New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 282
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    News is going to get out
    How exactly? Lets look at Tom. None of his artifacts are visible, and none have any effect other than increasing his rolls for spellcasting. How does that look different than any other high level caster? Especially to the point where the game starts with all of it being stolen from him before he can take an action?

    Because being completely honest, after he manages to take his 8 or so actions, Tom will be stronger than most endgame characters. Is it really easier to steal from Tom then it is to steal from any other high level character?


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Its not about everyone automatically knowing. Its not about using the trait to have an artifact or two. Its about a starting character having more wealth than most end game characters. At that point your character is just a collection of artifacts.
    Yeah, because in this system, artifacts are where most of a character's power lies. And why would you be safer with one artifact instead of having 4? You're weaker, and people actually can use those artifacts, while a super artifact isn't fully usable. It's more dangerous to attack a character with a stronger artifact, and you can't even fully use the resulting reward.

    Would you rather fight a level 1 fighter in 3.5 that has access to unlimited wealth to buy magic items, or would you rather face a level 5 fighter without any magic items at all? I know which one I would choose to face if I was a party. (And yes, this comparison is accurate. Consider the shooting potential of a animus 1 character in your system without any magic items, vs their shooting potential at animus 5 without magic items. I bet it hasn't gone up that much has it?)




    Honestly, I really see why you have so many complaints. With your clarifications on how the game is meant to be GMed, with the GM being this antagonistic, I wouldn't find it any fun. The assumption that GMs should send in GMPCs to destroy uppity players is pretty antithetical to what I want out of a game, both as a player, and as a GM.

    Honestly, for the players that are complaining? I'd suggest they switch to a different system, like Pathfinder 2e, and try having a different GM. They probably won't get along with your system, just as I wouldn't.


    It's a shame, because there are a lot of really cool things in the system that I'd be interested in playing around with. But being told that they are only there as traps to punish players who want to play with them... It really feels like it's ruining something that looks like it could've been cool. I was going to offer to write up some characters because the character building was interesting enough to be fun, but now I know that if I build a PC slightly wrong then they will get mind controlled at the start of the game before they can act, and that is expected play. Well, I don't really see the point. Might as well just put a 5 in every stat, because otherwise the world will see you as a threat and kill you.

    Ugh. This just really ruins my day.
    Last edited by Jakinbandw; 2023-05-03 at 07:07 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So, you’ve been running this system for a while - what’s the actual, in play, Average DPS for melee, archer, and blaster archetypes, grouped by investment? What is the average in play cost of melee, archer, and blaster archetypes, measured in resources (including HP lost)? What is the average “up time” for melee, archer, and blaster characters?
    If you are still hanging around, I finally got everyone's character sheets and ran the numbers. Here you go:

    Here is a damage assessment of my PCs as you requested. These are the percent chance of a given attack injuring a human soldier wearing mail and a helmet without a shield; my system doesn't use "HP" like D&D, but rather tracks injuries, and 2 injuries generally take someone out of a fight.


    Kumiko 33%
    Feurlina 22%
    Miles 35%
    Miles -2 30%
    Miles -4 25%
    Miles -6 20%
    Miles -8 15%
    Miles -12 5%
    Flossie 49%
    Flossie -2 42%
    Flossie -4 35%
    Flossie -6 28%
    Flossie -8 21%
    Flossie -12 7%

    -2 For shooting out of melee or into melee with a large target
    -4 For shooting into melee with medium target or with a large target and blocked LoS
    -6 For shooting into melee with a small target
    -8 For shooting into melee with a medium target and blocked LoS
    -12 For shooting into melee with a small target and blocked Los

    Close combat will often be getting a small bonus for flanking or a small penalty for using a maneuver.
    Miles will often be getting a small bonus from aiming or taking a reckless shot, but has to reload every six turns.
    Flossie can engage in melee to ignore the above accuracy penalties, but is unlikely to do so due to lack of defenses.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-03 at 07:01 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    This seems to be a variant of my "brain in a jar" build. Like most D&D TO builds, this requires the enthusiastic consent of the GM, as both Genesis and Cataract are spells that require the GM to work with you on what is appropriate.

    Are you just stacking a ton of levels of Ka on your creations? Otherwise this build seems to run out of chakras well before it gets up to steam.

    Keep in mind though if you are casting difficulty 60+ spells, every enlightened being on the planet is going to immediately know exactly who you are, where you are, and what you are doing, so this is actively putting a beacon on your head for every world power to come and harvest the ~50 odd ambrosia you are carrying around on you.


    Chaotic + Fetish is indeed a potent combo. I have been thinking about limiting it for a while. Honestly, that alone is pretty much all you need for this build.

    Neither chaotic nor heirloom can be innate, so having your fetish spellbook stolen / destroyed / disarmed is still a liability, and you are still fairly vulnerable to anti-magic.
    Nothing in my version of the rules doc suggests that Cataract needs any GM input. Neither does Genesis. If the DC of the spells is that big an issue, I could do the setup in timestop.

    I suppose making the grimoire faithful would have to do.

    Not sure why you think this build is weak to antimagic when it is fairly unique in that it can cast all it's spells and enchantments just fine in antimagic zones.

    (Edit): Also if casting a strong spell makes every strong opponent in the world come running, then wouldn't the mage that mindcontrolled the PC into giving up their bow have been then ganked by all the other high level characters showing up at the same time? Seems like it might be a good reason to not go around casting high level mind control spells at low level PCs!
    Last edited by Jakinbandw; 2023-05-03 at 07:13 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Because being completely honest, after he manages to take his 8 or so actions, Tom will be stronger than most endgame characters. Is it really easier to steal from Tom then it is to steal from any other high level character?
    Easier? Probably not much. But 2-3 times more rewarding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Honestly, I really see why you have so many complaints. With your clarifications on how the game is meant to be GMed, with the GM being this antagonistic, I wouldn't find it any fun. The assumption that GMs should send in GMPCs to destroy uppity players is pretty antithetical to what I want out of a game, both as a player, and as a GM.

    Honestly, for the players that are complaining? I'd suggest they switch to a different system, like Pathfinder 2e, and try having a different GM. They probably won't get along with your system, just as I wouldn't.

    It's a shame, because there are a lot of really cool things in the system that I'd be interested in playing around with. But being told that they are only there as traps to punish players who want to play with them... It really feels like it's ruining something that looks like it could've been cool. I was going to offer to write up some characters because the character building was interesting enough to be fun, but now I know that if I build a PC slightly wrong then they will get mind controlled at the start of the game before they can act, and that is expected play. Well, I don't really see the point. Might as well just put a 5 in every stat, because otherwise the world will see you as a threat and kill you.

    Ugh. This just really ruins my day.
    Is this an actual good faith argument? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    This is like a Bob argument on steroids.

    Make a ridiculously one sided character, and then blame the GM for picking on you when natural consequences occur.


    Like, if you were running a D&D game, and my character was "Sarah the hoard stealer". She is a level 1 commoner who runs into the monster's lair shouting "give me treasure" and then proceeds to loot. But if any of the monsters dare to attack her, or trap their lair, then clearly you are a killer DM who is only out to ruin my fun and the entire D&D system is broken.

    Like, you really think putting a 1 of your base stats and spending over half your starting CP on a single merit is "slightly wrong"?
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-03 at 11:53 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Nothing in my version of the rules doc suggests that Cataract needs any GM input. Neither does Genesis. If the DC of the spells is that big an issue, I could do the setup in time stop.
    Genesis specifically says you work with the GM to assign traits as appropriate. Likewise, cataract requires a "suitable facsimile to build upon" and I can't imagine what half of these illusions would even look like. Especially when crafted by someone with a 1 perception and 2 intelligence and no artistic skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Nothing in my version of the rules doc suggests that Cataract needs any GM input. Neither does Genesis. If the DC of the spells is that big an issue, I could do the setup in timestop.

    Probably. If you dropped a sixty point artifact into the world (though the big question is where did it come from?) it would result in a big scrum trying to own that much undefended wealth.

    The difficulty to yank the bow is only low to mid 30s. That's a full d20 span harder to detect.

    I never said anything about mind controlling you at creation or anything, I said that is a way to get around golden fleece. I specifically said that the archmage seizing your bow is passive agressive DMing that I don't approve of, but something like it is the natural result of giving that much wealth to a starting character. People who are much stronger than you for whome it is still life changing money are going to try and take it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Not sure why you think this build is weak to antimagic when it is fairly unique in that it can cast all it's spells and enchantments just fine in anti-magic zones.
    Not null-zones. Regular dispel magic. The whole character is a house of cards of stacked enchantments.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-03 at 07:33 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Like, you really think putting a 1 of your base stats and spending over half your starting CP on a single merit is "slightly wrong"?
    I honestly don't see anything wrong with it at all.

    If you do see something wrong with it, maybe it shouldn't be an option in the system you made?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Is this an actual good faith argument? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    This is actually a Bob argument on steroids.

    Make a ridiculously one sided character, and then blame the GM for picking on you when natural consequences occur.
    Maybe the problem is that the game itself pushes players to make optimized characters (players are complaining about their lack of effectiveness), but then you the GM want to punish them for doing so. If a player makes a character that's not optimized enough, it's their fault for making one that's too weak. If they make one that's too strong, then it only makes sense that they would be immediately killed. There is no winning without being able to read the GM's mind.

    And that's why I feel I would hate this game. Not because I want everything with no effort (I spent a long time studying your system to build Tom. Multiple days of my life), but because the only way to make a character that can be played in it, is if I as a player know exactly the level of power you want me to have. You say player freedom is everything, but in reality, I have less freedom in your system then I do in a game like 5e, because in 5e I don't need to guess the level of power I need to be at to be allowed play the game.

    If freedom for players is truly important to you, then you need to make your system work with whatever the players can legally build in it, without arbitrarily punishing them when they take the character to the table.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Like, if you were running a D&D game, and my character was "Sarah the hoard stealer". She is a level 1 commoner who runs into the monster's lair shouting "give me treasure" and then proceeds to loot. But if any of the monsters dare to attack her, or trap their lair, then clearly you are a killer DM who is only out to ruin my fun and the entire D&D system is broken.
    This is a false argument. I'm not asking for monsters to not attack the party, or to be given anything more than what anyone else is. I'm asking that what you allow a character to take at character creation not be ripped away from them immediately on starting the game.

    It's more like in 5e if I picked a character with pole-arm mastery, you started the game with a dragon killing me. You said it makes sense, because dragon's are aware of the Greatweapon master /polearm mastery combo, and thus should take the time to remove those threats when they are low level, before they can become dangerous. Dragons are smart after all.

    Sure, you can make that argument. I still think that doing that is unreasonable.

    In the system I'm working on, there is no combination of abilities that a character can take that will make them unplayable. They can be rich, and start with powerful artifacts (though admittedly, not as powerful as the ones possible in your system), and be good at using them. This doesn't take away their ability to be well rounded characters, and it doesn't break the game to the point where I have to murder their characters the moment they spawn in to prevent the game from breaking.




    I guess at the end of the day, I don't see a player spending the points that they are given at character creation to be equivalent to wanting extra free stuff. It's stuff they paid for with the character points you give them, and the rules you provide. Saying that using them is equivalent to wanting to steal a dragons horde for free feels like a bizarre take from where I'm standing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Not null-zones. Regular dispel magic. The whole character is a house of cards of stacked enchantments.
    Ah, but you can dispell dispells. And since my checks should be 20 points higher on average, I don't see how that is a big threat.
    Last edited by Jakinbandw; 2023-05-03 at 07:42 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Easier? Probably not much. But 2-3 times more rewarding.



    Is this an actual good faith argument? Because it doesn't sound like it.

    This is actually a Bob argument on steroids.

    Make a ridiculously one sided character, and then blame the GM for picking on you when natural consequences occur.


    Like, if you were running a D&D game, and my character was "Sarah the hoard stealer". She is a level 1 commoner who runs into the monster's lair shouting "give me treasure" and then proceeds to loot. But if any of the monsters dare to attack her, or trap their lair, then clearly you are a killer DM who is only out to ruin my fun and the entire D&D system is broken.

    Like, you really think putting a 1 of your base stats and spending over half your starting CP on a single merit is "slightly wrong"?
    If multiple people have the same complaint, perhaps it’s worth giving credence to.

    The people here, best I can tell, are legitimately doing what a playtester should-stress the system, see where it can break, so it can be fixed.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Ah, but you can dispell dispells. And since my checks should be 20 points higher on average, I don't see how that is a big threat.
    How are you doing this?

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    If multiple people have the same complaint, perhaps it’s worth giving credence to.

    The people here, best I can tell, are legitimately doing what a playtester should-stress the system, see where it can break, so it can be fixed.
    What is the multiple people have the same complaint?

    That the system doesn't go out of its way to protect people from themselves?

    Its not like D&D where they intentionally gimp certain feats and spells, this is people intentionally giving themselves the minimum possible score in multiple areas and then being shocked that their weaknesses are in fact weaknesses.

    Again, I don't consider the NPCs in the setting acting rationally given their motivations and knowledge to be antagonistic GMing, and I certainly don't consider all high level villains in the setting to be "GMPCs".
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-03 at 08:04 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    If you do see something wrong with it, maybe it shouldn't be an option in the system you made?
    Yes, this. Of course it's a legitimate option; if it wasn't the rules wouldn't support it. "You should know, without being told, that this is bad and the GM will punish you if you do it" is no part of any functional rules system. If you don't want newly created PCs to have artifacts, the appropriate response is to take out the part of the rules that says "you can have artifacts at level 1," not to go straight to personal attacks on the people who point it out to you.

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Titan in the Playground
     
    tyckspoon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    I honestly don't see anything wrong with it at all.

    If you do see something wrong with it, maybe it shouldn't be an option in the system you made?
    I feel like there's maybe some disconnect here because as best as I can gather you have mostly been drilling in on what the mechanics say, while Talakeal is responding from the viewpoint of all the in-world background and setting information that naturally lives in their head? Eg, the build rules may let you cast what is intended to be a mythically difficult spell as a focused starting character, but Talakeal knows that as a setting conceit magic is actually pretty rare and that every act of magic is visible to those who know how to see.. so of course casting a spell of legendary difficulty and power is equivalent to lighting a beacon to be seen to the horizon, let alone doing so four times in a row to build a buffstack/long term effect, and carrying around an item that matches or exceeds the most desired existing relics of the world is shortly going to get somebody's attention. Which is not something that is going to show up in character building rules, but probably is mentioned somewhere in the other 300-odd pages of text that is not specifically a character build option.

    @ Talakeal - if a starting, animus rank 1 character is just flat -not supposed to- be able to perform a DC 40+ spell, or not devote 1/3rd of their points to artifacts.. your build rules clearly need either more relevant soft limits to discourage that, or explicit hard limits on the factors that allow people to bypass the existing trait/skill caps. Or I suppose a hard to ignore disclaimer stating 'the following things often produce undesirable results when taken to extremes, ensure your Gamekeeper is ok with your intended (magic schools/artifact builds) before entering play with them.' Which IIRC is basically how Mutants & Masterminds handled some of its power options - they had to have rules to represent tropes of the desired setting, but they also pretty much threw it on the GM to deal with the ramifications if they let a player have reality warping powers or similar.

  11. - Top - End - #131
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Yes, this. Of course it's a legitimate option; if it wasn't the rules wouldn't support it. "You should know, without being told, that this is bad and the GM will punish you if you do it" is no part of any functional rules system. If you don't want newly created PCs to have artifacts, the appropriate response is to take out the part of the rules that says "you can have artifacts at level 1," not to go straight to personal attacks on the people who point it out to you.
    Its not that I don't want PCs to start with artifacts. They absolutely can. Its that taking the majority of your starting points as artifacts and leaving yourself with 1s in your remaining stats is both putting a huge target on your back and also leaving you with plenty of vulnerabilities to exploit.

    To use another D&D example, it is perfectly legal to make a fighter with 8s in all of their physical stats and 18s in all mental stats or a wizard with straight 8s in mental stats and straight 18s, but I don't think its a good idea, nor do I think its out of line for someone to point out that it isn't a good idea. But I don't think the game would be improved by putting a hard NO into it.


    Also, I didn't mean to go into any personal attacks, and certainly didn't intend to react to any rules discussion as such. I was dismissive of what I perceived to be personal attacks against me, as I felt that Jack's response was a bit extreme and unwarranted, but if something I said come across as a personal attack I apologize and if you want to point it out I will edit it away.

    I am very grateful for all feedback and people taking the time to read my game, and I am more than happy to actually have a good faith discussion, but it really seemed like Jack wanted to rant at me rather than actually discuss the nuances of his build.



    Quote Originally Posted by tyckspoon View Post
    I feel like there's maybe some disconnect here because as best as I can gather you have mostly been drilling in on what the mechanics say, while Talakeal is responding from the viewpoint of all the in-world background and setting information that naturally lives in their head? Eg, the build rules may let you cast what is intended to be a mythically difficult spell as a focused starting character, but Talakeal knows that as a setting conceit magic is actually pretty rare and that every act of magic is visible to those who know how to see.. so of course casting a spell of legendary difficulty and power is equivalent to lighting a beacon to be seen to the horizon, let alone doing so four times in a row to build a buffstack/long term effect, and carrying around an item that matches or exceeds the most desired existing relics of the world is shortly going to get somebody's attention. Which is not something that is going to show up in character building rules, but probably is mentioned somewhere in the other 300-odd pages of text that is not specifically a character build option.
    This is more or less correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by tyckspoon View Post
    @ Talakeal - if a starting, animus rank 1 character is just flat -not supposed to- be able to perform a DC 40+ spell, or not devote 1/3rd of their points to artifacts.. your build rules clearly need either more relevant soft limits to discourage that, or explicit hard limits on the factors that allow people to bypass the existing trait/skill caps. Or I suppose a hard to ignore disclaimer stating 'the following things often produce undesirable results when taken to extremes, ensure your Gamekeeper is ok with your intended (magic schools/artifact builds) before entering play with them.' Which IIRC is basically how Mutants & Masterminds handled some of its power options - they had to have rules to represent tropes of the desired setting, but they also pretty much threw it on the GM to deal with the ramifications if they let a player have reality warping powers or similar.
    Relic and Mutant used to be optional traits that said more or less that. Maybe I need to return there.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-03 at 09:03 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Yeah, I noticed some subtle restraints in the magic semi-fluff and the skill that governs detection. Spells and links are, if I read it right, traceable back to the source and noticable even after immediate effects fade. Plus I'm not absolutely sure about ranges. The magic missiles ahould be running on the shooting rules but the rest are maybe capped at perception paces without metamagics?

    All in all the setting and the mechanics this game are a bit intertwined. It's not as theoretically setting agnostic as D&D is advertised. Its more like if you took a D&D 3rd level wizard cheesed out to cast prismatic spray 1/day into Dark Sun and then complaining that a team of the local Sorcerer King's 9th level enforcers dropped a scry & die on you 6 hours after your first spray while the entire city ran around in lynch mobs trying to kill you. Perfectly reasonable in Dark Sun, just that harsh reality of "you aren't the big fish in the pond" meeting a theory op whiteroom power build.

    Champions has a similar issue and a section in the character building that directly addresses it. Plus there was a form in another place the GM could look at and fill out that described the desired guidelines & limits & some setying details.

    Last shot at a character, seeing what I can do. Not, of course, going full cheese.


    p.210 it looks like the curved blade weapon modification isn't in the mod list at the end of the section.
    p.145 'cut periapt' has the difficulty spelled out as 'twenty' unlike the others that are numbers.

    Still uncertain how the Unbalanced and Inept quirks should work. Taking them to extremes is iffy. Like getting, oh say 3 rolls take best on an Inept (quirk so it's no point cost) 5 + stat 5 + primary skill 5 + prodigy 5 is your +20 for only an average stat, a skill choice, and 5 character points. If that still fumbles on 1s & 2s it's probably too good, but if it's fumbling on 1s to 7s that's... about a 4% fumble rate, less than natural 1s with a single die.

    You may consider doing something about amputee flaw (-4pt) + clockwork bionic arm (+4pt) that nets you +2 strength in that limb.

    Spoiler
    Show

    last check, this one is designed to try to be moderately balanced-ish and a sort of one shot kill gunner.

    All attributes 4s (64pt)
    Big piles of unbalanced traits (-1s leader melee speed mana insight ride athletic concentration larceny fortitude perform & +1s tenacity encumbrance resolve & +2s marksman expression dodge initiative) gives dex as 6 for marksman, agility as 6 for dodge, cha as 6 for expression. (0pt)
    Prime skills; marksman & expression. Secondary; acrobat, business, fortitude, & resolve
    Prodigy x9 for marksman & martial technique x3 (fatal, kiai, & setup) (12pt+64=76)
    Amputee + clockwork bionic right arm (+2 str) + symbiote clockwork in the arm celestial fire & true flight & ray gun heavy pistol + symbiote clockwork in the arm necromatic fetish for attack rolls (20pt+76=96)
    Soulless quirk to screw with casters targeting us with spells
    The +5 expression trait and +2 shooty damage (4pt+96=100)
    There are no flaws taken. options include tanking less used or unused skills for +attributes.

    Function: kiai = expression at +20 vs resolve to inflict vulnerability (-4 resilience === +4 damage rolls) until the end of our next turn, setup fatal strike for -6 accuracy and if we wound the target is at -4 fortitude/resolve/might vs us on their next turn plus at the end of their next turn they make a fortitude vs 24 or take an extra wound from blood loss, ray gun is silent & unlimited ammo, true flight ignores ranges, celestial fire is if they take a wound they're set on fire and test fortitude vs 20 or take another wound.

    Shoots at roll twice take best +13 (optional +2 reckless for +15) to hit and str 4 + arm 2 + gun 8 + talent 2 = +16 to wound, effectively +20 because of vulnerability. They have to have both first aid and larceny tests or make crits on their fortitude rolls to stop the extra damage (plus they're all lit up). And if you're having a hard time hitting you can settle for just lighting them on fire.

    The concept is you just wear a long sleeve shirt and gloves a bunch, then occasionally blaze away with your gun finger (style points for saying "bang! bang!"). not totally terrible at too much and you're character advancement is mostly training the skills & derived attributes you care about.

    html/javascript code to copy paste into text file, rename <name>.html, run in browser, tests hit & damage probabilities
    Hope the copy/paste worked. Hard to tell on phone.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html>
    <body>
    <form>
    <div>
    	<button type="button" onclick="HODshow(this.value)">Show/hide Heart of Darkness</button>
    		<div id="HODdiv" style="display:none">
    			<div>
    			Attack bonus (-10 to +50) <input id="HODatk" type="number" min=-10 max=50 step=1 value=10></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Damage bonus (-10 to +50)<input id="HODdmg" type="number" min=-10 max=50 step=1 value=10></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Might bonus (-10 to +50)<input id="HODmight" type="number" min=-10 max=50 step=1 value=10></input>
    			</div></br>
    			<div>
    			To Hit TN (dodge+10) (1 to 50)<input id="HODhit" type="number" min=1 max=50 step=1 value=20></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			To Wound TN (resilience+10) (1 to 50)<input id="HODhurt" type="number" min=1 max=50 step=1 value=20></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Target Might TN (on wounding @ might+10) (1 to 50)<input id="HODoppose" type="number" min=1 max=50 step=1 value=20></input>
    			</div></br>
    			<div>			
    			Reroll attack if die is under 11<input id="HODrerollATK" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Roll 2 attacks & take best<input id="HODadvATK" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Fumble attack on 1s & 2s<input id="HODunluckATK" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div></br>
    			<div>			
    			Reroll damage if die is under 11<input id="HODrerollDMG" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Roll 2 damage & take best<input id="HODadvDMG" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Fumble damage on 1s & 2s<input id="HODunluckDMG" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div></br>
    			<div>			
    			Reroll might if die is under 11<input id="HODrerollMT" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Roll 2 might & take best<input id="HODadvMT" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    			Fumble might on 1s & 2s<input id="HODunluckMT" type="checkbox"></input>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    				<button type="button" onclick="HODcalc()">check probability</button>
    			</div>
    			<div>
    				<textarea cols=80 rows=30 id="HODout" style="display:block">0</textarea>
    			</div>
    		
