| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Nov 2010 : 20:14:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
This is where playing other games comes in Diffan. When I had asked if you had tried World of Darkness or Shadowrun or anything besides D&D before, you would then understand what we mean by "feels like D&D". A large portion of gamers grew up on Vancian magic rules and such and that's what they expect of their D&D game. If they didn't want those components in their game, they usually played a different game. The gaming industry is full of variety and the D&D brand had come to represent certain elements that everyone recognized as Dungeons & Dragons. So, when WotC/Hasbro changed those elements, many gamers felt that it was no longer the D&D brand.
I assure you the Vancian system, while completly changed, is still in 4E. You just have to know where to look to find it. In fact, the vancian system even branched out to other classes. These are what Dailies are for. Lets take a look at the Mage (wizard) of Essentials. He adds all of his Encounter, Daily, and Utility spells into his spellbook (not to mention Rituals). From there, he can prepare a limited number of these spells per day. That sounds a lot like the 2e/3e Vancian system. Just because he doesn't need to rest 8 hrs or more to regain ALL of his spell, the big ones that take lots of energy to muster can only be done 1/day. Pretty close. Same goes for other classes.
True, I haven't played any other PnP RPGs outside of d20 but I don't feel D&D is always synonymous with the d20/Vancian system. To me, it's synonymous with names like Bigby, Elminster, Drizzt, and Magic Missile. Monsters like the Beholder, Elder Red Dragons, and Lloth. With adventuring in a medieval/fantasy settings where wizards, fighters, and clerics are heroes to the people. The system in which they utilize these names is secondary to me. Even though I HATE (with a deep passion) 2e/AD&D, I'd play in a game that uses that system if the players were good and the story fun and enticing.
I can't disagree that some people don't like 4E's system or how things work. I don't disagree that they may feel it's not D&D or that it plays like a MMO. To them, if that's how they feel 4E is like I'm not going to change their minds like I can't change a river's course. I can, however, show that there are redeeming qualities that make the system fun to use. It may not be their preferred system of play, but they might have some fun if someone were to try it out with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Lots of people point to the Paladin and the LG restriction. Even I like my games where there are "holy warriors" that aren't LG. BUT, it comes as part of my first response that Paladins, rightly or wrongly, were seen as the ultimate "cop" of the adventuring world. If they had published the Paladins originally as being any alignment, then why would anyone have chosen a fighter in previous editions? And, in all my years of playing D&D, I only met ONE player that NEVER had a good backstory for his characters. ROLE-playing has absolutely nothing to do with the rules you play as no-one can force a player to play his character a certain way.
I can agree that Role playing is placed solely on the player, but with the large restrictions and prerequisits of earlier editions, a player was to some extent shore-horned into a playing style. Want to be a monk, better be lawful. Want to be a pally, better follow that code or your powers are taken away. Want to be a barbarian, then you better not follow those rules in the town or your just not Chaotic. Now these examples are extreme of the classes and alignment in general and honestly didn't play apart at our gaming table but I'm quite sure they existed elsewhere. These rules didn't enhance the game, just further pushed an ideal or theme of WotC's view. All in my own Opinion of course.
As for why would anyone play a fighter over a non-aligned Paladin? Easy enough, for the bonus feats. The fighter was NEVER a staying class or woth more than a 2-4 level dip. And it was usually in a character's best interest to put the first 2 levels into Fighter and then go 18 Paladin.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
As for Lathander, the church was all about building civilization (Craft) and celebrating life (Perform). Part of renewal is accepting death (no Healing domain).
I don't buy that for a second. Both aspects of that deity didn't HAVE to have a mechanics involement to be plausable. That could've been done with a Special: tag in the prerequisite. As for no Healing, then I gues he's pretty much the only SUN deity without it. And part of rejuvination is the healing process. And I also question the no Healing because he was soo against Undead and healing spells have a negative effect against them, thus it's two-fold for clerics to be super-proficient with Healing. |
 |
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 18 Nov 2010 : 20:37:33
|
Yes, he probably is the only Sun deity without the Healing domain. There's always gotta be an exception to the rule.  |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 18 Nov 2010 : 23:31:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for why would anyone play a fighter over a non-aligned Paladin? Easy enough, for the bonus feats. The fighter was NEVER a staying class or woth more than a 2-4 level dip. And it was usually in a character's best interest to put the first 2 levels into Fighter and then go 18 Paladin.
In prior editions, I played more than one fighter. I never played a paladin. I love the fighter class, and I don't understand how it's not a "staying class" or only worthy of a "level dip." |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 04:34:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I have yet to play 4e (much to my chagrin), but when the rules came out it didn't feel like D&D to me (and that was just from reading the rules - no such feeling happened when I bought into 3e).
I make that statement based upon what at least three people have told me about the new rules. People who have actually TRIED the rules, and have played both editions a lot. Three people which post here, BTW, and are currently running 4e games. In fact, just above you yourself said "I'm now sorta missing the old 3.5 vibe".
I definitly should've been more clear. Yes, I did mention that it would be nice to go to v3.5 for a bit, but that's mainly because I'm the only one in my group that DMs 4E. After a few small encounters, a mini quest, and about 5 months of DM'ing 4E....I need a break lol. Not that I hate DM'ing 4E, but I've rarely played a character and Role-Played in that system. I've got all these great ideas for characters (ex-noble of Impiltur [Two-Weapon fighter], Drow sorcerer, Eladrin/moon elf Wizard|Swordmage hybrid....) but as a DM, I don't get to use these concepts OR role-play much save for the NPCs my group meets.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I didn't make that statement lightly, and didn't base it on the 'anti-4e' people - I based it on what has been said by people who have made the move to 4th edition. Some people just want to 'kill stuff', and thats fine (although I thought that was what the miniatures game was for). If they want to move in that direction then it makes sense - Hasbro is a multi-national toy company and its products have to be designed for the widest appeal. I have absolutely no problem with that.
But D&D is a niche hobby. If they think they can mainstream it they are sadly mistaken. They are not 'dumbing-down' (a phrase thrown-around a lot when 4e first came out) D&D - they are making miniatures (toy soldiers) more complicated.
heh, Dumbing down was also used by people who were avid 2e/AD&D players to lable 3rd Edition. What I have a hard time understanding is why people think that 4E is Just about killing things for kewl lewts and "pwning those silly n00bs". I can clearly see that many of the powers, spells, exploits, etc.. are often used for combat scenarios but that's just 1/2 of the picture. Take for example, the *Essassin's Shadow Coffin feature at 13th level (an ability, I might add, they took out of the "final product"). This ability allowed an Essassin to take a dead body and magically store it into a small or tiny sized object to be dispensed later. While not having any game-breaking combat effects it was a pretty flavorful and neat trick they got. It has TONS of RP capability and can be used with a wide variety of situational shenanigans. It's abilities like that which attract me to 4E. In v3.5 that ability would've been a spell with daily usages or an ability with daily usages or some abstract feature with heavy mechanics.
*Note: I use the term Essassin to differentiate between the Essentials Executioner Assassin class and the normal Assassin class.
My point is, there is as much flavor and RP as a gamer wants to infuse with 4E. Yes, you can play it straight hack'n'slash, kill monster, gain XP, score kewl lewts, and go onto next Instant...er I mean adventure. But it can also be a great game with loads of Role-Playing, which isn't steered in any diretion by the rules. Like I said earlier, the game elements and rules are mostly for combat, which by and far, require rules for balance issues and what things any character can accomplish. But outside the sphere of combat, the rules are very very lite. This means that there is HUGE room for RP of a variety of styles at the whim of PCs and DMs. I find it refreshing, IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
D&D has always been about the social interaction and roleplay. That was its appeal... the rules were secondary. The market Hasbro/WotC is currently after is already dominated by Video Games - where you go in, grab 'phat lewts', and get out. D&D was supposed to be for people who wanted more.
You can't have your cake and eat it to - you want the DM there so you can break the rules (which you can't do in a VG), but you don't want the social interaction. That's not going to work. There is no 'middle-ground', which appears to be what WotC is trying to create. Instead of pleasing the largest demographic of people, you are going to please the least. Some folks will want more, and others less, but very few are going to find its a 'perfect fit'.
Why isn't there social interaction? I ask this because I don't see a difference between v3.5 and 4E when it comes to what or who proceeds with the out-of-combat stuff. We all know that a good 70-80% of v3.5 was rules heavy for combat material. But the other 20-30% was about rules for non-combat stuff. 4E just said, why are there rules for non-combat stuff? At our gaming table, most of the RP situations rarely call for the dice to be rolled. There have been plenty of times that we just RP. Sure, when investigating a crime or doing things that don't require interaction with NPCs a character might use a power or ritual to make his task easier. But that's nothing new to the game of D&D. It's the whole reason why they made Rituals as non-combat spells in the first place.
What I do think is that many people see all the power cards, the distinction between Encounter and Daily powers and think: "This is for combat only?! Sheesh where's the fluff?!" but that's just it, it's for combat only if you want it to be. Tons of Wizard utility spells are deisgned to get around an problem or help out in a non-combative way. I think the spells/powers in and of themselves SEEM like they should be used for combat and thinking outside of the box for their uses is bad....but that's not the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I have a feeling the D&D line is going to go the way of the Heroscape line, and get blended into the 'toys with rules' category. If they were smart they'd try to get their hands on the Heroclix property from Wizkids and go with that (which appears to be precisely the direction they are going) - they are trying to "re-invent the wheel". Most of those minis were damn nice (far better then the ugly little melted lumps produced for D&D), and they already have a very simple and fast set of combat rules in-place. Just add a teensy bit of roleplay and your good to go.
And this is all coming from someone who plans to run Essentials! I don't want to see D&D die, and I am hoping Mike Mearls can somehow save it. If he does, someone should buy that man a 'Superman' suit.
I can definilty agree that most of the D&D miniatures are pretty poor on the design and painting area. Not to mention that they re-use all sorts of molds for different characters. If I had the money and time, I'd buy more and more Reaper miniatures and go to town with painting them the way I see fit. Alas, I don't and I'm stuck with the little plastic guys who's paint is so pugnent we get high when we open the box, lol.
But to what you said, I don't think D&D is on any verge of dying or becoming so unlike what it once was. Rules for combat have changed, the definition of classes has changed, but that openess has the capacity to take on all sorts of design changes and even more open to Homebrew restrictions or re-classification. An example would be only Eladin/elves may become Swordmages, or only Runepriests can be Dwarves. Palaidns in your 4E game may only be LG and clerics of evil alignment cast spells with the Necrotic keyword rather than the Radiant keyword. It's so open that those changes are very very minimal and soo easy to incorporate into existing campaigns. The reverse is true for previous editions, but I think there is just too much history for that change to become acceptable at most gaming tables.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In prior editions, I played more than one fighter. I never played a paladin. I love the fighter class, and I don't understand how it's not a "staying class" or only worthy of a "level dip."
That's the Character Optimization talking in me. Personally, I've never felt the fighter to be all that great in terms of staying power with other classes, even non-spellcasting classes of 3e/v3.5. Rogues deal far more damage and are worth their salt in any dungeon. Not to mention they can scout extreamly well. Paladins deal more damage than Rogues do (on a 1 per encounter basis), can act as a secondary healer, and has a homing beacon for evil-doers. Not to mention immunity to diseases and saving throws that can make a Monk blush.
What the fighter lacked wasn't class features, it was a greater number of combat style feats. The fighter as TONS of feats including his character level ones and possibly ones gained from Regional and Flaws. What a straight level 20 fighter hoped to accomplish was aquiring large amounts of tactical maneuvers that could suppress a multitude of foes through feat selection.
This takes some real engineer work on your build and class progression. Feat selection at critical levels is pretty much a key point. Not only that, but you also had to rely on a variety of magical items to keep pace with spellcasters if you wanted to contribute to a high level party. To me, it just was better for the nice 2 to 3 feat bonus for a 4 level dip. And most people went to 4th level only for Weapon Specialization then moved on to bigger and better classes and PrCs.
My main beef is, there are other classes that do the fighter's job with far less planning. The fighter lacked focus. If you wanted a big defender guy with lots of HP and a good attack: the paladin, crusader, knight, and the barbarian (built right) could do that better than the fighter. If you wanted a pure damage guy: The rogue, barbarian, paladin, warblade, and scout were better than the fighter. The fighter was left with too little a niche to fill except syphoning off a few levels for bonus feats.
|
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Nov 2010 04:39:19 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 06:20:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan<snip>Take for example, the *Essassin's Shadow Coffin feature at 13th level (an ability, I might add, they took out of the "final product"). This ability allowed an Essassin to take a dead body and magically store it into a small or tiny sized object to be dispensed later. While not having any game-breaking combat effects it was a pretty flavorful and neat trick they got. It has TONS of RP capability and can be used with a wide variety of situational shenanigans. It's abilities like that which attract me to 4E. In v3.5 that ability would've been a spell with daily usages or an ability with daily usages or some abstract feature with heavy mechanics.<snip>
LOL, you walked right into it. That sounds so much like the Bioware games (from Baldur's Gate through Knights of the Old Republic and up to Dragon Age) where you're able to stuff dead bodies in you backpack for transport. I always laughed that you could carry multiple dead bodies and it took up no more space than a sword AND no one noticed anything, even when you're walking through the markets.  |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 14:26:01
|
| If you're looking for the 3e feel, why not play 3e? 4e is not the same game, but I feel the topic has veered away from Essentials-- which had the sole goal of making an easier entry point for some players (example: my wife). |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 17:57:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
LOL, you walked right into it. That sounds so much like the Bioware games (from Baldur's Gate through Knights of the Old Republic and up to Dragon Age) where you're able to stuff dead bodies in you backpack for transport. I always laughed that you could carry multiple dead bodies and it took up no more space than a sword AND no one noticed anything, even when you're walking through the markets.
Not exactly the same. The body is "magically" placed into a tiny object and stored there. You can only have one body stored in Shadow Coffin at a time. So no weight restrictions (which there should've been in a video game), no unsightly appearances of a body thrown over your shoulder. I think it's a cool ability that has some great uses but not "broken" in any sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
If you're looking for the 3e feel, why not play 3e? 4e is not the same game, but I feel the topic has veered away from Essentials-- which had the sole goal of making an easier entry point for some players (example: my wife).
Yea, no game can give the same feeling as 3e than....3e (Pathfinder does come close ). But all i'm going to say on the matter is that the best formed opinions are the ones based on experience.
Getting back to the Original Topic: I just realized yesterday that WotC has made an error in their release date for the new Executioner assassin class. The "final" version people saw in this month's Dragon Issue isn't the actual final version (*phew, thank God*). They released a statement saying that the R&D team and the DDI Team's schedules were different and the version published was a rough draft of the final Executioner. While I'm somewhat angered that they screwed it up, it shows that they're going to some lengths to be transparent with their work-in-progress and came out to apologize for the mix up. That says a lot to me and I'm happy for it. But now is the time to really put the pressure on the Feedback threads to get them to Fix their Executioner (ie. putting back Unseen Spearhand, Attack Finesse, and Kukri Lung AND Shadow Coffin!!).
Also, saw info on the new Classes from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. The paladin looks amazing. No more Cha or Str for their attacks. It's all Str and Charisma back up their power's benefits. And they finally get their mount back at 4th level. In addition to that, with some feat investment, Paladins get a Huge Silver Dragon as a mount in Epic Tiers. That's pretty bad-a$$!! Looking forward to getting my copy soon. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2010 : 22:02:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
If you're looking for the 3e feel, why not play 3e? 4e is not the same game, but I feel the topic has veered away from Essentials-- which had the sole goal of making an easier entry point for some players (example: my wife).
I have to agree. We are straying in the direction of another 3E vs. 4E throwdown, and we really don't need to have that discussion yet again. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2010 : 20:09:42
|
So with my wife's imput, I re-created her Eladrin wizard into an Essentials Mage character and I think she's going to be very pleased with how the class works. She chose Enchantment as her main school and Pyromancy as a secondary school. And I have to admit, the enchantment school's powers are really unique and, I hope, will allow her to be even more useful in combat. Hypnotism alone is a great at-will power that allows her to shift the target 4 squares OR have the target make a MBA against a target of her choice (including itself)! Imagine the hilarity as she "jedi mind tricks" a giant to smash it's own face in with the greatclub it's holding  .
Also, I'm giving her some added benefits as I'm allowing her to add her previous wizard spells to her spellbook such as Acid Mire, Grease, Color Spray, etc... The WHOLE reason why the wizard was so versatile was it's large spell selection so it makes sense to have her spellbook bursting with them.
Anyone grab the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms supplement yet? |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2010 : 23:02:25
|
I actually think this one has been VERY civil and Diffan has the patience of a Saint. Someone needs to canonize him.
If anything, his completely non-defensive manner and specific expalanations and answers to all our questions is just making me want to play Essentials all the more. 
As for those powers you talked about for the Essassin (good one - I LOVE word-play), they would fit a new model I'm building for HB system (Secondary Feats). 4e is suffering from the same dilemma that 2e & 3e did with its options - unless a Feat/Skill gives some kewl advantage people just aren't going to take it (which is a damn shame, because there are a lot of flavor feats - and 2e kits - that no-one bothers with for that reason). The most obvious (2e) example of this is how they had to split-off language skills from the rest, because no-one wanted to waste the skill slots.
I happen to like how they fixed that with language skills, and considered a multi-tiered Feat/Skill system (which I may someday get back to, unless 4e proves to be my 'ultimate system'). Basically, have three different tiers of 'feats', called Feats (oh-DOH!), Skills, and Talents. You get skills (points) every level, and you also get Feats every level, but the feats would be of two kinds, and you would get the lower-tier ones every other level. I've also considered added-in the racial/regional feats to this (and keeping skills out.. although they really should be part of the same system).
A point-based system is optimal, and I started work on one until I realized it would encourage min-maxing far more.
Anyhow, my point is that ideally, roleplay-specific feats should be given separately, so as to still be an option for Optimizers. Those Essassin feats you mentioned, for instance. I think that would better serve the duel-audience they are hoping for - 'PhatLewts' style players may pick them without really caring about them, while role-players would embrace them to make their character stand-out from the crowd. If they are incorporated into the same system as combat-effective feats, they will never get used (even by folks who like them, because there are better options available).
In fact, you can create an entire tier of 'background feats' that takes the place of 3e's Prcs - specific abilities learned by the PC from various groups and organizations in your world (Red wizards, Purple Dragons, Shadow-thieves, etc, etc...). This adds in a certain 'kewlness factor' to characters, without having them give up the sweetest 'build'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Nov 2010 23:06:17 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2010 : 14:38:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I actually think this one has been VERY civil and Diffan has the patience of a Saint. Someone needs to canonize him.
If anything, his completely non-defensive manner and specific expalanations and answers to all our questions is just making me want to play Essentials all the more.
Thanks man! Though my wife may disagree with you on the saint part . And I have to agree, while we do venture into the "what 3E does vs. what 4E does" debate, it hasn't gotten nearly as....passionate as other threads and I appreciate that.
What it comes down to is personal preference and if I can convey the interesting parts of 4E/Essentials to instil that nugget of interest, then I feel I've helped close the gap between the whole edition war.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for those powers you talked about for the Essassin (good one - I LOVE word-play), they would fit a new model I'm building for HB system (Secondary Feats). 4e is suffering from the same dilemma that 2e & 3e did with its options - unless a Feat/Skill gives some kewl advantage people just aren't going to take it (which is a damn shame, because there are a lot of flavor feats - and 2e kits - that no-one bothers with for that reason). The most obvious (2e) example of this is how they had to split-off language skills from the rest, because no-one wanted to waste the skill slots.
Sadly, this is too true. Take the 4E's example of an article from DDI all about Meilikki. It was really well done, lots of flavor for a deity I think didn't get enough spot-ight, and had some decent options for rangers. Problem was, a lot of it's powers were made for forest settings (duh!!) and the Char-Ops boards shredded the article saying that the powers and feats were worthless because they were too focused. In a setting or campiagn where you'd likely found a ranger dedicated to Meilikki, there's a good bet that it'll be outside. But I'm sure people who read up on Ranger options will see their opinions and say "yea, better options somewhere else".
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I happen to like how they fixed that with language skills, and considered a multi-tiered Feat/Skill system (which I may someday get back to, unless 4e proves to be my 'ultimate system'). Basically, have three different tiers of 'feats', called Feats (oh-DOH!), Skills, and Talents. You get skills (points) every level, and you also get Feats every level, but the feats would be of two kinds, and you would get the lower-tier ones every other level. I've also considered added-in the racial/regional feats to this (and keeping skills out.. although they really should be part of the same system).
Well something I noticed since 4E's debut was how feats have really taken a backseat to character creation. They're still very important, but now lack the sort of "brokeness" of older editions. Now, feats add to your existing class features or boots your powers in some sense. They no longer give your character utlimate power. For an example, take my wife's newly re-formed Mage. She took Destructive Wizardry (+2 extra damage when a spells hits 2 or more enemies) and War Wizardry (spells take a -5 penalty to-hit vs. allies in the area AND if the spell still hits, allies take 1/2 damage). They're nifty tricks, but don't break the Mage class in any sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A point-based system is optimal, and I started work on one until I realized it would encourage min-maxing far more.
Anyhow, my point is that ideally, roleplay-specific feats should be given separately, so as to still be an option for Optimizers. Those Essassin feats you mentioned, for instance. I think that would better serve the duel-audience they are hoping for - 'PhatLewts' style players may pick them without really caring about them, while role-players would embrace them to make their character stand-out from the crowd. If they are incorporated into the same system as combat-effective feats, they will never get used (even by folks who like them, because there are better options available).
In fact, you can create an entire tier of 'background feats' that takes the place of 3e's Prcs - specific abilities learned by the PC from various groups and organizations in your world (Red wizards, Purple Dragons, Shadow-thieves, etc, etc...). This adds in a certain 'kewlness factor' to characters, without having them give up the sweetest 'build'.
Some very interesting ideas there Markus. When I DM my Heroes of the Moonsea campaign, I'm going to incorporate some of them. I'm already allowing a free Regional feat at 1st level. When you talk about adding in a "coolness" factor gained by say....an organization, I think there already some rules involved such as Guild-abilities. I also don't require them to take the Guild-Traning feats to benefit from a guild or organization. I think anyone with the right RP factor could be a Purple Dragon or Red Wizard or whatever and going into those PrCs means your an honored member of that organization. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2010 : 23:57:45
|
My idea back in 3e was to give a Feat at each level. There would be three feat levels - Primary, Secondary, and background. At level one, you would get all three (those lowbies need all the help they can get). Then at level 2 they get a second background feat, at level 3 a primary (combat) Feat, and at level 4 a Secondary (flavor) Feat. Then rinse and repeat (so characters would still get the 'real' feats every 3rd level, just like in the standard rules).
Background feats would include many racial abilities, or boost existing ones (I would have to do something along the lines of Savage Species, wherein the racial bonuses are gained slowly over time, or augmented). For this, think of those wonderful (but never used) Racial Paragon PrCs. This is precisely the place where the Woodshaping feats would go we talked about in the other thread. It would be as much about race as it would be about region.
Secondary feats would not just be for flavor - they would also be useful, but only under certain situations; like those feats that only work when you are working alongside someone else who has them, or those feats you mentioned for the Mielikki Ranger, or even those more esoteric abilities you mentioned for the Essassin. All very cool, but nothing anyone would take if they had to give up a 'build Feat'. So whereas background feats are all about where you came from, secondary feats are about things you've learned along the way (job-skills).
The way in-which I thought of connecting them to PrC (group/guild) abilities has to do with how many of 3e's PrC powers fall into this secondary 'flavor' category. For instance, there are three different PrC's that give circle-casting... how often does that actually come up in play? Unless you are fighting a GROUP of Red Wizards, its a lousy prestige option, and really only useful to a DM (when's the last time you ran in a party of just Rashemi witches?)
Those types of Feats should be given the same treatment non-combat magic was given in 4e. Don't just throw it away - present it in such a way that folks will still be able to use them if they want to, without having to give up any 'firepower' in a combat situation. Seriously, how many folks actually choose divination spells in 1e/2e/3e when their was an destructive option available?
Unfortunately, it was just these things that make D&D what it is - they inspire our imaginations and make us think outside the box. If you 'unclutter' the rules too much (which I fear 4e may have done), things start to look a little 'washed-out', but leave the clutter in and you have a lot of stuff most gamers will never use, and just over-complicate the system.
That's why a system such as mine, with 3 tiers of Feats, would allow people to scale their individual campaigns to their style of play. I think Essentials is actually moving in that very direction, which is great, and I'm all for it. If you don't like something (like flavor feats), just ignore them and don't use them, and nothing gets broken. It just means in very specific situations, the Roleplayer (who has taken some of those oddball feats) will be able to beat the Rollplayer who has ignored them, but the reverse wouldn't be true, because the flavor-player didn't have to sacrifice the build-feats to get what he wanted. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Nov 2010 00:07:15 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 07:52:37
|
I agree with your reasoning completely, Markus, with only one caveat:quote:
Markustay
For instance, there are three different PrC's that give circle-casting... how often does that actually come up in play? Unless you are fighting a GROUP of Red Wizards, its a lousy prestige option, and really only useful to a DM (when's the last time you ran in a party of just Rashemi witches?)
In this particular example, the circle-casting feats are indeed useful for players. Yes, you're unlikely to see entire PC parties composed of such characters. But even just two or three of the same (not all that unlikely) are usually enough to work together. Easier still if a NPC, or a few NPCs, or entire circles of NPCs of the same type are available - something that is easily done in role-playing campaigns where PCs interact a great deal with society.
Although, yes, your general logic about this level of feats is still entirely sound; I just wouldn't personally group this particular feat in that group, given the playstyle at my table. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2010 : 17:50:44
|
I always looked at any feat that requires someone else to have the same feat for it to be usable as a 'second tier' feat, simply because it is only functional in a specific situation.
In your games this has come-up, which is great, but I've never used it. Dwarves have a few feats like that pertaining to their defensive fighting style.
The line would have to be drawn somewhere, and any feat that is 'conditional' (dependent upon the environment or others) is the best place to draw that line, IMHO. What you say is true, but that can be applied to any feat like this; for example, take the Mielikki Ranger you described earlier - in a forest campaign, that class might rock. For a group running a campaign like that, those feats would probably be more of the 'first tier' variety, but that would be specific to that group, and others like it. The rules need to be generic-enough to pertain to everyone.
The DM always has the option of moving a feat that is overpowered for his particular campaign from Group 'B' to Group 'A'.
All IMHO, of course. Game-theory is a tricky thing, since everyone has their own ideas about the elusive 'perfect system'. I'm actually hoping that the game table turns into something extraordinary - there are tons and tons of combat rules (like 'hit-locations') that don't make it into most P&P games because they bog-down combat. What I wouldn't do for an engine like the one used in WoW, but where I get to control all the bad-guys! Imagine having to just run the game, without having to do any of the math, die-rolling, or a lot of the encounter-stuff in advance (just drop and drag!)
Part of the reason why I am honing my Photoshop skills is because I feel the future of gaming will be in dungeon-design (think 'mods' like so many games have now - the modding-community produces some awesome stuff). You give me a program where I can place elements for a live-encounter, and that's just PURE win. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 23 Nov 2010 17:51:36 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 16:13:28
|
I agree that certain feats just don't fit the bill when it comes to Character generation. Take the Skill Bonus feats (Athletic, Deft Hands, etc..) for example. They're nice to have, sure, but I'd never waste one of my limited feats on their small bonuses. They would all be moved to Second Tier feats as well as Skill Focus.
The feats your talking about Markus are the Team feats, where if a few people in your party have them, they give you a bonus to a specific combat strategy or specific action. These would be either tier 2 or 3 depending on campaign. I'd NEVER make a character take Traning in Guild feats, Initiate Feats, or Regional feats in place of something more valuable. Those are the sorts of feats that do better at enhancing the flavor of your character and have very minimal benefits in the Roll-playing aspect of the game.
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 17:10:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I agree that certain feats just don't fit the bill when it comes to Character generation. Take the Skill Bonus feats (Athletic, Deft Hands, etc..) for example. They're nice to have, sure, but I'd never waste one of my limited feats on their small bonuses. They would all be moved to Second Tier feats as well as Skill Focus.
Heh... Pathfinder fixed that. If you take Skill Focus, you get a +3 bonus; but if you have 10 or more ranks in the skill, you get a +6 bonus. Same as with feats like Stealthy: +2 or +4 with 10 or more ranks. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 17:44:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Heh... Pathfinder fixed that. If you take Skill Focus, you get a +3 bonus; but if you have 10 or more ranks in the skill, you get a +6 bonus. Same as with feats like Stealthy: +2 or +4 with 10 or more ranks.
OK, this is something I like. Bonuses that graduate as you attain ranks in a skill are an excellent idea.
On the DM side of things it's cool too because you can throw some crazy insane challenges at your players to test their character's skills. This means I get to explain something as really nasty, complex, dangerous, etc...before saying, "OK, roll a skill check." |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 17:50:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Heh... Pathfinder fixed that. If you take Skill Focus, you get a +3 bonus; but if you have 10 or more ranks in the skill, you get a +6 bonus. Same as with feats like Stealthy: +2 or +4 with 10 or more ranks.
Made better, yes. Fixed.....I'll still say no. Now this is from a optimization perspective but unless your going for a specific build where a certain skill is really, really important like Craft for item creation, Intimidate for Intimidating Strike feat, or Spellcraft for concentrating in battle, I just don't see it being a highly used option IMO.
On an On-Topic note: There is this article in DDi about Hexblades using Fey pacts and how they can choose options that stylize Fey and eldritch powers and the Moon. It gave me a great idea for a Drow hexblade worshipper of Elistraee (she's still alive and well in my campaign). I mean, their At-will power is called Moon-blade!! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2010 : 20:08:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Heh... Pathfinder fixed that. If you take Skill Focus, you get a +3 bonus; but if you have 10 or more ranks in the skill, you get a +6 bonus. Same as with feats like Stealthy: +2 or +4 with 10 or more ranks.
Made better, yes. Fixed.....I'll still say no. Now this is from a optimization perspective but unless your going for a specific build where a certain skill is really, really important like Craft for item creation, Intimidate for Intimidating Strike feat, or Spellcraft for concentrating in battle, I just don't see it being a highly used option IMO.
Don't really want to derail the scroll further, but: Bards = Perform, Rogues = Sneaky skills, etc. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2010 : 17:14:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Don't really want to derail the scroll further, but: Bards = Perform, Rogues = Sneaky skills, etc.
Yea, I get that. Problem is, their skills aren't as essential to their builds (ie, using feats to boost them) as feats that boost the Rogue's ability to sneak attack more or for more damage (the Two-Weapon Fighting build comes to mind) OR the Bard's ability to use their bardic music ability in a variety of ways, espically when the Perform check is a stationary DC. Once you get the certain level to consistantly beat that DC, feats that boost Perform become less valuable.
And getting back to the Original Topic: Has anyone bought the Rules Compendium, Monster Vault, or DM guide-thingy?? I've been thinking about getting these but not really sure if they're worth the investment since I have the MM 1 and 2, and the MM 3 on PDF? |
Edited by - Diffan on 26 Nov 2010 17:15:35 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 01:15:16
|
Slightly more derailing before continuing on:
Bard's Perform skill check can be used in Countersong/Distraction to replace an ally's save roll for magic spells/effects involving sound (Countersong) or visual (Distraction) effects. Also, with Versatile Performance for bards, they can use specific Perform skills to replace other skills [Perform (Dance) can replace Acrobatics, Peform (Oratory) can replace Diplomacy, etc.]
Rogue skills like Hide and Bluff can insure that they can sneak attack an opponent they might not be able to regularly. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2010 : 19:16:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Slightly more derailing before continuing on:
Bard's Perform skill check can be used in Countersong/Distraction to replace an ally's save roll for magic spells/effects involving sound (Countersong) or visual (Distraction) effects. Also, with Versatile Performance for bards, they can use specific Perform skills to replace other skills [Perform (Dance) can replace Acrobatics, Peform (Oratory) can replace Diplomacy, etc.]
Rogue skills like Hide and Bluff can insure that they can sneak attack an opponent they might not be able to regularly.
Be that as it may, I still don't think a feat is worth the investment. No matter how you sweeten the deal, a bonus to a skill isn't as high up on the list than half of the feats you could take in it's place. For myself, it's just not my cup of tea. |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2010 : 11:43:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And getting back to the Original Topic: Has anyone bought the Rules Compendium, Monster Vault, or DM guide-thingy?? I've been thinking about getting these but not really sure if they're worth the investment since I have the MM 1 and 2, and the MM 3 on PDF?
I purchased the Rules Compendium. I find it a useful and more compact tool to have at the table when needing to look up a rule. Plus, it's more up to date than the Player's handbook and some of the rules are clearer. (if you use the character builder, it can be the only book you really need to own as a player - although I like having books ) good book to have IMO |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2010 : 13:51:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
I purchased the Rules Compendium. I find it a useful and more compact tool to have at the table when needing to look up a rule. Plus, it's more up to date than the Player's handbook and some of the rules are clearer. (if you use the character builder, it can be the only book you really need to own as a player - although I like having books ) good book to have IMO
Well looks like that will go on my x-mas list! Probably try to get the Monster Vault too. I always love more bad-guys to throw at my party. |
Edited by - Diffan on 29 Nov 2010 13:53:25 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2010 : 14:13:36
|
| The Rules Compendium is in my top 3 for most useful 4e books. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2010 : 18:57:02
|
So, I saw that the new Executioner Essassin build came out last Tuesday and from the very critical 4e Optimization boards, is a fairly decent class.
I haven't had the chance to really delve into the class but from the brief glance I got, it seemed pretty interesting. Some features they replaced like Shadow Coffin, but it was changed into an Encounter power. Still, it's an interesting feature.
Also, no Unseen Spearhand  which is a shame because even though the power was pretty strong, it wasn't as "broken" as many people believe. Oh well, I guess I can easily homebrew the power.
Looking to buy the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms on Sunday. I'll have more insight as to those classes (Cavalier, Sentinel, Scout, Hexblade, etc..) |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2011 : 16:27:31
|
So my friend got the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms which present the Druid: Sentinel; Paladin: Cavalier; Ranger: Hunter, Scout; and Warlock: Hexblade classes. Over all the product quality is much like that of the Heroes of the Fallen Lands book, which is pretty good.
Also, the book has info and stats for the Dragonborn, Drow, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and Tieflings. They've added the "flex-stats" for these races, giving one automatic bonus to one score and allowing an option for the other bonus. The Drow, for example, gain a +2 to Dex and either a +2 to Wisdom or Charisma. This allows Drow scouts to really, REALLY excell in that class as well as other Ranger/Assassin/Fighter classes. Alternatively, the +2 Dex and +2 Charisma work towards good Sorcerer, Paladin, Ardent, and Warlock builds. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2011 : 05:56:06
|
So it's been a while since I posted on the topic but an interview I read over on the WotC (Obligatory link)boards had something very interesting to say:
[~snip~]
Q: Are there plans for future support for pre-Essentials classes beyond open paragon paths and indirect power choices?
A: Yes. We are in the process of finalizing DDI content plans for the coming year. Based on community feedback, we are going to make sure that we roll out support for existing classes and find ways to shore up classes that are seen as under-supported.
[~snip~]
So there ya have it, Essentials was a little phase in the grand scheme of 4E. Now, i'm pretty sure we'll still see Essential support such as additional class options but possibly not full-out books like Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
As such, I'm very happy about the new for one, to keep the constant complaints down and two, finally squash the whole Essentials = 4.5 BS that's still going on after almost 6 months.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
4e Essentials
