|
I'm really curious what Arivia thinks "heartbreaker" means.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
I'm not, and you people should take the pointless loving Strike arguments to the Strike thread or the chat thread or PMs or anywhere but here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Someone brought it up and several people reasonably discussed whether it was a good alternative to 4e without ability scores. Its mention probably would have honestly died out pretty quick if Arivia didn't go "ITS A DUMB GAME AND YOUR DUMB FOR LIKING IT". slydingdoor posted:I'll inflict on everyone my dumb heartbreaker hacks for the controversial aspects of 4e. I don't like these at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I feel like most of them are unintuitive, don't make sense in the fiction, and honestly create as many problems as they solve. Players and monsters taking autodamage every round combat goes on changes the balance of combat a lot and seems like it would boost the value of any healing or regenerative powers that don't require surges past the very high point they're already at. It also just feels really weird. Something like this seems like for it to work it needs what some systems have which is a "stress" or mental fatigue bar to go along with your HP -- a sword doing only a slightly more severe version of "being in combat" feels really wrong to me. It also seems like it disproportionately punishes non-sturdy characters or characters whose abilities take some setup. It also seems like it would cause a lot of the "whoops I forgot x on my turn" syndrome, because at least most of the time when HP are going up or down there's a clear cause behind it. I do agree with you about both alpha strikes not being bad and chess timers on players being bad. I do think that if you're playing 4e you have to put a little pressure on your players to think of their turn before it comes up, though. The "pick a power after you hit" seems very strange, especially for any character with a varied set of abilities. If you have a bunch of different encounter powers, do you need to position yourself optimally to use all of them? What if you're a character with both ranged and melee attacks, should you move into melee because you're not sure which power you're using until you hit? Will you provoke an OA then? How do area powers work? It seems like it just introduces a different kind of complexity. I agree with some of the last bit about multiattack powers etc, but if you take away all the powerful combos I feel like players will be bored; people love to combine things into a stronger thing. I haven't played 4e in a while (I am soon though), and all of these seem like they would turn it into a very weird game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
One of the biggest mistakes that Essentials made was trying to simplify the power system instead of feats. Small fiddly/conditional passive bonuses can work in video games where a computer calculates everything for you, but they just bog down things when dealing with humans. I've always wanted someone to come up with an "inherent feat" bonus track similar to inherent bonuses instead of using magic items.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I've always wanted someone to come up with an "inherent feat" bonus track similar to inherent bonuses instead of using magic items.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Amazingly, I have enough self-control to not aggressively push people to play a game in the FR instead of Eberron or their other setting of choice. The Strike people don't. If only you had enough self-respect to defend anything you said on the topic rather than endlessly poo poo and run. If it WASN'T appropriate to mention Strike when the topic of 4e's more awkward or tedious mechanics arose it'd be easy to explain why in terms of each game's rules, and yet you can't... quite... manage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Zarick posted:Someone brought it up and several people reasonably discussed whether it was a good alternative to 4e without ability scores. People were discussing ability scores. The only way it came up was Poison Mushroom going "hey I wonder if I'll get probated for talking about Strike this time" which should be as big an indicator as anything that people are tired of having Strike jammed into other threads ad nauseum. I told them to knock it off, that's all. No one's bad for liking it, it's just a bad game and should be in its own thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
the most activity this thread has had in recent memory and it's a Strike slapfight you bunch of fuckers
