| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Feb 2012 : 04:48:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Sounds like some of the "Change Marketing" they used during the 4E transition.
I wouldn't get too caught up in these impressions of playtesters, at least until I've had a chance to see the actual rules in action.
Yea, and this tid-bit from the same playtester DM said: "Since I’ve seen a lot of comments about this elsewhere, the whole thing with the several week recovery time from stirge blood loss was a call I made at the time at the table, not a rule that’s necessarily in the game. I also just handwaved the several weeks, so it’s not like the paladin’s player had to sit out the rest of the game while everybody else adventured. Basically, it was part of that whole “DM empowerment” thing I was talking about, where I made a rules call that I felt made the most sense for the table at the time, and even gave the players some options on how they wanted to continue."
Not all is lost |
 |
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2012 : 05:25:23
|
| Good, that's the sort of thing I would hand wave in the same situation. I guess it makes sense in certain plots (but not others). Unless the players had something in mind during down time. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2012 : 21:33:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Good, that's the sort of thing I would hand wave in the same situation. I guess it makes sense in certain plots (but not others). Unless the players had something in mind during down time.
Agreed. And as I search through RPG.net's threads I came across a post written by the author who said the whole 4E entitlement and going out a 2nd time as old-school people. This was his comments to some of that criticism:
"On "entitlement"
A poor choice of words, I suppose, but I stand by the statement. In my experience, 4e promotes a great deal of PC entitlement. Magic weapons are built into the math. Encounter design is very specific and codified. Powers are extremely well defined in what they do and what they don't. Shake these up too often and you get a lot of frowns at the table. How many great battles have you ran where the players were severely outmatched and had to run? Not many for me.
To me, 4e players generally expect their sheets to have everything they need to "complete" an adventure. In a place like the Caves of Chaos, the wrong room can take you out. Sure, you can play 4e like this, but in playing and running a lot of 4e games, I don't usually see it.
So "entitlement" may have been a bit insulting, representing 4e players as a bunch of privileged crybabies, which certainly isn't how I see them (I'm married to a 4e player - hell, I AM a 4e player). I do think 4e players, myself included, have expectations for the game such as balanced combat, the right skills or powers to defeat any challenge we might face, and a constant progression of magic items. I think the game's math is built that way."
And even this clarification isn't something I totally agree with. One, player entitlement is baked into players style and how that DM placates that style. If players often come up against monsters of about average/equal level, 9/10 they're going to prevail because all games are designed that way. It's designed for the adventure to continue and move forward. I'm feeling the players he went in with had the expectation of it being pretty balanced. When it wasn't, I agree they should've either changed tactics or went back to town for other stuff. And two, while the game system is often assuming your obtaining magical gear, the DM should know this and act accordingly. Whether that's decreating the DC of said monsters to allocate the low-magic threshold OR explain that "hey, these guys are pretty awesome and the battle might be hard. Act accordingly" (ie. running is an option if your in over your heads).
What I learned from this is that the game (D&D:Next) can probably simulate a lot of "feels" with not only Character generation but how a DM proceeds in his games. I guess, from this description, it can facilitate an Old-School type of dungeon where death is all but certain and survival is something that's only won by the luckiest and tactically minded individuals. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 17:07:35
|
The limited D&D-Next playtesting I've done has led me to believe that the core 5e game does indeed assume less when it comes to PC awesomeness, in the sense that the PCs can't just naturally assume the world is built for them.
In 4e, it was assumed the social contract at the table would state that the DM would never throw you up against monsters too powerful for you to defeat or challenges too potent to overcome (or, in those rare cases where it did happen, you'd know immediately and be able to flee). You also didn't have to roll especially well to succeed: it was assumed that most classes would hit on an 11-12 (strikers a 9-10), and enemies would wear down over a constant barrage. The math is so *flattened*, however, that there's just no practical way to succeed against really tough enemies (+5 or more levels). This is where creativity and ingenuity come in, and it becomes a question of stacking bonuses and status effects.
Old school D&D was considerably more "swingy"--a lot weighed on just a couple of rolls, not a series of average rolls overtime. You might take out an enemy in one lucky swing or a couple of good hits, rather than 4-5 average rolls. You had to be a little more prepared before you went into fights, think creatively about how to handle problems, and *hope* for the best, rather than just get in there, unload your balanced powers into a balanced encounter, and *expect* the best.
This is not to say that 4e's "stable" style is wrong-headed. I myself rather like not having to worry about ridiculous swinginess and having it built into the system that the PCs are "different but equal." But I did grow up on 2e, and that system was considerably more "swingy" as regards die rolls.
And from what I've seen so far, D&D-Next lends itself to both styles of play--the swingy and the stable--depends on you the DM and your players' styles.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 19:34:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The limited D&D-Next playtesting I've done has led me to believe that the core 5e game does indeed assume less when it comes to PC awesomeness, in the sense that the PCs can't just naturally assume the world is built for them.
In 4e, it was assumed the social contract at the table would state that the DM would never throw you up against monsters too powerful for you to defeat or challenges too potent to overcome (or, in those rare cases where it did happen, you'd know immediately and be able to flee). You also didn't have to roll especially well to succeed: it was assumed that most classes would hit on an 11-12 (strikers a 9-10), and enemies would wear down over a constant barrage. The math is so *flattened*, however, that there's just no practical way to succeed against really tough enemies (+5 or more levels). This is where creativity and ingenuity come in, and it becomes a question of stacking bonuses and status effects.
Old school D&D was considerably more "swingy"--a lot weighed on just a couple of rolls, not a series of average rolls overtime. You might take out an enemy in one lucky swing or a couple of good hits, rather than 4-5 average rolls. You had to be a little more prepared before you went into fights, think creatively about how to handle problems, and *hope* for the best, rather than just get in there, unload your balanced powers into a balanced encounter, and *expect* the best.
This is not to say that 4e's "stable" style is wrong-headed. I myself rather like not having to worry about ridiculous swinginess and having it built into the system that the PCs are "different but equal." But I did grow up on 2e, and that system was considerably more "swingy" as regards die rolls.
And from what I've seen so far, D&D-Next lends itself to both styles of play--the swingy and the stable--depends on you the DM and your players' styles.
Cheers
I hear you, but I think it has more to do with the social contract at the table that says "hey, we're awesome adventurers and we're supposed to take on really bad situations. We have uncommon abilities that allow us to do that." and not the 4E rules themselves that says combat has to be a tactical masterpiece of balance and equality. I think DMs do that because 1). character deaths aren't very fun and 2). fighting and questing (and accomplishing both on a consistant basis) took front seat to death around every door and spending minutes of real time away from fights because it promoted "reality". But this is the DMs job to find a balance between making the combats inticing and fun yet dangerous, not so much the rules of the system.
