The Gaming Den

You also broke the forum.

EDIT: But you fixed it, so that's good.

Swordslinger wrote:Activation rolls for the most part are crap. They're just another "Attack" roll attached to your move. There's already a chance that Dazing strike won't work anyway if you miss your foe. While activation rolls can be used to simulate "openings", they also have the side effect of making your character blow chunks.

Which is true in WoF, as well; if you only have a 1/x chance of using a move, and then that move only has 1/y chance of hitting the enemy, then that move is only contributing 1/(x*y) of the time, which can get very small. Increasing the layers of randomness wherein you have to get lucky makes for a lot of wasted actions. If you decrease the threshold for success, or you eliminate one of the randomness levels entirely, then you can bypass the 'Randomness Inception' problem entirely. If what you roll or draw or use from your WoF scheme automatically works (since it's supposed to represent what you see an opening to do, right?), then the randomness of your move-set becomes a lot more palatable.

Actually Stub, that is not a problem of WoF.

Activation rolls are where you decide to use a move, roll to see if you just wasted your action, then roll to see if you hit with the move.

WoF, it doesn't matter that any given move might only be useful 1/(xy) of the time, because all the ~x times, you just used a different move.

Having a night/day character with one set of moves at night, and the other at day, does not mean that all his moves are half as effective. It means his moves are just as effective, and he has half as many moves to choose from at a specific moment than are on his list.

Since his list is probably twice as long as everyone elses, that just means he's totally fine.

Good point, as long as there are enough meaningful powers to assign to your matrix/deck or whatever your favorite flavor of WoF organization is, the 1/x becomes 1 for all non-niche intents and purposes, and you're back where you started.

Edit: Bear in mind that designing many distinct, effective, and meaningful powers is something of a tall order.

DSMatticus wrote: tl;dr stop pretending 4e is the only way to fix the fighter vs wizard problem. That has been a core assumption of everything you've said since we started talking and it is obviously untrue.

Swordslinger wrote:So yeah dude, 4E is the only non-obscure system to actually implement some other resource system for martials beyond just at-will powers.

Aside from being untrue, that doesn't actually prove anything. You skipped the step where you show that the fighter vs. wizard problem is only solvable by implementing a resource system for fighters (which is also untrue). And even if both those points were true, all you'd have shown would be "no non-obscure system is less shitty in this aspect", which falls somewhat short of strong defense.

A Man In Black wrote:So one upshot of this discussion is that Swordslinger and especially Winnah are not allowed to use "dissociated" ever. Good to know.

When did I ever use the word disassociated? Why can't I talk about disassociated mechanics? Are you just dribbling shit again?

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Real time controls; so, possibly, but not in a way that most players would appreciate.

Well, there's the stuff Sirlin's doing, that's possibly worth looking at.

Winnah wrote:stupid words

Because you are bad at reading comprehension.

Swordslinger wrote:All the stuff in Shadowrun, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, white wolf, pre-4E D&D and GURPS are all at-will powers.

SWSaga has plenty of tech tricks with a longer-than-a-fight reload time. Pre-4e has a whole book of swords (nine of them, I think) to give fighters non-at-will maneuvers. GURPS (and HERO, which you skipped) allows you to make any power schedule you want from scratch.

You are arguing from your own ignorance; "non-obscure" here means "Swordslinger heard of it."

A Man In Black wrote:

Winnah wrote:stupid words

Because you are bad at reading comprehension.

Wow, this is not the first time you have made this statement. Not just against me, either. Anytime someone call you on your bullshit they're not comprehending your posts properly!. It has nothing to do with you making moronic statements whatsoever. The fact you refuse to elaborate on your idiocy shows that you know, deep down, that you are a fucking moron, but for some reason you keep coming out with new flavours of pinheaded ignorance.

You want to refute any post I have made, do it. Tell me why I'm wrong. I doubt you'll do that though. Dribbling shit is apparently all you are capable of.

Swordslinger, I don't think you're really disagreeing with anyone. Some amount of dissociation in a game is a necessary evil; but that means it's a bad thing and if you can get all the same good stuff with less of it, that's good. The argument I think Frank is making is that 1) 4E martial encounter powers are somewhat dissociated, and 2) you can get all the benefits of that system without as much dissociation. You're disagreeing with (2), not (1).

As for I think a clearer explanation of why martial encounters are screwed up in 4E: you could build an associated system of encounter powers. You'd just need to have a consistent explanation of why the move was limited. The problem with 4E is that different moves have different fluff explanations about why they can only be used once an encounter, so the system falls apart in edge cases.

That is: if all your encounter powers are limited because they don't work after they've been seen once, you can write rules that say a dude who wasn't in the room the first time you used it can get fooled again. That is, if it's a "fooled me once shame on you" situation, the rules should say that you don't need an actual rest, you just need to move on to a different set of guys.

Now, 4E mostly wants to say, no, it's actually a time-limited thing going on. So you need an actual five minute rest, and the rules system models "I need a rest before I can do that again." Which is fine as far as it goes, and totally consistent. But then they write a whole bunch of powers with fluff that sounds way more like the first system, and everyone gets confused.

Winnah wrote:You want to refute any post I have made, do it. Tell me why I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, you're talking past the questions asked of you. I can't show you the lack of an answer to the question asked in your posts because it isn't there.

I get that you don't like spam. Do you not like spam because you think it is boring, or because you think it is dissociated? Because it'd be perfectly possible to make an associated system that involves spam. (Going back to Bruce Lee, an example of a spammy associated system would be an extremely abstract system where all martial arts were abstracted into a single "martial arts" attack.)

If that's not acceptable to you, then the problem isn't the dissociation, but rather that it's just boring.

jadagul wrote:That is: if all your encounter powers are limited because they don't work after they've been seen once, you can write rules that say a dude who wasn't in the room the first time you used it can get fooled again. That is, if it's a "fooled me once shame on you" situation, the rules should say that you don't need an actual rest, you just need to move on to a different set of guys.

I think using that mechanic for your system would lead to farce pretty damn fast. I know it's not your main point, though.

A Man In Black wrote:

jadagul wrote:That is: if all your encounter powers are limited because they don't work after they've been seen once, you can write rules that say a dude who wasn't in the room the first time you used it can get fooled again. That is, if it's a "fooled me once shame on you" situation, the rules should say that you don't need an actual rest, you just need to move on to a different set of guys.

I think using that mechanic for your system would lead to farce pretty damn fast. I know it's not your main point, though.

Mmm, I think you could probably make a decent mechanic out of it, but it'd be weird. Lead to very different gameplay.

But you're right, it'd be awesome if you were trying to make The Three Stooges: The RPG, or something. "Wait, no. I put on my fake nose while he was out of the room, so he doesn't know I'm me and I can use my encounter power again."

Not worthy of its own thread, I thought linking to a choice selection of feedback on WotC' latest and last book on 4E - Heroes of Elemental Chaos.

The OP pretty much nails it going in - this is a curious mix of stuff that doesn't work in 4e while it might be some early potshots at 5e, e.g. the Sorcerer build that isn't a sorcerer but will satisfy players who want to play something as simple as an Essentials fighter but have it magic-themed.

Secondly, the editing is FFG-bad. E.g. a ranged power whose special effect is that with sustain minor you can increase its (non-existant) burst effect by 1.

Thirdly, some pretty useful general observations of how Essential classes are eating into backwards compatibility - how the new stuff requires Essentials sub-classes, and not the overarching genus (e.g. 'play a Slayer' or 'must have Power Strike' rather than 'eligible for anyone who's playing a Fighter').

Here we go. Link 1; Link 2; Link 3; Link 4 (again, page link); Link 5; Link 6; Link 7

Nothing to add to this, except that I think flipping through I saw some beautiful art by not-Wayne-Reynolds, but WotC had to pick standard Reynolds fare for the title page to attract the Pathfinder audience. I was reminded of the 'will drop pants for money' crowd of old men in Simpsons.

Exhibit 1: Paizo's book on the Pathfinder Multiverse (2009):



... and exhibit 2: WotC getting desperate, 2012:

I must comment that their one "Heroes of the Place You Don't Give A Shit About" book I have, the Heroes of Shadow one, is absolute crap. I put a review of it up.

The only question I have about the book is that there's a "god warder" pp which supposedly can permanently banish a target. How exactly does that work?

I don't know about that book, but the otherwise unremarkable Manual of the Planes (4E) had a PP that handed out a (saves ends) banishment effect to any critter as an encounter power. Since this was before the existence of any errata, you could achieve permanent banishment with this effect.

Though since this is 4E D&D, barring any incompetence like that 'permanently banish' probably means some stupidness like 'when you reduce a target to 0 hp, you have the option of permanently banishing them'.

Well these are the same guys that nerfed the magister so that it couldn't cast "imprisonment" in the middle of combat....despite the fact that imprisonment can only be used on a helpless opponent anyway.

But hey, we got Slumber of the White Court now, so put as many 1-turn save penalties as you can on that shit and put everyone into the Suck Dimension.