|
Thanks for the OP, Serf! I saw this gem on the g+ group, btw quote:Robert Schwalb
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:How much work would I need to do to use SotDL to run games set in Warhammer Fantasy's Old World? You might need to assign some Traditions to some of the gods, but I don't think you would even need to do that much work. Sigmar could slot in for the New God, etc. There's Humans and Dwarfs in the core book, Halflings in the Companion, and Elves in the Beauty book. I haven't seen Skaven, but they're probably somewhere. The only big thing is that magic isn't as dangerous, generally. You won't have a demon eat your brain from casting a spell, unless it's a particularly evil spell and you get corrupted. e: I kept on thinking while reading it that it's the closest game, thematically, to WFRP2e that I've seen. Much better rules, though. Conversion to SotDL should be easier than conversion to most any other system. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
e:^^^^ is answered by vvvvvv Tales of the Demon Lord - which looks like a full campaign's worth of adventures - just got added to the Bundle of Holding!
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Some things I've noticed that I will probably forget... * You get a free level 0 spell when you learn a tradition * Ability modifiers don't affect damage * That +/- at character creation * The choice after you take your first profession
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:How's the math of this game, and how much does it push away from Problematic D&D-isms? The fact that it's a 4e designer makes me think "maybe this will work." But 5e makes me think not so much. I do love games like Dark Souls and Darkest Dungeon, though, so I'm down to give it a shot. The math seems rock solid. Everything is constrained, so it seems quite bounded. Boons and banes add a nice curve to outcomes, though, without the math going crazy due to how they (don't) stack. The 5e issue with skill bonuses basically disappears because professions are generally "yeah, you do it." And as I mentioned, damage rolls don't get the bonuses, so you don't get double perks from high stats.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
FYI, the Screen got added to the bundle. Not a huge cause for celebration but eh. It's nice to have, you know?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Welp, now that I got buy-in from my players (once, you know, we finish the last adventure and a half of a Level 30 4e campaign), I went ahead and grabbed a hardbound copy of this glorious little rule set. Thanks for tuning me into its greatness, everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
The Malthusian posted:Are the monster specific supplements any good? The blurb and art for the lizard folk one caught my eye, and I'm a sucker for bipedal herp monsters. Production values are good, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I may try my hand at hex maps for this, but I'm not sure. Hexes get weird. There's also the 1-yard thing. It seems like you really need to keep each hex/square 1 yard, because sometimes things key off odd numbers of yards. But the speeds of everyone (and areas and ranges) are all about 2x what I'm used to from 4e, so it seems like big maps are in order.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:A real annoyance with the PDFs - you can't turn the background layer off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Makaris posted:I got the bundle for thirty bucks and am reading through everything. So far I'm only a bit through the core book, but can anyone advise if there is a non-binary element to the rolling, success/miss or fail-wise? Right now all I see if you get critical fails if you roll into the negatives due to banes. Fail forward is built into the DM advice, BTW.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Makaris posted:Gotcha, thanks all.  Remember that you get a free 0-level spell when you discover a tradition. It's an easy rule to miss.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Makaris posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Pastry Mistakes posted:But yeah there are some questions:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I think this might be the first third-party SotDL setting: Mists of Akuma: Eastern Fantasy Noir Steampunk for Shadow of the Demon Lord
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Pastry Mistakes posted:So since I'm pure melee/non magic (since I'm a warrior -> knight), that means I can't pick up a spell even though the text gives me the option from an ancestry standpoint?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Gay Horney posted:Did they take down the SRD or is that just having hosting issues? I thought it was legit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
So how's the Freeport stuff? Do the SotDL rules work okay with the setting?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
I think I'll use Freeport as the base when I get around to running this. I don't think any of my players have gone through it before in any system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
FunkMonkey posted:Well I'm feeling like an rear end dropping money on Paths of Power for my boys just last month. Ah, well. Also that comes to like $3.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:That's really daft; including the Paths errata was a good move. I don't do Google+ though. It's a hellhole.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Any word on if this LANCER guy has been in touch with Schwalb?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
So I saw Companion 2 is out now? What's this one about? Any good?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Wow, I am loving this 31% off sale right now. Also I noticed there's another new version of the core book. I wonder if the paths of power stuff is back in?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Serf posted:From what I can tell, the better Fighter from Paths of Battle is now the standard Fighter. I could be wrong, but they look identical. Good. I had remembered he'd rolled it back after complaints, last I'd heard anything about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
This has been determined as our next rpg, coming hot off a 3-1/2 year, 1-30 4e campaign. I'm running the Freeport series which - as of a few days ago - was half off on dtrpg. Anything I should keep in mind?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:The PDF of the corebook was updated with changes to some basic paths and some errata a few months back, make sure you pick it up if you last downloaded a while ago. My players seem into it! I have people who never read stuff during the week, making up sets of 4-5 characters to pick from when we play on Wednesday.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Oh quick question - sorry for the double post. Is the Adept from Forbidden Rules balanced okay? How about the option for Magician to take their Potent Spellcasting instead of Cantrips? Also I am strongly considering using Zones for combat - but I am worried this might hose up area effect spells a bit too much. Has anyone used them?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Glukeose posted:Yeah, adept is generally pretty well balanced and slots nicely into a party as a battlemage. The ability to cast and weapon attack at the same time is useful, but not overpowered. Quick question - I see no downside to missile weapon use while in melee combat. Is this accurate?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Pretty sure it was some standard negative d6.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:There isn't one, and why would you houserule it in??