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Arivia posted:People were discussing ability scores. The only way it came up was Poison Mushroom going "hey I wonder if I'll get probated for talking about Strike this time" which should be as big an indicator as anything that people are tired of having Strike jammed into other threads ad nauseum. I told them to knock it off, that's all. No one's bad for liking it, it's just a bad game and should be in its own thread. No, that is not all you did. You launched into an insane multi-post screed about Stike being literally empty of creative content. This isn't really a proportionate response to a one-off joke someone made and it sure as hell isn't the behavior of a concerned netizen intent on keeping threads on topic as opposed to that of someone with a bizarre and one-sided grudge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, that is not all you did. You launched into an insane multi-post screed about Stike being literally empty of creative content. This isn't really a proportionate response to a one-off joke someone made and it sure as hell isn't the behavior of a concerned netizen intent on keeping threads on topic as opposed to that of someone with a bizarre and one-sided grudge. I'm sorry, who's the one who can't keep his pet game in its own thread here? Go the gently caress away, jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Arivia, why don't you make a post in the Strike thread about the mechanisms and rules of the game that you consider to be bad and why it's a heartbreaker? That way we can not only end this derail, we can once and for all shut down the notion that the sum of your knowledge of Strike comes from flipping through the sample backgrounds and getting angry because there was a mention of Bender where you feel there should have been paragraphs of Forgotten Realms style lore vomited onto the pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I don't care about Strike. I don't want to talk about Strike. I'd like to talk about 4e, but there's all this poo poo about Strike in the thread suddenly that's getting in the way. edit: Like really, if I'm frustrated about someone coming in and being a shithead in a thread for a system I do care about, why would I do that to the Strike players in their thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I'm sorry, who's the one who can't keep his pet game in its own thread here? Go the gently caress away, jesus. Okay, when you rhetorically ask "who's the one who [insult]" you're supposed to be asking it of the one who made the accusation. I haven't criticized you for having pet games or whatever, I've criticized you for holding a weird vendetta and for being unable to substantively defend the criticisms you keep trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Okay, when you rhetorically ask "who's the one who [insult]" you're supposed to be asking it of the one who made the accusation. I haven't criticized you for having pet games or whatever, I've criticized you for holding a weird vendetta and for being unable to substantively defend the criticisms you keep trying to make. Go the gently caress away. I don't want to talk about your lovely game. How hard is this to understand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
You stop posting. No, you stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Putting them both on ignore is one of the best decisions I've ever made. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Go the gently caress away. I don't want to talk about your lovely game. How hard is this to understand? The tragic thing here is that you actually do want to talk about Strike, but you can't. You haven't got the chops. So, when confronted by anybody at all, your only recourse is to write choppier and choppier posts that contain less and less actual content. Now that we've seen you can't put up, I trust you'll shut up. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The tragic thing here is that you actually do want to talk about Strike, but you can't. You haven't got the chops. So, when confronted by anybody at all, your only recourse is to write choppier and choppier posts that contain less and less actual content. Now that we've seen you can't put up, I trust you'll shut up. No, I don't. I really don't. I just want you to stop posting about it in the 4e thread. I have plenty of things I'd rather talk about. Hey, does anyone have experience with running a feywild-based game in 4e? I've been debating running a 4e game set in the Moonshaes in FR, which is basically a completely separate area from the Realms with a ton of Irish myth stuff. I know 4e amped the Moonshaes up with fey content, but I wonder if that would maybe be a bit tonally flat for an entire game. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
It'd be really nice if Traditional Games had a moderator. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Is there a good house rule to shorten arguments that drag on for too long?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
I could close the thread but I'm unclear on if I could open it again? I think Strike was relevant for a few posts but now everyone is posting about posting, so...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
