Question about my Character sheets

Wyrmwrath · Post by **Wyrmwrath** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:52 pm

. . .i would apreciate it if people would not asume that because some of us optimise our builds we cant, wont, are incapable of Role Playing. it does not matter how good or crappy your build is, if you cant RP your way out of a paper bag it does not make a difference

I never said you cant, or are incapable. But when you make a PC by making the most awesome efficient cyberninjawarlock and then wrap him in a personality to justify that, that is the definition of "wont". Now be clear, I have never said you are less of a person or anything similar because of it. My statement was that if your going to play a Live Action ROLE PLAYING game, the idea is to RP a Personality, not a set of really bad ass skills. Anyone can do that.

Playing or not playing a certain class does not make eyour opinion more or less valid. That is all.

This and your signature just support my statements. Role playing a PC and gaming a PC is like what an old DM of mine used to say: if you build your person and buy skills that match its like Iron Man, there is a person inside the machine; If you build the skills and add a personality, its just a Terminator, a machine with fake skin and no real heart or soul.

Gamers tell you what their character can do.
Role-players tell you what their character did.

I may have to marry you... This is EXACTLY what I mean. Make the PC THEN buy skills that PC would have is role playing from inception. Making super efficient stats, and wrapping it in a name and history and playing it is just painball in costume. Doesnt mean it isnt fun, its just not real role playing. Its gaming.

Playing or not playing a certain class does not make eyour opinion more or less valid. That is all.

Less valid no, less acurate from lack of hard experience with the way that class works in the real time game, likely unless you have been playing that system for a considerable time.

as for playing or not playing a certain class effecting the validation of your opinion. . .it should, thats how it works in real life. if your on the verge of death and a doctor and a janitor walk over, both saying they know whats wrong. . . i think i know which one im going with.

Really...well if its a gunshot the doc may have the upper hand, but if its a cleaning solution poisioning, the janitor likey has better experience to rely on.
A better analogy to what travis is saying is that the guy that designed the M-16 may still have a valid opinion over the marine that uses it daily in the field, even though the designer never used it in full on combat situations. The accuracy of thier opinion will depend on overall experience and the topic being discussed.

Kalphoenix · Post by **Kalphoenix** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:56 pm

I don't really have anything else to comment on, I've pretty much stated my opinion and there has really been no new information to comment on in at least the last three pages. We're just going around in circles now. Lets avoid using analogies. It's useless for the purposes of this game.

Sage and Healer having minor access to CR doesn't make "Most paths have access to some sort of CR now" and certainly doesn't put them on the same level as the warrior. I found my book. Without disciplines or going off path, warrior have access to 6 CR and 3 LPs AS WELL as both defense and offensive skills. Yes, warriors are skewed somewhat towards defensive. Even if you want to say sages can mimic CR (Or LP), they still pay a penalty for it by not being able to mimic another skill, like how warriors pay a penalty by going into rage and not being able to use charge-up/LP skills (Heck, it's not even as bad as I thought it was, I thought all damage done to you was CRUSH while in rage in addition to the other penalties), or an offensive penalty by using defensive matrix and associated skills.

As for the "Your opinion is worth less if you haven't played a warrior," ignoring the fact that the statement is probably false, I'd be willing to guess that 90% of the people commenting here (including myself), HAVE played a textbook warrior, even if that means NPCing one (I'd venture a guess, based on my own experiences that it is probably one of the most commonly played NPC types next to the ones who only have one or two abilities), so the statement is moot. It also has nothing to do with the discussion, no more than other, equally plausible reasons why a person's opinions should be worth less based on their past actions.

If I've said this already and am repeating myself, I'm sorry, but I've looked really hard at your posts, Josh, trying to sympathize and figure out just what it is you want aside from having a warrior that has similar damage skills as a rogue. You've dismissed most reasonable suggestions and workarounds (Like Kyle's "spend 40 points in rogue and buff up the dagger" suggestion), so I'm stumped.

Without getting nasty about it, I am inclined to agree with others that it SEEMS that what you actually want is a one-(or two)man army who can do pretty much everything with minimal help. I feel this belief is supported by the fact that you keep pointing at how the rogue is better and you want rogue damage without playing a rogue, and how you (and your brother) wish you had access to other path's skills without playing those paths.

You can see where some people MIGHT see it that way, even if that is not your intention?

Also, I keep hearing you say that "X" warrior skill sucks and "Y" warrior skill sucks. I think the answer to your problem is VERY clear... don't play a warrior if you think they suck.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but it's just that, an OPINION. You aren't stuck. You are being allowed to re-write since you are unhappy with this one change. I think we've been over this before, but you can't do everything by yourself with one path (or even two people with two paths).

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but my guess is that most people think warrior is probably fine the way it is. I think when very few people choose warrior compared to the other paths, there may be a problem, but until then, it's probably fine.

It's been an interesting discussion (And I have a lot of new ideas), but I don't think I'll comment here for a bit unless something new comes up. Thanks all!

Post by **GM-Mike** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:57 pm

Only you Heidi can start a post with "I don't really have anything else to comment on" and then comment for a page and a half

But that's why we love you.

Critical strike was changed to four for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was so that critical strike and knockout were the same. This was for simplicity sake. So why make them both four and not three? We were swayed by an argument by a person who will remain nameless but no longer participates who believed that rogues were underpowered due to a variety of reasons. First, they had several under or rarely or never utilized skills. We addressed this by making a conscious effort of including these skills into plots but at that time the point was more than fair. Second, this person was correct in that rogues were weak in their offensive capabilities compared to the other paths, which included both warriors due to the amount of damage they could get off if they were actually being offensive minded instead of passive and empaths (assuming there was an empath in game with good aim--big assumption I know). I believe there were other points but they are escaping me at the moment, but that should give you some insight into our logic behind the change.

Zeira · Post by **Zeira** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:54 pm

I agree that Rouges needed a boost. 3 of their skill's ( Pick Simple Locks, Pick Complex Locks, Avoid Trap) were very limited. Fewer people were playing them from what I saw and those who did were almost always Assassins as well. I feel as though the little increase to damage put them in line with the other damage out there.

Salvatore_Tenhammers · Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:31 pm

Nit Pick

Rouge: The French word for the color Red

Rogue: A thief or ne'er do well

Zeira · Post by **Zeira** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:17 pm

I trust spell check far to much...

Ark · Post by **Ark** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:04 am

hmmm, i think rouge was more than fixed with the introduction of dodge and its new deffense and offensive abilities.

giving warrior comparable charge up damage to a rouge? absolutly not, i want warrior to have a cool charge up ability that is unique to them, thus my ideas.
ignoring Zieras go a little bit of rouge idea, no i saw it, in fact my current character employs it.
play a different path other than warrior? thats the plan

some of the better combat disciplines have a small charge up burst effect damage, pikeman, druid, samuria for a bit. i would just like to see warrior get something.

all the paths with the update got increases to offensive ability save healer
-rouge, better crit strike
-sage, charge up for 10
-empath, shatter

warrior got bonus damage, wich is now gone so we get. . .political skills?

GM-Phil · Post by **GM-Phil** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:10 am

I have really tried to stay away from this, but I just have to put my two censt in..

Rogue got better Crit Strike - actually their Critical Strike is back to where it was when the skill was Backstab.. so they really did not get a damage boost as were brought back to what they were before with a slightly better skill.

Sage - Charge for 10 - Simply the weakest overall damage skill in the game - 60 seconds for 10 damage.. yes it is a bigger number, 3 times the charge time of an Empath for the same damage..at range.

Empath - Shatter - Not even a damage call, definetly a strategically useful skill like Disarm... but not overly devastating in the long run unless like any other skill in the game, used strategically.

And "warrior got bonus damage, wich is now gone so we get. . .political skills?" - Since the skill still exists and regardless of some opinions is useful, they did not lose damage but now have to choose how to get more bang for their buck.. And as for Political skills - there are some players who actually do RP with the Economic system and NPC's and find these skills useful, and now can even pick some up in their Paths.. I personally would like to see at least 1 Economic skill iin each Path.

Now overall I know my words will just be lost in a wave of rebuttals.. but really it is pointless to say that any skill is worthless just because you yourself see no point in it.

And Jack of all Trades is a fine Path for those that wish to branch out but master nothing.. I play one, and actually have not a single combat skill to speak of. Mechanically I am very good at what I do, and for me fighting is only 1 aspect of this LARP, not the end all be all. There is a great deal more out there and it is up to us as players and GM's to bring it out. The last thing I want to see is FH or WH turn into an MMO with NPC's wearing giant foam hats with Exclamation points.

Ark · Post by **Ark** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:09 am

I think its time for this thread to end, i think its degrading from discussion to something less likely to help anything.

and so with that i say goodbye to this thread. if i in any way offended anyone i am truly sorry, it was not my intent. i hope somthing good can come from all of this.

i hope everyone enjoys there weekend, as i know im planning on enjoying mine

i wish you all the best of luck and hope to see some of you soon, have a nice day ^_^

-out, Ark

Wyrmwrath · Post by **Wyrmwrath** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:10 am

[quote]There is a great deal more out there and it is up to us as players and GM's to bring it out. The last thing I want to see is FH or WH turn into an MMO with NPC's wearing giant foam hats with Exclamation points.
quote]

*looks up sad from my production table litered with foam hats and hot glue gun and scissor debris* FINE...then I WONT donate them...
*storms off to have a tantrum*

cole45 · Post by **cole45** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:10 am

We all know this is just debate right? Anyway to clarify my statement when looking at skills I want to hear from everone reguardless of what they play. I am actually more likely to conifer to unbiased source.

This is not medicine this is a game. Not rocket science
. As such we can and should compromise.

Post by **GM_Chris** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:54 pm

On a good note this gives everyone insite on how the private GM forum looks like for pretty much everything brought up. Which reminds me I need to debate something there.

Zeira · Post by **Zeira** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:56 pm

I would say it would be cool to know what you (the GM's) were thinking about changing but I know that as soon as you guys hint that there might be a change of some kind PM's, phone calls and death threats follow so I could understand why you would want to be discreet when discussing things.

Post by **GM_Chris** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Well honestly we were not planning on changing anything, but if people really dont like weapon focus we would be up for a change as long as it wasnt a damage increase or more soak.

Post by **GM_Chris** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:06 pm

well we could do a damage boost with a coorisponding dissadd.