[QUOTE=Rents;49618779]It's Shadowrun, if it had any more rules there'd be a composure test to resist ordering fast food on stake outs.[/QUOTE]
I wonder what % of Shadowrun rules most groups actually use. Back in my early days of playing RPGs I looked at shadowrun because I really wanted to run a shadowrun game. I proceeded to try and learn every rule,when I saw the special rules and adjustments to movement speed in different levels of shallow water, that just broke my will.
[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;49618931]I wonder what % of Shadowrun rules most groups actually use. Back in my early days of playing RPGS I looked at shadowrun because I really wanted to run a shadowrun game. I proceeded to try and learn every rule,when I saw the special rules and adjustments to movement speed in different levels of shallow water, that just broke my will.[/QUOTE]
You can ignore about half of them depending on what your team is doing, the basics are simple enough but there's a lot of very specific rules, and then entire technomancer section can be totally ignored if no one is playing one.
[url=https://youtu.be/4PDHnVkxKI8]Your average Traveller party[/url]
[QUOTE=Rents;49618961]You can ignore about half of them depending on what your team is doing, the basics are simple enough but there's a lot of very specific rules, and then entire technomancer section can be totally ignored if no one is playing one.[/QUOTE]
My players are jerks and forcing me to actually learn the mage rules because SOMEONE decided they were going to bring mages back to the party and do all the spirit-summoning bullshit the other two mages (both deceased/MIA at this point) didn't deal with, back in the day when I trusted them to just tell me what the hell they were doing
Joke's on them, though, because now that's another angle I can hit them from
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49619222]My players are jerks and forcing me to actually learn the mage rules because SOMEONE decided they were going to bring mages back to the party and do all the spirit-summoning bullshit the other two mages (both deceased/MIA at this point) didn't deal with, back in the day when I trusted them to just tell me what the hell they were doing
Joke's on them, though, because now that's another angle I can hit them from[/QUOTE]
wowww????
who is this in reference to??
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49619222]My players are jerks and forcing me to actually learn the mage rules because SOMEONE decided they were going to bring mages back to the party and do all the spirit-summoning bullshit the other two mages (both deceased/MIA at this point) didn't deal with, back in the day when I trusted them to just tell me what the hell they were doing
Joke's on them, though, because now that's another angle I can hit them from[/QUOTE]
It's kind important to know that stuff so you know how security teams would set shit up or counter it.
[QUOTE=elowin;49617430]I hear a lot of people saying that it's very old-school D&D, but honestly that's just complete and utter bullshit.
It is very streamlined and simplified, though. Personally I'm never going to be able to enjoy it as much as I enjoy other games because of that, and other reasons, but I think it's pretty much the perfect gateway drug into tabletop RPGs.[/QUOTE]
5e feels a lot closer to AD&D.
[QUOTE=plunger435;49619921]5e feels a lot closer to AD&D.[/QUOTE]
I really got this feeling too, even though I have no idea why when I think about it.
5e is still my favourite D&D edition.
[QUOTE=plunger435;49619921]5e feels a lot closer to AD&D.[/QUOTE]
How so?
Just saying that it "feels a lot closer to AD&D" isn't really useful.
THAC0 or you're basically a preteen
[QUOTE=elowin;49620577]How so?
Just saying that it "feels a lot closer to AD&D" isn't really useful.[/QUOTE]
The rules for AD&D are more similar to 5e than 3.5, it's just that AD&D came with a lot of fluff as well.
If anyone opens a pathfinder game over roll20 at some point, lemme know. I've been DMing a game recently, but I am really itching to be a player again, because I have a decent character idea and its itching at me. So if anyone has a slot open that isn't on Saturday, please let me know
Otherwise, I'll just keep an eye on the thread. But keep me in mind if you open a game.
Okay, so tonight's session was that our lovable half-orc monk named Gulag and the party were sent to an Orcish reservation camp to try and prevent war from breaking out, there he met his warlike brother whom had previously exiled him from the tribe because he shamed their family in some way. His brother had become the warchief and was leading the tribe to war, so Gulag fought his brother to try and take his place as chief and stop the bloodshed. The fight lasted to where they were both at 1 health after using their orcish resist thing, and through the whole group's clenched teeth, Gulag was knocked out. Another party member arrived too late and saw him fail his final death save, so the party member stabbed the fuck outta the brother until he was dead. The orc armies didn't go to war because they lost their warchief and the party buried Gulag who had just saved the entire clan.
It's hard to put into words but everyone loved the guy and now we're all sad. :(
[QUOTE=Rents;49620752]THAC0 or you're basically a preteen[/QUOTE]
THAC0 is the bane of everyone ever and you know it. It's as close to a mathematical formula for hatred AND despair we will ever get.
[QUOTE=plunger435;49622020]The rules for AD&D are more similar to 5e than 3.5, it's just that AD&D came with a lot of fluff as well.[/QUOTE]
Again, how so? I don't really see any serious similarities beyond what's been common to every D&D edition save for 4e.
On the other hand, I see plenty of places where they depart much further from AD&D than 3e and co did.
As a big fan of magic using characters, the spellcasting classes especially stand out to me, having completely abandoned the core principles of spellcasters in AD&D. Namely that they had extreme power and high flexibility, but only in very short bursts due to their limited spell slots, which has been completely subverted by giving them access to decently powered cantrips that they can keep using forever.
The classes are also far more special ability focused than even 3e, which was already far more ability focused than AD&D, to the point where, similarly to Pathfinder, even pure spellcasting classes have a repertoire of special abilities besides spellcasting, which was pretty much never the case in previous editions unless you count 4e.
And besides that, it also has a much more laissez-faire approach to races, even going so far as to have Drow, Tieflings and freaking Dragonborn, a race that barely if at all exists in most D&D settings, in the core book of all places.
Also the core book isn't laid out nearly as badly.
5e may be a fine edition, but saying that it's a return to the classic feel of AD&D, it's just bullshit. D&D 5e is a very, very modern game.
Didn't they exclude gnomes in the core book too? Or was that 4e
[QUOTE=elowin;49623796]Again, how so? I don't really see any serious similarities beyond what's been common to every D&D edition save for 4e.
On the other hand, I see plenty of places where they depart much further from AD&D than 3e and co did.
As a big fan of magic using characters, the spellcasting classes especially stand out to me, having completely abandoned the core principles of spellcasters in AD&D. Namely that they had extreme power and high flexibility, but only in very short bursts due to their limited spell slots, which has been completely subverted by giving them access to decently powered cantrips that they can keep using forever.
The classes are also far more special ability focused than even 3e, which was already far more ability focused than AD&D, to the point where, similarly to Pathfinder, even pure spellcasting classes have a repertoire of special abilities besides spellcasting, which was pretty much never the case in previous editions unless you count 4e.
And besides that, it also has a much more laissez-faire approach to races, even going so far as to have Drow, Tieflings and freaking Dragonborn, a race that barely if at all exists in most D&D settings, in the core book of all places.[/QUOTE]
Drizzt and dragons are popular man. It might be unorthodox, and I defo don't allow drow nor dragonborn in my campaigns, but having them in the core rulebook is not really a big deal when compairing the game to older editions. The spellcasting part I agree with though, cantrips are fine but they do make magic seem less magic, ya know? When it's just something you can throw out all the time it kinda deminishes the cool factor of magic.
[editline]28th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rents;49623811]Didn't they exclude gnomes in the core book too? Or was that 4e[/QUOTE]
Gnomes were exiled from 4e. Don't know why, guess they wanted to save them for PH2 or something.
[QUOTE=Rents;49623811]Didn't they exclude gnomes in the core book too? Or was that 4e[/QUOTE]
That was 4e, gnomes are back baby.
[editline]28th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Muggi;49623817]Gnomes were exiled from 4e. Don't know why, guess they wanted to save them for PH2 or something.[/QUOTE]
No, they were in the Monster Manual. They literally switched places with Tieflings. But Aasimars still aren't in the core book because they're not edgy enough, I guess.
gnomes are the non-committal man's goblin
Has anyone else gotten really emotional over a character death or am I just weird
[QUOTE=Muggi;49623817]Drizzt and dragons are popular man. It might be unorthodox, and I defo don't allow drow nor dragonborn in my campaigns, but having them in the core rulebook is not really a big deal when compairing the game to older editions. The spellcasting part I agree with though, cantrips are fine but they do make magic seem less magic, ya know? When it's just something you can throw out all the time it kinda deminishes the cool factor of magic.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue the exact same is true for the more exotic races like those, the minute they exist in the core book they stop being in any way unique or interesting. Granted, Drow and to a lesser extent Tieflings were already starting to get pretty oversaturated before that, but it's only grown worse since, and like I said earlier Dragonborn scarcely even existed until they got jammed into the core book of 4th edition.
Either way though, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's antithetical to the design principles of AD&D, which pretty much purposefully hid away exotic races from the players.
[QUOTE=elowin;49623848]I'd argue the exact same is true for the more exotic races like those, the minute they exist in the core book they stop being in any way unique or interesting. Granted, Drow and to a lesser extent Tieflings were already starting to get pretty oversaturated before that, but it's only grown worse since, and like I said earlier Dragonborn scarcely even existed until they got jammed into the core book of 4th edition.
Either way though, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's antithetical to the design principles of AD&D, which pretty much purposefully hid away exotic races from the players.[/QUOTE]
Yea, tieflings/drows were always, atleast in my mind, meant to be sort of rarieties and these mysterious races that people knew little to nothing about; that was what made them cool, and that's how I like to play them. Making them "normal" just ruins them a little in my eyes... but I can live with their introduction in the PH, 'cause nothing is stopping me from approaching those races the same way as I've always done.
Dragonborn are a source of confusion to me though, they seem to be there just 'cause dragons are cool. Didn't they half ass their inclusion in Forgotten Realms, explaining it as a result of some comet or some shit hitting the world so hard it tore a hole in reality and pulled the dragonborn to Faerun?
[editline]28th January 2016[/editline]
Also, completely forgot about gnomes as monsters thing, that was kinda weird that they didn't just include them as a playable race alongside tieflings.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49623838]gnomes are the non-committal man's goblin[/QUOTE]
Goblins are gnomes that spent too much time eating paint.
[QUOTE=elowin;49623796]Again, how so? I don't really see any serious similarities beyond what's been common to every D&D edition save for 4e.
On the other hand, I see plenty of places where they depart much further from AD&D than 3e and co did.
As a big fan of magic using characters, the spellcasting classes especially stand out to me, having completely abandoned the core principles of spellcasters in AD&D. Namely that they had extreme power and high flexibility, but only in very short bursts due to their limited spell slots, which has been completely subverted by giving them access to decently powered cantrips that they can keep using forever.
The classes are also far more special ability focused than even 3e, which was already far more ability focused than AD&D, to the point where, similarly to Pathfinder, even pure spellcasting classes have a repertoire of special abilities besides spellcasting, which was pretty much never the case in previous editions unless you count 4e.
And besides that, it also has a much more laissez-faire approach to races, even going so far as to have Drow, Tieflings and freaking Dragonborn, a race that barely if at all exists in most D&D settings, in the core book of all places.
Also the core book isn't laid out nearly as badly.
5e may be a fine edition, but saying that it's a return to the classic feel of AD&D, it's just bullshit. D&D 5e is a very, very modern game.[/QUOTE]
Go back and read the core books on dealing with bonuses in 5e and compare it between 3.5e and ADND. 5e is trying to go back to a time before everyone had to have +8's or they'd be frozen out of the party. Including random rolls on chargen as the recommended way instead of min/max point buy.
Class progression is more akin to ADND's kits then PRC's.
Unless you're playing bard you probably have considerably less skills than you did in 3.5e.
To Hit tables are more similar to the ADND scaling than 3.5e
Tonally it's gone back towards the original derivative fantasy as well. Encouraging DMs to make house calls more often rather than maintaining ruling balance.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49623842]Has anyone else gotten really emotional over a character death or am I just weird[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49623842]Has anyone else gotten really emotional over a character death or am I just weird[/QUOTE]
I don't I've had one in my group like that. Here's a round down of them though.
Split between a PF and 5e game.
PF
First Game:
-Barbarian killed by other party members for running away from all the fighters, shot in the head old yeller style behind the inn.
Second Game:
-Cleric killed for trying to kill gunslinger after he defiled a corpse.
Third Game:
-Rogue killed by fighter for trying to pick his pocket and failing. Knocked out by fighter accidentally bayoneted by the gunslinger.
5e:
First Game:
-Sorcerer wild maged himself to death.
Second Game:
-Monk tried to steal from an entire party of wandering frost giants and was crushed by three boulders.
Third Game:
-Wizard cleaved in half by the minotaur skeleton for running up and trying to hit it with a quarterstaff.
Lots of laughs were had and no hard feelings fortunately.
[QUOTE=Rents;49623976]Goblins are gnomes that spent too much time eating paint.[/QUOTE]
wow come to my goblin hotel and say that to my face fucker and see what happens
I think the only game I've been in where a player killed another intentionally was in Cro's SR game, someone shot someone else for messing up the plan we had and then trying to blackmail the guy we were working for, despite us being almost stranded on a cargo ship and them claiming to have a submarine.
I did accidentally kill another player in one of the Fallout games on here though, I crit failed with a grenade launcher and shot a Batman impersonator in the back, forget who was playing them :v:
And in one of the PF games I ran, the cleric fell off a roof, I've had three clerics/paladins I've played drown because platemail is heavy, and a rogue I played was the sole survivor of a TPK because I ran away after things started going bad after telling the rest of the party not to start that fight.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49623842]Has anyone else gotten really emotional over a character death or am I just weird[/QUOTE]
Yes
I am still, months down the line, immensely salty over the death of my fighter from our 13th Age game, who honestly stands as one of my more original characters, who died in the second bleeding session killing a demon
It was an awesome death, since I killed the thing with my dying counter-attack, but when I think of what could have been I get upset
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49624111]wow come to my goblin hotel and say that to my face fucker and see what happens[/QUOTE]
Let's take this to the feywild, 1v1 me
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
