|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Warlord was such a fun class. I loved screaming at my friends not to be on fire anymore. You can still find the cracked version of the standalone char creator that with some mods has not only the rest of 4e's content but is actually pretty easy to add custom content to, and has a few rebalance patches that have been developed.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:On top of this, the fighter they're balancing against tops out at 13th level at 5/2 attacks (and only with a specialized weapon), alternating 3 and 2 attacks, which means that it looks even loving worse for the 2e fighter. While it looks that way, it also misses the context of the rest of the game, like the way some baseline fighter features were stripped out of the class for 3e (fighter stickiness, what passed for attacks of opportunity, extra attacks against weak enemies), and the way monster hp was drastically inflated between editions by dint of giving the every single monster a CON score. The latter was a big problem for the fighter. A 2e ogre would have 19 hp; by 3e, this became 26, essentially the difference of a whole attack. This problem only got worse with levels, like with the dragon turtle (54 hp on average in 2e, compared to 138 in 3e). Meanwhile, thanks to an added strength scores, many of these monsters were conversely dealing more damage in return. The biggest problem for 2e fighters was that they were boring - outside of weapon specialization, there really wasn't much you could do to make your fighter your own or guide their growth, while 3e fighters got to choose a selection of feats as they leveled (which mostly sucked, but at least it was a degree of customization that fighters didn't have before.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:do you mean that 3.5 was an improvement, or the opposite? Falstaff posted:While it looks that way, it also misses the context of the rest of the game, like the way some baseline fighter features were stripped out of the class for 3e (fighter stickiness, what passed for attacks of opportunity, extra attacks against weak enemies), and the way monster hp was drastically inflated between editions by dint of giving the every single monster a CON score. The removal of stickiness was a deliberate change to address the suicidal nature of withdrawal our flight in 2e. It didn't work entirely as intended, but it was a considered change, not a nerf, to shape how combat played out. 4e did it better. The hp math was a problem, but in theory was supposed to be addressed by the increasing damage of fighters, but again, didn't go nearly far enough, and wouldn't even really try until the book of weeaboo fighting magic. NinjaDebugger fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
Sounds like things are not happy between Chaosium and their former French licensees. We already knew that they were pulling the licence for non-payment of royalties; now it looks like they can't even reach an agreement on getting the crowdfunded Masks of Nyarlathotep translations to backers because Editions Sans-Detour flat-out won't talk to them. Further digging reveals that Chaosium aren't the only ones in a difficult spot with EDS right now. Warthur fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Dec 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
They've taken over a million in crowdfunding in the last 18 months, though a chunk of that was €400k for confrontation, which has apparently been riven with problems and over-promises they almost certainly can't fulfil. Ludikbay/Ludikbazar which were affiliated with SD in some way closed down about 8 months ago. I suspect someone is exiting stage left with whatever's left of the cash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:On top of this, the fighter they're balancing against tops out at 13th level at 5/2 attacks (and only with a specialized weapon), alternating 3 and 2 attacks, which means that it looks even loving worse for the 2e fighter. And yet for literally every boost you gave fighters and nerf you gave casters there was one the other way you gave casters a boost and fighters a nerf. Anything from more spells for casters to casters being able to pick their saves to savage armour check penalties to the complete overhaul of the magic item system that turned casters up to about 15 while shredding fighter power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
PST posted:They've taken over a million in crowdfunding in the last 18 months, though a chunk of that was €400k for confrontation, which has apparently been riven with problems and over-promises they almost certainly can't fulfil. Yeah. I was initially tempted by Confrontation but I could recognise all the pictures they produced as being old studio pictures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
I played a short Pathfinder adventure recently with some friends and I made a Mesmerizer which is basically a gimmick caster class focused on illusion/mind control/hypnosis spells and it was chill that I pretty much locked down all the encounters with my poo poo because that class has a specific feature that lets my spells affect insects and undead so I pretty much chumped the boss (a mummy) by using Hold Person while the fighter, paladin and the monk beat the poo poo out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Confrontation almost got my money all the way to the end. Thankfully they never did single faction bundles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:And yet for literally every boost you gave fighters and nerf you gave casters there was one the other way you gave casters a boost and fighters a nerf. Anything from more spells for casters to casters being able to pick their saves to savage armour check penalties to the complete overhaul of the magic item system that turned casters up to about 15 while shredding fighter power. Welcome to trying to work with Monte Cook. If we knew then what we knew now, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference, because it's been twenty years and he still hasn't learned a loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:I played a short Pathfinder adventure recently with some friends and I made a Mesmerizer which is basically a gimmick caster class focused on illusion/mind control/hypnosis spells and it was chill that I pretty much locked down all the encounters with my poo poo because that class has a specific feature that lets my spells affect insects and undead so I pretty much chumped the boss (a mummy) by using Hold Person while the fighter, paladin and the monk beat the poo poo out of it. EDIT: There is a lesson to be learned about how over the fiddly the rules are here given that it should be more straightforward like you wrote. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
