Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 01:59:41 AMAfter a session stopping argument, it was agreed that Magic Users with Haste would carry some live crickets with them who could absorb the Haste instead of the players who didn't want it.

This is actually an incredible tale. My players back in the day reacted by generally avoiding the spell unless it was a fight that they knew going in was going to be really tough, if anyone had thought of bringing ageable insects I bet it would have seen more use. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 22, 2024, 03:15:39 AMHaste gets cast quite a bit in my 5e games.  It also gives you +2 ac and advantage on dex saves which can be very useful.  A crafty player can get a lot of use out of a free dash or disengage too.  Being able to move twice and still do your attack action can be a game-changer.

The fact that the buff falls apart under pressure is why I see hesitancy.  Like it's a "wins more" thing to some degree, and every concentration spell gets directly compared to others, because they ultimately all cost the same resource.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2024, 07:33:23 AMI played in a long Hyperborea campaign, and used Haste so much that the other players started asking to make saving throws against it so they'd stop aging.

I consider Hyperborea to have a good very good haste.  First, there's no races to whom "age is just a number" and can simply age themselves from 300 to 301 and think "500 more of those and I'll be worried", so the spell has the same cost for everyone, and second, it's not guaranteed to age you each casting, and the saving throw mechanics mean that by high level the spell can be cast with a decent shot of not aging anyone.  But that's still very funny.


As regards the two spell a round thing, outside of 3.0 haste doesn't do that.  In 5ed, a sorcerer can spend sorcery points to cast a spell as a bonus action, but there's another rule elsewhere stating that the action then can't be used for any spell that isn't a cantrip. Then Jeremy Crawford stated that the reason for this rule was to reduce the complexity of the turn, not to block double casting of spells for balance reasons, which isn't a ruling in any way but I guess some players now ask for this as a buff to their sorcerer.

I am somewhat obsessed with medieval weapons and I have written extensively about them, trying to make sense of physics, history and, well, AD&D.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find or create a system that satisfies my needs (I want: simple, sensible, and detailed). Here is my latest attempt:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-new-terminology-for-d-weapons-and.html

AD&D measures weapons in several ways I find interesting:

- Price, weight, and cost, as most RPGs do.
- Speed.
- Length.
- Effectiveness against armor.
- Effectiveness against large creatures.

3e also measures frequency and power of critical hits.

My main problem is that most systems feel inaccurate and too fiddly for me.

In AD&D, for example, a two-handed sword is heavier than the longest polearms and heaviest axes and maces, IIRC. And the weapon versus armor table is confusing and too extensive.

In 3e, all swords have good "crit ranges", making them good against plate armor - especially heavy and curved swords!

Now, my question is: does anyone else care about this stuff or is it just me? Do you want weapons to have any detail beside 1d8 damage? Do you know any systems that deal with this is a detailed, sensible and simple manner?

EDIT: I'm also considering writing a 20-40 pages PDF on these issues, maybe with optional rules for OSR games, but I don't know if anyone else is as interested in medieval weapons.

Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2024, 11:08:21 PMHave you made up your forces all awesome? Do you use any of the unit decals?
SHARK

Spray, block, dip and I still haven't dull coated them.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 21, 2024, 01:20:28 PM

Quote from: Crusader X on April 18, 2024, 07:23:01 AMGoodman Games is going all in with the trans agenda

Awesome! I'm always glad to see an RPG company standing proud for human kindness and dignity. That's what we need for a healthy industry.

(casts Detect NPC)....

Personally the Necrons were better as souless husks but I will admit the Tesseract Vault is an impressive model.

I wonder, sometimes, why 40k resonates so deeply for so many.  There was a lot of fantastic art. Art that was visceral and disturbing.  It's much smoother and cleaner now.  But still quite evokative.

Like Barbie said, "That woman called me a fascist but I don't hold the reins of industry or control the railroads."

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 21, 2024, 09:38:44 PM

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 21, 2024, 05:49:49 PMOn that end it'd be better if people didn't try to copy the big names too. I can appreciate OnePageRules' attempt to give 40k a newer, easier ruleset. I think it's smart since they can rely on the popularity of the 40k lore. Otherwise people are just gonna say, "I already like 40k I don't need a setting clone."

I haven't done a huge dive into Grimdark Future lore, but I suspect that OPR is mostly expecting people to just play OPR 40k with their existing miniatures and they can just ignore the current GW terribleness.

There's not much of it and what exists is an excuse to explain why everyone can fight or ally with everyone else.

For example, the Alien Hives (tyranids) and Robots (necrons) are explained as developing individuality just like humans.

I feel this makes for a very bland and boring setting because it reduces the armies to shallow aesthetics. It's like having a setting based on the Cold War, but both sides have identical values so there's no logical reason for them to be opposed.

It's very strange

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 22, 2024, 07:15:49 AMWhen Williams was hired, a great deal was made of how she had gone from being the girl who was told that she couldn't play D&D to being the President of WotC in charge of D&D.  Shatter that glass ceiling!  Stunning and brave!  That will show the no one who said that girls couldn't play D&D back then.  There's a reason why people think she was hired at least partly because of the optics of hiring a woman.  I was rather more concerned about her comments about D&D being under-monetized at the time but the Stunning and Brave Woman thing was there and people noticed it.   

Greetings!

Precisely, Yosemitemike! I had thought that I was alluding to precisely that with my satire post, but apparently, I was too clumsy in my presentation and failed.

I love the bold callback to the hype of those days. So STUNNING AND BRAVE! Geesus, yeah, WOTC laid that BS on thick too, didn't they? *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2024, 06:24:03 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on April 21, 2024, 01:18:06 PMI wasn't aware that former Microsoft executive was considered an underrepresented minority category.

Greetings!

Williams is a WOMAN. Therefore, she certainly qualifies as much-needed diversity for the staff at WOTC. Especially so for being represented as a woman in the upper echelons of executives. It is well-known that within the patriarchal, misogynistic systems that dominate America, we need more WOMEN represented within the executive levels of every company.

You are slipping there in your consciousness and awareness there of properly promoting Feminism, comrade. You may need some additional instruction and training at the Feminist DEI summer camp.

Apparently, you have forgotten how "The Future is FEMALE!" Perhaps you are being corrupted by toxic masculinity and patriarchal thinking? There cannot be any wrongthink, COMRADE!

How dare you!

*LAUGHING*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Dude, you're arguing with someone that doesn't know the definition of woman.

What companies are finding out is that the promotion of diversity hires (to "kickstart" the numbers of qualified women and POCs) isn't resulting in a competent and diverse company, just a diverse one.  And with the economy the way it is, Blackrock and Vanguard aren't going to be able to prop up stupidity with other people's money forever...

Greetings!

*LAUGHING*! Yes, very true, my friend. Thank you for reminding me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 22, 2024, 04:59:59 AMCommunism and Fascism are both far left, statist ideologies.  They were widely recognized as such by proponents at the time.  It was only later that fascism was retconned into a far right ideology so that the far left could distance themselves from it.  National Socialism and International Socialism were two sides of the same coin not opposite extremes bent together by some horseshoe.

Greetings!

Very true, Yosemitemike!

People are so used to this paradigm of seeing them placed on opposite ends of a spectrum, like on a video or the whiteboard, or the chalkboard. This paradigm of Communism=LEFT, Fascism/Nazism=RIGHT, has quite literally been drilled into everyone, over and over, and over again from Gradeschool onwards.

Like branches of a fork, there are different flavours of Communism--and they were always violently opposed to each other.

Stalin had most members of the different flavours of Communism in the Soviet Union shot to death, or sent to be worked to death in Gulags. Mao had different flavours executed throughout Red China in his own consolidation of power.

As a sidenote, like with almost everything though, even in the area of Communism, there seems to always be an exception of some kind. It is interesting to note, that Communist Vietnam, once also guilty of mass purges and a grim consolidation of power, actually also fulfilled their stated main purpose of achieving and establishing Vietnam's independence and security. The Vietnamese also went to war against Communist China after the Vietnam War against us, and proceeded to bleed China dry and send China packing after inflicting severe losses against China. As the years went on, strangely, Communist Vietnam gradually dismantled Communism within Vietnam, bit by bit, replacing it with a Democratic Republic--which is also hugely Capitalist now. I'm not sure as of now how "Democratic" Vietnam is right now--they might be still more of an oligarchy--but I do know they are very much pro-market, pro-Capitalism, and, to a decent degree, do seem to also promote many freedoms and liberties in Vietnam.

The United States has long since normalized economic and trade relations with Vietnam and has also embraced an official military alliance with Vietnam. Vietnam is a member of SEATO, and regularly cooperates with all things military with the US, India, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Furthermore, domestically, Vietnam seems to be very stable, strong, lawful, and orderly, and also dynamic. People throughout Vietnam seem to be very happy and content with the Vietnamese government.

Honestly, however, Vietnam has always been their own thing, even going way back. Ho Chi Minh started out in the 1920's as a guerilla and freedom fighter, seeking freedom and independence from France, which ruled Vietnam as a colony of their Empire. Later, during World War II, Ho Chi Minh bitterly resisted the Empire of Japan, regularly worked as an American ally, and even prepared a kind of copy of the US Constitution for governing an independent Vietnam after the war was won against Japan. The US supported, armed, and lavishly funded Ho Chi Minh, and also pledged our support for Vietnamese independence after Japan was to be defeated.

After the defeat of Japan, and the conclusion of the war, the French manipulated us by exclaiming that if we opposed their claim to their Vietnamese colony, then France would oppose our entire program with NATO in Europe. Europe at the time was seen by Eisenhower, and following administrations, as absolutely central to containing the Soviet Union, and guarding the peace in Europe. So, that is the ugly and frustrating truth about how America eventually found ourselves on the opposite side of a table from Vietnam, who was not just a former ally, but a friend that we promised to assist, and champion, as a friend. When we betrayed Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh embraced the hand of friendship from Communist China and the Soviet Union and proceeded to establish Vietnamese independence under the banner of Communism. China and Russia both were very eager to court Vietnam as an ally, and sent vast shipments of money, supplies, weapons and equipment to Vietnam. As mentioned previously though, Ho Chi Minh would be no one's puppet or slave, and eventually made it clear that Vietnam's primary and absolute focus was on achieving unity, independence, security, and autonomy. Ho Chi Minh and his Vietnamese Communists eventually defeated and threw the French out of Vietnam, after Dien Bien Pgu in 1954, then engaged in civil war against South Vietnam, then fought off and resisted the United States, before they managed to completely unify all of Vietnam in 1975. Then, Vietnam fought another war in defense against Communist China in 1979, as China sought to invade Vietnam and dominate them. China was crushed in defeat in a humiliating and bloody war, suffering very high casualties, in the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded troops. China withdrew back to China and signed a peace treaty with Vietnam. Vietnam has been at peace ever since then.

Very interesting stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK