Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Sure, send em my way!...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • This is not an acceptable way to talk to other people on these forums. Rule 1 is respect other people, and this is extremely disrespectful.


    That doesn’t give you permission to retaliate with personal attacks, though.


    If you don’t want your remarks to be taken personally, don’t make personal remarks. Your comment was disrespectful, regardless of Arc’s reaction to it. Your general attitude in this thread has been similarly disrespectful. This is your warning, if your tone doesn’t change quickly, you will be suspended and may be banned....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I’m confused. wyrdhamster, you seem to be the only person who has said anything about a title change? I have no problem changing it, but I haven’t seen any indication that MrParaduo wants that.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Well that’s certainly encouraging. Thank you!...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Except, PF2 doesn't have roll-offs. The active character always rolls against an opposing DC. In this case, the sneaking character would use the Sneak action on their turn and roll 1d20 + Dexterity mod + Stealth Proficiency - the circumstance penalty for wearing a brightly colored cape* against a DC of 10 + the perceiving character's Wisdom mod + Perception Proficiency - the circumstance penalty for the noisy wind. On the perceiving character's turn, if they use the Seek action, would roll against the sneaking character's Stealth DC.

    *I know, this seems like it should be an item penalty,...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    I'd put responsibility for calculating the factors that are under the player's control in the player's hands, and responsibility for calculating the factors that aren't in the GM's hands. In other words, the player worries about their abilities, skills items, while the GM worries about situational bonuses and penalties. I could go either way on Conditions. But ultimately, I think fewer "+1 for this" and "-2 for that" in favor of a consistent player-side modifier and solid DM-side guidelines on assessing and setting difficulty.


    Agreed! And the flip side...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Yes and no. I am still seeing a lot of the rules minutia that I attributed to that "this is how the world works" style in PF1 (and to a greater extent, 3e), but I'm no longer getting the vibe that the purpose of said minutia is to simulate the fictional world. It's as if the pretense has been dropped, which to be fair I consider a big positive. But, what I'm left with is the impression that those niggling rules are there to sort of... Keep the GM honest, I guess? Like, here's an example of what I mean:

    [/B]

    That is like... Way too much math for a game's core...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Premise for a D&D campaign:

    The PCs are all retired adventurers, hanging out in a tavern, reminiscing about their past adventures. All in-character talk is first-person, past-tense. The player of the character currently telling the story acts as DM. Instead of giving Advantage on a roll, spending Inspiration allows you to interject with “that’s not how I remember it!”
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    With the new edition honeymoon phase passed, I think I can say at this point that PF2 is a step in the right direction for me in terms of character rules, and two steps in the wrong direction in terms of core system. Building a character is fun for me, but GMing looks like a chore. It’s still got that “turn of the century” rules-as-game-engine design philosophy, which is not my cup of tea. At the same time, it has so many little ideas that I love, like the action economy and the Proficiency-gating system.

    I’m more tempted now than ever to try my hand at making my own “fantasy...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to You Know What I Hate MK I
    No antagonism taken. On the contrary, that is an excellent point, and I agree. I would be perfectly happy with more stories within that universe, provided they were their own stories instead of awkward addenda to Harry’s story. With this in mind, I would refine my point to say that stories should end when they are over, but that the worlds those stories take place in can still be great settings for other stories....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to You Know What I Hate MK I
    Yeah, this bugs the crap out of me too. Like, apparently she’s said that Dumbledore knew Gilderoy Lockheart was a fraud, but hired him anyway to expose him, with some bologna excuse about there being a lot you can learn from a poor teacher about what not to do and how not to be.

    And don’t get me started on Ilvermorny. If you wanted to write about wizardry in America, great, but don’t make the most prominent American magic school a carbon copy of Hogwarts. Like, it’s even acknowledged as a Hogwarts ripoff in canon: the founders went to Hogwarts and liked it so much they decided...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Well, I’m currently working on fleshing out the deities. But, I want to move away from a single unified pantheon and towards multiple belief systems. So, different pantheons will likely have different naming conventions. Although to be honest, I hadn’t really thought consciously about naming conventions and had been naming gods more or less individually, which now that you mention it might be part of why it’s giving me so much trouble....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to You Know What I Hate MK I
    Since Harry Potter came up, I hate pretty much everything that Rowling has added to the canon since completing the series. I loved those books for what they were - a long-running children’s series whose tone gradually matured alongside its audience. But it’s done. The series concluded, and everything she’s tried to do since to milk the setting further has only served to kill the magic of the original story and flagrantly display just how out of touch the series’ success has made her.

    To extend that specific grievance to a more general form, I hate when writers try to drag...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Charlaquin; 08-11-2018, 01:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Unrelated to Pathfinder, I’ve been working on refining my pet homebrew setting project. I’m happy with how it’s taking shape as its own setting apart from its influences, but god damn are names a pain to come up with.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    I like Resonance as a replacement for tracking individual item charges. But, since they still have those, it just ends up being one more resource pool to track instead of the unified resource pool it was sold as. Also, some things cost Resonance that really shouldn’t. I would say keep Resonance, but ditch charges on wands and staves, and remove the Resonance cost from one-time use items like potions and scrolls. And make bags of holding invested instead of activated. Then I’d be fine with it.


    No, sadly the format of Doomsday Dawn is really not right for my group....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    No problem. I’ve had some weird issues with control f not finding what I’m looking for as well. Fortunately my Index-Fu is strong.


    Huh. Yeah, we clearly just have very divergent tastes.


    That I agree with. There seems to be a general lack of awareness of what sorts of Feats are appropriate at what levels. Lots of things that I feel like would be great in early-mid game but don’t show up until mid-late. Up until the playtest came out I had bee assuming that was because characters were going to advance much faster than we’re used to. But then the exp...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    It’s on page 291.

    “For tasks opposed by another character, the DC is based on one of the target’s modifiers, as defined in the task. A DC derived in this way is equal to 10 plus the creature’s modifier for that type of roll. All modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that would apply to the character’s rolls for a task also apply to its DC unless noted otherwise. For example, if you’re trying to sneak past a guard, you attempt a Stealth check opposed by the guard’s Perception DC. If you have a +5 Stealth and they have a +3 Perception, you roll 1d20+5 against their Perception...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    I mean... My 1st level Barbarian has 6. 7 if you count Rage. Tumble Through, Grapple, Shove, Trip, Disarm, and Sudden Charge. Granted, Grapple, Shove, and Disarm require a free hand, but that’s why I opted for a Bastard Sword. I suppose I could have gone for a flail and shield for Disarm, Trip, Raise Shield, and Shield Block if I wanted to go more defensive.


    Not all of these options come from class. Some come from skills or from weapons as well. And you get another option every level. Starting off with a smaller number and gradually adding more is fine with me.
    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    One thing I’m really not liking in PF2 is the breaking down of Skill uses into descrete Activities. I love that in combat, because the players have this nice easy to use menu of buttons to push to make cool things happen. But to make skills work the same way feels like unnecessarily systematizing what was a really elegant system. I’d love to have the Class design of PF2 with the core action resolution system of 5e.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied to The D&D thread
    Apologies. I can understand where you’re coming from, if you had been hoping for a large number of action options for every character at early levels.


    I’m seeing a lot of those options. Power Attack, Sudden Charge, Double Slice, Point Blank Shot... And those are just 1st level Fighter Feats. It seems like the action economy is the primary martial resource, which is exactly what I had been hoping for.


    There are a lot of weapons that have the ability to do certain such maneuvers, like disarm, trip, and parry. Plus Critical Specialization effects, though...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Charlaquin
Charlaquin
Moderator
Last Activity: Today, 02:43 AM
Joined: 11-01-2013
Location:
Working...
X