|
spellcasters are kinda bad even at 1st level in most D&Ds and their "options" consist of "badgering the DM into doing something persnickety with mage hand, light, or ghost voice." D&D can't really decide if you're supposed to be epic gawdz or bart the dirtfarmer, brother of fart the dirtfarmer.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
The "do you at-will again" grind is also much more representative of early 4e, before they fixed monster math.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:*Unless you're a spellcaster. Yeah. "I cast Sleep."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:4e has some stuff that sucks, but it's almost entirely stuff that also sucked in 3rd. Like feat bloat, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You know where Feats sucked? Mutants and Masterminds. As someone planning to run Mutants and Masterminds with little prior experience, what's wrong with feats (I assume you mean advantages?) in it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Scion: Hero Fated While out-of-character, Fatebinding is chosen to happen by the players as a means of regaining Legend, in-character, it just happens. Fatebinding is just what we call it when mortals are drawn into the stories of the divine, and it is the source of both great triumph and great tragedy. Fatebindings latch onto a Hero or Demigod directly, but for a god, they often latch onto the Mantle and act to define it and how that Mantle's relationships will play out in the future. This is one reason the gods tend to avoid Fatebinding when they can and stick to the Overworlds, where Fate is much weaker, acting through intermediaries. For a god, Fatebinding can alter how your power manifests and even your sense of self, though embracing these changes can be useful...if radically altering yourself is acceptable, as it was for the Orisha. On the Heroic level, though, essentially Fate picks someone and declares that they will be part of your story, possibly briefly or possibly permanently. Fate isn't mind control. It cannot override a mortal's will, force them to do what they don't want or puppet them. What it does, instead, is find people who were already predisposed to do what it wants done, then arranges circumstances to make it very, very easy for them to do those things. A mortal Fatebound as a Paramour to a Scion isn't suddenly being mind controlled into love - they were already at least attracted to or interested in the Scion, and Fate is now arranging events such that they encounter each other in settings conducive to romance. Either side can stop, if they have a reason to, but by default, the path of least resistance is to go along with it, since...well, everything seems to be pushing you together. The limits to Fatebinding:
At Demigod level, Fatebindings are as often tied to whole groups as to single mortals, and Demigods can also be fatebound to mythic creatures. Also, Fate starts actively punishing them for trying to step outside their Fatebindings. This is where you get stuff like Cu Chulainn getting trapped in his oaths or the Aesir willingly going to their deaths at Ragnarok. Gods are even more dramatically affected, becoming bound to entire cultures and even being altered by their Fatebindings. The clearest examples are in gods with different Mantles - Ares/Mars is variously a coward, a brute or the model of martial virtue, depending on his Mantle and which societies that Mantle was Fatebound to. Most of the time, an NPC will be Fatebound only to one person at a time, and only as one archetype. However, for a large cast, to avoid bloat, it is possible for one PC's Rival to be another's Paramour - you just want to avoid making schisms unless everyone's down for some infighting. Also, any shared Fatebound requires the consent of all players involved to be resolved in any way that removes them from play. Fatebindings are modeled as Persistent conditions - one on the NPC, who gets the Fatebound condition, and one on the PC, who gets a Role Condition. Role Conditions can be invoked once per session to get a minor benefit. When invoked, if the Fatebound NPC wasn't present, they show up just in the nick of time, unless this is utterly implausible, in which case the ST can veto the invocation. Typically, though, it should be allowed, and can be done reflexively. Once per session, either the PC or ST can compel the Condition, to introduce an obstacle or difficulty for the PC. The benefit? The PC gains 1 Legend. Rather than invoking, a PC can also resolve the Fatebinding, which gives a more dramatic benefit but has permanent and long-lasting consquences on the Fatebound NPC, typically either removing them from play or altering the nature of their Fatebinding. And yes, this means you can both invoke/resolve and compel each Role Condition, each session, if for some reason you want to be in that much trouble. The Fatebound condition is rated at Strength of 1 to 5. A Strength 1 Fatebinding lasts a single session, Strength 2 an arc, Strength 3, a Season, Strength 4 a Series and Strength 5 forever. Even beyond death of either party. If the Scion dies and reincarnates? Still Fatebound. If the Fatebound dies? Their ghost wakes up in the appropriate afterlife, still Fatebound, though possibly now in a different role - usually Jinx, Nemesis or Rival. Each time the Role Condition linked to the Fatebound is invoked, the ST makes a roll of (PC's Legend+Fatebound Strength) as a complex action. Once it gets enough Milestones to exceed its current Strength, Strength goes up by 1 and Milestones drop back to 0. The Fatebound condition goes away when its duration runs out, or when the Fatebound is removed from play if Strength is below 5. Occasionally, a Fatebound will be Imperiled - they will face a Peril. This might be getting kidnapped by demons, requiring a favor for some reason, or the relationship with the Fatebound may run into some problem. Whatever it is, it shouldn't usually take more than a scene to solve, but should require some risk or hard choice on the PC's part. Once the Peril is resolved, the ST gets to roll to gain Fatebound Strength Milestones, as if the Role Condition had been invoked. If the Peril is not addressed by the end of the current Arc, the Peril happens, and depending on the nature of the Peril, one of the following happens:
Next time: Fatebound Roles - the Apprentice, the Balm, the Boon Companion, the Canary/Martyr, the Jinx, the Nemesis, the Paramour, the Rival, the Traitor, the Worshipper/Unrequited Paramour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:Yeah. "I cast Sleep." Kurieg posted:*Unless you're a spellcaster. This is frankly bullshit. Spellcasters are probably the worst at level 1. They are more fragile then everyone else and they can only cast 2 or so spells before being worthless for the rest of the day. And the spell they cast tends to be only slightly useful at this point. Sleep is probably the best one, but It has it's flaws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This is frankly bullshit. Spellcasters are probably the worst at level 1. They are more fragile then everyone else and they can only cast 2 or so spells before being worthless for the rest of the day. And the spell they cast tends to be only slightly useful at this point. Sleep is probably the best one, but It has it's flaws. Assume 0 preparation, and a standard build for each character A starting fighter will likely have, at best, a 12 dex and no improved init for a +1 init bonus A starting wizard will likely have a 14 dex, for +2 init bonus Given that higher dex bonuses win ties, the wizard will go first 57.25% of the time If Wizard goes first Wizard casts Sleep Fighter's -1 wis bonus and +0 will save for a total of -1. Wizard's DC is probably 15. 75% chance to fail If Fighter succeeds, He will attack the Wizard. Wizard's AC is 12, Fighter's bonus is +5. Hits 70% of the time, automatically KOs wizard due to Str bonus and minimum damage Other 30% leads to a second sleep spell, with the same odds. If second spell fails, assume Fighter wins. If Fighter goes first, reverse the order of steps above Wizard's chance of winning is ~58.18% Even if they have the same init bonus, it's only 54.375% Remember, this is also basically the worst-case scenario for a level 1 wizard. Alone, with no buffs or situational advantage against a melee-range fighter
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Wizard effective for 1 fight. Warrior effective all day long. Just one of many reasons why I never play D&D again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Assume 0 preparation, and a standard build for each character D&D is not a PvP game. I am talking about actually going out and adventuring. Lets say the standard D&D party (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric) goes into a dungeon inhabited by a gang of 11 or so Orcs with a level 3 Orc Warrior as the boss. Now all the Orcs are not together as the party would get slaughtered if that was the case. But have formed groups of 2-4 throughout the dungeons rooms. How well will the Wizard do in this situation. (Not super as they are only going to be useful for a single fight at this level.) MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:As someone planning to run Mutants and Masterminds with little prior experience, what's wrong with feats (I assume you mean advantages?) in it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Hey, so, last week I started writing an essay about the 4e release, trying to put all those arguments from 10 years ago in context. The idea being that, after 10 years, we could discuss the edition war in an academic manner. So what I'm trying to say is, when I post it, I'm not aiming it at anyone here in this current discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This is frankly bullshit. Spellcasters are probably the worst at level 1. They are more fragile then everyone else and they can only cast 2 or so spells before being worthless for the rest of the day. And the spell they cast tends to be only slightly useful at this point. Sleep is probably the best one, but It has it's flaws. 5e (and pathfinder, for that matter) Gave all spellcasters infinite use cantrips. In 5e they scale up as much as fast or faster than a fighter gets iterative attacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
I wonder when, exactly, they decided a fighter should get -25% to hit for every attack they've had the temerity to make that round.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:5e (and pathfinder, for that matter) Gave all spellcasters infinite use cantrips. In 5e they scale up as much as fast or faster than a fighter gets iterative attacks. Yeah I know that. I was talking about 3e and before. Infinite cantrips something I am glad for. Night10194 posted:I wonder when, exactly, they decided a fighter should get -25% to hit for every attack they've had the temerity to make that round. No clue glad they got rid of it when 4e and 5e came along. 3e was a pretty big step back for Fighters types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I wonder when, exactly, they decided a fighter should get -25% to hit for every attack they've had the temerity to make that round. 3E development, I guess. In 2E you went 1 -> 3/2 -> 2 attacks, all at full effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Like I just want to know what the design intent of that was in the first place. I know the real answer is there isn't one but I'd love to hear one of the idiots who made 3e describe The Plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
The intention is that monster armor class would more or less scale with the fighter's worst iterative attack, and all the better attacks would be free damage. Things obviously didn't work out like that, not least because full attacks are a PITA to get sometimes, so the full BAB attack becomes the only visible one, and designers for some dipshit reason don't want monsters to be reliably hit in combat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Full attacks were a crock. Do anything interesting, like anything other than a five foot step? Lose all but one of your attacks, hooray!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
The message I'm getting from these reviews is "Go back to AD&D 2nd Edition".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Kavak posted:The message I'm getting from these reviews is "Go back to AD&D 2nd Edition". Or go to 5e as that has the most support right now of all tabletop RPG's. Or just play what you enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Or go to 5e. Or just play what you enjoy. But other people are playing The Wrong Thing and that has to be stopped!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Shadow of the Demon Lord actually has the most support right now of all tabletop RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Serf posted:Shadow of the Demon Lord actually has the most support right now of all tabletop RPGs. I highly doubt no matter how good it is that it has surpassed D&D in playerbase. When I said support I mean from the playerbase and other types of programs. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I highly doubt no matter how good it is that it has surpassed D&D in player base. It has over six billion players.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I highly doubt no matter how good it is that it has surpassed D&D in player base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:And that matters because...why? It does not. Was just rebutting him saying Shadow of the Demon Lord had more support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Kavak posted:The message I'm getting from these reviews is "Go back to AD&D 2nd Edition". Which one, 3e or 4e? Personally, I think 3e is a perfectly serviceable RPG up to around level 6-8. Beyond that is where its problems really start to show up, which is probably why someone decided that E6/8 was a good idea. Pathfinder solved most of the problems I had with it (though it did admittedly add a few of its own, like how you have to wait until you have BAB +4 for Combat Expertise to give you the same boost to AC that you could already get by fighting defensively (+8 if you put a few ranks in Acrobatics)). That said, if I were playing core only and wanted to play a single class Fighter, I'd play Pathfinder over 3.x in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It does not. Was just rebutting him saying Shadow of the Demon Lord had more support. Weird because it has way more support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It does not. Was just rebutting him saying Shadow of the Demon Lord had more support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
By 'support' I think they mean 'more active production of additional splatbooks and regular errata/rules patches.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:So...you rebutted his point by making an unrelated point? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:By 'support' I think they mean 'more active production of additional splatbooks and regular errata/rules patches.' Yeah I stated in an earlier post. That when I was talking about support I mean from the player base and numerous other programs like roll20. Which are giving the game a very large player base that it's easy to find groups for. AKA I meant a different kind of support then that. As 5e has a pretty slow release schedule. I understand the confusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
"Apples are the best fruit." "I don't know about that, green cars are more popular."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Yeah I stated in an earlier post. That when I was talking about support I mean from the player base and numerous other programs like roll20. Which are giving the game a very large player base that it's easy to find groups for. Which is not support. You're discussing playerbase. Which is irrelevant to how well-supported a game is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:"Apples are the best fruit." Serf posted:Which is not support. You're discussing playerbase. Which is irrelevant to how well-supported a game is. Supported by the Playerbase is what I meant in the first place. Support can be used in many different situations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Supported by the Playerbase is what I meant in the first place. Right so not support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
The way you are using it is not the way anyone else in tabletop gaming uses it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I highly doubt no matter how good it is that it has surpassed D&D in playerbase. "Other types of programs"? Like programs that produce additional world and mechanical material to help people play the kind of game they want to play? Or perhaps a program that is honest about errata and repairs mechanical issues found in the game so that people don't end up trapped (Beastmaster, Frenzy Barbarian)? In what way does a playerbase support a game? How do my friends and I benefit from the fact that a bunch of other people are at risk of choosing Champion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
dude just own up to the fact that you were wrong, repeatedly going "no i was right if you use a different definition from what everyone else uses" doesn't help you
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 00:08
|
|
