New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 36 of 50 FirstFirst ... 11262728293031323334353637383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,080 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #1051
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I dunno ... I think Morty's got a point. The character concepts people come up with if they're not already familiar with Fantasy RPG tropes are significantly different than out-of-the-box D&D "Fighters," "Wizards," "Clerics," and "Rogues." They tend to be inspired more by fantasy literature.

    The most blatant example in my own mind would be Rogue-type characters who, instead of backstabbing their enemies repeatedly, make themselves useful in combat by improvising -- coming up with a wide variety of clever tactics depending on situation and terrain. The 3e Factotum started to make this possible, but it didn't go far enough -- and it's the closest that any D&D Edition has gotten.

    The flashy, non-stealthy Swashbuckler (a la Scarlet Pimpernel or Three Musketeers) is another classic archetype that has generally been neglected in Core D&D (every edition except 4e).

    The Aragorn-style Ranger (minor magic or no magic, no animal companion, main fighting style neither archery nor TWF, yet still unquestionably a Ranger) is probably the most blatant and most often-requested "iconic" archetype that D&D hasn't always done a great job of representing.

    Powerful "priest" type characters who aren't battle-hardened templars (comfortable on the front lines in their plate armor) is another oft-requested example. Or witches (wizened females who prefer isolation, cats/spiders/toads, alchemy ...), or other arcane casters who get their power from some other source than nerdy scholarship. I could go on and on ...

    All of these are "iconic" in fantasy, but not "iconic" in D&D.
    Last edited by Draz74; 2012-11-29 at 01:40 PM.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  2. - Top - End - #1052
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    I dunno ... I think Morty's got a point. The character concepts people come up with if they're not already familiar with Fantasy RPG tropes are significantly different than out-of-the-box D&D "Fighters," "Wizards," "Clerics," and "Rogues." They tend to be inspired more by fantasy literature.

    The most blatant example in my own mind would be Rogue-type characters who, instead of backstabbing their enemies repeatedly, make themselves useful in combat by improvising -- coming up with a wide variety of clever tactics depending on situation and terrain. The 3e Factotum started to make this possible, but it didn't go far enough -- and it's the closest that any D&D Edition has gotten.

    The flashy, non-stealthy Swashbuckler (a la Scarlet Pimpernel or Three Musketeers) is another classic archetype that has generally been neglected in Core D&D (every edition except 4e).

    The Aragorn-style Ranger (minor magic or no magic, no animal companion, main fighting style neither archery nor TWF, yet still unquestionably a Ranger) is probably the most blatant and most often-requested "iconic" archetype that D&D hasn't always done a great job of representing.

    Powerful "priest" type characters who aren't battle-hardened templars (comfortable on the front lines in their plate armor) is another oft-requested example. Or witches (wizened females who prefer isolation, cats/spiders/toads, alchemy ...), or other arcane casters who get their power from some other source than nerdy scholarship. I could go on and on ...

    All of these are "iconic" in fantasy, but not "iconic" in D&D.
    This is precisely my point, yes. Thank you for presenting it better than I did.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  3. - Top - End - #1053
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I agree, but then again I think balance should get back to WoW and stay there forever. I enjoy the idea that the ability to break the laws of physics through sheer willpower is more powerful than swinging a blade down very hard.
    I usually play fighter-types and I simply love when I get to defeat a spellcaster through guile and skill, not because someone decided blade and magic should be 'balanced' in the worst ways possible.
    I know this sounds a bit like a rant, but my desired 'balance' is something like AD&D did. Magic is more powerful than swords, plain and simple. But magic is dangerous to use. I know they are not going to do this in D&D Next, thought, so I shouldn't be ranting. *shrugs*
    You see, this would be the way to make sure I never even give Next a glance. I want Fighters and the like to perform extraortinary feats of martial might - not just "swing a sword really hard."

    I'm pretty bored with the Tyrrany of Magic - wherein non-spellcasters are forced to operate within a rather constrained, mother-may-I rule set without fiat capabilities ... and spellcasters more or less operate entirely via player fiat and where there are no actual rules of magic, only an ever-expanding list of spells.

    You can go ahead and call this "balance" as if it's some sort of dirty word to describe this if you want, but if Next doesn't make warrior-types as awesome in their own way as wizards and clerics are in theirs, I'm simply not interested.

    -O

  4. - Top - End - #1054
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    I dunno ... I think Morty's got a point. The character concepts people come up with if they're not already familiar with Fantasy RPG tropes are significantly different than out-of-the-box D&D "Fighters," "Wizards," "Clerics," and "Rogues." They tend to be inspired more by fantasy literature.
    All of them are inspired by literature in one form or another. Some stuff is incompatible with Core D&D. Thats true. But not nearly as much as you say. I don't NEED a book to tell me what kind of character I want to act out. Some stuff IS undoable but thats what Splatbooks should be for.

    I think splatbooks loose sight of their goals when they create their own things for the sake of mechanical bonuses instead of helping RP character types. I like the kits system from 2e more then I like the class system in 3e.

    The most blatant example in my own mind would be Rogue-type characters who, instead of backstabbing their enemies repeatedly, make themselves useful in combat by improvising -- coming up with a wide variety of clever tactics depending on situation and terrain. The 3e Factotum started to make this possible, but it didn't go far enough -- and it's the closest that any D&D Edition has gotten.
    The factotum is an example of how this doesn't work. Improvising is 100% RP base. Its not always available. You can't quantify "Improvisation". The factotum is truly a pathetic example of mechanizing things like insight.