And make no mistake, PC deaths are just as common in 4E as in 3E, but they tend to be a bit better played than "Whoops, fell in a trap. Your dead. Make a new character." An example of a fun character death was my Tempest Fighter (1st lvel) who was defending the group's retreat from the caves right outside Loudwater (in the pre-made 4E FR adventure) in which he was pummeled to death by zombies. As I played out the battle, I knew right from the get-go that we were hosed, but I made a heroic effort to bide them time for escape while I took the hits. It was awesome. Now here, for contrast, is a player's death from 3E who was shot by Lizardfolk with a poison that rendered him paralyized. There were too many lizardfolk in the way for the cleric to get there and he (the player) sat out the battle while a goblin stabbed him over and over until he died. I much prefer a more heroic death where it means something than just getting "ganked" in 5 rounds while I sit there on my phone/laptop.
But if what you say is true and D&D-Next can provide a DM with any sort of game he wants to run without having to fudge the numbers or overhaul the campaign, then that's good. I'm sure some people love the drastic realism of traps and spells = death with 1 roll and I'm sure I'd like it to for a one-shot DEATH MATCH style of game, but it sure makes it harder on the DM for a long campaign where PCs keep dying because the rules make it so. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11809 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 21:31:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I hope he gets enough insight from 4E to not just shove all of it's merits under the rug.
What things would you like to be kept?
As you might be aware, I'm not fully au fait with 4th Edn. however, rituals intrigued me. I like the idea of some magic (clerical or arcane) requiring time and preparation. Incidentally, the Ritual Magic from Midnight 2nd Edition (pg 130) always struck me as interesting. As did the spell points idea.
Yeah, I'll give them that. The ritual idea in 4E was a good general idea. There were too many spells that should have been rituals you would learn instead (and thus not have to take up spell slots). Previously this was taken up by giving wizards scribe scroll so that they could scribe those "rituals" as scrolls to bring with them, but this makes some sense.
That being said, I think there should be more options for a wizard in the form of how they progress. For instance, maybe they get a lesser version of scribe scroll, brew potion, and ritual caster, then later they can choose whether they want to learn the greater version of scribe scroll & brew potion OR the greater version of ritual caster. Of course, if you choose one side, you should still be able to choose the other if you're willing to spend the "feats" or whatever they'll call it.
Another thing (and I'm literally spewing this out to put the idea to paper), in 3.5 I liked the idea that you had to focus on item creation feats if you were going to make things, but it took way too many feats. Craft magic arms and armor makes sense but it should include helm crafting. Craft scroll and potion would make another group, craft rod, staff, and wand would make for another group. Next, the craft jewelry feat should encompass not just rings but also wrist slot, neck slot, brooches, and head (crown, tiara) slot items. Finally, whenever doing the craft wondrous group, perhaps it could be broken into different types of bonuses instead.... something like craft enhancement bonus, craft insight bonus, craft armor bonus, craft dodge bonus, craft holy bonus, craft unholy bonus, craft luck bonus, etc... and maybe whenever you take the "feat" you pick 3 or 4 "types" of bonuses that you are learning to create. Then there would be a pool of "generic" wondrous items that anyone with the feat could make (i.e. bag of holding, boots of flying, etc...). Finally, some of the more off the wall options might be grouped like craft tattoo and craft contingent spell (or maybe even hitching some of the metamagic feats like quicken spell with some of these other options... like maybe all quickened spells are made as tattoos... or maybe like the craft wondrous, you choose and pick several options from a pool). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11809 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 21:41:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I hope he gets enough insight from 4E to not just shove all of it's merits under the rug.
What things would you like to be kept?
As you might be aware, I'm not fully au fait with 4th Edn. however, rituals intrigued me. I like the idea of some magic (clerical or arcane) requiring time and preparation. Incidentally, the Ritual Magic from Midnight 2nd Edition (pg 130) always struck me as interesting. As did the spell points idea.
Well were I to make a HUGE list, I think people might object a lot more. So to be realistic, I know I'd have to keep elements that work for both pro-4E people and might not matter to other edition fans. So my list might look like this:
Tier Play: While not having a strong involment with the mechanics, I think it's a great way to distinguish complexity of play. Playing in a Heroic tiered campaign lets players know that their quest will have the scope of a smaller area and might not have HUGE ramifications. Taking over a tyrant of a town might be a good example of this. I also think this makes Epic style campaigns easier to run for the rules play to this tier well.
Rituals/Martial Practices: As you said, Rituals make some of those more.....unique wizard spells more applicable to cast. For one, they don't take up precious spell slots. For another, it gives them a little more realistic flavor. Seeing into the future should be something more intricate than a 6-second spell. Martial Practices are sort of like Rituals that aren't magical. They take less time, seconds to minutes but it costs some vitality (healing surges in 4E). These range from running really long, lifting and holding something extreamly heavy to Feign Death and crafting magical items.
At-Will Spells/Powers: Nothing irks me more than having a wizard/sorcerer resort to mundane weapons to contribute because they don't want to waste spells. And no, cantrips don't count because of the pitiful 1d3 damage they do. And that's another thing, no more 1d3 rolls. Ever. Same can be said for the fighter. Nothing more boring that round after round "hitting things with a pointy stick". Give me options (aside from feats) that allow me to shove a bad guy or knock him to the ground or make him slowed or immobilized.
Playable Non-Standard Races: On thing that I thought was pretty awesome was the freedom of playing races like Goliaths, Shifters, Genasi, Drow, and Tieflings without heavy restrictions or penalties for "Cool". Should these be in the PHB or Core? No, I wouldn't go that far as I'm sure other more "standard" races take precident. But that doesn't mean that these options should be shunned or made difficult because they're not standard.
Abiilty scores fuel attacks: Another interesting thing I found with 4E is that each class uses a primary ability score for their attacks, be it magic Ranged or martial melee ones. A Cleric could use his Wisdom modifier with Mace attacks instead of being required to go with Strength. Or a Warlord could use his Strength modifier when making a Bow attack and not have to worry over-much about Dexterity. Swordmages can use their Intelligence when making a sword attack. For one, it cuts down on Multiple Attribute Dependency (MAD) and another, it keeps things a bit more simplistic. Take the 3E's Duskblade that needs high Strength for melee attacks, Intelligence for his Spell per day and Spell DCs, Constitution for good HP, and Dexterity for moderate AC. With point buy, this class often suffers at one or more of these areas to perform it's intended function.
Starting HP and static increase: really, no one wants to start a character with a miserable amount of HP. Maybe for some, this is a sacred D&D cow but starting with 5 HP just stinks. Starting with more doens't really change matter that much and I also like gaining X amount of HP per level instead of the random die rolls of previous years. A Fighter that rolls a 1-3 on a d10 for his first 3 levels of his career puts him at a HUGE disadvantage and doens't really make much sense.
Monster Design: I thought the plug-in-play approach was really cool for monsters in 4E. If I wanted a shaodwy monster that fought with two-weapons, could dance in shadows, and have cold-based ranged attacks I could do so without jumping through 10 different hoops to pull it off. Monsters playing by PC rules just to cater to some mis-guided attempt at simulationism isn't good design IMO.
I think those are really great rules that can be incorporated a lot of different ways that doesn't really break D&D's iconic history or "feeling".