So serious question, what's the good thing to go to if you want a D&D-style dungeon crawl that is more balanced? I mean, I'm going to end up playing Pathfinder anyway because that's what the rest of the group wants, but is there a better option?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 02:23
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So serious question, what's the good thing to go to if you want a D&D-style dungeon crawl that is more balanced? I mean, I'm going to end up playing Pathfinder anyway because that's what the rest of the group wants, but is there a better option? D&D 4e or Strike or Torchbearer
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So serious question, what's the good thing to go to if you want a D&D-style dungeon crawl that is more balanced? I mean, I'm going to end up playing Pathfinder anyway because that's what the rest of the group wants, but is there a better option? Torchbearer, 4e, your pick of basic D&D or a retroclone. PF 2e is shaping up very well, but they've been actually making changes so making a new campaign out of it is best held off for the final release. Strike isn't a dungeon crawler, don't listen to that bullshit. It's just a gummy bad generic system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So serious question, what's the good thing to go to if you want a D&D-style dungeon crawl that is more balanced? I mean, I'm going to end up playing Pathfinder anyway because that's what the rest of the group wants, but is there a better option? Torchbearer if you want a cruel grinding experience with lots of crunchy rules, Basic D&D or World of Dungeons otherwise
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So serious question, what's the good thing to go to if you want a D&D-style dungeon crawl that is more balanced? I mean, I'm going to end up playing Pathfinder anyway because that's what the rest of the group wants, but is there a better option? Dungeon Crawl Classics
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Strike isn't a dungeon crawler Strike has rules specifically for dungeon crawling. It is setting-agnostic (not generic) and so you can do that same dungeon-crawling type of activity in other settings. But it is specifically built for exactly that kind of adventure, which is why it is not a generic system - it's not made to do horror or teen romance or any of dozens of other genres. It's about going on adventures in dangerous places with lots of combat, and has a tactical combat system that makes those combats interesting and fun. Just like Gumshoe is not a generic system. It is a setting-agnostic system for mystery games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So serious question, what's the good thing to go to if you want a D&D-style dungeon crawl that is more balanced? I mean, I'm going to end up playing Pathfinder anyway because that's what the rest of the group wants, but is there a better option? if you're going to be playing Pathfinder anyway, dump the regular classes and use Path of War and/or Spheres of Power/Might.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Strike has rules specifically for dungeon crawling. It is setting-agnostic (not generic) and so you can do that same dungeon-crawling type of activity in other settings. But it is specifically built for exactly that kind of adventure, which is why it is not a generic system - it's not made to do horror or teen romance or any of dozens of other genres. It's about going on adventures in dangerous places with lots of combat, and has a tactical combat system that makes those combats interesting and fun. Yeah this is bullshit. Your sample campaigns are ripoff Star Wars and Avatar. Your “dungeon crawling” rules are your example for yet another chapter of a flavorless gruel of an optional system. You made your lovely generic Soylent of a game system to be generic as hell, accept that it has some shortcomings and isn’t the perfect answer for everything like your cultists think it is. It has like three combat systems because you didn’t have the confidence to commit to any of them. Edit: and seriously when you look at the time and resource clocks in an actual well-written dungeon crawler your example system is so amateurish it’s absurd. Go back to playing knockoff mainstream nerd media campaigns, it’s all you do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yeah this is bullshit. Your sample campaigns are ripoff Star Wars and Avatar. Your “dungeon crawling” rules are your example for yet another chapter of a flavorless gruel of an optional system. You made your lovely generic Soylent of a game system to be generic as hell, accept that it has some shortcomings and isn’t the perfect answer for everything like your cultists think it is. It has like three combat systems because you didn’t have the confidence to commit to any of them. Are you ever going to explain exactly why this game is such a hotbutton for you? Is there some stupid discord drama behind this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
At the risk of bringing up off-site drama, no, not that I'm aware of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Are you ever going to explain exactly why this game is such a hotbutton for you? Is there some stupid discord drama behind this? No, there’s no drama. It’s just painfully bad and boring and it does literally nothing well. It’s absolutely insulting and misleading that the fan base suggests it as an answer for every kind of game, especially at the cost of more relevant, more informed, and more useful, specific solutions. It’s the same kind of fad response that other generic systems get - everyone recommends Fate or PbtA or GURPS for everything for awhile, without actually asking if those systems match the game in question. I remember when jimbozig’s thread was named Sacred BBQ - now he’s constructed his own cult around the game, and Strike’s seeming flexibility and supremacy is their own sacred cow. Like if you’re going to do your own knockoff Star Wars or anime or whatever game sure it could work for that. I’d use something more specific and better written, but that’s my personal preference. But it’s not a dungeon crawler. It’s not a suitable replacement for 4e D&D. They need to stop pretending that it is. Arivia fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
