|
Jimbozig posted:Well this is obviously just D&D Next because our choices and feedback during the playtest made it whole and it has united fans of all editions where once we stood divided. That's actually what I came up with, too.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Anyways...time for part two of the mod challenge. THE RIDDLE A quest?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:e: Ignore me, I misread what you were saying. THe winning guess should be self evident, but I assume either he or I will confirm it. In the event it is an "incorrect" answer that also fits the clue I will check with the JUDGES, because given the nature of riddling it is possible it could be a double.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This is probably a bad guess, since it only sort of fits the clue but is it A riddle? quote:Well this is obviously just D&D Next because our choices and feedback during the playtest made it whole and it has united fans of all editions where once we stood divided. Right, I'd go with Next as well. The bloodstain is all the negative feedback so far, the harvest is that they've finally concluded the playtest. Three cards of matching suit would be the three editions--2e, 3e, and 4e--that the game is built upon. The mirrored stone of madness is them trying to take the best part of each game and cram it into one thing. Walls, doors, traps, death, and loot are all standard fare for any dungeon crawl. The last part has simply been the progress of the playtest, how it went from something super lovely to something really playable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Anyways...time for part two of the mod challenge. THE RIDDLE Is it Chores?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
You do not address some serious design concerns with the Fighter that gave rise to the whole "Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard" problem to begin with. Those concerns stemmed from overall capability over the progression of the class. While the Fighter is gaining maneuvers that they are essentially, even with the most generous of retraining, locked into over the course of an adventure, the Mage's spellbook or the Priest's prayers allow great flexibility in addressing a problem. D&D 4e gave everyone the same number of powers (barring Rituals, which were ultimately a shared party cost and not an individual enhancement, and more importantly could be bought and cast from a scroll by anyone with no training needed, only money). With D&D Next, the Mage chooses from a long list of powers and can tailor them for the situation at hand. That was always the power of the Mage; they could solve any problem with magic. Every spell they had was a potential solution to a multitude of problems, whereas a Fighter's capabilities in Next seem relegated to the realm of combat primarily. Feats do not expand your Social or Exploration options as well as your combat options when you take them. Quadratic_Wizard posted:Feats are incredibly solid in Next, generally doing two or three things and giving you options. A Fighter can spend these on things like Tactical Warrior or Charger to give them new options in every fight. Or they can just use them to pump their prime stat so that they hit more often and harder. These options are not very good in comparison to increasing their prime stat. Especially because, in the core system, the tactical combat module is non existent. You can argue that it will exist and will solve all problems, but in theater of the mind Charge and Tactical Warrior are automatically harder to use, due to requiring clarification from the DM as to positioning before you can use the ability. Your do not examine a suite of abilities and make the choice as to which is most advantageous, you ask questions as to if any are even available for use. When you want to do something the rules do not cover explicitly, like a tactical combat maneuver there is no explicit feat for, if you want to do a tactical maneuver that there is a feat for but you do not have, the GM is going to call for you to make a check, using your stat. That is, so far, the core engine of the game. Improving your ability to make checks using your stats increases your capabilities across the whole game, whereas Charge and Tactical Warrior increase your capability in a narrow field with questionable usage in Theater of the Mind. quote:At level 20, a fighter can make 8 attacks on the first two rounds. With 20 strength, that’s 8d12+40, 92 on average. To compare, a cleric’s most powerful single target spell is Destruction, which does 15d6 damage, whose average damage is 52.5. Even the powerful wizard’s Disintegrate spell only deals an average of 59.5. Not to mention, the fighter can make this onslaught of attacks twice per combat, and will deal 4 attacks even after. They’ll either be critting on a good number of them or applying maneuvers to boot. So the Fighter is good at damage. For a mathematical analysis of the issue, you fail to include the following: A time to kill (TTK) analysis of the Fighter attacking either a set of book opponents or even just Monster Tofu. You need to compare that to the Wizard or Cleric throwing spells which have a save-or-die/save-or-lose component to see which deals with the combat threat faster. What is the Fighter at level 20 capable of addressing? Can they deal with the issue of Flight? Force cages? Ranged enemies at large or extreme ranges? Do these all require a magical answer in the form of itemization? Because a spell casting class can deal with those issues via their class features, spells. To go back to my first point, you need a mathematical analysis of out-of-combat issues as well. How good is the Fighter at the social and exploration pillars, since we are still trying judge the game by its own standards? The Fighter can be good at damage, but as a class are they good at the game of Dungeons and Dragons? quote:The Fighter is also good on defense. They have a lot of HP, Second Wind gives them more, Defy Death lets them survive literally anything. At level 19, whenever you try to kill a fighter, if they have a con of 16, they get to roll d20+9 against a DC of 15. Twice. And if either succeed, they don’t drop below 1 hp. Just so, the odds of rolling 5 or below twice in a row? 6.25%. The fighter is a goddamn immortal monster. (And they’ll no doubt nerf that by the time of the actual release) The Fighter, however, has to defend against numerous effects against which they do not get Capstone abilities. Keep in mind that your Defy Death ability is going to be around for two levels, as game play stops after an adventure at level 20. So 19-20, and then 20-end. While the Fighter will be highly resistant to HP damage (and a 6.25% chance of dying has a higher chance of occurring than rolling a natural 1), they are only benefiting from the ability you call out at the very end of the game. For the majority of the game, HP and various save-or-die effects kill them. Being turned to stone, slowed, paralyzed, charm etc. all make them unable to contribute to combats, and this persists even with Death Defy. Who has access to those effects? Caster classes, and the Fighter but only via magical items (which are generally not as good as spells). In D&D Next, the Fighter cannot even purchase ritual scrolls. A party full of Fighters simply cannot deal with certain magical challenges. In a game that has classes, and says, "Everyone can choose from these classes", that is a design failure. If we are supposed to have one person the Mage, one person the Priest, one person the Fighter and one person the Thief, the game should really state so clearly. Currently, it presents the options as being equal. They are not. A party of full Mages and Priests are theoretically capable of handling every problem. A party of all Fighters is not. quote:On his turn, the fighter’s options are where to put himself, what attacks to make, which maneuvers to use, and which feats to use. They have a modest selection right now, but they’re definitely not just “I swing then end my turn.” They also do not compare with previous editions of D&D, like the Book of Nine Swords or 4th Edition, in terms of what you can do. They don't even compare with systems like Dungeon World or Fate, which give you incredibly narrative control over actions and events. You are gushing over the sphere of influence that is the Fighter in a combat where the Fighter goes up and deals HP damage, and has HP damage dealt back in return. But you do not submit mathematical analysis of this event. quote:Not to mention, these are the basic rules. We haven’t seen the actual tactical rules they have down the pipeline: We have what exists, not what you hope to exist. We have the rules elements as presented to us and the comments from the developers that they are sending the unseen rules elements to a secondary design team. You do not have a mathematical analysis of a party of adventurers against a set of standard 'threats'; I could crunch this out for you in 4E without a second thought, and even do it with 3.5. Can you do this in D&D Next for us? If you can't, how is a DM supposed to know what will be a good challenge for his players? The system provides no easy guidelines. quote:Now, all that said, Next is by no means perfect. As I’ve said on the forum, healing needs to be looked at. The hard limit on healing that Surges provided is good. It gets rid of the feast/famine style of healing that you have in 3.5, where either you simply can’t heal, have to use the cleric’s valuable slots just to heal, or have a dozen wands of clw and healing is pretty much automatic after every fight. That’s still in Next, even if the Hit Dice do make the famine a little less lethal. You have fallen prey to cargo-cult game design. You see the elements of a game. Feats. Classes. Monsters. Dungeons. You say, "Oh, these elements are here. Surely now a game I will have fun playing will appear." Because, in the past, games have come that had those elements, and you had fun playing them. But that does not logically follow. Many elements of the game are missing, many core elements, like the baseline mathematics, the monsters, the encounter and challenge designs, the tactical combat system, to name a few. This is, like I said, cargo-cult design. Put things in the shape of a D&D into place, ask people what D&D feels like, and one day, a D&D will appear over the horizon and it will be everything you wanted it to be. After all, the things you put down are like a D&D. Its occult thinking, which is ironic, sympathetic magic specifically. We've been doing it to ourselves as humans ever since we first scratched some animals on the inside of a cave wall with sticks to attract a herd. You are telling yourself a story about game design and about a game, and how it will be great and fun, and ignoring the reality of the huge amounts of work not done. Keep in mind these developers have been working on this for two years, full time. An entire team. The entirety of that development process has been given over to what amounts to a marketing process at best, and that is assuming they were actively being (intelligently) deceitful. I think they are earnest, and therefor truly fools. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Anyways...time for part two of the mod challenge. THE RIDDLE A story? I feel like I'm at least on the right track.