D&D 4e: This edition sucks edition - Games

[QUOTE=elowin;47093405]The wounds and vigor system still doesn't make much sense. Take for example, a fireball. You're caught in the middle of a giant, fiery explosion, you fail your reflex roll for half damage, you take the full blunt of it. Let's say it does 8d6 damage. An average person has somewhere around five to ten HP. How do you avoid this damage? It's literally an explosion of fire, right in your face, with enough power to kill a normal person a dozen times over. You're getting fucking scorched. The only thing protecting you in this circumstance is the fact that you're a mythological being equivalent in power to Achilles. Also, one of my favorite examples, poisoned weapons. How the fuck does a poison that has to go into your bloodstream work if an attack is "just a scratch"? It absolutely doesn't work. At all. Thus you can only assume that you got stabbed well and good, letting the poison spread in your bloodstream. there's also the fact that the wounds and vigor system completely erodes what little semblance of balance that existed in D&D to begin with, but that's a completely different issue altogether[/QUOTE] you do raise good points on that, and i can't really refute the poison in scratch to be honest or fireballs of 8d6 damage :v care to explain how wounds&vigor gets rid of balance though?

[QUOTE=Intense Funkid;47093415]you do raise good points on that, and i can't really refute the poison in scratch to be honest or fireballs of 8d6 damage :v care to explain how wounds&vigor gets rid of balance though?[/QUOTE] Negative energy damage and constitution damage become utterly ridiculous, as they can damage you "directly", and furthermore even removes the random factor of the dice when you do that. It makes certain spells, especially Harm and Disintegrate, even more ridiculously potent than they normally are.

[QUOTE=elowin;47093430]Negative energy damage and constitution damage become utterly ridiculous, as they can damage you "directly", and furthermore even removes the random factor of the dice when you do that. It makes certain spells, especially Harm and Disintegrate, even more ridiculously potent than they normally are.[/QUOTE] that's a good point, we haven't exactly fought high level evil clerics n whatnot yet, so the negative energy straight to wounds hasn't really be try tested. i'll have to consult the nerds about that aspect. because you're right, an inflict serious wounds, 3d8+8 ish could literally almost one shot anyone.

It also makes healing people who are at or around the point of falling unconcious/bleeding out massively difficult. [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] goddamnit my automerge

[QUOTE=elowin;47093451]It also makes healing people who are at or around the point of falling unconcious/bleeding out massively difficult. [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] goddamnit my automerge[/QUOTE] well actually, you can choose if you heal vigor or wound points when you cast a healing spell, it's simply stated you can do so. so someone takes a inflict moderate wounds, the healer can cure moderate wounds and negate that damage. like i said i'll have to talk to the nerds and maybe modify that rule so a level 20 won't die to a inflict serious wounds.

[QUOTE=Intense Funkid;47093462]well actually, you can choose if you heal vigor or wound points when you cast a healing spell, it's simply stated you can do so. so someone takes a inflict moderate wounds, the healer can cure moderate wounds and negate that damage. like i said i'll have to talk to the nerds and maybe modify that rule so a level 20 won't die to a inflict serious wounds.[/QUOTE] Yeah, i'm talking specifically once you're at the wounded stage. Healing vigor at that point won't make you less wounded, meaning you're still unconscious and possibly bleeding out. don't ask me how you can somehow avoid damage with your vigor when you're unconscious because that doesn't make much sense either [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Oliolio;47093349]Death Ray is both the most generic and phenomenally awesome Solar Circle Spell I think I've ever seen.[/QUOTE] That is actually pretty fucking rad. I was missing some more "simple" destructive spells in 2e, glad they atleast got some this time around. And a high level one, too.

[QUOTE=Intense Funkid;47093444]that's a good point, we haven't exactly fought high level evil clerics n whatnot yet, so the negative energy straight to wounds hasn't really be try tested. i'll have to consult the nerds about that aspect. because you're right, an inflict serious wounds, 3d8+8 ish could literally almost one shot anyone.[/QUOTE] Using an inflict serious wounds to the wound health pool would do 3 damage.

