New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 25 of 50 FirstFirst ... 151617181920212223242526272829303132333435 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 750 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #721
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    On another point - Blingdenstone. What sort of a name is Blingdenstone? My group recently did two sessions of it; I was GMing. 8 hours later, and we still can't say Blingdenstone without throwing up some sort of fake gangster sign, and are liable to start calling gemstones blingstones out of game. It's a terrible, terrible name that is impossible to take seriously, that has spawned a filk of Gangnam Style about the campaign. I get that D&D isn't exactly serious, but on the other hand..."Blingdenstone". Seriously, "Blingdenstone". Just try to say that out loud and keep a straight face.
    Suffice it to say I hate Gnomes and everything about them, names included. Ergo, I never include them in my games.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  2. - Top - End - #722
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Gnomes suffer from stupid writer more than even elves and dwarves.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Just kill those little bastards!



    And give me more of those:
    Spoiler
    Show
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  3. - Top - End - #723
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    3. Players can design their own specialty, with these caveats: they must pick all the feats that are part of that specialty up front at the time of character creation, the progression of feats must meet all prereqs (such as needing "Cleave" before "Greater Cleave" or whathaveyou), and the DM must approve of the specialty before it can be used. PCs cannot switch out their speciality after it is selected, at least not without some cost (retraining (ie gold), xp penalty, xp cost, etc).

    By letting the DM see the feat progression the player wants upfront at the point of character creation, and locking the PC into that progression, you can more easily weigh the relative strength of Specialities against each other, whether or not they are homebrewed. If the player really, really wants a certain homebrewed Specialty, but it seems overpowered to the DM, perhaps there can be a way to offset it, such as a fluffy disadvantage that can be a future adventure hook - "sure, you can have this badass Specialty, but in return you have a KID SISTER you look after, and she tends to get mixed up in all kinds of trouble... deal?"
    But why would anyone pick #3 when #2 is available? Your #3 is basically "#2, but you are penalized/shown the door if you change your mind after character creation."

    If someone cares enough about the game to choose their own feats at level 1, then they probably still care enough later to choose their feats as they gain levels. It kinda defeats the purpose of the system, I think.

    As a side note, I hope they get rid of dead levels for martial classes. I don't much care for levels where my only benefits are "some numbers get bigger, and I don't even get to choose which numbers."

  4. - Top - End - #724
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Dead levels for mundane classes have always frustrated me. Casters get shiny new toys every level.
    Jude P.

  5. - Top - End - #725
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    It seems clear that the flexibility of option #2 is going to allow players to make much more optimized characters than option #1, which can unbalance the game if you have some players in the party happy with option #1 and others going with option #2.
    It strikes me that "specialties" exist not because of game balance, but to counteract choice paralysis for character generation. In 3E and 4E, your first-level character has to choose One Feat out of a list of literally hundreds, and that may well be daunting to a novice player.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  6. - Top - End - #726
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    3rd Edition is a weird point based/level system that combines the worst of both worlds. With just the PHB and assuming single level characters it works reasonably well, but with 900 classes and who knows how many feats, you end up with a horrible mess.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  7. - Top - End - #727
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    But why would anyone pick #3 when #2 is available? Your #3 is basically "#2, but you are penalized/shown the door if you change your mind after character creation."

    If someone cares enough about the game to choose their own feats at level 1, then they probably still care enough later to choose their feats as they gain levels. It kinda defeats the purpose of the system, I think.

    As a side note, I hope they get rid of dead levels for martial classes. I don't much care for levels where my only benefits are "some numbers get bigger, and I don't even get to choose which numbers."

    I wasn't clear - Option #3 would have to replace Option #2... that's what I meant. (Otherwise, I'd be a moron, no?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    It strikes me that "specialties" exist not because of game balance, but to counteract choice paralysis for character generation. In 3E and 4E, your first-level character has to choose One Feat out of a list of literally hundreds, and that may well be daunting to a novice player.

    I agree, specialties exist exactly for the purpose of avoiding choice paralysis (especially for new players / players who don't care about character creation minigames). But Nu brought up the idea that if you can pick and choose your feats, letting some players do that while others pick a prepackaged specialty could make the game unbalanced.

    So I thought a solution to avoid balance issues would be to not let players just pick their feats as they level, but to create their own specialty at the point of character creations which would have to follow some rules and be subject to DM approval.
    Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-04 at 03:49 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #728
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I wasn't clear - Option #3 would have to replace Option #2... that's what I meant. (Otherwise, I'd be a moron, no?)
    In that case, I'll just politely say that I am very, very strongly against the idea. I don't like (to put it mildly) to have to pick everything that my character will ever be at level 1 and be punished if I change my mind. It doesn't work well from a player fun perspective or a narrative perspective.