I disagree about the multiple abilities thing. I can see where some classes might be able to use a certain ability for some reason to enhance something its not normally able to (for instance, in 3E the common use of having intelligence add to either damage or AC), I'd prefer to break away from the trend I'm seeing in a lot of games where X class just needs attribute Y and maybe Z. I think it adds something to the game to have you dependent on some other scores, just to make them pertinent. Granted, some classes will be less dependent... but I think that's what made 4E suck for me was that they tried to make every class too cookie cutter like each other. Maybe the classes that are more suffering from the need for multiple stats gain some other options to make up for that fact. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 23:15:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
<snip> 4e players as a bunch of privileged crybabies...
Pure win. 
Sorry - that made me LOL, seriously. If what he said there was true - that they expected everything to already be done for them (their equipment?!  ) - then I can see how he came to that 'conclusion'.
My bro-in-law (the one who ran a group of 'entitled' players back in 2e) had a kid, who wanted to play WoW, after seeing me and my boys (and his dad) play. When they got him an account, he literally cried that there were areas he couldn't get into, he kept getting killed, and there was "stuff he couldn't have". {seriously}
Would you believe my bro-in-law PAID a leveling-service (I throw up in my mouth when I even consider there really are such things in MORPGs) to level his son's character up to 60? (the cap back then). Needless to say, the kid didn't know how to use any of his abilities or equipment, and he still sucked, and still got killed constantly (and stopped playing about a week after they paid all that money!!!)
Not only did I lose all respect for my bro-in-law (and his non-existent parenting skills), but I can't even look at his kid anymore without my stomach turning. 'Entitlement' is very dangerous thing.
Now, if thats really how 4e players behaved - that everything had to go precisely the way they wanted (or the rules predicted), then that isn't D&D at all. Hell, I can recall plenty of times I hand-waved stuff. As for the Paladin, thats simple - you just start the next session a few weeks later - big deal. Sure, parts of the dungeon 'reload', but thats part of the fun of playing. Heven't you ever played in a MORPG Instance? You leave, you have to start all over. Even MORPG players aren't that entitled, to think the monsters will just 'freeze' and not do anything until they are ready for them again.
D&D is part simulation. If you don't like it, play Squad Leader (an excellent tactical game, BTW). There are TONS of choices of games and settings out there - why does D&D and FR have to conform to certain people's expectations? Just play something else!
EDIT: In fact, just keep playing 4e. Its the pre-4e players who are unhappy, and they are the only ones who need to be catered to right now. According to your own proclamations, "4e is the bestest rules eva", so why not keep using them? Why make 5e be like 4e? You already have 4e (just as you already had dozens of 'minimalist' rules and settings to choose from before 4e).
EDIT2: In Older editions (especially OD&D), the rules were just a bunch of 'suggestions'. I am staggered how far this game has come - that players not only expect DMs to follow the rules rigidly, they get mad when they don't. The DM is NOT another player - he is god. You don't get mad at god when things don't go your way - you listen to him, or you get spanked.
Do 4e players really think the DM has to follow the rules? Really? I can see now why there is such a split in the fanbase. Thats not even D&D anymore (IMHO).  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 07 Feb 2012 23:32:13 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 00:25:43
|
MT, I think you're getting all bent out of shape over not a lot. 
I don't think 4e players are entitled cry-babies. But a lot of aspects of the game that made it really daring and swingy earlier are glossed over or outright ignored in later editions in favor of a balanced approach. I wonder if this has more to do with the drive to "avoid losing" in gaming.
If you look at oldschool videogames, those were basically impossible to pass or neverending. The idea was that you'd keep playing and playing and playing. The concept of "beating the game" was only gradually introduced, along with the advent of story. And I think 4e is (potentially) the most story-focused of the editions--players don't have to worry so much about their characters dying or getting horribly hosed everytime they set foot out the door (like you did in 1e, for instance). The game allows you to be heroes and explore your heroic story, rather than making you seem like just those random kids that got lucky. (Though you can certainly play that game if you want.)
Also, it's not like 4e made some huge jump in terms of lethality. It was a gradual change over time. Let's look at the progression of death in D&D:
In 1e, you hit 0 hit points, you were dead. Healing was tough unless you had a cleric.
In 2e, you hit 0 hit points, you were dead, BUT there was an optional rule of hovering at death's door until -10. Pretty much everyone played with this rule. Healing was a little easier--more classes had healing, etc.
In 3e, the -10 was the core rule, and there were lots of feats to keep yourself alive, drop the -10 to something else, etc. Healing was fairly easy--healing potions and wands were plentiful, and the only spellcasters that didn't have healing were the hardcore arcanists.
In 4e, it progressed to negative half-your-hit-points (meaning around -10 to -30 for about the first 10 levels of play). About a third of the classes have healing powers, and everyone can shrug off a little bit of damage (second wind).
It's really just a dawning recognition on the part of the designers of how much character death sucks (particularly tied with increasing character complexity through the editions, so it's a real chore to create a new character), not people whining.
I don't know about you guys, but as a DM I found 3.x the MOST cumbersome as regards running monsters. My monsters all had to obey the same rules as player characters--monsters had skill points, feats, and an armor class you would need to calculate for where the sources of defense came from (natural? dexterity? magical?). There were even guides for how much damage they would do based on how big they were and what sorts of natural attacks they might have. Monsters followed the same death and healing rules. The expectation in 3.5 was that the DM *had to* follow the same rules as the players, or all was lost.
Not so in 4e, where monster design is entirely up to you. Sure, there's a set of criteria in terms of attacks and defenses that are going to make your monster a worthy challenge (or an impossible trial) against a set of PCs, but generally you have the freedom to create however many powers you want. This is not to suggest that monsters (particularly evil humanoids) shouldn't use some of the same things that PCs do. Evil wizards should still cast magic missile and fireball. But they're really not that hard to simulate with the 4e ruleset.
We'll see what direction 5e takes in this regard.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 08 Feb 2012 00:30:47 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 01:32:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I disagree about the multiple abilities thing. I can see where some classes might be able to use a certain ability for some reason to enhance something its not normally able to (for instance, in 3E the common use of having intelligence add to either damage or AC), I'd prefer to break away from the trend I'm seeing in a lot of games where X class just needs attribute Y and maybe Z. I think it adds something to the game to have you dependent on some other scores, just to make them pertinent. Granted, some classes will be less dependent... but I think that's what made 4E suck for me was that they tried to make every class too cookie cutter like each other. Maybe the classes that are more suffering from the need for multiple stats gain some other options to make up for that fact.
When this discussion came up over on Paizo (Pathfinder forums), this is what I said: Strength/dexterity can play a part in physical attacks, but does it have to be the all-end all? No, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" to 5'8" and weight around 145-180 lbs. Yet D&D is supposed to give a nod to that sort of time and combat technique. So if (s)he's not hefting a huge sword with unparalelled Strength, how is (s)he able to defeat his/her opponents? Obviously one can be more quick/agile (Dex) or just take extreme punishment (Con) but what about the guy who's intelligent? Who knows what your going to do before you do? Or the guy who's seen countless battles and has that extra sensory perception (Wisdom) or that guy who is just fearsome or intimidating as all hell (Cha). They might not be paragons of Strength but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to fight or be good at melee/Ragned fighting either. Heck, some Bows require a exceptionally high Strengh just to pull back on, and that's just not for the composite types but Longbows too.
