| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 16:25:06
I'm sitting here thinking about what things in 3e there are that just rub me the wrong way. The primary one I have is that you can do as much damage with "sonic energy" as you can with fire, cold, lightning.
I have no problem with there being an energy descriptor for sonic energy attacks, but I feel like certain types of attacks should not be able to do as much damage as others. Also, perhaps certain energy descriptors should have automatic side effects. For instance, if I do enough sonic damage to break your skin open..... there should automatically be a chance you're deafened.
In a similar vein, there should be descriptors for poison and disease damage. Perhaps these also have some ability affect characters in an alternate way while doing less physical damage (giving a dazed effect, slowing the character, maybe doing ability damage)
If these things are explained away at the beginning that there are these 17 or so different kinds of "energy" effects that can be used in spells to damage characters and give a little definition to them (such as force effects cross ethereal boundaries), it would help a lot for the future development. Kind of like how they defined the various bonus types and body slots (which I liked better how they defined the roles of bonus types in 3.0 as opposed to 3.5).
Anyway, I wanted to open this up as a constructive discussion and hear other people's ideas and personal beefs. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 05:24:43
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Darkmeer might remember the Grodd goblin shadowcaster that knocked a few of the PCs on their posteriors when they were rather high level. he didn't live too long, but they really weren't expecting a chain lightning effect out of the "little goblin shaman" either.
I thought it was a NORMAL goblin... Now it all makes sense *sounds of random cursing in KEJR's general direction*
It was one heck of an encounter, that's for certain.
/d |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 04:20:30
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Never I would go back to 2E monster blocks, but 3E had a problem too, using the same building blocks for PC/NPCs caused a lot of nearly identical monsters (orcs, goblins and hobgoblins is an example).
I hope 4E will give us meaningful difference between monsters, and ideas to use them to create interesting encounters (in some cases, non-combat ones).
IMHO, all the ecology fluff can be made on the fly without rules when such information is needed.
Edit : When I say that I want really different orcs and goblins, I'm not talking about a little fluffly text saying how they are, I want to see it in the way they interract (using rules) with the PCs.
As sirreus pointed out to one of the new members of our group,"Get ready for when he runs, every creature on the board will have some class levels." You mentioned "using the same building blocks for PC/NPCs" and that is one of the things I enjoyed most about 3E. As a DM I can easily make any encounter a challenge. Goblins for instance are no longer simply fodder for low-level characters. I can tack on a few levels of fighter and make a a goblin encounter enjoyable at any level of play. Personally, having rules for interaction between monsters and PCs is a waste of space, I consider that to be my job as DM.
Darkmeer might remember the Grodd goblin shadowcaster that knocked a few of the PCs on their posteriors when they were rather high level. he didn't live too long, but they really weren't expecting a chain lightning effect out of the "little goblin shaman" either. |
| Thevail |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 04:12:18
I'd like to see something to do in that "thousand points of light" wilderness besides kill things that live in it for the XP.
Can we please have some decent way of awarding xp for cleverness instead of deadliness. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 08:05:56
quote:
Originally posted by Ugly is the new black
Clearly, not everyone appreciates my wit.
love,
nathan.
I must remember to use smileys, that was meant as wit on my part as well. Anyway, back to edition changes. |
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 07:57:18
Clearly, not everyone appreciates my wit.
love,
nathan. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 07:40:22
quote:
Originally posted by Ugly is the new black
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The art was better in 2E, too.
With the notable exception of the Invisible Stalker.
love,
nathan.
No, even that was better in 2ed. The 3ed. version lacked subtlety. |
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 06:18:42
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The art was better in 2E, too.
With the notable exception of the Invisible Stalker.
love,
nathan. |
| Xysma |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 04:53:42
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Never I would go back to 2E monster blocks, but 3E had a problem too, using the same building blocks for PC/NPCs caused a lot of nearly identical monsters (orcs, goblins and hobgoblins is an example).
I hope 4E will give us meaningful difference between monsters, and ideas to use them to create interesting encounters (in some cases, non-combat ones).
IMHO, all the ecology fluff can be made on the fly without rules when such information is needed.
Edit : When I say that I want really different orcs and goblins, I'm not talking about a little fluffly text saying how they are, I want to see it in the way they interract (using rules) with the PCs.
As sirreus pointed out to one of the new members of our group,"Get ready for when he runs, every creature on the board will have some class levels." You mentioned "using the same building blocks for PC/NPCs" and that is one of the things I enjoyed most about 3E. As a DM I can easily make any encounter a challenge. Goblins for instance are no longer simply fodder for low-level characters. I can tack on a few levels of fighter and make a a goblin encounter enjoyable at any level of play. Personally, having rules for interaction between monsters and PCs is a waste of space, I consider that to be my job as DM. |
| Varl |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 03:48:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
2E was better with short stats (giving the DM much wiggle room) and giving monsters an existence outside of combat, and the 2E rule books didn't feel like lore was being sacrificed for crunch. The art was better in 2E, too.
Yes. A nice balance between the lore of the creature and the crunch of it. There are exceptions in some of the third party d20 monster tomes, where lore is taken to excess (which is unusual), but those I've found are the exceptions more than the rule.
quote:
So what I want out of 4E is the flexibility and versatility of the 3E rules, but also a return to 2E's not-just-combat attitude.
You and I are very similar in thought in regards to editions, except that I think 2e can harness the flexibility and versatility that 3e has.
quote:
That was something I hated with 3E: in 2E, monster descriptions were often a full page, and you learned how they fought, how they grouped, and what you could do with the corpses after you killed them. Then 3E reverted back to 1E's minimal description, with no mention of habitat, ecology, or anything else. Turning monsters into nothing but cannon fodder was a big step backwards, to me.
Absolutely. This is one of the major reasons I decided not to move on to d20. So much of it is far too "technical" and mechanical for my tastes. |
| scererar |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 03:03:47
the thing that I started to like about 3E was the prestige classes and feats. In the end though there are entirely tooooooooooooo many of each. I would like to see a 4E that has mechanics similar to PRc's but provided in a more conservative manner. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 16:37:59
quote:
Originally posted by Ugly is the new black
[quote]Originally posted by Skeptic
When I say that I want really different orcs and goblins, I'm not talking about a little fluffly text saying how they are, I want to see it in the way they interract (using rules) with the PCs.
I want to see how much differently the goblins and the orcs fights. If I want a specific goblin who don't fight like most of his species, I'll build it or wait for another MM. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 15:34:49
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, 3E also has you turning "cash" into magic items. Nowhere do you see the things that cash is spent on to make the item.
So you can imagine it if you want and not if you don't want ? Fine with me.
Yeah, basically put forth that it costs X cash to make the magic item. Somebody who wants it simple just notes that and makes the item. Then there could be a field with "components used" that could just list some of the components and their "going cost".
This could build several things. First, you could have NPC's poaching creatures that the PC's might need to stop, and if they know what the items are used for... maybe they realize who they are supplying them to ("Wow, you sure do have a lot of displacer cloaks for sale. How much are you paying the poachers for the raw materials, because I'll cut you a deal? Really, that cheap? You're under arrest, because that species is protected <g>.").
Second, the PC's might kill a creature and realize "hey, since I've got this, let me have X item made" or "Damn, glad I took that healing (?) skill to the point that I can preserve body parts, I can get 500 gold for this if I can find someone who wants to make a cloak... or just sell it at the magic shop for 100 gold".
Thirdly, a player may want to make a magic item, realize he doesn't have the cash, and find out that "oh, if you have the powdered horn of a minotaur, like the ones who've been raiding the town next to ours, I can cut the cost by X".
If given the choice between this little bit of extra or a 20% decrease in the number of crunchy items... I'll take that little bit of flavor. Its not like its all the wasted filler space that they've lately been putting with each prestige class (whether you like it or not, its a LOT of space), it'd only be maybe 2 lines.
|
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 06:29:07
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
When I say that I want really different orcs and goblins, I'm not talking about a little fluffly text saying how they are, I want to see it in the way they interract (using rules) with the PCs.
I guess maybe I'm confused. Are you saying that you want the books to provide hard-and-fast rules that will force DMs to play their creatures in certain specific, pre-determined patterns? I don't see that as being a good thing at all.
As for the previous conversation on ecology goes, I think that in a lot of ways, providing ecological backgrounds in each monster's entry is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, you've got plenty of information to use when setting up their lairs; but on the other hand, you're a lot more restricted as to where you can place them throughout your adventure. Once you know that formians are outsiders who hail from the planes of law, for example, it becomes a lot harder to justify the decision to place a colony outside of some random city. You take the good with the bad, and rewrite the lore when and it serves the story to do so.
love,
nathan. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 06:05:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Huh? Who said anything about NPCs?
Are you're referring to my bit about how monsters live? Because that's simple: details like preferred lairs, social structure, and uses for body parts add flavor and depth to the encounter when it does happen. And the body part uses could be the subject of adventures, by itself.
NPC was used as a more general term than "monster".
As long as the info help create encounters, I'm fine with it.
I don't want to see that a critter lays 1d4 eggs each year. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 05:59:44
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Wooly, try to explain me why you need rules to handle NPCs when the PCs aren't around to interract with them ?
Huh? Who said anything about NPCs?
Are you're referring to my bit about how monsters live? Because that's simple: details like preferred lairs, social structure, and uses for body parts add flavor and depth to the encounter when it does happen. And the body part uses could be the subject of adventures, by itself. |
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 02:38:36
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The only thing I could want that I have not already heard they were doing was a more realistic Fatigue/HP sustem - I've come up with my own but 'official ones' are always better accepted by players.
Markustay, here's a link to a thread over on Monte Cook's "Okay Your Turn" forums that you might be interested in checking out.
love,
nathan. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 02:28:14
The only thing I could want that I have not already heard they were doing was a more realistic Fatigue/HP sustem - I've come up with my own but 'official ones' are always better accepted by players. |
| Marquant Volker |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 02:06:01
I agree there are so many factors, from major ones, to the slightest detail that makes an original DnD evening in the table so different with that thing i saw at the video with miniatures and dungeon tiles.I mean miniatures and dungeon tiles?!? is that our game? not mine for sure. Perhaps if someone plays hack n slash will find it usefull, however i would preffered a good MMO with roleplay possibilties over that.
Now it comes the question, what if someone doent has time for pnp? Well my opinion is that computer related games multiplayer or not consumes more time than your average DnD group. Its that hard to arrange a sunday evening to be spend with your friends say two times a month?
|
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 01:19:42
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Giving the opportunity to long-time players who can't see each other each week to play D&D together online is so different from the MMO experience that I don't even understand why I care to reply.
Last I checked, the "MMO experience" involved getting together online with my friends, roleplaying out a series of interactions, building my characters point by point as they level, delving into dungeons full of monsters and mystery, coming out with phat loot, and paying a monthly fee.
Coincidentally, I just described 4th edition D&D as well.
love,
nathan. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 00:32:49
quote:
Originally posted by Ugly is the new black
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
IMHO, classes and levels are the most sacred cows of D&D, removing them would give another game, not a new edition.
IMHO, the most sacred vows of D&D include hanging out with your good friends around a gaming table and creating a memorable story. Removing this would give you another game, not a new edition.
That could be said about any RPG, nothing D&D specific here*.
quote:
Originally posted by Ugly is the new black
Oh wait, I just described the MMO that is 4th edition, didn't I?
Giving the opportunity to long-time players who can't see each other each week to play D&D together online is so different from the MMO experience that I don't even understand why I care to reply.
*I won't argue about the idea that the result of a D&D game is or not a story.
|
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 00:25:24
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
IMHO, classes and levels are the most sacred cows of D&D, removing them would give another game, not a new edition.
IMHO, the most sacred vows of D&D include hanging out with your good friends around a gaming table and creating a memorable story. Removing this would give you another game, not a new edition.
