Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[mastahcheese]

PTW and laugh at the random encounters list.

[BlackFlyme]

the Shifter.

HNNNNNNNG

Oh my god i can't wait until November. The shifter from 3.5 was my favorite prestige class and now it might be a base class!?

I'm too hype.

I've got some hopes for it as well, given that people have been asking for something like this for quite some time, but we've got nothing on it so far other than some descriptions:

A new 20-level base class, the shifter, puts animalistic powers into the hands—or claws—of player characters and villains alike, with a host of new class features derived from animalistic allegiances

The shifter, a new character class that harnesses untamed forces to change shape and bring a new level of savagery to the battlefield!

Can't be worse than the Hunter. I hope, anyways.

No playtest this time around, unfortunately. According to some Devs in the product's discussion page, the last few were full of vitriolic comments towards them, rather than actual, valuable feedback.

Checking the other upcoming Core books, we have:
Bestiary 6 in a month, with new playable races;
Adventurerer's Guide in May bringing a ton of Prestige Classes in, and strangely, Pathfinder world lore into their Core series. Usually Core books are setting agnostic;
Book of the Damned in September, for both people working for and against evil;
Ultimate Wilderness in November, featuring the wilderness. All kinds of wilderness, too, not just forests and junk.

[Gentlefish]

The Hunter isn't really that bad though, is it? It's on 3/4, which kind of sucks, but you're 6 level spell progression and sample from Ranger and Druid, and your animal companion is more kickass that the Druid's.

[BlackFlyme]

I jest. Though I do think it's on the weaker end of the scale when it comes to other hybrid classes.

0-6 Spell progression, with access to a Druid's spell-list, is rather nice, and your Companion is a bit better than other classes'. Plus Animal Foci save you gold that would have otherwise went to belts or other ability items. Teamwork feats are nice when you can actually share them, too.

[Criptfeind]

I've been thinking of creating a sort of monster collection pen and paper RPG

But as I was thinking about it more and more I kind of realized how antagonistic that format is to actual roleplaying.

Dragon Ball RPG was an easier concept to get off the ground because at least I could externalize a lot of the things people have issues with and then simplify the rest.

Yet it just doesn't work that way with monster collection... even with my alternate idea that instead people create up to three monsters and stick with them.

I either have to think of a clever solution to this issue or think of something else.

I mean I GUESS I could... do... what The Last Remnant did... and instead monsters fight all at once as a group.

Goodness a Last Remnant game would be awesome with people being generals... and their skills and equipment in many ways are their extra party members.

The fan made pokemon rpg, Pokenmon tabletop united, is really quite fun. Maybe you could take a look at it and get some inspiration or something.

[Neonivek]

That game is horribly broken... I tried to fix it myself but I went about it in a ENTIRELY wrong way (At that point, I was making a videogame... not a pen and paper RPG)

[TheBiggerFish]

So...Go about it a different way this time?

[Criptfeind]

I know that I probably shouldn't ask because I can't expect a satisfactory answer from you, but alas, curiosity. What did you find particularly broken about it? I've played it a fair amount, and I gota say, in comparison to most rpgs I've played it's a lot more mechanically sound. I have some issues with it, particularly in experience point gain, but to be fair I've not played a single pen and paper rpg yet that's had a satisfactory character advancement scheme out of the box. Other then that it's not perfect, but certainly solid. I'd put it at around 5e level of "ease of play" at least.

[Arx]

CHV (GM): rolling 3d6+6
(4+5+6)+6
= 21

Glorious melee combat with four-armed enemies is a hell of a drug. RIP Temurdai, you tanked some hits that would have one-shotted other party members even harder.

On the plus side, he went out the way any barbarian would want to: Enlarged, Raging, Blessed, and Flanking. 1d8+4 and 1d8+2 at a +7 to hit each. And he did even get to use the slightly ridiculous +11 acrobatics modifier more than once! No attacks of opportunity against this man.

[Neonivek]

I know that I probably shouldn't ask because I can't expect a satisfactory answer from you, but alas, curiosity. What did you find particularly broken about it? I've played it a fair amount, and I gota say, in comparison to most rpgs I've played it's a lot more mechanically sound. I have some issues with it, particularly in experience point gain, but to be fair I've not played a single pen and paper rpg yet that's had a satisfactory character advancement scheme out of the box. Other then that it's not perfect, but certainly solid. I'd put it at around 5e level of "ease of play" at least.

In terms of just the Human character the game has almost a genius idea under its belt. Instead of multiclassing you ARE a multiclass and as you advance you pick other classes to go with. (Some being better than others)

It is just how it handles Pokémon, it takes its stats directly from the games without consideration on how it interacts with the game itself leading to some clear superior options. Though I recognize what they are trying to do.

I almost think it would have been better off using the games as a sort of guideline,

[Criptfeind]

I think that's actually quite a big strength of the system, the humans in it are all varied and interesting in what they can do, and the pokemon offer a solid foundation to make sure that the players stay on even pegging despite the very varied things that they can do. Like, yeah, most pokemon probably only have like 1 or 2 good ways to make them that make sense, but the variety there is in the fact that there's so many different pokemon and how they interact with trainer abilities. Not to mention there is at least some variety and some special things that lots of certain pokemon can do.

I wouldn't call this "horribly broken" at any rate. I wouldn't even call it broken.

[Neonivek]

I wouldn't even call it broken.

Remember that a stat CANNOT overcome the stat above it. Meaning that stat "priority" becomes a major part of each pokemon (I have no idea why the game is constructed the way it is, it is like it wants to be the videogame... and wants to be the show... and wants to be a pen and paper RPG... but never decided which it would be)

That is one way in which it is broken.

Games just never last long enough AND people generally don't desire to break it over their knees. Both of these become an issue as soon as they start to manifest.

It has issues is all. It is a lot like that early DBZ RPG and Destructo Disk.

[Criptfeind]

Sure, but generally the stat that you need to increase is also like, the stat you want to increase? At least for most pokemon. Not to mention there's plenty of ways around it. Especially as you say in a long game, where you can just use vitamins to set up your base stats to whatever configuration you need for your build.

Anyway, if "possible to break the game" was a thing that makes an rpg game broken... Then pokemon is still one of the least broken rpgs, and also all rpgs are broken. So uh. Yeah. Not saying it doesn't have issues. Just that "horribly" isn't a very good description.

[Neonivek]

and also all rpgs are broken

When I say an RPG itself is broken... I mean it has a fundamental flaw that prevents it from being entirely functional under its own weight.

Most RPGs are not broken. The ability to break a game doesn't make it broken, in fact there are RPGs that outright state that the DM needs to check every character to make sure they aren't broken or that certain abilities need to be carefully used by players so as not to break the game. Champions, for example, has a lot of those.

My measure is... Does standard play naturally lead to irredeemable issues? or rather does it break even if people are not trying to break it, through natural play... and to what degree is this true and exemplifying of standard play.

A good example of this is Scion in Demigod play and higher where certain abilities (Just standard run of the mill ones that most characters have access to) just melt the gameplay down.

[Criptfeind]

The ability to break a game doesn't make it broken

Then why would you use that as an example of how a game is broken?

And also the base relations rule does not break the game in the way thus described. So uh. There we go I guess.