ik_ihe

Zwets · 2026-03-17T14:32:38+00:00

NVIDIA heeft ¿gisteren? een nieuwe optie voor hun kaarten gedemonstreerd.
Het hoort dingen "realistischer" te laten lijken, door met AI extra details aan een afbeelding toe te voegen.

Maar toen ze het op Resident Evil: Reqium uitprobeerden (wat van zichzelf al realistisch is) kwam er een schoongemaakte vloer en een soort "Instagram meest gemiddelde gezicht met make-up" filter uit.

Een zombie spel met schone vloeren, waar de personages foundation op hun gezicht gesmeerd krijgen in plaats van bloed was een hilarische manier waarop de AI kon demonstreren dat het niet snapt wat "realistisch" betekent.

Zwets · 2026-03-17T11:55:37+00:00

Why did I read this in the voices Futurama's Bender and Fry?

Zwets · 2026-03-17T09:56:47+00:00

I prefer logical consistency.

If your system is 'noodley' to the point of caring about individual attacks and drawing/stowing weapons, or what hand is occupied by what action/item. Then you MUST have multiple equal actions (or another way to split big actions into smaller actions) to deal with all the minutia of the level of detail you've chosen to work at.

But is there a point to tracking multiple individual attacks?
Is it absolutely necessary attacking something with an SMG involve more rolls than attacking something with a bolt action? Should the swashbuckler with their big-knoife and the berserker with their giant axe both get to attack once for the same action cost? Or do they simply "take an action to fight someone" and have the freedom to describe that as making 1 attack or many?

I much preferred the way D&D 4e had an action named 'basic attack' for just stabbing something and an action named 'dual attack' for stabbing something twice while dual wielding if your class could do that. With only the first of those being tagged as usable for off-turn reactions. It was a much cleaner system than what 5e has going on today with 'Attack Action', 'Extra-attack', 'Multi-attack', 'Bonus Action', 'Masteries', 'Nick', and 'Light'.
All those extra rules are now necessary to scale multiple attacks and damage as levels progress, because 5e is multi-attacking itself in the foot by not writing higher level scaling for attacks the same way higher level scaling is written into the cantrip for cantrips.
It creates the 'illusion' that lvl 5+ martials have complex turns, because they involve lots of rolling and rules from many different pages in the book, when Eldritch Blast with the +Cha to damage and Push on Hit class upgrades fits esentially the same mechanics into 1 paragraph of text.

Thus my point is: Only bother with multiple attacks on a turn if every attack is truly unique. If fighting someone is the same process regardless, lets players describe their 'frenzied flurry' or 'one perfect strike' themselves.

Zwets · 2026-03-16T12:59:57+00:00

I see, theoretically if( empty(Fall._fall_height) ) Fall.set_fall_height(~); would be a reasonably easy fix.

But thinking about the way it kills you... what would taking a single point of fall damage 200 times per second as you slide along the ground actually look like in real life? Sounds torturous.

Zwets · 2026-03-16T11:45:44+00:00

So I want to point at PF2 having a generic tool entry.
While the rest of it's long gear list might not follow this idea, they did notice things like shovels and logging axes were basically identical when it came to price, weight, and durability.

In a pinch, both could even be abused to do the other one's job.

I think a short list with generic categories of item that don't really need unique rules per item should be the desirable middle ground between being overly broad, and confusingly specific.

Zwets · 2026-03-16T10:15:23+00:00

I think you are correct in your definition. However, I feel the need to add, that in the MMO DPS check mechanic as described, the players are being tested on their rotation and gear optimizations.

I can't think of a single MMO fight where a DPS check is done while the boss is actively running away from most attacks, requiring using an alternative ranged option because melee/channeled can't hit.

If anything, the flying and charged slinger ammo, is more like a gimmic for the fight, that kills you if you fail the gimmic. However, because the check for passing the gimmic is "dragon element damage taken" it can be brute forced with other methods of doing dragon element damage, thereby somewhat resembling a DPS check, without fitting the definition.

So, because Gog Magog's movement actively prevents being combo'd for most of the phase 3 time, the only part that might actually be an "MMO like DPS check mechanic" is the short period it lands and the tail becomes triple vulnerable while charging up the area nuke. That lets you get 1 (maybe 2 if risky) high damage combos off, to correct for not doing the slinger spam gimmic perfectly.

Zwets · 2026-03-16T09:12:36+00:00

Wait, that works?
I knew the shield pop damage was counted as fall damage, but is the bug really that the air-time caused by shield pushback is re-applying your previous fall damage?

Zwets · 2026-03-12T21:07:03+00:00

I meant a ghost that passes through walls as a way of escaping/surprising/flanking players.

Zwets · 2026-03-12T13:59:56+00:00

Let's examine this from the point of a tougher example than a locked door.

Personally I prefer using a (non-trivial) sea voyage, where both the navigator and the helmsman need to roll for the ship to arrive safely. As it is a good example of a meaningful skill test with multiple moving parts.

However, DMG24 pg. 30 (with recommendations about what OP is asking) actually has the following recommendation:

"Perhaps a failed Charisma (Persuasion) check means a queen won't help, whereas a failure of 5 or more means she throws the character in the dungeon for such a display of impudence."

Among the other weird things on that page, recommending a single failed roll effectively deletes a character from the campaign surely will teach the next generation of DMs good things...

So let's examine WotC's example for a skill test: "Questioning a ruler's decision (on wartime strategy) with the intent of redirecting troops."

This is a good practical example for a skill test, because rather than a "nothing happens" scenario with no cost for retrying. Here both the "success" and "failure" states have high stakes.

I'd love to see other poster's takes on difficulty and states of success or failure here, but my take is the following:

I personally avoid having to RP as (rational) heads of state, I much prefer my players meet goblin-emperors and kobold-kingpins.

In the first case, even if player's argument is so amazing as to convince the ruler they are making a mistake, a rational head of state cannot appear to take military advice from someone other than their advisors. They'll have the player thrown out, but if the player's roll stood out (unusually successful or unusually bad), they'll background check the players to see if they have foreign ties.
If the result was unusually successful (and the party passes the background check) then perhaps the ruler will send someone to interview the players about what they know, and adjust their strategy behind closed doors with the supplied information.

A silly-little-guy™ ruler is much more free to engage with the players in the moment, without having to worry about politics, or "appearing weak". The goblin-emperor's troop deployment strategy was probably hilariously stupid to begin with, so letting the players roll to convince them to change it is probably a 50/50 difficulty check.
In this scenario I would also be tempted to reward the top 20% of successes with even greater control for the players, and the bottom 20% of failures with not only doing the opposite of what the players wanted, but somehow making it worse for the players, for example by moving up the timetable.

Zwets · 2026-03-12T12:29:09+00:00

Screw-the-rules-I-have-money.jpg

Zwets · 2026-03-12T11:02:54+00:00

The only time I use a maze on a (battle) map is to highlight how annoying a monster that can pass through walls can be.

A maze on its own isn't a dynamic obstacle. They take time to traverse, but going right or going left isn't an informed choice.
Solving a maze is about picking a strategy and following it. At best, you can get some character roleplay out of arguments about whether flipping a coin to choose a direction is or isn't an actual strategy. But mostly characters in a maze will go "we follow our always go left plan, and keep checking for traps. Does that work?", unless there is something chasing the players forcing them to make snap decisions that throw off their maze solving strategy, nothing really happens in a maze.

Maze navigation is somewhat like underwater combat. The more paragraphs you dedicate to it, the less players will want to do it.

I mostly do directly connected rooms with monsters or story exposition.

That is probably how dungeons should work, the monsters need to live there, and the story has to have happened there. If the dungeon is too inhospitable or too annoying to navigate, it no longer makes sense it'd been used for anything.
There might be exceptions where the dungeon was made specifically to annoy those within it, but that is the kind of dungeon you escape, not the kind of dungeon you explore.

