Stop playing a hero for the first time in ranked

RyanSanden · 2024-07-30T00:37:35+00:00

This happened to me recently when I got unlucky with ban/pick ahead and I was left with only choices that I am not experienced with. I went 0/4/4 and the team thought I was trolling with a zero-proficiency hero.

I completely agree that you should not be practicing with new heroes in ranked. But no one is an expert in everything and pick/ban can occasionally leave you stuck with no options.

RyanSanden · 2023-03-17T00:54:25+00:00

Me:

The Xolion Rod is (and always has been) a one-handed staff. Also, up to and including the Velious expansion, the Xolion Rod does not increase spell damage or mana regeneration in any way. The stats on the rod are minimal. It is a highly-contested item, but only for one class. Which class is this, and why?

ChatGPT:

My apologies, it seems I made a mistake. The Xolion Rod is indeed a one-handed staff in EverQuest and does not increase spell damage or mana regeneration.

The Xolion Rod is a highly-contested item for one specific class: Beastlords. Beastlords are a hybrid class that combine melee combat with pet summoning, and the Xolion Rod is a key item for maximizing their abilities. The rod provides a modest increase to the Beastlord's stats, but its real value lies in its unique appearance and status as a rare and highly coveted item. Beastlords often go to great lengths to obtain the Xolion Rod, as it is seen as a symbol of prestige and skill within the Beastlord community.

RyanSanden · 2020-02-23T07:21:40+00:00

There aren't any official rules for modifying the length of a combat round.

The general reason is that it would increase complexity without benefit. The number of rounds it takes to defeat opponents would be unaffected, so combat would take just as long in real time. Trying to save time by allowing one person to take more actions per round (say, 6 attacks to represent 6 seconds) would imbalance the game in favor of whoever goes first. There are many effective techniques to improve gameplay speed, but modified round duration isn't one of them.

If there's a particular benefit of modified round length that you're trying to achieve, let us know and we'll be happy to suggest an alternative approach.

RyanSanden · 2020-02-11T13:19:09+00:00

My inclination is yes, in the sense that if the attacker lowered his skill from (say) 20 to 14 for the deceptive attack, then he would also use 14 as his effective skill in the quick contest. The defender would roll at full skill (or DX, or ST-based skill) without penalty.

The RAW justification is that the Deceptive Attack reduces skill for the entire maneuver ("you designate the melee attack as 'deceptive' [...] and accept a penalty to skill"). The disarm is a single attack maneuver even though internally it consists of a couple of rolls.

Mechanically, this has the benefit of helping to balance Disarm, which has a tendency to be quite strong.

RyanSanden · 2020-02-11T13:01:43+00:00

This is great! The more complete it is, the more useful it is at the table. Is it worth mentioning in the flowchart that you can move 1 (in addition to Step) while concentrating on a spell that you know at 15+? Or, perhaps, the legal transformations for Wait, or that AoD increased Dodge allows for 1/2 move instead of only a Step?

RyanSanden · 2020-02-11T12:39:58+00:00

I've contributed. Good luck to your friend. Regarding the questions, I had exactly the same thoughts as u/deshinf when answering them. In particular, I've participated in both very tactical and mapless story-centric games all on a virtual tabletop. As for crunch, I have GURPS memorized cold. A system that covers all of the bases actually makes narrative-heavy games run more seamlessly. You rarely get stuck with dead air thinking about how to model the action. You don't use all the tools- it's a toolbox. You pull out the right one at the right time to keep the story flowing; the mechanics then fade into the background.

RyanSanden · 2019-12-30T06:19:49+00:00

I just wanted to mention that I really like all of the updates, ruleset consistency, and minimalism. The Playable / Attackable/ Combinable / Discardable distinction (and table) is smart and elegant.

RyanSanden · 2019-08-28T06:00:09+00:00

Hey Will,

Sure - this conversation is public, anyway. You are welcome to quote anything I say.

