|
Evil Mastermind posted:I think we're going to be having a few playtest games here, so I wouldn't worry too much. Yep, I definitely plan on running a game or two.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:You know, now that I actually think about it, it seems like an easy fix would just be coins. For every awesome ability that seems hamstrung by unnecessary rolling, just have them flip a coin. they get a heads, it works. Quicker, easier, and maintains pretty much the exact same success/failure rate. Coins isn't a bad fix, but there are different varieties of saving throws so it wouldn't hit them all. Some are hard saves (16+) and easy saves I assume are (6+).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:Coins isn't a bad fix, but there are different varieties of saving throws so it wouldn't hit them all. Some are hard saves (16+) and easy saves I assume are (6+). Some abilities trigger on an "even roll".
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Without getting into detail, is there a unified ability mechanic, like AWED Powers in 4E, that serves as a baseline for class balance? I keep hearing things like "monks have combos", "rogues have momentum" and even that thing in the OP about classes being ranked by complexity, and I am wondering if we end up with a system that's hard to balance. I mean, it's Rob Heinsoo we are talking about here so I have nothing to worry about, but I would really like to know how people who have had a look at the rules feel about this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Without getting into detail, is there a unified ability mechanic, like AWED Powers in 4E, that serves as a baseline for class balance? I keep hearing things like "monks have combos", "rogues have momentum" and even that thing in the OP about classes being ranked by complexity, and I am wondering if we end up with a system that's hard to balance. Yes there is. There's class features (which are the "always on" type things), and there are class abilities (the AWED attack-y stuff). You get to pick from a decent number of options for both, and you gain more as you level up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Without getting into detail, is there a unified ability mechanic, like AWED Powers in 4E, that serves as a baseline for class balance? I keep hearing things like "monks have combos", "rogues have momentum" and even that thing in the OP about classes being ranked by complexity, and I am wondering if we end up with a system that's hard to balance. Without too much detail: yes and no. Complexity doesn't have any bearing on balance, just how easy/fiddly something is to play. (Think of the difference between a charge-focused 4e Barbarian and a Warlock with its Curse and all that) Everything works off a base frame with some alterations. It's closer to 4e than 3.5 for certain - think unique mechanics more like a 4e Monk's Full Disciplines and different Striker mechanics than the difference we saw in like AWED and PP classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Without getting into detail, is there a unified ability mechanic, like AWED Powers in 4E, that serves as a baseline for class balance? I keep hearing things like "monks have combos", "rogues have momentum" and even that thing in the OP about classes being ranked by complexity, and I am wondering if we end up with a system that's hard to balance. From what I've seen in the playtest of "ranking," it's mostly a little blurb saying "this is a good class for a beginner" or "don't give this to a new guy." It's mostly because of the class features I think, because Clerics and Wizards especially have a lot of conditional effects that trigger when they do something or are based on roleplaying and are not easy to explain to a newbie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
The other cool thing is that complexity can change based on your choices; it explicitly calls out ways to make the Wizard simple or the Paladin more involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
rantmo posted:Ok, I'm almost at the point where I'm as excited for this game as I am for Guild Wars 2. hey if youre still in chicago and you or I get our hands on the pkaytest I already have a group ready and willing, a bit of a dnd romp separatw from our FATE fantasy game sounds like a blast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
What classes are in this game, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:hey if youre still in chicago and you or I get our hands on the pkaytest I already have a group ready and willing, a bit of a dnd romp separatw from our FATE fantasy game sounds like a blast. I didn't end up signing up for this first round but I'm definitely signing up for next month's round. But yeah, you've got a deal 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Can you talk about unique class mechanics a bit? The rogue gets momentum, but what do other classes get? Or did I misread that and everyone gets momentum? Pelgrane Press has been posting in rpg.net a bit about the playtest and someone finally outright asked what we can talk about. I want to wait a bit to see how they respond before I distill 75 pages into bullet points. Especially because all classes aren't in the playtest doc, which means that the class mechanics probably aren't finalized and may even significantly change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
A set of guidelines would make this so much less stressful. If you read through the playtest I did notice mention of a few different upcoming classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
As a laugh, have a thread for this game on TheRPGSite: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22257 Haha. Those guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
How's the Quadratic/Linear issue dealt with? Is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Megazver posted:As a laugh, have a thread for this game on TheRPGSite: That thread is magical. e: Someone buy Peregrin an account.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Megazver posted:As a laugh, have a thread for this game on TheRPGSite:  edit: I don't think I'm even going to read that thread it will not be good for my relaxed mood. It will probably make me furious IRL Megazver posted:How's the Quadratic/Linear issue dealt with? Is it? I think they did a decent job except I'm irritated with how simple a few of the classes are. The Fighter is cool though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
I was right! I think I need to go lie down for a while or beat up dudes in Warriors Orochi 3. It's cool to learn they got an enthusiastic playtest response but I would like Pelgrane a lot more if they weren't being nice to those idiots on therpgsite
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
I made it until the point where rpgpundit started posting, and then I gave up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:That thread is magical. Yeah, I have no idea what the hell he's doing on that site. Mikan posted:I was right! I think I need to go lie down for a while or beat up dudes in Warriors Orochi 3. They're a business. They probably need to be nice to everyone, when in Official Pelgrane mode. Poor bastards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Don't read that thread. I mean it. My name is Mikan and I've posted the worst grognards and I wish I hadn't read that thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Mikan posted:It's cool to learn they got an enthusiastic playtest response but I would like Pelgrane a lot more if they weren't being nice to those idiots on therpgsite I have to say this: they're being a hell of a lot more professional than most of us would be under the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I have to say this: they're being a hell of a lot more professional than most of us would be under the circumstances. This is literally me right now: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I have to say this: they're being a hell of a lot more professional than most of us would be under the circumstances. They've likely not subjected themselves to 1,705 pages of grognards.txt like we have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Don't read that thread. I mean it. I might be jaded, but my reaction was just Megazver posted:Haha. Those guys. With a bit of relief that their opinions are worth jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Megazver posted:I might be jaded, but my reaction was just I'm really excited about this game! quote:With a bit of relief that their opinions are worth jack poo poo. Idiots like those guys are way too common in this hobby, they are the reason this hobby has so much trouble innovating and growing
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Can we not turn yet another thread into grognards.txt? I get that people have bad opinions about things, but I don't need to hear about it in every thread here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry. Got sidetracked there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
It'd be a lot easier if the NDA was more than just Don't Copy That Floppy
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
We could talk about Heinsoo and Tweet's previous games. There are already threads for Everway and 4e, but there are others they've done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
I'm making pregens for my group (looks like we play tomorrow) and I'm kinda irritated with at least two of the classes for already being mechanically effective but boring. What makes it frustrating is most of the other classes allow you to select how complex you want to make them but one (maybe two) of them are just all simple all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Mikan posted:I'm making pregens for my group (looks like we play tomorrow) and I'm kinda irritated with at least two of the classes for already being mechanically effective but boring. What makes it frustrating is most of the other classes allow you to select how complex you want to make them but one (maybe two) of them are just all simple all the time. All classes are still doing balanced amounts of damage at least, but yeah, the barbarian is intentionally one dimensional and I think it goes too far. Classes that simple would really benefit from a feat that allowed them to improvise the poo poo out combat. Like, "This is your stunting feat, use it to describe wicked insane stunts and gain bonuses and rad effects" is just as valid as Vance's improv power that the wizard gets. Actually, yes, I will be tacking on a stunting feat to that class. fosborb fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Mar 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah, the balance is solid from what I can tell. And there's nothing wrong with having a simple class, but when classes like the Ranger and Paladin have built in ways to make them more complex it makes the Barbarian all the more frustrating. I think the Ranger and Paladin could do a bit more, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Personally, I think having a couple of dead-simple classes for the players who just don't want to bother with the fiddly bits is a good thing, as long as there's more complex classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
But that's the argument that led to the 3E Fighter. What if I want to play a barbarian because I just read Conan, but I also like complexity? What if I want to play a wizard but I am a new player? I think we have gone over this in the 5E thread already. Edit: I hope that the reason the Barbarian does not have the "turn on complexity" switch is because it hasn't been designed yet, not because it's destined to be the low-effort class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
I'm fine with there being separate classes for simple and complex options as long as there's one of each for every archetype - i.e. I don't mind a simple barbarian if I can play the more complex fighter as a barbarian with simple reskinning. Having knobs to dial complexity up and down within a given class is obviously fine too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Rexides posted:But that's the argument that led to the 3E Fighter. Well, my preferred solution would be to have a 'simple class' for each of the major stereotypes, but also a more complex one, all balanced in power with one another. It would be nice to just be able to 'turn on complexity' to achieve that but having Barb and, say, Sorcerer be the simple ones alongside the more complex Fighter and Wizard is acceptable to me. In my experience 'knobs' are more prone to wonkiness than separate classes. But yeah, I am sorry. I haven't read the 5E thread. (Makes me sad.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
The preferred solution is for people to play a game with a consistent level of complexity which matches what they want that day. Also: "You sayin' I like swine?!!" _________/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Edit: I hope that the reason the Barbarian does not have the "turn on complexity" switch is because it hasn't been designed yet, not because it's destined to be the low-effort class. Yeah, one thing people need to remember is that we're only seeing what amounts to an early draft. I'm sure stuff's gonna change all over the place as this goes along. e: Doc Hawkins posted:"You sayin' I like swine?!!" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
Most of the classes have complexity knobs - without going into details, even the Ranger and Paladin can go from "makes basic attack all day, owns dudes" to "casts spells and does more complicated things" (though the Ranger and Paladin need a bit more). The Wizard is always gonna be kinda complex but you can make it simplified with class feature options. The playtest doc even provides lots of options and examples of how to do this. I like it. Unfortunately, the Barbarian has zero complexity knobs and the Ranger looks really boring compared to the Fighter. Balanced, but boring. Evil Mastermind posted:Yeah, one thing people need to remember is that we're only seeing what amounts to an early draft. I'm sure stuff's gonna change all over the place as this goes along. Yeah, don't get me wrong. This is an excellent start and I like so much of what's in this playtest doc. quote:"You sayin' I like swine?!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 19:41
|
|