Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[schpeelah]

I'm wondering if maybe it would make sense that messing with souls would be considered dishonorable the same way destroying magic weapons is considered dishonorable, since that makes it so there's less power available in the universe for everyone involved...

I don't think this quite works when you're destroying souls for power.

[TiaC]

I'm wondering if maybe it would make sense that messing with souls would be considered dishonorable the same way destroying magic weapons is considered dishonorable, since that makes it so there's less power available in the universe for everyone involved...

I don't think this quite works when you're destroying souls for power.

Maybe if souls can regenerate from minor damage? So over some very long timescale, you would get more power out of farming them, but you can get a big burst at once by destroying them.

[Prak]

I'm wondering if maybe it would make sense that messing with souls would be considered dishonorable the same way destroying magic weapons is considered dishonorable, since that makes it so there's less power available in the universe for everyone involved...

I don't think this quite works when you're destroying souls for power.

Maybe if souls can regenerate from minor damage? So over some very long timescale, you would get more power out of farming them, but you can get a big burst at once by destroying them.

For some reason, I thought of this:

[Aryxbez]

I suppose I could see that, but then anything that destroys wealth or otherwise removes it from the economy should be considered dishonorable as well.

I doubt this certain DM has put any depth to his judgments, so its possible he carries this logic, but only unconsciously, & probably wouldn't be able to explain it himself.

Like I've said before, I'd compare the other players characters, what their backstories are, & see how they're holding up. If they're getting away with something close to you, point that crap out to get your ideas to push through. Sounds like ye should feed him some reassurances on these ideas he's so scared of. That, or again, ask him what intended backstories he's imagining for this game with monsters.

. Isn't sure it'll work for his game because he can't go off the cuff like I or the Rakshasa player can

I guess he feels it'll make his job harder, because it won't be a generic "dashing hero" to go with his plot I guess?

Thri kreen seem like they'd be on the side of the savage humans from the east, not part of the fantasy european alliance.

BS, whole idea of using monsters for a goal is a pretty classic trope of fantasy, why he'd be against that for a game he "thought he wanted" to be different. Also, sounds like the guy rather likes Avatar, so he wants you to follow a storyline of something he likes (Great show, but just shows to me he has certain stories that play in his head that ye should maybe inquire about).

That aside, while I'm here, what's all the "unfair" stuff in Arsenal, including other SR4 supplements? (I hear War! had some jank) It's a game where we're Prime Runners essentially (400BP+149BP &Frank Houserules), & wanna get what advantage where I can w/Troll Street Sam (my PC has social toy).

[Longes]

Arsenal gave us emotitoys, which are basically free +6 to all social skills. War! has crazy guns with poor rules and MRSI that deals explosive damage twice.

[Longes]

So, for a different V:tM game I want to play a magician (because I like magicians). Thus, my choice is between Tremere (Thaumaturgy), Giovanni (Necromancy) and Tzimisce (Koldunism). I like all of those on a conceptual level. What should I choose?

[Whipstitch]

Tremere are great characters with just core books and have unmatched dumpster diving potential to boot--White Wolf could never resist the siren song of releasing new thaumaturgical bullshit every third book, so if nothing else you can get a lot of mileage out of nabbing new rituals. Necromancy is similarly bloated but in a less fortunate manner. Necromancy actually has a theme whereas thaumaturgy is basically a blank slate, so necromantic powers tend to overlap a lot more and ultimately you find yourself spending a fuckton of XP to talk to the dead AND make zombies. Which, is kinda sad, given that there's also thaumaturgical paths for commanding spirits and animating the dead.

[Longes]

Jeeeeeeeesus

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Are there any goat people in Pathfinder? If not, I'm sure I can slap something together half-assed that no one would notice, I'm just wondering if the work has been done for me...

[Wulfbanes]

Satyr?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Satyr?

That could work in a pinch (it's all in the description anyway). I was thinking more Gharbad than Pan though.

[Wulfbanes]

Goatfolk (Ibixian) from the Monster Manual 3 for 3.5. Games are close enough alike you don't need to convert a lot.

EDIT: Can't seem to link the websource due to symbols. Here you go:

Code: Select all

http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/mainlist2.pl?name=Goatfolk_(Ibixian)

[Longes]

I'm reading Burning Wheel Gold, and so far I rather like it. Character advancement system is stupid, but the rest seems pretty solid. Anything particularly bad or good that I missed?

Also chargen has clear winners and losers. Especially for the elves.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Another pathfinder question: Is there a feat that boosts your eidolon if you're multiclassed? I know there's a couple for druid animal companions.

[Laertes]

I'm reading Burning Wheel Gold, and so far I rather like it. Character advancement system is stupid, but the rest seems pretty solid. Anything particularly bad or good that I missed?

Also chargen has clear winners and losers. Especially for the elves.

I haven't seen Gold, but from the older editions, I remember Orcs as not exactly being at home to Mr Game Balance. Is that still the case?

[Longes]

I'm reading Burning Wheel Gold, and so far I rather like it. Character advancement system is stupid, but the rest seems pretty solid. Anything particularly bad or good that I missed?

Also chargen has clear winners and losers. Especially for the elves.

