|
Moriatti posted:Have you considered that this type of game may just not be for you? No, I like superhero games just fine. I really liked MHR, I’ve played a bunch of M&M, and even some HERO. Jimbozig’s bad copy mess of 4e and Burning Wheel or whatever it was isn’t a good superhero game. It’s not a good game period, but it’s at least feasible for those “4e with the names rubbed off” anime games people were running before they converted them to FATE next. Like you yourself said, if you don’t need grid combat, don’t play Strike. And you don’t need grid combat for a superhero game.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Reene posted:hey in the interests of literally any conversation but this, I'm set to play in a 2E Ravenloft campaign. I have no idea if it’s any good, but there’s an official Complete Book of Necromancers for 2e. There’s also the Complete Wizard’s Handbook, the Tome of Magic, and there’s probably some Ravenloft specific stuff too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Arivia, I think that last statement is highly dependant upon your group but hey, thank you for the Ernest response. As my last point on this topic, I don't think Fate adds anything MHR doesn't do better for Supers games. Reene posted:hey in the interests of literally any conversation but this, I'm set to play in a 2E Ravenloft campaign. Ask your GM about a lot of this stuff though, 2e is 90% optional and modular rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Complete Book of Necromancers is out unfortunately on the basis of it being a DM guide. I will look at the others though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Reene posted:hey in the interests of literally any conversation but this, I'm set to play in a 2E Ravenloft campaign. Comedy option: Diablo II: The Awakening has a Necromancer class 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
I forget how it is in 2e exactly, but consider that necromancers can be wizards or priests, and one might be way better then the other. I feel like an evil or neutral priest is better at General Necromancy in 2e, but I'm not certain on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Edit: Yeah, Magic Jar and Skull Trap were the Go-tos of my wizard necromancer. I didn't play a priest in that game so I couldn't tell you much about it, but minion summoning spell options weren't great at level 5 for wizard necros. Most healing spells are necromancy, for both priest and wizards, so that's a good motivation either way. Fuego Fish posted:Comedy option: Diablo II: The Awakening has a Necromancer class Fuuuuuuuck offffffffffff ...It's probably fine. Moriatti fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Arivia, People think very highly of the brainstorming and other similar activities in Atomic Robo for smart, thinky characters as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
It's been a while since 2e, but if I'm recalling correctly, cleric's tend to make better necromancers than wizards in a lot of ways, at least in terms of doing the stuff you think of for classic necromancers. For instance, animate dead is a 3rd level cleric spell, but a 5th level wizard spell, and I don't recall there being any differences between how it functioned. Wizards get more life-draining or "spooky" attack spells (your vampiric touch, chill touch, ray of enfeeblement, etc), but when it comes to things like actually interacting with dead stuff an evil or neutral cleric is probably a better choice. Though that might depend on what books you're using, there's probably a lot of extra spells in other books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Splicer posted:That was an exceptionally bad idea. I've played a lot of 4e and if someone passed me a level 11 pre-made I'd have no loving clue. I'd be iffy about a level 11 I built myself. Seriously, start at level 1 if you've never played before. Yeah, building it was a nightmare. Our GM, who posts here, had a bunch of build guides, which was helpful. But it was still super confusing. I mean, it's partially my own fault. We were getting tired of 13th Age. Our GM actually lost her mind, metaphorically, at one point when we were still playing 13th Age, hence the switch. One of the players used Evocation + some spell that attacks multiple opponents to wipe an entire encounter in one hit. Another like super OP thing our characters were doing and it just was getting ridiculous in how easily we were blowing through things. Like, she was on the forum posting that gif of Stu making pudding at 3am going "I lost control of my life." But, you know, in a humorous way. Like we were laughing about how much things had just gotten out of hand. So, we needed a change and, since the forums talks up 4e alot as the best version of D&D, I was one of the voices who agreed (may have even suggested it first) with the idea of porting over. I did NOT realize what I was getting into. Since we were champion tier in 13th Age, we started Champion tier in 4e...which meant level 11...which meant building a level 11 character (aka a loving nightmare to someone who never played before)...which meant having to keep track of 10-15 powers at once and losing my goddamn mind. I started a grappler fighter, since I was originally a Stalwart who was basically Monkey D Luffy in 13th Age, but moved to a Barbarian (since it was said to be simpler) before saying gently caress it and just going as a Thief, the essentials class (reviving the