You guys need to brighten up a bit, turn that thieves' can't into a thieves' can!
[QUOTE=Nerts;49844476]You guys need to brighten up a bit, turn that thieves' can't into a thieves' can![/QUOTE]
i'm sorry to break it to you but... thieves really cant. they don't even exist anymore.
[QUOTE=elowin;49844561]i'm sorry to break it to you but... thieves really cant. they don't even exist anymore.[/QUOTE]
Thief isn't a class, it's a state of being, it transcends class, morality and system, it's that little voice that says "You could totally take that guy's stuff, even if he notices just stab him.".
Thieves literally cant even
I don't steal, I find stuff before owners lose it!
And today I learned monks were one of the first five classes in D&D, and now I'm wondering they they took the psionic powers away from monk in 5e
[QUOTE=leonthefox;49844992]I don't steal, I find stuff before owners lose it!
And today I learned monks were one of the first five classes in D&D, and now I'm wondering they they took the psionic powers away from monk in 5e[/QUOTE]
Psionics got split into it's own thing in 2nd or 3rd edition I think, but a lot of their fluff makes it sound like basically the same thing. But they also class the abilities as extraordinary or supernatural, which is better than being magic or psionic since it's not affected by spell/psi resistance, and EX abilities work in anti-magic/psionic zones too.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49841885]Was this Immolater, by any chance, Nerts, Elowin, or Me?
Because accidentally almost killing other party members totally sounds like the kind of thing we'd all do. :v:[/QUOTE]
I guess there's a certain subsection of people who do that sort of thing :v:
Nah though, I feel kinda bad cause my other two players get real into it but my Immolator hasn't taken it really seriously in-character at all, she'll participate when I talk to her as an NPC but doesn't just interact with the other two the way they do with each other. Ah well, I'm hoping I can use her backstory to get her more invested as the story goes on.
I got into a discussion with one of my friends about the races added in Elemental Evil, he thinks that the Goliath is just half-orc but better and is overpowered, and that Earth Genasi is also overpowered because their spell would just let you stealth through any situation. Basically the abilities both races have make them overpowered which I disagreed with completely.
He also thinks that you shouldn't consider the DM intervening in any way when saying if an ability is exploitable and overpowered.
What do you guys think?
[QUOTE=The Drones;49846404]I got into a discussion with one of my friends about the races added in Elemental Evil, he thinks that the Goliath is just half-orc but better and is overpowered, and that Earth Genasi is also overpowered because their spell would just let you stealth through any situation. Basically the abilities both races have make them overpowered which I disagreed with completely.
He also thinks that you shouldn't consider the DM intervening in any way when saying if an ability is exploitable and overpowered.
What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]
Rule 0
If the DM isn't intervening for balance's sake why bother with a DM, you might as well just have a computer run the game
Like half of GMing is all the dozens of little tweaks that take place during the game so that things run smoothly and people have fun
So an Apocalypse World hack called The Sprawl came out a few days ago, wanna see if any of y'all are interested in trying it out, none of my IRL friends are genre-savvy with Cyberpunk and I'm running a separate campaign for them anyways. If people want to it'll probably be the weekend after this coming one that we're able to start due to my schedule, I'm GMT-5 so however that works out.
I am a new GM however, I think I'm doing pretty well all things considered but if you are interested that'd be something to bear in mind.
Anyone bought and read the Sprawl and is interested or just likes the sound of it?
Has anyone joined random roll20 games? Was interested on joining a D&D 5e campaing, but from what I have been reading you either sit waiting for days/weeks to not be accepted or GMs drop after a few sessions
[QUOTE=leonthefox;49847581]Has anyone joined random roll20 games? Was interested on joining a D&D 5e campaing, but from what I have been reading you either sit waiting for days/weeks to not be accepted or GMs drop after a few sessions[/QUOTE]
Around early june 2014 I joined a campaign from the LFG section there and we've been going strong for nearly two years now. Our first campaign ended at 20 sessions and our current campaign is set to end at 57 sessions either this or next Friday.
It's certainly a rarity, but stable groups [I]are[/I] out there. Have hope.
I wish I could end my games at 20 sessions. Hell, I'd be happy with 57 sessions.
This Sunday is Magical Burst's 97th, and my Mekton game on Saturday has been going for 43, and we still have a 20+ session arc to do [I]after[/I] we finish the arc we're already involved in.
Why don't my games ever end :c
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;49849644]I wish I could end my games at 20 sessions. Hell, I'd be happy with 57 sessions.
This Sunday is Magical Burst's 97th, and my Mekton game on Saturday has been going for 43, and we still have a 20+ session arc to do [I]after[/I] we finish the arc we're already involved in.
Why don't my games ever end :c[/QUOTE]
You're here forever
[QUOTE=Nerts;49845125]Psionics got split into it's own thing in 2nd or 3rd edition I think, but a lot of their fluff makes it sound like basically the same thing. But they also class the abilities as extraordinary or supernatural, which is better than being magic or psionic since it's not affected by spell/psi resistance, and EX abilities work in anti-magic/psionic zones too.[/QUOTE]
going out with a disagreeable opinion here, but does anyone else think that psionics completely blow cock?
i feel that they have absolutely no place in D&D in any form, to the point that whenever anyone mentions the word my eyes roll out of my skull
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49850734]going out with a disagreeable opinion here, but does anyone else think that psionics completely blow cock?
i feel that they have absolutely no place in D&D in any form, to the point that whenever anyone mentions the word my eyes roll out of my skull[/QUOTE]
They have been in D&D since the first edition, although how they worked has changed.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49850734]going out with a disagreeable opinion here, but does anyone else think that psionics completely blow cock?
i feel that they have absolutely no place in D&D in any form, to the point that whenever anyone mentions the word my eyes roll out of my skull[/QUOTE]
I thought that was the most agreed upon opinion. From what I gathered all psionics-OK games in D&D and PF wind up being a game of "Everyone is Goku" so there's plenty of reasons to remove them.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49850734]going out with a disagreeable opinion here, but does anyone else think that psionics completely blow cock?
i feel that they have absolutely no place in D&D in any form, to the point that whenever anyone mentions the word my eyes roll out of my skull[/QUOTE]
I ran a game with psionics in it once and just went with psionics being magic by a different name, dispel magic, antimagic zones, spell resistance etc all affect both, making psi effects just supernatural or spell-like, and psi just being an elemental damage type with the same damage progression as force effects. It works out alright that way other than the fact a lot of psionic stuff is balanced like complete ass to start with.
[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;49846606]Rule 0[/QUOTE]
On a tangent, what do people think of the application of Rule 0 in practice? I personally take a somewhat dim view of it, but that may be less to do with the rule itself and more to do with how some past GMs have used it (i.e. problem with the person, rather than the rule itself).
[QUOTE=Askaris;49851097]On a tangent, what do people think of the application of Rule 0 in practice? I personally take a somewhat dim view of it, but that may be less to do with the rule itself and more to do with how some past GMs have used it (i.e. problem with the person, rather than the rule itself).[/QUOTE]
do it to an extent
systems shouldnt get in the way of fun, but don't abandon a bunch of systems just because you cba to learn them/dont want to deal with the bookkeeping
the fun of a game comes from the mechanics as much as it comes from the players. you can have the hypest rogue trader game in the universe but if you don't have a large focus on the trader's fleet and their mechanics then the RT is gonna feel hella neglected
(no sib im not talking about your game im just using this as an example, you did so much with the ships that it became insane to even try to do it non-abstracted lol)
[QUOTE=Askaris;49851097]On a tangent, what do people think of the application of Rule 0 in practice? I personally take a somewhat dim view of it, but that may be less to do with the rule itself and more to do with how some past GMs have used it (i.e. problem with the person, rather than the rule itself).[/QUOTE]
rule 0 when it comes to resolving annoying inter-player disputes that wreck game flow = perfectly acceptable
rule 0 when it comes to adapting an existing rule to a similar purpose, or a framework of rules to a certain scenario, or fixing a completely busted ruling = perfectly acceptable with player consent
rule 0 when it comes to a lack of rules ("I'll decide what X does when it comes to the time") or defiance of an existing rule ("You can't use X to solve X because I said so) without player consent = don't do this
[editline]2nd March 2016[/editline]
the game is for fun, and if you're doing a rule despite the desires of your players, then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face
rule 0 is literally the core of tabletop RPGs
the GM's ability to arbitrate the rules is what differentiates tabletop RPGs from basically every other kind of game
and it's both the reason that games with bad groups are so terrible, and the reason that games with good groups are so good
[QUOTE=Askaris;49851097]On a tangent, what do people think of the application of Rule 0 in practice? I personally take a somewhat dim view of it, but that may be less to do with the rule itself and more to do with how some past GMs have used it (i.e. problem with the person, rather than the rule itself).[/QUOTE]
Rule 0 is acceptable when nobody involved has any interest or anything to gain from the systems being changed, and if it is changing things for existing players, it's doing so in a way that still provides options and incentives for the people affected to still care about the rules being changed
It's also acceptable in a tight spot where nobody remembers the exact rule, and looking it up would be more difficult than maybe one roll and an understanding to figure out the rule before it comes up again
What it definitely should not be, in my opinion, is carving out or ignoring large chunks of a system because the DM doesn't want to learn them, or has just decided outright they're broken without allowing for a player to voice their interest in using them. Like, for example, in Pathfinder, in the heat of a moment one might say 'you know what, going through the grapple flowchart is a pain, just make one roll.' This might be fair that one time, or if it doesn't come up a lot. It should not, however, be SOP when one person has a grappling character and expects to do this every combat.
In short, the GM has an obligation to learn the system they're running, especially if the players are using specific parts of it. Just for a personal example, I knew jack shit about Shadowrun's magic beyond the basic mechanics of casting spells until recently (whereas I've basically memorized the hacking and combat sections, because I've played hackers and sammies before) but when one of my players expressed interest in doing more with magic than just spellcasting, I went and gave it all a look over so I wouldn't end up just overlooking the rules for it. And just for a different example, because nobody in my group likes the fluid initiative system, I went through and reworked the rules for a bunch of thing that depend on multiple initiative passes per round to work with what we were using, so those actions wouldn't be just flat excised from the system if people did want to use them
Tl;dr, rule 0 is for when either nobody wants to use (and has expressed not wanting to use) a system in question, or as a quick stop-gap to keep play flowing with an understanding to figure it out later. And if things are altered, they should be altered in a clearly defined and consistent way, so it doesn't end up coming as a complete surprise to people
is it fun y/n
[QUOTE=croguy;49850972]I thought that was the most agreed upon opinion. From what I gathered all psionics-OK games in D&D and PF wind up being a game of "Everyone is Goku" so there's plenty of reasons to remove them.[/QUOTE]
Little known rule about psionics in D&D 3.5:
You can't actually dump all your PP (heheheheh) into one attack.
The maximum amount of Power points you can spend manifesting (or augmenting) any one Power is your manifester level.
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49851242]Rule 0 is acceptable when nobody involved has any interest or anything to gain from the systems being changed, and if it is changing things for existing players, it's doing so in a way that still provides options and incentives for the people affected to still care about the rules being changed
It's also acceptable in a tight spot where nobody remembers the exact rule, and looking it up would be more difficult than maybe one roll and an understanding to figure out the rule before it comes up again
What it definitely should not be, in my opinion, is carving out or ignoring large chunks of a system because the DM doesn't want to learn them, or has just decided outright they're broken without allowing for a player to voice their interest in using them. Like, for example, in Pathfinder, in the heat of a moment one might say 'you know what, going through the grapple flowchart is a pain, just make one roll.' This might be fair that one time, or if it doesn't come up a lot. It should not, however, be SOP when one person has a grappling character and expects to do this every combat.
In short, the GM has an obligation to learn the system they're running, especially if the players are using specific parts of it. Just for a personal example, I knew jack shit about Shadowrun's magic beyond the basic mechanics of casting spells until recently (whereas I've basically memorized the hacking and combat sections, because I've played hackers and sammies before) but when one of my players expressed interest in doing more with magic than just spellcasting, I went and gave it all a look over so I wouldn't end up just overlooking the rules for it. And just for a different example, because nobody in my group likes the fluid initiative system, I went through and reworked the rules for a bunch of thing that depend on multiple initiative passes per round to work with what we were using, so those actions wouldn't be just flat excised from the system if people did want to use them
Tl;dr, rule 0 is for when either nobody wants to use (and has expressed not wanting to use) a system in question, or as a quick stop-gap to keep play flowing with an understanding to figure it out later. And if things are altered, they should be altered in a clearly defined and consistent way, so it doesn't end up coming as a complete surprise to people[/QUOTE]
SR is probably one of the harder games to GM well, you need to be pretty familiar with it since it's essentially in three chunks, and the rule books are badly laid out, and a lot of the rules aren't very clear, contradict each other, or aren't balanced/sensible to start with.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49850734]going out with a disagreeable opinion here, but does anyone else think that psionics completely blow cock?
i feel that they have absolutely no place in D&D in any form, to the point that whenever anyone mentions the word my eyes roll out of my skull[/QUOTE]
It really helps to know where you are coming from when you say this, like saying something like "wizards suck" doesn't help anyone because noone knows why you think they suck - balance reasons, story reasons, flavour reasons, etc.
[QUOTE=Nerts;49851574]SR is probably one of the harder games to GM well, you need to be pretty familiar with it since it's essentially in three chunks, and the rule books are badly laid out, and a lot of the rules aren't very clear, contradict each other, or aren't balanced/sensible to start with.[/QUOTE]
Yea that's basically been my experience with it
It's fun, though, because I love these titanic crunchy systems, and it's deep enough that I can guarantee my players will figure out a way around challenges even if I have no idea if I could figure it out
Honestly probably have had more fun with it than my old RT game. It's stupid complicated and thanks to edge PC's can do basically anything they want, but it's a lot easier to keep scaling up threats and challenges without breaking the game (again, compared to RT, where not even halfway through the party was killing tomb stalkers with smallarms and no serious injuries, and regularly took on 3-1 space combats and still effortlessly won). Plus I have some actual control of the plot and what they do because I get to make their jobs, not vice versa
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49851630]Yea that's basically been my experience with it
It's fun, though, because I love these titanic crunchy systems, and it's deep enough that I can guarantee my players will figure out a way around challenges even if I have no idea if I could figure it out
Honestly probably have had more fun with it than my old RT game. It's stupid complicated and thanks to edge PC's can do basically anything they want, but it's a lot easier to keep scaling up threats and challenges without breaking the game (again, compared to RT, where not even halfway through the party was killing tomb stalkers with smallarms and no serious injuries, and regularly took on 3-1 space combats and still effortlessly won). Plus I have some actual control of the plot and what they do because I get to make their jobs, not vice versa[/QUOTE]
Yep, although despite my bitching I think the only things I've actually outright removed/banned is possession magic for being a combination of unclear, extremely powerful and difficult to counter without having a shitload of magic stuff the rest of the team can't interact with, and the wireless bonuses on trauma patches that makes it automatically stabilize people instead of it being a roll based on the character's body stat, since every other method of stopping method of stopping someone bleeding out requires some pretty good skills, equipment and/or spells, being able to to smack a cheap patch on someone to make them not die really lessens the importance of having medical skills on the team and makes getting shot a lot less deadly as long as someone can drag you away.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