It does seem reasonable to discuss games inspired by 4e in the 4e thread, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Also like, if someone in a 3E or Pathfinder thread was grousing about fighter/cleric imbalance and wonky monster scaling and inconsistent rules language, it actually would be appropriate to mention 4E and discuss its viability as a source of ideas or outright replacement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Hey, does anyone have experience with running a feywild-based game in 4e? I've been debating running a 4e game set in the Moonshaes in FR, which is basically a completely separate area from the Realms with a ton of Irish myth stuff. I know 4e amped the Moonshaes up with fey content, but I wonder if that would maybe be a bit tonally flat for an entire game. While I haven't done it myself, there's not really any one reason it can't work. LOTS of classes can have connections to the feywild. Of course just about every arcane class (or at least variations of it) can have fey inspirations to it, and likewise there are a surprisingly large number of fey races, but even beyond that you have a lot of more "agnostic" classes/races that can fit - and a touch of refluff means even classes that might not normally fit can. Paladins, for example, are obviously an easy fit to Arthurian Legend, which, depending on which version you use, has plenty of dank-rear end fae poo poo chilling out (and in fact 4e confronted this directly with the hexblade's White Well oath. You can fluff out a paladin to match that more or less perfectly!). Certain damage types match up better with the feywild then others as well; cold and radiant all up ins, but likely far less fire or lightning. Of course you can still get creative; an encahnter wizard fits perfectly, while initially a pyromancer wizard doesn't, but they could talk it up as being associated with the summer court, but that's still something you the GM have to decide on if it fits thematically. As for tonally flat, I don't think that's a given. I don't know a whole lot about the Moonshaes, but the feywild is filled with thematic potential. I think the important thing is (as with most campaigns) buy in. While FR has sort of a tradition of semi-bog standard replaceable heroes with no truly major connection to where they're adventuring as they're travel-the-Realms types, I don't think that works with the feywilde, or at least not past the first level or two. Likewise, while fey creatures in of themselves run the gamut of good to bad to outright alien morality, . One thing I will say is that, if you want a feywilde game, make it a fuckin' feywilde game. Don't get bogged down in the someone "usuals" of setting info or drama (FR can be massively guilty about this). That doesn't mean you can't have fey courts involved in petty politicking with each other or ancient legendary threats that might destroy the world, it's more that major plotlines should be examined under the light of "is this feywilde specific?" The answer should usually be yes. Petty politicking involving fey courts should have an element to them that you wouldn't or couldn't get in the normal world, whether it involves oaths that literally cannot be broken for metaphysical reasons, or the absolute inability to lie or act against each other (and thus the need for proxies), etc. Personally, I've always felt the best way to play the feywilde is to make everything a Little Bit Extra. Fey are typically described as capricious and hard to follow, and I like to think it's because everything they do, they just do it more. They don't get irritated, they get enraged. They don't have small crushes, they launch ill conceived torrid love affairs. They don't get jealous, they get possessive. They don't have small playful pranks, they ruin lives without care or notice. Bind a fey against it's will and it won't just escape, it'll try to ruin you in the process, but they'll follow their oath to the precise and specific word of law even at harm to themselves. Humanize the fey, but don't forget that, at the same time, they're not human. Everything about them is a little more hazy and a little harder to really pin down, which is why iron and it's absolute physicality hurts them so much. The Feywilde physically is a version of the normal world where everything is overgrown, and it can be fun to pass that on to more then just it's physical traits. Hell, maybe the longer people stay there, the more they start to become fey themselves! Plenty of that in myth and legend! And of course, that doesn't mean ALL fey has to be this way - maybe only the true Lords and Ladies are the really alien ones. What really matters is that, however you portray the feywild, it's in a way that your players agree with. If one player enters with a character motive of "the courts of the fey are all decadent and evil" and another enters with "I have pledged my life to the beautiful fey Lady of ________," talk to both ahead of time to see how they want that clash to play out. If neither wants a moment where their belief is shown to be wrong, one is probably going ot have to change something. Anyways, that's probably how to best make it not tonally flat. Make sure you have plenty of buy in with your group and that players want to interact with the fey in fun and interesting ways, humanize but emphasize the differences between the normal world and the feywilde, get people's fluff in line so they connect with how you want to run the feywilde, and generally try to figure what kinds of fae-based myth and legend the players are interested in playing out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Also like, if someone in a 3E or Pathfinder thread was grousing about fighter/cleric imbalance and wonky monster scaling and inconsistent rules language, it actually would be appropriate to mention 4E and discuss its viability as a source of ideas or outright replacement. Dude, no. In case you haven't figured it out (you seem to have some social skills issues) nobody likes the guy who sticks his nose in every conversation to brag about how he and his pet project do it better. There's not really any variance there - 100% of the time it makes you out to be an annoying, obnoxious rear end in a top hat. Nobody wants to hang out with that guy, and that guy is you right now. It doesn't matter which thread or which system, you sound like a pathetic rear end in a top hat. Again, people are here to talk about 4e, not your lovely heartbreaker. You have your own thread. Go jerk off there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
So, legitimate question: has anyone ever had an experience with a party actually deciding to all synchronize and go Radiant Mafia or Agile Opportunist shenanigans? Sometimes it's fun watching things break, and I'm wondering if all the theorycrafting that goes into those sorts of things actually ends up working out in practice, or, indeed, ever even sees practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I've only heard about it personally. When we got to high epic in LFR we were individually pretty well optimised but beyond a couple of (admittedly very effective) tricks, we weren't doign party synergy much. Though, when one of those tricks is A Valourous Bard and the other is An Elemental Warlock Giving Out Damage Buffs That Match His Vulnerabilities Every Encounter... it kind of works. It was pretty loving brutal. To the point that we literally killed the boss monster of the 28th level mod in one turn. Not round. Turn. Free actions were thrown around like candy, and IIRC that involved everyone taking a standard action, most of which did at least one attack, everyone making a free at will attack, plus at least 3 attacks from the guy whose turn it was... The boss just folded like a dish towel. Still a drat fun mod though because it was a multi-stage boss fight, and that was just the last stage. So I hate to think how it would have gone with a fully-opped radiant mafia. THough apparently some of the playtesters for the epic campaign WERE that, and the hardest hard mode was apparently a challenge for them. Shar CHEATS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Dude, no. In case you haven't figured it out (you seem to have some social skills issues) nobody likes the guy who sticks his nose in every conversation to brag about how he and his pet project do it better. There's not really any variance there - 100% of the time it makes you out to be an annoying, obnoxious rear end in a top hat. Nobody wants to hang out with that guy, and that guy is you right now. Actually, yes. If two games are very similar, but they differ on specific implementations of rules or whatever other minutiae are specifically at issue in a given discussion, it's entirely appropriate to bring up one in the context of the other even if it's just for the purpose of "X does Y, maybe you should copy it with a house rule". And, indeed, back when 4e was released, there were vibrant and valuable discussions as to it and its predecessor's relative merits, what one could do that the other doesn't, etc. The reason you don't get people popping up in one game's thread to discuss the other now is that all those questions have long since been settled. No one's like augh, I'm trying to play Pathfinder but I notice that martial characters begin eating poo poo at level 5 and never ever stop, is there a game for me?! By now, everybody knows which game is good for what (specifically, 4e is good for playing dungeons and dragons, and Pathfinder is good for nothing) and there's no real reason to bring it up - especially since there's some lingering animosity between the two fanbases. Strike vs. 4e is a lot more recent than 4e vs. 3.5e, though, and there's not actually any history of bad blood between fans of the two games. There's plenty of room for (and history of) positive exchange in both directions, since you can use Strike as inspiration for how to simplify 4e or use 4e as inspiration for ways to add crunch to Strike. And, since there was never a Strike/4E edition war, in doing so you wouldn't be simultaneously aggravating and trolling the fans of either game the way you would be if you, in 2016, went to the Pathfinder thread and started talking about how outrageously OP a level 20 fighter getting DR 5 in heavy armor is. There's just you - a single obsessive psycho who apparently loves making Futurama jokes so much that they swear a blood oath against anyone who eschews them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Unknown Quantity posted:So, legitimate question: has anyone ever had an experience with a party actually deciding to all synchronize and go Radiant Mafia or Agile Opportunist shenanigans? Sometimes it's fun watching things break, and I'm wondering if all the theorycrafting that goes into those sorts of things actually ends up working out in practice, or, indeed, ever even sees practice. I haven't seen people actually theory-craft a group around a concept ahead of time and then put it into play, but what I've seen is more along the lines of recognizing what your party members have and thinking about whether or not you can/want to add to that. So it's stuff like "Oh hey I can slide you guys around all the time, maybe consider picking up Agile Opportunist at paragon if you don't defend as an immediate" or "the fighter has World Serpent's Grasp, maybe I'll take Maze of Mirrors" or just being a Morninglord whose biggest selling point takes off right around the time that radiant weapons become an option for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Unknown Quantity posted:So, legitimate question: has anyone ever had an experience with a party actually deciding to all synchronize and go Radiant Mafia or Agile Opportunist shenanigans? Sometimes it's fun watching things break, and I'm wondering if all the theorycrafting that goes into those sorts of things actually ends up working out in practice, or, indeed, ever even sees practice. The problem that I can see with this is that it kind of fucks over your DM. 4e's a lot easier to DM than many editions of D&D, but when it breaks, it breaks. And because part of what makes 4e so appealing is how well balanced it is, when that balance breaks down it makes it that much harder for the DM to keep things under control. If things break in 3e or whatever, the DM has nuclear bombs to match yours; in 4e there's not the same escalation in the same ways. So it's much harder for the DM to challenge you (and that's both their job and what makes the game fun for you.) If someone busted that out on me when I'm DMing I'd probably quit, just because I don't want the game to break down like that. @ProfessorCirno: Well, that's why the Moonshaes are interesting. They don't really fit the rest of the Realms - they were Douglas Niles' own project that just got tossed in by TSR, and were mostly ignored by everyone else. There have been some attempts to connect them to the larger Realms, but by and large they've got the whole setting addition of "our elves are different! our magic is different! outsiders almost never get in!" Like to use an Eberron comparison, it's like cracking out Secrets of Sarlona - you're either natives or you're explorers, there's not much else. So 4e made the Moonshaes fit a bit better by really hammering on the Spellplague bringing the Feywild in in a big way there - due to the Irish influences the Moonshae stuff had always had lots of fey, but using the Feywild unifies it with the rest of the setting thematically. It feels a lot closer even in transformation. So yeah, if I was gonna run a Moonshaes game, it would be about the Moonshaes, period - not the larger realms, and with everyone in relation to that specific area. @Ferrinus: I'm sorry, are you still talking about your lovely game in the wrong thread? I kind of stopped reading your fart noises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The problem that I can see with this is that it kind of fucks over your DM. 4e's a lot easier to DM than many editions of D&D, but when it breaks, it breaks. And because part of what makes 4e so appealing is how well balanced it is, when that balance breaks down it makes it that much harder for the DM to keep things under control. If things break in 3e or whatever, the DM has nuclear bombs to match yours; in 4e there's not the same escalation in the same ways. So it's much harder for the DM to challenge you (and that's both their job and what makes the game fun for you.) If someone busted that out on me when I'm DMing I'd probably quit, just because I don't want the game to break down like that. To some extent, I kind of agree - as I DM I wouldn't want to run for a fully-opped radiant mafia without knowing in advance. But this isn't exactly something that sneaks up on you. It'll be fairly obvious by level 11 at the latest that they're going for it, possibly as early as 1. If it's a one-shot, power level should be part of the discussion before you play. It's questionable to say 4e DMs don't have those kinds of options, too. Monster scaling is easy, and you can always throw significantly higher than level challenges, at least until you get to high epic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
With 4e, escalation on the DM side isn't that bad. I have already moved to the 1st Level Forever damage expressions, and it's not too crazy an idea to use higher HP or just outright higher level monsters. Where you get issues are with degenerate controller bullshit like Dishearten Aug 2. Yes, as a DM I can counter those. Almost trivially. But there's a narrow target between "your controller doesn't get to shut down a Solo all combat, so here's some reasonable countermeasures" and "lol ur controller is useless."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Yeah, 4e stripped out a lot of hard counters on the DM's side (and for good reason after 3e's rocket tag) but it does make it harder to counter some player stuff (as dwarf74 mentions, controllers pull poo poo the DM doesn't, basically.) In 3e you can just hard control a party to mix things up, in 4e you have stuns and dominates and both of those are honestly considered dirty pool by the DM. Higher level monsters raise the stakes, but they don't change how the play goes on. You can escalate, sure, but you can't moderate the same way. And yeah definitely discuss power levels. A one-shot is totally different, like it'd be interesting to see a radiant mafia group crush some Lair Assaults or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
The good thing about 4e is that it's also pretty easy to scale things down on the player side. Radiant Mafia is easy to stop, you just say "hey don't do that," and that's easily solved so long as not every player engages with it, and it also requires a singular specific paragon path to really launch. Psion is a lot harder because, well...that's...kinda all they can do. But the answer there is "don't play psion it's a bullshit class." VERY high end 4e optimization almost always requires willfully engaging with a gimmick, which is pretty easy to reign in. It's also, as far as damage is concerned, typically built around having a very specific thing (a specific paragon path, having Mark of Storm, Firewind Blade, etc) which can likewise easily be brought low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:It does seem reasonable to discuss games inspired by 4e in the 4e thread, honestly. The best thing to come out of this topic was the giant list of 4E retroclones, although sadly a bunch of the links are dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Cirno, if just talking to people worked this thread would be three pages shorter  It's a tabletop RPG I can't communicate with my players!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The good thing about 4e is that it's also pretty easy to scale things down on the player side. Radiant Mafia is easy to stop, you just say "hey don't do that," and that's easily solved so long as not every player engages with it, and it also requires a singular specific paragon path to really launch. Psion is a lot harder because, well...that's...kinda all they can do. But the answer there is "don't play psion it's a bullshit class." VERY high end 4e optimization almost always requires willfully engaging with a gimmick, which is pretty easy to reign in. It's also, as far as damage is concerned, typically built around having a very specific thing (a specific paragon path, having Mark of Storm, Firewind Blade, etc) which can likewise easily be brought low. And the DM has way more options than using pre-canned monsters or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Oh, I was mostly just seeing if the Radiant Mafia or a full Frostcheese team actually breaks things as hard as the theorycrafting makes them out to. To me, it's fascinating putting together a little lab experiment wherein one puts something that is, in theory, incredibly broken, actually run a simulation, and see how far and in what ways it breaks. Granted, this does not include infinite loops, because I'd rather see what you can do without arbitrarily high numbers. I forget what edition it was, but there was a "how many level 1 wizards does it take to kill the highest-leveled thing in the core rulebook?" sort of deal, and seeing people actually crunch the numbers and try running them out in a blast chamber is about as neat as actual lab experimentation for me. I mean, I'm not expecting the GM to actually try to counter or match the level the Radiant Mafia puts out so much as I'd want them to go "okay let's grab whatever's the highest level thing in my book collection, put enough of them to match the encounter level recommendations, and see what happens."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of what form of hard control would be considered "mixing it up" back in the 3e days, because most of the stellar hard control options were "gently caress these people in particular" and just more or less removed them from the fight.Unknown Quantity posted:Oh, I was mostly just seeing if the Radiant Mafia or a full Frostcheese team actually breaks things as hard as the theorycrafting makes them out to. To me, it's fascinating putting together a little lab experiment wherein one puts something that is, in theory, incredibly broken, actually run a simulation, and see how far and in what ways it breaks. Granted, this does not include infinite loops, because I'd rather see what you can do without arbitrarily high numbers. I forget what edition it was, but there was a "how many level 1 wizards does it take to kill the highest-leveled thing in the core rulebook?" sort of deal, and seeing people actually crunch the numbers and try running them out in a blast chamber is about as neat as actual lab experimentation for me. I mean, I'm not expecting the GM to actually try to counter or match the level the Radiant Mafia puts out so much as I'd want them to go "okay let's grab whatever's the highest level thing in my book collection, put enough of them to match the encounter level recommendations, and see what happens." Oh, the Charop boards absolutely had various games where they'd play out their theoretical builds and see how fast things melted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Arivia posted:@Ferrinus: I'm sorry, are you still talking about your lovely game in the wrong thread? I kind of stopped reading your fart noises. It looks more to me like you read all my posts, but concluded that you can't convincingly respond to anything I said or defend any of your own actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:48
|
|