| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Feb 2012 : 16:13:59
|
|
Article (February 20th)
|
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)
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 00:24:50
|
Nice post that one, well thought out with clear and easy polls to vote for.
However, my one gripe is with the comments namely 'balance'. I actually despise the 'rule' that everything needs to be balanced. Why? why? why? why? why? Its a fantasy Role-playing game and the game is rubbish if it not balanced? that's hogwash in my opinion.
Its a fantasy role-playing game about casting magic and fighting monsters and besting 400 foot fire breathing lizards, and gods and artifacts and simple stories and love and saving the princess, and meeting unicorns and riding pegasi and doing all this as soon as you can and for as long as you can because it is FUN. I don't like the fact that the accepted mantra and (un)official rule of balance stops my level 2 warrior from doing all that and more.
We need to be encouraging imagination and creativity in DM's and players, not writing a balanced rule for everything to hand-hold everyone all of the time.
Just my thoughts
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 |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 02:19:43
|
Interesting article, and I'm generally suprised that Monte gives a little bit of 'props' to 4th Edition. Though, like every article I read of his, there are a few mis-conceptions, namely this one:
Monte: "I think that players who appreciate the different levels of play want them to be different. (The people who say that the game breaks down at such-and-such a level are self-defining themselves as people who don't care for that style of high-level play, which is fine, of course!)"
That's a pretty big generalization. Really, I don't think it's a "feeling" or identifying themselves as high-level haters. It's pretty much fact. The game does 'break down' after a certain time of character progression. Where it breaks down is where one's opinion gets thrown into the mix and it varies greatly. One might think it's the aquiring of 4th level spells. Others feel it's about 12th level and there are some who think that it's the 9th level spells that really do the trick of brokeness.
This doesn't mean that the game is bad or un-playable or unenjoyable. But, based on the rules of the game there are certain spells that can, and do, break down the disparity of players AND takes control from the Dungeon Master. Lets take the good ol' Planar Binding spell. "Gee Mr. Genie, I'd like to use those wishes you grant please!" Of course, crafty DMs might be able to wiggle their way out of those wishes or find ways to turn them against PCs but not all DMs are that crafty or think quick on their feet. Or lets look at perma-spells the Cleric can manipulate with Divine Meta-Magic (Persistant Spell) and 20 Turning attempts. Or the "Cheater of Mystra" or "Pun-Pun" or "CoDzilla". These builds, for lack of a better word, break the game and they do so within the limits and structurs of the rules.
People who say High-leveld games breaks down are often people who enjoy playing melee or weapon-based characters that probably become obsolete or, at the very most, moderately applicable in these sorts of campaigns. That is, unless they're given special weapons that are far above what the spellcasters are obtaining. At least in 4E, high-level games keeps everyone involved. The wizard isn't 'instant-winning' encounters with a round of Quickend Spell + Standard spells (or Time Stop shenannigans) or the Cleric ending an undead threat with Greater Turning with 1 shot. It's the varying amount of End-Encounter aspects one character can pull out and Spellcasters have far more options in this regard than non-spellcasters.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
However, my one gripe is with the comments namely 'balance'. I actually despise the 'rule' that everything needs to be balanced. Why? why? why? why? why? Its a fantasy Role-playing game and the game is rubbish if it not balanced? that's hogwash in my opinion.
Its a fantasy role-playing game about casting magic and fighting monsters and besting 400 foot fire breathing lizards, and gods and artifacts and simple stories and love and saving the princess, and meeting unicorns and riding pegasi and doing all this as soon as you can and for as long as you can because it is FUN. I don't like the fact that the accepted mantra and (un)official rule of balance stops my level 2 warrior from doing all that and more.
We need to be encouraging imagination and creativity in DM's and players, not writing a balanced rule for everything to hand-hold everyone all of the time.
Namely because it's also a co-operative game that's designed around team work and multi-player aspects. When one combo/class/feature/rule makes it easy for one player to do it all, it cheapens everyone elses experience at the game. When a wizard can cast 1 spell in 6 seconds to by-pass a locked door that the rogue sitting next to him has been spending time, experience, and resources honing that non-magical ability for 4 character levels, it makes the rogue feel like it's been for naught. When the cleric casts one spell or uses a feat that turns him into a juggernaut that fights better than the Fighter......it's hard not to look at those options as "better" than the ones you've selected. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping players from 'spamming' these aspects over and over again.
By contrast, the Fighter is constrained to just one, simple aspect of his life. You fight. You fight pretty well but really....that's all you will ever be good at. You can role-play your butt off and it's fun but at the end of the day, your still just a fighter. Oh wait, this cleric guy can cast spells, commune with his God for granted boons, destroy undead with a look and word, and can fight just as good (if not better) as you. So, aside from the fact that my Character Sheet says "fighter", what is my place here? It would be a simple thing to write down Fighter on my character sheet and just re-flavor all the spells as martial-prowess abilities and now we've got a unique Fighter who fights better and has more options than an actual one.
I guess the point of balance is, while certain classes should be great at certain things, classes (or in v3.5 particular case, 3 clases) shouldn't be great at everything all the time. When you get the chance, take a look at the compartive "tier" aspects of v3.5 classes (or perhaps your familiar with them). It's generally accepted that certain classes are just bad. On purpose or because of lack of insight, who knows? But they're bad, in mechanics or execution or comparative balance with other classes of their same caliber (i'm looking at you Complete Warrior Samurai). Balance is often needed so everyone at the table can enjoy the game, this is a game first and foremost, and they want to feel special for their selections and actions of that character. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 04:14:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
However, my one gripe is with the comments namely 'balance'. I actually despise the 'rule' that everything needs to be balanced. Why? why? why? why? why? Its a fantasy Role-playing game and the game is rubbish if it not balanced? that's hogwash in my opinion.
Its a fantasy role-playing game about casting magic and fighting monsters and besting 400 foot fire breathing lizards, and gods and artifacts and simple stories and love and saving the princess, and meeting unicorns and riding pegasi and doing all this as soon as you can and for as long as you can because it is FUN. I don't like the fact that the accepted mantra and (un)official rule of balance stops my level 2 warrior from doing all that and more.
We need to be encouraging imagination and creativity in DM's and players, not writing a balanced rule for everything to hand-hold everyone all of the time.
Just my thoughts
-Eh, yes and no. I agree that it would be pretty contrived if your Fighter had special class abilities that allowed him spontaneously light his fist on fire, turn his skin into rock, and whatever else, when the main point of a Fighter is to generically pick up a weapon and hit things with it. If you want to be able to light your fists on fire, turn your skin into rock, and whatever else, play a magician. At the same time, though, I avoid Fighters because of that reason, that their main point is to hit things with weapons, and that's that. If something is flying too high, or has too high an AC, or your weapon breaks, or it's a ghost and you can't hit ghosts, whatever it is, you're pretty much useless.
-Things that were explored in that 3e book Tome of Battle and a bunch of 4e books regarding Fighters (and other martial classes in theory) struck a nice balance- martial powers and other maneuvers that are powerful at times like magic, that aren't inherently magical. So your Fighter, while still generically hitting things with a weapon, has a little more flair, and versatility. Instead of a plain old hit, you use a martial power/stance/whatever to jump 20 feet in the air and attack whatever it is you are attacking. Instead of a plan old hit, you use martial power/stance/whatever to throw your weapon further than, realistically, a thrown weapon would go. Instead of a plan old hit, you use martial power/stance/whatever to run past a group of enemies in a row and slice all of them with one blow all iaijutsu-like.
-The development of rules like that, and players/DMs taking it from there fosters the imagination and creativity you want without sacrificing certain classes as being boring or generic at certain parts of the game. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 23 Feb 2012 04:15:17 |
|
|
|
Tarlyn
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 04:27:29
|
High level game play can work in any edition. It is really more a question of what the group wants to do at high levels and how they define that experience. Personally, I lose interest in 4e games typically between lv 6-11, because the combats take to long. I have played in older edition games into the late 20s. We have had fighters, wizards, cleric, paladins the entire lot. For me high level play is the most fun when characters become involved in the intrigue and politics of a setting. Maybe building up one town or city, maybe opposing the interests of the priest of Cyric at every turn.
However, this is one of those to each their own topics. If the cooperative board game aspect is what the party goes for great. The game must be balanced for all classes to have an equal contribution factor in game scenarios. Nothing wrong with that.
However, there are also plenty of groups out there that do not care about having the game being balanced and are more concerned about it reflecting the fantasy fiction that they read and are inspired by. There is nothing wrong with either approach. In low magic fiction such as Robert E. Howard's Conan the barbarian, the balance approach could serve everyone's needs. Although admittedly, Howard's wizards did fly throw fireball and travel the planes, although they did have some charm spells. However, Forgotten Realms fiction, the wheel of time, sword of truth etc definitively reach a point were a guy who is the best swordsman in the world, still can't stand up against a power magic wielder without help(templates, magic items, divine boons). Some groups find the artificial gamy elements disruptive to a good narrative.
I am not trying to argue that one choice is better than another, but if you want to have these types of arguments the D&D next forum on WotC's board is overflowing with them. The bottom line is either side can argue until their blue in the face and no ones position changes.
|
Tarlyn Embersun |
Edited by - Tarlyn on 23 Feb 2012 04:29:38 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 04:51:23
|
Tarlyn and LK bring up some great points. To expand on what Tarlyn mentioned, it really depends on group expectations. When speaking about my group, I think I'm the main guy who dislikes high-level play the most. My wife, OTOH, loves her 18th level character (Sor 8/ Hathran 6/ arch-mage 4) that can turn monsters into glass (Dhulark's Glasstrike), fly willy-nilly, teleport, disintegrate objects, and baleful polymorph creatures into toads.
Our other player, the consistant Cleric. also enjoys the elaborate spell selection from the Spell Compendium and Complete Champion supplements which gives him a host of cool spells and feats for a divine caster. Gotta love Prismatic Sphere. And then you have my 15th level Fighter/Tempest that......well he attacks a lot, but not very well.
He has a feature that allows him automatic trip attempts when he hits with two weapons in the same turn....but every creature can withstand the trip attempt due to size + Strength. Really, only way he can pull it off is if they roll a 1 and he rolls much, much higher. And this is where we come to why balance is important. The two of them (my wife and friends character) were able to handle a Encounter Level of 23+ by themselves. Prismatic Sphere from the cleric followed up by Reverse Gravity from the Sorceress. It pushed every creature that charged the cleric through the sphere and destroyed them or sent them to another plane or made them permamently Confused. I, the Fighter/Tempest, waited outside the doors until the spell wore off before enter the battle.
My point with this while rambling of our Monday night sessions is, at high-leveled play, things can get ridiculous and it doesn't take more than a few 'builds' or spells to pull off. Balance is espically needed at high play for the entire group to become enmeshed with the story and encounters. |
Edited by - Diffan on 23 Feb 2012 04:54:12 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 06:01:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Furthermore, there's nothing stopping players from 'spamming' these aspects over and over again.
Really? Nothing at all?
This hasn't been my experience.
As a DM, I'm concerned with providing a good storyline for my players to inhabit. That storyline sometimes includes plot elements that don't care whether the players have rested or not.
So while one might say (rightly) that the fighter is always "just" a fighter, as well that certain builds and spell combos can cause class overlap (wizard outshining the rogue or cleric outshining the fighter) one should also remember that this means when the party casters are low or out of spells, the fighter isn't any lessened (beyond the loss of a few HP).
He or she can still hack the heck out of things, has a high AC and is quite dangerous.
I should add that I run concurrent encounters at all levels--not just high levels. In other words this isn't just a coping strategy for balancing high level play.
I think that too little weight is given to "always on" abilities of character classes like the fighter. Likewise, I think the occasional outshining of one class by another isn't a balance issue--and players who have a problem with being occasionally outshone need to get over it (i.e. a game designer doesn't have to worry about it), just as more distinctions in class-balance discussions need to be made between what's printed in the core rulebooks vs. what's printed in splatbooks. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 09:54:13
|
I disagree with the wizard and cleric taking the thunder from the thief and fighter. Yes a wizard can knock a door, but how many knocks can the wizard do a day? and would a wizard spend all his slots taking knock spells when there are so many other spells to take? Similarly to the cleric, yes I can take all the boost spells for that one combat, then what? I take them all again for the next combat and the next etc? What about all the other prayers I can take?
Very soon I run out of my spells/prayers or they are redundant because there are no locks to open, or the combats are with 'lesser' creatures where the cleric might not want to 'waste' their spells fighting a lonely minion and waiting for the BBG to arrive (who never does).
Just an aside, am I right in thinking that in 4E all/some classes have healing surges? So they are stealing away the cleric's thunder and I understand you believe 4E is fairer?
Am not spoiling for a fight Diffan, but am trying to work out how having all classes able to do a bit of something of all the other classes makes things fun and unique? Classes are not supposed to be the same, they are supposed to be different I don't want a character that is similar to the others, I really really want it to be different and yes I want my character to do something that no other character can do and yes I want that experience to 'unbalance' the game at certain points in the campaign as I also expect the other character archetypes to 'unbalance' the game at other times in the campaign and I don't care a jot that they do so. I am a mature grown up adult and expect other peoples characters to be better than mine at certain times and at certain things and I am not going to whine about it.
If there is no fear, nothing special, nothing exciting or the threat of character death because every encounter is balanced by the rules it simply becomes a game of mathematical probability (balance) and not a roleplaying game at all. The players can sit there and work out how many more 'x' encounters they can do before they run out of resources and also what treasure they will get for completing said encounters, there is less mystery for me in that approach.
Just my thoughts
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 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 10:15:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Balance is espically needed at high play for the entire group to become enmeshed with the story and encounters.
No you need players who are mature enough to enjoy the game and get on with it. Its about a positive attitude and respecting the other players at the table, and kudo's to your players that figured out a technique that works against monsters - however what happens when that technique doesn't work? what do they do then? How reactive are they, what other strategy can they come up with straight away? If you constantly rely on on technique to 'win' a combat and that technique doesn't work what then? Also doesn't that make the game boring and linear and 'same-y', yes the BBG changes in the next game but the same tactic is used over and over again? I can't see that as exciting, (and yes I understand that your players are not that linear, but the assumption remains the same).
I know we have talked before about styles of play and the reliance on a very exhaustive rule set to anchor the game, however the current mode is not for me. I have certainly seen a steady decline in creative play from the people I have gamed with for the last 20-30 years in most of the games I have been involved with since they moved over to the 3.x rule set. They have fallen into the console game character build mentality, every tweak has to be perfect, every manoeuvre has to be the best it can possibly be etc. It matters not that the back story of the ranger character's family were killed by raiding goblins as the ranger doesn't bother taking goblins as a favoured enemy as it is a 'waste', lets take giants or dragons or humans and get the bonus against them instead because we will use it more often/it will be better later etc.
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 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 11:21:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Furthermore, there's nothing stopping players from 'spamming' these aspects over and over again.
Really? Nothing at all?
This hasn't been my experience.
As a DM, I'm concerned with providing a good storyline for my players to inhabit. That storyline sometimes includes plot elements that don't care whether the players have rested or not.
So while one might say (rightly) that the fighter is always "just" a fighter, as well that certain builds and spell combos can cause class overlap (wizard outshining the rogue or cleric outshining the fighter) one should also remember that this means when the party casters are low or out of spells, the fighter isn't any lessened (beyond the loss of a few HP).
He or she can still hack the heck out of things, has a high AC and is quite dangerous.
I should add that I run concurrent encounters at all levels--not just high levels. In other words this isn't just a coping strategy for balancing high level play.
From my experiences, running out of spells is never an issue past 8th level. For one, our gaming sessions only last about 2-3 hours. We might get in a handful of battles in that time (or less) and by then, your approaching spells in the 15-20+ per day range. Add in magical gear (scrolls, wands, and rods) and it's less about drawing from your own strengths and just using those resources.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I think that too little weight is given to "always on" abilities of character classes like the fighter. Likewise, I think the occasional outshining of one class by another isn't a balance issue--and players who have a problem with being occasionally outshone need to get over it (i.e. a game designer doesn't have to worry about it), just as more distinctions in class-balance discussions need to be made between what's printed in the core rulebooks vs. what's printed in splatbooks.
If balance shouldn't be an issue, it really wouldn't matter what book the source of power came from (Core or otherwise). 'Always on' abilities are nice and all but your not 'always fighting' in the game. The game halts when spellcasters run low or out of spells generally. Which goes back to the 15-min work day of low-level characters.
As for players 'getting over' being out-done, I guess there's two sides to that coin. You could limit spellcasters as to how they overlap. For example, in 4E the Wizard has the Knock ritual. They can by-pass locked doors as easily as a Rogue can but it takes time (like 10 minutes) and requires some material compoents. I think that's fair. If the wizard wants to step onto toes, they can, but at a price. Or, melee-based/non-magical characters just often 'retire' after X level and then players roll-up spellcasting characters anyways. I've seen that approach a half a dozen times OR they take their character into battle with the silliest attempts at suicide so their character dies and the roll up another 'spellcasting' one. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 14:10:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I disagree with the wizard and cleric taking the thunder from the thief and fighter. Yes a wizard can knock a door, but how many knocks can the wizard do a day? and would a wizard spend all his slots taking knock spells when there are so many other spells to take? Similarly to the cleric, yes I can take all the boost spells for that one combat, then what? I take them all again for the next combat and the next etc? What about all the other prayers I can take?
Very soon I run out of my spells/prayers or they are redundant because there are no locks to open, or the combats are with 'lesser' creatures where the cleric might not want to 'waste' their spells fighting a lonely minion and waiting for the BBG to arrive (who never does).
Which is fine if you stick mainly to Core rules. Yet there are easy ways that circumvent this. For one, wands. Wizards can grab wands of Knock (fairly cheaply) with 50 charges. That's 50 closed doors, chests, coffins, and tombs that a Rogue will never get to use his expertise on. The cleric can obtain feats and PrC features that either swap Turn attempts for combat prowess or to re-gain spells (like the Ruby Knight Vindicator or Ordained Champion PrCs). And we can't forget that there are a number of ways to even get around the spell-slot adjustment of Meta-magic feats. The thing is, these supposed balancing factors are suppressed with options.
Non-spellcasting classes don't get these options, or if they do, it's hard to pull off. For example, Power Attack is often regarded as a good feat for two-handed fighter and other weapon-based characters. But in the long run, your not as greatly served by the feat due to it's 'balance' of taking away your percentage to hit. How about a feature or feat that negates the penalty to your attack X/day? Or the feat Shock Trooper that allows you to subjract from your AC instead of attack roll....but how about that being a feature or feat (of itself) that doesn't require a host of prerequisites or specific conditions? (Shock Trooper requires a Charge attack). No, that'd be unbalanced and give a hands up to non-magical based characters. I'm all for letting wizards stay powerful, but lets not keep the Fighter down as a result. And this is only showcased in high-leveled play.
It's not really a wonder that the Tome of Battle is such a highly regarded supplement to 3E. It does nothing to spellcasting classes, it doesn't supress them in any way and allows them all of their high-leveled spell shenannigans. What it does do is promote martial classes up to a bit better standard. The ability to shurg off a magical effect 1/day or gain the ability to tread over water or the ability to deal a tremendous strike that deals lots of damage and dazes or whatever is FUN. What I don't see is why this would be a problem overall?
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Just an aside, am I right in thinking that in 4E all/some classes have healing surges? So they are stealing away the cleric's thunder and I understand you believe 4E is fairer?
All characters have the ability to perform a "Second Wind", which grants them the ability to spend a healing surge. This is, however, a standard action which takes you out of the fight momentarily. Dwarves, being a hardy race, can used a Minor action to perform this ability. And as one who plays Leaders (cleics, warlords, bards, people who heal), it's a great and wonderful thing. For one, I don't like spending my whole turn healing. Espically with the likes of 3E's 1d8+level healing. Instead of healing my whole turn, I can instead focus on giving out buffs, debuffing a monster, attacking a monster, etc. Standard Action heals should be meaningful. It should be more powerful than your standard "quick fix". A second wind doesn't step on my toes because my Healing often does other stuff besides replenishing HPs. A cleric adds MORE healing sooner (in the form of +1d6s). A Runepriest grants healing and (depending on what rune you choose per casting) grants a temporary buff to damage rolls or a bonus to defenses (AC and FORT/REF/WILL) for two turns. A Bard grants the normal healing with some additional healing = Charisma modifier AND they can slide the ally if they need to get out of reach of a monster. There's more to do than just "hey, here are some extra HPs".
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Am not spoiling for a fight Diffan, but am trying to work out how having all classes able to do a bit of something of all the other classes makes things fun and unique? Classes are not supposed to be the same, they are supposed to be different I don't want a character that is similar to the others, I really really want it to be different and yes I want my character to do something that no other character can do and yes I want that experience to 'unbalance' the game at certain points in the campaign as I also expect the other character archetypes to 'unbalance' the game at other times in the campaign and I don't care a jot that they do so. I am a mature grown up adult and expect other peoples characters to be better than mine at certain times and at certain things and I am not going to whine about it.
If that's true, then why do you feel Wizards should have spells that step on people's toes? Why do clerics gain heavy armor or use shields? These are aspects in which specific classes do everything everyone else does and better. That's not unique or individualistic or promotes division between them and other classes. In the case of 4E, really the classes are so far from being the same that I cannot put into words the differences therein. They "look" similiar because 1.) Presentation and 2.) forming to the A/E/D/U system (meaning they get at-wills, encounter, daily, and utiliy abilities). While uniform in this aspect, they play far far far differently. I'd go into a big discussion on difference even between classes of the same 'role' but I don't think it's going to change anything here. Suffice to say Wizards can't hold a candle to Fighters (even for a little bit) when it comes to melee-attacks and using a host of weapons and Fighters can't daze monsters, summon demons, send enemies to other planes, or conjur Walls of Fire and Ice or create Acid Pits for monsters to fall into. Could they be more different? I don't see how.
I also don't think it has anything, what-so-ever, to do with maturity for the game. We're talking about the imagining of playing elven princesses and fighting dragons, something that inherently doesn't scream mature, lol. But aside from that it's also a game and people want to do well at games. Co-operative games like D&D have their place with specific people perfoming certain roles. Like you mentioned, you don't like it when each class can do everything that other classes can. It breaks the idea that a class is unique. But that's precisely what high-level spells and most spellcasters can accomplish within the rules. When one or two people of a group consistantly do "better" at the game than you do just because the rules allow them to do so, it diminished the game for those people.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
If there is no fear, nothing special, nothing exciting or the threat of character death because every encounter is balanced by the rules it simply becomes a game of mathematical probability (balance) and not a roleplaying game at all. The players can sit there and work out how many more 'x' encounters they can do before they run out of resources and also what treasure they will get for completing said encounters, there is less mystery for me in that approach.
I'm not really sure how this related to high-level play, but lets look at balanced encounters. This doesn't mean PCs triumph over monster. That's not balanced, it's geared towards PC's winning. A balance encounter can go either way. Sure, PCs can pull out the 'big guns' in the form of high powered spells or magical items, but then they'll be that much more limited in their next fight. If PCs hold off on the 'big guns' and a monster gets a critical hit and a PC goes down, well that's adventuring. 4E doesn't promote PCs WILL WIN approach unless the DM allows that to happen. I've played in 4E where battles were cakewalks AND I've had characters die and we've had to retreat. Often the encounter was balanced when a PC died or almost died and we had to change tactics. In battles where we waked through the hordes of monsters, it wasn't balanced (in favored of PCs and not monsters). But the question of balance isn't about encounter design, it's about classes performing their own thing well and not having other classes stepping on my toes. Which, IMO, isn't a good thing. |
Edited by - Diffan on 23 Feb 2012 15:40:45 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 16:21:31
|
I really don't see much validity in the idea that the game becomes broken simply because wizards can use wands to duplicate the abilities of another class.
The argument assumes that the person playing the wizard is, well, dumb.
What sense is there in spending your limited resources on a magic item (either purchasing it at whatever price the DM sets or by personally crafting it--the later requiring the wizard to spend even more resources to learn the knock spell) when there's already somebody in the party that can do the work for free?
I suppose if a wizard finds and keeps a wand of knock around in the event the rogue is incapacitated
thats great.
If theres no rogue in the party, well all of a sudden a wand of knock is very useful addition to the party wizard's repertoire.
In neither case does the presence of class ability-mimicking spells like knock unbalance play. And just because these things exist in the (3.5) game doesnt mean the players running their characters arent interested I cooperating on choices like what feats to take, magic items to purchase (assuming the DM allows it) or to create and otherwise having fun. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 23 Feb 2012 16:26:18 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 18:00:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I really don't see much validity in the idea that the game becomes broken simply because wizards can use wands to duplicate the abilities of another class.
The argument assumes that the person playing the wizard is, well, dumb.
What sense is there in spending your limited resources on a magic item (either purchasing it at whatever price the DM sets or by personally crafting it--the later requiring the wizard to spend even more resources to learn the knock spell) when there's already somebody in the party that can do the work for free?
I suppose if a wizard finds and keeps a wand of knock around in the event the rogue is incapacitated
thats great.
If theres no rogue in the party, well all of a sudden a wand of knock is very useful addition to the party wizard's repertoire.
In neither case does the presence of class ability-mimicking spells like knock unbalance play. And just because these things exist in the (3.5) game doesnt mean the players running their characters arent interested I cooperating on choices like what feats to take, magic items to purchase (assuming the DM allows it) or to create and otherwise having fun.
I'm not advocating that they completly lose such spells or make it impossible for Wizards to do 'roguish' things or that clerics can't fight at times, as good as the fighter. What I do advocate is that there should be limits to how classes that can mimic other class features and abilities. I like Knock being a ritual. It's a good example of a ritual spell. When a party is confronted by a locked portal, they have several options: Option 1. Big guy kicks it down. This method is fast but it's loud and can set off traps. Option 2. Rogue picks lock. This option is quick and quiet and exemplifies a core feature of the class. Option 3: Wizard casts a ritual that disables the lock. This option is quiet but it takes a while to perform and it's a bit more costly (gp wise). I see nothing wrong with this at all. They all showcase a specific class's feature or tactic, but the one specifically trained for the job has the easiest time at it.
And just because groups play smart and understands that a wand of Knock isn't as useful as having a rogue around, it doesn't take away from the fact that there are a few classes that can function just as well as other classes IN ADDITION TO what they normally do. That's where the breaking point is, when one class can easily function as two or three classes and retain all the benefits of the original class with no downsides. Yet on the flip side, that same class (I'll keep using the Fighter) is still limited to what he can do in terms of the classes limits. The versatility and out-of-combat applications of the class are pretty darn limited unless one goes really indepth with multiclassing or min/maxing. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 19:11:29
|
The tension between one or more players wanting to rest vs. the tempo of the story/plot/action and the desire of any of the other players to keep going is something I take advantage of as a DM. Its something I rely on.
I want my players to weigh the pros and cons of whether to keep going or not. I want to challenge them to look at their gear and their skills to try and figure out what they can do with those, when the party is just about tapped out of spells.
Likewise as mid levels, I want players to rely on their items that have charges and limited number of uses per day.
As a DM I dont view players as really getting the most out of their characters if I fail to do my job by conforming to the notion that combats need to stop when the nights play session time is up or when one or two characters are out of spells.
Instead, combat can be paused for the night and picked up again at the start of the next session. Wizards can draw their favorite battle wand and press on. Clerics can warn the party they have only a few spells left that can be channeled for healing and so on.
The "one and done" notion for low level characters is something I've read about, but I don't put much stock in it.
I think balance is important, but balance as a concept shouldnt rely on class envy (ha ha thats a new twist on the old phrase right there!) in terms of which highly tweaked character can do the most all at once, nor should the concept assume that balance between classes is inherently necessary at high levels of play when in fact high level play takes the job of class balancing away from the rules and gives it firmly to the Dungeon Master to monitor and adjust.
I can understand that some people dont like that one class can sometimes behave like another class with no downsides, but I also dont see a Wizard being able to cast knock as breaking the game, or somehow constituting a break point between the classes that requires a penalty in some form for one class to be able to mimic another.
To me it's an appeal to fairness and not game balance.
At their core, Fighters hack things and Wizards cast spells. The Wizard will be more versatile than the Fighter, in the direction of the Wizards (limited) spell selection, but the Fighter will still be just as dangerous after the Wizard runs out of spells as he was at the start of play.
In some ways Rituals as an element of the 4E rules are just a waste of party resources and in-game time. They make the game, in my opinion, too balanced.
Again, all my opinion. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 22:57:51
|
I haven't read through the whole thread (sorry). If I see its just two people going back-and-forth, I think thats one of those 'lets agree to disagree' situations (it doesn't mater what is factual - all that matters is perception in those cases).
Anyhow, enough with the lecturing BS. I prefer to run low-mid range campaigns, usually starting folks at lev.3 or 'rushing' them through those levels (when teaching the game to new players, I always start at lev.1)
I like dungeon-crawls - I grew up with them. But they don't really work at higher levels. And by 'dungeon crawl' I don't mean it always has to be some underground complex - so long as it is a pre-setup encounter area, it can be anywhere - city, sewers, village, temple, forest, desert, etc. I get a map, and everything is clearly marked.
High-level play usually obliterates that. I know, I've tried. I've had people teleporting around a dungeon (using 'Wizards eye' to scope it out first). I found it very frustrating trying to thwart them.
A completely different style of game - one wherein the PCs are 'movers & shakers' of the world works better at high levels. Then the challenges they faced are more RP-based, and no matter of mechanics really helps you out in those (like stopping a neighboring nation from invading you). It becomes more of a 'thinking mans game', and it has a different feel to it.
However, I enjoy playing in those types of games - I just don't want to run them. This leave me with asking myself if it because I have more fun with 'dungeon crawls' (springing nasty surprises on the players) then I have with 'political' style campaigns (where they might throw nasty surprises at me).
So I guess it all boils down to me being a 'control freak' - I don't like when things spiral out of control and fall outside of my carefully laid plans. On the other hand, at low-levels, I have run games off-the-cuff, and they were fun (for both myself and the players), so I am not a total hard-ass. I guess at low-levels I can still steer the situation better then I could when players have gazillions of character options.
This is why my next campaign - which I hope to start soon - will be what is commonly referred to as a 'hardcore' game: HP will barely go up with levels. If they (WotC & 5e) institute 'instant kills' at higher levels, it would alleviate a lot of that escalation-effect we get, and brings things back down to earth.
Give PCs more abilities, but not stronger abilities. If they focus on character options rather then 'mega-super obliteration feats/powers', the levels of play will level-out, and you could even have a level 5 PC in a game with level 12 PCs, without there being a huge gap in performance.
Thats the kind of 'one rules for all editions' I am talking about. Simulate the 'sweet-spot' at EVERY level, and its pure win. A dragon is a dragon is a dragon - a level 30 mage should die just as fast as a level 1 mage when the damn thing breathes on you.
And of course, the level 30 mage should have a few protection spells that could stop it, that the lower-lev guy wouldn't... but only if he thinks of them and is prepared.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 24 Feb 2012 03:38:31 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 00:35:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
If that's true, then why do you feel Wizards should have spells that step on people's toes? Why do clerics gain heavy armor or use shields? T
Because wizards have always had knock as a spell from day 1 when there were no thieves in the game so actually they are not stepping on the thief's toes, the pesky thief turned up and took the open door ability from the wizard!
Similarly priests have always used heavy armour and shields but had less hp than a fighter, weapon restrictions, slower attack progression and no spell at level 1. Plus they did not receive bonuses for strength on their to hit or damage role (nor did any other class), only the fighter got those bonuses. The cleric was a holy fighter, (i.e. the paladin) however a fighter without all the benefits of the fighter class.
So there is a legacy as to why those two classes do what they do and this legacy has continued on through each edition of the game.
re the wands of knock, the thief can also use them (albeit with a chance of failure) so the class is not that restricted in terms of opening doors compared to a wizard.
My point is this, thankfully games are potentially unbalanced at every level dependant on situation, high level is no different to low level except the players have more 'options' with their characters and so more chance to temporarily unbalance the game in their favour which is a great thing! I love it when my players use spells and prayers cleverly to find out what is going on. I don't take umbrage at them resolving the 'plot' by casting wizard eye, it shows they are thinking about how best to tackle the problem they are facing and are playing their character to the best of their abilities. Similarly I am sure that if the 1st level characters don't understand the really obvious hints about the beholder living in the 'cave of statues' on 'dark terror hill' then they too will end up petrified and rolling up new characters. The beholder is there in the game from day one, it is up to the players to decide when they take it on, I don't need a rule set telling me what the appropriate CL is for the critter because I don't understand why the beholder cave is essentially 'sealed off from play' until the players reach X required level to make it a balanced encounter and yes I have had players whining about how unfair it is not once, but consistently and that does show a lack of understanding, respect and maturity.
We are all comfortable running games our own way and playing games our own way. I do not see how high level is anymore unbalanced than low level just because the characters are more powerful. The arguement that spell casting characters are way too powerful compared to the martial ones is nonsense, I don't see it at all. The challenge of high level play is making the game fun and adventurous and exciting and making the players come back for more, just like it is when you start the first adventure of the campaign as heroes-to-be at first level.
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 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 21:50:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
The arguement that spell casting characters are way too powerful compared to the martial ones is nonsense, I don't see it at all...
-When the Wizard or the Cleric or the Druid can cast a spell or three and become better fighters than Fighters themselves- higher AC, more HP, higher BAB/damage with a weapon- what is the point of ever pursuing down that path and being a Fighter? If your general character template is to be proficient with a weapon and bash enemies with it, doing as much damage as possible, past midlevel, spellcasters do it better with the right combination of easily available spells.
