Recent content by ASFDan

I've been out of the scene for a while, but I wanted to reach out in support of the Calgary, Seattle, Oregon, and others who have spoken up here. Everything said so far mirrors my experience over the years, both as a former GM for Seattle and as owner of ASF. It hurts to see work that we...

Thanks Matt, it's good to hear that this has been heard and a new sample module will be written. That said, what I'd like to see also is an assessment of the breakdown that led to the diversity committee's feedback being overlooked, and what mechanisms are being put into place to ensure this...

This is unacceptable.

When will the 0.9 feedback form be available? I'd really like to get feedback in from our local playtests while it's still (relatively) fresh.

Only going to address this bit, I think the rest is being talked in circles at this point. I'm not sure it's fair to call this nitpicking. On a local level it's very easy to come to a general consensus about how something is played; at out recent play test we were able to similarly agree on the...

For what it's worth at this point, in our play test this weekend flurry rules surprisingly did not come up very often; there simply weren't that many situations where two people were engaged such that they became relevant. Where it did happen the feedback was mixed, but largely it didn't seem...

From a staff perspective I would argue fighters (though high level c-casters can also begin to fit this space after a certain point), because their very high sustained damage makes them the absolute hardest to scale around and still give a fun and interesting encounter for everyone else. From a...

Thinking about it now, the build may have been inclusive of the previous version of Hardy (when it counted as a fighter skill), but I'm not certain the change has a significant effect on the outcome. I will try to rebuild it and see whether it holds up. All that said, don't discount critical...

It's been a while, but my recollection is that I did not buy excess critical attacks because I specifically wanted to test how robust a player's options were with the new prerequisite rules. The big thing to remember is that fighter skills count as their own prerequisites now (that is, 2 build...

(Technically you don't ever need a prof at all if you're willing to buy unlimited critical attacks/back attacks, but I went under the assumption that there would be a point at which the player wouldn't want any more. From playtesting experience that assumption is no longer clear to me).

I'm not sure your premise follows. I tested whether a fighter/rogue is required to have "lots of dead build" in order to buy skills, and I was able to make a legal (in terms of build progression) 50th level fighter with just 2 proficiencies, and stopped only because it was clear I wasn't going...

This is a good thread, and I'm happy to discuss why I approach this playtest the way I do, if anyone would care to do so, but I'd rather do so privately. If anyone wants to talk, feel free to message me. If not, that's fine too. :D

PM'd.

Agreed, and to clarify my statement, I'm not saying no one is providing evidence- just that, contrary to what some are suggesting, it's what they'll need to do if they want to try to get the rule changed.

If you're going to attempt to convince anyone to change the rule it would probably help.