I would like to state that Star Ocean 2 was an amazing game in my opinion for uit's battle system. Ok, so I did only play a couple battles in the beginning, but the fighting system was soo cool in those bouts. Either way, it's worth a look into now that it is considered old news by many.
Let's say you're playing a role-playing game like D&D, and building a character. Now, the game you're playing has reduced all character options down to three classes that are meant to encompass everything, and all the basic traits you could want your character to have are available to at least one of those three classes. And most character builds that can't be accomplished with one of those classes can be simulated by multiclassing.
What would you feel about this? Would you prefer this model, or would you rather it be different? What do you think would be good or bad about it? Do you think it's even possible to reduce all character roles into three broad categories?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
People might enjoy this - http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612
It's generally the same vein of humor as OotS, but in a LotR setting. You don't have to know much about LotR to get most all of the jokes.
Mamelon - It depends a lot on the style of the RPG. If its a setting where by default all of the characters are constrained in some way - say, maybe they're all vampire hunters or something - I think that three classes might be plenty. If you're trying to make the classes broad by giving each one tons of options, you start to blur the line into a classless system. (Not that that's bad.) If the classes are flavorfully ambiguous but don't have tons of options, then character building options are rather constrained. (Which is more likely a bad thing.)
I don't see any problem whatsoever with condensing character roles down to three or five or any other number. The "Castle" setup of Fighter/Wizard/Priest has given way in many instances to a Heavy Fighter/Light Fighter/Wizard/Priest setup. Diablo II has no healers. In many WoW dungeons, a "Crowd Control" character is important or even vital; these characters disable enemies temporarily so that the enemy party is not fought all at once. WoW has chosen to give Crowd Control abilities of varying qualities to the damage-dealing characters, but I don't think it has to be that way. In WoW, the special sorts of utility that a rogue and a wizard bring in say, D&D, is mostly lost, and they are largely interchangeable in a party. (They are extremely different classes to play and to work with, but both a Mage and a Rogue are for dealing damage and doing crowd control.) The point is, I think a system could allow for or require any number of character roles, and it's largely up to the system and to the nature of encounters to determine what's necessary and what isn't. A system doesn't have to have a 'healer' role; most just do. If a system doesn't allow for magical abilities, the spellcaster role disappears, and in various systems the spellcaster role has largely different functions anyway.
Mamelon: Are you talking about the 'Generic' classes from Unearthed Arcana, or something like it: Spellcaster, Warrior, Expert? I love that system. It really lets players customize their roles as a group so they all can cover their bases and design a character that is unique.
If you're trying to make the classes broad by giving each one tons of options, you start to blur the line into a classless system. (Not that that's bad.)
I'd say that is the general intent. To still have broad "types" of characters, and yet have each of those types be able to choose from enough options to allow for multiple archetypes within that type. For instance, using a broad magic-user type, there could be options for wizard-like characters, priest-like ones, shamans, psychics, etc. For a fighter-type, there would be options for rangers, fencers, paladins, etc.
It is a lot closer to a classless system while still making use of the kind of structure that a class system offers.
Quote from Alacar »
Mamelon: Are you talking about the 'Generic' classes from Unearthed Arcana, or something like it: Spellcaster, Warrior, Expert? I love that system. It really lets players customize their roles as a group so they all can cover their bases and design a character that is unique.
Yeah, something like that. The generic classes in Unearthed Arcana is the same basic idea.
The system I was thinking of in particular was the way True20 does it. In the core rules, character options are categorized into three roles instead of having a set of classes. Each role is meant to be very basic and fundamental and allow for all the kind of character builds that would fit that role. The roles are warrior, expert, and adept. All class features and supernatural abilities are feats, and characters can select feats from class lists as well a general feats. Unlike the rules presented in Unearthed Arcana, characters in True20 get a new feat each character level, as well as a few extra on first level.
Warrior is the role with the best combat ability and access to weapon, attack, and tactics related feats. Expert has the most skills and has access to feats including sneak attack, evasion, trapfinding, fascinate, suggestion, inspire, and other stuff relegated to rogues and bards. Adepts gain access to all supernatural powers and feats that have to do with magic/psionics/stuff like that such as metamagic.
The idea is that you should be able to achieve almost all reasonable character models using this system by selecting the correct skills, feats, and powers to suit your character idea, and that anything not covered by a role can be achieved by multiroling.
I like the basic idea, but it definitely has its own cons and pros. There are some broad kinds of characters that can't adequately be made by mixing together levels of adept/warrior/expert. Or they can but they end up being a good deal worse than they could be if they had their own role. So I think there are some character types that don't fit easily into the adept/warrior/expert model.
The other problem is that there is a lot of bleed between characters of the same role, and for some players this makes things less fun. A lot of players like to feel like they contribute to a party in a unique way, and that they have a niche. If a party has multiple characters of the same role, they can build themselves to be quite differently. However, it's also likely that many players will all want to go for the "good stuff" allotted to their role and end up feeling like they are too similar.
The True20 Companion addresses this problem pretty nicely. There is a simple set of rules for building your own custom role. Unlike some such systems that use a complicated point buy, this system allots 5 points to a role, and every component (save bonuses, combat bonus, power access, skills per level, etc.) is assigned a value of 1 or more points, or a fraction of a point.
The only bug in that soup is that it doesn't address the need there would be to create more role-specific feats. It's not too big of a deal, but designing a whole lot of new feats for a custom role requires a good bit of work. It's hard to balance new feats except by measuring it against your undestanding of the game. Generally, all roles should have close to the same number of feats, and all feats should be pretty well balanced against each other. Realistically, though, some feats are just better than others. A feat that lets you fascinate is obviously stronger than a feat that gives a +2 bonus to a skill. So I guess you just have to use know-how to keep it fair.
Quote from Joyd »
If the classes are flavorfully ambiguous but don't have tons of options, then character building options are rather constrained. (Which is more likely a bad thing.)
Exactly. You'd want to make sure you make available plenty of options for every role so that people can both make the character they want and be unique within the role.
I noticed that with the core True20 rules, it seemed a lot easier to build a specialized or unique adept than it was to build a really distinct warrior. This was because the adept had access to just so many different powers, that any pattern you chose would usually distinguish you from other adepts. It was easy to design a necromancer-ish adept, a psychic adept, a healer adept, etc. But for warrior it seemed like the best thing to do was collect all the combat feats and then load up on feats that boosted your output. While not all warriors would necessarily be the same that way, the variation seemed small. To a lesser extent this was also true of expert.
My thinking is that a role like warrior needs some more feats along the "class feature" line of significance. True20 was originally designed from d20, and therefore has all the same problems of fighters being really limited and casters having tons of options that are present in D&D.
My idea was to not only design more feats, but to add a few more roles. In addition, I wanted to allow a lot of variants players could use upon the same effects, allowing them to customize their own abilities to their liking even if they're drawing from the same pool of abilities.
I've come up with a handful of new roles to add to try and fill it out. A few of them better represent "mixed-role" characters such as magic using fighters and the like. The ones I am working on are master, champion, and mystic. If you recall, these are similar to the classes I made for my campaign setting Blackthorn. That would bring it up to six roles, possibly seven or eight if it seems like there is a call for more than that.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I feel as if it's important to define exactly what a 'role' is. It's very possible to have more character classes than roles (as in WoW) and more roles than character classes (I believe True20 would fall into this category.) Classes don't have to map 1:1 with roles; if the roles are 'meat shield', 'wizard', and 'healer', you could have one class for each, or you could have some combination of hybrid classes. (For example, "Warrior", "Adept" (Wizard/Healer) and "Cleric"(Meat Shield/Healer)). It's also important to determine how necessary the encounter system makes each role; if D&D didn't have the concept of locked doors or traps, the 'rogue' role would be considerably more optional. In higher level WoW dungeons, there's a little flexibility, but for the most part, you need one tank, one healer, and three damage-dealers. It's usually important that at least one of the damage-dealers has a flexible crowd control skill, and it's frequently convenient if one of them has abilities that deal damage to a bunch of monsters at once, and also if one of them has the ability to raise dead, should the main healer fall in battle. Depending on the skill and coordination of the players and the equipment, slightly different setups can work, but most dungeons are far easier with an appropriate setup.
In Diablo II, on the other hand, there's basically one role: Damage. A party of players can work with more or less any combination; the primary reason to include a variety of character types is so that there's less fighting over valuable gear (since a sorceress will desire different items than will a barbarian.)
D&D, despite having a ton of classes, seems convinced in its source manuals that a party really needs a cleric, an arcane caster, a fighter, and a rogue, to the extent that one of the manuals (PHBII?) contains a section about what to do if your party is missing one of those classes (or a very close equivalent). One wonders why they would include 20-something base classes that are only considered primarily usable as a 'fifth man'. (Of course, given the actual discrepancies in class power, I don't know if the 'these four classes are necessary' is really the case.)
I think it's hard to balance number of roles with necessity of each role, and I think that the nature of the encounter system determines a lot. As the number of roles increases, it's hard to make each one necessary, and if some are necessary while others aren't, it limits the ability of players to play the 'nice, but not vital' roles unless the group is sufficiently large. It's especially a challenge to make all of the roles important AND interesting to play. I'll use a silly example: suppose one of the conceits of a system is that the characters are all werewolf hunters. Now, suppose that there's only one way to protect against werewolf bites, and that is to be within fifty feet of a member of class X. Class X has modest melee abilities and light armor, but its primary role is to protect from werewolf bit infection. This class is certainly -important- but it's also likely -boring as hell- to play. To use a less silly and more real example, in many MUDs a healer or buffer character is extremely uninviting to play, typically getting some healing skills and some basic weapon proficiencies and some blessing skills and maybe one or two really efficient 'smite' skills. However, they are almost always extremely important characters. In games like most MMOs, where there isn't a roleplaying element to add excitement to playing a mechanically boring character, this is a major flaw. (Modern MMOs almost invariably dodge this, either by allowing characters to change around so they don't have to play a healer all the time (FFXI) or by giving each of the healing classes more exciting things to do as well, as well as the ability to play solo. (WoW and many other modern MMOs; WoW lets druids cast nature- and moon- based offensive magic and transform into cats and bears; it lets shaman imbue their melee weapons with elemental power and to cast elemental spells; it lets paladins (currently the premier healing class, with balance where it is now) use heavy two-handed weapons and charge them with holy power, and it lets all priests channel both light and shadow. (With balance where it is now, priests are one of the foremost offensive classes in the game, and can heal and restore mana to the party by casting offensive magic if built to do so.)) Whoa, digression.
I'll just toss my two cents in: I see no problem with that (broad classes), as long as there is some way to customize them (like feats, except more of them, and of an expended variety, such as one that simulates a backstab, or one that gives a rage, or stuff like that), essentially replacing the varied classes and their unique features with the ability to choose out of those features that suit you.
Basically, generic classes from Unearthed Arcana. Although I personally like the standard calss system as it is (taking into account prestige classes, which I adore).
There's been a post on Wizards' site about 4E compatability. Appearantly, a few things are going to recieve updates over time - mostly miniatures things. http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20071011a
Well, looks like I've been invited to a D&D game of massive proportions.
11 players. 11 PHB Classes. Level 1.
We must ALL work together to win.
Sounds like one hell of a challenge.
That sounds like a really cool idea. I just need to find approximately eight other players now.
And the more I look at and think about 4e, the more excited I become about it. Sure, it means dropping another hundred for core books, but since that's all I have invested in 3.5, it's not too big of a deal - as long as the changes are worthwhile, of course.
I'm really hoping for some major cleanup of the game, like completely dropping janky material components (focus components are of course still necessary.) And I'm really looking dforward to being able to make more diverse parties without having to worry about not having a healer or striker.
And I was so sure that I had just missed the boat and a new thread had started without me.
I guess most of you guys have been hanging out in the Coffeehouse, but I can't keep up with the speed at which that thread moves. I would need like Coffeehouse Cliff notes.
Actually, the C-house has been moving at a slower clip than before, but I gotcha.
4th edition.. I'm really just having a 'wait and see' kinda attitude. I wanna see what the whole thing offers before I even begin to sit down and consider using it. If it helps with online play that'll be great, but for now, just from what I've seen, I'm leaning toward just sticking with 3.5.
I'm actually really turned off by even the inclusion of online updates and content. I hate subscription-based games. I want to just buy the books and be able to play, and not get seriously lefy behind with tons of extra content and updates online. I really prefer to play IRL and think that just by the fact that they're including so many online features, that they will focus much more on that than on putting out a solid, finalized and self-sufficient set of core books, which is all I'm interested in.
Reminds me of my PS2 memory card... 100% complete FFX, KH, and KH2 data (all expert) done, and it's all gone.. not to mention Katamari Damacy/We <3 Katamari..
My PS2 memory card got accidentally thrown out...with two years worth of Kingdom Hearts 1 on it
(not to mention other games)
:xd: * wamyc smacks himself on the forehead I can't believe I didn't get what you meant.
That really sucks, too; sorry that happened.
I have this really bad habit of completing a game or getting 100% and then erasing/overwriting the save file on some stupid impulse so that I can "be motivated to do it again". Really dumb because I always regret it.