    		</div>
    	</div>
    </form>
    </body>
    <script>
    function HODshow(tf){
    	var el = document.getElementById('HODdiv');
    	if (el.style.display == "block"){
    		el.style.display = "none";
    	}
    	else{
    		el.style.display = "block";
    	}
      }
    
    function roll1dAnything(inNumber){
    	return (Math.floor((Math.random()*inNumber))+1);	
      }
    
    function HODcalc(){
      var atkBonus = parseInt(document.getElementById("HODatk").value); // number
      var atkTN = parseInt(document.getElementById("HODhit").value); // number
      var dmgBonus = parseInt(document.getElementById("HODdmg").value); // number
      var dmgTN = parseInt(document.getElementById("HODhurt").value); // number
      var mightBonus = parseInt(document.getElementById("HODmight").value); // number
      var mightTN = parseInt(document.getElementById("HODoppose").value); // number
      
      var ATKroll2IfLow = document.getElementById("HODrerollATK").checked; // boolean
      var ATKroll2TakeBest = document.getElementById("HODadvATK").checked; // boolean
      var ATKFumbleOn2 = document.getElementById("HODunluckATK").checked; // boolean
      var DMGroll2IfLow = document.getElementById("HODrerollDMG").checked; // boolean
      var DMGroll2TakeBest = document.getElementById("HODadvDMG").checked; // boolean
      var DMGFumbleOn2 = document.getElementById("HODunluckDMG").checked; // boolean
      var MTroll2IfLow = document.getElementById("HODrerollMT").checked; // boolean
      var MTroll2TakeBest = document.getElementById("HODadvMT").checked; // boolean
      var MTFumbleOn2 = document.getElementById("HODunluckMT").checked; // boolean
      
      var bigNum = 1000000;
      var resultArray = [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, 0];
      // 0= hit			 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
      // 1= hitCrit = +20 damage roll
      // 2= hitFumble
      // 3= wound
      // 4= woundCrit = 2 wounds
      // 5= woundFumble
      // 6= mortalWounds = on +40>TN
      // 7= destruction = on +60>TN
      // 8= mighty success
      // 9= mightyCrit
      //10= mightyFumble
      
      for (var a = 0; a < bigNum; a++){
    	var i**** = false;
    	var isCrit = false;
    	var isWound = false;
    	var roll1 = 0;
    	var roll2 = 0;
    	var loopLimit = 0
    
    	// ATTACK
    	roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    //console.log("a", roll1, i****, resultArray);
    	if (ATKroll2IfLow && roll1 < 11) { roll1 = roll1dAnything(20); }
    	if (ATKroll2TakeBest){
    		roll2 = roll1dAnything(20);
    		if (roll2 > roll1) { roll1 = roll2; } // replace
    	}
    //console.log("b", roll1, resultArray);
    	if (ATKFumbleOn2 && roll1 < 3 || roll1 == 1){ // fumble
    		loopLimit = 10;
    		roll2 = (-20); // use roll2 for the sum
    		while (loopLimit > 0 && (ATKFumbleOn2 && roll1 < 3 || roll1 == 1)){			
    			roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    			if (roll1 == 1) {roll2 = roll2 - 20;}
    			else {roll2 = roll2 + roll1;}
    			loopLimit = loopLimit - 1;
    		}
    		roll1 = roll2;
    //console.log("c", roll1, resultArray);
    	}
    	else if (roll1 == 20){ // crit
    		loopLimit = 10;
    		roll2 = roll1; // use roll2 for the sum
    		while (loopLimit > 0 && roll1 == 20){			
    			roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    			roll2 = roll2 + roll1;
    			loopLimit = loopLimit - 1;
    		}
    		roll1 = roll2;
    //console.log("d", roll1, resultArray);
    	}
    	
    	roll1 = roll1 + atkBonus;
    //console.log("e", roll1, resultArray);
    	if (roll1 <= atkTN-20){ // fumble
    		resultArray[2] = resultArray[2] + 1;
    	}
    	else if (roll1 >= atkTN && roll1 <= atkTN+20){ // regular hit
    		resultArray[0] = resultArray[0] + 1;
    		i**** = true;
    	}
    	else if (roll1 > atkTN+20){ // critical hit
    		resultArray[0] = resultArray[0] + 1;
    		resultArray[1] = resultArray[1] + 1;
    		isCrit = true;
    		i**** = true;
    	}
    	
    	//DAMAGE
    	if (i****){ // is miss 
    		roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    //console.log("f", roll1, isWound, resultArray);
    		if (DMGroll2IfLow && roll1 < 11) { roll1 = roll1dAnything(20); }
    		if (DMGroll2TakeBest){
    			roll2 = roll1dAnything(20);
    			if (roll2 > roll1) { roll1 = roll2; } // replace
    		}
    //console.log("g", roll1, resultArray);
    		if (DMGFumbleOn2 && roll1 < 3 || roll1 == 1){ // fumble
    			loopLimit = 10;
    			roll2 = (-20); // use roll2 for the sum
    			while (loopLimit > 0 && (DMGFumbleOn2 && roll1 < 3 || roll1 == 1)){			
    				roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    				if (roll1 == 1) {roll2 = roll2 - 20;}
    				else {roll2 = roll2 + roll1;}
    				loopLimit = loopLimit - 1;
    			}
    			roll1 = roll2;
    //console.log("h", roll1, resultArray);
    		}
    		else if (roll1 == 20){ // crit
    			loopLimit = 10;
    			roll2 = roll1; // use roll2 for the sum
    			while (loopLimit > 0 && roll1 == 20){			
    				roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    				roll2 = roll2 + roll1;
    				loopLimit = loopLimit - 1;
    			}
    			roll1 = roll2;
    //console.log("i", roll1, resultArray);
    		}
    		
    		roll1 = roll1 + dmgBonus;
    //console.log("j", roll1, isCrit, resultArray);
    		if (isCrit) { roll1 = roll1 + 20; }
    		if (roll1 <= dmgTN-20){ // fumble
    			resultArray[5] = resultArray[5] + 1;
    		}
    		else if (roll1 >= dmgTN && roll1 <= dmgTN+20){ // regular hit
    			resultArray[3] = resultArray[3] + 1;
    			isWound = true;
    		}
    		else if (roll1 >= dmgTN && roll1 <= dmgTN+40){ // critical hit
    			resultArray[3] = resultArray[3] + 1;
    			resultArray[4] = resultArray[4] + 1;
    			isWound = true;
    		}
    		else if (roll1 >= dmgTN && roll1 <= dmgTN+60){ // mortal wound
    			resultArray[3] = resultArray[3] + 1;
    			resultArray[6] = resultArray[6] + 1;
    			isWound = true;
    		}
    		else if (roll1 >= dmgTN && roll1 > dmgTN+60){ // destruction hit
    			resultArray[3] = resultArray[3] + 1;
    			resultArray[7] = resultArray[7] + 1;
    			isWound = true;
    		}
    //console.log("k", roll1, isWound, resultArray);
    		// MIGHT TEST
    		if (isWound){
    			roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    //console.log("l", roll1, resultArray);
    			if (MTroll2IfLow && roll1 < 11) { roll1 = roll1dAnything(20); }
    			if (MTroll2TakeBest){
    				roll2 = roll1dAnything(20);
    				if (roll2 > roll1) { roll1 = roll2; } // replace
    			}
    //console.log("m", roll1, resultArray);
    			if (MTFumbleOn2 && roll1 < 3 || roll1 == 1){ // fumble
    				loopLimit = 10;
    				roll2 = (-20); // use roll2 for the sum
    				while (loopLimit > 0 && (MTFumbleOn2 && roll1 < 3 || roll1 == 1)){			
    					roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    					if (roll1 == 1) {roll2 = roll2 - 20;}
    					else {roll2 = roll2 + roll1;}
    					loopLimit = loopLimit - 1;
    				}
    				roll1 = roll2;
    //console.log("n", roll1, resultArray);
    			}
    			else if (roll1 == 20){ // crit
    				loopLimit = 10;
    				roll2 = roll1; // use roll2 for the sum
    				while (loopLimit > 0 && roll1 == 20){			
    					roll1 = roll1dAnything(20);
    					roll2 = roll2 + roll1;
    					loopLimit = loopLimit - 1;
    				}
    				roll1 = roll2;
    //console.log("o", roll1, resultArray);
    			}
    			
    			roll1 = roll1 + mightBonus;
    //console.log("p", roll1, resultArray);
    			if (roll1 <= mightTN-20){ // fumble
    				resultArray[10] = resultArray[10] + 1;
    			}
    			else if (roll1 >= mightTN && roll1 <= mightTN+20){ // regular might
    				resultArray[8] = resultArray[8] + 1;
    			}
    			else if (roll1 > mightTN+20){ // critical might
    				resultArray[8] = resultArray[8] + 1;
    				resultArray[9] = resultArray[9] + 1;
    			}
    		}// end might
    	}// end damage
      } // end for loop
      
      // 0= hit
      // 1= hitCrit = +20 damage roll
      // 2= hitFumble
      // 3= wound
      // 4= woundCrit = 2 wounds
      // 5= woundFumble
      // 6= mortalWounds = on +40>TN
      // 7= destruction = on +60>TN
      // 8= mighty success
      // 9= mightyCrit
      //10= mightyFumble
      var outStr = "ATTACK \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Total Hit rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[0]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Fumble rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[2]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10+ "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Crit rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[1]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r\r";
    	
    	outStr = outStr +"WOUNDS per attack \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Total Wound rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[3]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Fumble rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[5]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10+ "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Crit rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[4]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Mortal Wound rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[6]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Destruction rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[7]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r\r";
    	
    	outStr = outStr +"WOUNDS per hit \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Total Wound rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[3]/resultArray[0]).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Fumble rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[5]/resultArray[0]).toFixed(3)/10+ "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Crit rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[4]/resultArray[0]).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Mortal Wound rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[6]/resultArray[0]).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Destruction rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[7]/resultArray[0]).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r\r";
    	
    	outStr = outStr + "MIGHT per attack \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Total Success rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[8]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Fumble rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[10]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10+ "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Crit rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[9]/bigNum).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r\r";
    	
    	outStr = outStr + "MIGHT per wounding \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Total Success rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[8]/resultArray[3]).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Fumble rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[10]/resultArray[3]).toFixed(3)/10+ "% \r";
    	outStr = outStr + " Crit rate: " + 1000*parseFloat(resultArray[9]/resultArray[3]).toFixed(3)/10 + "% \r";
    
    	document.getElementById("HODout").value = outStr;
    
      }
    
    </script>
    </html>



  13. - Top - End - #133
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Yeah, I noticed some subtle restraints in the magic semi-fluff and the skill that governs detection. Spells and links are, if I read it right, traceable back to the source and noticable even after immediate effects fade. Plus I'm not absolutely sure about ranges. The magic missiles ahould be running on the shooting rules but the rest are maybe capped at perception paces without metamagics?
    This is all correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    p.210 it looks like the curved blade weapon modification isn't in the mod list at the end of the section.
    p.145 'cut periapt' has the difficulty spelled out as 'twenty' unlike the others that are numbers
    Thank you. I will correct them tonight.


    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    You may consider doing something about amputee flaw (-4pt) + clockwork bionic arm (+4pt) that nets you +2 strength in that limb.
    Its fine IMO. A little boost for the tradeoff of having your arm potentially being stolen / rendered inactive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Still uncertain how the Unbalanced and Inept quirks should work. Taking them to extremes is iffy. Like getting, oh say 3 rolls take best on an Inept (quirk so it's no point cost) 5 + stat 5 + primary skill 5 + prodigy 5 is your +20 for only an average stat, a skill choice, and 5 character points. If that still fumbles on 1s & 2s it's probably too good, but if it's fumbling on 1s to 7s that's... about a 4% fumble rate, less than natural 1s with a single die.
    Unbalanced is just 1 for 1, but with the caveat that the GM has to agree they are equally useful.

    Inept is you increase your proficiency level by 1, but also increase the chance of bad fortune by one. Both are cumulative. If you take Inept six times, you will be checking for a fumble on a 1-7.


    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Character
    Looks pretty good. Up to the GM to approve all those unbalanced attributes of course.

    As with all relic heavy builds, you run the risk of being robbed, but this guy is a lot more subtle about it than the last couple.

    Are all of those armaments meant to be used together? If so you aren't paying enough CP AFAICT (actually you seem to be under budgeting either way, but I could be mistaken).

    Whether or not a ray gun can use fatal strike is a GM call, but I would allow it.

    All in all it seems a pretty solid build, although it is fairly one note out of combat.



    Thank you for the code, you are making me jealous and curious.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-03 at 11:52 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Titan in the Playground
     
    tyckspoon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    I notice what feels like a bit of mixed messaging between the world description and the actual text focus, as well - mages are uncommon, players aren't expected or really supposed to be magicians, you want a Conan-esque feel where the sinister magicians are the enemies to be overcome by the brilliant wit, low cunning, bold bravado, and mighty brawn of the players.. but also there are 80 pages worth of spell effects and ways to modify spells, which is an awful lot of content to tell players 'no, this isn't really meant for you.' (although you could probably save about two pages by finding a way to condense all the Magic Missiles to like one 'Magic Missile' spell with notes about what the special trait of each school is.) Similarly although a bit less egregiously artifacts are rare, beyond value, don't expect to buy them and have to do great deeds or exchange things of similarly uncountable value for them.. but then nearly 30 pages of example artifacts, which is about the same as the entire mundane equipment section. Again, a lot of text spent on listing out fancy toys for an item category you don't apparently actually intend the players to have very many of (and some of which are really super trivial and don't seem like they're worth spending a limited chakra selection to make use of, or justify being considered a super rare and beyond valuing artifact.)

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Inept is you increase your proficiency level by 1, but also increase the chance of bad fortune by one. Both are cumulative. If you take Inept six times, you will be checking for a fumble on a 1-7...

    Thank you for the code, you are making me jealous and curious.
    Hmm. So Inept works like you take it 4 times for two more primary skills at +5s but roll bad fortune on 1 to 5 with those two skills? Or on 1 to 3 on those skills? Obviously you can go all in on a single skill for... secondary is +3... prime +5... five more as faux-prodigy totals to stat+10 but bad fortune on 1-8, which is getting hairy. I do take it they work like regular bad fortune, the -20 then roll again and another -20 in the same range to theoretical infinity.

    The calc I wrote actually threw me for a loop one time. It rolled a 1, so -20, then a 19 for a total of -1 and it still made the (admittedly low) target number with its high bonus.

    You're welcome to the code, that was just a lunch hour. I built a whole page of 19 similar calculators while working on my Dungeons the Dragoning rewrite. Used them to nail down how I wanted stuff like traveling the warp, balancing different shield recharges, and how dangerous overcasting magic was. It took three different ones in tandem to convert the tarrasque over, but that's because it needed to fit a very particular window of danger (kills tons of mooks with assault rifles & grenades and dozens of space marines with full auto plasma guns but can be taken down by a competent mid level PC party). It's really easy now to take the base template and tweak it to different games. I have bits for Lancer, Dinosaur Cowboys, and a jank little d20 opposed roll calculator.

    One thing I'd be looking at (and asking for a good example) if I, personally, were making a character, would be the precise steps & spells through making permanent glyphs/runes and relics. Because there's a spell in there to mask the auras/detection if I'm not mistaken. It would cost those character points for ambrosia or mega wealth + business, but you could start with a quite minor implanted relic (or more likely the soul stone) and pump more effects onto it while using a long lasting spell to mask it.

    One thing you may consider is someone throwing down a +20 business character who can also pump out a good multi-empowered & the long duration metamagic Cantrip of the Heart. That's one where the stacked Inept could be rough on the game because the best-of-rolls will quickly cut down the chance of bad fortune. Especially if they have a staff of power for it and can spam the spell near the limit of their skill until they stick it before going shopping. Or, hilarity, doing similar with the attack roll cantrip and then throwing 10 ranks of Wild Strike on an attack.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Hmm. So Inept works like you take it 4 times for two more primary skills at +5s but roll bad fortune on 1 to 5 with those two skills? Or on 1 to 3 on those skills? Obviously you can go all in on a single skill for... secondary is +3... prime +5... five more as faux-prodigy totals to stat+10 but bad fortune on 1-8, which is getting hairy. I do take it they work like regular bad fortune, the -20 then roll again and another -20 in the same range to theoretical infinity.
    You would have bad fortune on a 1-3 when using either of those skills.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Ok ok. Things not to do:

    All stats 4 (64)
    Necro fetish (2 keep best damage) (8)
    Evoke fetish (3 keep best attack) (16)
    Marksman primary skill, inept x6, prodigy x5 (5)
    Martial thingy: wild strike (1)
    Martial thingy: aim (1)
    Rich 2 (long barrel & sawed off mods) (2)
    Ambidexterous (2)
    -5 leadership & performance (-10)
    Deadeye x11 (11)

    Twf, aim, heavy pistols at +23 attack & +23 damage, three rolls attack & two rolls damage.
    -7 wild strike (roll twice & choose each one) to +16/+23 vs 25 target numbers (victim dodge & resil of 15s) is... slight mod to calculator... 93.6% hits, less than 0.1% fumbles, 7.8% all attacks are crits for 99.8% wounding on hit, 15.1% hits are crits, 1.1% hits are mortal, 0.1% hits are destruction. Per attack damage 93.4% wounding, 14.2% attacks crit damage, 1% attacks are mortal, 0.1% attacks are destruction...

    Oh! Add wild strike sillies to calc... put a 50 roll limit on it because it said 68%... by the chart in order (because typing): 1.5%, 4.5%, 7.6%, 10.6%, 13.6% 16.7%, 22.7, 25.8, 28.7, fatal strike 31.8%, 34.8, 37.8, 44.1, 44, 46.9, 50, 53, 56, and 0% roll twice because they got rerolled. Chance of each result per hit by the number of times result was rolled divided by number of hits.

    Hmm... check with a basic +0/+5 sword... 90% hits, 99% wounds on hit, 90% wound per attack, no change in wild strike because on-hit. With +2/+3 light weapons its 96% hit, 92% wound per attack, 96% wound per hit.

    Silly
    Last edited by Telok; 2023-05-04 at 01:59 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Mark me as also a little confused about the artifact / target-on-the-back thing. Mainly that it's being presented as purely an IC thing, but it's hard to evaluate how quickly information flow would occur in practice.

    Like in 3.x, the "noticeability" of an item-based character depends a lot on what the items are, and on who happens to have observed them. If you're using items with highly visible effects, that's one thing. If your items just give you passive bonuses, or you use them subtly, then that's not going to stand out unless someone who can discern magic and is a good judge of skill observes you. And then there's the question of how fast information spreads, whether it remains accurate, whether people are using general divinations like "is there anyone within a half-days travel that I could easily and lucratively defeat?", etc.

    And for that matter, if there are powerful amoral mages going around divining weak targets and taking their stuff ... why stop at their stuff? Got a character with excellent skills in some areas but poor mental defense? Sounds like someone an amoral robber-mage would enslave with mind control.


    All that said, it seems like Artifact has the same balance quandary as the Independent limitation in Hero system. It gives a large discount, on the basis that the item can be permanently lost. So if the GM never does so, then it's a large discount for no reason. But if they do then the player is likely unhappy, and (if this was heavily used) the character may now be too weak to contribute much. As a result, many GMs don't allow that particular limitation.

    It may be worth making an option (or even the default) version of Artifact where it costs more and/or has a lower cap, but is also "soul bound" (aka can't be permanently lost).
    Last edited by icefractal; 2023-05-04 at 02:41 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Mark me as also a little confused about the artifact / target-on-the-back thing. Mainly that it's being presented as purely an IC thing, but it's hard to evaluate how quickly information flow would occur in practice.
    Anyone who casts any spells or has one of several other traits can use insight skill at standard dc to detect, identify, & trace magic & other people with those traits. Basically just a perception check, modified I presume by the usual range mods and the power level of the stuff going on. Usually it's an active perception check with a tool but as usual a big enough thing you might just notice (-5 to roll when not using the tool).

    Looks like all casters, dragons, fey (includes elf gnome & hobgoblin), giants, ghosts, almost all stuff d&d would call 'extraplanar', and random others (shogghoths have one of the trait).

    So yeah. If you're a low end crook who happens to be part elf you can sit on a street corner scanning the crowds for loose artifacts & magic users.

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Ok, so long editorial about player freedom.

    I generally run my games in a fiction first manner. Plausibility and setting consistency normally come first. The setting is designed as more of a low-magic gritty fantasy game where PCs and their powers are rare and special, but they will still have to grapple with the consequences of their choices.

    I have designed my system in a like manner; but I am not so arrogant to think that I can tell people how to play it, nor would I want to if I could. I am not one of those 90s White Wolf developers whining about how people turned their beautiful game of personal horror into a super-heroes with fangs power fantasy.

    IMO there are two types of players of characters, and maybe players as well.

    To illustrate my point, let me share an anecdote.

    Someone once complained you can't make Superman in Heart of Darkness. I responded by creating a character who was an orphan from a mysterious past, raised by good natured farmers, was a mild mannered bespectacled reporter by day and a crime-fighting hero wearing a red cape by night, and who had the powers of superhuman strength, invulnerability to bullets, flight, and x-ray vision. He also had a debilitating allergy to a rare green mineral.

    They responded by saying that character was nothing like Superman because it misses out on his most important traits; Superman is the most powerful person in the world, Superman's powers are unlimited, Superman is always stronger than any of his allies, Superman never loses.


    Likewise, when I create a character, I expect their strength and their weaknesses to come up.

    Bob, on the other hand, expects his strengths to come up, but for his weaknesses to just be free character points. He will, for example, make a character with a two strength and then say the GM is picking on him when the orc barbarian grapples him, or put all of his points into mental defenses and then claim killer DM when he encounters a giant spider and almost dies from the poison. Both real examples by the way.

    And sure, antagonistic GMing can exist, but simply having intelligent NPCs who act according to their own self interest or a diverse world with lots of different sorts of challenges in it isn't that.


    So when I see a character with straight ones and millions of times the normal starting wealth, I can look at it from one of two perspectives:

    1: You are trying to break the system and "win" the game.
    2: You want to explore what it would be like to give the most pathetic wretch in the world undreamt of riches and powerful hardware.

    In real life when someone wins the lotto, scammers and deadbeat relations come out of the woodwork to take their money. Athletes and musicians are often scammed out of their entire fortunes. And these are talented people in a world of laws and civilization. These are not people with the body of Stephen Hakwking and the mind of Lenny from of Mice and Men dropped down into the middle of a post apocalyptic wasteland where the strong take what they want.


    And of course, it just raises so many questions. How did such a pathetic person survive to get here? Why was he bestowed with undreamt of power and riches when there are so many people in the world better able to make use of it? How does a person with a two intelligence know how to use all of these artifacts to their maximum potential and come up with crazy schemes to combine spells into the most efficient build? If these combos are possible, why has nobody else made use of them before?

    I mean, this is fairly common TO thinking, and has all been discussed to death over on the 3.5 boards, but its not really a game I am interested in anymore, and although I am sure you can do it in my system, wasn't really my intent. But again, there is no wrong way to play, so if you want to take inspiration from my rules or setting and then go gonzo with it, I applaud you for the effort.


    Now, you can have a game where one person has game-breaking wealth, so long as the GM and the other players are on board with it and you agree on a "gentleman's agreement" for what sort of behavior is acceptable. I picture it working something like He-Man or Stranger Things, or maybe the 2019 Shazam movie. You have one ordinary person who is gifted with incredible and inexplicable power, a supporting cast of their friends who are trying to help them and keep them safe, and a sinister villain who is using their resources to steal the power for their own nefarious ends. And that's a fine game that can be great fun for everyone involved, but if you just drop such a setup into a standard game of orcs in dungeons or bandits besieging a small town on the frontier you might get into some real trouble.


