Difference between revisions of "User talk:Spazalicious Chaos"
(I knew I forgot something...) |
(→The Great Question: new section) |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:: So, what you have is two or more separate sets of prerequisites, which are intended to prepare one for a particular role in the feat. With the above example, you have guy A, someone dedicated to defense and space threatening, and dude B, clearly a combat caster. This feat suddenly makes it beneficial not only to work together, but within arms reach of each other. Together, they are a multi threat spell turret, sitting in one place devastating any who come near them. That is my dream for this feat category: brotherly love through kicking ass and taking names.--Change=Chaos. Period. [[User:Spazalicious Chaos| SC]] 08:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | :: So, what you have is two or more separate sets of prerequisites, which are intended to prepare one for a particular role in the feat. With the above example, you have guy A, someone dedicated to defense and space threatening, and dude B, clearly a combat caster. This feat suddenly makes it beneficial not only to work together, but within arms reach of each other. Together, they are a multi threat spell turret, sitting in one place devastating any who come near them. That is my dream for this feat category: brotherly love through kicking ass and taking names.--Change=Chaos. Period. [[User:Spazalicious Chaos| SC]] 08:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == The Great Question == | ||
+ | |||
+ | After a few rule skirmishes I have had on this site, I would like to know where everyone stands on one issue, one simple question that I have found defines how their games work: '''should magic be powerful?''' | ||
+ | |||
+ | To help those who are unsure, let me show you the opposite ends of the pool: | ||
+ | *'''D&D 4.0: Fuck NO!'''- the entire basis of 4e appears to be striving for perfect balance. "My wizard can shoot fireballs!" "Oh, yeah? My fighter can throw his sword and clear a line of enemies." I recognize that this IS a perfectly acceptable style of play, but I still have trouble keeping the vomit down. | ||
+ | *'''World of Darkness: Fuck YEAH!'''- Here is the WOD food chain in terms of rippage= normal people are ripped by hunters, who are ripped by vampires, who are ripped by werewolves, who all cower before mages. There are only two ways to kill a mage- A) catch them when they are simultaneously stupid and asleep, and B) get really, really lucky. A stupid mages dominates the field, while a smart mage dominates the city. This is where I'm at. | ||
+ | |||
+ | So, where do we stand?--Change=Chaos. Period. [[User:Spazalicious Chaos| SC]] 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:02, 19 January 2011
Contents
A few words of wisdom from a madman
First of welcome. You will find some know-it-alls on this site, but most are rational thinkers. Ghost-wheel and TK-Squared are both intelligent - don't let their condescending attitude fool you. And don't take it personally from them. Everyone else is pretty cool hereabouts.
To increase your knowledge in D&D, you may want to try to make a homebrew in every section. So as to better understand any inherent miscalculations. Also, I'm mad! You may not want to make the same mistakes as I did. Good luck. remember madness is bliss. --Franken Kesey 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- YAY! A PERSON! AND THEY DON'T WANT ME TO DIE FOR ONCE!!! :D
- Sorry, I'm just used to people on the net hating me. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- DIE! I mean... HI! Sup? -- Eiji-kun 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Meh... You? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome. You can check out the IRC chat if you want to become acquainted with some stuff or if you have any questions about said stuff or the game in general. I hope this site provides the kind of thing you are looking for. - TG Cid 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you want me to rework your user page? --Franken Kesey 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- What did you have in mind? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 17:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Something like this, but with "Attempts at Anarchy" as a heading. Can be edited at any time. --Franken Kesey 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, but thanks. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Assistance?
Following Franken advice, I would like to create a source book: Book of Grievous Injury. I would like it to expand combat options with expanded maneuvers, detailed damage and healing, and the effects of the major damage food groups (fire, slashing, force, etc.), but I will need help to get past my inevitable newbishness. Any volunteers? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will most certainly try to help incoherence along. But do not have any DnD books at hand. Thus I might only add to your newbe aura.
- On another note, you should checkout my starships as a possible vehicle for your campaigns. I'll be seeing you at the anarchy group meeting tomorrow...Right? Madness is bliss --Franken Kesey 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The book is done, so how do I move over to the source books section?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 06:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Click on the down arrow to the right of the view history. Click move, then remove "User:Spazalicious Chaos/" from the name. Also you need to add "(3.5e Sourcebook)" at the end. Might take a day or two to show up in the nav page. --Franken Kesey 16:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
New Feat Category Discussion
This is going off of an idea I ran across here which I think has merit to it. D&D already has tactical feats, but a joint tactical feat, where two or more characters with different skills can combine their capabilities. The only thing I do not agree with is Teh Storms limited vision of what they can do. I picture these as giving access to a number of maneuvers, like tactical feats. Ideas? Debunkers? Anyone?!? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's a potentially interesting idea, but depends so much on how it's actually done. Requiring multiple people to take the same or similar feats to gain access to a combined action is a steep cost on it's own. And then you have to balance how the combo action works compared to individual actions, and deal with the opportunity cost of in-battle setup and what not. So the idea has some promise, maybe, but there are a lot of things that need to be ironed out before it could be called good. If you have an example in mind that isn't that guy's ranting, it would probably help. - Tarkisflux 01:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Something like this:
Watch Tower (Joint Feat) <-One of the names I've been bouncing for this kind of feat.
Combining spell and sword, you two are near unstoppable!
- Prereq A- Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes
- Prereq B- Combat Casting, Quicken Spell (Metamagic)
If you and an ally can fulfill the two prerequisites, you gain access to the following abilities:
- Spell Tower- Character B can use a quickened spell as an immediate action to accompany any action of character A.
- Tower Guard- If characters A and B are adjacent, character A can ready this ability to accompany any spell character B casts. Upon casting, character A makes a single attack against every target that is a melee threat to character B. If the attack deals damage, that threat may not make an attack of opportunity on character B.
- Paired Patrol- Any magical effect that grants immunity by character B for any spell B casts also benefits character A, provided both are adjacent to one another. Example: Mialee casts a sculpted fireball, sculpting herself out of the radius. Tordek, who is next to Mialee, took this feat with her five levels ago, thus he is also exempt from her fiery destruction.
- So, what you have is two or more separate sets of prerequisites, which are intended to prepare one for a particular role in the feat. With the above example, you have guy A, someone dedicated to defense and space threatening, and dude B, clearly a combat caster. This feat suddenly makes it beneficial not only to work together, but within arms reach of each other. Together, they are a multi threat spell turret, sitting in one place devastating any who come near them. That is my dream for this feat category: brotherly love through kicking ass and taking names.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 08:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The Great Question
After a few rule skirmishes I have had on this site, I would like to know where everyone stands on one issue, one simple question that I have found defines how their games work: should magic be powerful?
To help those who are unsure, let me show you the opposite ends of the pool:
- D&D 4.0: Fuck NO!- the entire basis of 4e appears to be striving for perfect balance. "My wizard can shoot fireballs!" "Oh, yeah? My fighter can throw his sword and clear a line of enemies." I recognize that this IS a perfectly acceptable style of play, but I still have trouble keeping the vomit down.
- World of Darkness: Fuck YEAH!- Here is the WOD food chain in terms of rippage= normal people are ripped by hunters, who are ripped by vampires, who are ripped by werewolves, who all cower before mages. There are only two ways to kill a mage- A) catch them when they are simultaneously stupid and asleep, and B) get really, really lucky. A stupid mages dominates the field, while a smart mage dominates the city. This is where I'm at.
So, where do we stand?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)