Khrux

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I think modern TTRPGS in general steer towards things like temporary summons because of how it lets the players actually use them in combat. Nobody wants to play the necromancer who is suddenly just some guy because there are no corpses available where the battle kicks off.

I have an enormous soft spot for narratively putting in the legwork to assemble your undead hordes, and when I'm the GM, I'm always keen to set up good moments for the necromancer to build an army, but it's so easy for that to set up a situation where a player doesn't get to actually use their features. Making them temporary summons from nowhere in particular is the easiest fix.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I had a similar experience in my 5e game, no real combat but basically the intrigued that drove the game got tenfold more complex and was revealed to involve each member of the party in a varying but believable way.

Seperatly, I also played Alice is Missing the month before and it lived up to the hype I wanted, but it's very up.my street. What I seek in an RPG is being able to move between being immersed enough to feel what my character feels when I want it, but when I don't, be able to act as my own drama maker for later. AiM absolutely delivered that for me. It also didn't need magic or tech to deliver any agency which is a big plus to me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

This is Call of Duty 22.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I used to play call of duty way back in the day and fell off around the time Black Ops 2 came out, mostly because I felt like there are too many games and I didn't need another black ops.

There's now more Black Ops games than I've bought games this year.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

This is definitely a selfish opinion but people who block adverts or torrent being a small percentage of users can be a good thing.

If they lose even 5% of their userbase to Firefox over this decision, they'll find a way to make grand modifications to Google search and YouTube in a manner that stops you blocking ads from alternative browsers, and while I'm happy swapping to an alternative search engine, it'll definitely becometedious to sidestep Google's gaze.

But if it's 0.1% of people who swap due to this, and Google already don't care about the small percentage they lose to Firefox then I would rather sit under the radar and not be cracked down on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

To be fair, modern AI voices sound pretty real. Making it artificial would have been a tell in it's own right.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Long before ZA/UM closed, I was certain that we'd never see a new game of that quality again from the same studio.

I'm not confident any of these new teams will pull it off, but I'd rather have four attempts than one.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Also the toxicity that is implied to exist by this post is pretty rare really. Even back when I was using Reddit, toxicity generally sank to the bottom of comment sections, and even more so here. When I got into D&D close to the beginning of 5e, some online voices on YouTube for example carried this toxicity but nowadays, most voices are far newer and friendly.

In general, most people are more interested in what happens at their table instead of all tables, and the rules are just guidelines to aid that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Microsoft will definitely have the power to bulldoze all other things named copilot, like Facebook did to meta. I'm still not over AI being a lame word now. I miss the time when it felt sci-fi and not like a corporate buzzword.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which was a crazy lore addition considering hell and Satan are totally real in that world.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I actually doubt it. 30% of all of Hasbro's revenue comes from WotC (I've heard higher than 50% before, but a quick Google says 30%). Of that I've heard people say as high as 90% of WotC's income comes from Magic: The Gathering.

Artists are paid a set rate, not commission for their art, but thousands of cards are purchased at very little cost to WotC. It's a golden goose that is literally keeping Hasbro afloat, they'd be fools to touch the operations of MtG with a 10ft pole, nevermind replace it's core with AI.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (4 children)

A pop star that has had an enormous rise to popularity this last year. By all accounts, she seems to be a very good person who's main controversies have been burn out and stress from becoming a household name overnight.

You'd probably recognise a fair few if her songs from just hearing them in public. A lot of songs from her album were very well received.

 

This is for D&D 5e.

I'm currently making a reoccurring antagonist NPC that is a master thief. It's CR 6 and I want it to be capable of making three attacks per round like multiattack but also have their thief subclass's enhanced cunning action with fast hands.

This would normally mean they'd get 3 attacks and a varying options for bonus actions, however I'd want them to be able to trade up to three if these attacks to have more uses of cunning action (this would of course stack the ability to dash 4 times per round but I'd just not do that while running the monster). They also have a special once per day ability that I'd want them to be able to swap a single attack for.

It got me thinking, instead of trying to make an unwieldy combination of multiattack, a special action and cunning action, could I just give them three actions?

The simple way this NPC works that I want them to pick 3 options from:

  • Dagger
  • Crossbow
  • Special action
  • Dash
  • Disengage
  • Hide
  • Make an ability check
  • Use an object
  • Use a set of tools

At this point, what do I actually lose from letting them take 3 actions? They aren't a Spellcaster so I'm not worried about them throwing out three fireballs or the like.

view more: next ›