    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Mark me as also a little confused about the artifact / target-on-the-back thing. Mainly that it's being presented as purely an IC thing, but it's hard to evaluate how quickly information flow would occur in practice.

    Like in 3.x, the "noticeability" of an item-based character depends a lot on what the items are, and on who happens to have observed them. If you're using items with highly visible effects, that's one thing. If your items just give you passive bonuses, or you use them subtly, then that's not going to stand out unless someone who can discern magic and is a good judge of skill observes you. And then there's the question of how fast information spreads, whether it remains accurate, whether people are using general divinations like "is there anyone within a half-days travel that I could easily and lucratively defeat?", etc.
    It does depend very much.

    In the case of Tom, he is throwing around difficulty 60 or 70 spells, which is magic that pushing the upper bounds of what a god can pull of by drawing upon the power of chaos.

    When a spell is cast, sensitive characters can make a reflexive insight check. The difficulty is increased by range, but decreased by the power of the spell. At such high DCs, everyone in the world who is trained at insight is going to have at least a fifty / fifty chance of sensing the spell and learning its source, and a god number of them will also learn the exact details of the spell and who is casting it. Every BBEG, every god, every devil, every eldritch cultist, every wizard who is too powerful to be bothered with the affairs of humanity.

    They are going to scry to see what all this powerful spells being cast in quick succession are about, and then notice that this guy is combining the power of more artifacts than most parties of epic level heroes have access to. At this point, this is a global event that is going to shake up the foundations of power as there as a mad scrum for possession of all these artifacts. Its basically the Infinity Gauntlet.

    An example of someone who would be aware of Tom and what he is doing is the Warlord Khornal (page 573). An established villain of the setting, he is extremely covetous and ruthless, and would totally be in for mercing some nobody with super artifacts. He has two major trump cards over Tom though; he is wielding an avenger, which dispels against every enchantment on anything it hits, and since Tom's entire build is dozens of enchantments, each hit is going to exponentially weaken him. But further, he is a chronomancer, which means that he can actually choose to initiate his attack *before* Tom casts a single buff, at which point he is all but helpless with his array of almost straight ones.

    Of course, depending on how the GM rules the Wise trait and whether or not they actually agree to provide infinite chakras using Genesis (which is never explicitly stated in Jak's post but I think is the exploit this is all built around), you are more likely to enter D&D style 5D temporal wizard chess, which might be a fun game, but is probably not the one that GM or the other players signed up for, and is probably not one that Tom will end up winning.


    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    And for that matter, if there are powerful amoral mages going around divining weak targets and taking their stuff ... why stop at their stuff? Got a character with excellent skills in some areas but poor mental defense? Sounds like someone an amoral robber-mage would enslave with mind control.
    Indeed.

    Generally, starting characters do not have super exceptional skills, and once they have developed those skills they have the means to protect themselves and social connections to fall back on.

    Honestly, the whole idea of "WBL" is kind of a gamist one, and in a realistic setting you would see all the worlds magic items concentrated into the hands of a few powerful individuals much like money in the real world. But, while I am a fiction first GM, I don't completely discount gamist concerns, and I am going to turn a bit of a blind eye to it if it isn't too flagrant.

    But, when someone is trying to literally break the game with infinite exploits, I don't feel like it makes me an "antagonistic GM" to actually let the dice fall where they may and have NPCs react in their own best interests given their capabilities and knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    All that said, it seems like Artifact has the same balance quandary as the Independent limitation in Hero system. It gives a large discount, on the basis that the item can be permanently lost. So if the GM never does so, then it's a large discount for no reason. But if they do then the player is likely unhappy, and (if this was heavily used) the character may now be too weak to contribute much. As a result, many GMs don't allow that particular limitation.

    It may be worth making an option (or even the default) version of Artifact where it costs more and/or has a lower cap, but is also "soul bound" (aka can't be permanently lost).
    Indeed, part of the weakness of artifacts is that they can be stolen.

    There are ways to mitigate this; binding spells and curses, and symbiotic and faithful meta powers for instance.

    But by making it too perfect at an increased cost, this actually makes the urge to "min-max" even worse and people will make even more one-note characters in the pursuit of their ultimate power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Would you rather fight a level 1 fighter in 3.5 that has access to unlimited wealth to buy magic items, or would you rather face a level 5 fighter without any magic items at all? I know which one I would choose to face if I was a party. (And yes, this comparison is accurate. Consider the shooting potential of a animus 1 character in your system without any magic items, vs their shooting potential at animus 5 without magic items. I bet it hasn't gone up that much has it?)
    Well... once you have unlimited anything the whole concept of game balance or setting consistency is out the window.

    But the risk vs. reward of a level 1 fighter with the wealth of a level 10 fighter vs. a level 5 fighter with appropriate wealth is off the charts.


    Generally, an end game character is ~30x that of a starting character, although that depends on how specialized and front-loaded your build is. I don't actually know how that stacks up to level in D&D, I imagine it varies a lot by edition and build. I doubt, for example a 5E fighter can face 30x as many orcs at level 5 as he could at level 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Because being completely honest, after he manages to take his 8 or so actions, Tom will be stronger than most endgame characters. Is it really easier to steal from Tom then it is to steal from any other high-level character?
    Well, yes.
    For one thing, he has three times the wealth of other end game characters, so he is a more lucrative target.
    Second, he has a few crippling weaknesses that a smart enemy will exploit that a more well rounded character wouldn't.
    Third, he doesn't have the social support network that an end game character would have amassed. Of course, the big X factor here is what the rest of the party looks like.


    Also, it kind of ruffles my feathers that you are simultaneously claiming your character is stronger than most endgame characters but that it is unfair to put him up against end game threats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    How exactly? Lets look at Tom. None of his artifacts are visible, and none have any effect other than increasing his rolls for spellcasting. How does that look different than any other high level caster? Especially to the point where the game starts with all of it being stolen from him before he can take an action?

    Because being completely honest, after he manages to take his 8 or so actions, Tom will be stronger than most endgame characters. Is it really easier to steal from Tom then it is to steal from any other high level character?
    Now that we have cooled off, if you want to discuss the build without all the hyperbole and ad-hominin, I am down for it.

    There is a lot of genuinely good ideas there, and it is probably one of the most powerful characters you can build in the system, its just that as is there are a few weaknesses and questionable rules interpretations, and mostly its just trying to do too much too quickly. I would be interested to see the same character build made over the course of a campaign rather than as a starting character.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Ok ok. Things not to do:

    All stats 4 (64)
    Necro fetish (2 keep best damage) (8)
    Evoke fetish (3 keep best attack) (16)
    Marksman primary skill, inept x6, prodigy x5 (5)
    Martial thingy: wild strike (1)
    Martial thingy: aim (1)
    Rich 2 (long barrel & sawed off mods) (2)
    Ambidexterous (2)
    -5 leadership & performance (-10)
    Deadeye x11 (11)

    Twf, aim, heavy pistols at +23 attack & +23 damage, three rolls attack & two rolls damage.
    -7 wild strike (roll twice & choose each one) to +16/+23 vs 25 target numbers (victim dodge & resil of 15s) is... slight mod to calculator... 93.6% hits, less than 0.1% fumbles, 7.8% all attacks are crits for 99.8% wounding on hit, 15.1% hits are crits, 1.1% hits are mortal, 0.1% hits are destruction. Per attack damage 93.4% wounding, 14.2% attacks crit damage, 1% attacks are mortal, 0.1% attacks are destruction...

    Oh! Add wild strike sillies to calc... put a 50 roll limit on it because it said 68%... by the chart in order (because typing): 1.5%, 4.5%, 7.6%, 10.6%, 13.6% 16.7%, 22.7, 25.8, 28.7, fatal strike 31.8%, 34.8, 37.8, 44.1, 44, 46.9, 50, 53, 56, and 0% roll twice because they got rerolled. Chance of each result per hit by the number of times result was rolled divided by number of hits.

    Hmm... check with a basic +0/+5 sword... 90% hits, 99% wounds on hit, 90% wound per attack, no change in wild strike because on-hit. With +2/+3 light weapons its 96% hit, 92% wound per attack, 96% wound per hit.

    Silly
    You shouldn't be able to have more than four ranks of deadeye.

    Quote Originally Posted by tyckspoon View Post
    I notice what feels like a bit of mixed messaging between the world description and the actual text focus, as well - mages are uncommon, players aren't expected or really supposed to be magicians, you want a Conan-esque feel where the sinister magicians are the enemies to be overcome by the brilliant wit, low cunning, bold bravado, and mighty brawn of the players. but also there are 80 pages worth of spell effects and ways to modify spells, which is an awful lot of content to tell players 'no, this isn't really meant for you.' (although you could probably save about two pages by finding a way to condense all the Magic Missiles to like one 'Magic Missile' spell with notes about what the special trait of each school is.) Similarly although a bit less egregiously artifacts are rare, beyond value, don't expect to buy them and have to do great deeds or exchange things of similarly uncountable value for them.. but then nearly 30 pages of example artifacts, which is about the same as the entire mundane equipment section. Again, a lot of text spent on listing out fancy toys for an item category you don't apparently actually intend the players to have very many of (and some of which are really super trivial and don't seem like they're worth spending a limited chakra selection to make use of, or justify being considered a super rare and beyond valuing artifact.)
    It's not that players aren't supposed to have artifacts or to be magicians.

    It's that magic, and by extent the characters who have it, are supposed to be special.

    Having lots of options lets people be unique.

    If every player character has a single magic weapon, you can play multiple campaigns and never see the same magic weapon twice. That's cool.

    If everyone has a dozen magic weapons though, that becomes a bit silly and stops feeling special.

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    One thing I'd be looking at (and asking for a good example) if I, personally, were making a character, would be the precise steps & spells through making permanent glyphs/runes and relics. Because there's a spell in there to mask the auras/detection if I'm not mistaken. It would cost those character points for ambrosia or mega wealth + business, but you could start with a quite minor implanted relic (or more likely the soul stone) and pump more effects onto it while using a long-lasting spell to mask it.
    What specifically do you need to know?

    Glyphs and Runes are created by casting the spell and applying the meta-magics. One level and they last the rest of the act, two levels the mission, and three indefinitely. They are one use only, but for each mote of Ambrosia you throw in to the creation, they will recharge once per mission.

    Artifacts cost an amount of mana equal to their power level, can be cast with any spell of the chosen school, and have the same duration as an enchantment, but ambrosia equal to their power level can be, and usually is, applied to make them permanent.

    The erase meta-magic removes your ren from your spells so people cannot learn who cast the spell with insight, although they can still see / sense you casting it.
    Likewise, the Cloaking metamagic increases the difficulty of insight tests made to sense the spell.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2023-05-04 at 05:51 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    They responded by saying that character was nothing like Superman because it misses out on his most important traits; Superman is the most powerful person in the world, Superman's powers are unlimited, Superman is always stronger than any of his allies,
    Guess they never heard of Green Lantern.
    Superman never loses.
    Or a whole lot of Superman works.
    Likewise, when I create a character, I expect their strength and their weaknesses to come up.

    Bob, on the other hand, expects his strengths to come up, but for his weaknesses to just be free character points. He will, for example, make a character with a two strength and then say the GM is picking on him when the orc barbarian grapples him, or put all of his points into mental defenses and then claim killer DM when he encounters a giant spider and almost dies from the poison. Both real examples by the way.
    But here, my question is: Did he encounter a giant spider when he chose to go somewhere a giant spider would logically be and/or one was randomly rolled on a table, or, if he had maxed his Strength and dumped his Intelligence, would the same place have had an illithid expy?

    Whether the answer is the former or not, does he believe it's the latter?
    I mean, this is fairly common TO thinking, and has all been discussed to death over on the 3.5 boards, but its not really a game I am interested in anymore, and although I am sure you can do it in my system, wasn't really my intent. But again, there is no wrong way to play, so if you want to take inspiration from my rules or setting and then go gonzo with it, I applaud you for the effort.


