Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 10d10

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
Gaming Advice / Re: Best Online system?
« on: September 13, 2012, 10:00:36 AM »
How about the GUMSHOE system? Does it have any magic for the PCs?

2
Gaming Advice / Re: Best Online system?
« on: September 13, 2012, 09:35:29 AM »
For any sort of modern setting with 'magic' of whatever form, if you want a narrative system, I recommend a good hard look at Dresden Files RPG. It does basically everything nWoD does and more, only better. The FATE system it's based on might take some getting used to, but it's the best narrativist system I've had the pleasure of playing and GMing with. While its books are very focused on the Dresdenverse that the game is based on, it's nearly trivial to adapt to many other settings - if so inclined, you can very easily recreate the nWoD splats in spirit if not in exact mechanics, for example. Other FATE-based games may work in the same vein, but DFRPG is the only one I've personally played.

As online play goes, it's hard to gauge what will be quick and what will be slow, really, but mechanics-light systems in general will run faster than mechanics-heavy ones for obvious reasons. In DFRPG, the chat environment can be very useful for working things like aspect invocations and maneuvers out as a group, which the game heavily encourages.

For other alternatives... Mutants & Masterminds will work with practically any setting, but is probably less than ideal for online play, being very involved and mechanics-oriented (though a chat enviornment can help with descriptors in a similar way to aspects).

I heard good things about the Dresden Files/Spirit's system. Mostly as a narrative rich, or at least not heavily focused on combat. Mechanics are not a problem, but things like Hero or with a broken mechanics is never a good thing to play with.

Thanks for the tips I just got the DFRPG books, I'll look into them to see how it goes :)

3
Gaming Advice / Re: Best Online system?
« on: September 13, 2012, 09:25:57 AM »
Modern, or postmodern?  If the latter, then I submit Magipunk.

Modern, an urban fantasy type of setting. But I'll check magipunk! Thanks :)

4
Gaming Advice / Best Online system?
« on: September 13, 2012, 08:46:53 AM »
So... for a long long time me and my friends went from play by forum to play by MSN/Skype/Anything, since we're all far away, we make do with WoD (nWoD nowadays) since we were used to it and it was supposed to be story-focused.

But I wanted to know from the more well rounded players here who experienced other RPG systems.... which ones would be best fitting for online playing in a modern setting with magic/psion-ish type of powers?

5
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.5] Melee(ish) spellcaster
« on: March 09, 2012, 07:53:58 AM »
Daggerspell Mage?

From Complete Arcane?

6
Other RPGs / Re: What's the problem with GURPS?
« on: March 08, 2012, 09:13:17 PM »
Ah, then you might have problems yeah. I think even WoD games handle having regular conflict better.

But from what you guys told me, I think it'll be nice :)

7
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.5] Melee(ish) spellcaster
« on: March 08, 2012, 02:24:24 PM »
I was thinking of the 20-level setup beguiler 6/swiftblade 10/abjurant champion 4.  Look under the "Skill" Blades spoiler here.

This link, sir, is greatness :D thank you very much.

But would a full-sorcerer or full-wizard be up to par with other classes? Are they good enough all by themselves? Not that I want to be a melee fighter, but I don't want to die in combat either....
That's why you have to look at...

Where I can find Mystic Shield?
Empire of Shade.

Aha! I'll look into it :)

8
Other RPGs / Re: What's the problem with GURPS?
« on: March 08, 2012, 02:21:26 PM »
What kind of campaign are you guys interested in running?  B/c, as Veekie and I have both indicated, saying "I want to play GURPS" is kind of vacuous. 

Our DM is VERY experienced in GURPS, so his world is low on magic (and magic items) and centered on resolving conflicts using other methods besides the "I'll attack him!!!"

So when we started playing D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder after that) in his world and compared to the NPCs, our party was kind of epic and ultimate overpowering............at level 10. Sure he was able to pick up the pieces and turn the difficulty on, blast us with challenging combats, but that was not his initially proposal...

Everyone agreed to try it out (the gritty, lethal, hard stuff), since the DM is very good with story and NPC characterization, I just wanted the heads up for any eventual frustration since I came from a D&D and WoD/nWoD background where everybody is kind of strong in their own way.

9
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.5] Melee(ish) spellcaster
« on: March 08, 2012, 08:53:26 AM »
TC, how do you feel about a skills/control/melee triple threat, albeit one that's a little slow to mature?  A beguiler/swiftblade/abjurant champion should provide you with a drastically different experience from a warmage, while still being an arcanist and retaining the tactical flexibility of being a spontaneous caster.

Wow I'll look into that, sounds like a great combo... Would that be... what? 5 levels on beguilder + 5 into swiftblade then AChamp?

10
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.5] Melee(ish) spellcaster
« on: March 08, 2012, 08:51:17 AM »
Even a full caster (like wizard XX) can go melee with the right spell selection. You only have to care about improving your defenses really high. I.e. Ghostform+Mystic Shield (for immunity to damage for CL rounds) is good at high levels, then you can go melee and use spells like Death by Thorns (it allows a save but even if your enemy makes the save he will be most likely dead).

But you said low levels, no idea there, but Combust is a really nice low-level melee-spell. I used it auto-empowered on my Wu Jen (that damage was crazy, 68 average damage on level 7 with a level 2 spell).

@phaedrusxy: Daggerspell Mage could work, too, while we're at it... They are melee and not beeing seen is a pretty good defense.

But would a full-sorcerer or full-wizard be up to par with other classes? Are they good enough all by themselves? Not that I want to be a melee fighter, but I don't want to die in combat either....

11
Other RPGs / Re: What's the problem with GURPS?
« on: March 08, 2012, 08:44:30 AM »
Well, the worst part of it is probably the fans whose answer to every roleplaying question is to 'Use GURPS' :p.

HAHA! That sounds just like my DM!

So basically, it's an OK system but hard to build and you won't be heroic motherfucker as you could be in Pathfinder and D&D...

Is it fun to play, tho'?

12
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.5] Melee(ish) spellcaster
« on: March 07, 2012, 01:34:53 PM »
Cleric or Druid.  They do melee better than fighters.

I'm actually looking for something arcane (sorry I should've mentioned this before).

13
Min/Max 3.x / [3.5] Melee(ish) spellcaster
« on: March 07, 2012, 01:08:27 PM »
For a long time I was playing a Warmage, it was nice and all, but sometimes I felt very restricted by the school focus this class has. We never reach a very high level (we stopped at level 10) but soon my group will come back in a 3.5 campaign stating at level 6 and I wanted to try something a bit different from warmage...

So which classes (and feats) do you recommend for a melee spellcaster? It doesn't need to be very heavy on the melee side.

14
Other RPGs / What's the problem with GURPS?
« on: March 06, 2012, 12:25:31 PM »
So, my DM wants to start a new campaign using GURPS (3ed) and we are thinking about it. Half of the players know the system, the other half is willing to learn (myself included), but I do remember many people saying bad things about the system.

I know most people here are used to D&D, so I'm asking you: what's up with GURPS? Is it really a bad system?

15
Not only a TEAM PARTY is necessary, but a DM who knows what he's doing and is strong on his feet.

I was in a very long campaign (3.5) and everybody was happy. We had messed up characters (like an incompetent paladin) and over-minmaxed characters (like our cleric). But the group worked as one, we had an unofficial leader (the wizard/sorcerer aiming on being Archmage) and a second in command (me, warmage), so when everyone split up or started to get crazy in-game, we told them to calm the fuck down and focus, because, as much as our DM was great, he gave too much freedom and was easily convinced of things.

Then came the competitive guy, telling all those great things about Pathfinder and how it made everything better and more shiny. How it was more balanced and such... Our DM was intrigued, we switched systems, but the DM was very dependent on the new guy for rules and such. We were not expecting his druid to be the "Oh I'm so badass mysterious lone wolf, you're a good party? too bad, I'm kinda evil" who liked to kill random NPCs (when he thought the NPCs were "showing off") and liked to show everyone how he and his tiger were so much better.  :rolleyes

This imploded our group and showed how much the tier-4 characters could be obsolete while he, the only tier-1 (since the cleric died somewhere) did everything. And if he lacked melee skills, his tiger fill the gap with 5 attacks per turn, making any fighter such a sissy stupid option.

