Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

For anything related to RPG rules from the Anima Beyond Fantasy books.
Avatar de Usuario
lizvne
Mensajes: 207
Registrado: 23 Dic 2016 20:00

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por lizvne » 08 Jun 2018 20:30

TheTeaMustFlow escribió:
08 Jun 2018 03:00
Why on Earth should that be an assumption? Duelling would only be the norm in a relatively few social settings. Sure, if you're all playing martial artists at a dojo or aristocrats in a highly martial country, it'll be common, but what if you're criminals, or detectives, or fugitives, etc? Even in a social game, it is perfectly reasonable in numerous settings to assume that group fights would be the norm - firstly because engaging in lethal combat without backup is a bad idea and rational people will try to avoid it wherever possible, and secondly because a group game tends to result in group participation.
Call it a genre cliché, inspired by fiction. Anyway even my real life experience says that sometimes people want to settle their differences in a (more) civilized way, mano a mano, not in "I'll just come with my friends and we will beat crap out of my opponent". Of course such approach would be inappropriate if your characters are criminals without even criminal code of honour, or other persons who don't give a damn and are never in situation when beating someone three to one would cause reputation loss.. but I find this approach even narrower than mine, as even in quite grimdark settings duels are present.
In retrospect, it perhaps should not be particularly surprising that you found it necessary to insult people who play differently from you, but it is nonetheless disappointing.
I'm sorry if you took it this way, but no offence was meant. It is just a most common playstyle, employed by many people, including me from times to times. Well at least I don't take it as insulting, unlike definitions like "murder-hobo", which assumes that group consists of inadequate persons, who kill people for lulz.
Precisely. In actual gameplay, variables are in play and combats are rarely if ever symmetrical - even if one fights a duel, it will in all likely not be against someone with perfectly equal stats. Thus, practical optimisation and the discussion thereof should not focus on such examples.
Actually you are saying now that we have to throw off this discussion in windows as we will be never able to consider all the variables. I have to disagree with you. In my mind, if we want to compare something, we take to identical things and compare them among themselves or against the challenge we expect them to have. It is perfectly legal for me to compare, for example, dagger and two-handed sword by making equal characters and making them "math fight" each other or some other threat. Yes, you may be will never meet your evil clone armed with other weapon, nor that generic-AT8-DR-Creature against which you tested DPR, but still you have numbers, which tells you what to expect. Which is way better than "nah, GM may throw anything at you".
More or less correct, for what it's worth, but again reliant on a number of assumptions, the most significant of which is that you appear to have everyone using the same approach. In such a situation it would be better to have the higher initiative characters be more conservative, going for single accurate attacks, then have lower initiative characters go for multiple hits to exploit the vulnerability this has built up. Better yet, of course, is to avoid the proverbial arse-kicking contest with a porcupine by attempting to disrupt the enemy or hit them with attacks they can't effectively counter (e.g. ranged attacks against a melee guy).
Thing is, unless your group have rather drastic initiative difference, initiative can go quite wild. And in average run, unless your slow-heavy-hitting character is heavily armoured (which is rare in my practice, I explained part of reasons in the same thread), he can be a fire magnet for opponent. Especially if he fails his roll so bad that he is surprised (well, which is not common but if heavy armour + heavy weapon are utilised). And a bit of math, let's assume we had three group members. Two of which used single precise attacks (however I would like to point, that with ambidex that would be up to four attacks, but closer to three in average, which would add MPD), so opponent have -50 penalty, partially offset by his superior skill of 30 above (total -20).
Character 1 is a heavy weapon dude (or girl), character 2 is ambidex, and they are in the same "I strike third" situation. They both have Aura Extension, but not Increased Damage Dominion abilities, Str 8, and no Attribute Imbalance or other things like this. Heavy weapon choice would be a great sword (damage 90 base +10 AE +20 Str, total 120), ambidex would use double longswords or katanas (damage 50 base, +10 AE +10 Str, total 70), no cheese like double Leo.
Character 1, 2 attacks: Each attack comes at -40 penalty (heavy weapon, multiple attacks rule): First attack most likely misses or inflicts marginal 10% damage on a good roll, second attack (that's why we overstacked penalties) goes against -70 penalty.. which is roughly equal our skill difference + split attack difference. Well, at least if opponent rolls 30 and we roll 70 it would be a 24 damage.
Character 2, 2 attacks + offhand, each attack comes with -30 penalty (medium weapon, multiple attacks rule), and offhand comes with an extra -10. First attack, as opponent have used his counters on our teammates we'll go with offhand, same -40 total, same "most likely misses or inflicts marginal 10% damage on a good roll", second attack goes with minus 30, and it have higher chance of inflicting damage already, on the 30-70 roll assumed above it would be 21 damage. However we have third attack against -90 penalty, assuming good roll there that would be 35 damage.


Heavy weapon shines on Open rolls or against DR (especially on open rolls against DR), in other situations having extra attack is more beneficial mathwise. I hope this math above would help to understand my point.
Secondly, in such a situation, it must be noted that using two-weapon fighting against a superior target is also a bad idea for all the same reasons making multiple attacks is, just somewhat less so - you're still attacking at a numerical disadvantage.
However you receive less grievous counters and have better chance of getting second attack to slice extra defence.
Not for free - you've missed out the biggest cost, which is that it takes up a hand. A hand which could be holding a shield, or the haft of a two-handed sword.
I math for two handed sword was provided above, can be used for shields as well. Shields are good, but as I said before, it is quite strange.
I don't know what that is (never GM'd, never looked past intermediate artifacts without express permission), so I'm not going to address that beyond asking (without spoilers, if you please) whether said defensive bonus is its primary purpose. Because otherwise (say, if it's a weapon but is mostly notable for more esoteric abilities), that's not a particularly useful comparison.
You can check any weapon, it would be 15 or 20 bonus at top tier. I find it quite unreasonable, that earthshaking artifacts have the same impact on defence as simple wooden board (well, except that wooden board helps better against thrown and shot attacks), and the only thing that surpasses wooden board is an artifact level wooden board.
That's a completely unfair comparison. One requires the GM to actively intervene to make the PCs more powerful and to ignore the recommendations given, the other simply requires the GM to not actively intervene to prevent players from using the options presented to them by their own abilities in just the way they were intended to be used.
You see, rulebooks allow many things. However, if we are talking about "what is normal" I expect to see it in some way in examples. Given the range of options, player (or GM) can create something vastly over average power level (some nova builds, one trick mentalist ponies, etc), or vastly below (like character, who have only half of allowed attack and defence). And it is quite okay as long as everyone at the table agree and game is comfortable for every participant. But if you (me, everyone, else) are ok with something it doesn't mean it is the one and true way to play and everyone who deviates is cancerous munchkin if he is above the power level, or crookyhanded noob if he is below. So to determine the estimated power level I prefer to consult the rulebooks as they might give some hint on author's vision.

And in fact GM allowing novice character to invent superior techniques is no different than GM handing PL 4 artifacts, because this GM either plays at dungeoncrawl adventuring style (which is quite following the "if it is in the rulebbooks then it is allowed, no questions asked how the hell character figured that out"), or makes his intervention not through handing artifacts or like but by allowing players to bend game world logic. Mileage may vary, of course.

Sorry for wall of text, I believe I should stop as I provided the math and not a big fan of writing texts (really. Just was bored at work).
Imagen
Avatar de Usuario
Tyr Hawk
Mensajes: 116
Registrado: 02 Ene 2017 19:41
Ubicación: Montucky

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por Tyr Hawk » 11 Jun 2018 16:10

Tea, I'm honestly not certain why, but your whole post seems to have been "Your method is wrong, use your method but with more comparisons." Which, you know, since I said that at the end it seems that you've either misread my post or just want to argue. Either way, you've both misattributed the word "pure" into my definitions of the scientific methods, and seen fit to prove my points with your counterarguments so... I think we're on the same page, but you're arguing like we're not. So, I'm just gonna let it go to prevent further circling around nothing. :thumbsup:
Devil's Advocate Extraordinaire.
"Just because I can argue for it, doesn't mean I agree with it."
This signature not intended as medical advice.
Avatar de Usuario
TheTeaMustFlow
Mensajes: 24
Registrado: 08 Ago 2017 14:35

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por TheTeaMustFlow » 11 Jun 2018 18:39

Sorry for the somewhat delayed response.
lizvne escribió:
08 Jun 2018 20:30
Call it a genre cliché, inspired by fiction.
Anima is not L5R, it draws on a lot of different genres. Most of which are not monomaniacally obsessed with duelling.

Anyway even my real life experience says
I sincerely doubt your real life experience includes actual armed duelling. Fistfights and contests, maybe.