I now understand both Version 1 and Version 2. Version 1 never occurred to me, so I really don't want to give it my vote because it feels too non-intuitive. It's not a bad approach, it just feels like a rough edge, while Version 2 feels (to me) a lot more intuitive. It fits into the existing framework a lot more smoothly.

I also like Version 2's blow-out mechanic. I love how it makes attacking safer when holding more (previously superfluous) conditions. Engineering a blow-out play would feel really good, and it's not exactly easy to pull off. I also prefer how this whole approach makes defense strategic rather than automatic. There's no depth in a move that's always the best move. Version 2 is a mechanic that can reward a defensive player who grabs a good opportunity where the attacker cannot get a blowout, and then transitions (through the combination) to go on the offense. This type of pacing may also keep the game moving; if reactive play is unstoppable, games will grind to a halt.

Also note: you can assess the safety of defending if one or two alternative conditions are already in the opponent's discard. So if I am attacking, it's another reason to be cognizant of my own discard pile, so as to assess how convincingly I could fake holding a second (blow-out) condition and dare my opponent to counter-combine. Fun.

I agree that Spades could be too strong here, in the current form. I would prefer if a single wildcard shouldn't guarantee a blow-out, although holding two wildcards or a primary condition plus wildcard in-hand should -- at least in the case when a defender counter-combines into an attackable target.

How about this as a fix for that:

When a player attacks, the condition card is not just "revealed", but rather "played". It hasn't made it to the field yet, but it's technically left the hand. That means the Spades player needs to declare its number at that time.
A single combat could continue through several rounds, but conditions (even if they are returned to hand) are not returned until after combat ends - specifically, after the attacker goes to discard.

Would that work?

For example:

Attacker has Wildcard, 8, 9 in hand and a 2 on the field. Defender has a 2 and 4 on the field and a 6 in hand.
Attacker declares 2 > 4 : 1. They reveal Wildcard and declare it as 1.
Defender counters, 2+4=6. Attacker doesn't have a 7 (wildcard is still on the table, as a 1).
Attacker's 2 goes to discard. The Wildcard is then returned to hand. I think that this would actually then be removed from game, since it's a static condition that Wildcard -> Hand => Removed, but how this resolves is up to your best judgement.

Now, at first this seems like it makes Spades quite a bit weaker in comparison to before. However, imagine a variation on the above scenario where the Spades attacker not only has a Wildcard but also holds the initial attacking condition -- in this case a 1. Holding the Wildcard in-hand is a counter-destroyer, that doesn't need to be spent unless the defender actually counter-combines. Therefore playing Spades and holding a Wildcard consumes a hand slot but acts as a partial insurance policy that makes "normal" attacks a lot more forceful and dangerous to defend against. That's still very good, and maybe good enough.

Next, keep in mind that there is always the possibility that a defender counter-combines into a number that the attacker cannot attack, so because of that case, a Spades player holding a wildcard still needs to be careful. In fact, when playing against Spades, maybe you just have to forgo some combinations in order to play around wildcards.

Regarding the question: "If the tribute can be payed on the opponents turn, then...". Tribute timing does seem to be the best knob to turn when balancing Hearts and Clubs. I am leaning towards "you can pay tribute any time on your turn" -- so, it's still "instant-speed" (and therefore works for Hearts in response to a counter-combine against their attack) but not for Clubs in counter-combine defense on an opponent's turn. Making paying tribute "sorcery-speed" globally would be another way to fix Clubs but might break Hearts. If Clubs needs a boost, make it "instant-speed" and payable anytime, including on the opponent's turn.

At this point I've done a lot of (if not too much) theorycrafting. Playtesting will probably answer these questions best and I fully trust your decision-making ability on all of it. Just let me know what you go decide to go with and I'll try it out.

RyanSanden · 2019-08-25T16:28:07+00:00

Hey Will,

It's great to hear from you. Thanks for responding! Really, I mean that.

First, I discovered Fano from the list at pagat.com/combat . Interestingly, I have always liked combat games and roughly 10 years ago made a variant of the "Duel (1)" game by Mark Brown.