So, yeah, acting as a team, maturity on the part of the players AND a DM who's firm. That's a nice balance for the tier mixing up thing.

16
I was mostly thinking on Elven Accuracy (if your DM allowed) and Pinpoint Targeting :)

On a roguish note, I'm getting all your and Basket Burner's comments and ideas on PF treating rogues like shit and taking to my group. The DM will probably be OK giving them some buffs from now on.

17
Flanking Foil is an abomination of the greatest order, and as a rogue lover, it infuriates me that it exists.  It isn't a nerf to rogues, it completely neuters them, it'd be like a feat that made spellcasters lose the ability to cast spells (and that worked at range, because unlike Rogues, who in PF can't really do the ranged SA thing, casters don't need to melee)!  The DM refused to ban it when I asked, but I will not sink to that level of bullshit even if faced with a sneak attacker, it just isn't right. *cue link to Honor Before Reason trope*

Preach, sneaky brother  :clap


So, what about all those feats that ignore cover and makes your arrows basically a heat-seeking missile? It's a shame that disruptive shot is a fighter's only thing, it can be very useful... Maybe your DM would consider it?

18
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: [PF+3.5] Breaking the AC
« on: March 01, 2012, 07:08:03 AM »
Better idea I think is to go with Rejakor's  suggestion, multiple foes that ping through his defenses, or around him while he blockades a few. Wolf pack tactics, where several enemies limit his mobility physically(say a pair flanking him), and then other high mobility enemies harry his allies.
+1.  I actually play a supermount character whose AC is actually kind of too high (45-50 at level 13), so I've given my DM a list of options to get around that.  I could post it if you're interested.  I like things like Emerald Razor and Wands of True Strike b/c they make me feel like my AC has a real effect -- the baddies are wasting actions, etc. so that even if I do get hit, I'm nerfing them.  I'm also quite good at taking hits, which also makes me ok with that tactic.

The other one, as others have noted, is the ganging up tactics.  If a swarm of baddies have to waste their actions to accumulate enough Aid Another actions to hit me, then I also feel pretty good about myself.  It lets the PC take damage, which is I take it part of the goals of this thread, but it also helps him feel awesome:  look, it took 15 of them working together to even scratch me!

I would appreciate that list :D please share

The tanker in the party has a AC of 34 at the 6th level, it's kinda impressive too (altho', his armor check penalty is -14)

19
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: [PF+3.5] Breaking the AC
« on: February 29, 2012, 11:31:35 AM »
how bout leaving ac alone and attack w/ will saves.

They're expecting that. Last game everyone ran into an undead ent-type of boss and for every magical attack (made by a party consisting on 90% spellcasters) everyone had to make a will save or else, run away. In the end there was only 2 there: the druid (of course  :rolleyes ) and a fey sorcerer (iron will made all the difference).

So they're expecting another WILL SAVES NOW! kind of boss and they'll probably go to the table with tactics for that (nothing wrong with that, tho'). Best thing is to hit with melee and maybe after a few encounters, they'll be able to use that tactics :)

20
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: [PF+3.5] Breaking the AC
« on: February 29, 2012, 07:08:07 AM »
Better idea I think is to go with Rejakor's  suggestion, multiple foes that ping through his defenses, or around him while he blockades a few. Wolf pack tactics, where several enemies limit his mobility physically(say a pair flanking him), and then other high mobility enemies harry his allies.

Yes, Rejakor's idea helped me personally on other levels too. It's always good to remember balancing the challenges... and that there are always traps which will be highly beneficial for the Rogue to shine. And I have to remember that the guy must have his moments of being a badass tanker.

But it seems that a fight with a few (competent) enemies should do the trick to.

(and for the moment of despair there's always rust monsters)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5