|
I am 100% fine with it not being on a grid, as I find that's a lot easier for online play, which is what I end u doing most of the time since I moved back to SoCal (the area I'm in is a wasteland for tabletop gaming). Grid combat can be fun, but I like it being optional rather then assumed, and that was one of my hold ups on 4e.moths posted:It's once per round, and free. If you could do it more than half the time, you'd be rocketing around the board like an ADHD pinball. Having played a vanguard in Mass Effect, this is pretty much exactly what I want to do, though. I want to charge an enemy. And then explode. And then charge another enemy. Just constantly bouncing everywhere. And then exploding.
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
It's hard to get a good grip on the game since it is in such an early alpha state.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
It tends to come down to two playstyle ideals that are somewhat at odds with each other. The first is one where you have potentially lots and lots and loving lots of fights throughout the "day," but very few to none of them are all that special. This is mostly characterized in Basic, OD&D, and AD&D, with the random encounter tables, the "puzzle enemies," the remarkably few "solo" style enemies, and the idea that the "day" is what makes up the entire adventure (rather then you just resting in the middle of the dungeon). The other is one in which you have far fewer fights but they tend to be far more special or interesting. I think 4e characterized this one best, with 3e desperately trying to reach it and ultimately failing. The problem with "daily" and "encounter" powers is that the first two match up, as do the second two. Daily powers "work best" in a given situation where you have an unknown number of fights, and none of them are really "boss battles." Encounter powers "work best" in a situation where you only have a few set pieces but they tend to be important and dramatic. Or to put it another way, daily powers work when the game is based/balanced around a full "day" of adventuring with no resting breaks or severe penalties to attempting such as you go throughout, whereas encounter powers work when the game is based/balanced around set pieces set to work together with more narrative ability given to players. The big problem with 3e and to an admittingly smaller extent (but still there) 4e is that it tries to do both. 3e balanced itself around a full "day" of adventuring, but then tried to peg that to "four combat encounters each day," which is dumb as gently caress because it lashes both the game and narrative to a really bizarre and pretty abstract number of fights. This was the source of one of CR's big flaws - that fights were very abstractedly meant to bring down 1/4th of a party's resources. So it tried to balance a "day" but then did it through a set number of "encounters." And it failed loving miserably. Then you add in all the ways 3e let you rip apart the "day" and rest on command and it's no wonder the system was hosed. 4e made it better with outright encounter powers and the two types of resting and healing surges (btw healing surges are loving brilliant on a few levels but that's a whole different topic), but the daily powers still sorta stuck out like a sore thumb. Normally it wouldn't be that big of an issue...if it weren't for how many you get, not just from your class but also your paragon, your epic, and your items, good loving christ the items. I have a level 11 psion and more then half my goddamn items have daily powers connected to them, all of them of different potency. It's a loving mess. Keep in mind, I'm not saying you can't have both types of "balance" in the game. It just has to be very well thought out. "Fighters can go all day long while wizards only have a few big spells" only sorta worked when wizards got like 19 spells max and they couldn't re-memorize them in the dungeon, and high AC and high HP actually equated to lasting a long enough time. The answer then to a "daily" balance existing alongside encounter balance is to very brutally cut down on how many "daily" abilities a person has to make them special and to utilize a form of resource management that isn't directly connected to how "powerful" a person is. You know, like healing surges. ( Healing surges are so loving brilliant, I can't even begin )
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Early date has me a bit worried; I enjoy what's there so far, but I enjoy it as an alpha. It still needs work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:I dunno how much they can do to it, honestly. Yes, exactly. I enjoy it as an alpha, one that can take a lot of changes! But with a date that close, I'm not sure how much of an "alpha" this is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
Hi Wade! Adventure owns. I don't really have much more to add.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
I can't really speak much about our playtest because my god the dice hated that game. I've never seen so many rolls below 10. I can't really judge the game based on a single combat in which nobody ever hit anything, the monsters included.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
We won our first (and sadly only due to scheduling) combat, but it took us all night. I have never seen rolls that consistently low across the board. We had fighter/wizard/rogue/paladin? I think? We definately needed to re-go over the rules before playing again though, we were missing a lot of stuff on engaging the enemy and how fighters work and the like.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:I just don't see the point of attacking a dungeon without some kind of objective. If they're doing an evil ritual that needs stopping, there's a built in time limit. If they're just chillin' in their cave complex being orcs and orc'ing it up, then you're less adventurers and more home invaders. Counterpoint: There be gold in them dungeons. Really, I see nothing wrong with an old fashioned dungeon crawl even if placed in an otherwise not very old school game. It can be a really fun diversion to have a clear and easy "Go in and loot the poo poo out of the place" sorta deal. One of the reasons the Baldur's Gate 2 expansion, Throne of Bhaal, was so popular, is that it added a giant multi-story megadungeon. There's a reason Project Eternity made a giant multi-story megadungeon a big part of their kickstarter rewards.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I always just figure those "you do an exciting thing" powers are really just a roundabout way of saying "you don't have to roll for this exciting thing right now." Right, that's the big difference. Swashbuckler basically says "Do any sort of impossible stunt. Just do it. Don't roll anything - you succeed, regardless."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
So, barbarians. Are they good? Bad? Boring? Exciting? I'm still a bit unsure on some bits of the game - if I use the heritage feat to gain another class' power (let's say: bard battle cry), would I be able to use that with my barbarian powers?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
The character in question is a halfling refluffed to be a HALFLING RIDING A DINOSAUR. I figure writing "DINOSAUR" under weapon and having a DINOSAUR related background will cover that. I'll give Fury a look! I was someone scared away from Ranger (since the whole idea is that I act as one character, not two, so no pet) and neither fighter nor rogue really fit. Paladin was, of course, right out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what's the current consensus on the monk? Too weak, too strong, just right? Good choices, bad choices?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Yeah, while I love monks conceptually, I'm not sold on them mechanically. On the bright side I think it's mostly a number crunching problem then anything else. The basic idea is that they do low damage on their opener, regular damage on their low, and high damage on their finish. The problem is that, from what I've seen, "low damage" is really low, "medium damage" is...also pretty low (far lower then any of the other FIGHTIN MAN classes), and "high damage" isn't enough of a dice step up to really warrent the oh so low damage in the other two. They don't do enough damage, don't have high enough AC, and their abilities don't always mesh toget- ...Oh god. That's why it depresses me. They've made a D&D monk. EDIT: Actually monks do have one "conceptual" problem: the way their moves flow, they start off weak, hit strong in mid-battle, and then collapse back to weak right when everyone else is hitting their strongest due to moving back to the Opening. I you could cycle back to Fist instead of Backhand, it'd mean alternating between less then other warrior class damage and more then warrior class damage. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
God usually I'm really good with OUTs but trying to make one for Eberron just has me stumped.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
Finished my character! Was wondering what all you think? I'm definately going the route of "two handed weapon = TWO FISTED FIGHTING!" Barbarian who used Born for Battle to swap a talent for some fighter powers, which it turns out is really effective! The character itself is for the Eberron PBP. I decided on something admittingly kinda weird for my OUT. Kava Ringtail
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
A fair amount of it comes down to ease of use. Heavy Blows is easy to do with orokos, and I don't want to build too much around raging in early levels since I can only rage once per day - and by the time I hit higher levels and can rage for free on, say, an Escalation 3, I'll have access to the better fighter maneuvers. I'm actually more curious the two barbarian talents. Are those two good choices? I felt Whirlwind would work well with the fighter powers since every whirlwind attack would key them off; if I get dog piled or charge into a group of mooks, that could potentially mean a significantly better crit chance since EVERY odd attack, even or miss, adds to my crit range. And Slayer adds such an incredible amount of damage it's hard not to justify it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
So in another thread I was lamenting the death of the AD&D Illusionist/Thief, the sneaky spellcaster that didn't use blasty spells. Does this really exist in 13A? Sorcerer certainly is much more raining death, and I feel like wizard just doesn't quite cover it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:Cleric has a lot of support options. A lot of the support spells are quick actions and are also dailies, so you'll spend a fair amount of time hitting things or tossing an at-will blasty spell, though. See, that's explicitly what I want to avoid. That was what made the ol' Illusionist/Thief fun - in combat, you'd mostly be messin' with dudes rather then hitting them or fireballing them. In 13A I figure this would translate to a character who's fluff is a mix of spellcasting and sneakiness, and who's mechanics are oriented towards being slippery and applying control or debuffs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
It could work; use Born for Battle to grab the Thief background, and if you want to go complete purist, ask if you can do Battle Cries as their own action rather then attacks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
So I was right in my previous statement that the 13A monk is ultimately flawed in it's core because they're trying to recreate the D&D one? loving precognition, man.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
So the question is, DO their ki powers or maneuvers or whatever they are make up for it? Or is it D&D monk where none of their powers have any synergy and it's just a mish mash of unrelated things?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Since Strength doesn't do anything but (maybe) give you an MBA, the best monks from earlier playtests were wispy Str 8 Dex 17 types. This was all well and good if you wanted to play Mr. Miyagi but less satisfying if you wanted to play Ryu. An actual reason for monks to have strength scores would be great, but it's better be substantial because, of course, you need three different attributes just to use your goddamn powers. Personally I'd rather monks be something along the lines of "Str/Dex/Wis, choose two." You've got the lean whispy mystical type, the sorta big, broad, burly, yet understanding type, and the pure physical beat you the gently caress up type. Edit: I mean the only reason Wisdom is there is the appeal to a lovely tradition. If anything, str/dex works far better then dex/wis or str/dex/wis.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I slightly feel like some kind of minority revolutionary in this thread at the moment. The more I take my group through 13th age gameplay, the more I rely on icons and backgrounds, and the more I utterly want rid of ability scores altogether. They're a crutch - a necessary one sometimes - but they get in the way. Man, if you think chanting Death to Ability Scores makes you a minority on the Something Awful forums, I have good news for you!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
The basic problem is that, in a genre where the walls between "magic" and "mundane" are probably thinner and more see-through then they've ever been before, D&D still insists on defining itself by making those walls as rigid and opaque as possible. You have the oh so very important "magic" over here, and you have everything else over there. Magic has to be special and unique and different from everything else, and also never actually defined other then "special and unique and different from everything else." It's why psionics are always such a clusterfuck. In a system based entirely around "MAGIC" and "EVERYTHING ELSE," how do you add a third part?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
I can't really blame them for that. 13A is meant to be a D&D clone sorta thing, so they want to hew to D&D standards. The problem isn't with 13A, the problem is much more with D&D. Magic is special. How was magic special? It had actual defined "moves." Nothing else had that. And so ever since, D&D has resisted as hard as it can from giving other characters "moves." This is the biggest problem with D&D: It's a super loving meta game that constantly tries to deny it. Wizards are throwing fire from their fingers and summoning demons and creating magic portals, but that's not magic unless it's codified in this specific way different from all other classes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Yea well no one gives a hoot, welcome to forty years later This is way better then my post and any post I could've made.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Alternately you're really good at optimization and already know what the good poo poo and bad poo poo is! Ideally that's what the handbooks are there for. I like the handbooks. I despise their need.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
The big problem I personally see is that the Monk has always been one of the most unpopular classes. Who are the PF monk fans this is aimed at? It is regularly the most bitterly discussed class, and I saw literally not one 3.x fan hate on the 4e monk. The issue I have with Necromancer is that, at least personally, I think that IS an archtype built on a mountain of moving corpses, and games can rarely handle one companion, much less a horde.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:It's fine. Broken Bones can be mended. A destroyed Skeleton is just a new mook waiting to be risen. Now I wanna make a gambling halfling necromancer warlock type.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with the Summoner vault class? I'm making one now, and goddamn, splitting attack stats between Charisma and Intelligence hurts. If you want strong spellcasting stats, it means you're going to have absolute dogshit for defenses and HP. It doesn't help that the spells seem to randomly choose which, so you can't ditch one and set up some kinda "theme." To add insult to injury, the class tries to tell you to pick up a weapon and join your summons on the front line.
ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
It's important to note that I'm fairly sure 13A as it stands does not have the D&D problem with casters and fighters. I haven't dived into the math because I do not do math for fun, but the only "fix" barbarian would need is going for a different yet similar (or refluffed) class because you want more varied abilities in combat, rather then any sort of inherent weakness.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:But like, Martial Arts don't have to be Super Strong! Like there's schools of Martial Arts that are all about just knowing how to move and turn your enemy against himself Get your anime out of my D&D 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:This poo poo ain't Anime son. It's as anime as that garbage D&D Cartoon. It has monks. It's anime. Like, I'm only slightly joking. The actual issue with monks in D&D is that the first monk was a poorly designed rip of the 70's show Kung Fu, and every monk since has been trying to ape that while including absolutely zero other influences. This is compounded by the bizarre horror and dread that so many AD&D fans have of anything "Japanese" - I'm pretty sure both 3e and 4e had no small number of people complaining it was too ~*~anime~*~ - even if the influences aren't Japanese in any way. 13A is intended to be a D&D monk, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the biggest issue it's facing is that it is, once again, trying to be yet another clone of a bad AD&D class with little to no influences outside of it. The monk suffers because it's not allowed to be anything but What This One White Dude Got From This One American TV Show In The 70s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
So are you going to actually list examples or talk about how people are wrong or are you just going to randomly snipe. It's cool, you can edit your post a few times until you think of some.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Razzled posted:Can any GMs in the house help explain to me how I can effectively intertwine characters that are of opposing alignments? Alignment very often ends up being an excuse. The answer is "tell your players not to be dicks."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Majuju posted:So that's what I've got. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with The Three - either make it an ethically-bereft foil to the Archmage, or some kind of private military/mercenary contractor, or something else entirely. Meanwhile, let's play "spot the shameless trope-stealing"! Weyland-Draconis-Yutani
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Rad picture to boot; you do that yourself or get it commissioned or something?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
If you don't take this talent you are legitimately playing the game incorrectly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
I haven't looked at it in a long time, but the main issue with the monk I recall having was that it was a frontline fighter with low defenses and a damage specialist with eh damage, mixed in with a lot of weird side abilities that didn't mesh together or look like stuff that would often come in handy. So, you know, they totally remade the D&D monk! That nobody really liked. Which is what kills me, because the monk is pretty much always the first class that everyone dislikes mechanically and wants to see redone, at least in AD&D and 3e.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 05:16
|
|