|
PP-using powers should've been per-encounter powers. Like, you know how psionic paragon paths give you an encounter power that gets better if you spend PP on it the one time you use it? All of them should've been like that.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Gort posted:I haven't actually implemented any house rules in my game yet. I don't believe in houseruling ongoing campaigns because it's a bit bait-and-switch. Based on what I've said in this thread, what games do you think I should check out? You might like Strike!, which is in the process of being polished for release by a poster from these forums: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3656713
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
It's obvious that each invoked shroud isn't a separate instance of vulnerability-proccing bonus damage, and even more obvious that the Assassin's Shroud power is missing the word "extra". That is to say, it should read "the attack deals 1d6 extra damage per shroud", not "the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud", since the existing wording implies that the shrouds somehow overwrite the damage the attack was actually going to deal. Even if it instead said "additional" or "complimentary" there's no reason to believe that the whole affair doesn't sum to a single damage total which then interacts with vulnerability or extra damage in the usual manner. The way you include a shroud assassin is a game is by making sure the other characters aren't all built exclusively to ping an enemy with Vuln 30 All with twenty separate instances of 1d4+40 damage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
In a lightly/near-unoptimized party, shroud invocation being a whole separate damage roll wouldn't help because it wouldn't be true that every enemy is constantly suffering vulnerability to all damage and separately adding extra damage to every attack thrown at it and so on. You'd be like, hooray, this is a separate damage roll! But it just deals its listed dice expression anyway because we aren't piling on the game elements that care. I don't think the shroud assassin is that bad in unoptimized parties, though. Its main problem is that it can't take multiple turns per turn the way that rangers, rogues, wizards, and fighters effectively can. If you roll with rogues that don't stack up on the minor action attacks, wizards that that use fire-and-forget dailies, etc you'll be working on the same basic math that your friends are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:I won't argue with you about whether or not EACH shroud invoked grants a separate damage instance, or not. The wording is vague enough that it could go either way, but it is certain that invoked shrouds are a separate damage instance. Since the power is missing the word "extra" the shrouds are not granting the defined game term "extra damage". Further the ability was never errata'd to reflect this, so by RAW, the shrouds are an extra instance of damage rather than "extra damage". Shrouds don't overwrite the attack as the ability doesn't say "instead of" any where in its text. You can argue about RAI until you are blue in the face, and I could even concede that your perception of the designers intent is accurate, but that would not make you any more correct about how shrouds actually function, which is how I outlined in my above post. So I activate my shrouds hit with an attack that should deal 5 damage. Now the attack deals 5 damage and 1d6 damage, also known as 1d6+5 damage. Where does it say those two instances separately proc vulnerability, extra damage, or other rules toys? It doesn't. In fact, the language states that shroud damage is considered to be coming from the attack, not from something distinct from the attack and therefore entitled to separately trigger whatever special conditions apply to that mysterious, second entity. The simplest assassin buff is probably a flat declaration that an assassin automatically and for free places a shroud on anything they attack, 1/turn, in addition to shrouds they place by activating powers or triggering feats or whatever. Then they, like other strikers, would be at least reasonably attractive to grant attacks to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
What I'm not seeing is any indication that a power with multiple damage rolls therefore triggers vulnerability or extra damage multiple times. You're right that assassin's shroud would be able to double up on bonuses to damage rolls... which is why it explicitly does not benefit from bonuses to damage rolls. Otherwise, multiplying an attack's extra damage by the number of damage rolls that attack requires, even when all those damage rolls occur in the same instant in response to the same single d20 attack vs. defense roll, comes out of nowhere. If I had to pick a single biggest problem with your reasoning, it would be this: quote:However, they're not extra damage, which means it's not added to the rest of the power's damage, which can only mean it's a separate instance. That doesn't follow. You can not be formal, capital-letters Extra Damage... but still be added to the rest of a power's damage. Nowhere in the book does it say that only things called Extra Damage are allowed to do that. 4e very frequently simulates rules concepts without directly invoking those rules concepts, usually to create loopholes or otherwise avoid triggering certain effects. For example, if I used a Move-action power to Slide myself a number of squares equal to my speed, I would be able to dodge Immobilized. In this case, by not being actual Extra Damage, Assassin's Shroud is capable of adding damage to missed at-wills, bull rushes, etc. However, there's no reason to assume that it counts as a helpful ghost who attacks simultaneous to your character and therefore doubles a bunch of your miscellaneous/weirdly-worded bonuses. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:The "extra damage" from vulnerability happens whenever the creature with vulnerable takes damage. A damage roll is one instance of damage. Is it, though? Where's it say so? I'm pretty sure there's no such game term as "instance of damage". The vulnerability rules certainly don't use it - they just say "whenever". What we do have, though, is this language in Extra Damage: "Extra damage is always in addition to other damage" And this language in Assassin's Shroud: "This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any." So the two actually work the same way. They're both in addition to damage. Why would one, but not the other, double-tap vulnerability and other miscellaneous not-technically-bonuses?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
It's not called out as being "its own" or an "independent" damage roll (more terms appearing nowhere in the rules). It's called out being: A) damage dealt by the attack B) damage in addition to any already dealt by the attack That second part is how extra damage works. Extra damage is, and here we actually do have explicitly matching language, dealt in addition to any already dealt by the attack. So, unless you think that an enemy with Vuln 5 all takes 10 extra damage from a rogue striking from combat advantage, you don't have any grounds on which to claim that an enemy with Vuln 5 all takes 10 extra damage from an assassin striking with prep time. An attack having multiple damage rolls is unusual, but it doesn't automatically spawn new rules in its wake. There are powers floating around 4e that deal, like, 2W + Stat weapon damage and also 1d6 thunder damage. Such a power is still a power which generates a single attack which has a single Hit: line attached. "Damage roll" isn't the thing that triggers extra damage - the only thing it triggers is damage bonuses. Damage is. Having multiple damage rolls isn't the same time as dealing damage multiple times. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Chaotic Neutral posted:No, but it's called out as being a damage roll, which is what makes it independent. It is not a modification to a damage roll, or a bonus, or extra damage. It is a damage roll. That has very definite meaning, since a damage roll is what all those bonuses and modifiers stick to. Damage rolls don't deal damage. Attacks deal damage. Attacks often use damage rolls to determine how much damage they deal. Here's the definite meaning of being, specifically, a "damage roll": damage rolls can benefit from bonuses to damage rolls. That's it. That's what's special about damage rolls - they can do the thing that Assassin's Shroud explicitly can't do. Otherwise, a damage roll is a general, commonplace means used as part of calculating damage - the mere fact of its existence doesn't otherwise cause anything to happen. For instance, the bonus damage inflicted by a sneak attack is calculated with......................... ...a damage roll. You roll dice, to determine a sneak attack's damage. If there was a thing that said it gave you a bonus to sneak attack damage, it would work, because damage rolls can enjoy bonuses. In fact, there is such a thing: quote:Brutal Scoundrel "Independent" isn't a game term. RC 222 has absolutely nothing to do with Assassin's Shroud, because Assassin's Shroud explicitly negates the one thing RC 222 tells us about damage rolls that has any kind of declarative force. Incidentally, I think there's a very strong argument to be made that RC 222 is a mistake - that it was only supposed to tell us that Come and Get It applies bonus damage to each target, but not that Twin Strike applies bonus damage to the same target twice - but that's another discussion entirely. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Hybrid assassin actually dodges one of the limitations on hybrid strikers because you can stack shrouds while being a defender (or whatever) and then trigger them all during one striker turn.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
I mean, I wouldn't be keen on acknowledging that I'd been cheating out extra damage for the past two years or something either, but frankly there's no surprise at all that huge chunks of commonly-accepted charop turn out to consist entirely of smoke and mirrors. It's a calling that runs on getting the idea that something works and then becoming excited about it. These orthodoxies are powerfully self-reinforcing. Also, 4e's actual rules teach you to think in those terms because of how special damage rolls end up being because of a single innocent-looking line of rules text. Any 4e player knows that a power that deals 1d4+100 damage is insanely, tremendously, brutally superior to a power that deals 105 damage, even though a normal person can plainly see that the latter yields a higher sum. Making 4e characters, you become so myopically focused on finding and sequencing together as many staggered XdYs as you possibly can that you start to see damage rolls themselves as characters in the game, imbued with fierce vitality and boundless potential. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
No, the actual rules are pretty clear. They're not as rigorous as they look like they're supposed to be - despite the fact that it has a giant pile of fiddly, interacting exceptions, 4e doesn't have anything like Magic: the Gathering's ruthless consistency - but there's a difference between being uncertain of how to resolve something and actually making up and promulgating nonexistent rules for the sake of making some gimmick work. There are confusing edge cases in 4e, but the Assassin isn't one of them. For your sake and mine I am going to pretend I did not just read "CustServ" in your post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
We didn't have a page-long argument because of unclear rules. We had a page-long argument because of tradition and inertia. Some number of years ago, someone who really wanted to squeeze out extra DPR decided to make up new rules for themselves, and the thing they made up was superficially similar enough to actual rules (specifically, in a game in which damage rolls already had one really good unique property, Patient Zero posited that damage rolls had a second, separate really good unique property) that other people were willing to swallow it because charop is fun. You said it yourself - at the end of the day, you don't want "mainstay" powers to fall into doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:The answer of course is D. Combine this with phrasings that misuse defined game terms, or try and redefine them in the middle of the power, as in the shroud example, causes the vagaries we saw in the shroud example. The answer isn't D because a damage roll isn't an attack. That's one of the biggest points of confusion here - damage rolls aren't independently-acting characters with agencies and initiative totals. The attempted "fix" for the assassin, and no doubt a bunch of the top tier killer builds within the charop canon, are founded on wishes and sawdust. Like, at this point I'd be shocked if it turned out that whatever the Firewind Blade gimmick is doesn't lose a good 25% of its damage if it stops making game rules up. (My theory is that it relies on confusing the boundary between "power" and "property" but I haven't looked into it) This stuff doesn't actually help the assassin, because it just piles bucketloads of unearned bonus damage into the laps of other, non-assassin classes and also mandates that would-be assassin players perform those same contortions - but with a bunch of annoying restrictions, because the good old Damage Bonus, freely available to rangers and rogues and so on, is crippled in the assassin's hands.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Dude, the 4e charop peops tear each others' throats out when they get a rule wrong. The DPR/KPR kings thread was full of debates and people ripping builds to shreds. They're not some insular cabal determined to interpret things in the most broken way possible. I'm sure they've had plenty of debates, but in an ironic parallel to 4e itself those debates have produced the illusion of rigor, not actual rigor. There are clearly widely-agreed-upon concepts and rules tricks floating around contemporary charop canon that are just... made-up. Their strict legalism just plain wasn't strict or legalistic enough, but in such a way as to favor, rather than quash, their ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
I mean, I'm not unsympathetic here. 4e writes a lot of checks it almost can, but actually can't, cash, and it's in the nature of roleplaying groups (even giant, forums-wide roleplaying groups) to settle into informal canons. Like I said, 4e strongly encourages you to impute a lot of power and consequence to the simple fact of a lowercase D existing between two integers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
My experience with a mid-heroic vampire was that it was plenty capable of keeping up with other characters. The thing about vampires is that they don't get any multi-attacks and so can't apply all their static damage bonuses multiple times in the same turn; if you put them alongside other characters that also don't do that they're basically on par.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
They get a passive damage bonus, +Cha+[integer] to all damage or something. Their problem is pretty much down to taking only one turn per turn.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
You could figure out how many extra attacks a rogue, ranger, or fighter throws on average in a fight and let vampires use that many free Slams according to some pacing mechanism. "Each time you gain or lose a healing surge" could be cool.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I mean, it's a boring, bad game and it has no relevance to the current topic so don't? Actually it is a good game with many similarities to the only good edition of dungeons and dragons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You're the cover artist. You're not exactly unbiased. I volunteered to be the cover artist after reading and playing the game, which is good. Meanwhile, whatever games you like are, I can only assume, trash and dogshit. Roasted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Obligatum VII posted:When I looked through Strike, ages ago (it has probably changed a bit since I looked), while I do think it drew on a lot of good ideas from other systems and made some good choices in terms of design, and many more correct choices than bad ones, it felt like it sacrificed a non-negligible amount of tactical depth in favor of speed when it came to combat. And while I can respect that not everyone wants a big tactics puzzle in their P&P, it just didn't quite sit right with me personally. So owing to its complexity and sheer breadth of options, 4E gives you a lot of stuff that Strike simply can't and never will. Like, it's a lot easier to play minigames with healing surges than it is with the "Winded" condition, you have twenty feats instead of six, there's way more room for gradation in terms of damage and accuracy and defenses and so on. There's no paragon paths or epic destinies to speak of. If you play Strike you're definitely giving up depth and content. However, a lot of what 4E boasts and Strike lacks is either incredibly marginal or outright bad. For example, Strike has no static bonuses to rolled damage applicable to all-in-one-action multiattacks, which means that it has no Ranger class or waving an enemy back and forth through Wall of Fire or any of the other stupid charop tricks that let you deal 1d6+50 five times per turn. It doesn't have scaling modifiers to accuracy or defenses that can be used to deny one or more enemies the chance to ever land attacks. It doesn't have piles of feats whose only purpose is to make sure your numbers work as well at level 15 as they did at level 1. And so on. And, despite this, it actually does give you big tactics puzzles in P&P - they're just tactics puzzles that lack marginalia about acrobatics checks to land on your feet or squeezing out an extra 2 hp of damage per turn on an enemy with 300 total health, or whatever. So like, although I really like 4E, it would be way, way easier to get me to run or play in a new Strike game than in a new 4E game in this day and age. I figure it'd be easier to add in any specific thing I want back in than it would be to take out (waving arms at above paragraph) allll that. Arivia posted:Nah, you're pretty much right. Also the writing is just trash. It needed an editor and someone else with some actual creativity. 4e had some issues, but at least it had decades of accrued narrative to fall back on instead of tired Futurama references. Strike is just another heartbreaker, really - it's only notable for being made by a goon and because there's not many 4e heartbreakers. There aren't Futurama references in Strike.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
It's a Futurama referencer reference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
It's just stupid to criticize Strike for not having a setting, for the same reason that it's stupid to criticize Fate or d20 or whatever for not having settings. Some RPGs are about letting you play in a particular setting, but others are about letting you play with a particular story structure (which, in like all three of thoses cases, is something like "group of people have a cooperative action-adventure"). Like, as poo poo as Pathfinder is, the fact that I don't find setting information when I go to http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ is not the problem with it, and if I tried to pretend that was the problem with it that'd just make clear to you I had no actual substantive criticisms to make. Which you don't, since you haven't said a single thing about the writing or rules - you just keep mentioning they're bad, as asides, after spending 90% of a post telling us that the real problem with a take-out place is that they've got no wait staff to speak of. What does "just another heartbreaker" mean? Why is it bad? Hey, where'd you go? Does anyone else hear a car peeling out?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It's not about a setting. Sure, there's RPGs without settings. It's about having any creative narrative, characterization, or anything at all. I've never read FATE Core but I'm sure it has sample characters or whatever with something going for them. d20 Modern had plenty of ideas in there, even if it was d20 Modern and not great. Strike doesn't have any of that. There's a monster section? Maybe? Otherwise it's just lists of characters stolen from other games and media and suggestions for putting them together. Strike has no creative content in it, period. No, that's false. quote:I'm criticizing the actual Strike core rulebook and not a third-party fansite. Keep up. FYI, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook has plenty of narrative elements to get it going - they reused artwork and iconic images from the Adventure Paths so far, and included specific content (like the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class) to build it even further. The Strike corebook also has artwork and specific content. I guess you just haven't read it and have been complaining about the original beta document that used to be hosted on Jimbozig's blog or something? quote:Yeah dude, sorry I come to the 4e thread to talk about 4e and not your lovely knockoff. That's what I was trying to tell you in the first place. Go away. You have your own thread for your heartbreaker (and that term is common knowledge, don't be an idiot.) I've talked plenty about the writing, you just seem to be blind to see it. It's unclear. It's badly organized (there's an index, but even that's a pain to work with). Jimbozig littered the text with pointless whining to the reader about whatever he doesn't like. It's worse than the natural language of most RPGs because it has a really lovely authorial voice of a guy who is as dull as wallpaper paste and he won't shut the gently caress up. The rules are bland and boring and just things taken from other games Jimbozig likes. (Classic heartbreaker, that.) No, you've just mentioned the writing and rules repeatedly; you cannot name actual problems. At least in the case of the writing you've managed to give some indication of your personal taste (you don't like it when a book takes a familiar tone) even in the course of failing to cite objective problems or provide examples - whenever you even enter the orbit of the game's rules there's just this howling void. Of course, it is precisely the rules that are most relevant and deserving of discussion here because it's Strike's rules that make it similar to 4E and relevant to someone who likes 4E but wants something with less busywork, or wants ideas for mechanics or house rules to introduce to 4E, or wants a game to try on their friends that might prepare those friends for 4E, or...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Never saw whatever beta document you're referring to. I read a PDF copy of the final release after a friend tried to run a game using it. No, of course you're not going to read it. Inexplicably, though, you're going to post as though you've read and understood it. Strike is a good game. The hosed up thing about the discussion we're having is that your primary complaint is also my primary complaint about Strike - I prefer systems that try to represent, with as much fidelity as is practical, the specific details of a particular fiction setting to systems that are setting-agnostic. My favorite tabletop games are things like Mage and Exalted because their lore and mechanics are so tightly intertwined, and I'm pretty cool on games like Fate precisely because I'm not that excited at the prospect of doing the work of adapting a system to a setting myself. But... that's not really a good vector for me to attack Strike or Fate on, because neither of those systems is trying to represent a specific setting in the first place. They are, baldly, setting-agnostic constellations of rules designed first and foremost to deliver a kind of tactical challenge and/or table dynamic. If there's something wrong with them, rather than something that's simply not to your taste, it's got to be something to do with the way the rules work or fail to work, not something to do with the fact that there is no official Fate setting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I think Strike would be significantly worse if it had the Attacker Through Remote Proxies rather than the Summoner or whatever, and not just because the latter kind of class name makes it much easier to think of powers. Though there's not an official Strike setting its classes do suggest a default one, which I guess is a kind of Final Fantasy-ish tech-friendly fantasy world in which you've got both wizards casting spells and engineers laying mines.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:But can you have wizard engineers laying down spell mines? Mines is the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Strike is a good replacement for 4E, because it's gameplay strongly, strongly resembles 4E's while its overhead is much lower. You know this as well as I do and that's why you haven't said a thing about the mechanics of either game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Literally everyone except you is on topic. Go away. I am on topic. We're discussing whether it's appropriate to bring up 4e clones on the topic of 4e and you're in the process of conceding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
The real problem is with AoE powers that you'd normally want to detonate between multiple enemies. I guess, though, you can have a thing that's like "If you hit with your basic magic zap, you can plonk down an X by X aoe including the guy you hit and make new attack rolls for every other enemy".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
The one stumbling block there is that lots of encounter powers either have Effect: lines, Miss: lines, or both. It'd be pretty easy to declare that any power without either becomes Reliable if it isn't already, though. This would alter the balance between some powers (there are some which are inherently crappier than others precisely because they're already Reliable, and there are feats and features and so on that let you add the Reliable tag to powers without it), but it's not like there aren't already some pretty dramatic gulfs between good powers and bad ones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
If you maximized 5d12 + 14 you get 74. So the balor maximizes damage on a crit like every other monster, but is ALSO effectively wielding a +3 vicious weapon and gets bonus damage dice on its crits the way PCs do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 22:03
|
|