>Actually, I think feats make the players too strong, and

File: 1404190984853.gif (3MB, 352x184px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 352x184px

>>48398409

>Roll to keep your balance... And again... And again...

>>48398409
Wth happened there?

>>48398904
either plane wreckage or a JDAM without an explosive payload

File: Lost Tradition.png (185KB, 582x423px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 582x423px

>>48398409
I like strong feats.

>>48399108
I always wanted to play a true ogre magi.

>>48398409
What is this thread even supposed to be?
That GM?
Unpopular opinions?
D&D bashing?
OP just being a faggot again?

>feats
>instead of skill enhancments

Sounds like you're not playing a very robust system.

File: 1459781643007.jpg (14KB, 232x199px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 232x199px

>>48399153
>literal muscle wizards

Goddamnit J.E Sawyer, when will you leave us in peace?

>>48399108

So I can become a muscle wizard?

>>48399854
All of the Above?

>>48399108
I feel like that was intended to be mental stats only, especially since the example is of switching to Charisma.

>>48398409
Is this in relation to a particular game (or, more likely, edition of D&D)? In 3.X, they're an integral part of balancing some classes against others (not that it's enough to actually balance them), whereas in 5e it's technically an optional rule.

>>48400128
In 4e they are absolutely necessary to keep the math straight.

>>48400088
>literal muscle wizards
3.5 lets you do it, just sayin.

>>48400902
Dis illushon spell stronk, jush like me. *grin*

>>48398409
I thought about doing that, to run a campaign based on Abercrombie's "The First Law". 3.5, Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue only, no feats. No, not even Two Weapon Fighting. Yes, I know Jezal fought dual-wielding, he was a dumbass for bringing a sport style into real battles and demonstrably more effective using a longsword two-handed. You wanna be a dumbass too, you eat the penalty.

Then to really get that First Law vibe, I figured I'd replicate that thing he does where me muses through narration or a character's internal monologue that "If this was one of those storybooks, then X, Y, and Z would happen; but this isn't one of those storybooks!" Do the same shit in the game.

>If this was one of those rpg sessions, the wizard would cast Haste on you and you'd Power Attack and Cleave your way through the press...but this isn't one of those rpg sessions!"

I think that'd perfectly emulate the man's writing style.

>>48401963
I thought that series was much worse than the Shattered Sea trilogy.
Mainly because, fucking ah give me someone or something to like and be happy about. Ever.

>>48402044
I actually liked it okay, apart from the "If this were one of those storybooks..." interjections. It's like, for fuck's sake Joe Abercrombie, we get it; you're writing a deconstruction of the typical epic fantasy. Your Gandalf analog is evil, your young nobleman destined for greatness is an outright cunt who totally doesn't marry his good-hearted peasant girl love interest for all of the very practical reason he wouldn't (also she's got her own flaws), your Proud Warrior Race guy isn't all that proud of being a warrior and would clearly be doing something else if he was any good at shit other than killing people, etc. We get it, epic fantasy deconstruction. You don't have to explicitly tell us you're subverting a trope.

It's writing down to the audience, is what it is.

>fucking ah give me someone or something to like and be happy about. Ever.

Meh, Sand dan Glokta's segments had their moments, when he was vindicated or managed to pull off something impressive. I still find it intriguing he managed to make the torturer-cum-evil chancellor one of his most sympathetic characters, and did that on purpose.

But anyway, Shattered Sea was good, you say?

>>48402086
yep.
Less focussed on the deconstruction than telling story about people in a medieval setting, with a much more late norse feel to it. (less thor, more establishment of the Christian church in Scandinavia, but not exactly).

Also, it's got this cool building up an expanding on viewpoint characters.
Half a King is all from one point of view.
Then the next book has 3 points of view. But not the original pov.
Then the next is 5, but none of the originals again.

And while bad things are happening, it gets a bit less on the multiple pages spent describing torture and deprivation. And while the characters are all flawed and most are forced to compromise their beliefs and desires, they're all better people.

>>48399108
I
CAST
FIST