CapnTthePirateG wrote:I'll grant the weapon specialization point indicating that 2e nostalgia is their strategy, but is anyone actually suffering from 2e nostalgia these days?
I don't know anyone who is, but Erik Mona ranting about how he wants playable Modrons indicates that he is.
CapnTthePirateG wrote:I'll grant the weapon specialization point indicating that 2e nostalgia is their strategy, but is anyone actually suffering from 2e nostalgia these days?
Well, if you're a 3.X fan and you haven't converted to PF by this point, you aren't going to, at least not barring a complete revamp of the system that simply isn't in the cards. So in order to increase your fanbase you're looking at people who aren't committed to a system but are fans of particular settings. Planescape and Spelljammer both have those kinds of fans, albeit not very many of them anymore. Who knows whether there are enough to make the project profitable. Besides, it doesn't really matter if the mechanics are lousy if people like the setting.
CapnTthePirateG wrote:I'll grant the weapon specialization point indicating that 2e nostalgia is their strategy, but is anyone actually suffering from 2e nostalgia these days?
I don't know, is Shadzar still alive, or was shitposting here his phylactory?
Also I'm pretty sure a certain porn actor and gaming blogger has some.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
2E' mechanics honestly were in a shitty middle, where you more often than not no longer could generate a character in 10 minutes, but customization was still sorely lacking for most classes.
And I'm not sure who actually can like weapon specialization. I can see the point of not allowing classes the ability to wield almost every weapon under the sun with equal expertise, but less than 3-4 weapons between which a character can switch without being clearly penaltised by the system is obviously unacceptable. If Conan was an expert with bow, spear, knife and unarmed fighting, even though he preferred swords, why my character can't be?
I'm not sure if anyone can actually make a coherent argument for it, but it is how it is done so it sure as hell is going to be how Paizo does it.
It was long ago decided that every damn thing needs Weapon Focus as a prerequisite so Greataxe Guy never, ever uses a battleaxe (even a two-handed large battleaxe, though a one-handed small greataxe works fine). Instead of deciding this was stupid and bucking the trend when they published Weapon Master's Handbook they continued on, making a bunch of Combat Styles that devour all your feats and only work with a single weapon. Then, because they did it there, when they made Armor Master's Handbook they had to do it there too. Only Armor Focus didn't exist because even by feat standards that is stupid and boring, so they invented it. And an improved version. So after 7 years we have what the people have clamored, a feat for "+1 AC with chain shirts" and a bunch of shitty feat chains that will stop working for you if you ever wear anything but a chain shirt.
The chance that anyone there makes the realization that all your abilities turning off if your sword is slightly curvier or slightly less curvy is complete garbage is basically zero, and if they did Jason Bulmahn would probably veto it. It will be done as it is done, and that is all there is to it.
This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood
to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.
The above is in the new paizo horror adventures book. Woo-hoo for being able to cast five protection from evil spells to avoid being detected and smote by your neighborhood paladin goody two shoes while murdering babies and raising your demon/undead army!
*facepalm*
Last edited by Covent on Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
Maxus wrote:Being wrong is something that rightly should be celebrated, because now you have a chance to correct and then you'll be better than you were five minutes ago. Perfection is a hollow shell, but perfectibility is something that is to be treasured.
Well, at least the reference for that rule isn't just hidden in the description of the Gray Paladin archetype any more. And it still ruins detection spells less than when Ultimate Intrigue] doubled down on the idea your current intentions matter, so you can avoid detection by constantly planning to hug some puppies afterwards.
This is funny, though...
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.
I am certain whoever wrote this really though it was true. However, serious question... has anyone, anywhere, ever seen this brought up with anything but evil spells?
A DM threaten your CE Wizard with Neutrality if he kept summoning Angels to murder his enemies? Or have a player try to turn a prisoner Good by making them cast Protection from Evil all day? Maybe someone on a forum rant that if you keep casting Lawful spells you'll be damned to a pleasant and orderly afterlife on a LN plane instead of a bleak, blasted CN wasteland?