  9. - Top - End - #729
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    So I thought a solution to avoid balance issues would be to not let players just pick their feats as they level, but to create their own specialty at the point of character creations which would have to follow some rules and be subject to DM approval.
    I don't think that's going to help. The bottom line is that whenever some people care about optimizing their characters and others don't, the game will become unbalanced. I don't see that as a problem, though; balance issues are vastly overstated on forums and tend not to bother most game tables much.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  10. - Top - End - #730
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Exactly. Forcing new players to pick their feats by hand will not make their characters stronger than if they take a specialization that picks all the feats for them. Most likely they end up even weaker.
    So there is no reason to not give them the option to pick a specialization.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  11. - Top - End - #731
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    On specializations, I'd see it as something like an intro deck for Magic: The Gathering. An intro deck, if you don't know, is simply a pre-packaged deck of cards that you can start playing with out of the box, specifically designed to allow a new player jump into the game as quickly and painlessly as possible.

    Importantly for the comparison, the deck isn't optimized to be the best deck possible, or even all that great of a deck. It's designed to be functional, easy to play with, and comparable in power to other intro decks, so if you and a buddy both pick one up, you can play against each other and be somewhat evenly matched.

    There are also a few specifically selected "bad" cards thrown in, which either don't fit with the way the deck works all that well, or are just underpowered to start with. The idea is, these are meant to be cards that the new player will realize are bad after just a few games, and then replace with a much better card that they got from somewhere else. Once the player has made that first swap, the deck becomes "theirs", and they are much more likely to look for other cards that might not be pulling their weight.

    I think a very similar approach could be used for Specialties. They would be designed so that a player can quickly jump in and start playing a character, and they would be set up so that their character makes sense and works, but the specialties would be purposefully not optimized, with a few strategically placed "bad" feats to help encourage the player to choose something else. Once the player has chosen their own feat and tread off the "beaten path", so to speak, they'll come to see the character as "theirs".

    Of course, the approach shouldn't be exactly the same. Some players just plain don't want to mess around with character customization, so the specialties should be set up to be viable, if not optimal. But even those who think they just hate character customization may find that they like it when the introduction to it is more gentle. They might find they want to change just one feat to this other feat, and then get hooked and start looking up more feats they could swap to, until their character is wholly their own. Or they might be happy with that one swap, which is also fine.


    Anyways, I just wanted to say that Specialties can and will serve a very vital role to the game. Even if you're a veteran, or a new player who jumps straight into customization, they will have an important impact on the game for you because they will increase the fanbase, and the more people playing, the more likely you can get a group to play with, or one that's closer to you, or has people you like better in it, etc. It also means WotC is more likely to make niche/situational/complex feats that they might not have for fear of a new player grabbing them and having a bad experience because they don't understand why to take it/when to use it/how it works.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-09-04 at 04:17 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  12. - Top - End - #732
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    In that case, I'll just politely say that I am very, very strongly against the idea. I don't like (to put it mildly) to have to pick everything that my character will ever be at level 1 and be punished if I change my mind. It doesn't work well from a player fun perspective or a narrative perspective.
    Fair enough. More I think about it, more I realize it's not the greatest idea in the world... Just kinda threw it out there without much contemplation

  13. - Top - End - #733
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    On specializations, I'd see it as something like an intro deck for Magic: The Gathering. An intro deck, if you don't know, is simply a pre-packaged deck of cards that you can start playing with out of the box, specifically designed to allow a new player jump into the game as quickly and painlessly as possible.
    I like the core concept, however the idea of having bad feats and such in it is not one I'd support. I'd consider it better if there was an option to go through grabbing feats, with specializations merely being preselected feats, any of which can be swapped out with anything else. As such, that leaves an option of building from scratch, from modifying an existing pattern, or of just picking something. It neatly encompasses a range, and that works out quite nicely.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  14. - Top - End - #734
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    I like the core concept, however the idea of having bad feats and such in it is not one I'd support.
    Having feats that are significantly worse than other feats is probably not desirable, since it's not like feats are something to be collected, like MTG cards are. Still, it would be a bad idea to make the specialties so good that there's not much you can do to improve/change it.

    It's a balancing act between encouraging players to branch out and choose their own feats, and making sure the specialties aren't so bad that people who want to just use them don't feel punished for doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    I'd consider it better if there was an option to go through grabbing feats, with specializations merely being preselected feats, any of which can be swapped out with anything else. As such, that leaves an option of building from scratch, from modifying an existing pattern, or of just picking something. It neatly encompasses a range, and that works out quite nicely.
    That's essentially how they work now, and also what I was suggesting happen.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-09-04 at 06:41 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  15. - Top - End - #735
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Having feats that are significantly worse than other feats is probably not desirable, since it's not like feats are something to be collected, like MTG cards are. Still, it would be a bad idea to make the specialties so good that there's not much you can do to improve/change it.

    It's a balancing act between encouraging players to branch out and choose their own feats, and making sure the specialties aren't so bad that people who want to just use them don't feel punished for doing so.
    The optimal solution is every combination of class/background/feats is reasonably balanced against every other combination of class/background/feats. If there are legal combinations that aren't reasonably balanced (whether too good or too bad), there's a problem.


    Really, I'm all for simplifying the character creation system and instead emphasizing choices the players make in play. As fun and interesting as Char Op can be, what really matters is what happens at the table.

  16. - Top - End - #736
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    If there are legal combinations that aren't reasonably balanced (whether too good or too bad), there's a problem.
    Eh, I'm ok with this for the pre built packages, but I don't think this should be a design goal beyond that. Just because it's possible to make a crappy build or an overpowered build doesn't mean theres something wrong, it's just life. Too much balancing leads to either power creep or bland sameness where the choices really don't matter. At best, they should aim to balance the prebuilts using incomparables, and otherwise leave the char op people to languish, as they'll break the game no matter what you do. Designing a char op proof game is like designing an idiot proof machine, there's always a bigger idiot, and if there isn't the universe will happily make one.

  17. - Top - End - #737
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Still, it would be a bad idea to make the specialties so good that there's not much you can do to improve/change it.
    I disagree.

    Even if specialties had some sort of set bonus (i.e. a bonus that selecting the same feat package would not carry) the impact of splatbooks and even emerging play would make even "the best" feat packages sub-optimal over time.

    No reason to intentionally weaken something that is going to be weaker a month after the game is released, if not sooner.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  18. - Top - End - #738
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    I disagree.

    Even if specialties had some sort of set bonus (i.e. a bonus that selecting the same feat package would not carry) the impact of splatbooks and even emerging play would make even "the best" feat packages sub-optimal over time.

    No reason to intentionally weaken something that is going to be weaker a month after the game is released, if not sooner.
    And in the unlikely event that they DON'T introduce stuff that's more powerful, I still think your advice to newbies should be GOOD ADVICE!

    The only thing deliberately bad advice teaches is that it teaches people not to trust your advice.

    Let the experienced players build the quirky characters. Give newbies something simple that WORKS. If the optimized build is complicated to run then go for simple over complex in the examples. But give the BEST simple builds you can.

    Of course the playtest packet's pregen NPCs don't even follow the game rules! Bows with no dex bonus to damage (on an archer!) finesse weapons with attacks based on a low strength value rather than a better dex value. Suggested sorcerer equipment that includes a weapon the sorcerer isn't proficient with. Clerics not proficient with staffs.

    So I really don't think these people are going to come up with specialties that are any good. Most of their specialties won't be DELIBERATELY broken bad, they'll do that by accident.

    DougL

  19. - Top - End - #739
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    On specializations, I'd see it as something like an intro deck for Magic: The Gathering. An intro deck, if you don't know, is simply a pre-packaged deck of cards that you can start playing with out of the box, specifically designed to allow a new player jump into the game as quickly and painlessly as possible.

    Importantly for the comparison, the deck isn't optimized to be the best deck possible, or even all that great of a deck. It's designed to be functional, easy to play with, and comparable in power to other intro decks, so if you and a buddy both pick one up, you can play against each other and be somewhat evenly matched.

    There are also a few specifically selected "bad" cards thrown in, which either don't fit with the way the deck works all that well, or are just underpowered to start with. The idea is, these are meant to be cards that the new player will realize are bad after just a few games, and then replace with a much better card that they got from somewhere else. Once the player has made that first swap, the deck becomes "theirs", and they are much more likely to look for other cards that might not be pulling their weight.

    I think a very similar approach could be used for Specialties. They would be designed so that a player can quickly jump in and start playing a character, and they would be set up so that their character makes sense and works, but the specialties would be purposefully not optimized, with a few strategically placed "bad" feats to help encourage the player to choose something else. Once the player has chosen their own feat and tread off the "beaten path", so to speak, they'll come to see the character as "theirs".

    Of course, the approach shouldn't be exactly the same. Some players just plain don't want to mess around with character customization, so the specialties should be set up to be viable, if not optimal. But even those who think they just hate character customization may find that they like it when the introduction to it is more gentle. They might find they want to change just one feat to this other feat, and then get hooked and start looking up more feats they could swap to, until their character is wholly their own. Or they might be happy with that one swap, which is also fine.


    Anyways, I just wanted to say that Specialties can and will serve a very vital role to the game. Even if you're a veteran, or a new player who jumps straight into customization, they will have an important impact on the game for you because they will increase the fanbase, and the more people playing, the more likely you can get a group to play with, or one that's closer to you, or has people you like better in it, etc. It also means WotC is more likely to make niche/situational/complex feats that they might not have for fear of a new player grabbing them and having a bad experience because they don't understand why to take it/when to use it/how it works.
    There's a name for this style of game design. Monte Cook would agree with you that it's a good idea. He called it "Ivory Tower Game Design."
    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  20. - Top - End - #740
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    There's a name for this style of game design. Monte Cook would agree with you that it's a good idea. He called it "Ivory Tower Game Design."
    If all the work is done for the player, then what is there for the player to do?

    However, as I pointed out, this is also where the analogy between magic and DnD breaks down somewhat. Magic is a competitive game. If you make your deck better, then you win. If you don't, you lose. Thus, the disparity between a well-built deck and a poorly-built one should be large, to make sure players with better deck-building skills are rewarded by a higher win percentage.

    Dungeons and Dragons, on the other hand, is a co-operative game, in the truest sense of the world. You're working together with the other players, not against them, and you're not even really playing against the Dungeon Master, at least not in a competitive way. You don't "win" DnD, after all.

    However, this is not to say that there is no merit in the analogy. Many players enjoy the character customization element of DnD, and they all do it to optimize their characters in some way. Some of them optimize for power, to overcome the most difficult challenges. Others optimize for flavor, to make the coolest character that does the most interesting things. Still Others for story, to make a character that will create the most dramatic and memorable moments.

    No matter what you optimize for, though, if there is no way to improve your character, then their is no optimization game. If the Archer Fighter has the best feats possible for making a highly effective archer that does really cool things and has tons of character hooks for great stories, then you've essentially removed character creation from the game, because there's very little reason to explore off the beaten path if the gains are so small.

    I won't say that Ivory Tower game design is good (and neither does Monte Cook, according to the article), but neither will I say it is 100% bad. It has good intentions, but if 3.5 is the result of that, it's had poor implementation. Specialties are a big step towards rectifying this, solving many of those issues.

    It's a balancing act. Ivory Tower game design is one side of it, and a completely homogeneous system where there's no choices to be made is the other. Specialties seem like they could do a great job of bridging that gap. There can still be plenty of pitfalls for players who do optimize, but those who don't have a safety rope that, while it might not be the best, it's good enough that they don't feel overly punished for not being a Ph.D in CharOp.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  21. - Top - End - #741
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    If all the work is done for the player, then what is there for the player to do?
    There is playing the actual game. Moreover, even if they are all are effective, there will always be concepts that aren't neatly encapsulated in one of the existing specialties, for which you will be mixing several or just picking feats.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  22. - Top - End - #742
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    There is playing the actual game. Moreover, even if they are all are effective, there will always be concepts that aren't neatly encapsulated in one of the existing specialties, for which you will be mixing several or just picking feats.
    Yes, but for the player who does want to play a sly thief, or a strong archer, or a wise cleric, there should be ways for them to customize and improve their character.

    And yes, actually playing the game is a huge part, which is why it's a balancing act. That doesn't mean you can ignore health of character customization and optimization.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-09-04 at 11:55 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  23. - Top - End - #743
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Yes, but for the player who does want to play a sly thief, or a strong archer, or a wise cleric, there should be ways for them to customize and improve their character.
    I'd say yes to customize, and ideally no to improve. Ideally what they end up doing is simply another mechanically different but equally viable way of making the sly thief, strong archer, or wise cleric. In practice, they will be able to improve or worsen their character, but if WotC does their job well it won't necessarily be by much.

    Incidentally, on account of backgrounds, classes, and races they will have ways of customizing the character relative to the specialty, as the specialty is all of 1/4 of the character.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  24. - Top - End - #744
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    If there are legal combinations that aren't reasonably balanced (whether too good or too bad), there's a problem.
    That is pretty much impossible. The fact is, in order to make feats interesting, they have to be incomparable, that is you can't mathematically decide which is better. Which is better, the ability to cast two cantrips, or the ability to use a reaction to give disadvantage to an attack on an ally. The answer, it depends on the situation or the character you are trying to build.

    Just because they are incomparable, however, doesn't mean they are all 100% even. If a fighter with no mental stats over 8 takes the feat that gives cantrips, and takes offensive spells, that's a bad choice, same if a wizard takes the feat that boosts healing.

    Different feats will be at different power levels for different characters, and oftentimes a skilled player will be able to gain a lot in versatility for a small cost in power by going outside of their normal feat tree.

    In any case, the D&D guys said they didn't want people to have to make all their choices at level one, for feats or multi classing. If you have a specialty, you can jump off any time, and they said you will be able to multiclass later in your career even if you started single classed.
    Last edited by TheOOB; 2012-09-05 at 01:12 AM.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  25. - Top - End - #745
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Hmm... I truly do enjoy the specializations and their separate unique abilities, but I also long for the 3e days of detailed customization that complicated feat selection can bring. I like the simplicity but I want more customization than what the system currently offers; particularly I want to be able to change how my character develops as s/he develops.

    The first solution that comes to mind is a system of secondary or even tertiary specializations in addition to the primary one. Perhaps at third level, the character gains their second feat from the primary and also is allowed to choose a secondary, gaining its first feat. Every other time after that, s/he gain the next secondary feat in addition to the primary feat. This could also expand to a tertiary specialization.

    Or perhaps, in addition to the main specialization, the character is allowed to choose any feat s/he qualifies for at each designated level. These feats would provide any supplemental abilities the character desires to his/her main area of focus.

  26. - Top - End - #746
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Of course the playtest packet's pregen NPCs don't even follow the game rules! Bows with no dex bonus to damage (on an archer!) finesse weapons with attacks based on a low strength value rather than a better dex value. Suggested sorcerer equipment that includes a weapon the sorcerer isn't proficient with. Clerics not proficient with staffs.
    Yeah, I caught some of those mistakes as well in the pregen sheet. I realize they are still making up the rules as they go along as they create these playtest packets, but the editors were particularly sloppy with the pregens.

  27. - Top - End - #747
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Concerning optimization, there is one thing I never want to see again, and that is 3.5 style dip whoring.

    I personally enjoy optimizing and making powerful characters, but a dip composite Frankenstein fringing on the nigh inexplicable as anything other than a char op thought experiment completely nauseates me. The benefit derived from a class should be proportionate to your level investment in it whenever possible.

  28. - Top - End - #748
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Friv's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    That is pretty much impossible. The fact is, in order to make feats interesting, they have to be incomparable, that is you can't mathematically decide which is better. Which is better, the ability to cast two cantrips, or the ability to use a reaction to give disadvantage to an attack on an ally. The answer, it depends on the situation or the character you are trying to build.
    Reasonably balanced isn't the same thing as identical, though. Reasonably balanced means that there isn't a single feat or small combination of feats that renders a build substantially more useful than most / all other builds, nor is there a single feat or combination of feats that drastically weakens the build that it was designed for.

    Obviously, if I deliberately take a feat my build wasn't designed for, that'll weaken me. This is fine. It's not fine if a feat my build was designed for does the same thing.
    If you like my thoughts, you'll love my writing. Visit me at www.mishahandman.com.

  29. - Top - End - #749
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    That is pretty much impossible. The fact is, in order to make feats interesting, they have to be incomparable, that is you can't mathematically decide which is better. Which is better, the ability to cast two cantrips, or the ability to use a reaction to give disadvantage to an attack on an ally. The answer, it depends on the situation or the character you are trying to build.
    Incomparable options can still be balanced or imbalanced against one another. My point is Defender and Arcane Dabbler should be equally viable for both Fighters and Wizards to take. I agree with you that it's impossible without dramatically changing the system as they currently have it, but it has nothing to do with balance.

  30. - Top - End - #750
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
    Concerning optimization, there is one thing I never want to see again, and that is 3.5 style dip whoring.

    I personally enjoy optimizing and making powerful characters, but a dip composite Frankenstein fringing on the nigh inexplicable as anything other than a char op thought experiment completely nauseates me. The benefit derived from a class should be proportionate to your level investment in it whenever possible.
    Ehh, I'm completely fine with dipping. If you want to make a character that does X and you figure out the best way to do X is to take a few levels of varying classes I don't see the problem.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •