|
The last line is my favorite. Oh no, the game is popular. God help us all.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Technically taking 20 doesn't work that way, does it? Taking 10 is putting in the normal, non luck based amount of effort, while taking 20 is constantly trying and failing. You'd just end up flinging yourself off a cliff up to 20 times and hoping one of them lands it. And considering what a Take 10 means, I think gauging it based on "you'd feel comfortable making this jump" is okay without having to pull up a huge range of probability tables. Pedanticness aside I get what you want. You want a high stakes, risky game where people feel immersed and in danger. You want people to use actual dungeoneering equipment and take advantage of all their resources. You want being stabbed by a Goblin in the middle of a dark thunderstorm to be something to worry about, not something to shrug off because its just three hit points off your character sheet. For the type of game you're talking that sounds perfectly fine, maybe even fun as you find yourself thinking "can I do this or will this jump be my last?". For the heroic fantasy DnD has become as of late, though, it just doesn't seem like it would work. Especially when a ton of work goes into making a character or an adventure, and losing those to some completely undramatic roadblock just takes the wind out of everyone's sails.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Yeah. And that's perfectly okay. Its just not what everyone wants, and I think that's why people didn't take kindly for being called munchkin powergamers over it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:It is the simple truth. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the march of editions has catered to players who came into the hobby through a certain lineage. Someone who became a fantasy-gamer-nerd with WoW is as Legit as me, but I'm not going to lie to myself and everyone else and say that the game hasn't changed in a very predictable and specific fashion from 2nd to 5th editions. If you are conflating me with the rage-out screeds of people who get mad about elfgames, you are trying too hard to marginalize me because it's the hip thing to do in this thread. This doesn't really hold up to the proof, honestly. A ton of changes to balance happened between 2, 3, 4, and 5. Heck, 5 in general seems a lot less "powerful" than 4 did, with less hitpoints, more rocket tag, replacing the first three levels with some incredibly weak "training" levels. It isn't just some big flat increase from dark dungeons to fantasy X-Men. If you're talking power creep, intra-edition power creep is way worse than these nonexistant increases between editions. New classes and feats get added, the devs get a better handle on the math, better options pop up to fix holes in the system. Sometimes its for the better, sometimes it gets out of control and you get 3.5. But I really don't think you have a proper handle on how each edition on DnD has changed the game if you think its just some flat line where 2 is the Good Ole Days and 5 is Superheroes For Stupid Babies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:That would be a strawman argument if you are wanting to put those words in my mouth. I guess you can, but at least for casters, we see going from Wizards being support casters that could cast a couple spells per encounter. I remember having wizards pop crossbow bolts at low levels to avoid possibly "wasting" a spell. Then 3.5 or Pathfinder, we go to having spammable cantrips, to even more spammable powers in 4th, and all of the other classes got significantly changed in 4th, but it's hard to map a simple progression as the meta started to fragment and get helluh confusing after 3rd ed. You seem like you're measuring a wizard's use in how much they can repeat what they're doing. That's the exact sort of mess that created the wizard supremacy in the first place. You're right. 2 had more checks on wizards than 3. But the checks in 2 were near-universally ignored because nobody enjoyed spell component busywork or uneven levelling. The 2nd ed wizard, at this point, was basically just what the 3rd ed wizard / 3.5 ed wizard would be. With spammable cantrips you're thinking of pathfinder, and if you really think being able to use Mage Hand or Acid Splash all the time is a huge boost than I'm sorry but you're incredibly wrong. 4th Edition gave the wizard the same at-will, encounter, daily, utility pattern as every other class. What it took away was its command over reality, which at least in 3rd became a huge part of the class' power. They were flexible and could impact the world on a huge scale, and any weakness you can think of was easy to neutralize by mid level spells at most. 4th ed ditched most of those and turned the rest into rituals, which any class can use if they take a feat. This was probably the lowest in power the wizard ever was, and they still got tons of goodies from the developers other classes didn't. 5th ed brought wizards back to where they were in 3.5 from the looks of things. They may be slightly stronger, but that seems to be more due to terrible, terrible math than intentional power creep. You're suggesting a constant increase. I'm suggesting a mostly flat line, interrupted only by a sharp dip at 4th.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Having an at-will spell that you can cast without worrying about ammunition is a big thing if you are playing an actual dungeon crawl where all of that mattered, but I guess everyone stopped doing those if they ever did to begin with. That's what we've been trying to tell you this whole time. We haven't been playing dungeon crawls. The game hasn't been about dungeon crawls in god-knows-how-long. It hasn't been about getting loot since loot stopped being the main form of experience. It hasn't been about conserving resources since the wizard could pull up a Rope Trick and recover all of his spells perfectly safely, no matter where and when he is. It hasn't been about enduring the elements since higher hit points made environmental damage trivial and hunger a joke. It hasn't been about high risk expandability since character sheets took more than six dice rolls and five minutes to make. The main DM sources are adventure paths, not dungeon delves. The supplement books are titled after heroes, not adventurers. You're asking for a radically different game here. You're not asking for D&D. Not D&D as its been for almost every edition of its lifespan. I know you like that playstyle better. Honestly, given the right DM and the right friend group, I'd have a blast playing it. But it's not what all of us are here for, and that's all we're asking you to understand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I know that. That makes perfect sense to me, but then don't tell me that there hasn't been a power creep when you and I were never playing the same game to begin with. Rules as written, there has been clear power creep across the board, 5th excepted, as I haven't looked enough to make that claim with any veracity. That's what the customers obviously wanted. Nobody but weirdo nerds like me who wanted to imagine our character tired and hungry and stuck days into a dungeon rather than some movie-hero cinemagic game. I'm not mad, but that's why I play D&D as a tactical combat game, more like Final Fantasy Tactics than anything else, and not as a veritas dungeoneering game anymore. I grabbed a copy of Torchbearer to check it out, but hoped that people had more similar suggestions rather than spamming I'll tell you there hasn't been a constant power creep like you've been saying. The change from dungeon delving to high fantasy? I'll give you that. But the change from edition to edition is far more complicated than that, and usually more a regression than an increase thanks to the sudden loss of many options. It doesn't matter what the last edition does because the new one will always be back down to Human Elf Dwarf Halfling Fighting Wizard Cleric Thief when push comes to shove. And that's not even taking into account how different classes are balanced each edition, some stronger than their predecessors and some weaker. I wish I had more suggestions for you, I really do. But I'm not much of an expert in the field of old-style dungeon crawls. Besides, this really, really isn't the right place for that. This is the place for bad opinions and bad attitudes, not game recs. Maybe try poking around the retroclone thread? I bet they'll have what you're after.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 07:40
|
|
, which obviously isn't going to work.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Congratulations. In 2015 you understand how things work in 3.0 no better than Tweet, Cook. and Williams did in 1999. The 3rd ed wizard was designed to be what you describe and it fails to be that because they screwed up My apologies for the mistake there. I was thinking solely about wizards on their own and forgot to take into consideration the multitude of system changes that accompanied the edition shift. I'll defer to you on the subject, since you seem way more knowledgeable about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 23:31
|
|