the boards that does not mean that is how they build characters at home, which is an accusation that comes up from time to time.
If I had to simplify all that we are not using it to analyze the game as a whole which is what was in your post further up in the thread.
edit:I just don't like the notion of anyone making a particular comment being typecast as "that type of gamer"*.
*the meaning of "that type of gamer" changes depending on what irks you. :)
|
Sword & Wizardry?
Lamentations of the Flame Princess: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing?
Spellcraft & Swordplay?
Labyrinth Lord?
OSRIC?
Myth & Magic?
Dark Dungeons?
Basic Fantasy RPG?The ones I am familiar are not D&D.
The ones I am not familiar are probably not D&D.
Sword & Wizardry is original D&D, only organized in a manner that makes it actually playable. :P OSRIC is pretty much a cleaned up reprint of 1E. Dark Dungeons is pretty much the Rules Cyclopedia reborn. The others are various retro-clones, some changing up very little, some changing a lot. Some of these games are actually closer to the version of D&D that they are replicating than Pathfinder RPG is to 3.5.
About magic items purchasing...
We (my group and I) don't play as often as we would like. We play, on average, only once a month. So I desperately try to concentrate the few hours that we DO play at pushing the story forward.
Sure, it might be fun to roleplay the purchase of a magic +1 sword that glows in the dark at second level. Or try to find that special potion or scroll that the party needs right now...
But later on in the campaign (level 7 or 8+), we just assume that the heroes have made contacts and KNOW where the good stuff is. So in my games, buying magic items falls in the "background" stuff... Like ingame lodging, bathing, and going to the bathroom. You know the characters do it, you just don't roleplay it.
(At higher levels, we have better, more important, things to do! lol)
So as long as they're in a city with a high enough gold piece limit, or as long as they have enough down time, they generally find what they need or looking for.
Mind you, most of the major stuff comes from what they find while adventuring though.
Ultradan
OTP :
The misconception that anything not spelled out in the rules in paragraphs of detail is not in the rules and the GM is a **** if he uses it. For example, there is nothing in the rulebook that says dropping your walkman into the river is bad for it, therefore you can do so without damaging it. There is nothing in the rulebook that says being in a shipwreck can ruin your gear, therefore you can not damage player gear if they are in a shipwreck. There is nothing in the rulebook that says your gear can get lost if you fall into a river and go down 2 miles of rapids, therefore you climb out at the end with all gear completely intact (or presumeably, your corpse is fished out with all it's equipment, since there are rules for drowning in rapids).
|
You clearly missed my point, because you argued with me that Brass Knuckles does anything to your Unarmed Strike weapon. There are two views of the RAW on this, one that Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike does nothing to a Brass Knuckle using Monk and the second that he gets a +1 to his Bras Knuckles attacks. If you don't see the two views and accept they are both RAW, then you are demonstrating the part that makes me scream.
Ah you were not specific enough. I had no Idea you were talking about weapon focus.
I thought you were referring to the view many people have that you can't enchant a monk's Unarmed Strike Weapon, and therefore, to get a magic bonus, need to enchant a quarterstaff or whatever, and lose out on UAS damage. If you hold that view, the brass knuckles allow you to enchant them and keep your UAS damage.
If you don't hold that take on the RAW(which I don't) then you allow UAS to be enchanted and the brass knuckles are useless (unless they're wanting to switch to a different set of enchantments).
The weapon focus issue is a different one entirely. And I'd say that you're correct in that BOTH views are raw. I'd go with the one that says it works with brass knuckles, because to quote monte cook "that's the interpretation that has the spirit of the rules".
OTP :
The misconception that anything not spelled out in the rules in paragraphs of detail is not in the rules and the GM is a **** if he uses it. For example, there is nothing in the rulebook that says dropping your walkman into the river is bad for it, therefore you can do so without damaging it. There is nothing in the rulebook that says being in a shipwreck can ruin your gear, therefore you can not damage player gear if they are in a shipwreck. There is nothing in the rulebook that says your gear can get lost if you fall into a river and go down 2 miles of rapids, therefore you climb out at the end with all gear completely intact (or presumeably, your corpse is fished out with all it's equipment, since there are rules for drowning in rapids).
OTP:
Real world common sense should apply to X arbitrary game world because it's common sense!!!11!1!one!!!eleven.
