Thats about it imo
I think it's neat how you can easily make your own aliens using it- or monsters like Vampires. Just take a human (or whatever as a base) and throw in mutations as you see fit.
From Future Tech, I like the rules for mixing mecha/infantry/space battles- but also haven't tried it yet.
Of course, a mecha doesn't stand a chance whatsoever against a spaceship.
I know the rules suck, but I have a question to throw out there: why do starships have HD?
Like most things in D20 games, it can probably be broken like a stick in the hands of those guys down on the CharOps board, but for non-powergame purposes I think it's stable.
This is maybe a bit off-topic, but it seems to me that this is the right attitude. I mean, if you want to break the system, you can. It's not hard. But that's on you. That's you breaking the game, choosing to push it past its tolerance. It's like breaking an X-Box over your kneed and then blaming the X-Box.
Take the starship rules for instance. They're "broken" because they don't make a whole lot of sense, and certain aspects of starship combat just don't work as intended.
Mecha is another instance. d20 Future's mecha rules don't work beyond PL6 Large and Huge sized mecha, Gargantuan and Colossal mecha become completely incapable of doing more than slowly scratching eachother to death. Making EXTREMELY long, drawn out, and consequently EXTREMELY boring combats. They're also not compatible with the starship rules, nor the existing vehicle rules. In this sense, they, too, are "broken."
Mecha is another instance. d20 Future's mecha rules don't work beyond PL6 Large and Huge sized mecha, Gargantuan and Colossal mecha become completely incapable of doing more than slowly scratching eachother to death. Making EXTREMELY long, drawn out, and consequently EXTREMELY boring combats.
Sounds like animé to me :P.
they engage is a slap fight for 5 minutes, then one decides to use the FancyNameAttack... which vaporizes the enemy instantly
Why they didnt start with the FancyNameAttack and kill the guy in the first round is a mystery.
No, that isn't a compliment.
Ragitsu: I've never played 4e and I came up with the idea independantly, so I don't know what to tell you about that. It creates dramatic tension to have only one or two shots with your Big Fun Gun, and I play a superhero system where contrived dramatic tension is central to the genre. I wouldn't recommend the same rules for a game that wants to be vaguely realistic, but that's my point, really. Decide if you want a realistic game or a dramatic game and then make your rules accordingly. d20 in general isn't very realistic. That's one of the reasons why it lends itself so well to cinematic action--fantasy, superheroes, action/adventure, etc.
Guys, seriously, chill out.
so we need to put a Once Per Session on the Abrams120 to prevent them form using it too soon?
Nah, dude, it's a once per 1d4+6 round attack because the Hiroshima MkIV nuke-reactor of the mecha needs time to charge the railgun's/energy cannon's/rail energy cannon's capacitor, and then in turn charge the railgun/energy cannon/rail energy cannon.
And honestly, guys, dailies were around before 4E. Modern is no stranger to them, either. Dailies on equipment, which Orion already said he wasn't recommending, are rather bogus however.
Ragitsu: I've never played 4e and I came up with the idea independantly, so
My last post was directed to backstabbist's last post.
I am kind of stressed out right now. I won't bore you with the details (we all have stress), but it's work-related. I'm finishing a big project.
As if graduate school was not enough stress.
For the record, though, I don't think TheRealOrion was being unduly confrontational. There was no real call for the random anti 4e posts thrown at him. In my opinion, those were a little unduly confrontational.
And thanks for the shout out narukugami.
I hear the stress bit. In fact, lately I have been so stressed, I just stopped posting. Getting your jaw broken, by a couple of corrupt cops, who raid your apartment with a warrant obtained with a criminally negligent lack of proper information (they were looking for the guy in the apartment bellow mine), tends to do that.
As if graduate school was not enough stress.
For the record, though, I don't think TheRealOrion was being unduly confrontational.
HOLY CRAP!
You gonna take them to court for that ****?
Here's hoping you sue can sue the local police hard enough for the department to get rid of those clowns...
For the record, though, I don't think TheRealOrion was being unduly confrontational. There was no real call for the random anti 4e posts thrown at him. In my opinion, those were a little unduly confrontational.
Well,
the random anti-4e post was thrown at ME,
and I didnt find it confrontational, but humorous (as I assume it was intended)
So I guess we can shift the concept to Ragistu posting something Unduly Humorous
(of which I forgive him
)Well,
the random anti-4e post was thrown at ME,
and I didnt find it confrontational, but humorous (as I assume it was intended)
Exactly.
TheRealOrion, however, was not confrontational. He was defensive. There is a difference.
Just who and what are you feeling was confronted by Ragitsu's reply to my post?
We know he wasnt confronting what Orion posted,
and it certainly wasnt confronting what you posted,
so where are you geting all the drama from?
Here is a outright confrontation-
No, not d10.... d10 is completely wrong... d10 is the lil plastic jerk of the die set, always trying to muscle in on other die rolls roles.
That obviously shouldnt upset you, we know it isnt confronting you since it has nothing to do with what you posted.... when I let you guys know who and what that post is talking about we will see it is just a jest.
well, unless you made yourself some kind of freakish Defener Of The d10's
that gets bent out of shape when any d10 is slurred or slighted.... then I guess you could get upset and see attacks on d10s where there are not any made.
In the interest of letting it drop:
I would like to be a freakish defender of the d10's. But it will need to wait a few weeks. At the current moment in time I can't defend much of anything. One hit to my jaw and I will definitely need surgery.
Poor D12...
Seriously though, Sorry to hear about you troubles CD I hope you heal up well and receive Justice.
knows they can defend them selves quite well
no, anime mech fight is
they engage is a slap fight for 5 minutes, then one decides to use the FancyNameAttack... which vaporizes the enemy instantly
Why they didnt start with the FancyNameAttack and kill the guy in the first round is a mystery.
It would have been a shorter cartoon silly!
back to the thread...
I use alot of stuff as a base. Most of my players are even more old school d20 than me and I hear no end of the issues they have with the book. But the are a bunch of powergamers..(makes Colonel Klink noise) they make me soo angry! lol
In the end I see d20 future as a buffet, I take what I like and leave the rest!
The Oberoni Fallacy= "Just because you can house-rule something to not be a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem to begin with."
I like the Rice-a-Roni Falasee better.
The Oberoni Fallacy= "Just because you can house-rule something to not be a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem to begin with."
Yes, even though I've been using that mantra long before Oberoni tacked his name to it. :P
Yes, even though I've been using that mantra long before Oberoni tacked his name to it. :P
Exactly. I hate how all these common sense lines suddenly have OWNERS and are IMPORTANT when hyperlinked!
Exactly. I hate how all these common sense lines suddenly have OWNERS and are IMPORTANT when hyperlinked!
i didn't hyperlink....
i didn't hyperlink....
I wasn't referring to your previous post, trappedslider
.I wasn't referring to your previous post, trappedslider
I know,my post was more like i should have done it...lol
The Oberoni Fallacy= "Just because you can house-rule something to not be a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem to begin with."
[The following rant is directed at no individual, certainly not the poster whom I've quoted.]
The "Oberoni Fallacy" is a pointless assertion that pretends to be deep and meaningful. Once you house-rule something to the satisfaction of the people at the table then you've fixed the problem. It was "broken" in the past, but now it's not any more. Done. Move on. The only reason to keep complaining is so that you (a person, not you) can keep laying blame on the creators. So okay, let's say they screwed up. So what? You fixed it and now you have this cool-ass game to play. What's the point of continuing to make unhappy noises?
.The Stormwind Fallacy is another one thats much older than the named individual's claim. Hell, the argument it makes is one people (not just myself) have been using since D&D was still property of TSR.
Isn't the Stormwind Fallacy normally just a combination of Poisoning the Well and Strawman... and maybe Bandwagon?
Isn't the Stormwind Fallacy normally just a combination of Poisoning the Well and Strawman... and maybe Bandwagon?
Yup.
The optimiser's defence with regard to role-play is "I can still play an interesting character once I've optimised" on the belief that all of what they dismissively call "fluff" is infinitely flexible and thus in a sense extraneous to what they call "crunch." I don't phrase it that way because I don't think you all know what those words mean (I assume you do or that you have the ability to look them up). I phrase it that way to distance myself from their distinctly dualistic metaphor (i.e., that thing that they claim is a fallacy). To me, role-play is about integrating the two things, character/story and rules. Sometimes, that means making decisions that don't benefit your character numerically because that's just not what your character would do.
The optimisers, even at their best, doesn't think that way. They make rule-based decisions and then rationalise the characters after the fact. If you prioritise power over character, then you're not really doing both. You're just improvising some cut-scenes in between your fights. And if you're a real optimiser--who strives to make all their characters' abilities "optimal"--then you must prioritise it, consistently. That's just the logical outcome of what optimisers claim their game-play style is based on.
Now to be clear, I have nothing whatever against that. If that's how you play the game, then please feel free with my compliments and I wouldn't dream of stopping you. Seriously! Enjoy. But don't tell me you're a deep role-player and don't have the smug arrogance to claim that everybody's experience would be enhanced if only they'd learn to play your way. Let's all just live and let live. Recognise that we have different styles of play that we favour, and that the marvellous thing about this game is that it can contain both extremes and various permutations of the two. That's something to celebrate, not bicker over.
TL;DR: I don't think the Stormwind Fallacy makes any sense either. In fact, I think invoking it is kind of a fallacy.
A particular character I'm playing right now in a D&D campaign is a high-powered charger, whose build I have charted almost completely from the beginning. However, before the campaign even came up I wrote a 5-page short about him (because I was bored and needed something fun to do).
When the game came up, I decided I really wanted to play that particular character, and so I skimmed my books for fitting classes/feats/flaws to build an optimal representation of who he is and what he is good at.
So far no one has been able to guess what class I am, and I've developed an interesting and humorous role in the party: muscle/peacekeeper. I have a lot of fun as the former in combat, and the latter tends to have me talking teammates away from each others' throats often... which involves a lot of in-game reasoning and RP. :P
I know in debate it's preferred to not count personal experience, due to the possibility of a special case, but the existence of any case of a roleplayer/optimizer kinda backs the Stormwind set.
The Stormwind Fallacy is another one thats much older than the named individual's claim. Hell, the argument it makes is one people (not just myself) have been using since D&D was still property of TSR.
I believe Stormwind has said that the Stormwind Fallacy was just the false dilemna fallacy. I think he has said that the Fallacy isn't original or even needing a special name. He said he called it that after being faced by people that kept making the false dilemna fallacy.
And that's all I'm saying until this becomes a separate thread, I swear!
on topic I really like the radiation sickness rules from d20 future, and I like the concept of gadgets. I find it clever how they gave a few skeleton weapons (ie, laser rifle, plasma pistol) and let you go to town with gadgets (plasma carbine= compact gadget + plasma rifle, accurized laser rifle= laser sniper+autofire gadget, starship trooper gun= assault rifle+alt weapon gadget (shotgun)). However, I think they seriously botched it in practice.
Also, modern weapons continue to be better than future ones for hundreds of years, and don't get me started on the armour.
and I like the concept of gadgets. I find it clever how they gave a few skeleton weapons (ie, laser rifle, plasma pistol) and let you go to town with gadgets (plasma carbine= compact gadget + plasma rifle, accurized laser rifle= laser sniper+autofire gadget, starship trooper gun= assault rifle+alt weapon gadget (shotgun)). However, I think they seriously botched it in practice
The carbine of a d10 HvyCrossbow is a smaller d8 LtCrossbow, not a d10 Compact Crossbow.
The carbine of a 2d10 rifle is a smaller 2d8 rifle, not a smaller 2d10 Compact rifle
I made up a chart of what happends when you make all the nominal classes of weapon techs:
Bold is RAW
(well, it would be simpler had I made it really wide instead of breaking the table into 2 lines to fit the screen better... it was supposed to be one wide list of SmPistol-BigRifle all the way across)
It lists the gun roles, from pocket pistol to personal cannon,
then has a column for each weapon technology.
First I placed the RAW stats in the columns under proper class (check the weight of Railgun and Disintegrator, they're Hvy and Carbine by physical characteristics), then estimated values for the other sizes based on the role(size) relationships from firearms.
When someone in the future goes to his local PlasMart gunstore
and gets a full suite of arms, from a pocket pistol for the wife to a big frickin monsterkiller for CousinBubba,
we go across to the PLASMA column and we see the data for PlasDerringer, PlasPistol, PlasHvyPistol, PlasCarbine, PlasRifle, PlasHvyRifle, and PlasAMR
another use of the chart is to give analysis of the weapon technologies in comparison,
we notice things like the 3d10 rifle nerf limiting advancement of weapon tech... we just stop making better weapons? One could argue that there is an upper cap as to return of increased damage, that past a certain point you dont need more damage.... that would be true if there was a cap on EnemyHP that would yeild reliable kills... but there aint.
I modified the chart a bit for a Crossbow discussion, here is another version in widescreen
