User talk:Spazalicious Chaos

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)

It's unclear, but are you suggesting that both guys need to take the feat to use it? Given the situational nature of this type of feat, I think you could stand to boost the effects a bit, depending on intended balance level. Right now you have "accompany something someone else does, when you could do that already and don't get any real benefit for doing so", "give up your turn to get a whirlwind like attack, maybe" and "unclear but slightly better spell placement things", none of which look particularly appealing to me given the setup. - Tarkisflux 21:38, 19 January 2011 (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)

While I prefer magic to be more awesome than not, I actually don't care how this questions is answered with the caveat that players at the table are playing the same game. Most players in DnD 4e are playing the same game, even if I find it rather boring later on. Players in the same WoD system are largely on the same page, assuming traps are avoided (including any stealth nerfing the storyteller does through houserules), but when systems are mixed things go off the rails. So while I'd rather have Mage style magic than 4e style magic, the whole system fails as an interesting game as soon as someone wants to play a vampire or a hunter and that's unacceptable.

Possibly useful additional conversation on the subject: linky.

Unrelated bits - I think you have vamps and werewolves backwards, as I've never seen a decently built vamp that would even come close to losing to a werewolf. Also, home grown alternate WoD designed to allow all of those groups to play nicely in the same game: more linky - Tarkisflux 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have always had the experience of single white werewolf+20 vampires=2 severely wounded vampires, primarily because of the "shit hit the fan, therefore garu" mentality.

Back on the main point, I am with you on both your points: magic should be powerful and choices should not be limited. Thankfully, this is not a question of limiting choices. Merely taste.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 02:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal for A Problem

Looking at a link that led to this article, and looking back over many arguments on talk pages, I have come to the logical conclusion: arguments based on play style are invalid.

Ladies and gentlemen of the wiki, this is a game design site. Not a fan page where we all gush over how awesome Gygax's game is, not a review site for WotC's newest creations, but a site dedicated to new and original material. We are redesigning a game.

I am not without fault in this, for I, as a Simulationist, have dismissed some of the Gamist material I have ran across. But together we can clean up this bull shit, and all through an expansion on the rating system:

• The Dungeons and Dragons Wiki:Balance Points remain as they are, but with the header Gamist. The pre-established balance point system works perfectly for a Gamist goal in mind.
• For Simulationist play material, instead of balance point we state a One or Two word goal for what we are trying to emulate. We already have quite a bit of material with that goal point in mind, like Bleach D20 (3.5e Sourcebook), Pokémon d20 (3.5e Sourcebook), The Chocobo Project (3.5e Sourcebook), and Avatar Variant Rules (3.5e Variant Rule), with of course the wide variety of systems to incorporate "realism", like just about everything Frank and K wrote.
• Finally, we should have a Narrativist category, possibly with a series of subtypes to describe what flavor of Narrativism in being catered to. Narrativists hiding in the shadows of we loud-mouthed Gamists and Simulationists, now is your chance to rise up and be heard! For only you can create the subtypes that exist in your culture.

What this would imply is both a "no fly" list, allowing the unadventurous to stay away from material that would be offensive to their play style, but also a better base point that represents the authors actual play goals, like keeping annoying Simulationists like me for ragging on how Ghostwheels Wizard-level pure Gamist awesome is not realistic. It would force me in said situation to debate on his terms, not mine, and visa-versa for if he has issue with my Final-Fantasy/realistic/ancient mythology blends.

So, there is my sales pitch, but it is ultimately up to the admins as to whether it will be made a policy or not. So, ye mighty ban-hammer wielding gods of this sacred wiki, what say you?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)