And wouldn't you guys agree that a 3 level rogue would do well to add a level of barbarian? He has a pretty decent strength score and the party needs a fighter and someone w/ HP. Plus, the barbarian gets faster movement and works well in med & light armor, so that all helps sneak attacks.
I'm actually considering getting a castlevania game for my mobile phone. But I probably won't just because action games are really not worth it given the crappy controls.
I'm probably going to opt for a sim game called Caesar or the port of the TG-16 game "military madness," a turn-based terrain combat game. Has anyone played it?
I figured this little news tidbit probably belonged here more than in the coffeehouse, so here is where I will post it.
I've not actually played the Shin Megami series (sorry, no PS2), but I've heard great things about it, mainly from Ether and Photon. According to ANN, Persona 3, the latest incarnation, is being adapted into an anime titled Persona: Trinity Soul. It's set 10 years after Persona 3 and tells the story of three brothers in a futuristic city where the dead are rising with their skin turned inside-out or somesuch. You can find the article here.
It's set to release in January 2008, and you can bet I'll be watching it. I just thought it was nifty, since Ether had made the comment a while back that a "real" Shin Megami anime needed to be made.
I'm confused... There's no trailer of the anime out yet so far as I know. You must mean the trailer for the game.
But yeah, it's the only anime I know of so far in the winter 2008 lineup. The fall lineup has been mostly lackluster so far. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Shin Megami universe is all about (and hopefully the anime will be a good way to experience that, and not be as dismal as some other adaptations have been).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeLet's say you're playing a role-playing game like D&D, and building a character. Now, the game you're playing has reduced all character options down to three classes that are meant to encompass everything, and all the basic traits you could want your character to have are available to at least one of those three classes. And most character builds that can't be accomplished with one of those classes can be simulated by multiclassing.
What would you feel about this? Would you prefer this model, or would you rather it be different? What do you think would be good or bad about it? Do you think it's even possible to reduce all character roles into three broad categories?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612
It's generally the same vein of humor as OotS, but in a LotR setting. You don't have to know much about LotR to get most all of the jokes.
Mamelon - It depends a lot on the style of the RPG. If its a setting where by default all of the characters are constrained in some way - say, maybe they're all vampire hunters or something - I think that three classes might be plenty. If you're trying to make the classes broad by giving each one tons of options, you start to blur the line into a classless system. (Not that that's bad.) If the classes are flavorfully ambiguous but don't have tons of options, then character building options are rather constrained. (Which is more likely a bad thing.)
I don't see any problem whatsoever with condensing character roles down to three or five or any other number. The "Castle" setup of Fighter/Wizard/Priest has given way in many instances to a Heavy Fighter/Light Fighter/Wizard/Priest setup. Diablo II has no healers. In many WoW dungeons, a "Crowd Control" character is important or even vital; these characters disable enemies temporarily so that the enemy party is not fought all at once. WoW has chosen to give Crowd Control abilities of varying qualities to the damage-dealing characters, but I don't think it has to be that way. In WoW, the special sorts of utility that a rogue and a wizard bring in say, D&D, is mostly lost, and they are largely interchangeable in a party. (They are extremely different classes to play and to work with, but both a Mage and a Rogue are for dealing damage and doing crowd control.) The point is, I think a system could allow for or require any number of character roles, and it's largely up to the system and to the nature of encounters to determine what's necessary and what isn't. A system doesn't have to have a 'healer' role; most just do. If a system doesn't allow for magical abilities, the spellcaster role disappears, and in various systems the spellcaster role has largely different functions anyway.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
It is a lot closer to a classless system while still making use of the kind of structure that a class system offers.
Yeah, something like that. The generic classes in Unearthed Arcana is the same basic idea.
The system I was thinking of in particular was the way True20 does it. In the core rules, character options are categorized into three roles instead of having a set of classes. Each role is meant to be very basic and fundamental and allow for all the kind of character builds that would fit that role. The roles are warrior, expert, and adept. All class features and supernatural abilities are feats, and characters can select feats from class lists as well a general feats. Unlike the rules presented in Unearthed Arcana, characters in True20 get a new feat each character level, as well as a few extra on first level.
Warrior is the role with the best combat ability and access to weapon, attack, and tactics related feats. Expert has the most skills and has access to feats including sneak attack, evasion, trapfinding, fascinate, suggestion, inspire, and other stuff relegated to rogues and bards. Adepts gain access to all supernatural powers and feats that have to do with magic/psionics/stuff like that such as metamagic.
The idea is that you should be able to achieve almost all reasonable character models using this system by selecting the correct skills, feats, and powers to suit your character idea, and that anything not covered by a role can be achieved by multiroling.
I like the basic idea, but it definitely has its own cons and pros. There are some broad kinds of characters that can't adequately be made by mixing together levels of adept/warrior/expert. Or they can but they end up being a good deal worse than they could be if they had their own role. So I think there are some character types that don't fit easily into the adept/warrior/expert model.
The other problem is that there is a lot of bleed between characters of the same role, and for some players this makes things less fun. A lot of players like to feel like they contribute to a party in a unique way, and that they have a niche. If a party has multiple characters of the same role, they can build themselves to be quite differently. However, it's also likely that many players will all want to go for the "good stuff" allotted to their role and end up feeling like they are too similar.
The True20 Companion addresses this problem pretty nicely. There is a simple set of rules for building your own custom role. Unlike some such systems that use a complicated point buy, this system allots 5 points to a role, and every component (save bonuses, combat bonus, power access, skills per level, etc.) is assigned a value of 1 or more points, or a fraction of a point.
The only bug in that soup is that it doesn't address the need there would be to create more role-specific feats. It's not too big of a deal, but designing a whole lot of new feats for a custom role requires a good bit of work. It's hard to balance new feats except by measuring it against your undestanding of the game. Generally, all roles should have close to the same number of feats, and all feats should be pretty well balanced against each other. Realistically, though, some feats are just better than others. A feat that lets you fascinate is obviously stronger than a feat that gives a +2 bonus to a skill. So I guess you just have to use know-how to keep it fair.
Exactly. You'd want to make sure you make available plenty of options for every role so that people can both make the character they want and be unique within the role.
I noticed that with the core True20 rules, it seemed a lot easier to build a specialized or unique adept than it was to build a really distinct warrior. This was because the adept had access to just so many different powers, that any pattern you chose would usually distinguish you from other adepts. It was easy to design a necromancer-ish adept, a psychic adept, a healer adept, etc. But for warrior it seemed like the best thing to do was collect all the combat feats and then load up on feats that boosted your output. While not all warriors would necessarily be the same that way, the variation seemed small. To a lesser extent this was also true of expert.
My thinking is that a role like warrior needs some more feats along the "class feature" line of significance. True20 was originally designed from d20, and therefore has all the same problems of fighters being really limited and casters having tons of options that are present in D&D.
My idea was to not only design more feats, but to add a few more roles. In addition, I wanted to allow a lot of variants players could use upon the same effects, allowing them to customize their own abilities to their liking even if they're drawing from the same pool of abilities.
I've come up with a handful of new roles to add to try and fill it out. A few of them better represent "mixed-role" characters such as magic using fighters and the like. The ones I am working on are master, champion, and mystic. If you recall, these are similar to the classes I made for my campaign setting Blackthorn. That would bring it up to six roles, possibly seven or eight if it seems like there is a call for more than that.
Any thoughts on that adjustment?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
In Diablo II, on the other hand, there's basically one role: Damage. A party of players can work with more or less any combination; the primary reason to include a variety of character types is so that there's less fighting over valuable gear (since a sorceress will desire different items than will a barbarian.)
D&D, despite having a ton of classes, seems convinced in its source manuals that a party really needs a cleric, an arcane caster, a fighter, and a rogue, to the extent that one of the manuals (PHBII?) contains a section about what to do if your party is missing one of those classes (or a very close equivalent). One wonders why they would include 20-something base classes that are only considered primarily usable as a 'fifth man'. (Of course, given the actual discrepancies in class power, I don't know if the 'these four classes are necessary' is really the case.)
I think it's hard to balance number of roles with necessity of each role, and I think that the nature of the encounter system determines a lot. As the number of roles increases, it's hard to make each one necessary, and if some are necessary while others aren't, it limits the ability of players to play the 'nice, but not vital' roles unless the group is sufficiently large. It's especially a challenge to make all of the roles important AND interesting to play. I'll use a silly example: suppose one of the conceits of a system is that the characters are all werewolf hunters. Now, suppose that there's only one way to protect against werewolf bites, and that is to be within fifty feet of a member of class X. Class X has modest melee abilities and light armor, but its primary role is to protect from werewolf bit infection. This class is certainly -important- but it's also likely -boring as hell- to play. To use a less silly and more real example, in many MUDs a healer or buffer character is extremely uninviting to play, typically getting some healing skills and some basic weapon proficiencies and some blessing skills and maybe one or two really efficient 'smite' skills. However, they are almost always extremely important characters. In games like most MMOs, where there isn't a roleplaying element to add excitement to playing a mechanically boring character, this is a major flaw. (Modern MMOs almost invariably dodge this, either by allowing characters to change around so they don't have to play a healer all the time (FFXI) or by giving each of the healing classes more exciting things to do as well, as well as the ability to play solo. (WoW and many other modern MMOs; WoW lets druids cast nature- and moon- based offensive magic and transform into cats and bears; it lets shaman imbue their melee weapons with elemental power and to cast elemental spells; it lets paladins (currently the premier healing class, with balance where it is now) use heavy two-handed weapons and charge them with holy power, and it lets all priests channel both light and shadow. (With balance where it is now, priests are one of the foremost offensive classes in the game, and can heal and restore mana to the party by casting offensive magic if built to do so.)) Whoa, digression.
Basically, generic classes from Unearthed Arcana. Although I personally like the standard calss system as it is (taking into account prestige classes, which I adore).
11 players. 11 PHB Classes. Level 1.
We must ALL work together to win.
Sounds like one hell of a challenge.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20071011a
Clear!
Knock knock, it's me. Is anybody there?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
That sounds like a really cool idea. I just need to find approximately eight other players now.
And the more I look at and think about 4e, the more excited I become about it. Sure, it means dropping another hundred for core books, but since that's all I have invested in 3.5, it's not too big of a deal - as long as the changes are worthwhile, of course.
I'm really hoping for some major cleanup of the game, like completely dropping janky material components (focus components are of course still necessary.) And I'm really looking dforward to being able to make more diverse parties without having to worry about not having a healer or striker.
Well, the 11 player game didn't actually go through, but we had fun nonetheless.
So, anyone else still living around here?
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I guess most of you guys have been hanging out in the Coffeehouse, but I can't keep up with the speed at which that thread moves. I would need like Coffeehouse Cliff notes.
What are you thinkin' about 4ed., Alcar?
Haven't been playing too many games lately... My memory cards got thrown out accidentally
Magic Coffeehouse!
Come in, sit down, relax, get to know somebody!
Open Three and a Half Years as of October 19, 2009!
Banner by PurpleD and avatar/custom by Tanthalas
4th edition.. I'm really just having a 'wait and see' kinda attitude. I wanna see what the whole thing offers before I even begin to sit down and consider using it. If it helps with online play that'll be great, but for now, just from what I've seen, I'm leaning toward just sticking with 3.5.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
@Omna: Hi! What do you mean by memory cards?
(not to mention other games)
Magic Coffeehouse!
Come in, sit down, relax, get to know somebody!
Open Three and a Half Years as of October 19, 2009!
Banner by PurpleD and avatar/custom by Tanthalas
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
:xd: * wamyc smacks himself on the forehead
That really sucks, too; sorry that happened.
I have this really bad habit of completing a game or getting 100% and then erasing/overwriting the save file on some stupid impulse so that I can "be motivated to do it again". Really dumb because I always regret it.
And wouldn't you guys agree that a 3 level rogue would do well to add a level of barbarian? He has a pretty decent strength score and the party needs a fighter and someone w/ HP. Plus, the barbarian gets faster movement and works well in med & light armor, so that all helps sneak attacks.
Any good DS games out there for cheap these days?
Magic Coffeehouse!
Come in, sit down, relax, get to know somebody!
Open Three and a Half Years as of October 19, 2009!
Banner by PurpleD and avatar/custom by Tanthalas
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'm probably going to opt for a sim game called Caesar or the port of the TG-16 game "military madness," a turn-based terrain combat game. Has anyone played it?
I've not actually played the Shin Megami series (sorry, no PS2), but I've heard great things about it, mainly from Ether and Photon. According to ANN, Persona 3, the latest incarnation, is being adapted into an anime titled Persona: Trinity Soul. It's set 10 years after Persona 3 and tells the story of three brothers in a futuristic city where the dead are rising with their skin turned inside-out or somesuch. You can find the article here.
It's set to release in January 2008, and you can bet I'll be watching it. I just thought it was nifty, since Ether had made the comment a while back that a "real" Shin Megami anime needed to be made.
But yeah, it's the only anime I know of so far in the winter 2008 lineup. The fall lineup has been mostly lackluster so far. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Shin Megami universe is all about (and hopefully the anime will be a good way to experience that, and not be as dismal as some other adaptations have been).