What I'm getting at is that there are tons of factors to delve into for fighting and while Strength and Dexterity are the easiest to codify/accept, they shouldn't be the only ways in which physical combat can be accomplished.
I also suggested that if it's the design of the system to funnel all melee attacks through Strength or Dexterity, then a feat (in 4E, it's called Melee Training) that says:
Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.
This would apply for all attacks as I don't see them keeping "Basic Melee Attacks" with D&D-Next's system.
Perhaps it's better if you use a feat to utilize another Ability score for attacks, but requiring it to be Default somehow breaks verisimilitude or immersion  .
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
<snip> Stuff about WoW and wanting everything at once.
While I have heard that there are people who you can pay to level up your character, I think that severly defeats the whole purpose of playing the game. But then again, I only played for a little while before getting bored to death and the constant elitism of the people who played. I think I made it to 46th level before bowing out. I don't see why people would pay any money to keep your character "running" as it sorta kills the fun of leveling (one of WoW's big features). *shrugs*
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Sorry - that made me LOL, seriously. If what he said there was true - that they expected everything to already be done for them (their equipment?! ) - then I can see how he came to that 'conclusion'.
After reading the feedback he gave to the question and concerns, it was said that the guy was playing a pre-generated character and he failed to think a teeny, tiny bit outside the box because he assumed he would've been properly prepared being a pre-gen at all. I've never run pre-gen characters so I have no basis for comparison. When I make a character, I attempt to cover the basis as much as possible, always grabbing a ranged weapons (be it javelin or crossbow or even dagger).
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Now, if thats really how 4e players behaved - that everything had to go precisely the way they wanted (or the rules predicted), then that isn't D&D at all. Hell, I can recall plenty of times I hand-waved stuff. As for the Paladin, thats simple - you just start the next session a few weeks later - big deal. Sure, parts of the dungeon 'reload', but thats part of the fun of playing. Heven't you ever played in a MORPG Instance? You leave, you have to start all over. Even MORPG players aren't that entitled, to think the monsters will just 'freeze' and not do anything until they are ready for them again.
Personally speaking, I hate (yes, HATE) being requried to heal-up for weeks at a time. Sure, it may only be 5-10 minutes of 'real time', but that puts a big damper on the flow of the campaign. I don't want super realistic to a "T" in my D&D or at least, I'd like the option of having ways around resting for weeks upon weeks in my D&D.
And obviously the game isn't predictable, that would be boring. It's a reaon we (collective community of RPG'ers) have levels and encounter ratings and dice rolls and all that stuff. If the DM doesn't challenge the players, of course they'll run through the monsters willy-nilly just as much as if the DM throws encounters at the players that are too tough, they'll likely retreat or die. Simple as that. The game promotes challenges, the difficulty is up to the DM as it's always been in D&D. As I said to Erik, 4E rules don't say anywhere "now now DM, don't be a meanie and be fair. Don't put them up against anything that will kill them because then they'll be upset." Of course you want them to have fun and of course that includes death-defying or near-death encounters, but that's a staple point of a good DM.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
D&D is part simulation. If you don't like it, play Squad Leader (an excellent tactical game, BTW). There are TONS of choices of games and settings out there - why does D&D and FR have to conform to certain people's expectations? Just play something else!
EDIT: In fact, just keep playing 4e. Its the pre-4e players who are unhappy, and they are the only ones who need to be catered to right now. According to your own proclamations, "4e is the bestest rules eva", so why not keep using them? Why make 5e be like 4e? You already have 4e (just as you already had dozens of 'minimalist' rules and settings to choose from before 4e).
heh, MY proclamation? Yea, were that the case I'd have thrown out or sold all my v3.5 stuff nor listen to Pathfinder people. 4E does a lot of stuff right by me. I like aspects that it promotes, but it's far from perfect as NO RPG will ever be perfect. And when 5E comes out, i'll give it a go with the playtest and maybe i'll be a fun game. I'm getting into the gritter stuff now (i'm loving the E6 stuff) and I see that with 100s of HPs it drags the game down in play. I'm all for speeding up combat, but not at the cost of killing players at a whim just......because.
I also don't advocate 5E to be like 4E. Sure, there are some things that I think should make the cut and I listed them above. I'd REALLY like Rituals, at-will powers, and monster design to stay but really anything else is up in the air. I also don't want 5E to be like 0D&D or 1st or 2nd or 3rd Edition either. So lets create something new, something unique, something intriguing that would make me want to play it instead of "heh, I can already do that in X edition. No thanks."
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT2: In Older editions (especially OD&D), the rules were just a bunch of 'suggestions'. I am staggered how far this game has come - that players not only expect DMs to follow the rules rigidly, they get mad when they don't. The DM is NOT another player - he is god. You don't get mad at god when things don't go your way - you listen to him, or you get spanked.
Do 4e players really think the DM has to follow the rules? Really? I can see now why there is such a split in the fanbase. Thats not even D&D anymore (IMHO).
I think codified rules help keep people on the same page. This doesn't mean that these rules are absolute, but when the Fighter breaks through the door and the DM just hand-waves it, it signifies to the player that the door was either structurally weak or not barred or whatever instead of breaking it down JUST because it has a break DC of X. In fact 4E has LESS codified rules going for it than 3E or Pathfinder. Heh, just look at the grapple rules and you'll see what I mean. 3E had a rule for everything and everything had expectations. You knew that a CR 4 traps that drops rocks on your head deals 3d6 damage and at early levels, will most likley kill you. At 12th level, a comedic tiny sign that says "Yikes" is apty put because there's NO chance of dying from.....well a ton of rocks being poured on your head. But it's ok, your 12th level and such things cannot bother one as powerful as you (or people narrate the difference which takes away from simulation). 4E specifically says "Hey, YOUR THE DM. You should use these rules to help 'guide' you. If you have a better rule or one that your group uses....it's OK to use that instead." |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 03:21:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When this discussion came up over on Paizo (Pathfinder forums), this is what I said: Strength/dexterity can play a part in physical attacks, but does it have to be the all-end all? No, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" to 5'8" and weight around 145-180 lbs. Yet D&D is supposed to give a nod to that sort of time and combat technique. So if (s)he's not hefting a huge sword with unparalelled Strength, how is (s)he able to defeat his/her opponents? Obviously one can be more quick/agile (Dex) or just take extreme punishment (Con) but what about the guy who's intelligent? Who knows what your going to do before you do? Or the guy who's seen countless battles and has that extra sensory perception (Wisdom) or that guy who is just fearsome or intimidating as all hell (Cha). They might not be paragons of Strength but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to fight or be good at melee/Ragned fighting either. Heck, some Bows require a exceptionally high Strengh just to pull back on, and that's just not for the composite types but Longbows too.
What I'm getting at is that there are tons of factors to delve into for fighting and while Strength and Dexterity are the easiest to codify/accept, they shouldn't be the only ways in which physical combat can be accomplished.
