« first day (2844 days earlier)      last day (1202 days later) » 

4:31 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body: he reason is because a by user45789 on rpg.SE (@doppelgreener)
 
 
3 hours later…
7:16 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url in title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, +1 more: mumybear.com/true-trim-forskolin/ by aneekai on rpg.SE (@doppelgreener)
 
 
2 hours later…
8:51 AM
My cleric would like to have a talk with you, sir.
 
9:50 AM
Hey guys I'm looking to have an effect on a home brew wild magic table, that's a massive explosion of energy that deals a lot of damage (of which the sorcerer has limited choice of who she can allow to be immune to this from the effect [that element i'm still deliberating]) then instantly knocks the character unconscious for 8 hours.
What level of damage should this be? as in, how many dice should I roll for this effect to be worth the 8 hour knock out? should I have then go up each level if so how?
 
Sounds like you're using a D&D-like system. Which one?
 
D&D 5e
sorry should have specified
 
 
3 hours later…
12:46 PM
@Youjay This sounds pretty similar to the 7-8 effect: casting a level 3 fireball centered on yourself.
Given that this can be hit the first time a level 1 sorcerer ever casts a spell, this could wipe out the whole party.
 
hey there @SoraTamashii, long time no see!
 
Also compare to 65-66 (4d10 lightning, 3 targets of your choice) and 83-84, everyone else takes 1d10 necrotic (and you heal that amount)
Hey there, @Shalvenay
@Youjay Rereading, "worth" seems to imply that these effects are necessarily good. Consider turning into a potted plant, polymorphing yourself into a sheep, or losing the ability to speak (and thus cast verbal spells) for a minute.
 
1:25 PM
Hiya, Sha! It's been a while. :)
 
1:36 PM
@SoraTamashii how've things been? busy?
 
Ben
1:57 PM
So. First TPK. three sessions in
All because the bad guy used blur
So now I need to figure out a way that I can mechanically benefit from having a revenge plot against this one specific bad guy
(Long story short we got revived after the fight)
 
 
5 hours later…
6:35 PM
hey there @Zachiel
 
hey
Before you ask: I'm fine thanks. I'm really immersed in a story about several confliting NPCs each with their own objectives all being part of the same tournament, and I want lessons from the DM after this is over. I won't probably get 'em but whatever.
Also, I'd like to understand if Pathfinder monsters are harder than 3.5e monsters or if we're just facing a lot of hard encounters because Wrath of the Righteous is a Mythic adventure path.
 
6:52 PM
@Zachiel Pathfinder monsters will seem harder if the adventure was originally made for 3.5
 
@MikeQ seem?
(I have a 3.0 adventure and I'd like to build more challenging encounters. Last time I played it under 3.5e rules and at a certain point I started "cheating" on the CR - like adding 3 HD to every monster type whose CR increases every 4 additional levels.)
 
Paizo's early published modules were designed for 3.5e, and ported into the Pathfinder system. The monsters and challenges were translated almost directly, whereas some of the player classes in Pathfinder were not as strong as they were in 3.5e.
 
@MikeQ Wrath was for PF already, and it's my only PF game as of now. I like how hard it is, we're using Path of War and still encounters are scary.
 
Oh right. Wrath of the Righteous. That one. (shudders)
 
@MikeQ I noticed that our wizard is weaker. Might also be because I'm used to blasters and the campaign is against fire-immune, often cold-immune enemies.
Also, he rolled 15 damage on a lvl 8 mythic lightning bolt (8d8). Same when dealing 9 damage with a lvl 7 lightning bolt (7d6) against several 10hp enemies.
I'll be back someday, bye everyone!
 
7:05 PM
@Shalvenay, You know it. lol You?
 
@SoraTamashii fairly quiet. how looks your schedule upcoming, still busy as?
 
Unfortunately, yeah. My Tuesday mornings are consistently open, though.
 
@SoraTamashii oof. that's about as useless as it gets :/
 
I GMed Masters of Umdaar today, and I managed pacing! Probably for the first time, like, ever!
 