[QUOTE=NotAName;47093628]Using an inflict serious wounds to the wound health pool would do 3 damage.[/QUOTE] Yeah, lower level negative energy attacks are actually kind of weak, it's just certain higher level spells that get ridiculous. The lower level ones actually get significantly worse, because even if you choose to deal vigor damage with them, that damage, unlike damage from every other damage type, cannot spill over to wounds damage, which is utter shit.

...I must have missed this at some point, but why are D&D and Pathfinder not being super-realistic gritty systems a bad thing, exactly? If you want realistic consequences for wounds, why not play one of the loads of other systems that are actually designed for dealing with that, instead of doing a hackjob with one that's really not intended to have such consequences as a regular result of combat.

[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;47094298]...I must have missed this at some point, but why are D&D and Pathfinder not being super-realistic gritty systems a bad thing, exactly? If you want realistic consequences for wounds, why not play one of the loads of other systems that are actually designed for dealing with that, instead of doing a hackjob with one that's really not intended to have such consequences as a regular result of combat.[/QUOTE] It's not a bad thing, at least not in my opinion. I think denying it is incredibly silly, though.

[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;47094298]...I must have missed this at some point, but why are D&D and Pathfinder not being super-realistic gritty systems a bad thing, exactly? If you want realistic consequences for wounds, why not play one of the loads of other systems that are actually designed for dealing with that, instead of doing a hackjob with one that's really not intended to have such consequences as a regular result of combat.[/QUOTE] It's because the developers of Pathfinder insist they're trying to make a system that feels "well within the abilities of human beings" with a big fat stickler that says "unless magic is involved." It's why Sean K. Reynolds has a pathological hatred of the monk and martials at higher levels feel less like legendary warriors and more like "better warriors I guess okay?" [img]https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0333/12/1405032200107.png[/img]

[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;47094298]...I must have missed this at some point, but why are D&D and Pathfinder not being super-realistic gritty systems a bad thing, exactly? If you want realistic consequences for wounds, why not play one of the loads of other systems that are actually designed for dealing with that, instead of doing a hackjob with one that's really not intended to have such consequences as a regular result of combat.[/QUOTE] Half the rules are made with too much with a realism focus while the other half of the rules are not. So whenever something is trying to be a bit more fantasy it ends up getting bogged down by realistic rules while anything realistic ends up making no sense because of 'lolmagic'.

[QUOTE=cdr248;47094534]Half the rules are made with too much with a realism focus while the other half of the rules are not. So whenever something is trying to be a bit more fantasy it ends up getting bogged down by realistic rules while anything realistic ends up making no sense because of 'lolmagic'.[/QUOTE] There is one infamous discussion I remember where Reynolds compared using a crossbow (and complaining that the crossbow is objectively worse than using a bow) to being a water-balloon throwing fighter (and complaining that water balloons are objectively worse than anything else.)

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47094603]There is one infamous discussion I remember where Reynolds compared using a crossbow (and complaining that the crossbow is objectively worse than using a bow) to being a water-balloon throwing fighter (and complaining that water balloons are objectively worse than anything else.)[/QUOTE] To be fair, that's pretty accurate with how crossbows work in pathfinder. You do a flat 1d8 or 1d10 damage, the only bonuses you get to this come from +1 weapon modifiers or other stuff that directly buffs your weapon, and you can only fire a max of twice per turn(as far as I'm aware, at least, since you can only reload a single shot per turn) without speccing heavily into it with feats. Even when you spec fully into using a crossbow, you're weaker than someone with a composite bow using the exact same feats. In short crossbows are trash and the only reason to take them is if you're a caster who wants a reliable backup source of ranged damage.

