User talk:Ghostwheel

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Revision as of 00:00, 29 October 2010 by 149.169.221.210 (talk) (→‎In need of a rating)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

For Personal Reference

|favor=X
|raters=Ghostwheel
{{RC Favor|rater=Ghostwheel
|points=X
|reason=Stuff}}

Ideas for Classes

  • Pyrokineticist variant PrC --Ghostwheel 18:29, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
  • The Thief of Time PrC --Ghostwheel 20:08, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • 4e Mobile Striker, a la Subaru from Nanoha StrikerS --Ghostwheel 20:08, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • Warrior of the Mind - Gains points by expending psionic focus --Ghostwheel 10:00, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  • Diamond Saint PrC - Like the Jade Pheonix Mage, but combines psionics and martial adeptness --Ghostwheel 07:31, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
  • Drunken Master PrC - one that actually works --Ghostwheel 03:58, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • Planar Architect - Class that changes the very fabric of the plane to be a good rogue-level controller --Ghostwheel 23:03, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  • Elemental warrior - uses short-term buffs (swift action to activate, lasts 3 rounds?) to power up his abilities which opens up chains of options. --Ghostwheel 05:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Martial Discipline - Ice-based one, kinda similar to what Rukia/Toshiro have. --Ghostwheel 11:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Grimoire Category + My Stuff

Here is a list of stuff that I wrote at the rogue level and would probably be Grimoire-friendly. When you get the chance, can you review them and add the Grimoire category if they fit nicely (and if they don't, let me know why).

Cheers! --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 19:27, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Skill Tricks

Do we have a place for skill tricks on the wiki? I'd like to create one that lets you use str instead of dex when throwing a weapon 1/encounter. --Ghostwheel 12:05, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Just wanting to give props to the fact that when ever i'm reading through a class and someone says "this class is op, i wouldn't let anyone use" you just seem to give them the stock "...read balance points..." and it always makes my day cause it's the last thing they say in the discussion :D Balthuras 05:52, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. On one hand, if the person wants to learn then I've given them something to chew on and digest until they understand what we're trying to do here for the most part. On the other hand, if they don't want to learn, then it gives me a way to shut them up, since they generally go, "tl;dr" and go away, while giving us an excuse to tell them to go back and read again if they obviously haven't already. --Ghostwheel 08:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

RNG Dickery

I recently read a post that led me to think about things RNG-wise. Basically, the premise is to keep things on the RNG 1-20 by reducing the increases to absolute RNG-based things. Just for this example, let's assume that classes are split into 4 levels; each of these is known as a path. One may either change paths every 4 levels (gaining versatility and ways to do things) or continue on the same path, gaining more powerful options. However, the paths aren't so strong that one must continue the whole way in order to be effective. (Examples include the grimoire rogue, the grimoire tenken, or the grimoire soulknife. Each of these has set ways of dealing damage, and can find more ways to deal damage by multiclassing each other, but the higher-level abilities aren't so game-changing that one has to have them, unlike classes like the tome fighter for example--who's going to give up on Foil Action?)
The second part is that every four levels, a class with low BAB does not get a bonus to attack, a class with medium BAB gets +1 to attack, and a class with high BAB gets +1 BAB. At +2 BAB a character gains a second attack as per the iterative attack variant, with improvements at +3 and +4 BAB. (Perhaps add in a feat that can be taken at most twice which replaces a +1 to attack with +1 BAB.) Rather than having a BAB requirement, feats would require "tiers", kinda like 4e; 1-4 is tier 1, 5-8 is tier 2, 9-12 is tier 3, 13-16 is tier 4, and 17-20 is tier 5. So someone might take two paths of rogue followed by a path of tenken, and then back to continue along the rogue path, which would fill 4 paths in total, or basically their progression up to level 16.
In this way, characters who use attacks go from +0 at level one to +5 at tier five, allowing the use of low-level creatures throughout a character's progression, with power not coming from RNG-dickery, but instead from the amount of damage dealt.
I'm not sure if there's any actual use in this, especially for something like the grimoire system which models RNG-based stuff around what a character would have at level X, keeping everyone on the RNG by having numbers scale accordingly. Does anyone see a use to this? Does it have any redeeming features? Or is it just a waste of time? --Ghostwheel 10:14, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