I'll have to dig into 4e a bit. I somehow skipped from AD&D 2e + Rules Cyclopedia bits direct to 3.5 then PF so I missed on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'll have to dig into 4e a bit. I somehow skipped from AD&D 2e + Rules Cyclopedia bits direct to 3.5 then PF so I missed on it. 4e is good for dungeon crawling big set pieces. You kill, not avoid or trick, monsters, get their stuff, level up, rinse and repeat. It doesn’t do room by room clearing well; it doesn’t do individual traps or the kinds of detailed resource management you’d expect from classic D&D. It’s very good, and a lot of fun - it’s just more high octane than you might be expecting coming from 2e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No, there’s no drama. It’s just painfully bad and boring and it does literally nothing well. It’s absolutely insulting and misleading that the fan base suggests it as an answer for every kind of game, especially at the cost of more relevant, more informed, and more useful, specific solutions. It’s the same kind of fad response that other generic systems get - everyone recommends Fate or PbtA or GURPS for everything for awhile, without actually asking if those systems match the game in question. I remember when jimbozig’s thread was named Sacred BBQ - now he’s constructed his own cult around the game, and Strike’s seeming flexibility and supremacy is their own sacred cow. Ma'am this is an Arby's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if you're going to be playing Pathfinder anyway, dump the regular classes and use Path of War and/or Spheres of Power/Might. Yeah, if you have to play PF, this is the way to go. Or maybe a psion I guess. If this party stuff isn't allowed, then being a caster and
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Arivia posted:4e is good for dungeon crawling big set pieces. You kill, not avoid or trick, monsters, get their stuff, level up, rinse and repeat. It doesn’t do room by room clearing well; it doesn’t do individual traps or the kinds of detailed resource management you’d expect from classic D&D. It’s very good, and a lot of fun - it’s just more high octane than you might be expecting coming from 2e. Also note that some rules are written for playing a game rather than describing the world. I can't recall how 2e did things compared to 3e but for example it's not "DC X to climb a wall" it's "if you decide climbing this wall should be challenging for a level Y party, then use a DC of X" with the assumption that as the party gets more awesome the threshold of "things you don't even bother rolling for" goes up. Generally good stuff, but if you take in-book examples as universal law things break down (granted I have no clue how much of that was people actually being confused or just blind edition warring). Particularly for skill challenges, "you can have challenges more complex and party-involving than just one pass/fail roll" is great advice but every attempt to actually implement them bound themselves too heavily to the example from the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Yeah, easy/normal/difficult difficulty is context based, and it genuinely broke a lot of peoples brains. They thought that something that was DC 20 for a 1st level character would magically jump to like DC 50 or whatever for high level characters because it was 'hard'
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
That's been a thing since 2e though. I want round and round with my DM back in the 1990's about why my level 24 rogue was having to roll to climb a wall he could do at level 1, all because a 'climb walls' stat existed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
In 4e, the idea is that as your ability to climb walls increases, you are faced with more difficult walls to climb. The same wall that was a challenge to your character at level 1 is something your level 30 character casually walks up without even noticing it was there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:That's been a thing since 2e though. I want round and round with my DM back in the 1990's about why my level 24 rogue was having to roll to climb a wall he could do at level 1, all because a 'climb walls' stat existed. Zereth posted:In 4e, the idea is that as your ability to climb walls increases, you are faced with more difficult walls to climb. The same wall that was a challenge to your character at level 1 is something your level 30 character casually walks up without even noticing it was there. yeah, the idea of "the difficulty of A Thing that was set by the DM doesn't change as your level changes, as long as you're doing / interacting with the same Thing" isn't even a particularly controversial one - Numenera, for example, is very explicit that this is how it's supposed to work*, but it's just another of those things that was twisted deliberately as a hatchet job against the game. * especially since Numenera's core conceit is reducing the difficulties of things to zero or as close as possible to it, so that you don't need to roll
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'll have to dig into 4e a bit. I somehow skipped from AD&D 2e + Rules Cyclopedia bits direct to 3.5 then PF so I missed on it. Not that I do this especially often often: https://systemmasterypodcast.com/2018/07/03/dungeons-dragons-4th-edition-system-mastery-125/
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Arivia posted:flavorless gruel Every complaint comes down to basically this. You don't like the lack of flavor inherent in the setting-agnostic rules, and you don't like the bits of flavor that I did put in - the silly dumb jokes in the kitchen-sink fantasy Origins, the example campaigns that use popular IPs to show how you might customize Strike! to a particular setting. Arivia, the key thing you are missing is that the thing that makes Strike! good for dungeon crawling isn't the optional rules for adversarial play - although those can be helpful for groups like mine where taking on an adversarial role doesn't come naturally to the GM (me). The thing that makes it work well is just the basic rules. Two things in particular: the way skill rolls work and worsening Conditions. Skill rolls in Strike always carry risk and tension - unlike 4e where if you minimax your skills you can autosucceed on many rolls (and autofail plenty of others - a huge frustration for me DMing 4e at high levels was that a typical DC would be impossible for one character to fail and impossible for another to pass). But the real key is the worsening Conditions: it's nearly the exact same system as Torchbearer, since both are based on Mouse Guard's conditions. The difference is that Torchbearer's conditions are spelled out in an explicit and unforgiving order that enforces the grim reality of dungeon crawling, while Strike's are completely up to the GM. So if the GM gives out Conditions in that same unforgiving way (the aforementioned section on adversarial play gives specifics on how to do this without it coming across as being a dick to your players), then the game can be like Torchbearer but with tactical combat instead of Torchbearer's blander yet more versatile Conflict system. Or, with a more forgiving pace, it can be like 4e, where you fight lots of stuff in setpiece battles and get to recover in between. The GM and players can decide together what sort of dungeon crawling they want. And yes, it's more effort than just playing Torchbearer and it's totally fine if you want to just play Torchbearer instead, but I think that there is a place for setting-agnostic games and many people agree. You don't have to agree. Lots of people love FATE. I don't have to love FATE. They still have plenty of fans even if I'm only meh on it. You're right that Strike is not appropriate for every type of game. That is literally what I was saying in my previous post. We have no disagreement there. But dungeon crawling? No, Strike is good for that. I've played it and it is good. Could I have used Torchbearer instead? No, because the dungeon was an alien base in an XCOM themed game (another popular IP that I like to play with, your disdain notwithstanding). The party gained ingress, had a few fights, got some Conditions, then flubbed dealing with a trap and got worse Conditions, narrowly avoided a combat encounter, then encountered a boss enemy and had to make a run for it and evac when they found themselves outmatched. That sounds like dungeon crawling to me! It was a dungeon I designed using those rules for adversarial play - the flavorless gruel. I added the flavor. That is what you are supposed to do with setting-agnostic games. You bring the setting and the flavor. You personally prefer games to bring the flavor and that's a totally valid preference and you should always play what you prefer. I have some projects I'm working on that bring the flavor, but they are also based on popular IPs and so I expect you won't like them either. But other people will and I will, so I'm going to make them. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
It’s okay, keep flapping on about reinventing the wheel as a square. You’re bad at game design, you’re a worse writer, and you have absolutely no creativity. It’s good that you have your own system that works for you and your group. That doesn’t mean it’s good for anyone else or their games. It’s nice how you keep opting out of actually taking a stand about how your system works or how it’s supposed to play - because it’s just a badly organized box of optional systems with absolutely nothing holding it all together. You can’t actually commit to anything. It’s really sad. “You’ve played it and it was good.” You wrote the system. Your critical opinion on its merits is completely useless, and you’ve proven repeatedly you have a blind spot a mile wide to any criticism. Shut up and go away. You’re making things worse with your handwringing. Let people discuss your game without continually rushing to its defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
I like strike and I hope jimbozig makes more of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Shut up and go away. You’re making things worse with your handwringing. Let people discuss your game without continually rushing to its defense. How about you let people bring up Strike without tripping over yourself to poo poo on it every chance you get like it's your sacred duty?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Shut up and go away. You’re making things worse with your handwringing. Let people discuss your game without continually rushing to its defense. Shut up and go away. You're making things worse with your weirdly hostile vendetta. Let people discuss strike without continually rushing to yell about how much you hate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:How about you let people bring up Strike without tripping over yourself to poo poo on it every chance you get like it's your sacred duty? Seriously, this poo poo gets loving old. I don't give a gently caress about Strike but Arivia's posts are way worse than their description of the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:How about you let people bring up Strike without tripping over yourself to poo poo on it every chance you get like it's your sacred duty? I’m going to point out bad games when they’re bad suggestions. You’ll note I don’t go into the Strike thread, I just point out that it’s not appropriate when people post it in response to literally every systems recommendation request. I’m happy to leave it at that disagreement, but Strike has become its own sacred cow to be defended at all costs. That’s sad. That’s really sad, that people can’t admit their chosen elfgame isn’t literally perfect. Go outside. Go kiss someone you like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Arivia posted:You’ll note I don’t go into the Strike thread, I just point out that it’s not appropriate when people post it in response to literally every systems recommendation request. No, you just show up in every other thread it gets mentioned, and you don't "point out that it's not appropriate," you say it's the suckiest suck that ever sucked and suck and now you're calling the people who like it "cultists." Frankly you sound unhinged and I have no earthly idea what your weird beef with this game and/or Jimbozig is but maybe you should try taking your own advice, shutting up, and going away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 07:23
|
|