[QUOTE=Rats808;47094696]To be fair, that's pretty accurate with how crossbows work in pathfinder. You do a flat 1d8 or 1d10 damage, the only bonuses you get to this come from +1 weapon modifiers or other stuff that directly buffs your weapon, and you can only fire a max of twice per turn(as far as I'm aware, at least, since you can only reload a single shot per turn) without speccing heavily into it with feats. Even when you spec fully into using a crossbow, you're weaker than someone with a composite bow using the exact same feats. [B]In short crossbows are trash and the only reason to take them is if you're a caster who wants a reliable backup source of ranged damage.[/B][/QUOTE] Which is terrible, crossbows should at least have a pseudo-composite element to them where it gives +1 to +4 of STR damage even if the wielder does not match the STR or a way to halve/negate armor bonuses at certain ranges. Completely unrelated to that; what's the best way to negate the 20% miss chance while your character's blinking? For the longest time I thought Ghost Touch was the ticket, but apparently that's for incorporeal only, which is very different from ethereal.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47094466]It's because the developers of Pathfinder insist they're trying to make a system that feels "well within the abilities of human beings" with a big fat stickler that says "unless magic is involved." It's why Sean K. Reynolds has a pathological hatred of the monk and martials at higher levels feel less like legendary warriors and more like "better warriors I guess okay?" [img]https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0333/12/1405032200107.png[/img][/QUOTE] does he really put his job title in his facebook name can you get any more pretentious

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47094763]Which is terrible, crossbows should at least have a pseudo-composite element to them where it gives +1 to +4 of STR damage even if the wielder does not match the STR or a way to halve/negate armor bonuses at certain ranges. Completely unrelated to that; what's the best way to negate the 20% miss chance while your character's blinking? For the longest time I thought Ghost Touch was the ticket, but apparently that's for incorporeal only, which is very different from ethereal.[/QUOTE] You get a weapon that exists on both planes simultaneously.

so a jojo, a schoolgirl, a ghost, a bear, and a robot walk into a city the jojo buys a possessed melon the melon turns out to be evil massive collateral damage is had, from electromagnetically accelerated nails, machine gun fire, lasers, missiles, and superpowered punches I reiterate: the villain is a fucking MELON mutants and masterminds is a great system

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47094466]It's because the developers of Pathfinder insist they're trying to make a system that feels "well within the abilities of human beings" with a big fat stickler that says "unless magic is involved." It's why Sean K. Reynolds has a pathological hatred of the monk and martials at higher levels feel less like legendary warriors and more like "better warriors I guess okay?"[/QUOTE] Let us not forget James Jacob being a complete asshole about dual shields. It's not legitimate in Pathfinder because he thinks it's stupid and people that want to use two shields are try hards; seriously. Also he couldn't find any historical examples of people using two shields in their fighting style, thus it can't be in the gritty realism Pathfinder. That thread was such an embarrassment to read, especially since the overwhelming opinion of the players was that it would have been [I]fun[/I] to have the option. But who wants fun in their hobby.

[QUOTE=Axznma;47096306]Let us not forget James Jacob being a complete asshole about dual shields. It's not legitimate in Pathfinder because he thinks it's stupid and people that want to use two shields are try hards; seriously. Also he couldn't find any historic examples of people using two shields in their fighting style, thus it can't be in the gritty realism Pathfinder. That thread was such an embarrassment to read, especially since the overwhelming opinion of the players was that it would have been [I]fun[/I] to have the option. But who wants fun in their hobby.[/QUOTE] Yeah to be honest the developers of Pathfinder mostly seem like twats. I still play it since it's basically better 3.5 though.