The parallels to E6 and like variants is observable and I definitely think something like this has merit in theory, though the primary issue I see is that it's a significant enough of a departure from the established material that you can't really market it as D&D d20 (and since that's the audience you're catering to, that's an issue). From a new product perspective the market is favorable in that it's easy to enter with minimal entry cost, but acquiring a large enough user base to make the time invested in the project seem worthwhile might be difficult, unless you really don't care whether people like it or use it (but then, why would you create it?). In short, how much free time to do you have, and are you willing to invest it in something which may or may not have any significant return on investment, material or otherwise? I'd be interested in playing it, however, if you ever got it all together. -- Jota 20:19, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts:
  • It has potential power scale issues and looks likely to break down differences between levels at the high end, but probably be fine on the low end. More linear growth than exponential growth basically, with all of the inherent later advancement issues. Potentially resolvable based on force multiplier breakpoints (multiple attacks, spell level growth, etc.).
  • The path thing looks like a less granular multiclassing setup, which is fine. It would probably work even better if you got the actual high level additions for the classes instead of starting over for the new class (not the full damage values though), but that might just be my preference for level appropriate actions talking.
  • It might not stop RNG dickery at all, since this just makes your expected values smaller but does nothing to cap unexpected bonuses. It appears to keep base values close together, however,
  • The feats tier thing is something I like and have been toying with in various forms for a while now, mostly as a way to make low requirement weak feats cost less as the game goes on to avoid punishing people for having to go back and get them.
- TarkisFlux 00:19, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

How Charm Person Works, Perhaps?

First: Charm person doesn't give a second save. The +5 is to the initial save, if the target is being threatened by the caster or her allies at the time of casting. Attacking or threatening the target after the time of casting results in the charm being immediately broken.

Second: Casting charm on someone is considered an attack, but it cannot provide the +5 bonus to itself. It requires a separate attack or threat in order to provide the bonus. Casting charm a second time after a first attempt has failed does provide the bonus. Since casting charm is an attack, casting charm on an already charmed person instantly breaks the previous charm, thus if they succeed in the new charm's saving throw, they can act freely. This makes permanently charming someone more difficult.

Third: Charm adjusts the target's attitude to 'friendly'. The definition of being 'friendly' toward someone will be naturally affected by the subject's normal attitude and mode of thinking. For example, to a drow, a 'friendly' attitude probably means 'be civil, polite, and only moderately suspicious of the person, and do not consider them an immediate enemy.' It doesn't mean quite the same thing as friendly would to a less suspicious or hostile person of another race.

Fourth: The target recognizes that something attempted to affect them, but they have no idea what, and are likely (though not certain) to believe it failed to affect them since there is no obvious effect. --Ghostwheel 04:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

In need of a rating

To say that we each find the other abhorrent, a babble mouth, stupid, or a jackass would be a gross anomaly. We admittedly have some detest with the the other. Yet, I still find your comments to be helpful, and non-condensing at times. And even with your problems (I definitely have some to), I have great respect for your ideas. Who could forget your work on the Viveka Spectre! So out of respect, I request your advice and rating of the following: Sith/ Jedi (3.5e Class), Viveka Spectre (3.5e Prestige Class), and Uongo-mijusi (3.5e Race). I, in part, would dislike if this conflict should wane - but thanks. Your bain --Franken Kesey 02:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (the madman)

  1. Anomaly isn't the correct word in this case. I'm guessing you are trying to use the connotative meaning under the third definition found here, but if so "erroneous" would be a word that actually works. Anomaly doesn't whatsoever.
  2. You can't have "some detest" with another person. To detest is a verb. To have something with someone, that something needs to be a noun.
That said, if you want a rating... *goes to look* --Ghostwheel 09:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. A large strangeness makes sense, and can be found on websters. Yet again, if you are going to challenge my word choice use more reliable dictionary's - like Stanford or Oxford (don't depend on Webster).
  2. Thank you for picking that up.
Thank you for your rating the aforementioned articles. I had hoped you would less superficially with the sith/ jedi - but still appreciate the effort. I found your other remarks, while condescending, useful - so thank you. May you grok in fullness --Franken Kesey 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (definition for grok can be found in Oxford, or for the wiki enthusiasts, here. Do groks make more sense now?)
Ghostwheel's comments are "non-condensing" at times? Does this mean that they're really long, or that they don't make the thing they refer to seem any simpler? You need an "it" after "dislike", or your sentence will be grammatically incorrect. Bain is a Scottish psychologist; Are you Ghostwheel's personal Scottish psychologist, or are you a 19th century Scot in comparison to Ghostwheel, or do you just happen to be named Bain? --Foxwarrior 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And no, regardless of which dictionary you resort to, "anomaly" doesn't fit there. It doesn't make sense. Stop trying to justify it. It just looks stupid.
Also, grok doesn't fit in the class or your most recent use of it. If to grok is to understand something, then "grokking in fullness" barely makes sense. And groks don't work either, since it's a verb. You don't get groks just like you don't get detests. Verbs and nouns aren't the same thing. You should learn the difference between the two. --Ghostwheel 23:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
What I meant by "non-condescending", is the explanation of why something is stupid or incomplete. Not "I thought about laying out why this is a dumb idea. I thought about explaining it out bit by bit, tearing it apart, and laying out the entrails of this retardedness for all to see. But I decided it wasn't worth my time, since you wouldn't understand regardless of how logical someone else was. So this is dumb. That is all." Sorry misspelled, meant bane. --Franken Kesey 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You may have meant that by "non-condescending", but you never said "non-condescending". If you're going to use words you don't fully comprehend, you should at least spell them correctly. --149.169.221.210 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://broken.dnd-wiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghostwheel&oldid=97881"