|
Post by Daos on May 7, 2020 11:13:37 GMT -8
What do you think of it, though? Does it sound fun or interesting?
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on May 7, 2020 13:46:09 GMT -8
What do you think of it, though? Does it sound fun or interesting? Im undecided on that as it sounds a bit odd then again i guess that is how they run them at conventions right random groups that change, no set group of pc's or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Zero Prime on May 7, 2020 14:31:23 GMT -8
It honestly sounds very similar to most Living - campaigns or convention style gaming I've seen. Pathfinder & Starfinder Society games I've seen or participated in.
However I prefer static group composition and recurring companions, because I, too, find it weird to adventure with for folks for one session, and then four folks for another. Though most Society games are able to be played to conclusion in a single session, so you're not swapping out party's one-story.
It dies lend itself to a specific style of min-maxing though, in that even a fighter needs to purchase equipment and gear with the assumption that a healer may not be present for any given session.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on May 7, 2020 16:19:34 GMT -8
I've never participating in a living campaign, or a convention one, so I hadn't thought of that. Rather, I was reminded more of an MMORPG. Players gathering together when they can to take on a dungeon, then dispersing once they are done definitely reminds me of my time spent in FF11/14 and DDO.
|
|
|
Post by Zero Prime on May 7, 2020 16:30:35 GMT -8
Ha! I'm an old World of Warceaft guy, so, yeah, I never put it in that frame 9f reference. It can work, and with the right players you can even get folks who play really well off of one another and get some great RP in. Or, you can run into some players who are challenging to work with, and may not have the same values or goals as you do.
It can be a mixed bag, but it certainly can work. I think PFS has been running for almost 10 years, and SFS is in it's second year.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on May 8, 2020 13:39:43 GMT -8
It could be a fun diversion, especially if you are just desperate to play and conflicting schedules are always getting in the way. But my favorite part of D&D is the interaction, the character development, the socializing...a game without any of that would get boring for me pretty quickly. Which is probably why I always got tired of MMORPGs after a few months. Well, that, and everyone I ran into would be a huge asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Zero Prime on May 8, 2020 13:56:39 GMT -8
I agree, I much prefer a campaign rather than a one-shot for that very reason. Character growth is fun, and sometimes good roleplay with other player's ends up taking my character in directions I didn't initially anticipate.
I also agree about MMO's, I could brain off and theory craft with the best of them, but I'd bail on a raid in a heartbeat for the opportunity to get into characters with friends around a table.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on May 25, 2020 14:24:35 GMT -8
Here's a topic for discussion. Psionics. Good? Bad? What do you think?
Seems like their very existence has always been somewhat controversial. Some hate them because in earlier editions, they were quite broken. Others hate them because they think it clashes with the 'high fantasy' motif of D&D. Heck, they are outright banned in Dragonlance. Not only do psionics not exist there, they even have a rule in place that states if a psionic travels to Krynn via portal or spelljammer, their powers cease to exist until they leave again.
Me, I have nothing against them, but I've never used them, as I don't have the materials to implement them. I don't even know how they work, to be honest, but I think back in 2E they used a point system instead of the traditional Vancian casting.
|
|
TristenC
Elite
in the æther
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by TristenC on May 25, 2020 16:02:46 GMT -8
I was very resistant to Psionics for quite a long time (over a decade) until I eventually took the time to understand them in order to run one of my favourite modules properly (Labyrinth of Madness). I really only dealt with 2e Psioics for any real length of time.
Short version for 2nd is: -Psionics are not magiv, and not directly affected by things like dispel or anti-magic (they can work against each other in a way when the focus is a creature or object.)
-A character only starts with one Discipline (Think of Disciplines like priest spheres or wiizard schools and Powers like spells.) within that is a sub-category named Sciences into which Devotions (individual Powers) fall. The number of each increases gradually with level.
-Using a power is a lot like using a Non-Wep Proficiency; and each power is based on a specific stat. The char makes a roll and determines success.
-Psionic energy is tracked on a point system called PSP (Psionic Strength Points), based mainly on Wis and small bonuses for Int and Con. It also increases by level.
-It costs points to Use a power, fewer points to -maintain- a power round-to-round, and there is evn a cost for failure (roughly half the cost of success.) -PSPs are recovered slowly when not doing anything strenuous, and much more rapidly during sleep
As for how i feel about them... they are ok. I allow them i games now whereas I previously did not. I don't go out of my way to use them.
|
|
|
Post by GreyWolfVT on May 26, 2020 9:43:54 GMT -8
I've always been leary of the psionics too many variables to try and deal with DM end of things. Sure probably no more different than spells being hurled by spellcaster classes but I find the whole thing very difficult to manage. Which is partially why i never use any monsters that have mind control/powers to contend with. Maybe simple talking through psyching means sure but the rest is too far over my head to manage.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on May 26, 2020 14:36:37 GMT -8
-Psionics are not magic, and not directly affected by things like dispel or anti-magic (they can work against each other in a way when the focus is a creature or object.) This is what I've heard, in that the only way to resist psionics is with psionics. So it's not something you want to introduce into a setting without going all out on it. In other words, one person with psionics can pretty much rule the world, as long as they don't run into anyone else with psionics.
|
|
TristenC
Elite
in the æther
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by TristenC on May 26, 2020 14:48:17 GMT -8
That's kind of a gross oversimplification and over-exaggeration of it that many people make.
For example if a Pscionicist wanted to attack someone mentally, they would first make contact and then make an attempt to use their ability. There are spells and magic items to protect the user from mental attack, and those would be effective against psionics because in that case the creature itself itself is what is being manipulated. the same would go for using telekinesis on an object. a Psionicist using telekinetic power and a mage using telekinesis would both exert force on the object and thus could oppose each other. A mage could not neutralize the psionicist with dispel Magic and there is no psionic equivalent for cutting off Magic Use. in essence they have to go toe-to-toe over any given thing rather than merely attempting to dispel or create globe of invulnerability.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on May 27, 2020 14:21:41 GMT -8
Ah, I see.
From what I've heard, later editions changed the mechanics of psionics, making it more like a third type of magic (as opposed to divine and arcane). Which probably helped in simplifying it and making it easier to use, but probably also robbed it of some of its unique flavor, as well.
|
|
TristenC
Elite
in the æther
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by TristenC on May 27, 2020 15:33:35 GMT -8
probably simpler all around for them to do it that way. Looked into the play-test psionics for 5th edition but it seems more like they are just adding little psionic flavors to each of the classes instead of creating a full psionicist
|
|
|
Post by Daos on May 28, 2020 10:57:15 GMT -8
Yes, they do seem to prefer making new sub-classes rather than whole new classes the way 3E did. I think I prefer that, as it makes things simpler.
|
|