original character I played when I joined, who was a Rouge in 13th Age). I actually liked playing an essentials thief since it was super loving simple. I had to keep track of practically nothing. It was also originally messy because we tried to keep skill in it, but that didn't jive. Also, we started to ACCUMULATE Relationship die from 13th Age. Like, that was always a problem, but, by the end, it was ridcolous. It's impossible to use them all, especially in session long combat sessions, so we had fucktons in storage. That feature of 13th Age always felt half-baked, honestly, and never fully made sense. Also, turns out one of the players, who posts here, was really good at optimizing. We knew this from 13th Age because she optimized her characters there, but she was even better at 4e. And her optimized characters...woo! I actually had her build my thief because I was soooo tired of making 4e characters. There was some serious discrepancy in character build and player competence which lead to some intragroup frustration...mainly focused at me for forgetting things constantly. Eventually, while I had a ton a fun all through-out, I had to drop because things became session long combats with me reading books between turns and I was in college and was going "well, I might as well spend my time drinking with friends instead while I can before college ends and I got work and poo poo." I actually still I have my characters from that game. It was the first and only multi-year fantasy campaign I've ever done. I played that game from sophmore year of college to grad year. It's still the only game I've been in that lasted years. gently caress, now I feel both old, nostalgic, and I miss college and freedom and carefree nature I had then, not to mention how I could go anywhere, do anything, and had friends to hangout with (which I don't have in my hometown). God dammit, now I'm depressed. Is this how it feels to be old? Covok fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Reene posted:Complete Book of Necromancers is out unfortunately on the basis of it being a DM guide. See if you can get your DM to give you access to the spells from there at least, maybe in the form of a dropped book from an NPC wizard. Animate Dead Animals is handy to give you that necromancy flavor at low levels. Its probably reprinted in some other magic book too though, I dunno. Losing alteration sucks, but aside from that Necromancers do pretty good on their own. Cleric-necromancers will do better in the minion game, just because you can steal another necromancer's work and boss around their minions with Command Undead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Those spells would definitely be in the mighty WIZARD’S SPELL COMPENDIUM we all forgot to mention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
You can, however, build a pretty cool bodysnatcher necromancer as a wizard, and if you have a buddy with Polymorph Other...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:DC has a balancing issue where if you aren't at PL on attack/defense/damage/toughness score anybody who is has a severe advantage over you because of the way the math works out. It's a simple fix (just make it so everybody has their saves and attacks at PL) but it's frustrating that this is stated literally nowhere in the book. It's a 5% difference per point and that adds up quickly, especially when having your numbers at PL is only a 50% chance. The charts in the back of the book kind of spell this out, but not in a very intuitive way. It annoys me. The problem I have with M&M is while it's pretty decently balanced on the player side, the GM is just sorta left on their own to decide what a good level would be for a villain or what a combat encounter should look like. Granted the non-lethality of the game does mean you can accidentally overwhelm the players and that's okay, the heroes got beat, it happens sometimes in comics, but it's hard to know where to even start. I've been spoiled by 4e's encounter building tools and anything that doesn't offer a similar level of GM support just looks skimpy nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The problem I have with M&M is while it's pretty decently balanced on the player side, the GM is just sorta left on their own to decide what a good level would be for a villain or what a combat encounter should look like. Granted the non-lethality of the game does mean you can accidentally overwhelm the players and that's okay, the heroes got beat, it happens sometimes in comics, but it's hard to know where to even start. I've been spoiled by 4e's encounter building tools and anything that doesn't offer a similar level of GM support just looks skimpy nowadays. With DC Adventures, the answer would just be throw whatever and just keep giving more and more second changes. Let them get so much into a pit they're trapped in comic book limbo and decide the only way out is to have Superman punch Ultraman so the symmetry of opposites will work as fuel to create a metal giant with a body made of narrative to fight the hyper story of "evil wins" and force it to shift and change back into the narrative of "good wins." Final Crisis is weird and good and awesome and stupid and weird and good and stupid and, like Multiversity, y'all should read it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
So if you are passionate about a bad system and your players are on board, it is sometimes worth running that game.