I also suggested that if it's the design of the system to funnel all melee attacks through Strength or Dexterity, then a feat (in 4E, it's called Melee Training) that says:
Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.
You know, phrased this way, I like this. A lot. My initial reaction to the combat system of 4E was, "okay, they're doing this to let other classes have a break in combat, and (possibly unintentionally) also to make fighters less superior at what they do: fight." But there is justification (presented above) for allowing other ability scores to affect attack efficiency, and this was accounted for in some limited ways by some feats (Weapon Finesse) and some prestige class abilities (this was also done with saving throws with the epic monk prestige class whose name I can't recall atm from Dragon 297, and I went so far as to create an entire set of epic feats that did this for all possible saving throw stat combinations - six other than the default, to save you the math; I didn't worry about normally non-save-modifying stats). |
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 - 08 Feb 2012 : 04:28:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
You know, phrased this way, I like this. A lot. My initial reaction to the combat system of 4E was, "okay, they're doing this to let other classes have a break in combat, and (possibly unintentionally) also to make fighters less superior at what they do: fight." But there is justification (presented above) for allowing other ability scores to affect attack efficiency, and this was accounted for in some limited ways by some feats (Weapon Finesse) and some prestige class abilities (this was also done with saving throws with the epic monk prestige class whose name I can't recall atm from Dragon 297, and I went so far as to create an entire set of epic feats that did this for all possible saving throw stat combinations - six other than the default, to save you the math; I didn't worry about normally non-save-modifying stats).
I'm glad my reasoning helped broaden your perception of the rules. I think initially the different Ability score for attacks was to lessen the need for a consitantly high Strenght/Dexterity score and thus making more character MAD (multiple attribute dependant). Like a gish Fighter/Wizard or a Duskblade of 3E, they're required to have a moderately high Strength to land those weapon attacks. Some spells and feats help, but the ever increasing AC/HP of monsters really force them into a bind during character advancement. So if that Duskblade could base his attacks of of Intelligence, well I think that would go a long way to making that class simply amazing. Or like the Zen Archery feat, Clerics should take it almost all the time so they can use Wisdom for their X-bow and ranged touch attacks.
Now, how this effects character with the "Flat Math" approach many of the designers talk about begs the question if it'll be needed? If monster's AC will never reach past say.....25, you won't need an 18+ in Strength to land weapon attacks but I still like the idea of a Elven Wizard picking up a longsword and being pretty damn good with it. |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 20:52:15
|
"I don't know about you guys, but as a DM I found 3.x the MOST cumbersome as regards running monsters. My monsters all had to obey the same rules as player characters--monsters had skill points, feats, and an armor class you would need to calculate for where the sources of defense came from (natural? dexterity? magical?)."
I gotta call BS on this one, this was actually one of the things I liked best about 3E. To me it is so cool to be able to take any monster you want and make it a legitimate threat to any level party. Instead of going through the levels fighting goblins, then orcs, then lizardfolk, etc, working your way up to Demons and such, I could throw an orc barbarian or a goblin assassin in at any level and have them scare the crap out of the group. You can very easily level any creature in any book to match any threat level you need by adding a few (or many) class levels.
To me, 3E got just about everything right, I loved 2e, 3e was even better (IMO), and I hated 4E (read the core books, seemed to "dumbed down" or pandering to me), but from what I have seen they are trying to take the best from each edition and combine it into "Next Edition" which I hope they can accomplish. Can you accomodate any style of gaming with one ruleset? Who knows? I hope they figure it 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.
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11809 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 15:14:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I disagree about the multiple abilities thing. I can see where some classes might be able to use a certain ability for some reason to enhance something its not normally able to (for instance, in 3E the common use of having intelligence add to either damage or AC), I'd prefer to break away from the trend I'm seeing in a lot of games where X class just needs attribute Y and maybe Z. I think it adds something to the game to have you dependent on some other scores, just to make them pertinent. Granted, some classes will be less dependent... but I think that's what made 4E suck for me was that they tried to make every class too cookie cutter like each other. Maybe the classes that are more suffering from the need for multiple stats gain some other options to make up for that fact.
When this discussion came up over on Paizo (Pathfinder forums), this is what I said: Strength/dexterity can play a part in physical attacks, but does it have to be the all-end all? No, I think D&D is more than that, even from a realistic understanding. Knights of the 13th century probably wouldn't have Strength scores of 17's and 18's since it would be hard to accomplish that with an average height of 5'4" to 5'8" and weight around 145-180 lbs. Yet D&D is supposed to give a nod to that sort of time and combat technique. So if (s)he's not hefting a huge sword with unparalelled Strength, how is (s)he able to defeat his/her opponents? Obviously one can be more quick/agile (Dex) or just take extreme punishment (Con) but what about the guy who's intelligent? Who knows what your going to do before you do? Or the guy who's seen countless battles and has that extra sensory perception (Wisdom) or that guy who is just fearsome or intimidating as all hell (Cha). They might not be paragons of Strength but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to fight or be good at melee/Ragned fighting either. Heck, some Bows require a exceptionally high Strengh just to pull back on, and that's just not for the composite types but Longbows too.
What I'm getting at is that there are tons of factors to delve into for fighting and while Strength and Dexterity are the easiest to codify/accept, they shouldn't be the only ways in which physical combat can be accomplished.
I also suggested that if it's the design of the system to funnel all melee attacks through Strength or Dexterity, then a feat (in 4E, it's called Melee Training) that says:
Benefit: Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.
This would apply for all attacks as I don't see them keeping "Basic Melee Attacks" with D&D-Next's system.
Perhaps it's better if you use a feat to utilize another Ability score for attacks, but requiring it to be Default somehow breaks verisimilitude or immersion .
Ok, I don't quite get the complaint here. If the person chooses to be a "fighter" class, and that class is intrinsically strength focused and he doesn't have the strength then maybe he should not be all that well at it. However, I have not problem as well with there being a feat that allows a person to "learn" to use their other ability score to make up for the physical failing (i.e. a feat that might let them use say int or even wisdom to supplement and/or replace their strength score in certain situations). That allows for the person who might have been forced into a certain role to later on learn how to use their strengths (for lack of a better word) to make up for their failings. Also, it makes sense for some multi-classing (the guy that started out as a fighter because Dad said so, but ends up becoming a wizard, but he wants to blend those skills).
My problem is taking EVERY class and making all their abilities function around X score.... I think there should be some classes that maybe have a lot of options, but if they want to be really good at Y option they need to focus on Z ability score... and if they want to focus on Q option they need to focus more on N ability score. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 18:47:41
|
@Diffan - sorry if you thought I was speaking directly to you - it was meant as generalized 'blanket statement' regarding 4e players (which is true, because they do indeed think 4e rules are best, otherwise they'd be using some other set of rules).
Not aimed at a specific person:
For 3 years we have been hearing "if you like 1e/2e/3e, just keep playing with those rules in that era". Why doesn't the same now apply? If you already have 4e, and 4e is a 'complete system' (because it is indeed officially 'finished'), then you should rejoice in not having to buy more rule books and keep playing until the end of time. 5e doesn't have to appeal to you (4e players), because you already have something that appeals to you.
