Search results

That's one heck of an assumption. They've got game series whose defining trait is that every version of the game is different from the previous one (Final Fantasy). You also assume that the difference between, for example, original D&D and 4E is greater than the difference from, say, original...

I think it's bad that there's no way for a fighter to make a wizard stop being able to cast spells (except beating them dead), but there are plenty of ways for a wizard to make a fighter stop being able to fight. I'm not so sure about spells being "easy" to interrupt, though. It should be...

Yeah. My issue is that I approach M&M not as a supers game but as something to run shounen adventures in. Stuff inspired by One Piece, Naruto, Bleach and Demon Slayer. There you run into the whole deal with characters having moves that are useful only given the right circumstances but which are...

The bloodied concept is great. Every GM I have uses it and I use it myself too.

I've had the book in my rpg shelf for a while. Have never had a chance to play it. I've created a few characters in it, though, and I always run into something of a weird situation with effects. So in M&M each effect is limited by two things: The power level cap and the cost. You can easily...

I'm a big fan of hidden information, but at the same time the rules need to be transparent. Things shouldn't be fuzzy for the sake of obscurantism. There's no need for players to know exact stats of monsters, but at the same time the GM should provide information when requested. Does an enemy...

The choice to introduce a will resource as fuel for all class abilities is really interesting. Do people feel it works well in actual play? Thanks for the refresher. Last time I played Drakar och Demoner was back in the 90s. I had completely forgotten about that staff magic stuff, though I now...

What? I think you are using the word "narrative" in a non standard way. Your post is completely incomprehensible.

But there's a very important component missing here. The "diplomacy" in Diplomacy works because the game is set up to function that way. You could remove it and replace it with a system, but, crucially, no system is required BECAUSE the game IS about the negotiation itself. We don't need to put...

It's a perfectly valid question, though, since the rule set as is, is lacking. Mainly nothing, because there are no mechanics. Which is, of course, a problem. Of course it makes them worth using. That's the POINT of a mechanic. It should be worth using. Intimidation is absolute effing trash...

Of course spells are the only viable example, since there are no rules and WOTC does not believe in providing mechanics for anything that isn't magical (slight exaggeration, but only slight). Explain to me, what does intimidate do? What happens when I intimidate someone, mechanically? What...

I've seen people really dislike how archetypes can replace base class features, and how that makes using multiple archetypes in some cases quite complicated. You might have archetypes that are incompatible because they modify or replace the same base class feature.

Yeah I personally love them (mmmm my vivisectionist beastmorph alchemist I played was lots of fun) but they can be really difficult to grasp for some people. I think PF1 benefits heavily from gradually introducing content. Throw everything at new players and their eyes will gloss over.

I have played an adventure path that involves at least two of these bastards, might've been three even, and all of them were horrible. The first of them was some kind of wood golem, I think. We had to run in panic, twice. Nothing works against these guys. Defensive magic? lol Since they...

I can't imagine a single reason why I'd run 3.0 over PF1 and the absolutely vile skill system in 3.0 is just eww... Anyway I think PF1 is in some ways quite bloated. Been a long time since I played it, but a lot of optional content should be limited by the GM. I'm talking about things like...

I remember it being very vague and there being pretty much no mechanics that interact with it aside from skill checks. Like intimidation. What does it even do?

But there is no framework here at all. The system really does not even have rules for social encounters. Frankly the closest things to concise social encounter rules is the charm spell, because at least that thing is pretty predictable in what it allows you to do.

That would also be possible. "This rule applies to all player characters" Or this one "This rule only applies to non player characters" Done.

That smells like a logical error. You are asserting that if social rules exist they have to apply to all characters, and the rules applying to all characters is bad so the rule must not exist. This can be trivially proven false by counter example. We can obviously construct a rule that does...

I'm against having any kind of initiative system for social situations, but I'm not seeing an issue with abilities that can be useful in social situations. They shouldn't be instant things, but rather mechanics that you can point to and say that "yes I can do that". The bribe example above was...