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Man reading the WotC forums are crazy. Gave up on the topic complaining about damage on a miss for Fighters, of course totally alright with spellcasters getting half damage on a miss/successful save. Didn't even bother with the topic on someone asking for Weapon Speed back. But the topic about the new Paladin Oath is going crazy places. A few people complaining because of Vengeance, a Paladin MUST be LG, must not give in to Vengeance which is an Evil thing! Etc., etc., etc. Lot's of one line posts by one person, often three or four in a row. Including this gem: "More should be done to encourage people to try the original games. I want their sales to be like 9:1 over more modern games." Yes someone wants WotC to make certain that old games they did not make sell better than their new editions, by nearly ten times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Any Next thread on the wotc forums degenerates by the second page. Some are early achievers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
The point has been made ad nauseum that the current group WotC are trying to sell their product to are toxic to the community. A simple look around their forums instantly confirms the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
I'm hoping the answer to the riddle isn't the truth because then I'd have to come up with a riddle myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
I'm going to guess discipline. Also the NEXT forum is pretty weird. I hadn't noticed that all their topics are in all caps. Given the very groggy nature of the forum I felt pretty unwelcome over there. I never had so much respect for grog miners as I do now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Any Next thread on the wotc forums degenerates by the second page. Some are early achievers. It's just a terrible place. I regret ever frequenting it. So, anyway, while there is much to dislike about Next, I have to say, the monk is pretty good so far, within the game's limitations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:You do not address some serious design concerns with the Fighter that gave rise to the whole "Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard" problem to begin with. Yeah, there are some real problems with the Three Pillar design, where Fighters are only good at combat, but that's an issue with DnD in general. 4e had it a lot less, but the fighter still didn't get anything to do outside of combat until the Martial NOT-rituals. Which were really awesome and they should have done more of. quote:That was always the power of the Mage; they could solve any problem with magic. Every spell they had was a potential solution to a multitude of problems, whereas a Fighter's capabilities in Next seem relegated to the realm of combat primarily. Feats do not expand your Social or Exploration options as well as your combat options when you take them. If nothing else, the Fighter is great at exploring. They can kick open door, charge through hallways, and more, and be pretty assured that whatever is going to try and kill them is going to have a hard time with it. quote:These options are not very good in comparison to increasing their prime stat. Especially because, in the core system, the tactical combat module is non existent. You can argue that it will exist and will solve all problems, but in theater of the mind Charge and Tactical Warrior are automatically harder to use, due to requiring clarification from the DM as to positioning before you can use the ability. Your do not examine a suite of abilities and make the choice as to which is most advantageous, you ask questions as to if any are even available for use. Hopefully, they will fix these. Charging should not make you give up all your extra attacks, and Attacks of Opportunity should be 1/turn, not 1/round. But, since they asked about both in the final survey, hopefully they already noticed this and will fix it. quote:When you want to do something the rules do not cover explicitly, like a tactical combat maneuver there is no explicit feat for, if you want to do a tactical maneuver that there is a feat for but you do not have, the GM is going to call for you to make a check, using your stat. That is, so far, the core engine of the game. Improving your ability to make checks using your stats increases your capabilities across the whole game, whereas Charge and Tactical Warrior increase your capability in a narrow field with questionable usage in Theater of the Mind. quote:For a mathematical analysis of the issue, you fail to include the following: I'd need to go a step further, with an Encounter Per Day (EPD) and probably some other stuff. But...lazy. quote:To go back to my first point, you need a mathematical analysis of out-of-combat issues as well. How good is the Fighter at the social and exploration pillars, since we are still trying judge the game by its own standards? The Fighter can be good at damage, but as a class are they good at the game of Dungeons and Dragons? Looks good to me. quote:The Fighter, however, has to defend against numerous effects against which they do not get Capstone abilities. Keep in mind that your Defy Death ability is going to be around for two levels, as game play stops after an adventure at level 20. So 19-20, and then 20-end. While the Fighter will be highly resistant to HP damage (and a 6.25% chance of dying has a higher chance of occurring than rolling a natural 1), they are only benefiting from the ability you call out at the very end of the game. quote:In D&D Next, the Fighter cannot even purchase ritual scrolls. A party full of Fighters simply cannot deal with certain magical challenges. In a game that has classes, and says, "Everyone can choose from these classes", that is a design failure. If we are supposed to have one person the Mage, one