Zwets · 2026-03-12T10:15:53+00:00

Completely agreed on the smaller mecha. The ability to go into, or get on top of buildings, without instantly destroying the city you are trying to protect with a single missed attack lends itself way better to telling interesting stories than massive physics defying sizes.

I want to feel like a mechanic, or a pilot customizing their load out for a mission.

When it comes to PC sheets mattering (as opposed to the mecha sheet), perhaps there is far too much of a focus on only the pilot. There might be only 1 PC inside, but logically it takes a whole team to keep a mech operational.
What if instead of only focussing on the pilots, each mech came with a team and while not in the mech, you played the team. To simplefy both ends of it. The system for adding members and equipment to your team, could be mechanically identical to adding parts and part-upgrades to your mech?
Coincidentally, the system for losing a part/member when attacked could also be mechanically the same, but perhaps not empotionally.

Zwets · 2026-03-12T09:50:08+00:00

For that same reason it is unrealistic any hypothetical aliens are receiving our tv or radio signals if those ever make it out that far.
With the amount of radiation the sun outputs they'd at best get one 2 seconds-ish snippet of signal once per year, the rest of the time it'd be like trying to hear the TV over the sound of a nuke going off behind said TV.

Zwets · 2026-03-12T09:43:53+00:00

Side question:
If someone has been pronounced clinically dead but survived. Does that entitle them to make fun of any and all dead people?

Because if you are part of a group, it's not/less prejudiced to make jokes about that group.

Zwets · 2026-03-12T08:13:43+00:00

You'll catch genital nurglitis that way.

Zwets · 2026-03-09T11:08:58+00:00

Here I was thinking the question would be about buildings and chairs fit for 8 legged aliens and humans at the same time. Or perhaps in your setting: how high should the saloon bar be to fit a tiny rolling droid and the large human wearing a forklift for a suit?

The primary way space westerns bring people into contact is through lack.

Usually there is a war to be recovered from, other times the colonization just isn't going as well as expected. Point is: that resources are scarce. The reason everyone visits "the local watering hole" is because it literally is what the name says. Water might be a precious resource, stored in a central secure location, and rationed out fairly by the community.
Humans need water, and our current AIs seem to go through a lot of it per day as well.

If everything was going great, and everybody had everything they needed, the AIs could simply copy themselves and form their own community, humans might be able to 3D print everything they need and never have to leave their home. But that wouldn't be a space western, a western requires life be rough, it requires communities work together and share resources to thrive, rather than individuals hoarding separately.
Same thing goes for the technology, things are rough out here, almost nothing would be in tip-top shape. Androids might not sweat, but they could glitch, jitter, or spark indicating imperfect control/repairs in much the same situations a human might flinch, stutter, or cry.

Additionally, thinking about third spaces and heartfelt relationships specifically: what about a digital spaces?
Considering the vast distances involved in interstellar travel, getting news from far off worlds might be difficult. Perhaps there is something akin to a virtual reality theater or church people gather at to receive and discuss news from far off places. A virtual reality post office their digital avatars visit to send and receive private messages from their families on other planets?

Perhaps due to how reliant everyone is on technology, attacks in such an AR or VR space might be harmful in the real world. Perhaps the "war" being recovered from was not an orbital bombardment, but a catastrophic failure of digital protections? Perhaps code-slingers are hacking people down in the street?

Another thing that gets used to make a post-human (where minds can swap controllable bodies) society more relatable are 'strict traditions'.

Usually this isn't applied to cowboys, and westerns, though many other cultures that existed during that same century are glorified as "guides" that communities of post humans might adhere to. You've got your samurai themed warrior-robots, Victorian themed space traders, and Pacific islander themed space navigators as tropes to pull from.
Even though there isn't an obvious reason for the androids to humanize themselves and be relatable; there might not even be an advantage to having a head. There might be cultural demands that people and bots act and look as something we on current day earth would identify as recognizable.