Seriously, does anyone argue this when it isn't about raising undead, summoning demons, or using one of the ooky spells they happened to remember to put an [evil] tag on?
FrankTrollman wrote:I don't know anyone who is, but Erik Mona ranting about how he wants playable Modrons indicates that he is.
Any time someone says they want to play Planescape or want some element of Planescape "brought back", I just assume they really enjoyed Planescape: Torment (which is perfectly reasonable) and mind caulked it such that "All of the Planescape setting and therefore 2Ed rules were awesome" (which is perfectly unreasonable).
So you can probably assume Erik Mona actually just has a hard-on for an old CRPG and wants to re-live memories of it in PF or whatever, without actually attributing it to a love of actual 2Ed stuff like all fighters being belt-fed gatling guns of darts and character creation typically being a game of "Guess how long the campaign will go for whether to bank on long-term real ultimate power or level caps or whatever".
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
From what ive seen, the people who didnt like 3e because its new and scary had a small adoption rate for 5e (20%?). The remainder of them are still way nostalgic about 2e, to the point that most people i know have one guy in their group who wont shut up about it. I havent seen or heard of anyone actually playing it as anything but a rare joke since the dawn of 4e.
I think its enough that you can get enough people on nostalga to make A few sales.
People liked Weapon Specialisation in 2e for the same reason they liked Evard's Black Tentacles in 3.5, it won fights. People grow attached to fluff for things that actually work.
No one liked being stuck with one weapon forever, it was just the cost you paid to be a character that had extra attacks at extra chance to hit for extra damage. Obviously people fucking well liked the thing that made their class even remotely viable against the actual Monstrous Manual.
No one liked Weapon Specialisation in 3e, except people who's DMs hid from them the fact that everything in that Monster Manual still hit harder and more often than your shitty weapon specialist.
But there are totally grognards who now do like being restricted to one weapon, because they associate that with a cool character they used to like because it actually worked, and the rest is magic brain filler that lets them relive that joy vicariously.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
tussock wrote:No one liked being stuck with one weapon forever, it was just the cost you paid to be a character that had extra attacks at extra chance to hit for extra damage.
I assure you there are plenty of players who quite liked only using one weapon forever. It encompasses the whole class of players who wished to interface with the mathematical aspects of D&D as little as possible. If your character is 'sword dude' or 'axe girl' and the only number you want to actively track is your hit points, then being provided a mechanical incentive to do so - which also doubles as an incentive to have the DM never make you use another weapon because it would stop the game for 5 minutes while you recalculated your bonuses - is just gravy.
D&D is a game that has always had lots of ongoing and active effects and the like to monitor, and monitoring them has always been a pain (though it has become significantly less of a pain over time). There are whole spectra of powers that get under used because they stop the game for calculations, notably ability damage and energy drain.
So for the subset of D&D groups that are constantly trying to simplify the mechanics of D&D so they can get on with whatever else they consider important, something like weapon specialization is a feature for that benefit.
In my experience, the 2e era players who supposedly loved their longswords for the style of it were quick to ask if they could swap out proficiencies when a particularly sweet axe came along. Sure, after enough years of that people get all pretentious about it, but they still want rules that make their longsword fetish very effective, and give you the evil eye if they don't get their +1 longsword on time, and here in the real world they all mysteriously became greatsword fetishists in 3.5 just for the art and stuff you understand.
At least until they ditched those characters and took up being a Wizard instead, with their new-found love of having a cheap spellbook because of how well that suits the character.
--
I'm not sure what the rest of your point is, something about how it's bad for the game so it's good for the game because no one would ever make you suffer it's inherent problems. Like how having sharp bits inside cars was great because they discouraged people from crashing them.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
I actually liked the planescape setting long before I played Torment. The rules were a dumpster fire and there's plenty of stupid stuff (like every setting) and there are only roughly 4 factions I give a fuck about, but the planes themselves were always great for running adventures in. Of course I simply adapted the material for 3e, while dropping or ignoring all the dumb shit.
Keys to the Contract: A crossover between Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Kingdom Hearts.
RadiantPhoenix wrote:
TheFlatline wrote:Legolas/Robin Hood are myths that have completely unrealistic expectation of "uses a bow".