Moriatti fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:So if you are passionate about a bad system and ypur players are on board, it is sometimes worth running that game. This is why I’m still running Pathfinder
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Arivia posted:This is why I’m still running Pathfinder Caught in a bad romance!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Reene posted:hey in the interests of literally any conversation but this, I'm set to play in a 2E Ravenloft campaign. Player's Option: Spells & Magic has some new class options for the specialist wizards, plus a bunch of new spells. The Complete Necromancer's Handbook really doesn't belong in the DM Reference series, considering that most of the content is targeted at player characters, and if you're using kits, the options in that book are generally flavorful without being overpowered. And the Tome of Magic and Complete Wizard's Handbook both have some more spells to fill in the gaps in the necromancer's spell list at lower levels. Of course, if you really want loads of spell options, there's the Wizard's Spell Compendium, which has every arcane spell published up through 1995-ish, including all the spells from all those books I mentioned; without an expanded spell list, the necromancer doesn't have all that many really useful spells prior to Animate Dead, which is 4th level for wizards but only 3rd level for clerics. That said: if you're playing Ravenloft and the DM is using the rules for Dark Powers checks at all, don't play a necromancer (or a necromancy-focused cleric, for that matter). Almost every necromancy spell calls for a Dark Powers check when you cast it, so you'll inevitably become corrupted and eventually lose your character entirely. Of course, if the idea of playing that character arc sounds fun, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Also, a reason I've been thinking of DC Adventures a lot is that the sourcebook and character write-ups is actually really well-researched so its interesting to read as a comic book fan. Like, none of it is "canon" anymore thanks to the New 52 and Flashpoint, but, drat, they really, really put effort into these books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I dunno, Fate or something. Just Jesus not loving Strike. gently caress FATE as a system in every regard dwarf74 posted:Ignore her. It's a pavlovian reaction at this point whenever anyone mentions Strike. I just can't comprehend how anyone can find Forgotten Realms interesting at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
i enjoy forgotten realms. i must be like a shogoth to you. tbh its not just you, the resemblance is uncanny
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
funmanguy posted:i enjoy forgotten realms. i must be like a shogoth to you. tbh its not just you, the resemblance is uncanny I have no problem with someone liking it, I just don't understand why
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:I have no problem with someone liking it, I just don't understand why The reason I've heard is that they love how every square inch has a hyper detailed history and is constantly being added to by a community of fans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Covok posted:Also, a reason I've been thinking of DC Adventures a lot is that the sourcebook and character write-ups is actually really well-researched so its interesting to read as a comic book fan. Like, none of it is "canon" anymore thanks to the New 52 and Flashpoint, but, drat, they really, really put effort into these books. I mean, setting wise you can always use that fluff regardless of system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:I mean, setting wise you can always use that fluff regardless of system? Oh true, but I'm just saying this is one well-researched sourcebook. Like, super helpful if you ever need a source book for DC history from the post-crisis (crisis on infinite earths, 1986, to Flashpoint, 2011) era DC comics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Covok posted:The reason I've heard is that they love how every square inch has a hyper detailed history and is constantly being added to by a community of fans. I wouldn't call myself an FR fan but it's big enough that there is some stuff I like nonetheless (namely anything that was in one of the good CRPGs, and also the ancient empires stuff)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:I have no problem with someone liking it, I just don't understand why p̴̝̗̳̗̼̯̘̥h̴̰̯̮͕̼̪'̼͈͎̳̝͡n̵̗̪͍͍͠g̷̤̝̳̰͓̙͎͖̕l̡̬̭̠̟͉̜̀ú͇͚̻i̷̲̘ ̵̸͍̯̰̭̬̻̫̀m̻͚͖̣̺̼̙͉̩͝͝g҉̼͔͝l̷͉̼̘̹̀w̥̱͍̳͕̬͓̕'̝̣ͅn̡̠̣̫͚̥̳͡a̩f͕̦̺͎̱̘̀h̷̢̦̫̣͔͚̯̗̕ ̧̭̭̫̺̯͢ͅC̴̘̣̦̙̟t̶̯͈̞͘͟h̶̪̫̗͝u̡̻͎l͏͕̼̳͓̭͚̺h̫̟̰̖͉̱̙͖u̷҉̺͕ ̷̮̜̻̤͝R͇̤'͉̥̖̖͓̙̀͘͞l̡̡͇y̫̹͝͠e̡̱̪̟̣͓̮͍͙h̷̟͖̩͓̟͖ ҉̴̟̹̫w̶̬͙͖̮͟ͅg̛͍̻̮̼͟a̳͚̙͢͜h̛͚̺͙̳̝̭͉͚͝͝'̟̤n̰á̙͉̞͇͙̪̼̀͟g̨͇̹̜̬̤̩̻͍̩͠l̶̢̞̭͔̱ ̳̮͎̝̟̼͚̕f̡̛̣̯̺͝ḥ̢̮̳t̘̙̙̜̦͉͜ͅa͎̣̫͟͡g̠̗̰̘n̤̫͔̦̬̪