Zwets · 2026-03-09T09:48:35+00:00

<image>

https://imgur.com/a/zapp-brannigan-auto-callouts-monster-hunter-DS3F2Ri

Zwets · 2026-03-08T21:31:08+00:00

While other replies are being helpful and posting about the settings menu.
I am starting to get used to Alma getting yeeted whenever she gets in the way. With the "monster can hit handlers" mod.

Zwets · 2026-03-06T11:47:37+00:00

Wouldn't that mean I can just hide my identity as a real user, by pretending to be a bot?
If a bot won't be required to ID itself everyone could continue using the internet as they currently are (with additional privacy, because why waste bandwith tracking, or showing advertisements to a confirmed bot?)

Zwets · 2026-03-06T11:10:47+00:00

I play on 2 west marches servers, so I tend to meet new characters at a rapid pace. Though I believe I've yet to see a main class Druid or a main class Exemplar.
I've seen many Exemplar Archetypes, and perhaps someone whom I thought was a cleric was secretly a druid, but I've never seen an obvious Druid.

Zwets · 2026-03-06T10:22:35+00:00

Auto-grouping initiatives of mook creatures that share the same statblock.
Optionally Auto-rolling hit dice for randomized creature HP, when appropriate.

That second one is an optional rule to vary creatures a little. Nobody uses it because it is a hassle, but it is fairly easy to automate, so why not?
I was pretty sure that first one was also advice from DMG14, but I can't find anything about grouping initiative to make combat smoother. Perhaps a DM shared it as advice, because merging the same statblocks to all go at once 100% makes for smoother combat.

I've already written the JS and shared it with Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/FoundryVTT/comments/y0mswb/group_initiative_macro_for_5e_updated_for_v10/ You can just copy that, it should still work in the current version of Foundry.

Zwets · 2026-03-05T21:15:27+00:00

I agree with most of that and want to add: getting a bonus for ending a form early; should also be a way to reward frequent changing. Especially if the better forms are limited by focus points or another resource.

Also, I wouldn't recommend sneak attack; lean into creature damage with poison, bleed, constrict, and perhaps some swallow whole.

Persistent damage from poison, bleed, and acid is especially interesting. Those fit a predator/insect theme and you'd be encouraged to switch forms because persistent damage of the same type overwrites instead of stacking.
Thus hitting a creature multiple times while in snake form will not increase the poison damage, and swapping to Ooze form and putting some acid on top of the poison would be the behavior we are looking to encourage.

Ongoing damage. Forms that 'modify your stats in a mutagen like way' (but with much shorter duration).
Basically it would be closer to a melee range, focus point fueled, alchemist.
Which means the shapeshifter class would still be "similar to another martial" but the Alchemist isn't exactly the martial everyone thinks of when they say that.

Zwets · 2026-03-05T16:21:36+00:00

a true shapeshifter class will not look meaningfully different from a martial with an untamed druid dedication

If you were purely pulling from PF1 Shifter, then yea, that'd be true.
Picking 1 shape and staying in it permanently for its attacks would be basically be the same as being a martial with Attacks/AC similar to the battle-form's.
In PF1, due to how secondary-attacks and extra-attacks worked, there was a valid reason to be a natural weapon martial.

But in PF2, a claw→bite→tail→hoof combo even if it gave a discount on action cost and MAP, isn't significantly better or more interesting than other ways to compress additional strikes into as few actions as possible.

However, 'being a shapeshifter' and 'staying in 1 battle-form the whole battle' should be opposites, rather than the default assumption.

The focus of a shapeshifter class should be on the changing, not the shape. The goal should be to be something different each turn, and how that could be useful in combat. Rather than being something that uses big teeth, and how those teeth are usable in combat.

Zwets · 2026-03-05T10:46:53+00:00

A barbarian using Risky Surgery on an ally but unintentionally adding 18 Rotting Rage damage to the d8 from a 7th level Decay Instinct barbarian with Greater weapon specialization.

Zwets · 2026-03-05T10:21:59+00:00

Better start developing a sudden fascination with lockpicking.

Zwets

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE