| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4694 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Jun 2008 : 20:51:05
|
| Well there have been some reports of near TPK with Shadowfell. Though that might be party tactics of not resting enough or gaming style. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2008 : 21:59:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Purchased character sheets are useful (sometimes) but certainly not necessary to play the game. I do not every recall using an actual charater sheet, just hand wrote them.
Oh never needed minis either.
Yeah, but that list doesn't specify purchased character sheets. It just says "character sheets". That means either professionally produced ones, or stats on a sheet of notebook paper, or photocopies of the one purchased character sheet that one guy got from a friend who snagged it from his older brother, who actually bought the official sheet (and we've all used that one  )...
The implication I'm seeing is that you don't even really need to keep track of your PC. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2008 : 22:01:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Everything I've read about the 4E rules makes me think it's specifically designed to make it tough to kill PCs. And while I don't want PCs to be invulnerable, I do want there to be some risk. I have a problem with the risk being removed.
I think the problem here, is that the rules play very differently to how they read. I havn't played any higher levels yet, but at low levels the PCs are still vulnerable. The only apparent difference is that I havn't seen a PC go down on the first hit yet, which happened alot in previous editions.
And again, I didn't say that D&D Extreme 1st level characters aren't vulnerable -- just that they can now take several times the damage of a 1st level character in a prior edition. The built-in risk is greatly diminished. |
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! |
|
|
|
Zanan
Senior Scribe
Germany
942 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2008 : 23:07:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I've probably mentioned this before, but I honestly don't think it's a bad thing that it's now harder (if not impossible) for level 1 characters to die in one hit...if the main goal of a D&D game is actually fun, that is, rather than realism. I just don't see how it's fun when a player's nascent character is sent to the afterlife so soon after they were created.
Well, it is part of being a DM of trying to avoid a character being slain "too early". It could happen, of course. But that also holds true for higher levels, especially if spellhurlers become more powerful. If characters hand out massive damage, they should expect a like return. The pendulum swings in both directions and the game is not and shall not be meant to be favouring the players' characters. So it could well happen that an adventurer's young life could end on the tip of a critcally hitting goblin arrow. Likewise, a 16th level rogue may as easily succumb to a harm spell cast by an opposing priest. |
Cave quid dicis, quando et cui!
Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!
In memory of Alura Durshavin.
Visit my "Homepage" to find A Guide to the Drow NPCs of Faerûn, Drow and non-Drow PrC and much more. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 00:04:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
I've never been a fan of using miniatures in an RPG and have never done so myself. However, 4e is certainly geared towards using them for combat. Ranges etc. are listed in "squares" for use on the map sheets etc. The way combat is written definately requires the use of miniatures (or squared paper and markers, at the very least).
I think I recall that there is a chart for movement, however, which converts squares to actual distance.
Basically, 1 square = 5 ft square. Also, at least in the MM5 they presented movement in feet with squares in parenthesis, so they were already moving in this direction. The funny thing is that I prefer having miniatures because I like how it helps with developing tactics and you can see what has cover and decide where to send you cone of cold (so it misses your allies but hits your enemies). The thing that irks me is all of the double-speak we get from WotC (in addition to the fact that miniatures are expensive and come in random packs). |
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)
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 00:17:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
The thing that irks me is all of the double-speak we get from WotC (in addition to the fact that miniatures are expensive and come in random packs).
The randomness is a large part of why I've never even considered buying any of the D&D minis. Back in the day, I sank way too much money into CCGs... After my friends and I got bored with them, I had nothing to show for all that money save for a pile of cards I could barely give away. I refused to play that game again with the minis. |
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! |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 04:00:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
I've never been a fan of using miniatures in an RPG and have never done so myself. However, 4e is certainly geared towards using them for combat. Ranges etc. are listed in "squares" for use on the map sheets etc. The way combat is written definately requires the use of miniatures (or squared paper and markers, at the very least).
I think I recall that there is a chart for movement, however, which converts squares to actual distance.