If you are personally aware of people being involved in actual armed duels, and these did not take place in international waters or tribal Afghanistan, report them to the police immediately. It is highly illegal in all but a few (very marginal) jurisdictions, and for very good reasons.
that sometimes people want to settle their differences in a (more) civilized way, mano a mano, not in "I'll just come with my friends and we will beat crap out of my opponent".
Duelling is not in any way 'civilised'. It is the hallmark of a systematically violent culture that places physical power above truth and moral right. This is why, as cultures and civilisations become more developed, duelling is inevitably discarded as an artifact of a more brutal past. Neither is this in any way a modern revelation - the Catholic Church had been trying to get the practice banned since at least 1215 and it was at times banned in numerous premodern Asian societies, for precisely these reasons.
Of course such approach would be inappropriate if your characters are criminals without even criminal code of honour, or other persons who don't give a damn and are never in situation when beating someone three to one would cause reputation loss.
Once again, to defend your position you feel the need to make the unsubstantiated and insulting assumption that anyone who plays differently from you must be playing a morally inferior character. Law enforcement? Soldiers? Spies? Monster hunters? People who live in societies where duelling is not excepted? Anyone else whose moral compass happens to be closer to Mark Twain than Andrew Jackson? Evidently, none of them exist.
but I find this approach even narrower than mine, as even in quite grimdark settings duels are present.
No, because once again I never said duels were entirely absent. Simply that they weren't predominant.
I'm sorry if you took it this way, but no offence was meant.
You know, I'd find that a little easier to believe if you hadn't just said that my characters were "criminals without even criminal code of honour".
Well at least I don't take it as insulting, unlike definitions like "murder-hobo", which assumes that group consists of inadequate persons, who kill people for lulz.
A little tip: You can generally assume that anything containing the word "hobo" is an insult.
Actually you are saying now that we have to throw off this discussion in windows as we will be never able to consider all the variables.
No, actually I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying you need to prepare for multiple scenarios, rather than focusing on one to the exclusion of all others.
In my mind, if we want to compare something, we take to identical things and compare them among themselves or against the challenge we expect them to have.
Challenges. Plural.
It is perfectly legal for me to compare, for example, dagger and two-handed sword by making equal characters and making them "math fight" each other or some other threat. Yes, you may be will never meet your evil clone armed with other weapon, nor that generic-AT8-DR-Creature against which you tested DPR, but still you have numbers, which tells you what to expect. Which is way better than "nah, GM may throw anything at you".
Again, not what I said. I didn't say you couldn't test at all. I said the tests you were advocating were insufficient.


Thing is, unless your group have rather drastic initiative difference, initiative can go quite wild.
It can, but it generally won't. The differences between initiative caused by weapons and shields are very large, and only get larger when you bring factors like class initiative and attribute differences into play. Expecting your Acrobatic Warrior with two sabres to go ahead of your Weaponmaster with a two-handed sword may not be perfectly reliable, but it'll happen the vast majority of the time.

And in average run, unless your slow-heavy-hitting character is heavily armoured (which is rare in my practice, I explained part of reasons in the same thread)
No you didn't. You said armour isn't very good against electricity (which is generally true, though not to the extent you suggested given that quality bonuses are a thing) and that armour users tend to be slow (which does generally seem to be the case but is not necessarily so - all armour penalties can be reduced to zero), but that in no way proves that it is generally not worth using - virtually every character should be wearing the heaviest armour they can use without penalty, which for warriors, weaponmasters and people who took the relevant advantage gets pretty heavy, especially when quality bonuses come into play (since they not only improve the armour, but also make it easier to wear and decrease the associated penalties).
let's assume we had three group members.

Perfectly reasonable, but it is worth noting that the advantage for two-handed gets bigger the more people you have. Of course, how many allies you will reliably have is something you can generally predict when building your character (you know how many people you're playing with, and you probably have a fair idea of what characters they intend to make (whither summoners, etc.) and what kind of game you're likely to be playing, so that's a question that should be answered when building the character rather than setting a general rule.

however I would like to point, that with ambidex that would be up to four attacks, but closer to three in average, which would add MPD


True, but it also makes them substantially more likely to get hit and take damage. Now, if they're in a position where that's not a risk (enemy has low damage capability, they're particularly durable for some reason, etc.), then they should, but if it's too risky to make multiple attacks normally then it's too risky to make an off-hand attack.
Character 1 is a heavy weapon dude (or girl), character 2 is ambidex, and they are in the same "I strike third" situation. They both have Aura Extension, but not Increased Damage Dominion abilities, Str 8, and no Attribute Imbalance or other things like this. Heavy weapon choice would be a great sword (damage 90 base +10 AE +20 Str, total 120), ambidex would use double longswords or katanas (damage 50 base, +10 AE +10 Str, total 70), no cheese like double Leo.
Character 1, 2 attacks: Each attack comes at -40 penalty (heavy weapon, multiple attacks rule): First attack most likely misses or inflicts marginal 10% damage on a good roll, second attack (that's why we overstacked penalties) goes against -70 penalty.. which is roughly equal our skill difference + split attack difference. Well, at least if opponent rolls 30 and we roll 70 it would be a 24 damage.
Character 2, 2 attacks + offhand, each attack comes with -30 penalty (medium weapon, multiple attacks rule), and offhand comes with an extra -10. First attack, as opponent have used his counters on our teammates we'll go with offhand, same -40 total, same "most likely misses or inflicts marginal 10% damage on a good roll", second attack goes with minus 30, and it have higher chance of inflicting damage already, on the 30-70 roll assumed above it would be 21 damage. However we have third attack against -90 penalty, assuming good roll there that would be 35 damage.
Several problems with this analysis:

* Character 1 is much more likely to go last than the Character 2, because their initiative is 50 lower. Character 2 has a much bigger chance of going ahead of the people making one attack and end up either wasting their turn or getting pasted.