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Serf posted:Bows generally do less damage than melee weapons and have limited ammunition. A crossbow costs twice as much as a sword and you have to reload it. Guns are also expensive, have to be reloaded and are pretty rare in the base setting. Overall I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use a bow in melee like some Legolas rear end in a top hat and not be penalized for it. I'm using abstract zoned combat. If I have no idea exactly where everyone is, I'm not going to worry about whether Hank the Ranger is in melee this very minute. I would have probably used such a rule if there was one to be found, but since there's not, I'm okay with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Oh yeah! In other news, we started SotDL tonight with the Freeport trilogy, which rockets you from 0 to 1st pretty much right away, which is good. We have a Salamander Warrior, a Human Priest of the New God, a Dwarf Lover er... Warrior, a Changeling Warrior, an Orc Rogue, a Human Adept, and a Clockwork Magician. It's pretty rad so far!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
So basically this is Uncertain Faith for Warriors? Interesting. I also kinda think it undermines what's fundamentally supposed to be a simple system. But then again, I have like 3 Warriors in my group. Hmm. How's the balance look?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
I just bought Bred for Battle myself and I'm kinda lukewarm on it. I'll check with my players to see if one of these paths is more appealing than base Warrior is, but I don't think I'll likely find any takers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
I am pretty sure PCs will die if they take more damage while down, which is making life really hard for our Rogue. He got Erode cast on him last session, which hit for 20+ so it's doing 2d6 every round, and welp. We had to end the session mid-fight, which stinks, but we are LOVING this game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Rogue Trickery question.... "Once per round, you can make an attack roll or challenge roll with 1 boon. If you attack with 1 boon from this talent, your attack deals 1d6 extra damage." Does a Rogue still get this if said Boon is offset by Banes, to the point where they have zero Boons? It looks like Backstab explicitly would not, and neither would Dirty Tricks, but this one's different.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:What "with a boon" means came up in our last game and I just said it as plus one because, what, you want it to reduce 3 boons to 1 too? I'm not sure which is right though, we just agreed on something. In this case - our Rogue was shooting at someone who had cover. So his boon from trickery was counteracted by a bane from cover, and he made the attack ultimately straight up with neither boons nor banes. If our Rogue attacks with a Boon and Trickery, he's normally dealing +2d6 damage, from Trickery and Backstab. It looks like if that Boon is offset by Banes to the point where he has no remaining Boons, he should still get the +1d6 from Trickery (because the boon is still being used, kinda) but lose the +1d6 from Backstab.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:My rogue would have used trigger action to gain a boon on that. When I'm not phone posting I'll say more but basically you can get a boon that was at the risk of having your long action not go off. It's expensive - as you mentioned, you lose the triggered action and might lose actions entirely - but it's powerful. I am not sure, personally, that I like how it screws up the flow of combat; it incentivizes reaction instead of action, which muddles up combat rounds.Antilles posted:Yeah, in the game I'm running I'm using Trickery as "If you use the boon on an attack roll, that attack gains +1d6 damage". Combined with Backstab he's the deadliest bastard in the group, but given the rest of the group is 3 priests and a magician...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
LGD posted:RAW/RAI he's dealing +0 damage. It's basically classic D&D-esque rogue design- massive damage if you've got an advantage over your target, but damage that's inferior to a warrior-type if you're forced into a straight up brawl. Trickery abstracts stuff like feinting or setting up a flank so that rogues can do their thing without it being obnoxious/time consuming/difficult to pull off. Though you can certainly house-rule it. In other questions, has anyone bought Caecras or Kingdom of God? How are the Expert paths in them? (I miss the wiki  )
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 05:46
|
|