[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;47090951]So I'm gonna have my first time ever playing DnD tomorrow and I'm the DM and the party is [I]seven players[/I] and I have done absolutely no planning whatsoever outside of the very beginning, so I'm going to have to play it by ear once the party exits the first dungeon so yeah, this is looking pretty good[/QUOTE] So I DM'd today. Despite everyone's general unruliness they managed to make themselves a (somewhat followed) rule of "shut the fuck up when someone (especially the DM) is talking", and the session ended with me being told how much fun everyone had One of the players only wanted to go because she was kind of upset she wasn't invited, and ended up not showing up at all, so it was only 6 :v: the party didn't actually get through the entirety dungeon, mostly because everyone was spending way too much time on such tasks as "opening the door to the broom closet" So pretty much all my worries were completely unfounded

Opening doors is a very time consuming task in tabletops

So to sum up today's Shadowrun game. It ended with Solid Snake, an ork wizard, an elven decker, a mutant with adhesive feet, and a rigger, each individually rappelling/flying/skating/running/riding on a drone that she glued herself onto down the Aztechnology Pyramid in Seattle. This while being chased by massive fire elementals, which nearly killed them, causing the team to detonate a fuckton of bombs that were located around the base of the building in a desperate attempt to shake them off, causing part of the building to collapse, destroying not only part of one of the most well known structures in the world, but also a good part of the city around it, and nearly dying in the process. just another day in the shadows omae

I wasn't riding it, I glued myself to the side and was unconscious, and two other tracked drones were following.

[QUOTE=Rents;47096651]I wasn't riding it, I glued myself to the side and was unconscious, and two other tracked drones were following.[/QUOTE] same thing

[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;47096574]So I DM'd today. Despite everyone's general unruliness they managed to make themselves a (somewhat followed) rule of "shut the fuck up when someone (especially the DM) is talking", and the session ended with me being told how much fun everyone had One of the players only wanted to go because she was kind of upset she wasn't invited, and ended up not showing up at all, so it was only 6 :v: the party didn't actually get through the entirety dungeon, mostly because everyone was spending way too much time on such tasks as "opening the door to the broom closet" So pretty much all my worries were completely unfounded[/QUOTE] If you get a dungeon finished in one session, you aren't playing right [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=elowin;47096315] I still play it since it's basically better 3.5 though.[/QUOTE] I have heard this many times, but I've never played 3.5 or Pathfinder. In which ways is it better? A comic bookstore near me runs 3.5 games and I was curious of trying it, but I'd rather take an interest in Pathfinder if it's a bit better.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47097008]If you get a dungeon finished in one session, you aren't playing right [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] I have heard this many times, but I've never played 3.5 or Pathfinder. In which ways is it better? A comic bookstore near me runs 3.5 games and I was curious of trying it, but I'd rather take an interest in Pathfinder if it's a bit better.[/QUOTE] It's better than 3.5, but personally I like 5e a hell of a lot more. It's hard to get into without already knowing 3rd edition rules pretty well since with PF you will be DROWNING in options, many of which are traps or otherwise horribly sub-optimal... and you pretty well NEED to be optimized to survive the first couple of levels, and after that to remain an actual contributing party member instead of someone who ineffectually plinks away at things while the more powerful members get everything done.

The problem with Pathfinder is that it's like a New Game+ for DnD. If you haven't had a lot of experience with 3e prior, then you'll have a lot of trouble jumping into it which is kinda a turn off tbh.

The concept of character options not being "viable" in a game like DnD/Pathfinder really bugs me. I mean yeah there's always going to be "optimal" characters, but you should still be able to play whatever and be fine.

[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;47097297]The concept of character options not being "viable" in a game like DnD/Pathfinder really bugs me. I mean yeah there's always going to be "optimal" characters, but you should still be able to play whatever and be fine.[/QUOTE] SHOULD be able to yeah but some builds are seriously just shat all over by how much better at EVERYTHING some other things are. You may want to specialize in knowing lots of shit and being a good talker as a rogue or something... Well too bad, the bard can cast magic and make you obsolete. Not even a very high level spell for that matter! The power disparity is just so huge that suboptimal builds mean worthless builds since you aren't even good at what you wanted to be good at compared to other kinds of characters.