|
Goons, I'm new to PF2E. I didn't care about PF1E because lol another 3.x edition, but after I learned that 2E incorporated a lot of D&D 4E-like design concepts, I got into it. At this point I'm just building characters for fun, because I don't know where to find games these days besides the TG recruiting thread, which is pretty dead. Suggestions for where to find games are appreciated. I'm trying to build a wild shape-focused druid at the moment, and I have a few questions: The first question is regarding the free archetype variant rule: I am wanting to take the marshall archetype, which requires proficiency in martial weapons. Druids only get simple weapon proficiency. If I wanted to use the free archetype variant and take the marshall archetype at level 2 as a free archetype, it seems like I would have to play a human in order to get a general feat to take weapon proficiency at level 1, because otherwise your first general feat is level 3. Am I more or less correct in that thinking? If I don't use the free archetype, I can wait until level 3 to get weapon proficiency and take the archetype at level 4. Second, a rule question: I'm looking at power attack and flurry of blows, and I'm not quite sure what the difference between "This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty" and "Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally" is. My understanding is that your first attack rolls at full attack bonus, and the second is at a -5 (usually) penalty. So, presumably, with flurry of blows, you roll two attacks at full bonus and -5. How does power attack differ from that? Does it differ? It feels like it's just talking about if you want to make a third attack after, you'll be making it at the usual -10 penalty associated with a third attack per round. I don't understand why the language is different for the two seemingly-very-similar abilities. Also, has there ever been any clarification on whether wild shape forms are supposed to be able to grapple, trip, etc? Seems like it's been an ambiguous area rules-wise for at least a few years, but I can't find anything recent on whether there's been any errata or whatever since the question was first raised. Now for some thoughts that aren't really questions, but thoughts that maybe I have the wrong idea about that others could correct me on: Druid orders seem a little weird and inconsistently designed. A couple (leaf, storm) provide an extra focus point, while most don't. Even if you want to focus on wild shape, it feels far better to start as leaf order and dip into wild order with the order explorer feat. Plus wild morph is a garbage spell that directly competes with your focus point uses for wild shape. Aside from the ability to fly while casting for all of one minute, I cannot think of a good reason to ever use wild morph over wild shape. I love it conceptually, but mechanically it seems like hot garbage. Plus I love familiars, so leaf order with a dip into wild order is fine by me. I'm kind of bummed about how feat-intensive focusing on wild shape is. If you want to be able to do cool stuff, it requires investiture of basically all of your class feats. This is partly why I'm looking at the free archetype variant, so I can still have something interesting besides just wild shape feats. Druids get absolute rear end for skills, which is a bummer. I feel like you can barely get anything beyond the skills a druid is expected to take. But they're full casters, so gotta have some cons somewhere?  It seems like some people have used multiclass druids to build wild shape melee characters, but for whatever reason I can't find the build(s) I remember having seen anymore. I honestly don't care that much about the full caster aspects of the druid--I just really like wild shape-style gimmicks. I know there's the animal rage barbarian, but that doesn't really scratch the same itch. And since multiclass druids don't get access to higher-end class features, multiclass druid wild shapes are probably pretty meh anyway. So this is a long-winded way of saying that druid is still probably my best bet for the gimmick. Sorry for the ramble. I've been trying to figure out how to bring this stuff up in a more cohesive format, but I'm just kind of fried.
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Those two actions serve different purposes. Ah, I misread power attack's description. I thought it was making two attacks, not one. Derp. Another wild shape related question: wild shape forms don't make "weapon" or "unarmed" strikes, do they? So feats like celestial strikes would not, RAW, apply to wild shape attacks, right? Wild shape is jank in every edition of D&D, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's jank in a not-D&D offshoot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
The animal totem barbarian can't do anything close to what wild shape offers, though. You get one animal feature, not even the full animal form. Can't even swap into a different animal's feature. You can also go dragon barbarian so you can get dragon form, which is effectively a wild shape with only one option--but a very good option. I like the fact that wild shape offers options: if you want to scout, you can become a bird or a rat; If you want to grapple, you become a giant snake or a gorilla; if you want to be fast you become a cheetah or something. Nothing offers that versatility outside of wild shape itself. But yeah, I guess I should accept that druids are still casters and look into learning (and liking) the caster aspect too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 08:58
|
|
|
Even starting with 16 strength your attack bonus will be slightly lower than a proper martial (I think?), so it seems like going fighter for power attack is a better idea, even if its action economy is worse. Initially I wanted to go monk, but fighter also offered attack of opportunity. Monk does have some nice archetype bennies though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
HidaO-Win posted:We had a wild shape Druid in Extinction Curse and the main value they had was as a pinch hitter. Against multiple foes it was casting AoEs and buff spells. Come up against a single tough foe and they animal formed into something big and went toe to toe. Incredibly flexible character. That, in addition to loving hippy dippy woodsy kinda characters, is absolutely my jam.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 13:19
|
|
|
3 Action Economist posted:How often do you need different kinds of animal shapes? Because I'm wondering if Beastkin versatile heritage would work, especially with Critter Shape which gives you b pest form. Beastkin doesn’t really do it either. It’s more akin to animal barbarian than wild shape. You can get pest form too, but eh. The main reason I bounce off casters is that I don’t like learning giant, multi-level spell lists. Once it gets past a certain size I find it tedious rather than interesting. Do we know if the ~Remaster~ is changing druid mechanics at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:If you’re pinning your hopes on the remaster making a wild shape druid less of a spellcaster and more of a shapeshifter melee… keep hoping. Nah, I expected nothing so grandiose. Was mainly curious about stuff like the metal armor change, or maybe “balancing out” the druid orders by making all or none grant focus points.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
IIRC, Paizo hired some of the people who designed D&D 4E when it came time to develop PF2E. As someone who was/is big into D&D 4E, I can tell you that PF2E is unquestionably heavily influenced by D&D 4E design principles. It is very much cut from the same design cloth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:The other difference is that focus spells are, well, spells, meaning that “supernatural” martial classes like the Monk get them, but Fighters do not. This is also somewhat ironic, because the difference discussed above presents a clear justification for Fighters getting powers like this. It makes sense that certain maneuvers could take a lot of Fighter’s stamina, while the lore justification for the 4e version is less clear to me; maybe each encounter power is putting strain on a different muscle? This level of "verisimilitude" is one of the things that 4E design intentionally wanted to get away from. Specifically, a demand for a high standard for versimilitude w/r/t how the design "justifies" why martials can do Cool poo poo, but basically a braindead, uncritical "herp derp magic can do anything" take on why casters can do Cool poo poo. Nobody cares why the fighter can only do one Powerful Shove per fight. It doesn't loving matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:In this case, the issue isn’t a Fighter doing Cool poo poo but a restriction on Fighters doing Cool poo poo. A Fighter than could do multiple Powerful Shoves per fight would be stronger, not weaker. That's not the point. Fighters have always been able to "attack all day." The idea of introducing powers that they have a limit on was (relatively) novel, and the demand was for justification for any limit. Either fighters should be able to do it all day (thus requiring it to be relatively weak), or never, because [extremely poor understanding of physics and physiology]!!! quote:The flip side of “magic can do anything” is “magic can have any drawback.” (Unfortunately various editions of D&D haven’t been very good at taking advantage of this to balance magic.) D&D's magic has never had any substantial drawbacks. Unless you're playing a wild sorcerer or are under the effects of certain spells, there's not even a chance for spells to fail. D&D's magic balance is nonexistent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:You don't aim at what you are shooting at, you aim to arch up and have it come down on them. That's why it can hit from 600 feet away. And probably part of why mastering the longbow takes a hella long time. I'm not sure if you're joking or what, but that's not how bows are/were used. Archery in combat does not look like the movies where people fire arrows high into the sky*. Most shooting-people-with-arrows was done the normal way, where you aim and launch an arrow more or less directly at your target. I interpret the volley trait more as it being difficult to nock, full draw, and launch an arrow when an enemy is close enough that you're worried that they can charge you and stab you before you're able to reach full draw. * There are a couple of very specific instances I can think of where you would fire an arrow in a super-high arc, but they are very niche. One is to harass an opposing army at maximum range, to force the opposition to move closer to your army, and the other is launching a signal arrow that you either need everyone to see or hear. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jul 30, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Nobody who has ever made d&d games has ever thought about the realism of archery in it and you shouldn't either Actually the problem is that they have, and because nerds don't understand anything related to physical exertion, they've completely misunderstood it and made bad design based on their out-of-shape "intuition." Cf. the weird game designer talking about weapon chains using his computer mouse as an example of "how it should work."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Even cursory research suggests that a longbow is less accurate at short range than a shortbow because of the higher draw weight, though? So I'm not sure this is the place to go "lol nerds don't physical". I have no idea what "cursory research" you're citing that indicates that higher draw weights (which are irrespective of "short" and "long" bows, since those things are arbitrary and relative terms) are "less accurate," because that makes no sense. It can be argued that it's more difficult to be accurate with a higher draw weight bow but, again, that has nothing to do with the "size" of the bow, and also says nothing about the innate accuracy of the bow itself. Are you trying to post purposefully wrong poo poo? Andrast posted:The archery in pf2 is fine It is! I never said it wasn't. I was making a point more broadly about how physical exertion tasks are often wildly misunderstood by out-of-shape nerds. I'm also sad that I cannot find the example I am (vaguely) remembering. I think it had to do with a tabletop RPG, but I'm not sure which.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
Scrap Dragon posted:I'm reading over the Agents of Edgewatch AP because I wanted to run a campaign set in Absalom and I can't believe that (spoilers, if you care) the second chapter has your cop player characters busting a strike. Yikes, lmao. Like the players don't have to bust the strike and can even help the the striking workers have their demands met but they're really just sent in there as strike breakers. It also has some really gross anti-union propoganda: they're Kobolds, but only their leader speaks Common and the AP specifically calls out the rank and file kobolds as repeating the leader's demands in common but having no idea what it actually means. Just some real unfortunate implications. So, safe to assume that Agents of Edgewatch's writer, James L. Sutter, is a chud. Good to know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:No. Not safe to assume that. Writing a police procedural does not make you a chud, but gross implicit (I'm being generous) racism and encouraging strike-breaking definitely does. You'd have to be Pretty loving Stupid to miss what you're doing. So, I guess he's either a chud or Pretty loving Stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Reminds me of the first couple of Ultima games, where you started out (and spent most of the game) traipsing across Ye Olde Fantasy Countryside and ended up finding a laser pistol and going to space in a space shuttle and becoming a space ace before being able to access a time machine to go back in time to stop the Big Bad. Then Richard Garriott chickened out and got rid of the space stuff after like Ultima 3. Edited because holy poo poo the denouement of Ultima 1 is even more insane than I remembered. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Aug 2, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
It's one thing to Do A Murderhobo because it's RPG convention and you're not thinking about it too deeply. It's another to to explicitly write it into the fiction as how the world works, in loving detail. Somewhere along the line, somebody should have raised their hand and said "uhhh guys this is hosed up."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
One of the new classes is just a straight up Xenomorph ...that'd rule, actually
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Being able to produce items with different properties (or change an extant item's properties) would be cool, but also probably would be absolute hell to balance. And with a game focusing on pretty tight mechanical balance, I think it makes sense why crafting is boring. Yeah, it's disappointing, but there is absolutely no way you're going to account for all the ways people could create broken-rear end items with a more robust crafting system. And the above posters are also right: the idea that you need to devote a ton of resources to unlock this cool minigame that produces brokenly-powerful poo poo, or you don't and you're stuck with boring gear, is also bad design.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:As I stated before, he's this really groggy guy that has a paradigm in his head for how things "should" work and gets really defensive/hostile when it's challenged. Sounds like a terrible person to play with. Like, "have a stern talking-to about not being a poo poo, or he's disinvited from the game."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:To be honest I'm playing a Rogue in AV and if the fool bard just wants to cast Warp Step, zoom in and eat any AoOs, sing a song to buff my attack, and provide flanking for me then I'd be alright with that. He's contributing far less to the fight than the game expects a player to, so the math on XP budgets for combats is going to be off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Learning the giant spell lists of D&D-like games is the worst part of playing a caster in them. Also, I understand why PF2E doesn't (or maybe can't) do spell selection like D&D 5E does, but 5E's "you can cast any combination of these spells you memorized" is way less fiddly and annoying than the 3.x-style Vancian system that PF2E uses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:Cleanse Cuisine. Sounds like a fad diet TV dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically need to know about this player is that everything is internalized from D&D, and he plays a Bard with Misty Step in 5e. His "headcanon" version of the Bard is "extremely mobile". So we have a class fantasy that he's trying to play at the detriment of...well...just about anything. That's not great. "Bard = Zoomies" is such a specific, weird, and also mostly-wrong class fantasy. By no means do I think everybody has to (or even should!) stick to the stereotypical class fantasy, but that one's a doozy. And it's not even, like, a fantasy that does anything. It just zooms around. To what end? "I dunno, flanks I guess."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:RAW, no. They can gain them though. I know a monster that appears early in Abomination Vaults covers characters with oil, and if they crit fail while affected by the oil they drop their weapon. Critical fumbles are also going to happen more often to characters who do more rolling--which is to say, it's going to hurt martials more than casters*. Because of course it would. Every dumb loving mechanic like this has always hurt martials more than the ~Enlightened Spellcaster Caste~. * Both because casters aren't making as many attacks as martials, and doubly because a lot of spells rely on the target making a roll, rather than the caster.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:Our group really likes the critical fumble and hit decks, but I can see them being pretty polarizing. They are a good way to encourage characters to do something besides 3 attacks in a round because just missing on an attack you thought you were going to miss anyway doesn't really hurt too bad in my mind. If you use the variant rule where the caster rolls the saving throw, rather than the target (which largely duplicates D&D4E's design of turning fortitude/reflex/will into "non-AC defenses"), I would be more on board with it, but it would still affect martials significantly more, because 1) nearly all spells use up two actions, so casters still have fewer actions to potentially roll on in a given round, and 2) a whole lot of spells that are very much worth using don't involve an attack roll or a saving throw roll. I suppose you could roll a d20 every time the caster casts a spell and if they get a 1 or a 20 you could try incorporating the deck, but unless the deck is designed to account for non-attack actions, most of those effects will probably be non-functional if you fumble or "crit" when casting Bless or something. As for disincentivizing 3-attacking, I think the gigantic to-hit penalties are already pretty good at incentivizing doing something else. If the DM (...does PF call it a DM?) points out to a 3-attack player that they have missed literally seven third attacks in a row because of the massive penalty, maybe the player would figure out there are better things to do with their third action. Or maybe they'd be a giant baby and flip the table while shouting that that's proof that the system is FUKKEN TRASH!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:Still a record setting jump that they can do at anytime, but like a magic user can just cast "jump" at level 1 and jump 30 feet. I feel like you need to give martial characters magical powers just to keep up with the power curve. Purely physical stuff just doesn't cut it. To be fair, the problem with skills is that casters get just as many, if not more, skills than martials, and casters who invest in strength are going to be able to just as impressive physical feats. As long as there's no mechanical support for "martial prowess" being limited to martial classes, it means that it just turns into yet another thing that casters can poach. Also, one could argue that Jump takes a spell slot, and therefore is limited usage, whereas "can [long jump] all day" as the old dipshit saying went. It'd be silly to completely deprecate the spell but, on the other hand, it's a lame spell. Chevy Slyme posted:Honestly, crit fails on recall knowledge that a player has actually invested in being good at are rare enough that my initial instinct with the mastermind rogue is to lie to them, and let them have the flatfoot/sneak just to better sell the lie. That kinda steals the thunder of the Thaumaturge a bit, though, since the Thau's gimmick is "believing something absurd hard enough that they force it to become true." Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Sep 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Fair enough--the athletics skill and strength are a poor example, because strength is... basically rear end for most classes besides martials, and even some martials can pretty safely ignore it. I still think the point applies to other skills that are tied to stats that casters aren't inclined to completely ignore. I suppose there is somewhat of a mechanical precedent for "martial only" skill feats, since some thief-y skill feats are limited to rogues (and swashbucklers?), but that feels a little too far in the opposite direction of being overly limited.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:I'm not sure I agree - by level 8 Sudden Leap is a thing. With Master Athletics, 18 Str, and a +1 item, you can expect jumping 20-30 feet in the air nonmagically to be a thing, which is pretty outside of real life physics. Mastery in a skill makes you Jump Good. big fuckin wow meanwhile by level 8 the sorcerer can... gently caress it, you fill in the blank Sincere question: how often are peoples' characters using Big Jumps in games? I understand that you can use Quick Jump as a way to bypass difficult terrain, thus making it actually useful in combat, but how often are people doing super jumps to ascend tall buildings or some poo poo? Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Sep 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:The point was that even martials are exhibiting superhuman capabilities. Tripling the current "best athlete in the loving world"-level high jump is pretty supernatural to me, but then again I'm not the sort of boring-rear end grog that gets mad at martials doing cool poo poo, so Yes, I realize that. I also recognize that jumps real good is a pretty pathetic example of being superhuman when we are comparing to characters who can literally fly and conjure exploding balls of fire from their hands. It's a 'technically correct' argument that misses the entire point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Kinda sounds like Christian reasoning where they think the only reason everyone isn't a murdering rapist child molester is because of fear of God, so atheists who don't believe in Hell are inherently dangerous people because they have no reason not to give in to all their evil urges. People don't go through life worrying about the afterlife every day. Even believers do "bad" things and hope they get the chance to repent later. I think a simpler explanation for this one is "main character syndrome" insofar as a lot of people think they are always in the right, and therefore anything they do or think therefore must be correct, or at least can be justified. And they'll twist themselves into knots to come up with ad hoc reasons for why shouting the N-word at a small child and throwing rocks at them was totally justified, because... even though the kid hadn't done anything wrong, clearly that kid was gonna grow up to be a murderous, thieving thug. Introspection is something a whole lotta people straight up don't do. Basically, very few people think of themselves as evil or bad. They may necessarily have incredibly warped worldviews in order to come up with reasons why they're not, but human beings aren't exactly know for being perfectly logical or rational. Also, alignment is loving garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
"Our method of disincentivizing magi spamming spellstrike every round is to make spellstrike fuckin terrible. Big brain!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
Wild that it took blowing up spell schools for people to realize that wizards are a boring-rear end uninspired concept.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:And fighter is the default weapon user. Most other martials are “what if fighter but [twist]?” I actually think fighter and wizard (or "magic-user" in OD&D) are boring, uninspired classes that should be more like "base classes" that your character grows out of and into a more interesting specialty class, than actual, full classes. I recognize that that style of character development wouldn't work in the D&D-style character development paradigm, but that's really the only way I feel like fighters and wizards have a purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
The Bee posted:It feels almost like a symptom of base class drift. You had No Magic Man, Magic Man, and God Magic Man as your original three classes, and those really kinda covered all the bases you could possibly think of. Starting with the Rogue, what a base class meant started to get more specific and narrow in fantasy, and that means the original three catch-alls start to feel increasingly weird and nebulous. Cleric at least has the unique identity of being the only direct conduit to a god, and that's mostly because the other god focused classes either stopped being about gods or stopped existing in recent materials. But the fact that Fighters coexist with more specific fantasies like Barbarians and Rangers has always been so weird. Cleric was not one of the first three classes. Cleric was, like, eighth or something. Possibly even later than that. Cleric, for reference, came after vampire. Yeah, that was a class for a bit. But yes, your general point still stands. (D&D clerics also suffer from being over-broad, especially with their five million domains that let them pretend they're druids and paladins, among other things.) Edit: honestly, a lot of D&D classes butt up against each others' niches or straight up overlap far more than they should. I like "nature-lover" and "bow-user" concepts, but rangers have struggled to find a proper niche since their creation. Which sucks, because a bow-user with nature magic is absolutely my jam, but they almost always end up being half-baked rear end. PF2E's ranger seems... better? But I'm still not entirely convinced they justify their existence as an entirely separate class. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Sep 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Wasn't the original three Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric, with Thief coming out next and Paladin as some sorta superclass? Ah, it looks like cleric was one of the original classes by the time the original boxed set came around. HidaO-Win posted:Anyone got any details on OD&D having Vampire as a class as I’m fascinated. Wikipedia posted:The vampire was one of the earliest creatures introduced in the Dungeons & Dragons game. The vampire as a player character concept was present in Dave Arneson's playtest group for the original version of the rules. It led to the creation of a vampire-hunter, which became the basis of the cleric class. As for stats and design, I don't know where to find that. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Sep 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
I knew about leshies but, until this diversion, I didn't know about ghorans. As someone who really digs Guild Wars 2's sylvari race, I think they'd be really need to play, but I'd probably get "a whale eye" if I ever tried. Admittedly, that rare race really is numerically rare, so it's harder to justify. Also yeah echoing the folks who point out that fantasy racism that results in direct denial of service is, in fact, a form of "making it unpleasant and difficult."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
Azhais posted:"I won't make it unpleasant for you but you will have problems with things like basic lodgings" Except that's not what was said. You don't get to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You can either say "Ok I won't make it unpleasant or difficult but you will run into different reactions... even for things like lodging and basic supplies," or you can say "you will have problems... with lodging." Those statements are saying fundamentally different things. Normal people are going to interpret "run into different reactions" as people being weirded out by you. And immediately preceding that remark is reassuring the player that their choice will not cause major problems. And then the first "reaction" is to cause problems for the player, which is a betrayal of what they'd been told. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Oct 2, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
I thought lawful and chaotic don't exist as concepts in the remaster, so there'd be no need to mention them?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I think I've figured out what's giving me the cognitive dissonance: it's referring to these unusual characters as freaks and weirdos, but then asking them to be treated as though their existence in a certain area is the most normal thing in the world. Thus functionally making the freaks and weirdos neither freaky nor weird. I just can't get behind that, but if you can: more power to you. Nobody said that random NPCs shouldn't act like they're weird as gently caress. They said the NPCs shouldn't default to real-world racism and prejudice. Seriously, can you not read? It's like you saw that one sentence out of this entire discussion completely absent of context and are going off on a continuous tear about how evil we all think GMs are for not treating our outlandish characters as just-another-Joe-on-the-street. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 22:57
|
|