Persuader9494

Technically the Mitflit has no penalty to its ability to see through a Lie: its Self-Loathing ability affects Will saves from Coerce, Demoralize, Make an Impression, and Request, and it's specifically flavored as self-loathing, so unless the bard is setting up the lie to attack their competence "You idiot, why are you attacking us? We're the emissaries sent by your boss" it doesn't really make sense to apply it. The flavor is very specifically that they're easy to bully because they hate themselves, so the bard nicely interacting with them doesn't work the same way.

From the Lie action block:

The GM might give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell. Elaborate or highly unbelievable lies are much harder to get a creature to believe than simpler and more believable lies, and some lies are so big that it’s impossible to get anyone to believe them.

So ideally you'd just want to give them a large circumstance bonus for the pretty unbelievable lie, and let the dice decide.

Lie also has no Critical Success effect, the target either believes it or doesn't, so rolling particularly high above the DC doesn't do anything.

If the party does manage to succeed on the Lie with the circumstance bonus, I think TowardsTheFuture has it: you'd get a momentary cease-fire while they try and figure out what's going on, and the party would probably have to make additional lies to back it up. Going to check with the boss, resuming combat, and accepting your claims and doing what you tell them to might be on the table.

Yes, sorry, I was saying that I wish that they had fixed that when they reworked focus points.

Taking random focus spells that you don't need because you had to boost your pool was an issue before the rewrite, and it's arguably even worse now post rewrite, because you benefit by taking them earlier.

Previously you just needed a second focus point by 12 and a third by 18 (since the once-a-day extra points weren't that big a deal). Now if your party has time to rest longer you can get more focus spells per encounter as soon as you can take more spells.

• I'm very happy to see they're keeping the "Anyspell" version of Wish as a ranked spell. That was an important component of Wish and was my biggest concern about moving Wish to a ritual. Making the gamebreaking side of Wish a ritual makes a lot of sense.
• I also like that the "monkey's paw" aspect of Wish is now tied into the ritual check. Crit-succeeding a level 18 ritual is not trivial so it's probably not going to break anything, and it adds some more chaos into world development instead of kicking it to the DM.
• I kind of wish the focus pool scaled independently of spells known, because now we still have the issue of a character that really only wants to do one thing with his focus pool having to spend extra feats on things he won't use just to expand the pool. I think maybe the game just needs more focus spell options, especially utility stuff, and it will be easier to fill out the pool now that every spell expands the pool, but it'd be nice to not just have to take filler. A feat that just pushes the pool to 3 and nothing else would be neat.

Another approach you can take is simply making it so a violent resolution does not lead the players to accomplish their goals as well.

Trying to get information about a big nasty with a cult, and the players decide to just murder all the cult members? Well, the players might be able to beat the cult in a fight, but not fast enough to prevent the cult from burning their sacred texts, and now you have to piece info together out of the ashes.

This is a difficult line to walk: you have to plausibly present that the outcome would have been better if they had negotiated or infiltrated, versus just "well the DM was never going to give us the text anyway". You also have to make sure you don't just lock off the plot because they fought.

You need a clear backup plan that's just annoying enough to make it clear putting a little more thought into your first approach could have saved a lot of time., and maybe a slight downgrade of the end result of the plot (time is classic here, maybe a couple people the party was expecting to save got sacrificed while the party was messing around).

Not every fight has to end in death: have an encounter with enemies motivated to capture PCs (ransom, perhaps, or simply averse to killing), and have them do so when a PC goes down.

If it's a TPK then they have to break out of captivity, or possibly negotiate their release in exchange for solving a problem for their captors. If only one or two PCs go down then the remaining members might have to find a way to pay the ransom, or find a way to break them out. If it's mixed, then maybe it's a coordinated jailbreak with PCs working together from inside and outside.

Fun scenario, but a giant pain in the butt for whatever other goals they had in the campaign, and a great wakeup to "hey, maybe I shouldn't just be bulling into every fight". You can steer towards a solution that doesn't involve fighting as well, to give them a forced crash course in their characters' nonviolent capabilities.

It has more to do with the American war strategy in general: air supremacy is just the plan, and America has a lot of tools to root out AA and destroy enemy air forces. Compare to someone like Russia who is explicitly choosing not to dominate the airspace and relying on artillery for its fire support, and as a result has different focuses.

It doesn't have zero defense against AA- as a commenter upthread pointed out, this picture is literally showing it launching flares against heat-seeking missiles- but it's not something that's designed to work only when fighting non-peer forces, it's essentially capitalizing on the air supremacy that other components of American forces will be creating.

Good eye!

Ha ha! You think this is my REAL head?

Hmm, fair point, especially with some of the other weapon types they mentioned where it becomes more obvious that no one could look at a single-bladed axe and go "yep definitely a double axe"

I think it's the same reason so many people want to become streamers, or actors,

Live service is a winner-take-all market, where if you hit it big you get SUPER big, and because the biggest names dominate the landscape you see them more and it's easy to forget that for every Fortnite there are hundreds of The Cycle: Frontier.

But when you're starting out it's easy to convince yourself you're going to be the next Fortnite, so you rush down that road rather than more reliable-but-boring ones like "I'm going to make the next Baba is You".

Feels like an isolated demand for rigor: it's pretty standard to just take a bunch of medieval weapon names and haphazardly slap them on the different models in the game.

I don't know that that's that big a deal: you certainly don't go to a Diablo game for any sort of realism, and the names are based off real-life words that don't really have a match in most fantasy worlds.

"Claymore" is just derived from the Scottish for "great sword". Scotland isn't part of Sanctuary, so we've already lost the thread, the word is essentially meaningless in Diablo's setting.

And if we try to resolve this with something like "the word isn't actually 'claymore', it's some word in the language of Sanctuary humans that translates to 'claymore'", well, that also means it basically just translates to "great sword", and now we've got a great sword named "great sword", which seems to work fine.

There's something sad about all these games just essentially disappearing off the face of the planet after a tiny blip of existence: 4 years from early access to dead. Lots of old games stick around and can be something people experience years later, but these are at best going to be memories and stories. What was the point of making it when it's not going to last?

I accept that the design of this game made it difficult to keep in existence without centralized funding, but that's also a decision the developers made when they made the game.