Just because I like Cream Soda doesn't mean I think all sodas should taste like Cream Soda. I can just keep drinking my Cream Soda.
This applies to both rules and the setting - 4e FR was designed to be 'minimalist', which is what its detractors were clamoring for for years. Ergo, by that logic, they should NEVER produce anything for the 1479+ DR Realms EVER again - its counter productive.
Just like the non-fans before 4e, we pre-plague fans want 4e FR to remain minimalist, so we don't have to be so invested in it. Why is this just a one-way street?
What happens when they add tons of lore over the next 2 years (my projected lifespan of 5e) - do the 6e folks complain that pre-6e was 'too hard' to learn about? When does the cycle end? Lets agree to keep 4e the setting it was supposed to be - minimalist.
And then we can back to the 1e/2e/3e era that was never meant to be minimalist. Unlike the 4e FR fans who disliked pre-4e FR, I don't want the 4e setting getting ruined for those who love it - I want them to keep precisely what they asked for - MINIMALIST. Why be dissatisfied with a product you wanted?
I don't want any of my 'deep lore' to pollute your setting - it would disingenuous for me to want to ruin what others like just so I can have what I like. I want EVERYONE to get exactly what they want... and deserve.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 09 Feb 2012 18:54:41 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:07:12
|
Therein lies the crux of the problem. The various incarnations of FR mean many things to many people. All of the setting's fans have different wants regarding how the setting should be to suit their needs.
The question is which segment is larger, which is more willing to continue to support the setting. There's a vast spectrum of how much and such.
And obviously, which segment doesn't want anything besides a bare-bones points-of-light setting with an FR sticker on it? I'm not saying don't give those fans something, but beyond an initial setup, do they even want anything else? Is going with such sparse setup a good approach for the setting's long term growth? |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:36:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This applies to both rules and the setting - 4e FR was designed to be 'minimalist', which is what its detractors were clamoring for for years. Ergo, by that logic, they should NEVER produce anything for the 1479+ DR Realms EVER again - its counter productive.
I don't agree at all that "FR detractors" (whatever those are) were clamoring for years for some kind of "minimalist" setting.
I think the fresh start given to the Realms by the timeline advancement has allowed Wizards of the Coast to carefully regulate the rate of lore release and its level of quality, which helps to preserve the viability of the post-Spellplague era and the Realms as a whole.
Based on commentary from the D&D Experience, WotC will not undo anything that's established lore-wise, and that's a very good thing.
My hope is that, whatever direction they go, the rate of lore release stays slow.
For the release of 5E D&D, WotC should give us a good Campaign Guide and Player's Guide at the start ("good" meaning they shouldn't reprint information in both books where possible), one sourcebook covering a city/region of the Realms per year and leave the remaining high quality lore for monthly Dragon and Dungeon articles in DDI.
This includes an endless supply of Ed's Eye on the Realms articles.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I want EVERYONE to get exactly what they want... and deserve.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this statement was somehow meant with good intentions, but I just can't see it.
The only thing I can think of that fans of the Realms "deserve" is to be treated with respect. If you feel differently, well this isn't the place for it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 09 Feb 2012 20:38:14 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 23:11:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
quote:
I don't know about you guys, but as a DM I found 3.x the MOST cumbersome as regards running monsters. My monsters all had to obey the same rules as player characters--monsters had skill points, feats, and an armor class you would need to calculate for where the sources of defense came from (natural? dexterity? magical?).
I gotta call BS on this one, this was actually one of the things I liked best about 3E.
That you liked something that I found frustrating does not make my experience BS.
quote:
To me it is so cool to be able to take any monster you want and make it a legitimate threat to any level party. Instead of going through the levels fighting goblins, then orcs, then lizardfolk, etc, working your way up to Demons and such, I could throw an orc barbarian or a goblin assassin in at any level and have them scare the crap out of the group. You can very easily level any creature in any book to match any threat level you need by adding a few (or many) class levels.
This is true in theory, but this was NOT an easy process. There are so many hoops to jump through in terms of adding hit dice, character class levels, types of armor and weapons (which you would then have to worry about the PCs getting and using). And this is not to mention skill points, feats, and all that extra stuff added in. Every single monster becomes an individual PC that you're designing.
Why not streamline this process?
In 4e monster design, you can upgrade monsters, but the calculations are much easier. You can just gloss over it and get on with the game. (Which is exactly what I ended up doing in 3.5 anyway.) You also get mathematical rules for creating new abilities that can do whatever you want. You can make the monster as logical or fantastic as you want, without having to conform to exactly the way every creature in the game works.
Xysma, are you very familiar with 4e monsters? It's kinda hard to articulate how much easier and freeing monster design is in 4e without a mutual basis for dialogue.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 02:17:36
|
I understand that. I can't stand the huge stat blocks of 3rd edition(half a page or more for a stat block). Half the time i still ignore that stuff and write down things in my 2E format anyways. It's just way easier as far I'm concerned. If they can find a way to slap on the hit dice or levels onto a goblin without it getting crazy stats like 3E I'll be happy. Using monsters as player characters might make things wonky, but really just make them use the core classes. A few weeks ago I was looking into figuring out how to make a draegloth a level 4 character and decided to just strip the monster from it and make it a barbarian with its spell abilities being gained by leveling. Will it be super balanced in power? Probably not. But really, nobody cares and I'll just nerf him if he starts butchering things beyond what I'd expect for that level.
Personally, I'd like to see encounters be built like in the 2E days where monster stats were a couple lines and then we had dungeon dressing and encounters with lots of description. Sure the dead adventurers in the dungeon room aren't really important(aside from what you can loot off them), but its basically a way to squeeze in more Realms lore. As we know, Ed is a master at this type of stuff(check out his latest DDI article to see what I mean). If I recall we practically received half a backstory or lore bits on every NPC or encounter in the original Ruins of Undermountain book. That's like getting an adventure you can run and lore sourcebook crammed into one tome and is a win-win if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 11:16:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
@Diffan - sorry if you thought I was speaking directly to you - it was meant as generalized 'blanket statement' regarding 4e players (which is true, because they do indeed think 4e rules are best, otherwise they'd be using some other set of rules).
My mistake buddy. NO harm, no foul. 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Not aimed at a specific person:
For 3 years we have been hearing "if you like 1e/2e/3e, just keep playing with those rules in that era". Why doesn't the same now apply? If you already have 4e, and 4e is a 'complete system' (because it is indeed officially 'finished'), then you should rejoice in not having to buy more rule books and keep playing until the end of time. 5e doesn't have to appeal to you (4e players), because you already have something that appeals to you.
Totally agree, and I think it'll be as it is right now with me playing multiple editions and games. I really don't want 5E or D&D-next to be completely like 4E (what'd be the point?) because.....well I already have that and buying updated rules (*cough*v3.5*cough*) would be a waste of money. But I like new rules and new editions as much as the next guy, and I think they'd be silly not at least glace at some novel ideas 4E came up with.