person the Priest, one person the Fighter and one person the Thief, the game should really state so clearly. Currently, it presents the options as being equal. They are not. A party of full Mages and Priests are theoretically capable of handling every problem. A party of all Fighters is not. quote:They also do not compare with previous editions of D&D, like the Book of Nine Swords or 4th Edition, in terms of what you can do. They don't even compare with systems like Dungeon World or Fate, which give you incredibly narrative control over actions and events. You are gushing over the sphere of influence that is the Fighter in a combat where the Fighter goes up and deals HP damage, and has HP damage dealt back in return. But you do not submit mathematical analysis of this event. quote:We have what exists, not what you hope to exist. We have the rules elements as presented to us and the comments from the developers that they are sending the unseen rules elements to a secondary design team. quote:You have fallen prey to cargo-cult game design. It's weird that you would say I'm the one with cult-like thinking, given the general goon culture where if one person disagrees with the accepted norm, they get shouted down, and the groupthink is particularly strong. In any case, I like Next because of what I've read. I don't give a poo poo about the terminology they use. 3.5 has all of those and it is utter poo poo. 4e has all of them and I can't help but think of it as a mostly a slow paced boardgame/cardgame hybrid in spite of all the things it does well. 5e started out even shittier than 3.5, but the final playtest had evolved into something that has made me optimistic about its release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Gazetteer posted:A story? I feel like I'm at least on the right track. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Please don't try to comment on Goon Culture, it has literally nothing to do with this conversation. I have a riddle, but I think this is a one riddle at a time thing. Winson?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:given the general goon culture where if one person disagrees with the accepted norm, they get shouted down, and the groupthink is particularly strong. Did you seriously just use groupthink unironically? Come on, you're better than that. Quadratic_Wizard posted:4e has all of them and I can't help but think of it as a mostly a slow paced boardgame/cardgame hybrid in spite of all the things it does well. People always say this, but I've never really gotten it. What is it that makes 4e a board game that doesn't apply to the other D&D editions? I mean, it has about as much rules for role-playing as any other one. Is it just that they made formal mechanics that had been left up to fiat before?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
I do wish the Open Hand path of Monk felt like it was ever worthwhile. It is closer to the old 3.5 Monk in what abilities it gets, but for the most part they aren't worth the things the Elemental path gets. Eventually they get something that is a save or die costing 3 ki but only usable 1/week. I can't think of any other ability any class gets that is so restricted. Maybe the spell Wish? But the Elemental path can spend a ki point, and in some cases a reaction as well, to counter with a blast of flame or send their attacker flying away, or make themselves resilient to damage for a round in exchange for not being able to move, or gain advantage on a saving throw. Then the Elemental path moves on to one of pushing, blast of fire, blast of wind, or the big one grapple the opponent and automatically hit with all attacks against that target so long as they are grappled. Then moving on to a choice of flying, some damage and knocking prone, a burst of fire all around them, or the big one imposing vulnerable bludgeoning on their target. And the capstone, instead of a once a week save or die, is spend a ki point for extra damage for all your attacks for basically a combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
It's not D&D Next.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:Did you seriously just use groupthink unironically? Come on, you're better than that. quote:People always say this, but I've never really gotten it. What is it that makes 4e a board game that doesn't apply to the other D&D editions? I mean, it has about as much rules for role-playing as any other one. Is it just that they made formal mechanics that had been left up to fiat before? It's the actual play of the game. When I play Fate, I think about what my character wants to do, then use the rules to do that. When I play 4e, I'm not thinking about what my character wants to do in a combat. I'm looking at my power cards, trying to figure out which is the best move. Try as hard as I can, I can't see the combat world in anything but a bird's eye view of the grid, whereas in Fate I can see the action in a cinematic perspective. That's not to say that 4e isn't fun or that you can't roleplay with it. I just have a hard time doing it in the middle of combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm going to guess discipline. I am inclined to accept this as at least as valid as the answer I was PMed. I may actually like it more. On consultation, a quorum has been reached. Riddle answered to the satisfaction of the judges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Please don't try to comment on Goon Culture, it has literally nothing to do with this conversation. Few things annoy me more than the groupthink argument, it smacks of intellectual laziness and a sense of entitlement that will not even consider someone being wrong. If a lot of people are telling you that you are getting it wrong, you should at least consider you might be. Not everyone is Abdiel railing against Lucifer in Paradise Lost. In fact, most people are not. Claiming this forum in particular or SA in general is united over anything is sort of an exercise in futility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Pumpkin_Paine posted:I am inclined to accept this as at least as valid as the answer I was PMed. I may actually like it more. On consultation, a quorum has been reached. Really? drat. I don't quite understand how discipline steals the light from a room, or how that would change over time. Or how it makes you laugh and smile. Or how people would just want for it to disappear. But whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Really? drat. I don't quite understand how discipline steals the light from a room, or how that would change over time. Or how it makes you laugh and smile. Or how people would just want for it to disappear. But whatever. Parents and other institutions may institute a "light's out" curfew time, but by the time you're posting here, that time is usually over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Really? drat. I don't quite understand how discipline steals the light from a room, or how that would change over time. Or how it makes you laugh and smile. Or how people would just want for it to disappear. But whatever. The Discipline bit I as actually make a sidelong joke about Vampire the Masquerade. Now I must riddle! "A candle gives it, a friend gives it, a rope gives it. It hurts, it's funny, it's personal. Disavowed and given in degrees. What is it?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:A party full of Fighters would probably be terrifying in the same way that a party full of Strikers in 4e was. As for out of combat challenges, what exactly are you talking about? What are the things the party needs the wizard for, that can't be provided by plot? The plot being, they need to find a Mage to deal with the issue. Or some form of deus ex machina. The Mage is that deus ex machina, provided by their spells which get to ignore the reality everyone else is bound by. Quadratic_Wizard posted:My main praise for 5e isn't even the Fighter. It's the design. Every ability in 5e actually works. That's new. Brand new. In previous editions of DnD, abilities would be more along the lines of "gain a +2-5 bonus to X when you Y". With a d20, a +2 bonus is only going to change the outcome 10% of the time. 90% of the time, abilities like that don't actually work. And there really aren't many things like that in 5e. The fighter is good at combat, and like 4e and 3.5, DnD has always been mostly a combat game. It's not good at the other stuff. You are aware that 4th Edition happened, correct? That you had at-will powers, which generated an effect when you used them? Tide of Iron allowing the Fighter to push someone whenever they wanted? In what way is Action Surge new, brand new? We are talking about probabilities that are dependent on each other, so your 10% increase only matters 10% of the time statement is arguable. But lets just say it is correct. How, exactly, does this differ from the abilities in D&D Next like proficiencies? I am legitimately baffled as to your statements here. Quadratic_Wizard posted:So basically, "Things in the future are poo poo because they don't exist in the present." They don't exist. And why should we presume they will be good? I don't think we should consider them at all in the argument, because it is pointless. You assume they will be good. I see them pulling a second development team out of nowhere, giving them a giant, incredibly difficult set of tasks which are serious obstacles and issues in game design (tactical combat, social systems, "the underlying math", etc). I do not think they have given me much confidence for success. Quadratic_Wizard posted:It's weird that you would say I'm the one with cult-like thinking, given the general goon culture where if one person disagrees with the accepted norm, they get shouted down, and the groupthink is particularly strong. True, which is why I am not shouting you down. I am also not accusing you of cult-like thinking. I am accusing the D&D Next team of Cargo-Cult design. I apologize but the "you" I was using was more metaphorical than literal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult posted:The term "cargo cult" has been used metaphorically to describe an attempt to recreate successful outcomes by replicating circumstances associated with those outcomes, although those circumstances are either unrelated to the causes of outcomes or insufficient to produce them by themselves. In the former case, this is an instance of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - after this, therefore because of this; since Y event followed X event, Y event must have been caused by X event. quote:In any case, I like Next because of what I've read. I don't give a poo poo about the terminology they use. 3.5 has all of those and it is utter poo poo. 4e has all of them and I can't help but think of it as a mostly a slow paced boardgame/cardgame hybrid in spite of all the things it does well. 5e started out even shittier than 3.5, but the final playtest had evolved into something that has made me optimistic about its release. What D&D, if any, do you enjoy? Or have you never enjoyed a D&D, and D&D Next has you optimistic that you will enjoy it? Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
It's a A burn!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:"A candle gives it, a friend gives it, a rope gives it. It hurts, it's funny, it's personal. Disavowed and given in degrees. What is it?"  ..s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:Really? drat. I don't quite understand how discipline steals the light from a room, or how that would change over time. Or how it makes you laugh and smile. Or how people would just want for it to disappear. But whatever. I took it as a cue from the mention of your sire, or possibly your boss (which would be another word for master). Back in the day they could have beaten you unconscious, but now that is frowned on. When your boss or your dad dishes it out, it sucks. Some people seek it out because it gives them pleasure. Some people never want to be disciplined. It is actually a fairly clever reading of it, IMHO. It is arguably more inside the lines of riddle metaphor than your actual answer, arguably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:The Discipline bit I as actually make a sidelong joke about Vampire the Masquerade. Burn. Candles are hot, friends can lay down a witty put down, rope burn as you slide down in gym class. They're painful the best one are hilarious. Disavowed and given is the normal back and forth in a casual conversation with friends. Degrees is a pun on temperature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:It's a A burn! Maltose gives the first correct answer!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:A +1 bonus to attack and damage is really nice. But remember, it's still just a +1 bonus on a d20. It'll change the outcome 5% of the time. On the other hand, total bonuses to attack in Next are very few and far between - you get a proficiency bonus from class, a bonus from a magic weapon, a stat bonus, and maybe some miscellaneous bonuses from other sources (or from buffs cast by spellcasters). Improving your chance to hit is incredibly important when it's something that's so hard to improve. quote:A party full of Fighters would probably be terrifying in the same way that a party full of Strikers in 4e was. As for out of combat challenges, what exactly are you talking about? What are the things the party needs the wizard for, that can't be provided by plot? Spells give you options. Spells give you a lot of options. Perhaps the DM wants you to get into the impenetrable fortress of Drak'Thar, which is situated upon a four hundred foot high sheer obsidian cliff constantly slick with blood that rains eternally from the skies. The fighters are going to need some help getting in there, whether it be flight, some better way of climbing than trying to use a climbing kit, or some other DM-provided option. The key here is that the DM is providing the option, not the players. Mages, clerics, and druids all have ways to get in - whether they fly under their own power, call about devastating earthquakes to weaken or destroy the structure enough that Drak'Thar himself feels threatened enough to stop them, gate in a powerful being sympathetic to their cause to help them, teleport in, etc. If the DM's goal is to get the players to try to storm their way from the bottom of Drak'Thar's fortress to the top, magic-capable characters can unintentionally bypass that by casting spells. Fighters can't do anything even remotely similar because fighters don't have the same wealth of options. To me, a 20th level fighter that's supposed to be on par with the mage who teleports around the world, calls in beings from other planes, kills with but a whisper, clones himself, becomes ethereal, etc. etc. etc., should be able to scale solve the challenge through pure badassery. Perhaps he simply scales the walls anyway by climbing and jumping in a fashion that no other mortal could hope to do, maybe he stands at the foot of the fortress and starts whaling away on the thing with a very real chance of bringing the whole damned fortress down, perhaps he gathers an army of ten-thousand men, trains them to the peak of perfection in a fortnight, and lays siege to the fortress. He should be able to do nonmagical things that give the GM pause and make him or her think "Holy poo poo, I had no idea the fighter could do that - now I need to alter my plans in response to the player." It's the sort of response casters provoke all the time - why should they have all the fun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Spells give control of the game to a player in a way that other abilities do not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:What D&D, if any, do you enjoy? Or have you never enjoyed a D&D, and D&D Next has you optimistic that you will enjoy it? I've had fun with 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e. Never had a chance to play the earlier stuff. Tried some clones like Numenera, 13th Age, Dungeon World, Legend. Possible to have fun with all of them, but don't really like the mechanics of them all. Also enjoy games like Mutants and Masterminds, Eclipse Phase, Barbarians of Lemuria, and whatnot. Favorite system though is Fate, and by a wide margin. It's my goto roleplaying game. When I think of DnD though, I have a pretty narrow vision of heroes getting into a lot of fights and in general having a lot of fun, in and out of character. And maybe I am overly optimistic about 5e, but rather than expecting it to be the greatest thing of all time, I just think it's going to be better than 3.5 and 4e, and the current playtest and what they've said they are doing supports that. When I hear that the designers are incompetent and only making their game to try and appeal to the worst part of the fanbase, I think "Nope." They're trying to appeal to as many people as possible, and the best way to do that is to make an actually good game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
I guess it's my turn to riddle: We three know the beat, but Guido said no go when he mapped us and our brothers. We didn't stick together but we didn't cause trouble. Once the scene got amorous, we got a bit glamorous with that dangerous devilish connotation, but eventually we settled back in with the rest. We're key in the kits those cats from Orleans use, and George kept us opening in a blue jay way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Spells give you options. Spells give you a lot of options. Perhaps the DM wants you to get into the impenetrable fortress of Drak'Thar, which is situated upon a four hundred foot high sheer obsidian cliff constantly slick with blood that rains eternally from the skies. The fighters are going to need some help getting in there, whether it be flight, some better way of climbing than trying to use a climbing kit, or some other DM-provided option. The key here is that the DM is providing the option, not the players. Mages, clerics, and druids all have ways to get in - whether they fly under their own power, call about devastating earthquakes to weaken or destroy the structure enough that Drak'Thar himself feels threatened enough to stop them, gate in a powerful being sympathetic to their cause to help them, teleport in, etc. If the DM's goal is to get the players to try to storm their way from the bottom of Drak'Thar's fortress to the top, magic-capable characters can unintentionally bypass that by casting spells. Fighters can't do anything even remotely similar because fighters don't have the same wealth of options. I honestly agree with most of that. I just don't think it's something that DnD has ever really tried to emulate. On the other hand, have you seen the Six Viziers system in the Fate Sytem Toolkit? It does exactly those things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Spells give control of the game to a player in a way that other abilities do not. Yeah but they don't have to? Like the issue is not that the 20th level fight man and the 20th level spells man are different, it is that they are playing to different genres. Using 3.5 as an example, your 20th level fighter is like, the toughest guy around and knows a lot of tricks with a sword and can beat up anything. He is heroic for a certain value of heroic. The 20th level wizard at that point can bend the universe around his dick and then win his fantasy football league before it even drafts. THe problem is that they are not different, it is that they are basically two different genres by the time it rolls around. 4e, as much as I dislike it, fixed a lot of that and put everyone on equalish footing in terms of character parity and what they were supposed to be doing. If the wizard was in the same boat as that fighter before, he would have some spells sure, and be a kind of a badass, but more than like turn the sky orange and make everyone into bats on earth he would be more like, knowing all the names of the butterflies and be able to solve any riddle while the fighter could hit anybody. If the fighter was playing in the wizards genre? Then he should be cutting light in half on the edge of his sword and walking on the wind and his goddamned name should be a killing word. The issue with D&D 3.5ish dudes is not that they are unbalanced so much as it is that they appear to be designed for radically different games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:I guess it's my turn to riddle: The Beatles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Nope, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Quadratic_Wizard posted:I honestly agree with most of that. I just don't think it's something that DnD has ever really tried to emulate. On the other hand, have you seen the Six Viziers system in the Fate Sytem Toolkit? It does exactly those things. I'll have to look into those systems. Our gaming group is just starting to branch out into non-DnD systems, and we're having fun with them. Pumpkin_Paine posted:Yeah but they don't have to? Like the issue is not that the 20th level fight man and the 20th level spells man are different, it is that they are playing to different genres. Using 3.5 as an example, your 20th level fighter is like, the toughest guy around and knows a lot of tricks with a sword and can beat up anything. He is heroic for a certain value of heroic. The 20th level wizard at that point can bend the universe around his dick and then win his fantasy football league before it even drafts. THe problem is that they are not different, it is that they are basically two different genres by the time it rolls around. 4e, as much as I dislike it, fixed a lot of that and put everyone on equalish footing in terms of character parity and what they were supposed to be doing. If the wizard was in the same boat as that fighter before, he would have some spells sure, and be a kind of a badass, but more than like turn the sky orange and make everyone into bats on earth he would be more like, knowing all the names of the butterflies and be able to solve any riddle while the fighter could hit anybody. If the fighter was playing in the wizards genre? Then he should be cutting light in half on the edge of his sword and walking on the wind and his goddamned name should be a killing word. The issue with D&D 3.5ish dudes is not that they are unbalanced so much as it is that they appear to be designed for radically different games. I agree with this wholeheartedly. The issue I have with Next is that while they've toned down what wizards can do by nerfing both the number of spells they can cast and their effects, they still have an absurd toolkit with tons of power and flexibility. It's just not the sort of versatility that any noncaster can hope to match. Noncasters need fun out of combat crap that they can do to make things interesting. They need a way to make the DM think "Oh poo poo" the same way that casters do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:59
|
|