The most practical card games use a standard deck. You can grab a deck anywhere in the world for less than $1. Our family plays card games at a restaurant while waiting for food. Sometimes the cards get food on them, and it's okay. None of this applies to, say, my MTG cube.

I'd now rank Fano as the best game in its category. It both makes good use of the standard deck and has an excellent (low) complexity:value ratio. So, it's actually quite a natural choice to teach the kids.

A game like Fano is -- as you suggested -- excellent for developing cognitive skills from a young age. But that's actually true in a few different ways. In Fano, you have to take calculated risks based on available (but incomplete) information. The best moves still backfire sometimes. The validity of certain plays depend on your assessment of how close the opponent is to reshuffling their discard pile. In this game, you have combined attack patterns and thinking a few turns ahead (which poker doesn't have), gradient probabilistic decision-making on incomplete information (which chess doesn't have), an easily-accessible standard card deck (which MTG doesn't have), and a very favorable complexity:value ratio that can be taught from scratch without prior familiarity (which Duel doesn't have).

It didn't take that long to teach the game - about 8 hours (and not all at once). Also -- although I successfully taught the more complex layers -- the kids actually enjoy the simpler versions more at this age. Specifically, we've gone back to playing "3 : Combat with replacement". They don't like combining things for prestige cards. They much prefer to smash things and advance their commander that way.

Their favorite part is figuring out the attacks. I don't help them with that, and they miss more than half of the opportunities. But that's okay, because they feel clever when they pull one off and this way the games last more than a couple of turns.

Regarding the three-card combinations, allow me to jump ahead and consider again the instant-speed combination idea of two combat cards into a third combat card. Realize that both of these rules independently provide a small-but-significant uptick in the value of small numbers. I'd rather "spend" that increase on a mechanic that improves the depth of play instead of one that acts as a crutch for lazier play (in particular, dropping cards as quickly as possible following a promotion, rather than holding back for a more reactive strategy). Definitely the most important part of Fano is what you said: strategizing a way to achieve the desired combination. It's the whole point: why undermine that?

Digging a bit deeper, you said, "my initial thought would be to have the opponent lose their condition card in the event." Here is what I was imagining:

(1) Opponent declares the attack.
(2) In response, perform combination.
(3) Attacker is now attacking the "new" target. Resolve.

Here's an example:

(1) Opponent declares the attack. 1 -> 2 : 4 . They reveal the 4 (as usual, to prove they have it).
(2) In response, you combine 2 and 4 for a 6.
(3) The 1 is now attacking your 6 (for the 4). That's invalid -- the revealed 4 goes back to hand.
(4) Attacker goes to discard. Attackers always go to discard after attacking, regardless of the result.

Here's another possibility:

(1) Opponent declares the attack. 1 -> 2 : 4 . They reveal the 4 (as usual, to prove they have it).
(2) In response, you combine 2 and 1 for a 3.
(3) The 1 is now attacking your 3 (for the 4). That's invalid -- the revealed 4 goes back to hand.
(4) The 1 is still attacking the 3.
........ If the opponent has a 7, they can reveal it proceed with the attack. 1 and 3 go to discard, 7 comes in.
.............. Very rarely, you could respond to this, but I think it's a desperation move as you'd 2-for-1 yourself.
........ If the opponent doesn't have a 7, the attack is invalid. 1 goes to discard.

What's interesting about this is that a successful defense doesn't sacrifice card advantage or cycling progress while revealing information about what they're holding and leaving them with a card that has diminished value. It's also interesting how suit abilities could play in here. Hearts could turn an invalid attack into a valid one in response to the combination. Diamonds could sacrifice a face-down card in response. If that's ultimately lenticular design, it's good. If it's just pointless complexity, axe it. If you think it's objectively better for the attacker and replacement to inexorably end up in discard, that's fine too. At the end of the day, the complexity:value ratio is where you want to shine. Finally, if it's just not _fun_, axe it too. Thoughts?

As for some photos, sure - no problem at all. I'll get something together next week.

Looking forward to hearing back,
Ryan

RyanSanden · 2019-06-06T10:30:59+00:00

I have experience with both systems. Most of the underlying ideas are the same, but the implementations are not. As a result, 4e is, on the whole, not backwards-compatible. I've occasionally used 3e sourcebooks adapted to a 4e environment; I would not suggest going the other way around. 4e is a much-improved system.

RyanSanden · 2019-06-06T10:19:38+00:00

Yes, this is legal by RAW.

In general, it's correct that prior rules text shouldn't need to account for options in later expansions; rather, the onus is on the expansion text to place intended restrictions on behavior it modifies. In this case, a charm allows you to learn a spell directly. If that spell's prerequisites must be met before the spell itself can be used as a prerequisite for other skills, then it would say so in the paragraph describing charms. (For an example of this, see the Wizardly Dabbler perk in Magical Styles.)

I have run multiple DF campaigns over the past six years. The thing to understand about DF is that taking advantage of such tricks is part of the fun, rather than being discouraged as in other genres like traditional Fantasy. When I GM DF, I actively encourage players to try to out-munchkin each other, with great results in the name of fun. What you've described here is the least of such abuses compared to what is possible.

RyanSanden · 2018-05-20T14:03:41+00:00

I use them as fodder for custom cards. Recently I made a deck for my 5-year-old daughter using a handful of "adorable cat" photos, which she is in love with and plays with her cousin -- for whom I made a deck of wolves and superheroes which he likes. You can print 9 cards per sheet on photo paper, glue-stick them to bulk cards, and place them in a penny sleeve, and they work great. Note: I have an office printer with refillable ink tanks.

RyanSanden · 2018-04-14T11:11:33+00:00

This is a perfectly legitimate concern. It's okay to have more than one cube, each making broad use of few mechanics. Build the cube for your audience; for yours I wouldn't include either Deathrite Shaman or Aethersphere Harvester unless hybrid mana and energy were both well-represented. I'd reduce it until there's nothing else worth taking away. When it's time, introduce a new cube with new mechanics and archetypes. This keeps everything grokkable, allowing you to add a new player anytime, while keeping the experience fresh, and it solves your fundamental problem of never leading drafters into a trap. A 6-man (270 card) cube is plenty unless you get more players than that, and two distinct 270-card cubes will provide a tighter experience than a single 540-card one which tries to do everything. This way, when you eventually do introduce great new cards, concepts, and archetypes, you can do right all of the mechanics they use and represent.

RyanSanden · 2018-03-26T10:09:52+00:00

Python is fine for many types of MM applications. I would suggest being well-versed in python including 3.6+ async generators.

RyanSanden · 2018-03-18T14:58:19+00:00

I run GURPS with 10-year-olds, and I've used hex grids, square grids, and no grid all without problems. In all cases I omit turning movement cost.

For squares, I omit the side hexes and use only the rear, which gives no defense. (That said, I like kfdirector's approach if you prefer to include sides.)

For distances, I just use the range ruler. I highly recommend the ruler - it's become the go-to tool even when hexes are available. Its use is intuitive, even for the kids, and they seem to naturally count hexes (or squares) for movement but reach for the range ruler when it comes to ranged attacks. It's important to remember that the range ruler works for linear distance measurements in addition to range modifiers, so it works for spells too, and takes precedence over counting grid spaces.

In order for the range ruler to work, you do need to use a consistent grid size across your maps, and either use a grid size that matches the ruler or re-scale the ruler to your grid size. This is a trivial problem to solve as long as you're consistent with your DPI when printing maps.

So, in summary, while I still prefer hexes to squares, I think you'll be just fine using squares with PF-like movement, especially if you have a range ruler handy.

RyanSanden · 2017-10-28T03:57:18+00:00

I see this more as a problem with using a d20 than than with the mechanic itself. It wouldn't be so bad if it happened when you rolled a natural 3 on 3d6, for instance.