    Now, you can have a game where one person has game-breaking wealth, so long as the GM and the other players are on board with it and you agree on a "gentleman's agreement" for what sort of behavior is acceptable.
    Relying on "gentleman's agreements" is a disastrously bad idea. No. You designed the system. If you don't want players doing a certain thing, either change the rules so no one can do that thing, or add house rules when you run it so no one can do that thing when you're the GM. Don't go "you violated a gentleman's agreement so now an invincible archmage will steal your literally unstealable bow."
    Honestly, the whole idea of "WBL" is kind of a gamist one, and in a realistic setting you would see all the worlds magic items concentrated into the hands of a few powerful individuals much like money in the real world. But, while I am a fiction first GM, I don't completely discount gamist concerns, and I am going to turn a bit of a blind eye to it if it isn't too flagrant.
    Again--disastrously bad idea. "You can do things I don't want you to do, and I won't punish you as long as you don't cross the invisible lines that exist in my head" is no way to run a game. You don't get points for making a system that can be optimized and then punishing optimization.

    If you want to run a White-Wolf style, "all your traits need to go with your character concept" game, do what competent White Wolf Storytellers do and disallow anything you don't want to deal with up front. When someone finds something that's more powerful than you wanted, say openly, "I'm sorry, I didn't anticipate what that would be able to do. I'm disallowing it, but you can respend the character points."

    Will your group react well to this? Not if they're the insufferable, toxic players you've described. But they won't react well to you targeting them with distant archmages either, because no one would, and if you deal with it politely OOC instead of the overtuned IC smackdown they'll be the ones being unreasonable.
    But by making it too perfect at an increased cost, this actually makes the urge to "min-max" even worse and people will make even more one-note characters in the pursuit of their ultimate power.
    See, now. You couldn't be more overt that you hate any level of optimizing--so disallow it. Don't just seethe that your players aren't following a "gentleman's agreement" they never agreed to.
    Also, it kind of ruffles my feathers that you are simultaneously claiming your character is stronger than most endgame characters but that it is unfair to put him up against end game threats.
    If an endgame threat is "you suddenly get attacked from out of nowhere by an entirely unheralded distant enemy who is targeting your greatest weakness," that's...

    I was going to say simply "a bad game," but actually, I can think of one context in which it would be appropriate. If that's truly fundamental to your game system, then my suggestion is to relabel its genre: it's not a fantasy game, it's a horror game, and should be labeled as such.
    Now that we have cooled off, if you want to discuss the build without all the hyperbole and ad-hominin, I am down for it.
    ...

    Does this mean "if you want to discuss [the build and by extension my game system] without actually criticizing its design"? Because I'm not seeing where anyone who's been talking to you used hyperbole or ad hominem.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    But, when someone is trying to literally break the game with infinite exploits, I don't feel like it makes me an "antagonistic GM" to actually let the dice fall where they may and have NPCs react in their own best interests given their capabilities and knowledge.
    That's reasonable, but it's also what makes it feel "squishy" because it's mixing IC and OOC in a vague way.

    Pure OOC:
    You can't stack artifacts to greater than X effect. If you do then it's not a legal starting character.

    Pure IC:
    Characters who can and will steal artifacts exist in the setting, and they may go after you if you draw their attention - whether or not your character is min/maxed or well rounded. A character with choices made for pure RP reasons is just as vulnerable.

    Hybrid (which seems to be how you're saying you handle it):
    Characters who can and will steal artifacts exist in the setting, but if your character is "reasonable" then I'll give you semi-protection from them - they won't notice you until you specifically do something to draw their attention. Where-as if you're cheesy AF, you get no protection and they'll notice you straight away.*

    It's the non-definition of "reasonable" that I think is rubbing people the wrong way. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I'd be fine with a rule like:
    "Having more than X points of Artifacts will draw attention - you'll need to be on guard for people trying to steal them sometimes.
    Having more than Y points will draw major attention - you'll need to be on guard against powerful people chasing you down specifically to take them."

    Because that's concrete, and if I exceed X or Y then I know what I'm signing up for. I don't have to wonder - "Is the end result I'm getting 'reasonable' by the GM's standard?"

    TBF, I haven't seen a crunchy and flexible system that didn't need at least a little GM-player cooperation on power level. So it's not like I'm saying "tournament-grade rules or GTFO". But I do view it as something to aim for when possible.

    * This is separate from the "DC 60 spell is an incredibly obvious beacon" thing, which I consider completely legit, because it's pure-IC - anyone who casts such a spell is putting a target on their back, whether it's for cheese reasons or not.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2023-05-04 at 07:01 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #143
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    I will come back to this thread, but due to a family emergency I'm stuck traveling traveling cross country. I'll make a few comments when I can.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    But here, my question is: Did he encounter a giant spider when he chose to go somewhere a giant spider would logically be and/or one was randomly rolled on a table, or, if he had maxed his Strength and dumped his Intelligence, would the same place have had an illithid expy?
    In both cases the encounter was planned before the character was even made.

    Obviously, changing encounters solely to defeat players is dirty pool.

    Of course, sometimes it makes sense in universe. To go back to the Superman example, once Lex learns about kryptonite, he would be a fool not to use it in his traps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Whether the answer is the former or not, does he believe it's the latter?
    Hard to say. People are seldom honest, especially in matters of paranoia and ego stroking.

    Sometimes people say's things like that, sometimes they don't, and something they seem to think it without saying it or say it without believing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Relying on "gentleman's agreements" is a disastrously bad idea. No. You designed the system. If you don't want players doing a certain thing, either change the rules so no one can do that thing, or add house rules when you run it so no one can do that thing when you're the GM. Don't go "you violated a gentleman's agreement so now an invincible archmage will steal your literally unstealable bow."

    Again--disastrously bad idea. "You can do things I don't want you to do, and I won't punish you as long as you don't cross the invisible lines that exist in my head" is no way to run a game. You don't get points for making a system that can be optimized and then punishing optimization.
    I didn't design a system that punishes optimization. I designed a system where your characters traits, both strengths and weaknesses, will come up.

    I am saying that if it makes the game more fun for everyone, I might be willing to go soft on a player, but that isn't some sort of hard obligation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    If you want to run a White-Wolf style, "all your traits need to go with your character concept" game, do what competent White Wolf Storytellers do and disallow anything you don't want to deal with up front. When someone finds something that's more powerful than you wanted, say openly, "I'm sorry, I didn't anticipate what that would be able to do. I'm disallowing it, but you can respend the character points."
    Which is what I told Jak I would do if he came to me with those characters in an actual game.

    And again, the issue is not "more powerful than wanted" its "has glaring weaknesses that youdon't want to deal with."


    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    See, now. You couldn't be more overt that you hate any level of optimizing--so disallow it. Don't just seethe that your players aren't following a "gentleman's agreement" they never agreed to.
    What is your definition of optimization?

    What I hate is when people make one note characters and then make everyone else miserable because they are bored OR when people take flaws and then make everyone else miserable when they actually come up.

    That's not any definition of optimization I can think of, so I am not sure how it bears mention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    If an endgame threat is "you suddenly get attacked from out of nowhere by an entirely unheralded distant enemy who is targeting your greatest weakness," that's...

    I was going to say simply "a bad game," but actually, I can think of one context in which it would be appropriate. If that's truly fundamental to your game system, then my suggestion is to relabel its genre: it's not a fantasy game, it's a horror game, and should be labeled as such.


    ...

    Does this mean "if you want to discuss [the build and by extension my game system] without actually criticizing its design"? Because I'm not seeing where anyone who's been talking to you used hyperbole or ad hominem.
    Ok, so let me ask you a question, is real life a horror setting?

    If in real life I invented some nuclear bombs in my basement and then started detonating them in test explosions, I can guarantee that is going to get the attention of the world powers pretty quick.

    Because that is essentially what he is doing, starting the game with a cache of ultra-powerful artifacts, and then firing them off for every world power to see.


    Heck, the idea that an ordinary person with an incredibly powerful artifact needs to be careful about not using it and keeping it hidden lest powerful beings hunt him down and take it is pretty much the entire plot of Lord of the Rings, which is more or less the foundation of the modern fantasy genre.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Does this mean "if you want to discuss [the build and by extension my game system] without actually criticizing its design"? Because I'm not seeing where anyone who's been talking to you used hyperbole or ad hominem.
    Specifically:

    Spoiler: Jak's Rant
    Show
    Honestly, I really see why you have so many complaints. With your clarifications on how the game is meant to be GMed, with the GM being this antagonistic, I wouldn't find it any fun. The assumption that GMs should send in GMPCs to destroy uppity players is pretty antithetical to what I want out of a game, both as a player, and as a GM.

    Honestly, for the players that are complaining? I'd suggest they switch to a different system, like Pathfinder 2e, and try having a different GM. They probably won't get along with your system, just as I wouldn't.

    It's a shame, because there are a lot of really cool things in the system that I'd be interested in playing around with. But being told that they are only there as traps to punish players who want to play with them... It really feels like it's ruining something that looks like it could've been cool. I was going to offer to write up some characters because the character building was interesting enough to be fun, but now I know that if I build a PC slightly wrong then they will get mind controlled at the start of the game before they can act, and that is expected play. Well, I don't really see the point. Might as well just put a 5 in every stat, because otherwise the world will see you as a threat and kill you.


    Comes across as an extremely hyperbolic tantrum which was in response to being told that his build, which is essentially Pun-Pun lite, isn't actually rules legal and even if it was, it both has some glaring weaknesses and his going to put a big target on his characters head IC because it is both extremely unsubtle and an extremely high risk vs. reward target for anyone who is looking to murder-hobo.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BardGirl

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    People are seldom honest
    This is false.

    ETA: The One Ring corrupts whoever carries it. The problem is not that it's powerful. Maybe check the narrative again.
    Last edited by neriana; 2023-05-04 at 08:50 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Hard to say. People are seldom honest, especially in matters of paranoia and ego stroking.
    As neriana said, no.

    As neriana didn't say, holy crap.
    What is your definition of optimization?
    Choosing traits in a game because "this is more powerful than not-this."
    Ok, so let me ask you a question, is real life a horror setting?
    Are you dead? No? Bad analogy then.
    Because that is essentially what he is doing, starting the game with a cache of ultra-powerful artifacts, and then firing them off for every world power to see.
    Last I checked, the artifacts section of your gamebook says nothing about "powerful NPCs watch for these and are likely to attack you if you have them."

    And I mean. If they're equivalent to real-world nuclear missiles it makes no sense for anyone who isn't a country ruler to have any. How rare, dangerous, and conspicuous artifacts in your game are seems to shift depending on the question being asked: if it's "why is it so obviously no-one-should-need-to-be-told abusive to have them?" then they're nuclear missiles, if it's "why does your ruleset make them readily available?" they're something much more usable.
    Heck, the idea that an ordinary person with an incredibly powerful artifact needs to be careful about not using it and keeping it hidden lest powerful beings hunt him down and take it is pretty much the entire plot of Lord of the Rings,
    ...the whole part where the ring was specifically "the most valued possession of the worst villain extant in the setting" is irrelevant in your view, huh?
    Spoiler: Jak's Rant
    Show
    Honestly, I really see why you have so many complaints. With your clarifications on how the game is meant to be GMed, with the GM being this antagonistic, I wouldn't find it any fun. The assumption that GMs should send in GMPCs to destroy uppity players is pretty antithetical to what I want out of a game, both as a player, and as a GM.

    Honestly, for the players that are complaining? I'd suggest they switch to a different system, like Pathfinder 2e, and try having a different GM. They probably won't get along with your system, just as I wouldn't.

    It's a shame, because there are a lot of really cool things in the system that I'd be interested in playing around with. But being told that they are only there as traps to punish players who want to play with them... It really feels like it's ruining something that looks like it could've been cool. I was going to offer to write up some characters because the character building was interesting enough to be fun, but now I know that if I build a PC slightly wrong then they will get mind controlled at the start of the game before they can act, and that is expected play. Well, I don't really see the point. Might as well just put a 5 in every stat, because otherwise the world will see you as a threat and kill you.


