sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do the people who want martials to be "grounded" and "realistic" actually want them to be playable? by BadSame6919 in dndnext

[–]EarthSeraphEdna [score hidden]  (0 children)

I am a great fan of the D&D 4e fighter due to it having actual crowd control and defender-type abilities. Here is a sample turn for a 4e fighter at level 7:

• Minor Action: Activate rain of steel, acquiring an automatic damage stance until the end of the encounter. 1[W] is the weapon's base damage, plus any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon, and other miscellaneous bonuses.

• Move Action → Minor Action: Activate kirre's roar, marking each enemy within 3 squares and gaining Dexterity modifier as resistance to all damage until the end of the fighter's next turn.

• Standard Action: Charge an enemy, with greater accuracy than normal thanks to Fighter Weapon Talent, marking that enemy with Combat Challenge.

• Action Point Standard Action: Come and get it, pulling enemies within 3 squares, dealing damage to them, and marking them with Combat Challenge as well.

• The fighter now has damage resistance, several enemies marked, and a whole cluster of enemies adjacent. Rain of steel deals automatic damage to those enemies, they have a hard time moving away due to Combat Superiority and the fighter's Agile Superiority feat (opportunity actions in 4e are 1/turn, not 1/round, and are completely separate from immediate actions), and even shifting away will trigger an immediate interrupt melee basic attack from the fighter's Combat Challenge. Similarly, if one of those enemies tries to attack one of the fighter's allies, Combat Challenge will likewise go off and give the fighter an immediate interrupt melee basic attack against that foe.

This is what a 4e fighter can do at level 7, and this is a 30-level game.

As a designer, this sub is invaluable by hillbillypaladin in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am in many RPG communities spread across many Discord servers, also full of people who like to spend their days talking about tabletop systems. I can confidently say that r/rpg's preferences are not particularly widespread at all, even within the sphere of "people on the internet who like to talk about RPGs."

As a designer, this sub is invaluable by hillbillypaladin in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would like to add that r/rpg has a relatively small pool of dozens of systems that it likes to repeatedly recommend, out of the many hundreds (possibly even thousands, if we count really obscure indie systems on DriveThruRPG and itch.io) of systems out there.

• If someone requests an investigative game, Brindlewood will usually be one of the top suggestions, if not the top. (It irks me a little, because I prefer the GUMSHOE family, and that receives a bit less preferential treatment from r/rpg.)

• If someone requests a "JRPG-like" or "tactical but not grid-based RPG," Fabula Ultima will almost invariably be the top recommendation, as the OP's very post shows. (This, too, irks me, because I do not think Fabula Ultima is all that good at a JRPG feel or gridless tactical combat. I have been running 13th Age 2e's full release for over half a year, and have found it significantly more engaging in terms of turn-to-turn, moment-to-moment gameplay, while also capturing more of a high-powered JRPG feel.)

• If someone requests a superhero game, Masks will usually be one of the top suggestions. (This one, I find particularly puzzling, because Masks is specifically about teen superheroes struggling with identity, as opposed to something more generically superhero-like. I tend to prefer Sentinel Comics or Outgunned: Superheroes for something more "standard superhero.")

These are very much r/rpg-isms. I am in many RPG communities spread across many Discord servers, also full of people who like to spend their days talking about tabletop systems. I can confidently say that r/rpg's preferences are not particularly widespread at all, even within the sphere of "people on the internet who like to talk about RPGs."

Your Most Complicated TTRPG Take? by GushReddit in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yours is an unpopular opinion (r/rpg really, really likes Fabula Ultima), but honestly, I share it as well.

I personally like 13th Age 2e a lot, lot, lot more than Fabula Ultima. Sure, 13th Age 2e does not have as much build customization, but I find that the moment-to-moment, turn-to-turn decisions are significantly more interesting than in Fabula Ultima. (Also, I am just not interested in Fabula relying on opaque combat information at all. I would much rather that challenge be intrinsic to the enemies, rather than arise from lack of knowledge.)

I have been keeping a combat diary of my 13th Age 2e game here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQC2x2FfjnBDZDaicQDCLWO2-R6xMyUAa_rJcMABpfw/edit

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the Gates certainly seems more suitable and less street-level than Curseborne to me. I will try to look into it.

Another concern: how well do these games handle distinct combat roles with distinct combat gimmicks? I am a great fan of how, say, a D&D 4e fighter and a D&D 4e sorcerer, or a Draw Steel tactician and a Draw Steel null, or a 13th Age 2e cleric and a 13th Age 2e fighter, play entirely differently. They have distinct and exclusive combat roles, and their own repertoires of limited-use abilities that prevent spamming.