OTP :
The misconception that anything not spelled out in the rules in paragraphs of detail is not in the rules and the GM is a **** if he uses it. For example, there is nothing in the rulebook that says dropping your walkman into the river is bad for it, therefore you can do so without damaging it. There is nothing in the rulebook that says being in a shipwreck can ruin your gear, therefore you can not damage player gear if they are in a shipwreck. There is nothing in the rulebook that says your gear can get lost if you fall into a river and go down 2 miles of rapids, therefore you climb out at the end with all gear completely intact (or presumeably, your corpse is fished out with all it's equipment, since there are rules for drowning in rapids).
OTP:
Real world common sense should apply to X arbitrary game world because it's common sense!!!11!1!one!!!eleven.
Seconded. I played with a DM for a long, long time who wouldn't let certain shocking effects work indoors because "It's lightning and it has to come from clouds."
...Yeh. I suppose "It's magic" was just too simple for him to understand.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Sword & Wizardry is original D&D, only organized in a manner that makes it actually playable. :P OSRIC is pretty much a cleaned up reprint of 1E. Dark Dungeons is pretty much the Rules Cyclopedia reborn. The others are various retro-clones, some changing up very little, some changing a lot.
Those that change very little would be D&D. Pathfinder changes very little, so it is D&D.
Seconded. I played with a DM for a long, long time who wouldn't let certain shocking effects work indoors because "It's lightning and it has to come from clouds."...Yeh. I suppose "It's magic" was just too simple for him to understand.
There's a big difference between 'your spells don't work per the rules as written' and 'you fell down the side of a mountain, some of your equipment may have been damaged'. What I'm talking about is the idea that since the rules don't have anything explicit about damage to equipment when you fall off a 50 foot cliff, there are people who play this game that say the equipment can't be damaged, because there's no explicit text in the system saying equipment could be damaged. Same for your ship hitting the reef and shattering. Of course, their logic is that the ship can't hit the reef and shatter, since there are no rules for ships being damaged by reefs. Oh well.
There's a big difference between 'your spells don't work per the rules as written' and 'you fell down the side of a mountain, some of your equipment may have been damaged'. What I'm talking about is the idea that since the rules don't have anything explicit about damage to equipment when you fall off a 50 foot cliff, there are people who play this game that say the equipment can't be damaged, because there's no explicit text in the system saying equipment could be damaged. Same for your ship hitting the reef and shattering. Of course, their logic is that the ship can't hit the reef and shatter, since there are no rules for ships being damaged by reefs. Oh well.
Seconded. I played with a DM for a long, long time who wouldn't let certain shocking effects work indoors because "It's lightning and it has to come from clouds."...Yeh. I suppose "It's magic" was just too simple for him to understand.
Actually if you roll a Nat 1 on a saving throw some of your magic items might be damaged.
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.
I had a player who did this with his spells...
OTP :
The misconception that anything not spelled out in the rules in paragraphs of detail is not in the rules and the GM is a **** if he uses it. For example, there is nothing in the rulebook that says dropping your walkman into the river is bad for it, therefore you can do so without damaging it. There is nothing in the rulebook that says being in a shipwreck can ruin your gear, therefore you can not damage player gear if they are in a shipwreck. There is nothing in the rulebook that says your gear can get lost if you fall into a river and go down 2 miles of rapids, therefore you climb out at the end with all gear completely intact (or presumeably, your corpse is fished out with all it's equipment, since there are rules for drowning in rapids).
OTP:
Real world common sense should apply to X arbitrary game world because it's common sense!!!11!1!one!!!eleven.Seconded. I played with a DM for a long, long time who wouldn't let certain shocking effects work indoors because "It's lightning and it has to come from clouds."
...Yeh. I suppose "It's magic" was just too simple for him to understand.
Call Lightning in 2e only worked outside when there was a storm of some kind in the area, so I don't think that DM was stupid for disallowing lightning spells inside. Wrong, yes, as none of the other spells had that restriction as far as I remember and that spell has changed in Pathfinder and maybe 3e, I never once played a druid in 3e so I don't know, but not stupid.
Also, while it is magic, lots of wizard flavor and a number of spell effects point to magic following laws and at least slightly aligning with natural laws. Lead blocking detect evil, Hideous Laughter's humor not translating penalty, Web needing anchor points, even wizards needing to memorize and rest to recover spells all point to magic following laws that, while able to create fantastic effects, are internally consistent and rigid in their own way.
What I'm talking about is the idea that since the rules don't have anything explicit about damage to equipment when you fall off a 50 foot cliff, there are people who play this game that say the equipment can't be damaged, because there's no explicit text in the system saying equipment could be damaged. Same for your ship hitting the reef and shattering. Of course, their logic is that the ship can't hit the reef and shatter, since there are no rules for ships being damaged by reefs. Oh well.
...Wow. Yeh, totally different level of retardation. If equipment couldn't be damaged, it wouldn't have hit points.
|
There's a big difference between 'your spells don't work per the rules as written' and 'you fell down the side of a mountain, some of your equipment may have been damaged'. What I'm talking about is the idea that since the rules don't have anything explicit about damage to equipment when you fall off a 50 foot cliff, there are people who play this game that say the equipment can't be damaged, because there's no explicit text in the system saying equipment could be damaged. Same for your ship hitting the reef and shattering. Of course, their logic is that the ship can't hit the reef and shatter, since there are no rules for ships being damaged by reefs. Oh well.
Who are these people, so that I may avoid them?
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.I had a player who did this with his spells...
You know, with the right GM and players, that might be a vast improvement to the system. But as it stands, that's unfortunate for one or both parties.
There's a big difference between 'your spells don't work per the rules as written' and 'you fell down the side of a mountain, some of your equipment may have been damaged'. What I'm talking about is the idea that since the rules don't have anything explicit about damage to equipment when you fall off a 50 foot cliff, there are people who play this game that say the equipment can't be damaged, because there's no explicit text in the system saying equipment could be damaged. Same for your ship hitting the reef and shattering. Of course, their logic is that the ship can't hit the reef and shatter, since there are no rules for ships being damaged by reefs. Oh well.
Seconded. I played with a DM for a long, long time who wouldn't let certain shocking effects work indoors because "It's lightning and it has to come from clouds."...Yeh. I suppose "It's magic" was just too simple for him to understand.
People who drag drama from one thread to another in order to look Internet Cool.
And then fail at doing so.
Strawman arguements.
People who do all of the above in a thread that has nothing to g*$#*$n do with it.
I've long believed that Rifts was a poor imitation of TORG (which had a better game concept and a better game system). Unfortunately, TORG had an even more inept game designer/owner - as hard as that may be to believe - who let the game simply die.
I could see that. A girlfriend had TORG, and I always thought it was an awesome world, bogged down by a horrible mechanics set. I liked the Palladium universal system, but with each genre in its own pot, ie I palyed and liked TMNT (ATB) and Robotech, but mixing the two felt dirty and wrong (sometimes in a good way...)
I've long believed that Rifts was a poor imitation of TORG (which had a better game concept and a better game system). Unfortunately, TORG had an even more inept game designer/owner - as hard as that may be to believe - who let the game simply die.You can have my Glitterboy Armor when you pry it off my cold dead corpse :)
Anyone who b%##*es about 3.5's splat power creep clearly never played Rifts.Or if you have to go through a door :)
Rifts was a wonderful concept absolutely destroyed by balance issues.
Now THAT is an interesting comment.
Oh, yes, TORG. Wonderful concept (a fantasy game that could have an actual end, and the players could actually win!), game system that lent itself to heroic play (it was an Indiana Jones movie, not a fantasy epic), and the worst management team ever. We loved TORG, and still get it out and play it occasionally.
+1 on that. What a brilliant (if flawed) game with an amazing setting/mythology. Alas TORG. We hardly knew ye.
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.I had a player who did this with his spells...
I don't even understand how you could do this. How do you know range? Casting time? Duration? The idea is boggling.
I don't even understand how you could do this. How do you know range? Casting time? Duration? The idea is boggling.
Basically, you just skim the spell description, get the gist of it, and then assume it works as you would like without troubling yourself with the "insignificant details".
I used to game with a guy who was infamous for this.
I don't even understand how you could do this. How do you know range? Casting time? Duration? The idea is boggling.Basically, you just skim the spell description, get the gist of it, and then assume it works as you would like without troubling yourself with the "insignificant details".
I used to game with a guy who was infamous for this.
Could be worse, I had a person who tried to use a spell based solely on the name of the spell (didn't even read the short description). Of course this was the same person that thought it was effect to keep spamming acid splashes at level 10, maybe against a golem and you got nothing else, but come on.
We have a player that only spammed magic missile until she got scorching ray. Guess what she does now?