Oh wait, I just described the MMO that is 4th edition, didn't I?
love,
nathan. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 00:04:40
Wooly, try to explain me why you need rules to handle NPCs when the PCs aren't around to interract with them ? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 23:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
For me, How do you like your D&D? What's your ideal fantasy roleplaying game? and What ruleset would work best with the Realms? are distinct questions with very different answers.
Though I never got the chance to play it, the 3.5 ruleset seemed a very good one, to me. What I didn't like about 3.x was the mindset that came with it: everything had to have every single stat and ability explained to the nth degree; anything with stats existed purely to enter into combat with the PCs, and then fade out of existence (not literally, fade, but there were no rules on how it lived or what body parts might be useful); and any rule book worth publishing was worth being crammed with yet more feats and PrCs. Admittedly, 2E did the same thing with proficiencies and kits, but the difference is they didn't go overboard with it. 2E was better with short stats (giving the DM much wiggle room) and giving monsters an existence outside of combat, and the 2E rule books didn't feel like lore was being sacrificed for crunch. The art was better in 2E, too.
So what I want out of 4E is the flexibility and versatility of the 3E rules, but also a return to 2E's not-just-combat attitude. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 21:32:52
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
For me, How do you like your D&D? What's your ideal fantasy roleplaying game? and What ruleset would work best with the Realms? are distinct questions with very different answers.
YES ! Now try to explain it here and on ENWorld..  |
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 21:28:55
For me, How do you like your D&D? What's your ideal fantasy roleplaying game? and What ruleset would work best with the Realms? are distinct questions with very different answers. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 21:28:17
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, 3E also has you turning "cash" into magic items. Nowhere do you see the things that cash is spent on to make the item.
So you can imagine it if you want and not if you don't want ? Fine with me.
There is 2 way to deal with imagination in a RGP : try to give all the mechanical details so everyone knows where to stand (it often fails because the world is too complex) or using a very abstract mechanism and using "fluff" to describe it more when needed (HPs in D&D is an example).
However, some "power components" could be an alternate kind of reward ($ and magic items being the standard ones). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 21:25:02
Yeah, 3E also has you turning "cash" into magic items. Nowhere do you see the things that cash is spent on to make the item. Now, I'm not saying you need to know every little thing, but maybe 2 or 3 "items" required to make a magic item would add some interest.... and could easily show why people might be hunting displacer beasts in particular (which could upset a druid, etc...). |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 21:01:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That was something I hated with 3E: in 2E, monster descriptions were often a full page, and you learned how they fought, how they grouped, and what you could do with the corpses after you killed them. Then 3E reverted back to 1E's minimal description, with no mention of habitat, ecology, or anything else. Turning monsters into nothing but cannon fodder was a big step backwards, to me.
Never I would go back to 2E monster blocks, but 3E had a problem too, using the same building blocks for PC/NPCs caused a lot of nearly identical monsters (orcs, goblins and hobgoblins is an example).
I hope 4E will give us meaningful difference between monsters, and ideas to use them to create interesting encounters (in some cases, non-combat ones).
IMHO, all the ecology fluff can be made on the fly without rules when such information is needed.
Edit : When I say that I want really different orcs and goblins, I'm not talking about a little fluffly text saying how they are, I want to see it in the way they interract (using rules) with the PCs. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 20:55:28
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
For that matter, if a creature is capable of producing some kind of venom, perhaps there should be some kind of information in the monster entry for harvesting it.
That was something I hated with 3E: in 2E, monster descriptions were often a full page, and you learned how they fought, how they grouped, and what you could do with the corpses after you killed them. Then 3E reverted back to 1E's minimal description, with no mention of habitat, ecology, or anything else. Turning monsters into nothing but cannon fodder was a big step backwards, to me. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 19:58:21
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
Maybe some very lethal poisons as well as the ability damaging ones (like a 4D6 drop the lowest, CON damage lol)
This is a very good one. It seems like in the current system, once you get to a certain point poison DC's just aren't strong enough anymore. Perhaps some kind of ruling for how to use magic to enhance poison effectiveness (so that its believable why the very high DC poisons are so hard to get).
For that matter, if a creature is capable of producing some kind of venom, perhaps there should be some kind of information in the monster entry for harvesting it. |
|
|