Basically, 1 square = 5 ft square. Also, at least in the MM5 they presented movement in feet with squares in parenthesis, so they were already moving in this direction. The funny thing is that I prefer having miniatures because I like how it helps with developing tactics and you can see what has cover and decide where to send you cone of cold (so it misses your allies but hits your enemies). The thing that irks me is all of the double-speak we get from WotC (in addition to the fact that miniatures are expensive and come in random packs).
But isn't that type of gaming starting to look a little like Warhammer Fantasy? |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 04:03:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't favor killing off PCs, even at 1st level. I like things that keep them alive longer. But at the same time, I don't expect them to breeze thru everything, and I want them to be vulnerable to their own terminal stupidity, if necessary.
We've gone from PCs being fragile at 1st level to being overly tough at 1st level. There is a middle ground, but D&D Extreme ain't it. WotC went from one extreme to the other.
Here's what I've heard--mind you, I haven't actually gotten to try out the new rules yet (oh well!). 4E is supposed to bring the PCs to more "middle ground"--I think that's what the designers mean when they keep saying that the classes are more "balanced". It used to be that wizards were both fragile and not even that magically powerful in the beginning of the game, but were tremendously powerful at the higher levels. Fighters were the toughest characters at the lower levels, but the higher levels they couldn't match the spellcasters in power. What the 4E rules have done (for better or for worse, you decide) is they've made all the classes about equally powerful at all levels, and they all have a lot of options, as well.
I've also read that it's not impossible to die in this game, even though the PCs have been made much hardier.
Ryn,
Just curious - do you think that this "balancing out" is a positive thing or even a necessary thing?
|
|
|
|
Kyrene
Senior Scribe
South Africa
765 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 08:37:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
2d4+2/3d6 (Recharge 5+)
Emphasis mine.quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
Actually, the new Crit is that on a natural 20 (or on a 19 if you have the right ability, but only if it results in a hit), anyways, a critical hit always deals MAXIMUM damage (not double).
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There were some 4E character sheets someone posted a few months back... The characters, all 1st level, had between 20 and 33 hit points. And healing surges, which are effectively more hit points.
So, looking at all the above, the maximum damage a level 1 monster (or rather enemy) can do is the 3d6 case, or 18. With 20HP, I can see how you can survive then. This brings to mind the inflation of HP and damage in Diablo II in the Nightmare and Hell difficulty levels. One of the things that have really pleased me when I moved back to D&D based games was the elegant simplicity of single or at most double dice values for most things. *sigh*quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
The whole thing is much more algorithmic. Reading the PHB is like reading an incredibly detailed specification/requirements document for a computer game (whither this be a CCG or MMO game, I'm not sure yet).
I'm probably not the first to mention this, but I suspect Hasbro are a little bit jealous of Blizzard and decided to move in that direction. Could we be seeing a 4e MMO soon? Could 5e actually be an MMO?
And that to me is flawed from the onset. Why would I as Joe Consumer pay to play a rulebook, paper, dice, D&D Miniature, D&D Dungeon Tiles and DM screen based MMO, when I can rather get all my game buddies together for a LAN party or just organise to "meet them" inside the computer MMO of choice. I don't have to bother with dice rolls, or notes, or a DM or anything that made D&D pre-4th Edition unique from everything else out there. |
Lost for words? Find them in the Glossary of Phrases, Sayings & Words of the Realms
|
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 11:17:36
|
| I for one love the minis. The fact that combat felt unmanageable to me without them was why I didn't play D&D as much before. Kudos to those who could manage it though. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 14:31:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
I confess that I find the concept of a "Level 5 Minion" with 1 hit point fairly confusing. Slash pointless.
The idea is to use minions for battles in which the PCs have to wade through swarms of creatures.
Regarding character sheets, I tend to think a hand-written CS is still a CS. As for minis, I must admit I am a visual person, so I like them. That said, I agree it's kind of silly for them to suddenly be "necessary". |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 26 Jun 2008 20:58:45 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 14:36:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Well, it is part of being a DM of trying to avoid a character being slain "too early".
I agree with that. I've always been a proponent of DM's fudging the rolls (or using some other tactic) if they want the characters to stay alive. Here's how I see it--isn't it a good thing if the DM doesn't need to fudge the rolls (or whatever) as much so a PC doesn't die in the first battle they ever fight in?
Granted, some people don't mind that style of play (cold realism), or perhaps they even like it. I respect that. However, I personally wouldn't find it to be as much fun. Dying in your first battle ever is realistic, but it's not what draws me to this game. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 26 Jun 2008 14:37:39 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 14:40:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
Ryn,
Just curious - do you think that this "balancing out" is a positive thing or even a necessary thing?
I like it. I won't say that it's necessary, but so far I think I like the results. The great thing is, if one doesn't like it, they can simply play a different version of D&D. 
I'm in two 3E games right now, and I'm greatly enjoying them. I'd love to play a 4E game sometime, though. I'm not "married" to any ruleset. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 15:52:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
But isn't that type of gaming starting to look a little like Warhammer Fantasy?
No, minis have always been a part of D&D (all the way back to Chainmail, the precursor to D&D). |
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)
|
|
|
|
dwarvenranger
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 17:04:36
|
Actually regarding mini's, the DM I'm playing with prefers to use dice as markers set to a certain # so he knows which is which. I did offer my beautifully painted kobold minis and even the cheapo plastic ones I have, but DM's have their preferences  . Of course, when a player (not me) accidentally roles the "monsters" and thenceforth causes the game to slow down due to trying to figure out exactly where the die was on the mat, I wouldn't dream of giving a smug look to the DM .
Having now played twice and having spent the money on the PHB, I feel even more qualified to say that while there are a few good ideas hereand there, most of it is crap  . Once I leave from this group I play with I highly doubt I'll play 4th again.
Pehaps some of the bright, shiny newness is wearing off already, because out of 8 gamers, (of which I was the only one who didn't jump on the 4th ed bandwagon) 2 now wish to go back to 3.5 and 2 more admit they are disappointed with the edition. I so want to be an "I told you so" but so far I have restrained myself  .
|
If I waited till I knew what I was doing, I'd never get anything done.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 17:59:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
But isn't that type of gaming starting to look a little like Warhammer Fantasy?
No, minis have always been a part of D&D (all the way back to Chainmail, the precursor to D&D).
Not quite. Minis may have inspired D&D, but never before were they integrated so much as to be considered (or at least labeled) as integral to the game. |
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 26 Jun 2008 17:59:24 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 19:58:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
But isn't that type of gaming starting to look a little like Warhammer Fantasy?
No, minis have always been a part of D&D (all the way back to Chainmail, the precursor to D&D).
Not quite. Minis may have inspired D&D, but never before were they integrated so much as to be considered (or at least labeled) as integral to the game.
I was just trying to point out (badly I might say) that they have always been an option for the game (at least, as best as I can research, seeing as I am only 27, and did not really start playing D&D until about 5-6 years ago; though I have been reading Realms novels since 1994ish, which is why I am first and foremost a Realms fan, then a D&D fan). |
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)
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 21:39:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I was just trying to point out (badly I might say) that they have always been an option for the game (at least, as best as I can research, seeing as I am only 27, and did not really start playing D&D until about 5-6 years ago; though I have been reading Realms novels since 1994ish, which is why I am first and foremost a Realms fan, then a D&D fan).
Heh. I wasn't around then, either, but I've read about how D&D started.
I don't object to using minis in the game, and I'll agree that they can be useful. I just dislike this new concept that D&D can't be played without minis, in particular the minis sold by the same company. I've said before that I don't mind someone trying to make a profit off of me, but I do object to someone trying to make an obscene profit off of me. |
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 26 Jun 2008 21:40:20 |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 22:04:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heh. I wasn't around then, either, but I've read about how D&D started.
Me too. I've been playing since '86. I tended to use minis in one way or another (I also often just used rough sketches of rooms for particularly complicated combats) primarily since 2e really. That was when I felt my painting skill was up to par enough for my efforts to be use on the "table", as it were. But never was I or any other participant I had (or currently, come to think of it) beholden to use such props. I suppose this will change when I give D&D Extreme a whirl.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't object to using minis in the game, and I'll agree that they can be useful. I just dislike this new concept that D&D can't be played without minis, in particular the minis sold by the same company. I've said before that I don't mind someone trying to make a profit off of me, but I do object to someone trying to make an obscene profit off of me.
Bang on, Wooly. I find this practice sickening, which was quite prevalent during 3e btw. I mean, I don't blame them for pimping their accessories to go with their main product. But to essentially to say "you have to" is baloney. I am disappointed that they did not put something into the books that state how one could run a game with out utilizing a 3-d reference. That was always one of the cool things about rpg's. You could just play virtually anywhere with minimal setup. I suppose one till could, but it would require a little effort to do so.
|
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 23:54:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
But isn't that type of gaming starting to look a little like Warhammer Fantasy?
No, minis have always been a part of D&D (all the way back to Chainmail, the precursor to D&D).
Not quite. Minis may have inspired D&D, but never before were they integrated so much as to be considered (or at least labeled) as integral to the game.
Thats the point I'm trying to make - the "required" use of miniatures is transforming the game (IMO) into something like a table-top mini war-game.
(I am aware that minis have been around forever but they were never required to be able to play) |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2008 : 23:59:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
Ryn,
Just curious - do you think that this "balancing out" is a positive thing or even a necessary thing?
I like it. I won't say that it's necessary, but so far I think I like the results. The great thing is, if one doesn't like it, they can simply play a different version of D&D.
I'm in two 3E games right now, and I'm greatly enjoying them. I'd love to play a 4E game sometime, though. I'm not "married" to any ruleset.
Fair enough. I'm happily married to 2nd ed but I've never seen the need to balance the PC's. My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 00:20:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing.
I agree with this logic. For a fighter, for example, there are only so many ways to swing a sword. If I'm playing a fighter (and I have), I'm not looking to be equal to a wizard -- I'm there to "bash it with my sword!" And I certainly don't expect my sneaky git of a thief to be able to do the same amount of damage as someone who commands the very elements... |
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! |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 00:48:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
Ryn,
Just curious - do you think that this "balancing out" is a positive thing or even a necessary thing?
I like it. I won't say that it's necessary, but so far I think I like the results. The great thing is, if one doesn't like it, they can simply play a different version of D&D.
I'm in two 3E games right now, and I'm greatly enjoying them. I'd love to play a 4E game sometime, though. I'm not "married" to any ruleset.
Fair enough. I'm happily married to 2nd ed but I've never seen the need to balance the PC's. My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing.
I think this is quite sound. I personally, have never been bothered about MU's being super duper powerful in later levels. I mean, fair's fair; Fighter's get to kick some ass at the low levels and the MU's have to bide their time and use their meager selection of spells just right, 'cause that is all they got. They pay their dues so to speak.
I don't understand why there is this great need for everything to be equal. Like in life, not everyone is good at all things and not everything was created equal. Added to which, what could possibly spell out a PC's "role" (as WotC is so quick to point out these days) more succinctly than that of having classes operate differently and have different benefits throughout different levels of the game?
I suppose there was a lot of griping because people felt MU's were all powerful at high levels in comparison to everyone else, and the game "broke down" as it were ( a lame way of describing it imho).
I say blame the DM's who do not see this happening in their respective campaigns not the game; they have the power to decide what is available to the PC's and where the direction of the campaign is going. |
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 02:11:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rhone Ethenkhar
I suppose there was a lot of griping because people felt MU's were all powerful at high levels in comparison to everyone else, and the game "broke down" as it were ( a lame way of describing it imho).
Why do you suppose that? If that happened there'd at least be scattered anecdotal evidence of no one playing characters other than magic-users in pre-3E D&D. There isn't.
There are lots of viable ways of working different kinds of balance into RPGs and their rules. |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 02:40:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing.
I agree with this logic. For a fighter, for example, there are only so many ways to swing a sword. If I'm playing a fighter (and I have), I'm not looking to be equal to a wizard -- I'm there to "bash it with my sword!" And I certainly don't expect my sneaky git of a thief to be able to do the same amount of damage as someone who commands the very elements...
Wooly - this is not to say that a high level Fighter cannot alter their reality themselves. They, to my mind, do it in a different way - establishing a "sword-won" kingdom for example. In this way they could themselves become potentially more powerful than any single Magic-User as they will have more resources available to them for use despite the disparity of power at the individual level. There is always power in numbers and the Magic User can only cast so many spells before needing to re-memorize them.
It all depends on your game I guess and what you (and your DM) make of it.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 05:26:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing.
I agree with this logic. For a fighter, for example, there are only so many ways to swing a sword. If I'm playing a fighter (and I have), I'm not looking to be equal to a wizard -- I'm there to "bash it with my sword!" And I certainly don't expect my sneaky git of a thief to be able to do the same amount of damage as someone who commands the very elements...
Wooly - this is not to say that a high level Fighter cannot alter their reality themselves. They, to my mind, do it in a different way - establishing a "sword-won" kingdom for example. In this way they could themselves become potentially more powerful than any single Magic-User as they will have more resources available to them for use despite the disparity of power at the individual level. There is always power in numbers and the Magic User can only cast so many spells before needing to re-memorize them.
It all depends on your game I guess and what you (and your DM) make of it.
Oh, I understand all that. I'm just saying I don't expect all classes to have the same combat effectiveness at high levels -- which is, apparently, one of the things that had to be "fixed" in D&D Extreme. |
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! |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 06:39:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing.
I agree with this logic. For a fighter, for example, there are only so many ways to swing a sword. If I'm playing a fighter (and I have), I'm not looking to be equal to a wizard -- I'm there to "bash it with my sword!" And I certainly don't expect my sneaky git of a thief to be able to do the same amount of damage as someone who commands the very elements...
Wooly - this is not to say that a high level Fighter cannot alter their reality themselves. They, to my mind, do it in a different way - establishing a "sword-won" kingdom for example. In this way they could themselves become potentially more powerful than any single Magic-User as they will have more resources available to them for use despite the disparity of power at the individual level. There is always power in numbers and the Magic User can only cast so many spells before needing to re-memorize them.
It all depends on your game I guess and what you (and your DM) make of it.
Oh, I understand all that. I'm just saying I don't expect all classes to have the same combat effectiveness at high levels -- which is, apparently, one of the things that had to be "fixed" in D&D Extreme.
D&D Extreme? You mean Dungeons & Warcraft don't you? |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 14:36:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
Fair enough. I'm happily married to 2nd ed but I've never seen the need to balance the PC's. My line of thought suggests that it is reasonable to expect a very high level magic-user to have much more power than an equivalent fighter by virtue of the fact that they have access to magic and can do more with it to alter their reality. Hence to my mind, (Chosen aside) someone like Szass Tam is going to be infinitely more powerful than someone like Duke Eltan (all things being equal) and this isn't, to me, a negative thing.
I get what you're saying. There have been countless arguments about it on the WotC boards. What happened (for better or for worse--each person gets to decide for themselves) is that WotC decided it was more important for the players to have fun (and feel effective at any level) than to conform to the idea that magic-users are "just more powerful than fighters--period." Whether it's true or not that a fighter of any level could never be as powerful as a high level mage (and again, that idea can be debated, and it has been debated), WotC wanted players of any class to feel useful at any level and not dominated by the player who just happened to pick a wizard. It goes for wizards, too--they are no longer stuck with only a few spells at low levels and need to have a crossbow to whip out when they run out of magic (and btw the way, the at-will spells are not inerrant).
Please remember too that I'm just trying to explain what I think WotC's design motives were. I'm not acting as an apologist for them, or at least I'm not trying to. If people dislike what WotC did, that's fine, but I don't have the desire to engage in a long-winded debate over it. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 27 Jun 2008 14:50:09 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 14:50:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Sorry, should have been more clear - I get the rationale behind the minion. I don't get the implementation.
Don't be sorry, I get what you're saying. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 15:01:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
What happened (for better or for worse--each person gets to decide for themselves) is that WotC decided it was more important for the players to have fun (and feel effective at any level) than to conform to the idea that magic-users are "just more powerful than fighters--period."
They decided on one specific idea of what was fun. Which is fine, but as with 'balance', 'fun' doesn't just mean what Wizards says it does at any given time. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