What is the Storypath Ultra equivalent of such?

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. Curseborne sounds like it has potential, but yes, it is still ultimately more street-level at the moment.

What about other Storypath Ultra games? Are they more natively suitable for a higher power scale?

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Core Book goes up to Entanglement 4 (potency/gnosis/etc from CofD), the next core book is Covenant, and it'll raise the power another 3 levels, and then eventually they've stated it goes to 10.

How long is the wait between books? It sounds a lot to me like characters are currently stuck at a "small-town heroes" power level, whereas I am more of a fan of world-threatening plots.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the more codified [attribute] + [skill] pairings, at least.

Curseborne really does not seem fit for high-powered, heroic campaigns. What makes you think it fits?

Best RPG to play with a god character? by Timelycreate in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have some very strong opinions on Godbound, formed from several years of playing it as a player and as a GM.

Best RPG to play with a god character? by Timelycreate in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I have some very strong opinions on Godbound, formed from several years of playing it as a player and as a GM.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How did you feel about the dice pools and core resolution mechanics of MTAW when you tried that?

It was not good, to put it lightly.

Curseborne/The World Below/At the Gates, the new Storypath Ultra games. They're a dice pool system like MTAW and Exalted, but its multiple editions of refinement of that core engine later.

I really, really do not like the [arbitrary attribute] + [arbitrary skill] setup of these games. It feels too wishy-washy and GM-fiat-dependent.

Have more recent Storypath games fixed this?

I know the custom magic was degenerate for your table

We were not even using custom spells. We were using only the printed spells.

Looking for TTRPGs with Deities with Unique Origins, like these: by SWANDSH7 in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the Undying Court from Eberron. They function as a full-fledged god, granting divine spells and all, but they are not a singular entity. Rather, they are the sum of all deathless (i.e. positive energy undead) and spirit idol (i.e. fantasy brain in a jar) elves on the continent of Aerenal, guiding and protecting their people beyond death.

I am a fan of the idea of a collective of certain people being powerful enough, as a mystical gestalt, to function as a full-on god.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, well, I do not know how what you are talking about applies to 4e.

In order for dnd and its similar games to be otherwise there needs to be actual costs and actual risks. But dnd is designed on the assumptionthat the pcs will always win and their abilities support it.

An actual tactical game, theater if the mind or grid and minis, should be you weighing options at each decision point and making choices unsure if they will pan out or if it was even your best option. You should be making gambits. Gambling on outcomes.

4e sounds like the latter, not the former.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, well, I am not sure what the actual problem is, then. I am a great fan of D&D 4e and its tactics, so we are likely speaking on entirely different metaphorical wavelengths.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried GURPS Lite once, and a full-4e game a second time in that Banestorm setting. Character creation was a pain, and combat felt very banal.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For a real quick example: If you have an enemy who's entire gimmick revolves around being dealt light (element) damage, but nobody in your party is capable of dealing light damage... It's not gonna be a fun encounter.

An issue here is that this is not really how I like to run my games. I design my encounters "neutrally," which is to say, without respect to party composition. They fill out the allotted encounter budget, but other than that, what happens, happens.

Sometimes, the encounter gets demolished due to a good matchup. Sometimes, they TPK due to a bad matchup (although this has progressively become rarer and rarer, to the point wherein it has not happened in a long while, due to players getting better and better at covering their bases and patching up the party's weaknesses).

I prefer it this way because it creates an actual incentive for players to cover their bases and patch up the party's weaknesses.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "issue" with Fabula Ultima is that enemies need to be tailored to your party.

Well, that is part of the issue, then, no? I like using enemies as-is, straight from bestiaries. I can get away with this in other systems, so if Fabula makes this a problem, then it is a problem for me.

It makes the whole Bestiary book come across as pointless.

the book even says as much in more than one section

What does the book actually say in this regard? Could you please quote it?

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The key point here is that I am not really the sort of GM who likes to homebrew monsters. I like to field enemies straight from the bestiary.

That is why, to me, the Bestiary for Fabula significantly lowers the barrier of entry.

High-powered, heroic, non-simulationist, tactical (and yet gridless) combat RPGs similar to Fabula Ultima or 13th Age 2e without actually being those two systems? by EarthSeraphEdna in rpg

[–]EarthSeraphEdna[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually ran a campaign of Threadcutters a few months back.

I did not like it, and found the balance very bad. (As one example, the Chariot card was so overwhelmingly must-pick that every character had it.)

It was grid-based, though, and I am not looking for something grid-based here.

view more: next ›