The D&D wizard is a work of fiction that has a completely unrealistic expectation of "uses a book".
hyzmarca wrote:Well, Mario Mario comes from a blue collar background. He was a carpenter first, working at a construction site. Then a plumber. Then a demolitionist. Also, I'm not sure how strict Mushroom Kingdom's medical licensing requirements are. I don't think his MD is valid in New York.
Is there any way to make sword and board (specifically sword and shield, not just shield, or shield and shield) not suck donkey bollocks in pathfinder, even with third party materials? Or should I slap myself, disregard the notion, and just leave the style relegated to video games?
tussock wrote:No one liked being stuck with one weapon forever, it was just the cost you paid to be a character that had extra attacks at extra chance to hit for extra damage. Obviously people fucking well liked the thing that made their class even remotely viable against the actual Monstrous Manual.
Some people are really stuck on being "the sword master", and will complain mightily if you suggest, for example, that they should switch to a bow or other ranged weapon when facing flying creatures. So I could see Weapon Specialization being right up their alley.
Not my cup of tea - in fact, I'd rather there was some incentive to switch weapons over the course of a single fight. But they are out there.
Archmage Joda wrote:Is there any way to make sword and board (specifically sword and shield, not just shield, or shield and shield) not suck donkey bollocks in pathfinder, even with third party materials? Or should I slap myself, disregard the notion, and just leave the style relegated to video games?
Potentially you could use Brawler if you're ok with short swords. Proficiency with the "close weapon group" includes shields as weapons, so in addition to the protective qualities, you can also perform shield bashes more effectively.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Archmage Joda wrote:Is there any way to make sword and board (specifically sword and shield, not just shield, or shield and shield) not suck donkey bollocks in pathfinder, even with third party materials? Or should I slap myself, disregard the notion, and just leave the style relegated to video games?
Potentially you could use Brawler if you're ok with short swords. Proficiency with the "close weapon group" includes shields as weapons, so in addition to the protective qualities, you can also perform shield bashes more effectively.
But then you have the problem where you're a sucker for using a sword, instead of using MOAR SHIELD. Almost everything that's good for a shield-and-sword build is even better for a shield-and-shield build.
Mobile Bulwark Style improves your defensive use of the tower shield immensely, and since you can't bash with a tower shield, you won't be investing in shield bashing feats and it's therefore a good deal to use a sword in your main hand.
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
Back when I first worked at a Halloween store, my co workers and I would occasionally dick around with the toy weapons. There was one time when I gave a coworker two weapons and took just a shield, then surprised the hell out of her when I not only blocked her attacks but then used it to attack.
She wasn't a nerd. Cute, but not a nerd.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Is there anything which lets you bash with tower shields at all? TWFing with shields is pretty fun, except for the part where you have to be a fightard.
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
So I started playing Pathfinder again, in a group that was in dire need of a healer. and yes, I am actually playing a heal bot, don't judge, I don't expect it to last very long. I had a character background I wanted to get out of my system for quite some time. this fit.
Anyway, I came upon a spell called Celestial Healing. obviously an analogue to Infernal Healing, but you never know, so I checked it out... aaaaand it has a duration of 1 round per 2 levels. I had to do a double take and still cannot comprehend what the fuck they were thinking. it's not like the errataed Infernal Healing to do the same. is it a less than subtle "Good is dumb" spell? I guess it has no limitations on what kind of damage it cannot heal... I guess that's the balancing point? I want to punch whoever wrote that and the guy who clearly does not work as a editor at Paizo.
To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
I want to punch whoever wrote that and the guy who clearly does not work as a editor at Paizo.
Alexander Augunas and Owen K.C. Stephens. Probably Owen's editing, he cranked out those "Horribly Overpowered Feat" books with all the entirely acceptable martial feats and I can't recall him ever defending a decision that wasn't awful. For example, he is on the Starfinder team.
Augunas, on the other hand, fills books with feats and other options that let Fighters buy better class features and magic spells. They aren't phenomenal, but for Paizo that is like five star mad genius work.
