User talk:Spazalicious Chaos

A few words of wisdom from a madman
First of welcome. You will find some know-it-alls on this site, but most are rational thinkers. Ghost-wheel and TK-Squared are both intelligent - don't let their condescending attitude fool you. And don't take it personally from them. Everyone else is pretty cool hereabouts.

To increase your knowledge in D&D, you may want to try to make a homebrew in every section. So as to better understand any inherent miscalculations. Also, I'm mad! You may not want to make the same mistakes as I did. Good luck. remember madness is bliss. --Franken Kesey 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * YAY! A PERSON! AND THEY DON'T WANT ME TO DIE FOR ONCE!!! :D
 * Sorry, I'm just used to people on the net hating me. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * DIE! I mean... HI!  Sup? -- Eiji-kun 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh... You? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 01:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome. You can check out the IRC chat if you want to become acquainted with some stuff or if you have any questions about said stuff or the game in general. I hope this site provides the kind of thing you are looking for. - TG Cid 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to rework your user page? --Franken Kesey 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What did you have in mind? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 17:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Something like this, but with "Attempts at Anarchy" as a heading. Can be edited at any time. --Franken Kesey 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, but thanks. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Assistance?
Following Franken advice, I would like to create a source book: Book of Grievous Injury. I would like it to expand combat options with expanded maneuvers, detailed damage and healing, and the effects of the major damage food groups (fire, slashing, force, etc.), but I will need help to get past my inevitable newbishness. Any volunteers? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will most certainly try to help incoherence along. But do not have any DnD books at hand. Thus I might only add to your newbe aura.


 * On another note, you should checkout my starships as a possible vehicle for your campaigns. I'll be seeing you at the anarchy group meeting tomorrow...Right? Madness is bliss --Franken Kesey 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The book is done, so how do I move over to the source books section?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 06:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Click on the down arrow to the right of the view history. Click move, then remove "User:Spazalicious Chaos/" from the name. Also you need to add "(3.5e Sourcebook)" at the end. Might take a day or two to show up in the nav page. --Franken Kesey 16:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New Feat Category Discussion
This is going off of an idea I ran across | here which I think has merit to it. D&D already has tactical feats, but a joint tactical feat, where two or more characters with different skills can combine their capabilities. The only thing I do not agree with is Teh Storms limited vision of what they can do. I picture these as giving access to a number of maneuvers, like tactical feats. Ideas? Debunkers? Anyone?!? --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a potentially interesting idea, but depends so much on how it's actually done. Requiring multiple people to take the same or similar feats to gain access to a combined action is a steep cost on it's own. And then you have to balance how the combo action works compared to individual actions, and deal with the opportunity cost of in-battle setup and what not. So the idea has some promise, maybe, but there are a lot of things that need to be ironed out before it could be called good. If you have an example in mind that isn't that guy's ranting, it would probably help. - Tarkisflux 01:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Something like this:

Watch Tower (Joint Feat) <-One of the names I've been bouncing for this kind of feat.

Combining spell and sword, you two are near unstoppable!
 * Prereq A- Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes
 * Prereq B- Combat Casting, Quicken Spell (Metamagic)

If you and an ally can fulfill the two prerequisites, you gain access to the following abilities:
 * Spell Tower- Character B can use a quickened spell as an immediate action to accompany any action of character A.
 * Tower Guard- If characters A and B are adjacent, character A can ready this ability to accompany any spell character B casts. Upon casting, character A makes a single attack against every target that is a melee threat to character B. If the attack deals damage, that threat may not make an attack of opportunity on character B.
 * Paired Patrol- Any magical effect that grants immunity by character B for any spell B casts also benefits character A, provided both are adjacent to one another. Example: Mialee casts a sculpted fireball, sculpting herself out of the radius. Tordek, who is next to Mialee, took this feat with her five levels ago, thus he is also exempt from her fiery destruction.

So, what you have is two or more separate sets of prerequisites, which are intended to prepare one for a particular role in the feat. With the above example, you have guy A, someone dedicated to defense and space threatening, and dude B, clearly a combat caster. This feat suddenly makes it beneficial not only to work together, but within arms reach of each other. Together, they are a multi threat spell turret, sitting in one place devastating any who come near them. That is my dream for this feat category: brotherly love through kicking ass and taking names.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 08:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's unclear, but are you suggesting that both guys need to take the feat to use it? Given the situational nature of this type of feat, I think you could stand to boost the effects a bit, depending on intended balance level. Right now you have "accompany something someone else does, when you could do that already and don't get any real benefit for doing so", "give up your turn to get a whirlwind like attack, maybe" and "unclear but slightly better spell placement things", none of which look particularly appealing to me given the setup. - Tarkisflux 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Great Question
After a few rule skirmishes I have had on this site, I would like to know where everyone stands on one issue, one simple question that I have found defines how their games work: should magic be powerful?

To help those who are unsure, let me show you the opposite ends of the pool:
 * D&D 4.0: Fuck NO!- the entire basis of 4e appears to be striving for perfect balance. "My wizard can shoot fireballs!" "Oh, yeah? My fighter can throw his sword and clear a line of enemies." I recognize that this IS a perfectly acceptable style of play, but I still have trouble keeping the vomit down.
 * World of Darkness: Fuck YEAH!- Here is the WOD food chain in terms of rippage= normal people are ripped by hunters, who are ripped by vampires, who are ripped by werewolves, who all cower before mages. There are only two ways to kill a mage- A) catch them when they are simultaneously stupid and asleep, and B) get really, really lucky. A stupid mages dominates the field, while a smart mage dominates the city. This is where I'm at.

So, where do we stand?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While I prefer magic to be more awesome than not, I actually don't care how this questions is answered with the caveat that players at the table are playing the same game. Most players in DnD 4e are playing the same game, even if I find it rather boring later on. Players in the same WoD system are largely on the same page, assuming traps are avoided (including any stealth nerfing the storyteller does through houserules), but when systems are mixed things go off the rails. So while I'd rather have Mage style magic than 4e style magic, the whole system fails as an interesting game as soon as someone wants to play a vampire or a hunter and that's unacceptable.
 * Possibly useful additional conversation on the subject: linky.
 * Unrelated bits - I think you have vamps and werewolves backwards, as I've never seen a decently built vamp that would even come close to losing to a werewolf. Also, home grown alternate WoD designed to allow all of those groups to play nicely in the same game: more linky - Tarkisflux 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have always had the experience of single white werewolf+20 vampires=2 severely wounded vampires, primarily because of the "shit hit the fan, therefore garu" mentality.
 * Back on the main point, I am with you on both your points: magic should be powerful and choices should not be limited. Thankfully, this is not a question of limiting choices. Merely taste.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 02:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal for A Problem
Looking at a link that led to | this article, and looking back over many arguments on talk pages, I have come to the logical conclusion: arguments based on play style are invalid.

Ladies and gentlemen of the wiki, this is a game design site. Not a fan page where we all gush over how awesome Gygax's game is, not a review site for WotC's newest creations, but a site dedicated to new and original material. We are redesigning a game.

I am not without fault in this, for I, as a Simulationist, have dismissed some of the Gamist material I have ran across. But together we can clean up this bull shit, and all through an expansion on the rating system:
 * The Dungeons and Dragons Wiki:Balance Points remain as they are, but with the header Gamist. The pre-established balance point system works perfectly for a Gamist goal in mind.
 * For Simulationist play material, instead of balance point we state a One or Two word goal for what we are trying to emulate. We already have quite a bit of material with that goal point in mind, like Bleach D20 (3.5e Sourcebook), Pokémon d20 (3.5e Sourcebook), The Chocobo Project (3.5e Sourcebook), and Avatar Variant Rules (3.5e Variant Rule), with of course the wide variety of systems to incorporate "realism", like just about everything Frank and K wrote.
 * Finally, we should have a Narrativist category, possibly with a series of subtypes to describe what flavor of Narrativism in being catered to. Narrativists hiding in the shadows of we loud-mouthed Gamists and Simulationists, now is your chance to rise up and be heard! For only you can create the subtypes that exist in your culture.

What this would imply is both a "no fly" list, allowing the unadventurous to stay away from material that would be offensive to their play style, but also a better base point that represents the authors actual play goals, like keeping annoying Simulationists like me for ragging on how Ghostwheels Wizard-level pure Gamist awesome is not realistic. It would force me in said situation to debate on his terms, not mine, and visa-versa for if he has issue with my Final-Fantasy/realistic/ancient mythology blends.

So, there is my sales pitch, but it is ultimately up to the admins as to whether it will be made a policy or not. So, ye mighty ban-hammer wielding gods of this sacred wiki, what say you?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While the admins could ban it, we're not particularly likely to do so if there's actual large scale community support and reasonable arguments behind it. So get that first, because we're also unlikely to implement large scale changes like that without it either. Regarding GNS, f%#@ no. I am against supporting it or linking to it or referencing it. GNS theory is a poorly defined mess that assumes the three goals are somehow incompatible and shouldn't be mixed at all, ever, which is such a ridiculous premise that I don't consider it worth taking seriously. If there's enough community support for it I won't veto it, but I will argue against it if anyone starts to take it seriously.


 * Yes, arguments based on playstyle are invalid, but for reasons that are deeper than you suggest here. While it is not false to say that some systems better support certain goals than others, it is false to say that something is "bad" because it attempts to support something the system doesn't currently support or support well. There are lots of reasons to call something "bad" in context, but only as it relates to design goals and intention. Which means that if you make something that interracts with the existing system in a way that hurts existing goals (rough equivalence of character concepts, speed of combat, whatever) it is only bad if you value those things in the first place.