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:gently caress FATE as a system in every regard FATE does some stuff well but 'interesting direct conflict' sure as poo poo ain't one of those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Having played a lot of M&M 3e and DC Adventures, it can work, but there are important things to keep in mind. The game probably functions best when people have their attacks / saves / defenses around the campaign PL (usually around 2). If there are tradeoffs, I'd probably limit them to +2 or +3 instead of +5, mainly just because some tradeoffs are better than others (trading attack down for damage up, for example) and that limits their impact. As long as you can trust your players, I'd just have people ignore point values (aside from when working up alternate powers of an existing power) and just write down numbers that fit the PL. Watch the point values of powers to make sure they're not too inflated, and be wary of stacked attacks (like a linked affliction + damage), particularly if they synergize (like an attack that degrades defense or toughness at the same time it does damage). I'd also watch out for "meta" powers that allow people to swap out powers too broadly. Another thing to keep in mind is that if used as players, some of the DC writeups are lacking in versatility (I think Aquaman's only direct attack is just punching, for example). In addition, some can be off from the above advice to keep attacks / defenses around PL, so I'd probably make sure that their numbers are balanced to PL and to give them two or three alternate attack powers if they don't already have them and you can make them fit. In general, there's an issue when building villains that the math just doesn't work out for them if they're outnumbered unless they have a much higher PL. Most villains are going to want assistants or minions to help even the odds in a conflict. It's possible to build a high-PL villain that's a challenge, but the dilemma is that their defenses have to be high enough to laugh off most PC attacks, which isn't much fun. I think that's most of my major advice. M&M is probably one of the better refinements of what Champions started, but still has a lot of the issues of the older superhero games - it just runs much smoother than most of the other "superhero physics simulators".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
This is sort of a generic question: A lot of the time, when the issue of D&D (especially post-TSR-era) Fighters get talked about, the issue is that they're "boring/non-interactive" since all they do is to declare "I attack, next turn". This is followed by suggestions on adding abilities/powers/maneuvers to give the Fighter player more choices in how to attack. The thing is, if we look at the "interactivity" of Fighter-type classes in other RPGs, they're usually based upon the execution of a rotation/combo. That is, you have an "autoattack" that just happens, and you also have anything from two to six different buttons you have to press in a specific order to maximize your damage output. But in a turn-based scenario, not only can you always predict which is the next best ability to use, you also can't "fail" to use it, since you have all the time in the world to make the correct declaration. Maybe it'll come down to a die-roll if the use of the ability is successful, but you don't really have control over that. In that sense, if you can't make a mistake, why even have all these other buttons at all? Or to get to my conclusion immediately: would a simple "I attack" model work if the Fighter did a boatload of damage while doing it, under the assumption that the Fighter is already succeeding in using all of their attacks and abilities correctly and maximally?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Bear in mind the "fighter problem" isn't just how much damage they do. Yes, it's an issue that a fighter is a lesser damage-dealer in games where that's their main function, but the "fighter issue" more comes down to flexibility. Often they're unable to adapt to different types of foes (swordguy becomes useless when his foe flies, or is invisible, or requires pewter arrows to hurt) or situations. But most importantly, many fighter classes just become... useless outside of combat. That's the chief issue, I think. When other classes are breaking into places, casting spells to teleport to places, or tracking a set of footprints, the fighter quite often has no expertise to apply when there isn't anybody that needs stabbing. As useful as lifting gates or bending bars might be, it's not exactly a broad skillset.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I wouldn't call myself an FR fan but it's big enough that there is some stuff I like nonetheless (namely anything that was in one of the good CRPGs, and also the ancient empires stuff) the spellplague is a super cool idea IMHO
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Bear in mind the "fighter problem" isn't just how much damage they do. Yes, it's an issue that a fighter is a lesser damage-dealer in games where that's their main function, but the "fighter issue" more comes down to flexibility. Often they're unable to adapt to different types of foes (swordguy becomes useless when his foe flies, or is invisible, or requires pewter arrows to hurt) or situations. But most importantly, many fighter classes just become... useless outside of combat. That's the chief issue, I think. When other classes are breaking into places, casting spells to teleport to places, or tracking a set of footprints, the fighter quite often has no expertise to apply when there isn't anybody that needs stabbing. The problem is the the fighter doesn't have any real core concept beyond "well D&D needs a fighter class". They're not the heavy hitters because wizards. They can't be meatshields because the fanbase considers that too video-game-y. They can't command people around because immersion. The whole point of the fighter is to be the class that the new guy plays because it doesn't require a lot of thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Bear in mind the "fighter problem" isn't just how much damage they do. Yes, it's an issue that a fighter is a lesser damage-dealer in games where that's their main function, but the "fighter issue" more comes down to flexibility. Often they're unable to adapt to different types of foes (swordguy becomes useless when his foe flies, or is invisible, or requires pewter arrows to hurt) or situations. But most importantly, many fighter classes just become... useless outside of combat. That's the chief issue, I think. When other classes are breaking into places, casting spells to teleport to places, or tracking a set of footprints, the fighter quite often has no expertise to apply when there isn't anybody that needs stabbing. I feel the best “fighter gets to do stuff outside of combat” rules were the AD&D 2e rules where at a certain level the fighter just had a personal army of dudes that would follow them just on the sheer strength of their reputation. You got a henchman Captain around your level and a group of 1st level “special forces” to do adventuring with you, and then a small army of 0-level soldiers to conquer nations and build forts and stuff. Mechanically a lot of players and GMs hated it because meant more dice to roll, but if you could abstract it so that a fighter can use his army to impact the campaign world with minimal prep, it would help close the gap. (Thinking of implementing a similar rule as an Advanced Fighter Move for Dungeon World. Working title: #squadgoals) Simian_Prime fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is sort of a generic question: this post feels like it was written in a world where 4e never existed? the "rotation" model you're describing isn't even ubiquitous in CRPGs, and is just as common for spellcasters in those games as it is for martial classes anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The problem is the the fighter doesn't have any real core concept beyond "well D&D needs a fighter class". They're not the heavy hitters because wizards. They can't be meatshields because the fanbase considers that too video-game-y. They can't command people around because immersion. Changing topics: It's been more than a month since Green Ronin announced they were going to produce a full account of their relationship with CA Suleiman, complete with the world's most detailed timeline. I guess that has been shipped out to the ol' memory hole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
To be clear, I also understand the utility and non-combat-role argument, but to me that feels like something that's on the side of the spellcaster to be "fixed".Evil Mastermind posted:Even in combat, they're not useful. Everyone is capable of dealing damage, usually in ways better than the fighter. What I was trying to get at was that even "make Fighters better" books like Tome of Battle for the most part didn't make Fighters "more useful", but rather gave them more interactive abilities that added a lot of damage. But is there some inherent value in making your big damage ability something that needs to be explicitly declared? And if the Fighters aren't the heavy hitters because Wizards, and lots of other classes are capable of dealing more damage than the Fighter, would it be enough to address that problem by making the Fighter be the absolute best at dealing damage, even if it's achieved through a basic attack?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Down that path lies the Essentials Slayer class, which was "the Fighter with only basic attacks but comparable/higher damage and similar defenses." Which, while effective, was boring as heck and a strict downgrade to the 4E Fighter by virtue of being so much more boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:33
|
|