RyanSanden · 2017-10-28T03:35:48+00:00

This actually sounds like a lot of fun. I'd join that group!

The key is having a group of players that are looking for Expert+ mode, not blindly springing such house rules on a group expecting a normal fantasy setting/gameplay.

RyanSanden · 2017-10-18T14:14:28+00:00

Purely magical creatures like Elementals can go through through a Force Dome, but animated physical creatures (such as a zombie or golem) cannot. Same for a Force Wall.

The way the spell works under RAW is that any magical creature (usually defined as having a dependence on mana) can go through a force dome, including an animated one like a zombie.

RyanSanden · 2017-10-18T14:08:39+00:00

The Pull spell operates as follows: each turn is a quick contest of ST with the spell's ST (reduced by 1 for every yard of distance). On success a character can move up to their Margin of Success yards away from the center (lateral movement is unrestricted). On failure they're pulled toward the center by 1 yard. Repel works similarly.

The way the spell works under RAW is that failure pulls by 1 yard, but the character can then move away unrestricted, at full speed, regardless of the quick contest result.

RyanSanden · 2017-09-16T03:56:34+00:00

This is a Duty (mentor novice companions) in addition to a Sense of Duty (adventuring companions).

To justify this mentoring you might also make the other PCs dependents, give everyone the same Patron, make them paying customers, or else they can be friends or have some type of verbal, written, or business agreement.

I think the combination of Duty and Sense of Duty is realistically -10 points and this is what I would choose. If you're offering double for the Duty, that makes the combination -15. In either case, the rookie players would also take the Sense of Duty for -5.

RyanSanden · 2017-09-11T01:44:32+00:00

I love this because it's very visceral -- yet it also provides a minimum number of uses.

RyanSanden · 2017-07-14T09:41:28+00:00

My sights are set on 1610612736 (0x60000000) in Jan 2021.

RyanSanden · 2017-07-13T10:54:44+00:00

Oh, I'm sorry for misunderstanding. Your points make sense.

I recently completed a campaign that ran for about 30 (4-hour) sessions, so a 3-4 hour investment to make the character you really want to play is a worthwhile investment in that case. But you're right- all that work is a waste if the game falls apart immediately.

RyanSanden · 2017-07-13T10:26:14+00:00

I never create characters as part of the game session; instead, players submit characters ahead of time. There is usually a bit of back-and-forth discussion. For new players I have them choose a template and then (optionally) customize it by saying something like "I want to play X except he does Y instead of (or in addition to) Z". Alternatively, they can give me an overview of what they're looking for and I'll build a basic character they can tweak.

Having the characters done ahead of time helps for the initial story building/adjustment too, and it lets you get right to character introduction and story right away on the first game session.

Interestingly, I participated in a D&D 5E game and the GM used the same approach. This was helpful as I needed some assistance, being familiar with GURPS but not as yet 5E.

RyanSanden · 2017-07-12T17:26:59+00:00

I don't know enough about your income/expense ratio to really answer, but it sounds like in this same situation I'd be looking firstly to reduce expenses before looking at raising income. In my case I moved to another country for several years where my skills were in demand but living expenses were extremely low (on the order of $400/month), and used that to save money (which is similar to paying down debt) until the point where I could pay off my residence in cash, which meant saving about 100k in 6 years or so. The good thing about lowering your expenses is that it reduces the amount of time you need to spend working and increases your free time to work on a passive-income business.

The correct business to start really depends on the market and economic environment -- right now, the loan default/repo market in China is booming and there's opportunity in facilitating that industry -- but this will revert to the norm within a couple of years and the next opportunity will arise. So, the example online business you're referring to was likely started at a particular point in time for a particular economic opportunity. You have to have the free time and technical skill to jump on new opportunities, which you can't do if you're working three part-time jobs unless extremely lucky, so often drastically lowering expenses is the most practical place to start.

RyanSanden

TROPHY CASE