Congrats anaphory!
 
7:55 PM
@Anaphory Hooray! Good job!
 
@Anaphory Give us the juicy details please, I'd like to hear your suggestions on how to manage pacing properly
 
8:48 PM
@Anaphory neato, how did you like the system?
 
9:07 PM
@MikeQ I don't actually know. I did pause after every section for stretching legs and getting drinks from the bar, and I knew that I'd have a bit less than one hour for each section. The only thing I did consciously except for checking the time at every break spot was explicitly fast-forward more often, playing much more in distinct scenes than I'm used to.
@trogdor Approaches are hard, I'm not sure what I think of them. People were using their top approaches often, but not trying to shoehorn them into everything, very nicely, but I found it often hard to match a description to an approach, and a lot of explicit discussion was necessary to be on the same page about which one would apply.
The fate point mechanics worked, but didn't sing, because at the time when two players were low on fate points, I did not find good compels.
Creating advantage, stacking free invokes and using them worked very nicely.
 
@Anaphory Scenes are important!
 
@BESW The way the introductory adventure is written really helps with running it like that!
 
@Anaphory Would it have helped if they were called Flair, Focus, Force, Guile, Haste, and Intellect?
 
@Anaphory ah that's a fate accelerated thing
 
@BESW Possibly, I need to think about those terms in more detail, but terminology is definitely a big part of the problem.
 
9:15 PM
yeah re-naming them could be useful
 
I think "Clever" and "Quick" are big offenders.
 
@BESW I find “Flashy” really difficult. “Quick” I mind very little.
 
yeah sometimes I get confused between clever and careful too
cause like,... sometimes a thing is kinda both you know?
 
@trogdor And that.
 
This is also one reason I want to experiment with aspect-only Fate.
 
9:19 PM
One of the two new players ended up with the “ancient smartass hag” and played very whacky and somewhat contrarian. For setting general expectations, a short discussion in the first break helped. He could have done with a better discussion about what his concept means (not just me telling him, but more explicit discussion of it and why it's awesome, or how to change it) to have more fun.
 
yeah I wouldn't be surprised if I am not the only one who has that specific problem
 
@BESW With a +1 for any aspect that applies?
 
@Anaphory Any of your character aspects that applies, and +2 if it's your high concept.
 
Yes, that does sound like a good mode.
 
(See Three Rocketeers, Fate of the TMNT, etc.)
 
9:52 PM
I feel like Approaches are one reason I've never really been into the idea of FAE. I can see why it utilizes them; it does make things faster to set up if you're not choosing specific skills and areas of focus but rather broad tactics. But... I feel like it has less personality, and some of the speed in setup might be lost in situations like the ones described above: people not having the same idea of what a vague term means or how it applies.
 
yeah
it has those issues for sure
 
The same things that make it flexible seem to make it potentially more difficult to deal with, heh.
 
I don't personally like Fae as much as "normal" fate
 
10:08 PM
I like how it feels TV-ish, if that's the sort of thing we want to play.
But the specifics are, yeah. Could use tweaking.
(And only a very specific, if common, kind of TV writing.)
(Like, Mission: Impossible would work better in aspect-only.)
 
@BESW I think I will use aspect-only in the future. I should (re-)read some of those rule sets before that.
 
@Anaphory Aspects Only described generically in the Fate Toolkit.
No-skill swashbuckling in Three Rocketeers.
 
 
1 hour later…
11:42 PM
I just misread "human bandit" as "human biscuit." Was confused, then amused.
 
human biscuits,... yum?
 
Reminds me of treats we used to give our dogs when I was a kid.
 
oh god wat
I mean,... there isn't technically,... something wrong with that
but jeez
 
It took me a while to remember what they were even called, but I remembered the product quite vividly. :v
 
I don't think it's horrible to buy those,... but who decided they needed to make dog treats that make it look like fido is eating people?
"this is what everyone wants for their pet"
XD
 
11:57 PM
Evidently they're pretty old! This ad is from 1972:
 

« first day (2844 days earlier)      last day (1202 days later) »