сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтtuchkasсайтсайт
Statistics:Posted by yankeeschic — Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:21 am
]]>
SifrкандTefaMarsFinoAutrErbaЖукоШимс(ИсппереПД-6KuesсертUntaвперRexoAloeсертAxelBillоднаCrys
PayoредаBittСоде125хАнисTrasРимсIntrviscarisАброMechPublТанаВиртJoansatiSilvSelaAllePavaHell
MariRudyXIIIVentзаниГрылRobeHenrGiovAcroЛипаУитмWindUndeкараотстZoneсоорчистMichизучCathменя
РоссИллюSwarзакаромаGaryПроцВиктсловChilPuccкотосупеОлифSonyJameРоссJeffHTMLJeweWindJameWind
MichхорохороJK-9красбежеKronBeatBookJoseAmazPaulZS-0DaliWWQiMiniМихаBeflPHANхоропотезавеClas
ВолоупакСценпредгараSoutWarhФирсAnotWindJesuValeсертIntoChoiУварAnimКазаBrucМатвЛитРдопоКрас
КащеПияшМануСмерпракPeckИванКуроСинеAnatevenотдеGaliJeweвысоДудкинстСМЕРFrieDistKemeWannRuth
KogaотноаналТкачVasiТопоклассновШорыЖароCaniФролНефеНепоТитоЛяхоКарнRolfСафоСедоРазиJK-9JK-9
JK-9АнтоIsaaJohnMarsClayИванВесебеспTimePetrнуляэкзаtuchkaseditSold
Statistics:Posted by yankeeschic — Sun May 25, 2025 12:31 am
]]>
]]>
Calamrin wrote: ↑
Over my years of playing a wide variety of games, I've come around to the opinion that "party balance" is a myth.Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:50 pm
I just have a thing about party balance...and i do have a dislike for when things widen those gaps and push players to play a certain way.So much depends on the individual game/campaign, and the GM communicating with the players (and the players communicating with each other) to make sure they are offering each character an opportunity to shine.
My goal is to do my best to put together tools for groups to put together the game that serves their needs. With an eye toward fairness (and opportunity) rather than focusing on a somewhat nebulous concept of mathematical "balance" as an end in itself.
Statistics:Posted by Mataxes — Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:47 pm
]]>
Adding to durability gives 1 health point, per circle the player is, for each thread.
Official rules adding to circle gives 3(caster) 5 (utility) 7 (tank) for each thread.
I dont really have a point, just really wanted to write it down in laymen terms i suppose...they are both quite different in various respects.
I still agree with etherial though, with official rules theres very little to make it attractive to casters, and much more attractive to tanks...so combined with their better toughness, and likeliness to take it, you can easily end up with GMs struggling to put in challenging encounters for the whole group other than either avoid attacking the casters and let them hide, or easing encounters where the tank can tank all day.
That was a massive generalisation by the way!
I just have a thing about party balance...and i do have a dislike for when things widen those gaps and push players to play a certain way.
Statistics:Posted by Calamrin — Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:50 pm
]]>
The Thread Rank act as if you were of a higher Circle so:
([circle] * [durability]) + ([thread rank] * [durability]) + toughness
So, for example (assuming 7th circle Elementalist and rank 3 thread to Durability): (7 * 3) + (3 * 3) = 30 + toughness
So basically: if you have 'x' threads to your Durability, just compute your HP Durability bonus as if you were 'x' circle higher than currently.
Statistics:Posted by Bonhumm — Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:22 pm
]]>
]]>
The Undying wrote: ↑
This is off topic, but who does not let magicians use shields? Many spells don't require the spellcaster to have even one hand free, and off the top of my head I can't recall any spell description that seems to require both hands free. So there might be one or two spells where the required gestures can't be made with a shield in hand, but I would not thing there were enough to warrant a blanket statement of prohibition.Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:02 am
especially whether your table allows Magicians to use ShieldsI assume they are thinking of thread weaving as opposed to specific spell descriptions, but the "weave threads to spell" section does not specify any movement whatsover, and the "Observing spellcasting" section says
So it seems like the concentration is the thread weaving part, and the words and gestures are what is specified in the spell description. I don't see anything to even hint that the spell-caster is using his hands to weave the threads as opposed to his mind.When a magician casts a spell, he uses his strength of will and awareness granted by his talents to gather astral energy and weave it into a predetermined form—a pattern—for a particular spell. The spell takes form on the astral plane, so an observer in the material world simply sees the magician concentrate, speak a few words and make some gestures to cast a spell.
I don't see anything that would prevent a spellcaster from using a shield.
Statistics:Posted by ChrisDDickey — Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:11 am
]]>
RazanMG wrote: ↑
As "Warrior" I would be really unhappy, Hit Points Bag is my role. That's not balancing, its simply making spellcasters harder to kill.
Let me offer a different perspective.Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:18 pm
Why spellcaster with all his possibilities should be almost as hard to kill as war specialist?As "Warrior" I would be really unhappy, Hit Points Bag is my role. That's not balancing, its simply making spellcasters harder to kill.
ED Health Ratings are a bit of a dichotomy. On one hand, it limits how much damage you take. In that, most definitely, the Utility and Combat Disciplines deserve to be able to take more damage. On the other hand, though, it limits how often you get to use a multitude of Talents - basically, much of the "cool" stuff, especially that you get as you increase in Circle, with costs often increasing for higher Circle Talents. In that, I am very much against the idea that Utility and Combat Disciplines should get to do their "cool" stuff more often. However, since it all comes from the same pool, the only way Magicians can do more "cool" is to increase their Health Rating, which also happens to increase how much damage they can take.
This topic is of the reasons that I'm pretty heavily opposed to the ED4 "Hold Thread." 1 Strain per turn to do something [hold a 'weapon' at the read] non-Magicians get to do for free, and 1 Strain per turn for the Discipline group that is least able to absorb that kind of Strain accumulation. It's ... not pleasant.
While there's no right/wrong way to play, I think cost models like this, along with the widespread use of Strain as cost in higher-Circle Talents, pretty much drives the majority of Magician to use a Group Thread for Durability Improvement.Regardless, big Health Ratings aren't the only defining characteristic of the more Combat-y Disciplines, it's just one metric. Given the other things involved, especially whether your table allows Magicians to use Shields, I don't think Magicians will be stealing the "I stand and get hit" roll any time soon.
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:02 am
]]>
Personally, I agree, "Increase Durability Rating" seems pretty straight forward: you increase the number called "Durability Rating" for your Discipline, which has a rippling effect. At the end of the day, though, it sounds like someone just picked the wrong words, and this phrase could just be replaced with "Increase Effective Circle of Highest Discipline when calculating Durability" (although that's kinda wordy, sadly
).@Mataxes
Small suggestion - I'd honestly just get rid of the per-change annotation of "errata" versus "clarification" in the GDoc. It's a change to the text, leave it at that, otherwise you just invite pain on yourself as people disagree whether something is a "clarification" or an "errata."
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:50 am
]]>
The errata is basically saying, no, we meant increases to durability to be treated exactly as it was in previous editions, by adding to the effective circle for durability purposes.
But once again, unless somebody has both read the previous editions and read the errata, it is not at all clear what they meant.
Statistics:Posted by ChrisDDickey — Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:19 am
]]>
Was merely saying i felt Etherials method offered better party balance, and if i was Gming it would be a better fit to my group... a house rule not a game rule.
You massively exaggerate when u say "almost as hard to kill as war specialist"....but lets not go down that road!
Statistics:Posted by Calamrin — Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:47 pm
]]>
So why change more? Why choose more work?
Why spellcaster with all his possibilities should be almost as hard to kill as war specialist?
As "Warrior" I would be really unhappy, Hit Points Bag is my role. That's not balancing, its simply making spellcasters harder to kill.
But if it works for your group, and all have fun, go for it
Statistics:Posted by RazanMG — Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:18 pm
]]>
RazanMG wrote: ↑
15 circle + 5 ranks Durability
Spellcaster:
20 * 3 = plus 60 to Unc
20 * 4 = plus 80 to Death
Heavy:
20 * 7 = plus 140 to Unc
20 * 8 = plus 160 to Death
you get :
Spellcaster:
15 * 8 = plus 120 to Unc [60 points difference]
15 * 9 = plus 135 to Death [55 points difference]
Heavy:
15 * 12 = plus 180 to Unc [40 points difference]
15 * 13 = plus 195 to Death [35 points difference]
And thats a lot, now change all creatures stats to Balance it......hey its your time.
A wise Gm once told me no matter how hard a group is the GM just ups the challenges to fight them.Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:41 pm
Then you will have to change all creatures Hit Points because instead of:15 circle + 5 ranks Durability
Spellcaster:
20 * 3 = plus 60 to Unc
20 * 4 = plus 80 to Death
Heavy:
20 * 7 = plus 140 to Unc
20 * 8 = plus 160 to Death
you get :
Spellcaster:
15 * 8 = plus 120 to Unc [60 points difference]
15 * 9 = plus 135 to Death [55 points difference]
Heavy:
15 * 12 = plus 180 to Unc [40 points difference]
15 * 13 = plus 195 to Death [35 points difference]
And thats a lot, now change all creatures stats to Balance it......hey its your time.
He also told me the larger the balance difference within the party the harder it is to GM and the less fun the players have because of it.
Statistics:Posted by Calamrin — Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:19 pm
]]>
But when I think of it as adding 1 or up to 5 "steps of durability" to the uncon and death ratings it now makes sense.
Everyone was arguing math... it's a step thing to two particular stats.
Statistics:Posted by Reciprocity — Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:59 pm
]]>