|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:26PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks. I still would rather have some module that edits out all that charm type stuff, might make it myself. However I think that would be a nice little side note that a DM can just pick up if he or she wants a little more integrity with specific NPCs. (Kind of go this from 13th age. They have a side rule that says players can only be DEAD killed by named NPCs.)
A simple mechanic like the Kender Taunt from 2e is all that's needed. Spelling out the exact action the monster takes is broken for my playstyle.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:29PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks.
As someone vehemently opposed to non-magical compulsions, this would be even worse. I really dislike when PCs and NPCs use different rules, so suggesting that some NPCs might have special NPC exemption based on plot armor is twice as repugnant.
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:32PM
#53
|
|
|
On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks.
As someone vehemently opposed to non-magical compulsions, this would be even worse. I really dislike when PCs and NPCs use different rules, so suggesting that some NPCs might have special NPC exemption based on plot armor is twice as repugnant.
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
Just as a point of clarification, you're not forced to charge. You're forced to move toward the taunter, and you have a choice of path so as not to be forced to run a gauntlet of opportunity attacks or not to be forced to swim through lava to get to him.
Edit: do you also plan on subjecting the players to all the magical loss of control abilities to show them how "fun" those are to be on the receiving end of?
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:45PM
#54
|
|
|
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
That sounds like a mess in the makings. The reason I want a little suggestion side bar is to nip things like this in the rear before they even get started. But lawl either way.
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:48PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks.
As someone vehemently opposed to non-magical compulsions, this would be even worse. I really dislike when PCs and NPCs use different rules, so suggesting that some NPCs might have special NPC exemption based on plot armor is twice as repugnant.
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
Just as a point of clarification, you're not forced to charge. You're forced to move toward the taunter, and you have a choice of path so as not to be forced to run a gauntlet of opportunity attacks or not to be forced to swim through lava to get to him.
Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "charge", but you are correct you are "Forced", which stinks. Still I doubt the PC squishy (wizard) would appreciate being forced to walk out infront out of party formation when the tables are turned on the party.
On one had the designers say that they want to allow the DM to use PC rules for building NPCs, but they forget how upset some players are going to be when the party is assulted by a few Taunting rogues. My players can accept magical compulsion because it's "Magic", but they won't accept that 6 seconds of taunting will make the wizard walk out past the front ranks of the party.
When Mearls was describing how people can be manipulated in the real world I just wanted to shake his head. It's true that such things do happen, but that kind of thing takes a fairly long time to work. It isn't something that can be accomplished in 6 seconds against someone who is hostile. If that was the case then the police would employ tauning psychobabblers to trick all the hostage takers and holdups into walking out towards them, and everyone go home in a few mins.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:49PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
That sounds like a mess in the makings. The reason I want a little suggestion side bar is to nip things like this in the rear before they even get started. But lawl either way.
Well that's the game they are creating. They've already made it clear that the DM can create PC like NPCs.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:52PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Edit: do you also plan on subjecting the players to all the magical loss of control abilities to show them how "fun" those are to be on the receiving end of?
Yes I do. Magical control abilities are fine, they can be dispelled. I currently have no problems with it in my 2e game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:54PM
#58
|
|
|
On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks.
As someone vehemently opposed to non-magical compulsions, this would be even worse. I really dislike when PCs and NPCs use different rules, so suggesting that some NPCs might have special NPC exemption based on plot armor is twice as repugnant.
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
Just as a point of clarification, you're not forced to charge. You're forced to move toward the taunter, and you have a choice of path so as not to be forced to run a gauntlet of opportunity attacks or not to be forced to swim through lava to get to him.
Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "charge", but you are correct you are "Forced", which stinks. Still I doubt the PC squishy (wizard) would appreciate being forced to walk out infront out of party formation when the tables are turned on the party.
The wizard being forced to walk out in front of the party formation assumes a certain placement of the wizard character. If the wizard character is 30 feet behind the party, they will not be in front of the party when they end their movement. Also, there is no reason why the party can't bar the wizard from moving through their square. Just because the PC's normally accommodate each other in this regard doesn't mean there is a rule against not allowing it. This means the wizard would have to walk around the party, which likely wastes a lot of their movement. Also, other PCs can ready an action to grab the wizard. There are a lot of built in ways to minimize the effect of the taunt ability.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 7:58PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks.
As someone vehemently opposed to non-magical compulsions, this would be even worse. I really dislike when PCs and NPCs use different rules, so suggesting that some NPCs might have special NPC exemption based on plot armor is twice as repugnant.
Well if I had a player that insisted that taunt work exactly how it was written now, then I'd make use of a few NPC rogues with the taunt power. It would be fun to see they feel about it when their character is forced to charge.
Just as a point of clarification, you're not forced to charge. You're forced to move toward the taunter, and you have a choice of path so as not to be forced to run a gauntlet of opportunity attacks or not to be forced to swim through lava to get to him.
Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "charge", but you are correct you are "Forced", which stinks. Still I doubt the PC squishy (wizard) would appreciate being forced to walk out infront out of party formation when the tables are turned on the party.
The wizard being forced to walk out in front of the party formation assumes a certain placement of the wizard character. If the wizard character is 30 feet behind the party, they will not be in front of the party when they end their movement. Also, there is no reason why the party can't bar the wizard from moving through their square. Just because the PC's normally accommodate each other in this regard doesn't mean there is a rule against not allowing it. This means the wizard would have to walk around the party, which likely wastes a lot of their movement. Also, other PCs can ready an action to grab the wizard. There are a lot of built in ways to minimize the effect of the taunt ability.
Sure the party can stop him, but they may have already acted in the round. The Taunting rogue could also ready his action and strike at the right time, after the fighters in the front ranks have acted.
You get my point, I'm sure we don't need to go back and forth until we find the perfect set of events that you can't argue with.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 8:03PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Exploding Peasants with fists.
At least Mearls admitted how ridiculously awesome the Fighter's Martial Damage Dice/Bonuses can look in-game. Makes you wonder why they're still going for "realistic" (except maybe in damage negation) for the rest of that class...
|
|
|