* You neglect to consider the use of fatigue. Spending fatigue will of course disproportionately help Character 1, because their damage is higher and each increase to attack helps more (while having more attacks makes no difference to fatigue spending, because the limit is per turn rather than per action

* You assume neither character has the chained attacks module, which seems a fairly obvious pick for any character likely to be multiattacking with large weapons.

* You still assume no use of ki techniques, which disproportionately aid Character 1 and even if one is limited to example techniques (a limitation with zero basis either in RAW or expressed RAI), there exist numerous useful and relevant ones which could be activated in a single turn or maintained by a low-level character (The Thorns, Kazedo, Repulsion Field, etc.)

However you receive less grievous counters and have better chance of getting second attack to slice extra defence.
You still greatly increase your chance of getting hit at all. If you're in a position where you are particularly afraid of getting hit (such as by a greatly superior target, or one with particularly dangerous attacks) it's still a bad idea. It does admittedly shine when you need to rack up attacks against a target with good defences but whose attacks are not particularly dangerous, admittedly.
Shields are good, but as I said before, it is quite strange.
No it really isn't. I cannot fathom why it should be particularly odd that picking up a shield is the best way to defend oneself.
You can check any weapon, it would be 15 or 20 bonus at top tier.

I find it quite unreasonable, that earthshaking artifacts have the same impact on defence as simple wooden board (well, except that wooden board helps better against thrown and shot attacks)
Because earthshaking artifacts aren't meant to be incomparably good at defence, they're meant to shake the earth. Asking why random artifacts with no association with defence don't excel at defence is like complaining that artifact two-handed swords are in fact, still two handed swords and thus slower than daggers. Why should having picked up a particularly shiny item trump your fundamental choices in fighting style?
and the only thing that surpasses wooden board is an artifact level wooden board.

Shields good at defending people, magic shields the best at defending people. In other news, water wet, grass green, wizard mentalists still nonexistent.

You can't claim that two-weapon fighting is overpowered because it's good at one-on-one duels, then when it's pointed out that the single most generic weapon fighting style possible is even better at one-on-one duels, claim that it's also overpowered. Balance is a relative quality, defined in comparison to other possible options. There are three primary weapon combat options - weapon and shield, two-handed, and two-weapon fighting. If we accept your arguments, then that doesn't mean two of them are overpowered as you say, but in fact that one of them is underpowered.
You see, rulebooks allow many things. However, if we are talking about "what is normal" I expect to see it in some way in examples.
Firstly, that's clearly wrong in any number of ways. There are tons of things Anima doesn't have examples for, simply because it has a lot of options and very few examples:

* There are, famously, no statted NPC or monster Wizard Mentalists. Does this mean it was never intended for players to be allowed to be Wizard Mentalists?
* There are no examples of multiclassed characters. Does this mean it was never intended for players to be able to multiclass?
* There are no examples of characters with points in metamagic. Was metamagic never intended for player use?

...Et cetera, et cetera, with at least a dozen more examples. If you claim that a lack of examples means that something was never intended for player use, despite it being clearly stated otherwise, then you must in all consistency apply the same to these as well.

Secondly, even if we accepted the proposition, it is flatly wrong with respect to ki techniques. There are examples of techniques which can be easily activated in a single turn, even at low levels, and there are examples of ki techniques with only a single effect. There is even at least one example of a ki technique which just gives a straight attack bonus (Unus Pandemonium), it's just a little bigger than my suggestion. Also, maintained techniques achieve exactly the same purpose (repeated and consistent use of a ki technique effect), and they demonstrably exist (and in fact are probably a better way of doing it, on reflection - one can simply use a bit of fatigue and maybe some preparation to activate them initially).

Furthermore, the technique I suggested and the philosophy behind it aren't certainly more powerful than any of the example techniques, they're just intended for a different audience. The example techniques are (mostly - there are some excpetions, as I have shown) suited for ki technique specialists, particularly higher level ones, whereas my example is intended for use by lower-level characters with limited ki abilities. For someone who fits into the former category rather than the latter, going for one of the example techniques is probably a much better strategy.
Given the range of options, player (or GM) can create something vastly over average power level (some nova builds, one trick mentalist ponies, etc), or vastly below (like character, who have only half of allowed attack and defence). And it is quite okay as long as everyone at the table agree and game is comfortable for every participant. But if you (me, everyone, else) are ok with something it doesn't mean it is the one and true way to play and everyone who deviates is cancerous munchkin if he is above the power level, or crookyhanded noob if he is below. So to determine the estimated power level I prefer to consult the rulebooks as they might give some hint on author's vision.
I do the same. And if you actually did that, then you would find that there is nothing in support of your theory that simple techniques that are easily useable every round were not intended, and plenty to indicate that they are:

* There are the numerous existing similar techniques, as mentioned above.

* The improvised techniques rules allow only techniques of this sort, which are explicitly stated to be simpler and easier to use than other more complex techniques.

* It is explicitly stated, repeatedly, that player characters can invent their own techniques, and that techniques "may or may not" have secondary effects.

Furthermore, it is not as if these kinds of techniques involve exploiting any edge cases or strange exploits. They simply involve using the rules provided in the most simple way possible. The example one I gave is quite literally just using the very first effect listed in the chapter. It is categorically impossible that the authors did not envision such being done.
And in fact GM allowing novice character to invent superior techniques is no different than GM handing PL 4 artifacts, because this GM either plays at dungeoncrawl adventuring style (which is quite following the "if it is in the rulebbooks then it is allowed, no questions asked how the hell character figured that out"), or makes his intervention not through handing artifacts or like but by allowing players to bend game world logic.
And we return to your time-honoured strategy of producing a false dichotomy between following your own position exactly and a ludicrous strawman. Let's break this down:
allowing novice character to invent superior techniques
No, allowing low-level characters (who are not novices - novices are 0th level, and to develop ki techniques at all a character must already either be level 2-3 and thus explicitly the equal of a knight or an expert mage, or a first level technician who has invested massively in martial knowledge either by extra DP or the martial mastery advantage and has thus dedicated much of their previous life to the discipline and thus should be fairly good at it) to invent inferior but simpler techniques.
No different from handing PL 4 artifacts
- no, no it ruddy well isn't. As I have already said and you have failed to address, one requires active GM fiat and explicitly disobeying RAI (because recommendations are given for what artifacts are suitable for characters of particular levels, and that ain't it), the other simply requires the GM not to actively change the rules in contravention of the author's explicitly stated intent. Those are fundamentally different propositions.
plays at dungeoncrawl adventuring style (which is quite following the "if it is in the rulebbooks then it is allowed, no questions asked how the hell character figured that out")
Firstly, that has precisely jack to do with dungeoncrawling (there is no reason why an exploration-focused GM could not be more strict, or a social-focused one could not be more permissive, for example), and linking them is yet another example of your false dichotomies.

Secondly, we don't need to ask questions of how they figured it out, because it's explicitly stated how: "considerable dedication and training", and 1MK at a time. And of course, because the character in question is low level and obviously lacks an instructor, it will take them quite a long time.

Though I cannot fathom why you think their working out such a simple technique is so implausible, while learning a more complex one is perfectly reasonable.
or makes his intervention not through handing artifacts or like
Letting players develop their own Ki techniques isn't handing them anything. It's simply not acting to prevent them from using the resources they had already earned.
by allowing players to bend game world logic
There is nothing in "game world logic" suggesting that characters cannot invent their own techniques or use simple ones, indeed once again the exact opposite is explicitly stated both in terms of rules and lore numerous times.
Última edición por TheTeaMustFlow el 11 Jun 2018 19:24, editado 1 vez en total.
Avatar de Usuario
Tyr Hawk
Mensajes: 116
Registrado: 02 Ene 2017 19:41
Ubicación: Montucky

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por Tyr Hawk » 11 Jun 2018 19:13

TheTeaMustFlow escribió:
11 Jun 2018 18:39
* In the original rulebook, there are no example ki techniques. Does this mean that prior to the release of Dominus Exxet, it was never intended for anyone to be able to use ki techniques? Or for games where only the original rulebook is used, the same?
I was just skimming your response and noticed this (not trying to nitpick, just honest skimming while at work), but unless you have a different original rulebook, on pages 106 and 107 of the English Core (Core Exxet 112 and 113) there are three example Tech Trees: Celeritas, Ignis, and The Dragon. Each has 5 techniques.

I really didn't read the rest, so I'm not here to respond to it, just wanted to get that out there before people thought there weren't Ki Tech examples pre-Dominus. :)
Devil's Advocate Extraordinaire.
"Just because I can argue for it, doesn't mean I agree with it."
This signature not intended as medical advice.
Avatar de Usuario
TheTeaMustFlow
Mensajes: 24
Registrado: 08 Ago 2017 14:35

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por TheTeaMustFlow » 11 Jun 2018 19:23

Tyr Hawk escribió:
11 Jun 2018 19:13
TheTeaMustFlow escribió:
11 Jun 2018 18:39
* In the original rulebook, there are no example ki techniques. Does this mean that prior to the release of Dominus Exxet, it was never intended for anyone to be able to use ki techniques? Or for games where only the original rulebook is used, the same?
I was just skimming your response and noticed this (not trying to nitpick, just honest skimming while at work), but unless you have a different original rulebook, on pages 106 and 107 of the English Core (Core Exxet 112 and 113) there are three example Tech Trees: Celeritas, Ignis, and The Dragon. Each has 5 techniques.

I really didn't read the rest, so I'm not here to respond to it, just wanted to get that out there before people thought there weren't Ki Tech examples pre-Dominus. :)
...On closer inspection, the pdf I was looking at was missing a few pages (should really have checked for that, I already knew it skipped from 299 to 302). My bad, I'll edit accordingly.
Avatar de Usuario
lizvne
Mensajes: 207
Registrado: 23 Dic 2016 20:00

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por lizvne » 11 Jun 2018 23:34

TheTeaMustFlow escribió:
11 Jun 2018 18:39
I sincerely doubt your real life experience includes actual armed duelling. Fistfights and contests, maybe.
I'm pretty surprised that you narrowed the duel concept to "armed duel to death". Well, if your games are like this, well, it is your right, but from what I see Anima scenarios don't have such grimdark "shoot first, kill or be killed" attitude. You can check AT rulebook, and two games already released.
If you are personally aware of people being involved in actual armed duels, and these did not take place in international waters or tribal Afghanistan, report them to the police immediately. It is highly illegal in all but a few (very marginal) jurisdictions, and for very good reasons.
Is it me or you are taking this discussion too personal? As promised, I'll stop. Which means I stop with my personal opinion, but I will gladly provide info from rulebooks in case anyone would be interested. Hope it will help.
True, but it also makes them substantially more likely to get hit and take damage.
Care to specify how? With Ambidexterity advantage no penalty to first attack present. So Ambidexerity character makes their first attack the same way as any other. Second attack have -10 penalty, but unless opponent have shield or Llama, he will be at greater disadvantage of -30 at least.
Several problems with this analysis:

* Character 1 is much more likely to go last than the Character 2, because their initiative is 50 lower. Character 2 has a much bigger chance of going ahead of the people making one attack and end up either wasting their turn or getting pasted.

* You neglect to consider the use of fatigue. Spending fatigue will of course disproportionately help Character 1, because their damage is higher and each increase to attack helps more (while having more attacks makes no difference to fatigue spending, because the limit is per turn rather than per action

* You assume neither character has the chained attacks module, which seems a fairly obvious pick for any character likely to be multiattacking with large weapons.
1. Going last have it's disadvantages. Discussing init and chances of stunlock would kind of derail this discussion. I'll just add, that I purposefully ignored facts that Ambidex have higher chance to Open roll (to fumble as well, but Open rolls are more than 3 times more often in Anima) as well as the fact that some cheesy weapons can be taken, like Leo, which could lower init (you said it is good for us anyway) and increase damage. On the other side, getting two artifact swords is harder than getting one.. On other side.. And on that side.. I hope you understand.
2. Opponents have fatigue as well, it can be used to counter. Also, math time again:
4th attack with heavy weapon, let's say 2 fatigue points spent. Total bonus without final strike and manticore pelt is +30. 24 damage turns to 60 damage, while 5th attack from ambidex turns from 35 damage to 56 damage, so properly spent fatigue won't change much.
3. I dare to assume it to be overpriced. Adding it will reduce penalty by 10, which is about 12 damage to thw and 7 to ambidex.
4. As for techniques please see below.

* There are, famously, no statted NPC or monster Wizard Mentalists. Does this mean it was never intended for players to be allowed to be Wizard Mentalists?
* There are no examples of multiclassed characters. Does this mean it was never intended for players to be able to multiclass?
* There are no examples of characters with points in metamagic. Was metamagic never intended for player use?
1. There is one such NPC Anne Aslind Shotterlein. Considering rarity of Gift and Psychic talent it is not a surprise that intersection will be multiplicatively rare, thus it is the rarest class.
2. The Colonel, multiclass from Dark Paladin to Tao.
3. Romeo Exxet, have several metamagic advantages.

I believe a bit of explanations are required.
It should be noted that there are things rare (like, subpaths or magic) or even really not presented in the game (like mentalist patterns or some rather specific CP advantages). However one thing is a missing pattern in a game which have about six mentalists I can remember including the Conclave member, other thing is that there are 3 technique trees in Core, 3 in Web Addenum, and 20 in Dominus Exxet. 26 total, so it is hard to say techniques are underrepresented. Most of trees are composed of at least 5 techniques, of which trees most don't have even one solo-effect technique. It is pure math, I'd provide more exact numbers if you really want to discuss it rather than to win in a fruitless network argument.
What does this math means? It doesn't mean that 1-effect techniques are prohibited. What it means is that these techniques are quite a rare deal, and your assumption of almost mandatory common +40 attack technique is on the same level as assumption that every group have Wizard-Mentalist with Creation and Telepathy to provide group with set of buffs to resistances from Aura of Protection and Psychic Shield. Yes, it may be correct for your company, but it is not universal. And in case we discuss instead of Ambidexterity some broken Resistance Effect that targets Psychic Resistance I hope you understand that Wizard-Mentalist buff-bot with specific set of Paths and Disciplines who can surely counter the hypothetical threat above is not a valid counter unless you build every group with such character. Well, if you do build in such way, then it is ok as long as you don't assume that everyone should do the same.

PS: And yes, taking CP for Ambidexterity is not mandatory. What I see as a problem is that due to pure effectiveness of this option in my gaming group it became rather constant choice. Why I mentioned it for the first place.

PPS:
You know, I'd find that a little easier to believe if you hadn't just said that my characters were "criminals without even criminal code of honour".
Just for protocol, what I said was "such approach would be inappropriate if your characters are criminals without even criminal code", followed by "or" followed by other options, quite a difference, isn't it? Considering this and like that every my post you are taking way too personal (like the "hobo" word said toward characters. Who are often are literally homeless. Who are, by the way, literally characters, and don't have to be moral paragons, their crimes don't transfer to player, if we are speaking about moral codes.) along with rather aggressive attitude full of rather personal "forum rules allowed insults" toward me, I'd like to ask, do we know each other from some other forum? Have I wronged you in the past? If yes, care to refresh my memory?
Imagen
Avatar de Usuario
Artorian Runaan
Mensajes: 105
Registrado: 24 Dic 2016 04:42

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por Artorian Runaan » 12 Jun 2018 00:24

I'm not in a state of mind to offer to the discussion, but going off my albeit hazy memories of the Edge forums, Light has mentioned that around six individual spheres is generally the limit that the vast majority of wizards could hope to learn metamagic wise. And to get there in the first place is an immense amount of work, though I can't remember exactly why. I think the implication was there isn't a standardized way to learn them and thus each wizard has to kind of re-create them entirely over decades of study.

Romeo at Level 11 lines up with that pretty well, he has three spheres, all Arcane Knowledge. Nerelas, at Level 14, is an exception to a lot of rules considering his background, especially if you consider his 16 POW and 200 MA, so him having nine spheres, all Arcane Warfare, isn't that big of a stretch.

As far as I know, those two are our only examples I'm afraid.
Avatar de Usuario
lizvne
Mensajes: 207
Registrado: 23 Dic 2016 20:00

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por lizvne » 12 Jun 2018 00:49

As a matter of speculation, I'd like to add that as TWWBU part 1 featured Dominus Exxet mechanics, I'd expect TWWBU have some monsters implementing Arcana Exxet mechanics.
Imagen
Avatar de Usuario
Mobiusfox7
Mensajes: 104
Registrado: 25 Ene 2017 20:00

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por Mobiusfox7 » 15 Jun 2018 23:10

TheTeaMustFlow escribió:
11 Jun 2018 18:39
lizvne escribió:
08 Jun 2018 20:30
Well at least I don't take it as insulting, unlike definitions like "murder-hobo", which assumes that group consists of inadequate persons, who kill people for lulz.
A little tip: You can generally assume that anything containing the word "hobo" is an insult.



Yeah, I'm not here to add to this, but I feel the need to step forward with a bit of neutral truth here in support of what Lizvne has said (who btw, from my experiences here on this forum and the old one, comes with a lot of knowledge of the Anima system as well as TTRPGing in general!)

the term "Murder-hobo" is not at all intended as an insult and should honestly not be taken as such. Yes, the term Hobo can be considered somewhat offensive in certain circles. It's not an offensive term in this culture and here's a bit of evidence as to why:

here is a quote from TVtropes.org towards this point:
Murderhobo: The player with no roots or connections whatsoever; just a wandering guy who runs around stabbing things. Perhaps this munchkin simply wants the freedom to do whatever he wants (usually killing things and taking their stuff) without having a family to get in the way. Or they assume that the DM would default to using any backstory friends or family against them (it's what they would do if they were the DM, after all), so they pre-orphan them in their backstory to save the DM the trouble. Either way, his unoriginal characters can be irritating to The Roleplayer, not to mention the Dungeon Master who has little to work with motivating him besides loot. They're especially annoying if combined with the Psychopath (hence the descriptive moniker of "murderhobo").
and here is the link to that page for reference: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin



Honestly TheTeaMustFlow, it's colloquial in many Role Playing Game Circles, which are decades old in certain cases and vast. It's also "Nerd Talk" sort to speak. In short, this is a friendly environment where we can talk about adventures of various Role Played Munchkin Tropes roaming the lands, shredding the innards of whatever foul-creature they come across. I can't speak for every table, but no hate is brought to my table, but I'm fairly certain there isn't a lot brought towards others tables as well here at these forums. :D

I'm not saying you need to embrace it, but there should be a respect and understanding here at the very least of this culture, right?

I would suggest taking a long, long look at TVTropes.org for hilarity and fun. They have awesome references there and it's filled to the brim with tropes, memes, you name it! Find your favorite source of entertainment there and take a look at all the tropes it provides! (Anima Beyond Fantasy is listed there as well and is a fun read if you know the setting well enough) Oh, and I say a long, long look because I can spend HOURS there when I'm bored. :lol:

TL;DR: KY KY
Banthor
Mensajes: 53
Registrado: 07 Feb 2017 23:13

Re: Let's talk about the rules that can frustrate people.

Mensaje por Banthor » 17 Jun 2018 17:55

Mobiusfox7 escribió:
15 Jun 2018 23:10
TheTeaMustFlow escribió:
11 Jun 2018 18:39
lizvne escribió:
08 Jun 2018 20:30
Well at least I don't take it as insulting, unlike definitions like "murder-hobo", which assumes that group consists of inadequate persons, who kill people for lulz.
A little tip: You can generally assume that anything containing the word "hobo" is an insult.



Yeah, I'm not here to add to this, but I feel the need to step forward with a bit of neutral truth here in support of what Lizvne has said (who btw, from my experiences here on this forum and the old one, comes with a lot of knowledge of the Anima system as well as TTRPGing in general!)

the term "Murder-hobo" is not at all intended as an insult and should honestly not be taken as such. Yes, the term Hobo can be considered somewhat offensive in certain circles. It's not an offensive term in this culture and here's a bit of evidence as to why:

here is a quote from TVtropes.org towards this point:
Murderhobo: The player with no roots or connections whatsoever; just a wandering guy who runs around stabbing things. Perhaps this munchkin simply wants the freedom to do whatever he wants (usually killing things and taking their stuff) without having a family to get in the way. Or they assume that the DM would default to using any backstory friends or family against them (it's what they would do if they were the DM, after all), so they pre-orphan them in their backstory to save the DM the trouble. Either way, his unoriginal characters can be irritating to The Roleplayer, not to mention the Dungeon Master who has little to work with motivating him besides loot. They're especially annoying if combined with the Psychopath (hence the descriptive moniker of "murderhobo").
and here is the link to that page for reference: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin



Honestly TheTeaMustFlow, it's colloquial in many Role Playing Game Circles, which are decades old in certain cases and vast. It's also "Nerd Talk" sort to speak. In short, this is a friendly environment where we can talk about adventures of various Role Played Munchkin Tropes roaming the lands, shredding the innards of whatever foul-creature they come across. I can't speak for every table, but no hate is brought to my table, but I'm fairly certain there isn't a lot brought towards others tables as well here at these forums. :D

I'm not saying you need to embrace it, but there should be a respect and understanding here at the very least of this culture, right?

I would suggest taking a long, long look at TVTropes.org for hilarity and fun. They have awesome references there and it's filled to the brim with tropes, memes, you name it! Find your favorite source of entertainment there and take a look at all the tropes it provides! (Anima Beyond Fantasy is listed there as well and is a fun read if you know the setting well enough) Oh, and I say a long, long look because I can spend HOURS there when I'm bored. :lol:

TL;DR: KY KY
I have not had Murder Hobos in my games, but they definitely occur. Although I've seen my fair share of "the GM is the enemy" people before, which usually go hand-in-hand with murder hobos. There's a lot of different types of players that do this, from "every NPC is out to get us" to "I will ignore any helpful information that GM gives us before the campaign", or the very worst "I'm going to constantly derail as much as possible, to test the GM's ability to improv a campaign".

The last is the one that is the most tedious:

After some traveling through the forest, you come to a fork in the road, one direction goes to your destination, another to a small village that you can stop at to rest.

"Let's go off the road into the forest, because we're the protagonists and plot is going to happen wherever we go anyways"

*GM groan

I've run the GM Toolkit module to introduce people to the game and had some veteran's there because they never did it before... talk about a train wreck.

Still at the same time I've been refreshed to see some people who have elected to do things just for thematic purposes. Had a thief who chose to fail a check simply because they felt that their character SHOULD be surprised by something.


Back to rules though, I've come across a weird thing that bothered me for some reason. It seems that Gaia 2, Arcane Exxet, etc. can't make up their minds about the types of magic certain races typically use. Gaia 2 strongly indicates Onmyodo for Daimah which is what you would expect but then you have Arcane exxet implying Shamanistic.

And then there is the issue that Shamanistic seems like a subtype as it doesn't impact playstyle as much as the others.
Onmyodo = faster basic spells, high MA, focused on preparation (spell slots);
Voduon = debuffs, focus on non-damage spells;
Natural Magic= No actual spells, but flexible effects based on player intention, can't reuse the spells they make up like others;

Shamanistic = Spell strength varies (GM fiat), doesn't work with old spell rules... at all, otherwise its not any different from basic school, except I guess you can't use necromancy.

I my opinion is that when they did the name change to the Shamanistic magic disadvantage, they should have recreated it as an advantage. I don't know, I guess it just doesn't seem like it does much since my playgroup rarely upcasts a spell. The point I am making is that there always seems to be a better alternative to Shamanistic magic including the basic casting method (Natural has variable strength angle as well, but dictated more by dice).

Maybe its there mostly for GM purposes because the GM can fiat NPCs with it as they want.
Gaia Volume 2 translation progress report : It's done. Want to cry in a blanket burrito now.
Responder