    Comes across as an extremely hyperbolic tantrum which was in response to being told that his build, which is essentially Pun-Pun lite, isn't actually rules legal and even if it was, it both has some glaring weaknesses and his going to put a big target on his characters head IC because it is both extremely unsubtle and an extremely high risk vs. reward target for anyone who is looking to murder-hobo.
    It only comes off as "a rant," "a tantrum," or "hyperbolic" when read through a fog of defensiveness. You owe Jakinbandw an apology. And where exactly did you say "isn't actually rules legal"? Because the closest I saw you get, was to say that the GM would be justified in smacking their character down for "word would get out," regardless of what they did or didn't do to keep their artifacts secret.

    "A player can make Pun-Pun lite" is a problem with the system and thus the fault of the system designer; you should be directing all these insults to him, not to people who are trying to help you with what you're saying you want here.
    Last edited by Kish; 2023-05-04 at 09:00 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    You shouldn't be able to have more than four ranks of deadeye.
    Is that from the math mistake I made with the flaws (top out with minors like color blindness, allergy, etc. back to the -10) or is there something I'm missing? It's not a good character. Not because of char build math or anything, but the **** wild shot rolls.

    Misc. bits: I'm getting iffy on the whole staff of power thing, perhaps think about capping it at spell DC = 5x relic points,minimum 4 relic points.

    Staff of power (rewind) + dewormer master (empower) x4 + prodigy x5 + chronomancy x10 + sagacious x2 = 25 character points but you roll at +20 vs 21 & no mana expenditure to undo any one bad thing per target that happened in the current scene/act/encounter, or vs 30 to return someone who died last round, or vs 35 to return someone who died this scene. Spam it until to works.

    Ok, seriously, there's real abuse potential in Banish if you can access the top of a tall cliff or something and put down a permanent Familiar spell. Maze is easier but they could potentially come back, although you aren't tagged to the Familiar spell for detection either.

    Sequester needs to be focus tagged. NEEDS it. Unless there's some seriously big drawback I'm not seeing.

    Teleport at DC 25 is 1000 paces right? Anyone say "save vs you fall half a mile?"

    Man, I haven't even hit up a third of the spells. Although I have to say, evocation is kinda boring. Size and range metamagics are important for a bunch of this. But Reaching is +5 to go from range 5 to range 50, and maximize is +2:+2 to affect larger stuff, so not bad at all.

    Heh, Tie, for +5 you can make an enchantment on yourself last until dispelled or you're killed. Oh, wait, there's the chakra limit... or does that only apply to spells with the Augment tag?

    Touch at +3 completely negates penalties for casting magic missiles in melee does it?

    Right, Transfigure is the way around debuffs only having that "one instance of that enchantment spell at a time" limit, as well as making it a permanent non-magic effect. Geeze, weren't there some lower cost real screwball spells in illusion? Was there a DC 15 spell to set someone on fire? Would that count? Probably not. I haven't even looked at transmutation spells. Oh hey, Righteous, sure that kips it up to DC... 35?... but I'll make an extra a fated with mana & destiny permanently. Yup, staff-o-power that bad boy and retry in low danger fights, especially if you can trap/hedge the poor suckers with a circle. Probably should not be allowed on random mindless/thrall undead. "Lets stay a few hours and farm mana potions ftom this horde of zombies".

    Hmm, mystic whatzit trait for one self-only spell then a 2pt relic fisher's ring to emulate cheap staff of power... casting ability is low at 5x anima though. Can we apply prodigy or something to boost the casting roll? What's the metamagic combo to make a cantrip apply to every roll during a scene?

    Screamy, angry, often drunk, dangerously unlucky, 6 inches tall, oozing magic, mutant, purple, half-fairy, arrogant, stealth god, omni-wizard.
    Spoiler
    Show

    attributes: str 3, end 9, agl 9, dex 5, per 5, will 9, cha 5, int 5, enlightenment 10 (120pt)

    quirks: unbalanced; will(-tenacity +mana), end(-vitality + resilience), dex(-speed +dodge),

    aspects: animus & chakra 1, destiny 5, dodge 15, speed 8, encumbrance 3, might -6, initiative 10, concentration 5, mana 10, tenacity 8, vitality 8, resilience 0, wealth 14, size -10 (6" tall & zero reach)

    flaws: tiny, mutant (small) x8, -5 reason, deep sleeper, deformity (bright purple), allergic (amethyst minor), -5 perform, -5 social, -5 leadership, -5 expression, impoverished x6, -4 concentration, mutant (vulnerable:silver) (120-36=84pt)

    merits: changeling (because its appropriate), chi (forgot to add this into various numbers), manipulative (+5 business), staff of power (no idea what), sagacious x2 (business & enchantment) (84+16=100pt)

    quirks: inept: sagacious x1 + prodigy x5 @ business & bad fortune 1-7, sagacious x1 + prodigy x5 @ technology & bad fortune 1-7, sagacious x1 @ ALL other magics & bad fortune 1-2, sagacious x1 @ melee+marksman & bad fortune 1-2

    skills: abjuration+5=15, technomancy+5=15, mysticism+5=15, enchantment+3=13, other magics+3=13 (fumble 2-), resolve+3=12, fortitude+3=12, stealth+3=12, acrobatics+3=12, business+15=20 (fumble 7-), technology+13 (fumble 7-), reason-5=0, perform-5=0, leadership-5=0, expression-5=0, melee+3=+8 (fumble 2-), marksman+3=+8 (fumble 2-)

    Yeah, I think it's a fun character who's great at technology 2/3 of the time and then the other 1/3 accidentally creates a clockwork death machine Chucky doll that goes on a murder spree.

    gear: armor clothing(-quality & dump asap), light pistol(-quality atk+3 dmg+5 low-pen), small jagged hilt guard knife(atk+2 dmg+5 low-pen dodge+2), 12 high damage ammo (dmg+2 low-pen), grimoire for magics, camo clothing, buckler(-quality resil+1 dodge+1 1-hit), whip(-quality atk+0 dmg+4 long), purse(14 coins), bedroll, clothing, backpack, food, bottle of harsh rum(-quality), "furnished" literally-a-log house(-quality), tinkers tools, zen potion (1 mana), personal item

    gun: atk +11(fumble 2-), range increment 5, damage +5, low armor penetration
    knife & shield: atk +10(fumble 2-), zero reach, damage +8, low armor penetration, resilience+1=1(11), dodge+3=18(28)
    whip & shield: atk +10(fumble 2-), reach 1, damage +7, resilience+1=1(11), dodge+1=16(26)
    abj/tech/myst: +15 vs spell, dmg +15 or resist vs 20+(casting margin), may aim/reckless/cheap shot
    stealth: +12 vs alertness-10 == +22 vs alertness
    buying: +20 & fumble on 1-7.

    Absolutely hilarious, he either likely manages to buy insane expensive stuff or loses all his money. "You don't know how it is! You're just a huge jealous freak! You can't handle my money!... No, really, you can't handle it. I **** gold dust and you haven't paid to play."

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    So when I see a character with straight ones and millions of times the normal starting wealth, I can look at it from one of two perspectives:

    1: You are trying to break the system and "win" the game.
    We have a winner. You're asking for feedback on your system, and that means looking at it critically and searching for it's breaking points.

    Now to be fair, I now do this with any game I'm going to play for the first time. I've had too many bad experiences with poorly balanced games where each PC was playing a different power level, so now I test them ahead of time so I can help any fellow players build characters and get them all on the same level of optimization AFTER talking to the GM about what power level they want in their game.

    I also enjoy the challenge of it. It's a solo gameplay experience.




    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    And of course, it just raises so many questions. How did such a pathetic person survive to get here? Why was he bestowed with undreamt of power and riches when there are so many people in the world better able to make use of it? How does a person with a two intelligence know how to use all of these artifacts to their maximum potential and come up with crazy schemes to combine spells into the most efficient build? If these combos are possible, why has nobody else made use of them before?
    Custom wish spell. Seriously, your book says that other spells exist, so the backstory I wrote said Tom had made a spell that could grant a wish, and then pulled it off, but doing so reduced him to the state he starts the game at.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    You have one ordinary person who is gifted with incredible and inexplicable power, a supporting cast of their friends who are trying to help them and keep them safe, and a sinister villain who is using their resources to steal the power for their own nefarious ends.
    Ugh, I do not want to play such games! Certainly not for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    An example of someone who would be aware of Tom and what he is doing is the Warlord Khornal (page 573). An established villain of the setting, he is extremely covetous and ruthless, and would totally be in for mercing some nobody with super artifacts. He has two major trump cards over Tom though; he is wielding an avenger, which dispels against every enchantment on anything it hits, and since Tom's entire build is dozens of enchantments, each hit is going to exponentially weaken him. But further, he is a chronomancer, which means that he can actually choose to initiate his attack *before* Tom casts a single buff, at which point he is all but helpless with his array of almost straight ones.

    Of course, depending on how the GM rules the Wise trait and whether or not they actually agree to provide infinite chakras using Genesis (which is never explicitly stated in Jak's post but I think is the exploit this is all built around), you are more likely to enter D&D style 5D temporal wizard chess, which might be a fun game, but is probably not the one that GM or the other players signed up for, and is probably not one that Tom will end up winning.
    This sounds like a really interesting optimization problem. When I have more time I'll take a look and see how it plays out, because this sounds like an interesting fight. I do think you're missing something here though: Tom's power isn't from a dozen enchantments. It's from his ability to cast any number of any non-enchantment spell at a level that can't be matched without a similar level of optimization. For example, Tom could start with his first spell being to stop time himself and cast all the buffs in time stop. Or he could retroactively place himself inside an antimagic field, from which he could cast out of, but spells from outside couldn't be cast in. Or he could add a rule to the game saying that time travel can't be used to go into the past.

    This is all without needing to have a single enchantment cast on himself.

    All the self buffing does is boost his average result from a 55 to a 65, and fix up his stat block. If using genesis to make traits is off the table, it's not character breaking, he just looses the +10 from enchantments, but in return that would free up a bunch of character points.


    On the other hand, another way to deal with Khornal would just be to make a deal with him. If he kills my character he can break it down and get some essence or whatever (I'm away from easy access to the book). Tom could give him that much up front, and then give it to him again every month, along with infinite wealth. He can make any illusion real an unlimited number of times. Even if Khornal is the greediest person, it would be a better deal for him to not fight Tom at all. As you say you have characters act in their best interests, it would make more sense for this guy to make a deal rather than start a fight.

    This is also why I wouldn't ever bring this character to a game. Because they have no reason to adventure. They can make anything and do anything they want. What reason would they to want to fight a dragon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Well... once you have unlimited anything the whole concept of game balance or setting consistency is out the window.
    Tom has unlimited everything. I stand by my example


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Generally, an end game character is ~30x that of a starting character, although that depends on how specialized and front-loaded your build is. I don't actually know how that stacks up to level in D&D, I imagine it varies a lot by edition and build. I doubt, for example a 5E fighter can face 30x as many orcs at level 5 as he could at level 1.
    I don't know how you can make that generality. The closest thing I can see to a progression system would have a character go from+15 to hit at level 1, to +20 to hit at level 5. Now that is a decent increase, considering the system, but I wouldn't say 30 times deadlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    so, it kind of ruffles my feathers that you are simultaneously claiming your character is stronger than most endgame characters but that it is unfair to put him up against end game threats.
    Let's be clear here. I would love to send this guy up against end game threats, solo, to see how they did. The whole idea that every high level threat in the setting would come for the character at the same time is what I was feeling was unreasonable. It's the difference between facing Korne up there, and facing 30 of them at once. One is a high level threat, the other is passive aggressive PC murder by the GM.



    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Now that we have cooled off, if you want to discuss the build without all the hyperbole and ad-hominin, I am down for it.

