WW/OP is really bad about eratas compaioed to WoTC
I have decided to end my cruisaide against the use of [tag:nwod-god-machine] with [tag:nwod]. At least for Crossover games. It is still my beleif that a Crossover game is normally a nwod-god-machine only game with some ported content. But I don't care anymore how it is tagged.
Onyx Path Devs are on the Onyx Path Forums (Particyularly Rose Baily (Vampire/Demon), and some freelancers show up in RPG.Net and very rarely here. Also Periodically a Onyx Path Dev will show up on /tg/ and answer all questions (Edwin or eric or something like that I can't remember the name).
The Dual Senses rule allows a Werewolf to see across the Gauntlet with two penalties, firstly they cannot see clearly, the vision they get is blurred and fogged. The second penalty is of course not being able to see the side of the Gauntlet you're standing in. The only way you can see clearly i...
Speaking for myself, I generally prefer to play rather than GM. I ended up GMing Shadowrun years ago because it was the only way I'd get to play in that world/system. And I'm only GMing D&D 3.5 now, because our other game kept getting postponed due to unavailability, and nobody else was willing to run it. (and now, my game keeps getting postponed due to illness, and the other game is running on schedule, minus some players)
I prefer not to GM, because I don't want that responsibility? Maybe. But, more like, I don't want to run the whole world & worry about balanced encounters etc. Much more fun to just embody one character, to me.
Glaivelock build doesn't require weapons, and there are a list of stackable bonuses too.
Add to that a dip into Battledancer, and with Saint's AC bonus... Feral too. You'd be rocking AC so high armor would seem redundant. The only thing the build's lacking is SR and reactive resistance but I can deal.
Dip Binder so you don't have to worry about Hellfire Warlock's con drain and you don't have to get items to do that.
Between DR, AC, and fast healing... You'd be one tough cookie.
VoP is an universally weak option, as it's always better to have adaptable money-derived benefits than fixed benefits (and pure numbers-wise, you're losing effective bonuses compared to someone using the wealth expected at any given level).
From a purely optimisation-for-power standpoint, it's a bad choice.
I've used it when optimising for other considerations, deliberately reducing the complexity and power of my character.
> Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy. [emphasis mine]
it would still be my allotment, and the "party fund" is not increasing shares to the party.
It is "as needed for the good of the party"
"As needed for the success of the mission"
"As needed to further the good cause we work for"
It's essentially a pool of money everyone contributes to and people take when needed. Thus far we haven't touched it.
A good portion could vary alot. Most treasure items would go to the party member that needs them the most regardless (last encounter we had a good 75% of the loot went to one dude, it was all caster stuff and he was the only caster in the party).
The only thing that gets split in "shares" in this party is the stuff we sell.
Hmm... Can Subduing Strike make Eldritch Glaive nonlethal? That would be quite interesting... and make Vow of Peace a viable option.
Finally dropping swordsage if I can get the Saint template.
But I might consider dropping Swordsage if I can't still... I need to chat with my DM the implications of the Saint template, how they interact with say Hellfire Warlock (I know there's a flavor adaptation in there, but that's DM option).
Dropping Phrenic altogether too I think... Too much to worry about.
There's also the problem that one of my party members is Lawful Evil... And another is Chaotic Good leaning towards Chaotic Neutral. The CG is the Hulk, and him I can work on and steer probably. The LE is the Trip God (now with demonic wings). He's not an outsider, but I doubt he'd be willing to convert. I'd be worried that that would hurt my Sainthood.
Hey, I have a question about posting links... When I tried to post a link to some creatures from the compendium it says that I'm not allowed to post links from D&Dinsider; however, I got the links originally from a question I asked previously...
ARRG is swiftly becoming my favourite reference guide for Fate implementations.
I really REALLY like going back to the choose-as-you-go initiative order.
> The best way to understand stress is that it represents all the various reasons why you just barely avoid taking the full force of an attack. [...] Stress boxes also represent a loss of momentum—you only have so many last-second saves in you before you’ve got to face the music.
Evil Hat is getting better and better at explaining Fate mechanics.
Although ARRG is using mental and physical stress boxes, and I'm still not seeing a good reason for that beyond "legacy."
At some point along here I'm going to write up "BESW's sweet spot for the Fate dials."
Oh, and the book uses frames/pages from the actual comics to illustrate the mechanics in action.
Oooer. They've got a group pool of consequences which simultaneously do four things: It lets the party hang on through ridiculously challenging events; it modles the impact of the party's actions on the environment; it encourages the group to clean up its messes (as you have to remove a mild or moderate collateral consequence right away or it sticks around for a long time); and it forces character and setting development (as severe and extreme consequences help define the next story).
I have realised I have a destructive pattern I am now catching and avoiding:
1. Decide I want to do a thing. 2. Start doing the thing. 3. Doing the thing is going pretty well. Get more ambitious, and decide I want to do some extra things too. 4. The extra things prove difficult/impossible. 5. Stop doing the thing AND the extra things.
I am tuning down #3 where I think I should just finish #2 before #3. I am also replacing #5 with "Stop doing the extra things, just do the original thing."
ARRG has subsystems dealing with inventing Weird Things and figuring out what Weird Things the PCs are encountering. In both systems, there's a brilliant little bit of Fate narrative authority:
When Action Scientists are hypothesising about Weird Science, they're never wrong. They either figure out what Weird Science is happening, or they don't, but they're never WRONG about an answer they come up with. This means the players get to tell the GM significant things about the plot.
And when Action Scientists are inventing Weird Things, they never fail: instead the invention process's mechanical purpose is to figure out what it does well and what its flaws are, and whether the players or the GM get to choose for each of those.
So if I turn on my calibrifier, and unexpectedly it begins melting and channeling lightning from the sky, my character could shout out over the racket: "THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITY MUST HAVE REVERSED THE POLARITY!!" - they might never find out whether that was truly the case, but because they guessed it was, that's what was happening?
So it starts with a series of opposed checks by all the Action Scientists involved in the brainstorm. The winner of each round gets to establish a fact related to the Weird Thing they're trying to figure out.
If, after three rounds of this, there aren't at least three facts, they don't have enough information to form a hypothesis. This means the GM gets to place an aspect like Science can't explain it! to represent their puzzlement.
In fact, that part of the book concludes with a few paragraphs about how the GM may get to just sit back and listen during a brainstorm, but should always be ready to take advantage of opportunities to compel them for drama.
> “Seems like a Team Player wouldn’t be so adamant about advancing his own ideas when another scientist’s have already gained traction. I don’t know; maybe it’s just me.”
> “Strong and weak forces? Really? And not the Freemasons? Does that sound like something a Conspiracy Theorist would buy into?”