-That's not to say that they shouldn't be able to augment their own abilities with magic. It is magic, after all, and magic is possible. But, as magicians grow in power and become able to mimic the class features of other classes- in some cases, better than those classes themselves- non-magicians should be gaining powers and ability that, while non-magical, put them in the same 'power tier' with magicians.
-In the last game I played, my Level 9 Duskblade was made completely and utterly useless against a Beholder. It floated some 20 feet above the party, and began blasting us with it's eye rays. Focusing on the Elven Lightblade, my character did not have a blow, and did not have any way of attacking the Beholder. I basically sat there while the rest of the party took it down- I stood in front of the Bard to do my best to a meatshield. For all intents and purposes, my Duskblade was a Fighter, as the few spells I had all augmented my close-range fighting abilities. If, in general, martial classes, as they leveled up, received non-magical abilities that allowed them to exponentially grow in power like a magician- a 20 foot jump attack, for example- there wouldn't have been a problem. But, since they don't scale like that, I was SoL. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 25 Feb 2012 21:59:55 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 13:06:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-When the Wizard or the Cleric or the Druid can cast a spell or three and become better fighters than Fighters themselves- higher AC, more HP, higher BAB/damage with a weapon- what is the point of ever pursuing down that path and being a Fighter? If your general character template is to be proficient with a weapon and bash enemies with it, doing as much damage as possible, past midlevel, spellcasters do it better with the right combination of easily available spells.
-That's not to say that they shouldn't be able to augment their own abilities with magic. It is magic, after all, and magic is possible. But, as magicians grow in power and become able to mimic the class features of other classes- in some cases, better than those classes themselves- non-magicians should be gaining powers and ability that, while non-magical, put them in the same 'power tier' with magicians.
Which is why I think 5E should have some sort of limited resource mitigation. Meaning, if a Cleric wants to fight as good as the fighter in a pinch, he should be able to do so but maybe only once per-day. Limiting the amount of spells isn't the answer, limiting how many times one spell can be memorized is. In fact, this restriction in conjunction with rituals (for spells that mimic other classes features) and a buff to non-spellcasting classes might solve the problem all together. This also stops any spamming of wands of X spell too if Knock, Find Traps, etc. are 10 min rituals with costly spell components. Conjuration and Summons are ok, but I think even these could fall into the Ritual aspect. Conjurations could be like minor summons, spells useable in combat to bring forth allies. They have limited HP, Attacks, and abilities but it's a quick ally. Summons, actually bringing forth a creature from another plane are rituals, spells that take a long time to create but they last around a LOT longer (until their HP falls to 0) and they have tougher stat-blocks.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-In the last game I played, my Level 9 Duskblade was made completely and utterly useless against a Beholder. It floated some 20 feet above the party, and began blasting us with it's eye rays. Focusing on the Elven Lightblade, my character did not have a blow, and did not have any way of attacking the Beholder. I basically sat there while the rest of the party took it down- I stood in front of the Bard to do my best to a meatshield. For all intents and purposes, my Duskblade was a Fighter, as the few spells I had all augmented my close-range fighting abilities. If, in general, martial classes, as they leveled up, received non-magical abilities that allowed them to exponentially grow in power like a magician- a 20 foot jump attack, for example- there wouldn't have been a problem. But, since they don't scale like that, I was SoL.
I hear ya though I am suprised no one chastised you for not picking up a Bow, at least for situations like this. I also feel Duskblades should've had a few more spells from the Wiz/Sor spell list that gave them more versatility, or some good ranged touch spells (I think they get a few though). Another thing with the Duskblade is their limited Spells Known, as they're restricted to how many spells they know (like a sorcerer) IN ADDITION TO a limited spell-list.
I ran into a similar situation with a 12th level Paladin I played, the guy was build for charging and melee attacks and his shortbow was rather pathetic (it was only a masterwork Shortbow). So attacks against a flying monster were extreamly hard to make and the damage was almost always mitigated against the Demon's Damage Reduction. Very frustrating indeed. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 18:01:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I hear ya though I am suprised no one chastised you for not picking up a Bow, at least for situations like this. I also feel Duskblades should've had a few more spells from the Wiz/Sor spell list that gave them more versatility, or some good ranged touch spells (I think they get a few though). Another thing with the Duskblade is their limited Spells Known, as they're restricted to how many spells they know (like a sorcerer) IN ADDITION TO a limited spell-list.
I ran into a similar situation with a 12th level Paladin I played, the guy was build for charging and melee attacks and his shortbow was rather pathetic (it was only a masterwork Shortbow). So attacks against a flying monster were extreamly hard to make and the damage was almost always mitigated against the Demon's Damage Reduction. Very frustrating indeed.
-The character was a Bladesinger (though statistically a Duskblade), so my sword is my life- I even took a flaw that gives me a minus something to all ranged attacks. I have no problem being "thematic" like that (the extra feat from the flaw doesn't hurt, either), and if they were inwardly angry, I couldn't give a rats ass, since my character is a sword-specialized individual. I have in my spell list a singular ranged spell (Shocking Ray, I think it is, or something to that effect), but since we were attacked near the end of the day, I had no more 3rd level (is it third level? I think so) spell slots left. Even if I did, though, it was a Beholder, and could have just looked at me, negating the magic anyway. I was in a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it, really. The DM being a schmuck is also a factor in it, but I guess you can't fault him, since, if it were all real, that'd probably be what a Beholder would actually do, float up high and blast everything where it can't get hit back. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 18:33:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-The character was a Bladesinger (though statistically a Duskblade), so my sword is my life- I even took a flaw that gives me a minus something to all ranged attacks. I have no problem being "thematic" like that (the extra feat from the flaw doesn't hurt, either), and if they were inwardly angry, I couldn't give a rats ass, since my character is a sword-specialized individual. I have in my spell list a singular ranged spell (Shocking Ray, I think it is, or something to that effect), but since we were attacked near the end of the day, I had no more 3rd level (is it third level? I think so) spell slots left. Even if I did, though, it was a Beholder, and could have just looked at me, negating the magic anyway. I was in a lose-lose situation no matter how you look at it, really. The DM being a schmuck is also a factor in it, but I guess you can't fault him, since, if it were all real, that'd probably be what a Beholder would actually do, float up high and blast everything where it can't get hit back.
Are you familiar with the Bladesinger variant of the Duskblade Mr. Costa made? If not, I'd highly check it out as it's by far the best iteration of the style and beats most PrCs for functionality while remaining with the thematic ideals therein. Also, I don't begrudge you for choose that Flaw (can't remember the name, but I know what yo mean) and it makes sense. Scorching Ray is 2nd level but even at the end of the day, your either channeling that into your sword or burning it for more combat prowess with Arcane Strike (or something else). Really, you were in a no-win situation.
When I play my 4E Bladesinger, I at least get Magic Missile for free but it's likely the same situation as they're 95% melee-based. On the bright-side, do get Wizard Utility spells like Fly, so not all is lost. Have you asked your DM if taking the feat Extra Spell would give you a spell from the Wiz/Sor spell list or just one from the Duskblades? I know my DM allowed it from the Wizard list because your spending a whole feat for a 1 spell (not even as high as your level) so that sorta opened the door to be a bit more fair. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 20:12:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Which is why I think 5E should have some sort of limited resource mitigation. Meaning, if a Cleric wants to fight as good as the fighter in a pinch, he should be able to do so but maybe only once per-day. Limiting the amount of spells isn't the answer, limiting how many times one spell can be memorized is. In fact, this restriction in conjunction with rituals (for spells that mimic other classes features) and a buff to non-spellcasting classes might solve the problem all together. This also stops any spamming of wands of X spell too if Knock, Find Traps, etc. are 10 min rituals with costly spell components. Conjuration and Summons are ok, but I think even these could fall into the Ritual aspect. Conjurations could be like minor summons, spells useable in combat to bring forth allies. They have limited HP, Attacks, and abilities but it's a quick ally. Summons, actually bringing forth a creature from another plane are rituals, spells that take a long time to create but they last around a LOT longer (until their HP falls to 0) and they have tougher stat-blocks.
Totally agree with this.
Like I was saying above - they have so many ways of making charcaters 'better', without making them 'uber'. A wizards 'blast' spell should get slightly better as he levels (not EVERY level), but what he should get is more options. As it is, a wizard gets both more spells, and more powerful spells. His power goes up exponentially, while nearly everyone else goes up incrementally. Add to that more spells memorized, and thats three separate things he is increasing at nearly every level.
Characters right now only 'get better' in one direction - up. They need to broaden characters, not just keep stacking-on HP and damage. Thats what causes the game to become something else after awhile.
Lets take a simple thief, for example. Does he do more 'opening' to a lock at each level? NO, he opens it just the same. As his skills increase (with level,) he gets to be better at more difficult locks, and also grows familiar with more types of locks (both reflected by the difficulty level of the skill check). A 30th level thief can't open a simple lock better then a 1st level one - he doesn't do more 'opening points' to it. He may be able to open it faster, because of his experience with that type of lock, but thats it.
This is how everything in D&D should progress - why is it always about 'bigger AND better'? Why can't it be about more options, or getting better at what you do? Why does a fighter hit more often AND do more damage? That's a fallacy. Sure, with a Feat, every once in awhile DAM should go up, but that should be the exception, NOT the rule. If anything, just increase the crit-range for better fighters. They already get to hit stuff more often - why do they have to also hit stuff harder?
I am sure a 40 year-old level 1 blacksmith can hit something a HELL OF A LOT HARDER then a level 20 warrior, yet with game-mechanics, that isn't so.
The mechanics need to reflect skill, not 'uberness' - its ridiculous, and game-breaking, IMHO.
They can even give a fighter a better dodge and/or parry chance - that another way an experienced fighter can stay alive longer. Its not about the damage, its about the skill. Let the rules reflect THAT for a change.
And bring back magical resistance - if mages got better at hitting things, they wouldn't need to also get more damage with their spells. In that way, they are a lot like fighters. It should be about their abilities - not slinging spells like a thug with a magic wand. The Wizard used to be a finesse class, not a superhero in long underwear. Suppose a dragon had only a 100 HP, but its natural armor made it very hard to hit, AND it also had a high magical resistance. The wizard or fighter wouldn't be as concerned with how much damage he is doing, as he would be on how to get past the creature's defenses.
Focus on the skills, not increased damage. I dream of the game whree a level 5 player can play in the same game with level 12's. Higher level characters should hit with more frequency, and defend themselves better - thats it. If the threats HP didn't increase so exponentially, the PCs wouldn't have to do more damage. In The Hobbi, a single lucky shot brought down a dragon. Thats skill, not super-strong musculature (reflected by damage done). Move away from the MORPG paradigm, and give us back D&D the way it used to be - when everything was hard and scary.
Today its just about putting on your leotard and saying, "up...up.. and away!"
"Look - there in the sky! Its Mystra's Chosen!"
That's where it got broken. Its not a super-heroes game, and I once told RB that the 4e rules would make a PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules; I still feel that way. Great rules... just the wrong game.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Feb 2012 20:29:33 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4458 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 21:12:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Like I was saying above - they have so many ways of making charcaters 'better', without making them 'uber'. A wizards 'blast' spell should get slightly better as he levels (not EVERY level), but what he should get is more options. As it is, a wizard gets both more spells, and more powerful spells. His power goes up exponentially, while nearly everyone else goes up incrementally. Add to that more spells memorized, and thats three separate things he is increasing at nearly every level.
Characters right now only 'get better' in one direction - up. They need to broaden characters, not just keep stacking-on HP and damage. Thats what causes the game to become something else after awhile.
Lets take a simple thief, for example. Does he do more 'opening' to a lock at each level? NO, he opens it just the same. As his skills increase (with level,) he gets to be better at more difficult locks, and also grows familiar with more types of locks (both reflected by the difficulty level of the skill check). A 30th level thief can't open a simple lock better then a 1st level one - he doesn't do more 'opening points' to it. He may be able to open it faster, because of his experience with that type of lock, but thats it.
I'm all for progressing on a horizonal axis vs a vertical axis. There should be some advancements in HD/HP, attacks, damage, etc... but making it at every level or every other level (like a Rogue's Sneak Attack) just makes monsters defenses and HP rise. But this is an aspect of level-based games. When people level, often is the thought that you get better and this comes in the form of HP, Attacks, Damage, Skills, yadda-yadda.
It's a gamist approach, one not build into 'realism'. But there in lies the question, how do you handle magic and it's power vs. non-magical means in a level-based system? In 3E, the balance was the fore-warning of the level-curve. Meaning at low level, expect spellcasters to be suspect to instant death due to low AC and HP. At high levels, non-magical party members had better hid behind Anit-magic fields and find armors of Spell Resistance because instant death is always 6-seconds away (1 round) from an evil spellcaster or a person who loves poison. Personally, I don't like that sort of balance.
4E's way was to make all the classes advance at the same pace, putting powers in respective tiers and limiting spells to 1-known per day. So a wizard knows fireball but rarely (if ever) will they use up a level higher to prepare it again. They also boosted non-spellcasting classes with powers, which some have really dislikened (personally, I'm all for it). Who knows what 5E will roll out with. Hopefully they'll keep HPs and Damage within scale of realism. Really, there isn't a need for monsters to have 837 HP with AC 54 and 5 attacks that deal 3d12 + 5 + 7 poison + disease + trip with added specials onto that. To me, that's bloat. Lets keep it simple.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This is how everything in D&D should progress - why is it always about 'bigger AND better'? Why can't it be about more options, or getting better at what you do? Why does a fighter hit more often AND do more damage? That's a fallacy. Sure, with a Feat, every once in awhile DAM should go up, but that should be the exception, NOT the rule. If anything, just increase the crit-range for better fighters. They already get to hit stuff more often - why do they have to also hit stuff harder?
I am sure a 40 year-old level 1 blacksmith can hit something a HELL OF A LOT HARDER then a level 20 warrior, yet with game-mechanics, that isn't so.
The mechanics need to reflect skill, not 'uberness' - its ridiculous, and game-breaking, IMHO.
They can even give a fighter a better dodge and/or parry chance - that another way an experienced fighter can stay alive longer. Its not about the damage, its about the skill. Let the rules reflect THAT for a change.
And bring back magical resistance - if mages got better at hitting things, they wouldn't need to also get more damage with their spells. In that way, they are a lot like fighters. It should be about their abilities - not slinging spells like a thug with a magic wand. The Wizard used to be a finesse class, not a superhero in long underwear. Suppose a dragon had only a 100 HP, but its natural armor made it very hard to hit, AND it also had a high magical resistance. The wizard or fighter wouldn't be as concerned with how much damage he is doing, as he would be on how to get past the creature's defenses.
Focus on the skills, not increased damage. I dream of the game whree a level 5 player can play in the same game with level 12's. Higher level characters should hit with more frequency, and defend themselves better - thats it. If the threats HP didn't increase so exponentially, the PCs wouldn't have to do more damage. In The Hobbit, a single lucky shot brought down a dragon. Thats skill, not super-strong musculature (reflected by damage done). Move away from the MORPG paradigm, and give us back D&D the way it used to be - when everything was hard and scary.
Agreed, hence all my E6 chatter lately. Really, I think it's the only way I'll be able to enjoy 3rd Edition anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Today its just about putting on your leotard and saying, "up...up.. and away!"
"Look - there in the sky! Its Mystra's Chosen!"
That's where it got broken. Its not a super-heroes game, and I once told RB that the 4e rules would make a PERFECT set of 'Supers' rules; I still feel that way. Great rules... just the wrong game.
The superhero aspect has always been in high-fantasy genres. Even from early editions of D&D and the Realms. I'm not saying I agree with it and the rules should allows high-leveled campaigns that aren't world-shaking affairs that deal directly with Gods and the Planar areas. Modularity seeems to be the best way to go.
As for 4E being 'Supers', I'm not so sure about. Sure, non-magical characters get 'Powers', but really....there's nothing ridiculous about that that screams "ZOMG, THAT DUDEZ SOO TOTLY BROKEN!!" Clerics cast healy, defendery, buff spells. Paladins smite bad-guys. Rangers use two-weapons or bows and are Stealthy/Nature hippies. Druids wild shape into beasts and use natur magic. It's all there, same aspects and same stuff, just re-flavored and compiled into one mechanic= 'Powers'. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3745 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 22:51:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Characters right now only 'get better' in one direction - up. They need to broaden characters, not just keep stacking-on HP and damage. Thats what causes the game to become something else after awhile.
Lets take a simple thief, for example. Does he do more 'opening' to a lock at each level? NO, he opens it just the same. As his skills increase (with level,) he gets to be better at more difficult locks, and also grows familiar with more types of locks (both reflected by the difficulty level of the skill check). A 30th level thief can't open a simple lock better then a 1st level one - he doesn't do more 'opening points' to it. He may be able to open it faster, because of his experience with that type of lock, but thats it.
This is how everything in D&D should progress - why is it always about 'bigger AND better'? Why can't it be about more options, or getting better at what you do? Why does a fighter hit more often AND do more damage? That's a fallacy. Sure, with a Feat, every once in awhile DAM should go up, but that should be the exception, NOT the rule. If anything, just increase the crit-range for better fighters. They already get to hit stuff more often - why do they have to also hit stuff harder?
-The hard part is looking at it and trying to rectify things. A magician goes up levels, and as a result, his spells get stronger/bigger/more varied/whatever. Pretty simple progression. It's the non-magician classes where expanding on their class features and everything else gets a little more hazy. With guys like Barbarians, they get a lot of class features augmenting their attacks and rages and stuff like that, so that's handled sort of. Classes that have an emphasis on more vanilla stuff- Fighters with simply fighting, Rogues with picking locks, Rangers and being outdoorsy and woodsy- there's where the difficulty lies. Things like Maneuvers make leveling up pure martial classes in the manner we're discussing possible. Non magical attacks that greatly expand what they can do and where. What about Rogues, or Rangers? Sneak Attacks get more things that can augment them naturally (like those Feats) as they level up? If they get a plus to their damage on, say, every odd level, on every even level, they get something that augments it (sickens the target, bleeds the target, slows the target, etc)? With Rangers, I'm completely clueless? More Favored Enemy bonuses and Favored Terrain, like in Pathfinder? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 23:25:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Really, there isn't a need for monsters to have 837 HP with AC 54 and 5 attacks that deal 3d12 + 5 + 7 poison + disease + trip with added specials onto that. To me, that's bloat. Lets keep it simple
Aye agree 100% with this, simple is much better.
quote:
The superhero aspect has always been in high-fantasy genres. Even from early editions of D&D and the Realms.
Really? that not how I remember it at all. Sure the adventurers were more powerful than the local peasants but in early D&D not by much (every one rolled 3d6 in order for stats and no stat modifier was better than +1).
As I look at the OGBS of the Forgotten Realms, things are relatively simple as well, only a few 'major' NPC's are of name level (9th+), Sememmon is 12th Level for instance and second in charge of the Zhentarim.
The bloat and creep of power had a brief moment in the light with the release of the original UA (the silly rules for rolling stats that were generally ignored and the over-powerful cavalier), but got into full swing with 3E simply because of the way all stats were inflated with no upper limit, and how the XP system worked. Having Sememmon as 'only 12th level' seemed somewhat redundant I suppose given the fact that by playing once a week for 4-6 hours per session with three other players against appropriate CL encounters would result in a one year campaign getting said PC's to 12th level (or at least very close). Compare that to my current group who are using the Castles and Crusades rule-set they have just reached 12th having started their characters in 3E and making 5th level within 18 months (even with me reducing XP by 50%), it has taken another 8 years to get to 12th.
I also think that other authors deciding that they wanted their own chosen, as well as continually wanting to blow up the world (Troy Denning anyone?) led to an 'arms race' in more and more powerful 'super-hero' style NPC's plus the latest shiny new book with even more powerful prestige classes and feats added to the super-hero aspect of D&D.
Super-hero D&D is not a product of the Forgotten Realms, it is a product of WoTC redesigning D&D.
Just my thoughts
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 |
|
|
|
cguthrie
Acolyte
5 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 06:10:19
|
In any game that is played and we play, it totally is something different when you are doing some high level play. I mean, it sure will benefit those who are up to the challenge but will render the other players, who are not that competitive with it, not enjoying.
Shouldn't be anything wrong with it, as that would be beneficial in any other way. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Legends & Lore: The Challenge of High Level Play