Rituals being probably my second most favorite idea because I like the theory of some spells requiring a LOT of time and effort to perform that might not have any combative application. That, to me, tends to be more creative and fun than the 6-second casting of ALL spells of v3.5. Another aspect is at-will powers or usefull stuff characters can do consistantly that doesn't lessen their fun or experience at the table. Pathfinder took their stab at it through wizard's schools, Sorcerer bloodlines, at-will cantrips, and clerical domain powers. 4E designed a host of spells and exploits that can be used over and over. So there is some desire to keep this trend going, even if it's just an additional option.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This applies to both rules and the setting - 4e FR was designed to be 'minimalist', which is what its detractors were clamoring for for years. Ergo, by that logic, they should NEVER produce anything for the 1479+ DR Realms EVER again - its counter productive.
Just like the non-fans before 4e, we pre-plague fans want 4e FR to remain minimalist, so we don't have to be so invested in it. Why is this just a one-way street?
What happens when they add tons of lore over the next 2 years (my projected lifespan of 5e) - do the 6e folks complain that pre-6e was 'too hard' to learn about? When does the cycle end? Lets agree to keep 4e the setting it was supposed to be - minimalist.
And then we can back to the 1e/2e/3e era that was never meant to be minimalist. Unlike the 4e FR fans who disliked pre-4e FR, I don't want the 4e setting getting ruined for those who love it - I want them to keep precisely what they asked for - MINIMALIST. Why be dissatisfied with a product you wanted?
I don't want any of my 'deep lore' to pollute your setting - it would disingenuous for me to want to ruin what others like just so I can have what I like. I want EVERYONE to get exactly what they want... and deserve.
I understand and I remember myself being pretty happy with the change in the lore-light approach. But hey, you never miss anything until it's gone right? I realized that I actually liked some of the deeper aspects of the Realms and it was a shame they only covered so much in the FRCG. I admit that. I do feel 3E Realms went a bit too overboard with the details down to non-important character levels and classes, but I realize that it's better to have that and not use it than to not have it and not have desire to create it. Which is why I hope they put out more information for ALL areas of play, more details about the times people want to play in. I don't see how that is a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 17:21:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Rituals being probably my second most favorite idea because I like the theory of some spells requiring a LOT of time and effort to perform that might not have any combative application. That, to me, tends to be more creative and fun than the 6-second casting of ALL spells of v3.5. Another aspect is at-will powers or usefull stuff characters can do consistantly that doesn't lessen their fun or experience at the table. Pathfinder took their stab at it through wizard's schools, Sorcerer bloodlines, at-will cantrips, and clerical domain powers. 4E designed a host of spells and exploits that can be used over and over. So there is some desire to keep this trend going, even if it's just an additional option.
I have no problem with different spells having a different casting time -- that dates back to 2E, and it's quite reasonable. What I had an issue with in 4E was the idea that you can whip out a combat spell pretty much instantaneously, but anything else would take several minutes. Not only did this keep someone from doing something exceedingly creative with a non-combat spell while in combat, it also begs the question of "why can I roast orcs in seconds, but have to spend minutes doing this other, lesser spell?" |
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!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 10 Feb 2012 17:22:37 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11809 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 19:58:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Rituals being probably my second most favorite idea because I like the theory of some spells requiring a LOT of time and effort to perform that might not have any combative application. That, to me, tends to be more creative and fun than the 6-second casting of ALL spells of v3.5. Another aspect is at-will powers or usefull stuff characters can do consistantly that doesn't lessen their fun or experience at the table. Pathfinder took their stab at it through wizard's schools, Sorcerer bloodlines, at-will cantrips, and clerical domain powers. 4E designed a host of spells and exploits that can be used over and over. So there is some desire to keep this trend going, even if it's just an additional option.
I have no problem with different spells having a different casting time -- that dates back to 2E, and it's quite reasonable. What I had an issue with in 4E was the idea that you can whip out a combat spell pretty much instantaneously, but anything else would take several minutes. Not only did this keep someone from doing something exceedingly creative with a non-combat spell while in combat, it also begs the question of "why can I roast orcs in seconds, but have to spend minutes doing this other, lesser spell?"
Wooly, you just hit on something that I was talking about earlier... and maybe they addressed it later in 4E. Scrolls and rituals are "basically" meant to fulfill the same roll. Possibly having the ability to make a "ritual scroll" that you can cast as a pre-prepared ritual would be a good thing to develop. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 20:23:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Rituals being probably my second most favorite idea because I like the theory of some spells requiring a LOT of time and effort to perform that might not have any combative application. That, to me, tends to be more creative and fun than the 6-second casting of ALL spells of v3.5. Another aspect is at-will powers or usefull stuff characters can do consistantly that doesn't lessen their fun or experience at the table. Pathfinder took their stab at it through wizard's schools, Sorcerer bloodlines, at-will cantrips, and clerical domain powers. 4E designed a host of spells and exploits that can be used over and over. So there is some desire to keep this trend going, even if it's just an additional option.
I have no problem with different spells having a different casting time -- that dates back to 2E, and it's quite reasonable. What I had an issue with in 4E was the idea that you can whip out a combat spell pretty much instantaneously, but anything else would take several minutes. Not only did this keep someone from doing something exceedingly creative with a non-combat spell while in combat, it also begs the question of "why can I roast orcs in seconds, but have to spend minutes doing this other, lesser spell?"
Wooly, you just hit on something that I was talking about earlier... and maybe they addressed it later in 4E. Scrolls and rituals are "basically" meant to fulfill the same roll. Possibly having the ability to make a "ritual scroll" that you can cast as a pre-prepared ritual would be a good thing to develop.
I obviously don't know if they took steps to correct that... But going back to the 2E mechanic of casting times (even if they just tied it to actions, instead of tying it to initiative as was done in 2E) would have been simpler, from the start, and would have avoided what I see is a false division in how spells are classified. |
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 - 10 Feb 2012 : 20:40:56
|
4E's Mechanic:
Creating a Ritual Scroll: You can create a ritual scroll by transcribing a ritual you have mastered. Creating a ritual scroll takes twice the amount of time as creating a ritual book but costs the same price.
Limitation: Even though a ritual scroll lets you perform a ritual, you can neither master a ritual from a scroll nor copy a scroll into a ritual book. A scroll is a condensed version of a ritual, partially cast and primed so that it only takes up a single page.
Using a Ritual Scroll: A ritual scroll holds one use of a particular ritual. You can perform a scroll’s ritual even if you don’t have the Ritual Caster feat, regardless of the level of the ritual. You still have to expend the components and supply any focus required by the ritual, and you can enlist your allies’ assistance. Once you have finished performing the ritual on a scroll, the scroll turns to dust. If the ritual is interrupted, the scroll remains intact.
Time: Casting a ritual from a scroll takes half the time indicated in a ritual’s description, since the creation of the scroll has primed the magic.
It's possible, but has limitations. I'd also love to see a feat (Possibly Paragon-level) that says you can use a ritual scroll as a Full-Round action instead of 1/2 the time. |
|
|
|
Aes Tryl
Learned Scribe
181 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 22:26:22
|
@Diffan and Markus
Actually if you sleeping and got stabbed in the back (playing with pure core 3.5 ed rules), that would be a critical hit in the least and a coup de grace almost all the time. So yeah pretty much a death.
"A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die."
That is provided you can sneak up on a highly trained fighter, or break through a wizard's myriad defences. Also there are many ways traps can kill you in 3.5 (unless of course a player wants to be a munchkin). If the trap were to be an avoidable one (ie a rockslide triggered which can be dodged or circumvented) then its reasonable to expect high lvl pcs to be able to get out of it. Also this also largely depends on how a DM plays the game, if I triggered a trap in an unavoidable situation, My DM could (and would) just tell me "Ok you died, I enforce rule 0 "DM fiat".
This is of course not to say that there aren't some horribly broken parts of 3/3.5 e. A munchkinised wizard and cleric would make a fighter feel like compensating with a Titan's Hammer or something.
Also @Diffan
If you like E6, then the notion of a PC getting downed by poison and ganked by goblins should be very acceptable or even highly appealing. That is a good hard dose of reality. Akin to taking a crippling wound and being swarmed before any ally could help you. Futile, Frustrating, Inane? Yes. But then again that's the way death functions in reality, especially in combat situations.
I would put hp down to stamina, but they could amend the helpless rule to apply as such. "All attacks made on a helpless creature are regarded as Max Damage critical strikes (including sneak attack bonuses and what not), helpless creature must make a fortitude save of DC 15 + damage or die. |
Edited by - Aes Tryl on 10 Feb 2012 22:27:36 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 00:02:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aes Tryl
@Diffan and Markus
Actually if you sleeping and got stabbed in the back (playing with pure core 3.5 ed rules), that would be a critical hit in the least and a coup de grace almost all the time. So yeah pretty much a death.
"A helpless character"
Coup de Grace
That is provided you can sneak up on a highly trained fighter, or break through a wizard's myriad defences. Also there are many ways traps can kill you in 3.5 (unless of course a player wants to be a munchkin). If the trap were to be an avoidable one (ie a rockslide triggered which can be dodged or circumvented) then its reasonable to expect high lvl pcs to be able to get out of it. Also this also largely depends on how a DM plays the game, if I triggered a trap in an unavoidable situation, My DM could (and would) just tell me "Ok you died, I enforce rule 0 "DM fiat".
And while I agree with you that this can be the case, how often do people sneak up on you while you sleep? At high levels no less? For one, there's the old bottle on the door handle trick, they're spells (low-levels at that) like Alarm which ward the area from sneaking creatures and magical items too. And this is at low levels. At high levels, it get hard to pull off these stunts. Now, this doesn't mean it can't happen, just that there are lots of options vis spells and magic items that hinder these things.
quote:
Originally posted by Aes Tryl
Also @Diffan
If you like E6, then the notion of a PC getting downed by poison and ganked by goblins should be very acceptable or even highly appealing. That is a good hard dose of reality. Akin to taking a crippling wound and being swarmed before any ally could help you. Futile, Frustrating, Inane? Yes. But then again that's the way death functions in reality, especially in combat situations.
I would put hp down to stamina, but they could amend the helpless rule to apply as such. "All attacks made on a helpless creature are regarded as Max Damage critical strikes (including sneak attack bonuses and what not), helpless creature must make a fortitude save of DC 15 + damage or die.
Oh, I don't have a problem with dying that way if we're playing an E6 game. Where the players know starting off that it's very cut-throat and death might be very common for adventurers. Still, I'd even allow the character multiple saving throws against the poison to fight against instead of 1 roll = death. I can't remember the level we were at when the got dropped, but I fairly remember that it was higher than 4th and lower than 9th and definitly NOT an E6 game. And I don't know if it's the death per-se, but the uselessness a player feels in that situation. While everyone is frantically playing, trying to overcome the situation there he is...on the phone or laptop and not really paying attention because he's paralyzed and thus can't do anything. |
|
|
|
Aes Tryl
Learned Scribe
181 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 01:13:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And while I agree with you that this can be the case, how often do people sneak up on you while you sleep? At high levels no less? For one, there's the old bottle on the door handle trick, they're spells (low-levels at that) like Alarm which ward the area from sneaking creatures and magical items too. And this is at low levels. At high levels, it get hard to pull off these stunts. Now, this doesn't mean it can't happen, just that there are lots of options vis spells and magic items that hinder these things.
Well then that's not down to having a gazillion hps then, that is smart playing and fully utilising the abilities of ones character class. I do believe the original complaint was that a gazillion hps can allow PCs to dodge death even if the are stabbed while they sleep. Also realistically if one were to set up a watch (if your DM likes to stab you in the dark), that would be even more protection against random assassinations at night. So if the PCs are actively taking measures to prevent themselves from being offed stupidly, I don't see whats wrong. Also the higher level a PC is, the harder it is to catch them unawares no =)?
I do agree that poison should have multiple saving throws. Not just one save and then sit on your thumbs. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 03:12:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aes Tryl
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And while I agree with you that this can be the case, how often do people sneak up on you while you sleep? At high levels no less? For one, there's the old bottle on the door handle trick, they're spells (low-levels at that) like Alarm which ward the area from sneaking creatures and magical items too. And this is at low levels. At high levels, it get hard to pull off these stunts. Now, this doesn't mean it can't happen, just that there are lots of options vis spells and magic items that hinder these things.
Well then that's not down to having a gazillion hps then, that is smart playing and fully utilising the abilities of ones character class. I do believe the original complaint was that a gazillion hps can allow PCs to dodge death even if the are stabbed while they sleep. Also realistically if one were to set up a watch (if your DM likes to stab you in the dark), that would be even more protection against random assassinations at night. So if the PCs are actively taking measures to prevent themselves from being offed stupidly, I don't see whats wrong. Also the higher level a PC is, the harder it is to catch them unawares no =)?
I do agree that poison should have multiple saving throws. Not just one save and then sit on your thumbs.
About the loads of HPs, it's still true with certain traps that deal X damage. I mean, realistically, if a boulder drops on your head (ie, you don't make hte Reflex save) well there's a very VERY strong chance your going to die. In D&D, it's true up to about 8th level. At that point....it wavers. Sure, you might not die but you took a TON of damage and DMs or players often narrate that due to your extra-sensory perception you were able to avoid the lethal aspect of it or whatever. But at that point, it stops being simulative and starts becoming narrative. MOST of 4E is narrative, the whole power aspect of it is narrative, and that system got a lot of flak for it.
So if 5E wants to harken back to older days, it's going to have to either make a choice or base it off of simulation and have narrative options to it. As for the poisons, yea I re-wrote the part about initial saves and further saves. If you fail the initial saving throw, you take the effect for each round but can continue to save until you pass. At that time, you may act accordingly. The poison is still in you and you'll have to make the saves again not to take the secondary effects, but it keeps you in the fight. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 5E news from the D&D Experience?
