@doppelgreener Nice and thin/lightweight ones? I believe you'll be surprised =)
Also: it's a wonder for keeping your shirts clean, and in an emergency you can rip off your outer shirt for tourniquet/bandaging and still be clothed =)
@nitsua60 During a time in my life when I found myself walking on the side of the road at night semi-regularly, I'd wear a white undershirt so no matter what my outfit was, I could take off the outer shirt and become very visible.
after improving the edit I noticed that the user who proposed the edit is probably a second account of the same person who asked the question, which seems odd to me
so I tried to rollback the question to before the suggest edit, but that didn't work
I wish my players would respond to communications when trying to schedule games :|
"Hey guys is it ok if we play next week with X absent and the week after that with Y absent? The alternative is to wait until September but I wouldn't like to" <no response>
It's annoying that they won't reply because I really need to know if they're cool with skipping a game each. (we did agree early on that we'd play more often than before, but still... they'd probably not want to miss session 1.
obviously waiting forlornly for the OP of rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/129255/… to come back and tell us what he's actually playing but I'm wondering if there's any surprise system he could be playing that does actually change what the answer is
@Sdjz ooh, that's the kind of thing I was curious about
given he's specifically saying "critical fail" it seems unlike it's that either, but you never know, could turn out to be one of those people that's playing a hodgepodge mishmash of systems.
@kviiri 3.X has critical threat/confirmation, so you roll the attack a second time (where a hit = crit, miss = normal hit) - 4e's seems like a simplified version of that
not sure exactly how it works in 4e, but in 3e a critical hit means you roll weapon damage twice and add your flat bonuses to damage twice but by and large you do NOT roll "additional dice" twice (e.g. sneak attack or a flaming weapon)
oh, sure, by default it was double damage but some weapons/abilities could make it 3x or 4x
notable in 5e the rule is opposite - your flat bonuses are only applied once but all the dice you would've rolled get doubled/rolled twice
In 4e, you maximize the normal dice you'd roll, and then you roll additional non-maximized dice based on the kind of magic weapon you have (usually 1dsomething per + on the weapon).
Many people like rolling dice. I remember the first time one of my players rolled the damage for a Fireball - everyone on the table was so happy to see those rolls, add up the numbers and realize how many grilled Goblins they would get.
I'm not a huge friend of critical hits and especially fails as a mechanic, and crit confirmation sounds a bit weird to me since they don't actually sound very "critical".
The urge to answer this question "how can I pick my players' brains" with "use an ice pick" was almost overwhelming. I empathize with the asker, but I think it's going to take some work to get it to fit.
Like, if you've got an axe that deals 1d8 damage, and your ability mod is +4 and you're using a +2 weapon with +1d6 per plus, then a basic attack would be 1d8+6 and a critical with a basic attack would be 2d6+14.
@BESW I am amused to note in your example that the critical roll you would make is almost identical to just doubling the normal damage (the mean/median of 2d8+12 being the same as 2d6+14)
obviously doesn't hold true in most cases by the look of it though
Hmm, let's go extreme: a level 29 daily power that deals 7[W] damage with the same axe but it's got a +6 enchantment with d12-per-plus. That's... let's say a normal roll would be 7d8+14, for an average of ~46 damage and a max of 70. And a crit would be 70+6d12, for an average of 109.
Should be noted that crits are relatively less "critical" in 4e too, by virtue of attacks in general doing less damage in proportion to hit points available.
I'm tempted to write up a slight frame challenge - (he's requested a RAW answer and this wouldn't exactly be that). Most teleports have a chance to fail, with a location as unfamilair as a monster's stomach, even if DM allows he only has a 25% chance of success and he could crush himself or an ally instead, let that happen and he'd quickly learn it wasn't an effective use of a level 7 spell slot.
It could be a more interesting way to resolve it at the table, though.
I mean compared to the damage that another level 7 spell could do it's a pointless and inefficient gamble by the player - it just sounds cool in principle.
@Tiggerous the thing is it is not difficult to imagine a circumstance where "25% chance of instantly murdering creature with a rock, 75% chance of killing myself" would be an acceptable gamble. If your only disincentive to the action is "well, it's super risky!" there will inevitably be a situation where the risk becomes worth it
I didn't see anyone challenging what was meant by area. The spell description seems to be using the definition of area as "A region or part of a town, a country, or the world", and not as "a part of an object."
@Carcer Long shots do make for entertaining stories.
@Carcer Sounds like an interesting story to me! Though I'd probably make it 25% of dealing a comparable amount of damage to other level 7 spells, 65% chance of rock appearing somewhere else harmlessly, 10% damage of hitting an ally / yourself.
Wouldn't it be great if an RPG system was nice and strictly typed like that (PF2 appears to be trying something like this though, which is probably why I'm so fond of it)
@Carcer I'd settle for a defined interface system. I think DnD really needs an ontology to define some of the contentious relationships.... or that's just to use sparql queries.
I think it's especially fine if people remember that a question can have many valid answers, so a good answer is just one that says "here is a feature which might break if you do this", they don't have to be a comprehensive list
@Carcer Fair enough, though D&D derivatives until PF2 haven't really defined those tags explicitly (just sometimes statements of e.g. "this is a fear effect" and such); Pathfinder 2e explicitly says tags exist (Traits) and "things" and Traits have an "is-a" relationship (Strike is-an Attack Action, Somatic Casting is-a Manipulate Action, the bestiary Wererat Rogue is-a Beast & is-an Evil creature & is-a Werecreature, etc.)
@Delioth Sure. I wasn't commenting really about D&D in particular, but as a system I am almost certain I have seen that in other games (albeit none are immediately springing to mind, and those games might well actually have been CRPGs or similar)
Cultist Simulator is actually the game that's springing immediately to mind, thinking about it, all cards have aspects (tags, sometimes with a value) and for the most part how things behave in that game is determined largely by what aspects they have
I hope they get rid of the "animal" vs "magical beast" label, and other inconsistent applications of arbitrary realism into their explicit fantasy world
is-a only becomes an issue if your design makes it an issue and doesn't state how to deal with it (if you have an effect that functions differently on square and on a circle, which takes precedence?)
Sigh. It seems like unnecessary extra levels of complexity.
5e did the smart thing and just grouped them together as "Beasts", because again, it's a fantastical world and it's silly for Paizo to pretend that certain animals are more or less natural than others
@ColinGross At that point though you can always explicitly define what the behavior should have been - if it's assume-worst, creator-of-effect-chooses, target-chooses, or higher-in-list-has-precedence
Also to be fair on the Animal/Beast divide, they're still in first version of playtest and that distinction could go away
And it looks like the only distinction is Intelligence anyways - Animals can't speak or reason and usually don't have >3 Int; Beasts may be able to do those things and have 4+ Int
Oh. I've only seen bits and pieces of the playtest material. Enough to get a gist of how the system works, but not enough to know all the classes and options. How do rangers work in 2e?
They've got a Hunt Target action (which lasts for a dayish)
Some bonuses when tracking their hunted target, as well as reducing the multiple attack penalty against them
AFAIK there's not much that actually hinges on any creature-types, because things that were previously distinct on creature types (type, subtype) are now just Traits, same as any others
That's good to hear. It was always a bother trying to remember which Knowledge skill applied to which creature type, to the point that I just let my players pick a skill that seems roughly applicable
Which also conveniently means stuff like Werewolves don't have to be exceptions (stuff like having the Shapechanger type and multiple subtypes and special rules), they just have the Beast, Humanoid, Human, and Werecreature Traits
So if an effect e.g. did +1 damage to Beasts, that would parse to "anything with the Beast Trait", so werewolves would take the extra (As opposed to 1e where it might affect things with the Magical Beast Type... which werewolves aren't but can really seem like)
Though I do think there are defined knowledge skills to ID creatures based on traits, just that you can use any trait they have. Plus Knowledge skills are actually only like 4 skills now
(outside of Lore, which is arbitrarily defined and can be anything from "Skeleton Lore" to "Pottery Lore" to "Gladiator Lore")
Ok. Do potential clerics still need encyclopaedic knowledge of the deities, their domains/subdomains, favored weapons, etc etc? Or can they just pick their features without bothering with the humongous list of deities?
Also I have to backtrack on the knowledge-skill-ID based on traits. There's just the Recall Knowledge action for the 5 knowledge-ish skills and Lore (Nature, Occultism, Arcana, Religion, Society), and each isn't strictly defined, just "creatures with X significance" and such
They do still go based on Deities but the list is smaller (no splatbooks yet) and really well organized
Different domains, mostly. Arcana is used for magical stuff, Occultism is used for more esoteric metaphysical and such, Religion is used for deities and divine readings and such
There are exactly 4 10-level spell lists, not a "Bard Spell List", "Sorcerer/Wizard List", etc. I'm not sure on the typed scrolls, lemme check
Yeah, looks like scrolls aren't typed at all
They just "are"
As a bonus, Sorcerers who have a bloodline that gives them Arcane spells can take a feat that lets them choose a scroll they have each day and count that spell as part of their spells known, so that's kinda neat
Also spells (like many options) have a Rarity attached, and you have to find e.g. scrolls or a spellbook containing a spell to ever learn it if it's Uncommon or rarer. So things like Blood Money that was discovered once and unique to one guy's spellbook aren't just always-options, RAW you have to go recover that spellbook and use the relevant skill to Learn the spell (either add it to your spellbook or add it to your Repertoire if you're a Spontaneous caster)
Oooh, and if the spell is on your spell list you never need to make a check to figure out what's on the scroll, you just know what it is after a minute of studying
Yeah. They make Alchemical Items using their Resonance
Technically everyone can make the same Alchemical Items as Alchemists, but others have to spend monies and don't get to heighten bombs (like Alchemists at level 3 have a feature that heightens bombs into level 3 items, which doubles their damage)
Well, while it sounds like they're making a lot of good changes, I don't think I'll be touching it anytime soon. I'll stick to my awkward homebrewed/houseruled PFe1 ruleset.
@MikeQ And the idea of "trust but verify" is where the wizard turns on true sight to see what the rogue is up to, and whether the daggers are drawn or not. ;)
Looks like it from my perspective too. The system (program) looks pretty neat... but it kinda tiptoes the line between RPG and Arqade. Also seems super-Opinion-based
The computer role-playing game DNDBBS (a text adventure for BBSes) has the stats Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Piety. There's no Charisma score.
Are the stats DNDBBS uses standard D&D?
Huh. Link doesn't really strike me as a Ranger type I guess. I'd place him somewhere between a Fighter and a Ranger, or maybe a Paladin who's not super-overt
@Delioth I've always wanted to try out a "mime" character, as a high level deaf-curse Oracle / Bard (/mystic theurge?) and see what wacky hijinks it can achieve
@MikeQ Sadly if you play Bard you need some houserules since RAW a deaf bard has like a 50% chance to fail any performance with sound components and Silent spell and such don't help
I honestly just feel like rangers are too biased towards a nature-focus (a la hunting/tracking targets, defining enemies, scouting areas, and protecting nature)
Paladins don't have to have spells in the same way Rangers don't
And Paladins don't just go around to kill evil things, that's a super-shallow reading of Paladins. IMHO they exist as martial servants of their god... And Link's definitely following the will if not the word of the Goddess Hylia
> X is a Fighter with the Brawler Archetype and a level in Monk with Scaled Fist > Nah, X is a Bloodrager with Bloody-Knuckled Rowdy and a VMC in Oracle > OTOH X is a ... etc etc
And I still cant find my 1e C&S book. Arrgggh. My old DM from high school just found out that his 2e Chainmail rules might be worth something. He saw one sold in eBay for 600 bucks. I asked him: Gonna sell yours? He said "Nope."
@Delioth Or because we pounded down too many pitchers of beer. C&S was big on "schools of magic"
I mean, per what he's got in the actual books, a level 20 Fighter isn't out of the question. But neither is a level 3 Wizard with some extra proficiencies in a world of level 1's
@Yuuki isn't it meant to be the case that he's really kind of hiding his power level most of the time? Meant to be a guide to the peoples of middle earth, not just solving all their problems?
@Maximillian For my PF game. Party is 11th level. They're going to a town and hunting spies. As per previous suggestions, I'm going to distribute the spies (and their encoded messages) in different areas, effectively partitioning certain buildings/areas into "mini dungeons" (rather than having one big dungeon)
The areas I think I want are: some rooftops and alleyways (maybe with snipers? ninjas?), a brewery/lab (with alchemists, beer oozes, and mutants), and possibly some music/art-themed zone (maybe a theater or circus?)
Leaning that way. It's in a high-magic setting and I have an "anything goes" attitude toward wordbuilding, so monsters aren't out of the question. Although due to the urban environment, I'd like to stay away from big monsters, weather effects, and large-scale AOEs.
The computer role-playing game DNDBBS (a text adventure for BBSes) has the stats Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Piety. There's no Charisma score.
Are the stats DNDBBS uses standard D&D?