I haven't seen Gold, but from the older editions, I remember Orcs as not exactly being at home to Mr Game Balance. Is that still the case?

Orc appear to be significantly weaker than the other races. Elves are stronger than everyone else (although humans have Faith and Necromancy). Dwarfs are stronger than humans and orcs, and noble dwarfs are richer than everyone else (on 4 LP I got 130 RP out of an elf, and 250 out of a dwarf. Humans seem to cap at about 80).

[radthemad4]

I've been looking at the encounter tables on the pfsrd, but most of those seem to be one creature, or a few copies of the same creature (xdy whatevers). However, I'd like to see more encounters like this:

2d4 ghouls plus 1 ghast CR 6
2d6 drow and 1 drow noble CR 5
2d6 dark creepers, 1 dark stalker CR 9
1 ettercap and 1d6 giant spiders CR 6
2d6 goblins and 1d4 goblin dogs CR 6

I'd like to see encounters that follow a theme, have creatures that are likely to be working together, or creatures that have good synergy. What're some good places to find those (anything 3.X/Pathfinder compatible)?

Edit: Stuff like the Demihuman civilizations and assorted animals thread are also pretty helpful

Come to think of it, I should probably have some encounters where there are more than two sides, but it's nice to have prewritten teams.

[Prak]

In a game where usually a power must be activated with points, like After Sundown, what is the value of a power being always on? Ie, how should one balance a character who just passively has supernatural senses always active against a character that has to actually activate it? Is saying the always active one only applies to super-good scent/hearing enough of a balance against the character who can say "I need to sense radiowaves, I'll activate Supernatural Senses to do that?"

[DSMatticus]

There's no general answer to that question. The added utility of changing a power from "activate at a cost" to "always on for free" varies wildly based on a bajillion and one different factors. Three things to remember:

1) Passive abilities (or abilities that are free, trivial to activate, and have respectable durations) are always on. No matter how ill-prepared the character might otherwise be, that passive ability is active. Using your sensory powers to detect ambushes is a lot easier when your sensory power's default state is on.

2) Even if an ability has a duration of eternity or it has infinity uses, the character will only actually benefit from that ability a finite number of times each day. A Tome fire mage can fling 14k+ fire balls each day, but they won't. They probably won't even fling ten. Consider the value of less restrictive usage limits in terms of how many additional times the character will actually benefit from the ability, not in terms of how many theoretical uses you've added.

3) Taking off usage limits opens up completely new applications for some abilities. If you can only fling one fire ball each day, you can drop a bunch of damage on a group of enemies or can maybe cause a distracting explosion at a critical moment or start a fire. If you can fling thousands of fire balls each day, you can level cities and armies and forests and whatever the fuck. That's a new application of the ability, and you have to remember to think about the value it adds.

[fbmf]

Over in the mummies OSSR thread, Lycanthropy was brought up as a metaphor for being gay. Can someone elaborate? Maybe it's my unfamiliarity with WoD, but I don't get it.

Game On,
fbmf

[RadiantPhoenix]

Maybe "Eww, don't touch me, You'll turn me gay werewolf!"?

[hyzmarca]

Generally, wild animals don't want to fight at all. Random animal attacks are one of the stupidest fantasy tropes around. Barring pretty rare and bad situations, predators don't get into fights. They spook the prey animals and take opportunity kills (the slow calf trips or gets separated from the herd)

Usually (and somewhat paradoxically) a creature has to be intelligent in order to be dumb enough to stick around and fight to the death. A wild animal that is pissed off will try to drive whatever pissed it off *away*. That isn't to say it can't kill, but the primary thing is it wants the threat gone, and it doesn't really care how that happens.

That's because animal attacks get played up in the news, and that was true in the past as much as it is in the present. Though in fantasy games its usually less wild animals and more genetically engineered killbeasts. Bear attacks are less probable that Manticore attacks are.

[Ancient History]

Over in the mummies OSSR thread, Lycanthropy was brought up as a metaphor for being gay. Can someone elaborate? Maybe it's my unfamiliarity with WoD, but I don't get it.

Game On,
fbmf

The traditional werewolf myth, you've got a terrible side of you that you can't control, that you can't admit to and try to hide from people - which is your typical homosexual-in-a-closet metaphor - and the werewolves that are comfortable with it, at peace with this other part of themselves and even embrace it, are the real monsters.

Worse, in the transmissable versions, you tap into the old idea that people can be turned homosexual through contact with homosexuals. Blatant, old-school terrible homophobia right there.

It doesn't work as well for WoD werewolves, because it's one of those things where you're born a werewolf or you're not - no transmission, less hiding it.

[/edit]
I mean, you can still have a homosexual metaphor there - the change coinciding with puberty, the ongoing charade to hide it from the muggles, the underground society built up around it - but that's pretty much the same metaphor for more White Wolf games.

[infected slut princess]

Uhhh... That seems like a stretch.

[Dean]

I'd say it's more about anger. The fear that anger, a thing inside you, can make you hurt people around you. Anger is a strongly nurtured male trait to the point that it can become incredibly destructive. Werewolves are always men to my knowledge and I think the reasons Werewolves only feel correct as males is because the idea of getting so mad you become a physical danger even to the people you love is a trait more likely to be associated with Daddy than Mommy.