 * You can make stuff that people don't like and don't want to play, but that only makes it bad in their context because they value things that you are stepping on or demoting. Context is extremely important. I disagree with a lot of Ghostwheel's work, for example, but I don't consider it "bad" because it generally hits the goals he wants it to hit even if they're goals that I don't want in my games.


 * Your suggestion that people list goals or reasons for the changes at the top of the article is a good one anyway, and I think most people do it already. It makes it easier to critique or ignore work when you know what their goals are and whether they are achieving it with their changes. So write the articles that you want, write them well, and dismiss any playstyle criticisms you get on talk pages or explain why you would rather have the thing you think you're getting instead of the thing that you're reducing or eliminating. We support material here that we don't necessarily like in most cases, it's part of trying to build an open and accomodating community. GNS nonsense is not necessary for this. - Tarkisflux 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

On Bonus Actions
Just to continue the discussion from that page of yours that you let me delete &mdash; even in HERO, the speed stat is very strictly regulated by the GM. In D&D, the only universal control over the entire game is the number of actions that a character gets. It's for this reason that you should never grant bonus actions. Surgo 19:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that it's too powerful, although it probably is that too, the problem is that it's extremely swingy because the relative value of each person's turn is the same (supposedly, but we'll pretend for a second). If you're playing in a lightning game, you get between 1 and 4 turns based on your die roll alone, bonuses stack extra turns on top of that. Which is awesome if you're the guy getting extra turns, and means your probably dead if you're the guy not getting them. And since the extra turns come before you even get your first one, you're probably dead before you even draw your sword. It's like telling people that instead of 1 surprise round, they get multiple as long as they have a high init mod and roll well (which is at least doubled in number if you have a real surprise round in there as well). And also you could be on the receiving end of multiple surprise rounds. So don't roll badly, ever. And if you happen to survive being on the losing end of that, you should probably spend your last action of the round to refocus so you get your max init and don't get screwed as badly next round. None of the above sounds like a beneficial change for the player side of things. Stomping some fights into the ground because of a good roll is not going to make up for being stomped in another because of the opening die roll. - Tarkisflux 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops :-/
Sorry I missed those talk pages. I feel silly. Thanks for bringing them over though. - Tarkisflux 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed the subpages, too, but it is alright. The problems fixed and I was able to kill the burning rage with a "drown in caffiene/long boring bus trips to class/alternating between heavy metal and filk" technique. I find it works with most problems I already fixed.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this?
"Hi, I noticed you have been editing the DnD wiki. I thought you might also be interested in Wixpert, an encyclopedia wiki that pays its writers. It's basically the capitalist version of Wikipedia. I'm not trying to steal you away from the dnd wiki, but perhaps to contribute to both. You can find it at wixpert.com. This e-mail was sent by Aj to Spazalicious Chaos by the "E-mail user" function at Dungeons and Dragons Wiki."

I seriously doubt I was the first guy to get one of these, and it stinks a stink that usually follows cults and scam artists. Has anyone figured out which it is?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * New to me. I have no idea if that's genuine or not. - Tarkisflux 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Change of Email
Is there any way to switch the email for my account?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete the old one. Save the preference. Add a new one. Save again. Should send a new confirmation email at that point. - Tarkisflux 05:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lemons
If life gives you lemons make guacamole and let life wonder how you did it...--ParakeeTalk 12:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If life gives me lemons, I'll sell them to idiots on eBay and and use the money buy some lemonade to go with my new car and freshly imported japanese girlfriend.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 14:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad your new car is a lemon and your girlfriend is as acidic as one. --Aarnott 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... you can never find good quality stuff on eBay these days...--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A favor for a favor
I would be most appreciative if you could take a look at either the: Sith/Jedi (3.5e Class), Bot (3.5e Subtype), Nyota Mji (3.5e Location), or User:Franken Kesey/Viveka Spectre (3.5e Prestige Class) pages. I just need honest thoughts on them. Is there a select amount of pages that you need an opinion on? --Franken Kesey 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my The Book of Frenzied Warfare (3.5e Sourcebook) has been undergoing some massive rewrites. If you can take a look at the True Frenzy section especially that would help.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your ideas and looking at all of the pages. Are there any other works that you want an outside perspective on? --Franken Kesey 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment, but possibly when I work on the Book of Channeled Wonders. Oh, and eventually the Book of Companionship when I get around to it.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings Update
Following the recent wiki vote on ratings granularity and display, all old ratings can be updated to make use of "love / like / neutral / dislike / hate" instead of the old values. If you would like to update your ratings, you can find a list of them at Category:Legacy Rating Spazalicious Chaos. When you update a rating, be sure to delete the "|OldRating=True" part. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)