    There is a lot of genuinely good ideas there, and it is probably one of the most powerful characters you can build in the system, its just that as is there are a few weaknesses and questionable rules interpretations, and mostly its just trying to do too much too quickly. I would be interested to see the same character build made over the course of a campaign rather than as a starting character.
    I don't find that as interesting of a challenge. In a more balanced game, I have enjoyed that type of optimization before(I did it for Worlds Without Number). Basically, I'm pretty sure that I could come up with a level 1 build, along with a sequence of actions that would allow the character to survive an adventure balanced for an endgame party themed around people trying to take his stuff. That's the level of optimization I think I can accomplish and would find fun as a solo experiment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    The difficulty to yank the bow is only low to mid 30s. That's a full d20 span harder to detect.
    Ugh, either you're miscalculating, or I am. The Mage that did the mind control was a mile away. Since spells are limited to perception distance, and a Pace seems equivalent to a yard, this would mean the mage would be short by a factor of a thousand. That's three extend metamagics, pushing the spell well into the 40s (though as I said, away from book).

    Also, I wasn't aware that each of those modifiers was Cumulative, either I'm not reading carefully enough (due to there being hundreds of pages of rules to memorize to understand how the game works), or the fact that they are cumulative isn't made clear enough on the table.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Not null-zones. Regular dispel magic. The whole character is a house of cards of stacked enchantments.
    I disagree, obviously. It does give me an interesting idea to counter counterspells though. Attaching small antimagic field to my character would deactive most magic items targeting him, as well as making casting a dispell on him shoot up in difficulty. This would still leave him free to act as normal with just a few minor changes to the build.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    What is your definition of optimization?
    The increasing level of effectiveness that a character can have in a an aspect of a system by achieving system mastery.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Comes across as an extremely hyperbolic tantrum which was in response to being told that his build, which is essentially Pun-Pun lite, isn't actually rules legal and even if it was, it both has some glaring weaknesses and his going to put a big target on his characters head IC because it is both extremely unsubtle and an extremely high risk vs. reward target for anyone who is looking to murder-hobo.
    Oh, I wasn't upset that you said my build wasn't rules legal (though, that's not my understanding of what you said, I thought you said it was GM dependant), it was that you were saying that a person who made a cool bow had it stolen from them with mindcontrol before the character could take an action in a game, and that you were coming down on the side of the gm. Even if you mildly condemned them as being 'passive aggressive' you also said that it made sense, and that it made sense, which was the most important thing in your game multiple times.

    Also that you were saying that most, if not all, NPCs in your game are murder hobos who only hold back from killing others because it's either too much work, or too dangerous. That feels so viscerally wrong to me that I can't even articulate it, and it's why I said I wouldn't want to play in that game. The only way to deal with a setting like that would be to not play. I flat out wouldn't enjoy it.

    Along with the implicit support of the GM that Mind Controlled a player as the start to a game, and that is why I wouldn't want to play, or suggest others play.

    To allude back to the Lord of the Rings as you did earlier, out of all the powerful characters in the setting, only 2 go after the ring. Gandalf, the leaders of the elves, and many other powerful characters do not murder frodo at the first opportunity. The one character that does betray him does so because of mental influence from the ring. This feels reasonable. All the elves, Wizards, Kingdoms of men, dwarves, dragons, men, goblins, and demons marching on the shire, burning it down to claim the ring at the start of the story the moment frodo recieves the ring from Bilbo feels horrifically wrong to me.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Also that you were saying that most, if not all, NPCs in your game are murder hobos who only hold back from killing others because it's either too much work, or too dangerous. That feels so viscerally wrong to me that I can't even articulate it, and it's why I said I wouldn't want to play in that game. The only way to deal with a setting like that would be to not play. I flat out wouldn't enjoy it.
    It's also a setting that simply doesn't function. The war of all against all is a massively unstable state that very rapidly resolves into some other, significantly more stable, one (the 'everyone is dead' state is one possible resolution). Basically any setting with extreme variance in personal power across large scales (meaning any D&D style or superhero setting, among others), relies upon an either implicit or explicit gentleman's agreement to avoid descending into the aforementioned war of all against all and resolving into something else (Dark Sun, one of the few such settings to grapple with the implications in any way whatsoever, represents something like a postwar status in its world divided up between a small number of mage kings).
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

    Quote Originally Posted by neriana View Post
    This is false.
    Ouch. That's some poor phrasing on my part.

    Let me restate that:

    "People seldom know why they feel the way they do, and rarely speak openly about their feelings, especially when matters of trust or ego are involved."


    Quote Originally Posted by neriana View Post
    ETA: The One Ring corrupts whoever carries it. The problem is not that it's powerful. Maybe check the narrative again.
    That's part of it, yes.

    But Sauron absolutely wants to ring back because a large part of his power is locked up within it, and has sent out the Nazgul and many other agents to recover it. And when Frodo puts it on, it acts like a beacon for Sauron, who immediately sends said agents to the area to recover it.

    And many of the wise absolutely believe that the ring will give them the power to defeat Sauron, and Tolkien has said that in atleast some of their cases they are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    And I mean. If they're equivalent to real-world nuclear missiles it makes no sense for anyone who isn't a country ruler to have any. How rare, dangerous, and conspicuous artifacts in your game are seems to shift depending on the question being asked: if it's "why is it so obviously no-one-should-need-to-be-told abusive to have them?" then they're nuclear missiles, if it's "why does your ruleset make them readily available?" they're something much more usable.
    Difficulty 40+ spells are roughly as dangerous (and the those who are sensitive to such things roughly as visible as) as nuclear weapons. The difficulty 40 evocation spell holocaust is almost literally a nuclear weapon. And in the example of play Jak posted, Tom was casting spells in the difficulty 60 range.

    By default, artifacts are rare enough that over the course of their career, the greatest heroes will amass 20 power levels of them.

    A few of them won't break the game or the narrative; dozens of them might. But it's not necessarily artifacts that are the issue there, it's creating a one note character who spends half their CP on a single thing; that thing will warp the narrative around it. And this isn't a bad thing if that is the game everyone signed up for.

    A min-maxxed or one-note character is not going to make for a rich game run as intended in almost any system I can think of; but if that is the game people want to play, I don't see any benefit in the rules system telling them no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    "A player can make Pun-Pun lite" is a problem with the system and thus the fault of the system designer; you should be directing all these insults to him, not to people who are trying to help you with what you're saying you want here.
    Eh. Any system of significant complexity will have some "infinite exploit". Every edition of D&D certainly does. It's not really feasible to find and stamp them all out. IMO its much easier to just ask people not to use them in actual play. Heck, didn't this forum have an FAQ on the 3.5 board about optimization that explicitly said that TO builds were though exercises not meant for actual play?

    Although again, I am fairly certain that the build Jak posted doesn't actually work on a mechanical level even in a white room that ignores opposition from the rest of the setting.

    Again with the "all these insults" what insults are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    It's also a setting that simply doesn't function. The war of all against all is a massively unstable state that very rapidly resolves into some other, significantly more stable, one (the 'everyone is dead' state is one possible resolution). Basically any setting with extreme variance in personal power across large scales (meaning any D&D style or superhero setting, among others), relies upon an either implicit or explicit gentleman's agreement to avoid descending into the aforementioned war of all against all and resolving into something else (Dark Sun, one of the few such settings to grapple with the implications in any way whatsoever, represents something like a postwar status in its world divided up between a small number of mage kings).
    This is explicitly the case in my setting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    It only comes off as "a rant," "a tantrum," or "hyperbolic" when read through a fog of defensiveness. You owe Jakinbandw an apology. And where exactly did you say "isn't actually rules legal"? Because the closest I saw you get, was to say that the GM would be justified in smacking their character down for "word would get out," regardless of what they did or didn't do to keep their artifacts secret.
    What exactly do I owe Jack an apology for? What are these "personal attacks" you keep accusing me of making?

    AFAICT all I said was that I felt like the below felt like it was made in bad faith and compared it to one of Bob's rants. I have since described it as a "rant" or a "tantrum", but do not that that was only after you made the accusation of me making personal attacks.

    And this is a really weird situation, because you are a third party and I am actively trying not to get into it with Jak as I appreciate the time he is taking to look over my rules and the feedback he is giving me even if I don't agree with it, but I will go through this line by line:

    Honestly, I really see why you have so many complaints.

    I have never had a complaint about the world reacting to a TO build. I have never even had a player attempt to make a TO build.

    With your clarifications on how the game is meant to be GMed, with the GM being this antagonistic, I wouldn't find it any fun.

    This is hyperbole. There is nothing antagonistic about having NPCs using their in character knowledge to react to threats and work to increase their power. It is a fairly standard principle across all systems, fiction, and real life.

    The assumption that GMs should send in GMPCs to destroy uppity players is pretty antithetical to what I want out of a game, both as a player, and as a GM.

    Nobody said a word about GMPCs. This is hyperbole, and given the negative association with the term also reads as a dig at me. The term "uppity" also implies that having narrative consistency is some sort of battle of egos.

    I'd suggest they switch to a different system, like Pathfinder 2e, and try having a different GM.

    Saying that because you have a problem with one very specific aspect of my system, my players can't enjoy any of it and that it is obviously inferior to PF2E is obvious hyperbole. Saying they should also swith to a different GM is ad-hominim.

    They probably won't get along with your system, just as I wouldn't.

    Also hyperbole. They love my system and have been playing it for years and in some cases decades. It is literally the only game (aside from occasionally Changeling) that Bob will play!

    But being told that they are only there as traps to punish players who want to play with them

    This is hyperbole.

    Every option is worthwhile. They are not traps. They are not punishment.

    But taking one trait in excess at the expense of everything else is going to make for a wonky character and a wonky play experience.

    But now I know that if I build a PC slightly wrong

    More hyperbole. Or maybe reverse hyperbole?

    Having 1s and 2s in all but one of your stats is not "slight", nor is spending 60+% of all build resources on a single merit.

    then they will get mind controlled at the start of the game before they can act, and that is expected play.

    More hyperbole and outright fabrication.

    Nobody said anything about mind control (aside from me saying that it is one of the potential weaknesses of the golden fleece character).
    Nobody said that you wouldn't get to act. Indeed, it is explicitly the players casting of multiple world shaking spells that draws attention to them.
    No, it is not expected play. It is a very weird sort degenerate play resulting from a very unusual character adopting a very unusual strategy.

    Well, I don't really see the point. Might as well just put a 5 in every stat, because otherwise the world will see you as a threat and kill you.

    And more hyperbole.

    I have never had a character with straight fives, yet I have had dozens, maybe hundreds, of characters survive the entire campaign. Many of them had scores of 10 or higher.



    So there you go, an in depth guide to why it reads as hyperbole or a personal attack. But again, I was dismissive of it because it reads to me like Jak is upset and letting it out, and as I don't want to fight with him and appreciate the feedback, I chose to dismiss it as him venting rather than taking it as serious fighting words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    Because the closest I saw you get, was to say that the GM would be justified in smacking their character down for "word would get out," regardless of what they did or didn't do to keep their artifacts secret.
    I said he doesn't have the chakras for this.
    I also said that Genesis specifically says you work with the GM to assign appropriate stats to the new creature. Its not just take whatever traits you want.
    Further, Cataract requires a "sufficient facsimile" which is, again, a GM judgement call. Some of these spells I don't even know what a facsimile would look like, and I especially would be suspect of a guy with a 2 intelligence and 1 perception trying to create them.

    And again, the GM's job is to react accordingly. I know you can assign malice to it, but that's not what I said.

    With Tom's build he is, by RAW, starting out the game by casting spells that can be sensed across the continent.

    I did say, in response to his previous build, that if someone has a sixty-point magic bow (which is 5x more powerful than Excalibur and similar history shaping artifacts) and was using it to strike down every enemy he comes across, people would eventually figure out what was going on. I never said anything about it being "regardless of what they did or didn't do to keep it a secret".

    And again, GM's don't need "justification" for "smacking a character down" because playing adversaries is a normal part of the DM's job. It's no different than going out to slay some orcs and then because you chose to, say, carry a two handed sword instead of a shield and that loss of AC caused a fatal blow to get through. There is no GM malice involved, its just playing the world, its just that the stakes are a bit higher when you talk about TO builds and world-shaking magic.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •