| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Nov 2011 : 15:50:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
Was it in 2nd Ed where only fighters (not ranger/paladins/etc) could specialize in a weapon?
It may have also been in 2e, but in 3.x to take feats beyond Weapon Focus in the Weapon Focus tree you needed to be a fighter. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 00:11:31
|
Which was way too easy to navigate around by taking a one-level dip.
I once said over at the WotC site that EVERY character should start out a fighter, and then decide which way they want to go after that. Until 4e, I would still say that. I don't know any class that can't use the extra HP at 1st level. In 3e, with is less-restrictive multi-classing, its practically a no-brainer - there are too many benefits not to take the dip (Feats, weapons, armor, etc).
I think 4e may have finally gotten around that - I haven't played it so I can't be sure. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Nov 2011 00:14:33 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 01:59:08
|
I'd really prefer that base classes be kept, but don't force those classes into specific roles. Each class should have many possible roles.
For example, allow the player of a mage decide if he wants to be a controller or not. Have choices in every class that allow you to build your party role, based on what you want the character to become.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 12:57:15
|
| It would really be difficult to be a mage defender (in example) without a real dedication within the confines of the system. Otherwise, you would have to uproot the system. In addition, how much would your dedication to such a role be at the detriment of your party? |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 13:42:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Which was way too easy to navigate around by taking a one-level dip.
I once said over at the WotC site that EVERY character should start out a fighter, and then decide which way they want to go after that. Until 4e, I would still say that. I don't know any class that can't use the extra HP at 1st level. In 3e, with is less-restrictive multi-classing, its practically a no-brainer - there are too many benefits not to take the dip (Feats, weapons, armor, etc).
I think 4e may have finally gotten around that - I haven't played it so I can't be sure.
Actually, you needed X levels in fighter to be able to qualify for the feats. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 13:44:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
It would really be difficult to be a mage defender (in example) without a real dedication within the confines of the system. Otherwise, you would have to uproot the system. In addition, how much would your dedication to such a role be at the detriment of your party?
No detriment if the fighter could be a striker, the rogue a leader and the cleric a controller. |
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 - 09 Nov 2011 : 13:54:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Which was way too easy to navigate around by taking a one-level dip.
Or a 4 level dip for 3 bonus Fighter feats and pretty much access to upper-tier feats like Weapon Mastery (v3.5 PHB2)
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I once said over at the WotC site that EVERY character should start out a fighter, and then decide which way they want to go after that. Until 4e, I would still say that. I don't know any class that can't use the extra HP at 1st level. In 3e, with is less-restrictive multi-classing, its practically a no-brainer - there are too many benefits not to take the dip (Feats, weapons, armor, etc).
I think 4e may have finally gotten around that - I haven't played it so I can't be sure.
While I feel making such a thing a "requirement" isn't the best idea, I've always been a fan of higher HP at 1st level (4E fixed that) and no penalities for using weapons (though you don't get a proficiency bonus). I've found the whole idea of "dipping" a main contributor to the explosion of Min/Maxing. Sure, each edition has some of it but I think it's more prominent in 3E than in any other edition.
4E does have Multiclassing but's its through feats and it's restrictive to 1 multiclass feat per character except the bard, which has no restriction. To me, this gives a character a more of "dabble" sense instead of an intense training that nets you weapon, armor, and skill proficienceis like in 3E. For example, a 4th Edition wizard could take a feat to Multiclass into Fighter and he'd have access to certain feats, powers, and 1 skill from the Fighter class though his weapon/armor proficiencies stay the same. in 3E a wizard multiclasses with fighter and gets d10 HD, Fort bonus, Climb, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Swim skill proficiencies, and a bonus Fighter feat right off the bat. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 16:27:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
It would really be difficult to be a mage defender (in example) without a real dedication within the confines of the system. Otherwise, you would have to uproot the system. In addition, how much would your dedication to such a role be at the detriment of your party?
More "outside the box" thinking is necessary for a 5E, I think. Why couldn't an "Assault Swordmage" with magic shields and rooting / marking abilities be a good defender build?
Alternatively, what about a fighter who is pure striker? Or a different type of fighter who is a controller, who might use ranged weapons like shuriken?
Perhaps if players had more freedom in defining their own party roles, rather than forcing a role based on their chosen class, it might be a lot of fun to see what kinds of "builds" could be creatively made?
It also would be really cool if players could modify their roles. Not -during- combat, but perhaps having the ability to change things up between combats as necessary if they lose a party member or need to re-adjust party balance. This might seem similar to "spec" and gearing changes in WoW, but why not? Couldn't a warrior shift from a defender role to a striker role by switching out for lighter armor and different weapons?
EDIT: I also hope they delete the whole concept of 1-hp "minions" who go down after a single blow. I really HATE that idea, although I understand the intent behind it. It injects the MMO concept of "trash mobs" which only are there to be in the way.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 09 Nov 2011 17:14:34 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 18:08:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
It would really be difficult to be a mage defender (in example) without a real dedication within the confines of the system. Otherwise, you would have to uproot the system. In addition, how much would your dedication to such a role be at the detriment of your party?
More "outside the box" thinking is necessary for a 5E, I think. Why couldn't an "Assault Swordmage" with magic shields and rooting / marking abilities be a good defender build?
Alternatively, what about a fighter who is pure striker? Or a different type of fighter who is a controller, who might use ranged weapons like shuriken?
4E did something similar with their Sub-Classes of the Essential products. A "slayer" (example) is a sub-class of the Fighter, receives Fighter beneifts such as Armor, Weapon, and Skill proficiency yet has mechanics more inline with dealing pure damage and no Marking mechanic. Additionally, a Hunter (ranger sub-class) is a Controller, using a bow to dish out controller benefits and the like. There are other examples, but those help clarify that the design is already there and based off the basic classes.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Perhaps if players had more freedom in defining their own party roles, rather than forcing a role based on their chosen class, it might be a lot of fun to see what kinds of "builds" could be creatively made?
It also would be really cool if players could modify their roles. Not -during- combat, but perhaps having the ability to change things up between combats as necessary if they lose a party member or need to re-adjust party balance. This might seem similar to "spec" and gearing changes in WoW, but why not? Couldn't a warrior shift from a defender role to a striker role by switching out for lighter armor and different weapons?
I get what your saying and I think it's an avenue worth pursuing. I think it's intersting that with a few tweaks, the class your playing can instantly become good at another role. While this modularity is some what present in D&D now (and in previous editions), it took a good amount of system mastery to gain any benefits from these "quick swaps" (for lack of a better term). There was something that was mentioned in the Heroes of the Feywild (4E) about Barbarians Raging and becoming "Strikers" and when they weren't, they were more Defenders. So maybe they're already leaning towards that style?
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
EDIT: I also hope they delete the whole concept of 1-hp "minions" who go down after a single blow. I really HATE that idea, although I understand the intent behind it. It injects the MMO concept of "trash mobs" which only are there to be in the way.
I actually thought this was a good concept for the game. Monsters that go down pretty easy yet are dangerous given their numbers and stats. It really depends on the feel your trying to obtain from the monsters and I've used minions quite often in my games. One movie reference that clearly sticks in my mind is Gimli from The Two Towers where he stands atop the Battlements of Helms Deep cleaving orc upon orc as they mount the ladders. This gives a more cinematic feel than monsters you have to spend rounds upon rounds of killings. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 18:58:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
4E did something similar with their Sub-Classes of the Essential products. A "slayer" (example) is a sub-class of the Fighter, receives Fighter beneifts such as Armor, Weapon, and Skill proficiency yet has mechanics more inline with dealing pure damage and no Marking mechanic. Additionally, a Hunter (ranger sub-class) is a Controller, using a bow to dish out controller benefits and the like. There are other examples, but those help clarify that the design is already there and based off the basic classes.
And I do like the idea of sub-classes in 4E. It just still feels like they could go a bit farther in terms of opening up options for players within a class rather than needing to go down the road of a sub-class (or in 3.5E, a prestige class). To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what my "more options, less rigidity" thing would actually look like in terms of class design. But it seems like a clever Monte could figure out something that builds on 4E. 
quote:
I get what your saying and I think it's an avenue worth pursuing. I think it's intersting that with a few tweaks, the class your playing can instantly become good at another role. While this modularity is some what present in D&D now (and in previous editions), it took a good amount of system mastery to gain any benefits from these "quick swaps" (for lack of a better term). There was something that was mentioned in the Heroes of the Feywild (4E) about Barbarians Raging and becoming "Strikers" and when they weren't, they were more Defenders. So maybe they're already leaning towards that style?
I think they are also.
quote:
I actually thought this was a good concept for the game. Monsters that go down pretty easy yet are dangerous given their numbers and stats. It really depends on the feel your trying to obtain from the monsters and I've used minions quite often in my games. One movie reference that clearly sticks in my mind is Gimli from The Two Towers where he stands atop the Battlements of Helms Deep cleaving orc upon orc as they mount the ladders. This gives a more cinematic feel than monsters you have to spend rounds upon rounds of killings.
And Legolas, downing people/orcs with rapid fire arrows. But honestly, it actually feels silly to me, those moments in LotR and other movies. For me, it breaks that sense of reality, it's when things become a little too easy. I know it's supposed to be a heroic cinematic battle with Heroes (capital H and all), but I really prefer a sense of realism. Too much overuse of these 1-hp minions, and it starts to feel like these enemies are all a bunch of wandering glass cannons and not truly dangerous beasts/enemies that have been training for months or years. Monsters shouldn't have a save-or-die (in this case, avoid-or-die) statistic any more than PCs should, if that makes sense.
When I'm in a 4E battle with lots of minions, I kinda grit my teeth and just make sure I pew-pew them down before the tank/others soak up too much damage. It doesn't feel cinematic or heroic, really. It feels like shooting fish in a barrel. Sure, they're piranha with teeth, but they're still going down immediately as long as I hit them.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 09 Nov 2011 19:03:49 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Nov 2011 : 22:29:28
|
| I personally prefer the "archetypes" of Pathfinder, which closely resemble the "kits" of 2e. I have not really ever felt the need to multi-class or take a prestige class since I started playing Pathfinder. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 14:14:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I personally prefer the "archetypes" of Pathfinder, which closely resemble the "kits" of 2e. I have not really ever felt the need to multi-class or take a prestige class since I started playing Pathfinder.
As I'm starting to get into another Pathfinder game I've been going over a lot of the Archtypes for multiple classes. Some of them are pretty interesting and cool and are "sometimes" balanced. Yet I've viewed just as many that are, what I'd consider, really bad choices. One for the paladin, called Empyreal Knight, is just plain horrible. You lose Divine Grace (Cha-mod to all saves) to speak and read Celestial....? You gain some angelic features of energy resistance, bonus to saves vs. poison, and (probably the best) immunity to petrification. Yet for all of this they lose out on their Mercy feature, notably one of the paladin's most versatile features. Then they receive the ability to call celestial allies (full-round action) to use Summon Monster I thru XI (angels/archons only) which sounds awesome...until you find out that you lose your Lay on Hands AND Channel Positive Energy features. This is but one option I've found in the Archtypes that really made me cringe and wonder why they receive such praise. Personally, I think going into a PrC or hells, even using class Sub-Levels of v3.5 was better. |
Edited by - Diffan on 12 Nov 2011 14:18:23 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 19:01:48
|
You'll remember that 2e's kits were also horribly unbalanced - the idea is that they provided more flavor. I liked them, despite all their faults. Of course min-maxers will abuse the crap out of them - they will do that to every rule in the book.
Diffan, as player of 4e, you should be well-aware of what happens when you over-balance a system and suck the flavor right out of things. Not a knock, mind you, just an observation. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some balance for flavor, otherwise everything begins to feel like 'more of the same'. Personally, I used 2e's nerfed kits (ALL kits, actually) as great fodder for NPCs, and would do the same with 3PF's Archtypes. Why does EVERYTHING have to be about the PC's? OD&D wasn't designed that way. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Nov 2011 19:05:31 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 19:58:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You'll remember that 2e's kits were also horribly unbalanced - the idea is that they provided more flavor. I liked them, despite all their faults. Of course min-maxers will abuse the crap out of them - they will do that to every rule in the book.
I played very little of 2E/AD&D, so I barely remember kits. I don't think our DM allowed us to use them anyways (because I don't think he owned them, lol). I do, however, remember sub-levels of 3E and this is kinda where Archtypes fit in. They change/alter/subsume normal class features for an alternative feature. In 3E, more or less, they were balanced. Some were bad yet some were good (even great...note Zhentarim Fighter sub-level) and they gave great flavor. I believe out of the lot of them, the only one that had really any "broken" combos was the Mystic Knight sub-level for Mystra's paladins and I can't even remember the obscure way in which it was used.
Some of the Archtypes in Pathfinder are really interesting and I can see a lot of balance there in addition to cool themes and styles presented with the classes. However, there are some that are just bad and have features that can easily be obtained with a lesser punishment. For example I'll refer to the Empyreal Knight's 1st exchange, Divine Grace for read/write Celestial. While only certain classes are trained in Linguistics, I just don't see this benefit as being worth your entire Charisma modifier to saving throws. One feat, trait, or even multiclassing can net you this feature which is, IMO, situation at best and "kinda" flavorful. Were I a DM and a player really wanted them to learn Celestial, I'd probably just make him spend one whole skill rank or just give it to him for free.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Diffan, as player of 4e, you should be well-aware of what happens when you over-balance a system and suck the flavor right out of things. Not a knock, mind you, just an observation. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some balance for flavor, otherwise everything begins to feel like 'more of the same'. Personally, I used 2e's nerfed kits (ALL kits, actually) as great fodder for NPCs, and would do the same with 3PF's Archtypes. Why does EVERYTHING have to be about the PC's? OD&D wasn't designed that way.
Probably because PCs are designed by the game to be the focus point OF THE game, for one. And because the majority of players focus on what they and their allies do or are involved in and not random NPCs, monsters, and such. Balance does NOT have to suffer for more interesting role-playing aspects (as evident of v3.5 Sub-Classes and many Archtypes). To me, it just seems like they really slacked in certain areas or ideas and felt like just leaving it the way it was instead of actually putting more thought into the more poorer options.
Though I think it's funny you mention me playing 4E in relation to over-balance and flavor-draining that some have assigned to 4th Edition. Yes, 4E is more balanced in class-strength than in other editions, but honestly is that a bad thing? Are certain players so egotistical that they feel their character should be more powerful than all others at the table? Sounds like munchkinism in it's purest form to me. I've also never felt restrained by 4E's balance nor do I have a limited imagination to feel constrained by a class's name and how they relate to my character sheet. If I want to play a character who uses a Bow, I'm probably going to play a ranger because they're better at it than a fighter but I can still call myself a "fighter" because I do "fight". I don't see a problem with this at all becacause I'm not referred in character as "hey, Ranger-Guy!!" but by an actual name with a personality and history (none of which is derived by what class I chose to show-case my abilties).
As for the powers and such, I've come to the conclusion that people who feel 4E powers are more-or-less the same have not delved very deeply into the system and have often just gave it a "look-through". They see the color-coded power blocks, the damage expressed in single damgae die or {W} attacks, and some *meh* flavor text and they say it's the same. It's just simply not true. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 19:18:28
|
I was trying to be as neutral-toned as possible, but I guess that will never be the case - my apologies.
All I meant was that at one time, D&D (OD&D) had separate systems for just about everything, which made running it very difficult. In 2e, we had many cases of multiple systems for the same thing, which made matters even worse. This is the downside of 'flavor' - everything felt different, because it was.
Along comes the 4e team, and they decide to streamline the rules, so all classes follow the exact same set of rules (regardless of what powers and sources they are calling upon). This, on the surface, appears to be a VERY good thing, especially to over-worked DMs who would rather put all of their efforts into just running the sessions, and not having to study 20-million different rules.
Only problem is, now all the classes feel the same, because they do what they do following the same pattern. You can call the sources whatever you want. and you can call the powers whatever you want, but damage is damage, when the dice are being rolled the same way, and the same tables are being referenced (are there even tables anymore?) Sure you have AoE and DoTs (just like MORPGs, BTW), but its all just a numbers game now.
My opinion based solely on what I have read and never playing: On the bright side, all the flavor is now in the hands of the DM and Players, and if they are good Roleplayers, then every session will feel different. The crunch no longer determines any of the fluff, and you can still have encounter-free sessions. On the downside, combat itself has become a bit video-gamish, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (its very balanced), but it does seem to take a lot of the mystery out of things - it appears very mechanical to me (once again, from the PoV of someone who hasn't actually played, but rather read what others have been saying).
I am not saying 4e is bad - quite the contrary - I am really starting to see its better points, but I do so miss the flavor of the old days, with all its over-complexity and crazy-named spells. That was part of the game, IMHO - its what made Dungeons & Dragons D&D. 
And I do plan to give 4e a go, very soon, as soon as I set up a game room in the new house. If I could only convince my sister that using a 6' flat-screen TV as a coffee table is a good idea.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 04:47:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
<chop>
Though I think it's funny you mention me playing 4E in relation to over-balance and flavor-draining that some have assigned to 4th Edition. Yes, 4E is more balanced in class-strength than in other editions, but honestly is that a bad thing? Are certain players so egotistical that they feel their character should be more powerful than all others at the table? Sounds like munchkinism in it's purest form to me. I've also never felt restrained by 4E's balance nor do I have a limited imagination to feel constrained by a class's name and how they relate to my character sheet. If I want to play a character who uses a Bow, I'm probably going to play a ranger because they're better at it than a fighter but I can still call myself a "fighter" because I do "fight". I don't see a problem with this at all becacause I'm not referred in character as "hey, Ranger-Guy!!" but by an actual name with a personality and history (none of which is derived by what class I chose to show-case my abilties).
<snip>
Honestly, I'm glad that some people feel that way... for me, if it isn't any more powerful than what the magic-ignorant fighter can do, it just ain't magic. That's why wizards can't wear armor and have such limited weapon choices. And speaking from experience with 3.x and Pathfinder, most of the players I've gamed with, as well as myself, have preferred the non-spellcasting classes. Maybe I've just stumbled into a bad sample set, but it's just as likely that there wasn't any real problem except when one crunched the numbers... which is something I associate with munchkinism, and this has not been a problem in my 3.x games. People optimize their character builds, certainly, but almost never do they play wizards or sorcerers. The groups I'm playing in now (one PF, one 3.5) have a total of eleven PCs, *one* of which is an arcane caster of any description (and he's a plain vanilla wizard, at least as far as the 3.5 class options are concerned). So, honestly, balance in the rules isn't the issue. Player preferences and gaming style is the issue, and if you're playing with a group of munchkins who all play sorcerers just so they can blast the **** out of anything that moves, and you're not having fun because you prefer to play a fighter or rogue, then you need to find a new group, not necessarily a new game. Just my thoughts, and I apologize in advance if I've caused offense. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2012 : 14:55:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
Honestly, I'm glad that some people feel that way... for me, if it isn't any more powerful than what the magic-ignorant fighter can do, it just ain't magic. That's why wizards can't wear armor and have such limited weapon choices. And speaking from experience with 3.x and Pathfinder, most of the players I've gamed with, as well as myself, have preferred the non-spellcasting classes. Maybe I've just stumbled into a bad sample set, but it's just as likely that there wasn't any real problem except when one crunched the numbers... which is something I associate with munchkinism, and this has not been a problem in my 3.x games. People optimize their character builds, certainly, but almost never do they play wizards or sorcerers. The groups I'm playing in now (one PF, one 3.5) have a total of eleven PCs, *one* of which is an arcane caster of any description (and he's a plain vanilla wizard, at least as far as the 3.5 class options are concerned). So, honestly, balance in the rules isn't the issue. Player preferences and gaming style is the issue, and if you're playing with a group of munchkins who all play sorcerers just so they can blast the **** out of anything that moves, and you're not having fun because you prefer to play a fighter or rogue, then you need to find a new group, not necessarily a new game. Just my thoughts, and I apologize in advance if I've caused offense.
No offense taken. I understand that this varies from group to group and table to table and often enough, it's balanced in my home games that it's rarely an issue......well up into the later levels anyways. But imbalance does happen, even if it's not being looked for. An un-optimized wizard can still do the job (fairly well) in place of a Rogue, Ranger, or Fighter. Summon spells practically replace "tanks" at higher levels, and with a little augmentation, do it better AND they're "throw-away" meaning, that the healers don't have to worry about them. Take into account Planar Ally spells and summoning Genies with wishes.....and it gets much much worse.
The Druid is pretty balanced up to 5th-6th level and then leaves non-spellcasting characters in the dust. Animal Companion working as a second up-front defender, the ability to wild shape to accompany your Animal Companion, into a scout or to slip past guards or to even cast strong offensive/defensive spells.
The cleric is just as powerful as the fighter at 7th level and surpass them by 9th, filling their role as a defender AND can heal while using scrolls and wands.
While I'm sure these classes work well with non-spellcasting classes, it doesn't take min/maxing or numbers-crunching to see their value is much greater at mid to high level campaigns. Which is the main reason that, from now on, I'll only be DM'ing E6 style games with v3.5 Edtiion.
To give you a little sample of what it means to run at high-level campaign here's an example:
Our group runs 3 players in v3.5 (my wife, my friend, and a DMPC) in which two are spellcasters (cleric/morninglord of Lathander and sorceress/Hathran/archmage) and my DMPC, a fighter 12/tempest 5. As a DM too, I have to throw out threats that challenge the two spellcasters which often puts my fighter on the brink of death almost every battle. Luckly they hold their own (and then some) so I'm not worried.......but it gets a bit boring from that perspective.
Example: The group takes on a HUGE emcampment of orcs (all 12th level barbarians), 2 dire Chimera, and 3 half-dragon/frost giants with a Encounter Level of about 23. We're level 17. The cleric flys (yea, Wings of the Divine spell) right into the middle of the encampment and goads them into attacking (it was a suprise round for the PCs) and readies a spell called Prismatic Sphere. They charge but the spell goes off. Any orc caught in the sphere's edge was instantly killed. Those inside could still attack, and do yet deal only marginal damage. The sorceress's turn, she cast Reverse Gravity (putting a hole where the cleric stands via Shape Magic) and everyone is pushed through the sphere. All the orcs there die. One half-dragon/frost giant is dismissed to another plane and the other survives but is rendered permanently Confused (or insane or something) until he falls back through the Prismatic Sphere due to normal gravity and then dies. So, the encounter started with 17 monsters that were in the vacinity and with two cleverly placed spells, destroyed all but the 2 Chimera, 3 orc warriors, and 1 half-dragon/frost giant creature. Even at this point, my character only did well because the Orcs were somewhat challenging and the Chimera has Spell Resistance. In the end, it did seem like the Spellcasting show with their Fighter side-kick doing tricks.
What I hope happens in the next iteration of D&D is that balance remains pretty straight. I don't expect the Fighter to do the wizard's job and I don't expect the Wizard to do the Fighters. I hope they take from 4E some excellent points about DM'ing ease and encounter design with Monsters and PCs not using the same features. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 12:35:54
|
I must have been a way for a long time if 5 Edition is on the horizon. That sounds sarcastic, doesn't it. It's not meant to be.
As for Monte Cook. Ptolus is one of my favourite books; I can spend a happy evening browsing that book. I think having him work on 5th Edn is a good idea.
Having visited and spoken to retailers in Yorkshire and Lancashire about Pathfinder and 4th Edn, they all say that Pathfinder is selling more. This is, of course, a small sample.
Obviously, D&D can't offer up a revamped 3rd Edn, but perhaps they can look at producing simple core mechanics. D&D is really role-playing with dice rolls when we want chance to take a hand. (Which is one reason why I like Savage Worlds).
As for what this bodes for the Realms - well, the first thing we need to know is will WotC issue a 5th Edn Realms. My gut feeling says that Monte Cook will probably not have anything to do with the 5th Edn Realms, as he'll be too busy looking at the core rules. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2012 : 13:42:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
Having visited and spoken to retailers in Yorkshire and Lancashire about Pathfinder and 4th Edn, they all say that Pathfinder is selling more. This is, of course, a small sample.
Obviously, D&D can't offer up a revamped 3rd Edn, but perhaps they can look at producing simple core mechanics. D&D is really role-playing with dice rolls when we want chance to take a hand. (Which is one reason why I like Savage Worlds).
While I believe they "could" offer another version of 3E (it's OGL, so it's an option) I don't think this would go over very well. First, people who support 3E already have their stake in Pathfinder and it makes little sense to change companies JUST for the sake of supporting WotC (which many people feel burned from  ). Second, it completely throws all of the people who've supported 4E under the bus. This is why the next iteration of D&D has to be different than both.
I also believe that WotC (or more importantly, Hasbro) set the bar just too high for what they wanted 4E to accomplish in terms of money. There are rumors floating around that the desired number was around 50 million, but how close that is to the truth or what 4E actually produced is really unknown. Do I think 4E was a failure? No, I think it's a pretty solid system for those that don't look to rules for roleplaying and enjoy a free-form style game. It's not for everyone and I think the debut of 4E really turned a lot of people off. In addition to that, they needed to be better with the Original box set. The PHB has a some errors and class design problems that were fixed with Errata....yet that's not presented in the PHB.
With D&Dnext, I hear modularity is the key to the edition, but I have no illusions that it won't fully support 4E (or other editions of the game). They say you can play a character that "Feels" like a 1st Edition character, a AD&D character, a 4E character and everything in between. But this does not mean those rules will be compatable. I believe that they'll do something similar to a point-buy system (not just with ability scores) but with everything. If you want skills, it'll be X amount of points. If you want feats, it'll cost an additional X amout of points. If you want power/maneuvers (like from ToB or 4E), then it'll be even more points. And it's possible that DMs could assign people more or less points as they see fit. Again, it's just a guess and nothing is set in stone, but this thinking comes from Mearls idea about the $10.00 lunch= "Players can pick their own style and complexity within a class. Think of it kind of like having a $10 budget to spend on lunch. Some people will go to a restaurant and buy a $10 lunch special. Someone else might spend that $10 by ordering a few different things off the menu, rather than a special. Someone else might take that $10 and go to the grocery store to buy all the ingredients for a recipe they like. The idea is to put everyone on the same scale, but then allow people to burrow into the level of detail they want."
Pretty interesting indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
As for what this bodes for the Realms - well, the first thing we need to know is will WotC issue a 5th Edn Realms. My gut feeling says that Monte Cook will probably not have anything to do with the 5th Edn Realms, as he'll be too busy looking at the core rules.
I doubt Monte will work much on any Forgotte Realms products, leaving that up to other designers and authors with the direction of Ed (just like in 4E). I'm just glad to hear they'll keep FR as a major line of production with D&Dnext. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2012 : 01:08:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
<chop>
With D&Dnext, I hear modularity is the key to the edition, but I have no illusions that it won't fully support 4E (or other editions of the game). They say you can play a character that "Feels" like a 1st Edition character, a AD&D character, a 4E character and everything in between. But this does not mean those rules will be compatable. I believe that they'll do something similar to a point-buy system (not just with ability scores) but with everything. If you want skills, it'll be X amount of points. If you want feats, it'll cost an additional X amout of points. If you want power/maneuvers (like from ToB or 4E), then it'll be even more points. And it's possible that DMs could assign people more or less points as they see fit. Again, it's just a guess and nothing is set in stone, but this thinking comes from Mearls idea about the $10.00 lunch= "Players can pick their own style and complexity within a class. Think of it kind of like having a $10 budget to spend on lunch. Some people will go to a restaurant and buy a $10 lunch special. Someone else might spend that $10 by ordering a few different things off the menu, rather than a special. Someone else might take that $10 and go to the grocery store to buy all the ingredients for a recipe they like. The idea is to put everyone on the same scale, but then allow people to burrow into the level of detail they want."
Pretty interesting indeed.
Indeed. And this was exactly what I was hoping we'd see with the 4E mechanics after seeing the first couple of preview books... perhaps if I'd bought them and read them more thoroughly, I would have had a better idea of what was being done, and I wouldn't have bought the 4E core books, but that's all in the past now. What I love is what Pathfinder did with archetypes, allowing you to build your class level by level with options that made more sense for your character concept. And honestly, WotC would have been far better off to go to a completely classless character advancement model for 4E than to do what they did, but that might just be me. There's an excellent OGL product out there, Eclipse by Distant Horizons Publishing, that broke down all of the class abilities, including spell ability, attack bonuses and saving throw bonuses, into individual abilities similar to feats and skills that could be purchased with XP. Skills and feats are likewise purchased with XP. I've never had a chance to playtest it, because the DM for one of my groups is firmly set on Pathfinder (which I love to play), and the other is firmly set on "core" D&D 3.5 (minus all the broken splatbook classes, which also makes it fun to play). I haven't had time to run my own game, largely because playing in two games a week takes up most of my available evenings, but I'd love to try Eclipse out, or at least hear from someone who has done so. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 23 Jan 2012 01:09:17 |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 22:17:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Example: The group takes on a HUGE emcampment of orcs (all 12th level barbarians), 2 dire Chimera, and 3 half-dragon/frost giants with a Encounter Level of about 23. We're level 17. The cleric flys (yea, Wings of the Divine spell) right into the middle of the encampment and goads them into attacking (it was a suprise round for the PCs) and readies a spell called Prismatic Sphere. They charge but the spell goes off. Any orc caught in the sphere's edge was instantly killed. Those inside could still attack, and do yet deal only marginal damage. The sorceress's turn, she cast Reverse Gravity (putting a hole where the cleric stands via Shape Magic) and everyone is pushed through the sphere. All the orcs there die. One half-dragon/frost giant is dismissed to another plane and the other survives but is rendered permanently Confused (or insane or something) until he falls back through the Prismatic Sphere due to normal gravity and then dies. So, the encounter started with 17 monsters that were in the vacinity and with two cleverly placed spells, destroyed all but the 2 Chimera, 3 orc warriors, and 1 half-dragon/frost giant creature. Even at this point, my character only did well because the Orcs were somewhat challenging and the Chimera has Spell Resistance. In the end, it did seem like the Spellcasting show with their Fighter side-kick doing tricks.
All this says to me is that the ELs weren't designed to take magic into consideration... and that just adds another drop in the bucket of reasons I hated the EL system. True, it was just about the only thing I hated about 3.x, apart from the ridiculously overpowered classes that appeared in later splat books, but those have a simple solution: DM says "NO." In that respect, 4E seemed built on the idea that the DM shouldn't be allowed to say "no" to anyone. Why else put magical items in the PHB? |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 22:19:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I personally prefer the "archetypes" of Pathfinder, which closely resemble the "kits" of 2e. I have not really ever felt the need to multi-class or take a prestige class since I started playing Pathfinder.
I agree, especially regarding the prestige classes; I have done some multi-classing, but I think it was a mistake in nearly every instance, and I probably would avoid it with future characters. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 22:24:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
To be completely honest, I don't care how much I liked or disliked the rules, I probably would have moved on to 4E had they not completely ruined the Forgotten Realms for me. That being said, I suppose there is no way they could just go back to 1375 DR for the 5E Realms, but I do wonder what will become of them , if anything.
Well, from what little has been officially said, the Realms timeline will be opened up completely, likely with the previous-edition products being made available again (how this part of it will be done, I don't know). As far as how the "current" Realms timeline will progress, I have no idea at this point. My best advice will be to keep reading Ed's Elminster novels and Paul Kemp's books, particularly his new trilogy coming up, which should tell us what ultimately happens to Mask and (possibly) Shar. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 16:30:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
To be completely honest, I don't care how much I liked or disliked the rules, I probably would have moved on to 4E had they not completely ruined the Forgotten Realms for me. That being said, I suppose there is no way they could just go back to 1375 DR for the 5E Realms, but I do wonder what will become of them , if anything.
Well, from what little has been officially said, the Realms timeline will be opened up completely, likely with the previous-edition products being made available again (how this part of it will be done, I don't know). As far as how the "current" Realms timeline will progress, I have no idea at this point. My best advice will be to keep reading Ed's Elminster novels and Paul Kemp's books, particularly his new trilogy coming up, which should tell us what ultimately happens to Mask and (possibly) Shar.
Interesting, I look forward to seeing how this plays out. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 20:47:19
|
| An Interesting Turn of Events. (From Monte's Blog) |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 21:07:03
|
| I wonder what difference of opinion he was having? Saying that it wasn't with the other Devs makes me think that it's with Hasbro or the uppity ups of WotC. |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 21:13:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
An Interesting Turn of Events. (From Monte's Blog)
Interesting indeed, it must be a major stumbling block if it has come to this? Though I suspect that all of the basic framework for the game is already in place and its just the tweaking stage that they are at now to polish the game.
Am wondering if we might see Monte put out his own rule-set to complete with D&D next?
For those who don't know Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet are releasing their own ruleset as well
http://www.prweb.com/releases/roleplaying/13thage/prweb9381383.htm
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2012 : 21:18:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
An Interesting Turn of Events. (From Monte's Blog)
Monte leaving due to differences of opinion with the company. I hope this doesn't herald the death of 5E. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3740 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Monte Cook working on 5E!