    The flashy, non-stealthy Swashbuckler (a la Scarlet Pimpernel or Three Musketeers) is another classic archetype that has generally been neglected in Core D&D (every edition except 4e).
    The bard class. And 2e literaly had a kit for fighters called "The swashbuckler". Unless your the kind of guy that NEEDS the game to spell everything out for you, you can even play a Swashbuckling Paladin. That sounds like a AWESOME concept.

    The Aragorn-style Ranger (minor magic or no magic, no animal companion, main fighting style neither archery nor TWF, yet still unquestionably a Ranger) is probably the most blatant and most often-requested "iconic" archetype that D&D hasn't always done a great job of representing.
    Fighter. Just fighter who knows how to roleplay well.

    Powerful "priest" type characters who aren't battle-hardened templars (comfortable on the front lines in their plate armor) is another oft-requested example. Or witches (wizened females who prefer isolation, cats/spiders/toads, alchemy ...), or other arcane casters who get their power from some other source than nerdy scholarship. I could go on and on ...
    All have been created in one form or another. And all mostly dependant on how you play the role of the character.
    Last edited by Scowling Dragon; 2012-11-29 at 01:59 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #1055
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
    To offer a counter-point, there is a growing tide of people who want to play adventure games that maintain narrative fidelity, and PC/NPC asymmetry is almost requisite for that. So there are quite a few different angles on RPGs, and while some require PC/NPC symmetry, it's far from the majority.
    I can't see any reason why preserving "narrative fidelity" would require PC/NPC asymmetry in the rules, assuming you're referring to genre conventions, PCs-as-exceptional-heroes, and so forth. A large portion of narrative fidelity is the flavor, and you don't need any mechanical differentiation between PCs and NPCs to have the villain monologue to captured PCs. The "heroes don't die unless it's dramatically appropriate" angle can be covered by a fate point mechanic or other metagame resource, which can be overlaid on top of the normal character framework for PCs and for plot-important NPCs. The relative strength of mooks and major villains can be represented by much lower-level and much higher-level NPCs, respectively, just as they have been since 1e.

    I can't think of anything else that would require a split. Now, that's not to say you can't have such a split, just that such isn't necessary, and personally I think you gain more from having uniform stats than you gain from asymmetric stats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaervaslol View Post
    Still, with time the taste of gamers changed, and so was the game obliged to do, else it would remain trailing behind. And we got the splatbooks for AD&D 2 and after that 3.x. At this point shifted from adventurer to heroes, with expanded rules for combat and social interaction.
    The game didn't shift from "adventurer" to "hero" in the sense that you're talking about via mechanic changes. From the adventurer side, it was always expected that you'd do fancy maneuvers in combat, talk yourself out of trouble, ally with someone against a common enemy, and so forth; look at the 1e reaction tables and monster attitudes in modules, random encounter charts with noncombat encounters in them, and stuff like that. From the hero side, 1e is the version with good-only rangers, paladins that are actually a strong class, major penalties for changing alignment, and so forth. And heck, evil games were and still are very popular in all editions.

    The "2.5e" Players Options stuff added customization and codification and 3e did that even more, but that didn't change the fundamental tone of the game at all unless you decided to change playstyles on your own. What might have started to change the perceived playstyle, I think, were the flavor changes in 2e that tried to sanitize things for marketing reasons--you could still play a child of an abusive relationship who killed people for money and went out to kill demons, but there was nothing called a half-orc, an assassin, or a demon for marketing reasons--and then WotC's focus on making you the good guys, to the point that they put a Judeo-Christian slant on the afterlife and cosmology in their 3e Fiendish Codices and basically made 4e good guys only.

    So you can play adventurers and mercenaries and heroes in any edition, really, but people have tended towards heroes lately for narrative and marketing reasons, not because of any mechanical straitjackets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaervaslol
    From my experience, people that grew with d20 tend to be more mathematical inclined that other roleplayers. Part of the fun is doing numbers and metagaming.
    Games are numbers, my friend, and optimization is the same in any game. You might be optimizing different things with different intentions using different moving parts, but it all comes down to math for the quantitative comparisons and metagame knowledge for qualitative comparisons. I optimized in 1e when I learned on that system because I was a mathematically- and logically-inclined kid, I optimize in 2e and 3e and 4e, I optimize in GURPS, I optimize in Shadowrun...and the players I know who started on points-based systems tend even more towards the metagame than I do.

    You might think that d20 is more optimization-heavy than older editions or other games, but that's just because (A) as the first edition of the most popular RPG with access to the internet, it's a lot more visible than other games and older editions, and (B) the 3e/4e players that you know are likely more optimizationally-inclined than the AD&D players that you know. Confirmation bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I agree, but then again I think balance should get back to WoW and stay there forever. I enjoy the idea that the ability to break the laws of physics through sheer willpower is more powerful than swinging a blade down very hard.
    That right there is part of the balance problem, actually, as has been discussed before here: class concepts like "burns things with magic" or "smites people in the name of their god" or "is really tricky" scale up pretty much indefinitely, from Tim the Enchanter/Joan of Arc/Bilbo Baggins on the low power and/or flashiness end of the scale all the way up to Dark Phoenix/WH40K Space Marines/Loki on the high power and/or flashiness end. "Hits things with swords"...doesn't. High-power or flashy people who smack things in melee don't just do that, they either do that as a side effect of just being really strong and tough like the Hulk or Wolverine, have that as just one tool (albeit an effective one) in their toolbox like Thor or Darth Vader, or something like that.

    The heart of the "fighters don't get nice things" problem is that every class needs an indefinitely-scaling "hook" to give them Nice Things, whether it's magic, serving a god, kung-fu powers, really cool music, tricking absolutely anything, being one with nature, having gadgets, mind/emotion over matter, or something else, and the fighter is practically defined by being the class without something fancy like that. So yes, magic should be better than hitting things with pointy bits of metal, but beyond the low levels the fighter should be doing more than just hitting things with pointy bits of metal.

    Either free the fighter from the bounds of physics using whatever handwavium you want or relegate the good-with-weapons class to NPCs and you can achieve balance without having to bring everything else down to the fighter's level. Don't know if 5e will do that (in fact I highly doubt it), but if that happens we can have balance without going "the WoW route" as you put it.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  6. - Top - End - #1056
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Of course that the iconic concepts of D&D are also iconic for heroic fantasy. My point is that they're not the only ones. Grey Mouser is a skilled, clever swordsman who relies on his wits and quickness rather than strength, which is Fafhrd's forte. And yet, building him in 3rd edition D&D would be problematic. Unless you want to tell me Grey Mouser isn't an archetypal adventurer...
    That, and restricting viable concepts to a handful of "iconic" ones - however we decide which ones are iconic is another question - is just bad design.
    Grey Mouser is not an archetypical adventurer. He is the Grey Mouser. That's what makes him interesting.
    Also, ignoring how limited your being to Grey Mouser (he is quite strong and also casts spells), a Rogue would Weapon Finesse would fit your description perfectly in 3.5. In fact, in D&D Next, just a Rogue would fit.
    Some concepts fitting while other concepts don't is part of the genre/setting. In Forgotten Realms, it's been stablished by hundreds of books that magic > everything. If you want a character that is a world shaking power but never uses anything related to magic ever, bad luck, that simply does not fit Faerun.
    Not liking something does not make it bad design. Plenty of good games reward certain options and punish others, for the sake of making the game fit the genre. If you want to play a down to earth gun user in Thrash, bad luck, because guns suck in Thrash, since they are just there so the martial artists can dodge and then kick their users in the face. Some games allow you run any concept - Anima Prime and 3D&T for example punish none of your choices. You want to attack by sneezing elephants? No problem, it will work as effectively as the dude with a sword. Those games are not D&D and they don't try to be iconic because they don't have years of history behind them. And it might surprise you but many people care about that history. Catering to your advice is IMHO the best design possible because otherwise you might even have a good game... but no one to play it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    The heart of the "fighters don't get nice things" problem is that every class needs an indefinitely-scaling "hook" to give them Nice Things, whether it's magic, serving a god, kung-fu powers, really cool music, tricking absolutely anything, being one with nature, having gadgets, mind/emotion over matter, or something else, and the fighter is practically defined by being the class without something fancy like that. So yes, magic should be better than hitting things with pointy bits of metal, but beyond the low levels the fighter should be doing more than just hitting things with pointy bits of metal.

    Either free the fighter from the bounds of physics using whatever handwavium you want or relegate the good-with-weapons class to NPCs and you can achieve balance without having to bring everything else down to the fighter's level. Don't know if 5e will do that (in fact I highly doubt it), but if that happens we can have balance without going "the WoW route" as you put it.
    I disagree, mainly because I'm familiar with series where you get characters whose only shtick is too hit really hard and often and they are still up there with more versatile types. You have the Slayers in Buffy, Kenpachi in Bleach, Rock Lee in Naruto, Bunshichi in Tenjo Tenge and heck the Fighter from AD&D.
    What you need is to have disadvantages for that added flexibility and you need high numbers in your Fighter. Oh, he can have cool trick like disarming or whatever, but he should hit often, hit hard and they must be able to take loads of hits as well. If that means other classes are not hitting very often or not hitting very hard, that's their problem, because that is the Fighter's shtick.
    Basically, you need to enforce niche protection well, otherwise there is no point to a class system.
    Last edited by ThiagoMartell; 2012-11-29 at 02:26 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #1057
    Orc in the Playground
     
    tbok1992's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I agree, but then again I think balance should get back to WoW and stay there forever. I enjoy the idea that the ability to break the laws of physics through sheer willpower is more powerful than swinging a blade down very hard.
    I usually play fighter-types and I simply love when I get to defeat a spellcaster through guile and skill, not because someone decided blade and magic should be 'balanced' in the worst ways possible.
    I know this sounds a bit like a rant, but my desired 'balance' is something like AD&D did. Magic is more powerful than swords, plain and simple. But magic is dangerous to use. I know they are not going to do this in D&D Next, thought, so I shouldn't be ranting. *shrugs*
    I whole-heartedly disagree. Even though I mostly play casters, I think that the fighter should be at Tall-Tale levels of power at high level, like Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill.

    I want a fighter that, at level 20, can cut through a wall with a swing of his axe, can shake the earth hard enough to make his foes fall with just a stamp of his foot, and can swallow a spell shot at him; chew it up and spit it right at the caster.

    And it makes me sad that nobody responded to my comment about new Subrace ideas

  8. - Top - End - #1058
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Grey Mouser is not an archetypical adventurer. He is the Grey Mouser. That's what makes him interesting.
    You appear to have completely missed my point. Fafrd and the Grey Mouser are pretty much a two-man D&D party. Their adventures should be possible to represent in the game D&D aspires to be. If they aren't, something is wrong.

    Also, ignoring how limited your being to Grey Mouser (he is quite strong and also casts spells), a Rogue would Weapon Finesse would fit your description perfectly in 3.5.
    No, it wouldn't. Weapon Finesse works with a very narrow selection of weapons, for one. Second, a Rogue needs to rely on Sneak Attack, and Grey Mouser was a very capable duelist who didn't need a meatshield to distract the bad guys.

    In fact, in D&D Next, just a Rogue would fit.
    D&D Next does take some steps into the direction I'm talking about, yes. I'm not sure if it's enough, though.

    Some concepts fitting while other concepts don't is part of the genre/setting. In Forgotten Realms, it's been stablished by hundreds of books that magic > everything. If you want a character that is a world shaking power but never uses anything related to magic ever, bad luck, that simply does not fit Faerun.
    Which is the reason so many people dislike Faerun.

    Not liking something does not make it bad design. Plenty of good games reward certain options and punish others, for the sake of making the game fit the genre. If you want to play a down to earth gun user in Thrash, bad luck, because guns suck in Thrash, since they are just there so the martial artists can dodge and then kick their users in the face. Some games allow you run any concept - Anima Prime and 3D&T for example punish none of your choices. You want to attack by sneezing elephants? No problem, it will work as effectively as the dude with a sword. Those games are not D&D and they don't try to be iconic because they don't have years of history behind them. And it might surprise you but many people care about that history. Catering to your advice is IMHO the best design possible because otherwise you might even have a good game... but no one to play it.
    Do you really, honestly think that it takes some sort of universal system in order to make more than a handful of concepts viable?
    Your example flawed in more ways than one, though. There's nothing about the tone or themes of D&D that justifies any of my example concepts being shafted. Why shouldn't a fighter who's deadly with a pair of shortswords be possible to play? Why shouldn't a rogue who's a crossbow sharpshooter? Or a rogue who relies on throwing daggers with uncanny precision? So far, the only argument you've put forward is that they never have been, so they shouldn't be now. Which kind of makes me wonder what's the point of having a new edition in the first place.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  9. - Top - End - #1059
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Not liking something does not make it bad design. Plenty of good games reward certain options and punish others, for the sake of making the game fit the genre. ... Those games are not D&D and they don't try to be iconic because they don't have years of history behind them. And it might surprise you but many people care about that history. Catering to your advice is IMHO the best design possible because otherwise you might even have a good game... but no one to play it.
    This is incredibly circular. If you define the D&D genre as "stuff that was around in the earliest editions of D&D," you're completely ignoring the immense creativity, innovation, and outright theft of ideas that marked D&D's early life.

    D&D - all before 1982 - had crashed spaceships, balrogs as player characters, monsters invented from plastic dinosaurs, robotic submarines with arms, gunslinger paladins from Earth, Remo Williams monks, and so on. Marking an endpoint and saying, "This is the extent of innovation in the genre" is completely antithetical to D&D's own history.

    (And you can't disregard or bypass the Grey Mouser as being inappropriate for D&D. Lieber's Lankhmar books are part of Appendix N.)

    -O
    Last edited by obryn; 2012-11-29 at 03:03 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #1060
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Which is the reason so many people dislike Faerun.
    It's alsto the reason many people like Faerun. You're basically equating you not liking something with it being bad. It just means you don't like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Do you really, honestly think that it takes some sort of universal system in order to make more than a handful of concepts viable?
    No, and that's not what I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Your example flawed in more ways than one, though. There's nothing about the tone or themes of D&D that justifies any of my example concepts being shafted.
    There is. Cats are not as powerful as dragons. Wyverns are not as fast as pegasi. Wizards are not as good weapon users as Fighters. If you want a "wizard, just as good with weapons as a fighter is" your concept does not fit the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Why shouldn't a fighter who's deadly with a pair of shortswords be possible to play? Why shouldn't a rogue who's a crossbow sharpshooter? Or a rogue who relies on throwing daggers with uncanny precision? So far, the only argument you've put forward is that they never have been, so they shouldn't be now. Which kind of makes me wonder what's the point of having a new edition in the first place.
    I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'm saying they are worried about iconic concepts first and after that is covered they will worry about other stuff. And I think they are completely right.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    This is incredibly circular. If you define the D&D genre as "stuff that was around in the earliest editions of D&D," you're completely ignoring the immense creativity, innovation, and outright theft of ideas that marked D&D's early life.
    That was not my intention so I obviously did not make my point clearly enough. For that I apolofize.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    D&D - all before 1982 - had crashed spaceships, balrogs as player characters, monsters invented from plastic dinosaurs, robotic submarines with arms, gunslinger paladins from Earth, Remo Williams monks, and so on. Marking an endpoint and saying, "This is the extent of innovation in the genre" is completely antithetical to D&D's own history.
    I don't think I ever said that, but OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    (And you can't disregard or bypass the Grey Mouser as being inappropriate for D&D. Lieber's Lankhmar books are part of Appendix N.)
    I never did

  11. - Top - End - #1061
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I disagree, mainly because I'm familiar with series where you get characters whose only shtick is too hit really hard and often and they are still up there with more versatile types. You have the Slayers in Buffy, Kenpachi in Bleach, Rock Lee in Naruto, Bunshichi in Tenjo Tenge and heck the Fighter from AD&D.
    I'm not really familiar with Naruto or Bleach, but from reading the respective wikis it looks like Rock and Kenpachi both fall into the Hulk/Wolverine category of primarily hitting things but still being not at all mundane: Rock gains superhuman power from alcohol and chakra gates, and Kenpachi can slice skyscrapers and paralyze people with his spiritual pressure. Both of them look like they just hit people with swords and fists in comparison to the heroes, but that's just because they're ninjas in a world of ninja++. Both have "magic" and both have the scaling concept of "is a ninja"; they can wipe the floor with any number of Grey Mousers and Bruce Lees.

    The Slayers in Buffy aren't normal by any means; they have superhuman strength, healing, endurance, etc. from being imbued with demonic powers, and being imbued with magic by definition gives you Nice Things even if they didn't have the concept of "demon-infused" to work with.

    The AD&D fighter works well at low to mid levels, but he has to take on the mantle of gadgeteer to do well at mid to high levels: he needs magic weapons to hit things and magic items for utility and defense. Like Marvel's Thor, it's the devices that are doing the heavy lifting, but unlike Thor any old warrior can pick up the same items and do as well or better with them.

    So of your examples, all but one actually do have a conceptual basis beyond "is a skilled mundane human who hits things with swords" and the remaining guy doesn't do it well.

    What you need is to have disadvantages for that added flexibility and you need high numbers in your Fighter. Oh, he can have cool trick like disarming or whatever, but he should hit often, hit hard and they must be able to take loads of hits as well. If that means other classes are not hitting very often or not hitting very hard, that's their problem, because that is the Fighter's shtick.
    Basically, you need to enforce niche protection well, otherwise there is no point to a class system.
    Fighters should indeed be the best at that, but that can't be all that they have, and they shouldn't rely on items to do their job.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  12. - Top - End - #1062
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    TM isn't saying he would be against a wide range of concepts, he's saying that WotC has prioritized making the most familiar concepts functional before moving on to niche concepts, and that they're right to do it. Which fits the current plan for D&D Next (bring back the "Iconic" things to D&D).
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  13. - Top - End - #1063
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Kaervaslol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Games are numbers, my friend, and optimization is the same in any game. You might be optimizing different things with different intentions using different moving parts, but it all comes down to math for the quantitative comparisons and metagame knowledge for qualitative comparisons. I optimized in 1e when I learned on that system because I was a mathematically- and logically-inclined kid, I optimize in 2e and 3e and 4e, I optimize in GURPS, I optimize in Shadowrun...and the players I know who started on points-based systems tend even more towards the metagame than I do.

    You might think that d20 is more optimization-heavy than older editions or other games, but that's just because (A) as the first edition of the most popular RPG with access to the internet, it's a lot more visible than other games and older editions, and (B) the 3e/4e players that you know are likely more optimizationally-inclined than the AD&D players that you know. Confirmation bias.
    It is more math heavy because there are more parts to tinker with. You've got prestige classes, class features by level, feats, attribute gain when leveling, etc. You've got people planning feat maps in order to achieve the desire effect when they reach certain level to unlock an specific feature. There is more math because again, there are more moving parts and more stuff to do with the character. This type of game attracts players that see this as a fun. You also have skills, which sometimes are the prerequisite for certain classes.

    This all requires more math and more involment with the system than say, placing your highest stat in int because you are a wizard, or picking longsword as weapon when you are a fighter, like AD&D. Heck, you even have an attack matrix instead of calculating numbers (you also have THAC0, but that is silly and should be replaced with BAB).

    There was internet before the release of third edition, and there was discussion of rpgs even before that. I'm not extrapolating my opinion from checking the charops forums and claiming all players are more metagaming and math inclined. I'm analizing the systems and what they do.

  14. - Top - End - #1064
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I don't think I ever said that, but OK.
    My point is that you're imposing limits on what can or can't exist in the D&D genre when really all that genre is, is "stuff a bunch of guys in Wisconsin threw together over a few years because it sounded fun." An appeal to the history of the game to define the genre which ignores the gonzo stuff (or says that future gonzo stuff is not in keeping with D&D) is basically missing the whole point.

    I never did
    Sorry; I misread. :)

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Fighters should indeed be the best at that, but that can't be all that they have, and they shouldn't rely on items to do their job.
    More than that - they need a fiat system. Compare the following:

    Wizard: "I cast Blindness. Roll a save vs. DC 19 or he's Blind."

    Fighter: "I want to hit the owlbear in the eyes and blind him. What do I need to do in order for this to happen?"

    In my mind, there's something seriously wrong here.

    -O

  15. - Top - End - #1065
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    More than that - they need a fiat system. Compare the following:

    Wizard: "I cast Blindness. Roll a save vs. DC 19 or he's Blind."

    Fighter: "I want to hit the owlbear in the eyes and blind him. What do I need to do in order for this to happen?"

    In my mind, there's something seriously wrong here.

    -O
    Agreed. Sword-swingers can have it harder to impose conditions, because they're using an at-will power as opposed to a spell. But if anyone can do more than "I hit for X damage" then everyone should be able to do more than "I hit for X damage". This is true even if X is really big.

    Fighters need to be able to Disarm/Trip/Daze/Push/Sunder/Blind/Cause ongoing damage without needing to spend rare character resources like one of a handful of feats or manuevers to learn to do so.

    He needs to be able to do such things SOME of the time, but not able to spam them without limit ("I trip him" every round is boring, unrealist, and not particularly fun). But based on reactions to 4th edition such powers shouldn't be encounter usable or daily powers.

    Maybe such things should need a critical hit (and you don't get extra damage for that critical if you chose to impose a condition). Or you could simply have a list of conditions and options each assigned to a number from 2 to 20, and on a hit you can impose a condition which matches your unmodified d20 roll and have each condition have a cost to impose in lost expertise dice or critical dice if the player chooses to use it.

    Someone who wants a simple fighter simply ignores the options and takes the damage instead.

  16. - Top - End - #1066
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaervaslol View Post
    It is more math heavy because there are more parts to tinker with. You've got prestige classes, class features by level, feats, attribute gain when leveling, etc. You've got people planning feat maps in order to achieve the desire effect when they reach certain level to unlock an specific feature. There is more math because again, there are more moving parts and more stuff to do with the character. This type of game attracts players that see this as a fun. You also have skills, which sometimes are the prerequisite for certain classes.

    This all requires more math and more involment with the system than say, placing your highest stat in int because you are a wizard, or picking longsword as weapon when you are a fighter, like AD&D. Heck, you even have an attack matrix instead of calculating numbers (you also have THAC0, but that is silly and should be replaced with BAB).
    3e is certainly more fiddly bits than 1e (though not more than 2e, with its nonweapon proficiencies, kits, spheres, weapon spec, and all of the UA stuff), but it's not more math-y, really. 1e is the edition of compressible fireballs and trigonometric lightning bolts, negative bonuses, varying XP thresholds for multi- and dual-classing, normal curves vs. linear curves for success rates, and so forth, while 2e is the edition of percentage-based thief skills, fractions of ability points for cavaliers, and other additional complexities.

    You have to like math to get into any RPG and be good at math to get a handle on the mechanics, and AD&D is no exception. As far as metagaming goes, I'd argue that AD&D involves more metagaming than 3e. If you don't have a codified skill system and everything relies on the DM's judgment, you have to know what your DM likes and will allow when devising strategies, searching for traps, and such. For every person who loved AD&D for its more free-form and liberating nature, there's a person who resented having to read the DM's mind and take penalties to everything while people who had rules to point to did fine and people who the DM liked did better. As the old saying goes, "The optimal character in any RPG is the one that the GM wants to play."

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    More than that - they need a fiat system. Compare the following:

    Wizard: "I cast Blindness. Roll a save vs. DC 19 or he's Blind."

    Fighter: "I want to hit the owlbear in the eyes and blind him. What do I need to do in order for this to happen?"

    In my mind, there's something seriously wrong here.
    I wouldn't call that a fiat system, since that implies using metagame resources to shape the game like fate points or something. Rather, you're talking about codifying called shots, applying status effects, and such so that the fighter doesn't have to rely on DM fiat to do simple things like that, and with that I agree wholeheartedly.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  17. - Top - End - #1067
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Fighters should indeed be the best at that, but that can't be all that they have, and they shouldn't rely on items to do their job.
    Not to start a fight, because I do agree that fighters have been given the short end of the stick from time to time, but I hear this argument all the time and I have to ask, can you think of any stories in which the guy with the big sword manages to keep pace with the mages without a) Having magic himself or b) Having "magic" items that otherwise provide him with super-normal abilities?

    Of the top of my head I can't think of any. Sure I can think of stories where the fighter and the wizard were on the same side and adventured together, and within the framework of the story, they were roughly equal, but even then it seems clear that the fighter would be outmatched in a straight one on one.

    4e tried really hard to make this work, but I have to agree with the two criticisms that it spawned. 1) That magic didn't feel magical anymore and 2) That all the classes felt very very similar in play.

    I also find the argument that fighters shouldn't have to rely on magic items interesting given that (at least pre-3.x) mages relied on magic items as well. Specifically their spell books but also spell components, without which a mage was powerless after they spent their spells.

    Agreed. Sword-swingers can have it harder to impose conditions, because they're using an at-will power as opposed to a spell. But if anyone can do more than "I hit for X damage" then everyone should be able to do more than "I hit for X damage". This is true even if X is really big.

    Fighters need to be able to Disarm/Trip/Daze/Push/Sunder/Blind/Cause ongoing damage without needing to spend rare character resources like one of a handful of feats or manuevers to learn to do so.

    He needs to be able to do such things SOME of the time, but not able to spam them without limit ("I trip him" every round is boring, unrealist, and not particularly fun). But based on reactions to 4th edition such powers shouldn't be encounter usable or daily powers.
    Not to be snarky, because I hate when 4e fans snark like this to the things Mike Mearls talks about, but that sounds remarkably like "Expertise Dice". Admittedly they're still rough around the edges, and in need of some working but it's more or less what it seems like they're going for.
    Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2012-11-29 at 04:06 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #1068
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I wouldn't call that a fiat system, since that implies using metagame resources to shape the game like fate points or something. Rather, you're talking about codifying called shots, applying status effects, and such so that the fighter doesn't have to rely on DM fiat to do simple things like that, and with that I agree wholeheartedly.
    I'm referring to "player fiat" as anything that allows a player to dictate what occurs in the game world without asking permission. It could be a spell or maneuver or anything else; I honestly don't think spells are considerably different from fate points, action points or anything else in this regard when we're talking about the gameplay elements involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert
    Agreed. Sword-swingers can have it harder to impose conditions, because they're using an at-will power as opposed to a spell. But if anyone can do more than "I hit for X damage" then everyone should be able to do more than "I hit for X damage". This is true even if X is really big.

    Fighters need to be able to Disarm/Trip/Daze/Push/Sunder/Blind/Cause ongoing damage without needing to spend rare character resources like one of a handful of feats or manuevers to learn to do so.
    That's just it - at-will/encounter/daily powers are one approach to a non-magical fiat system, but they're not the only one. I personally think they do a perfectly good job of allowing the Fighter's player to impose their will onto a battlefield as much as a Wizard does, but there are other ways to manage it.

    Expertise Dice are a possible mechanic, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of them given their every-round nature. If it's an at-will resource, it's not much of a resource. (You're not going to let the Fighter blind his enemies every single round no matter how hilarious that would be.) Called shot tables are one possible solution, too, but I don't really like the probabilities that would have to be involved.

    -O

  19. - Top - End - #1069
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Not to start a fight, because I do agree that fighters have been given the short end of the stick from time to time, but I hear this argument all the time and I have to ask, can you think of any stories in which the guy with the big sword manages to keep pace with the mages without a) Having magic himself or b) Having "magic" items that otherwise provide him with super-normal abilities?
    I'm about five times as interested in what makes for a compelling game at the table than what makes for a compelling movie or novel when we're talking D&D. :)

    If I want to emulate a D&D-style movie, I think Dungeon World ironically does a better job than any version of D&D to-date!

    Not to be snarky, because I hate when 4e fans snark like this to the things Mike Mearls talks about, but that sounds remarkably like "Expertise Dice". Admittedly they're still rough around the edges, and in need of some working but it's more or less what it seems like they're going for.
    I agree it's more or less what they were going for. But right now it's not, based on the recent posts where Expertise Dice are only a damage scaling mechanic.

    -O

  20. - Top - End - #1070
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Not to start a fight, because I do agree that fighters have been given the short end of the stick from time to time, but I hear this argument all the time and I have to ask, can you think of any stories in which the guy with the big sword manages to keep pace with the mages without a) Having magic himself or b) Having "magic" items that otherwise provide him with super-normal abilities?

    Of the top of my head I can't think of any. Sure I can think of stories where the fighter and the wizard were on the same side and adventured together, and within the framework of the story, they were roughly equal, but even then it seems clear that the fighter would be outmatched in a straight one on one.
    Conan takes down wizards, a lot. Batman regularly keeps pace with Superman (admittedly not the same as fighter/wizard but the dynamic of normal to superpowers is there). Logan Ninefingers keeps pace with Bayaz rather well in The First Law. Admittedly, Bayaz pulls off some incredibly impressive things from time to time, but then so does Logan. The only difference is after those incredibly impressive things Logan has to heal and Bayaz has to try and remain conscious and not cast any more spells for awhile. And to do the truly important magical things requires an entire adventure in which all of the party was very necessary.

    4e tried really hard to make this work, but I have to agree with the two criticisms that it spawned. 1) That magic didn't feel magical anymore and 2) That all the classes felt very very similar in play.

    I also find the argument that fighters shouldn't have to rely on magic items interesting given that (at least pre-3.x) mages relied on magic items as well. Specifically their spell books but also spell components, without which a mage was powerless after they spent their spells.

    Not to be snarky, because I hate when 4e fans snark like this to the things Mike Mearls talks about, but that sounds remarkably like "Expertise Dice". Admittedly they're still rough around the edges, and in need of some working but it's more or less what it seems like they're going for.
    I'd counter the argument against 4e with one for SAGA edition. The Force feels very different than going straight non-Force, and while by RAW Force-users can dominate low levels with a single feat (shoulda really fixed the math on that one). By level 4-5ish martial and magic even out rather nicely.

  21. - Top - End - #1071
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    You see, this would be the way to make sure I never even give Next a glance. I want Fighters and the like to perform extraortinary feats of martial might - not just "swing a sword really hard."

    I'm pretty bored with the Tyrrany of Magic - wherein non-spellcasters are forced to operate within a rather constrained, mother-may-I rule set without fiat capabilities ... and spellcasters more or less operate entirely via player fiat and where there are no actual rules of magic, only an ever-expanding list of spells.

    You can go ahead and call this "balance" as if it's some sort of dirty word to describe this if you want, but if Next doesn't make warrior-types as awesome in their own way as wizards and clerics are in theirs, I'm simply not interested.

    -O
    Quoted For Truth. The whole reason the game mechanics include "Levels" is so that Level -- NOT Level AND Class -- can be a reference for a character's overall level of power. (2e workaround -- where XP, rather than Level, was actually the number that characterized power -- notwithstanding. That system kind of worked, but it was far from elegant.)

    If you want a setting where magic trumps non-magic, just make it so that magical characters can become high level, while nonmagical characters are limited in their level. I'll freely admit that this allows you to emulate a good fraction of fantasy literature (which tends to have wildly unbalanced levels of power within adventuring parties regardless of magic vs. mundane) rather accurately. It just doesn't sound like a particularly fun setting to play in for me ... so don't force it on those of us who want powerful nonmagical characters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    All of them are inspired by literature in one form or another. Some stuff is incompatible with Core D&D. Thats true. But not nearly as much as you say. I don't NEED a book to tell me what kind of character I want to act out. Some stuff IS undoable but thats what Splatbooks should be for.
    No one is saying that Core D&D should allow for all character concepts. (If you want that, go play another system, like Risus.) But they are saying the more "iconic fantasy" concepts are available, the better. And while splatbooks opening up new options is good, the fact is that (with marketing models like those we've seen), many players will never have anything other than Core.

    If classic fantasy archetypes suck when you try to play them using the rules you have available, that's a problem. And please don't get self-righteous and imply that if we want a decent mechanical representation of our character concepts, that means we "NEED a book to tell [us] what kind of character [...] to act out." That's hard-Core Stormwind Fallacy, and/or an expression of a repressed desire to play a classless RPG system (which D&D is decidedly not).

    I think splatbooks loose sight of their goals when they create their own things for the sake of mechanical bonuses instead of helping RP character types. I like the kits system from 2e more then I like the class system in 3e.
    Even in cases where the archetype is already available, but it needs mechanical bonuses in order not too suck? Because if this is still your opinion in those cases, you're in the minority. The D&D community that understands them is pretty positive about the effects of "stealth fixes" like Swift Hunter, Battle Blessing, Snap Kick, the Pathfinder version of Smite Evil, or modest Inspire Courage boosts like Song of the Heart/Badge of Valor/Inspirational Boost. Even without offering qualitative new options for character concepts, these improved the game by making pre-existing options viable. (So, those concepts being viable in Core would have been even better, and opened up the space in splatbooks for potentially offering more "gonzo" archetypes.)

    The factotum is an example of how this doesn't work. Improvising is 100% RP base. Its not always available. You can't quantify "Improvisation". The factotum is truly a pathetic example of mechanizing things like insight.
    I'll admit that quantifying/mechanizing improvisation is a truly daunting task. Which is probably why it hasn't been totally accomplished. But it's kind of closed-minded to decry the very concept. Factotum is, after all, commonly lauded as a very fun-to-play class, which makes some improvisational stunts much cooler and fairer than they ever would have been before.

    The bard class.
    Try playing a Core Bard Swashbuckler, with a group where people optimize even a little bit (e.g. using a Greatsword with Power Attack). Then come back and tell me your character didn't feel pathetic.

    And 2e literaly had a kit for fighters called "The swashbuckler".
    True. It was even somewhat decent, according to my vague memories. But again, the fact that it came out in a splat -- and represents an archetype that is commonly requested -- is just more evidence that the concept should have been viable in Core. (So is they way they finally embraced the archetype in Core 4e.)

    Unless your the kind of guy that NEEDS the game to spell everything out for you, you can even play a Swashbuckling Paladin. That sounds like a AWESOME concept.
    I'm NOT the kind of guy you're implying, who can only play characters with default fluff. My last long-running character was an Indiana Jones-based character ... with the Wizard class. So again, drop the holier-than-thou tone.

    I've got no problem with a Swashbuckling Paladin character. It's great in systems that make it workable ... like Legend or CRE8. But 3e or 4e? Doesn't work out so well. None of the Baddies are going to be afraid of a Holy Warrior who pokes them for toothpick-sized damage.

    Fighter. Just fighter who knows how to roleplay well.
    That will satisfy some people ... at least, in a system where Fighters don't suck and can actually do Aragorn-ish things (4e or Old School Hack ... but 3e Fighter Aragorn would be pretty pathetic).

    But even then, the quantity of "re-fluffing" that is required to change a Fighter into a "Ranger" is going to leave some players dissatisfied -- especially when it applies to one of the most iconic fantasy archetypes, one of the most well-loved fantasy heroes, arguably the fifth-most "classic" Class in D&D.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    The heart of the "fighters don't get nice things" problem is that every class needs an indefinitely-scaling "hook" to give them Nice Things, whether it's magic, serving a god, kung-fu powers, really cool music, tricking absolutely anything, being one with nature, having gadgets, mind/emotion over matter, or something else, and the fighter is practically defined by being the class without something fancy like that. So yes, magic should be better than hitting things with pointy bits of metal, but beyond the low levels the fighter should be doing more than just hitting things with pointy bits of metal.

    Either free the fighter from the bounds of physics using whatever handwavium you want or relegate the good-with-weapons class to NPCs and you can achieve balance without having to bring everything else down to the fighter's level.
    This is true to some extent; Fighters will need something "fancy" to compete with other concepts when those other concepts are truly powerful. But although I like the idea of high-level Fighters getting appropriate "fancy" abilities, I like even better the idea of some non-"fancy" abilities still being powerful. The Warblade and the 4e Fighter are good models of how, although the Fighter probably can't compete at epic levels without some kind of ususual power source, he can get past the low levels and still be awesome without needing anything other than pure martial skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by tbok1992 View Post
    I whole-heartedly disagree. Even though I mostly play casters, I think that the fighter should be at Tall-Tale levels of power at high level, like Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill.

    I want a fighter that, at level 20, can cut through a wall with a swing of his axe, can shake the earth hard enough to make his foes fall with just a stamp of his foot, and can swallow a spell shot at him; chew it up and spit it right at the caster.
    I agree, except for the number "20." This kind of Fighter stunts should practically define "Epic Tier." Which means if Next uses the same level scale as 3e or 4e (which is certainly not certain), these types of abilities should wait until Level 21. (But then again, so should a lot of the Spells that were, say, Level 7-9 in 3e.)

    And it makes me sad that nobody responded to my comment about new Subrace ideas
    Well, partly that's because I didn't want to be a downer by talking about how unimpressed I am by Races in the Playtest Packet, including the subraces system.

    Personally, I hope Dragonborn aren't even Core in 5e ... and when they're introduced, I hope they're still kept to a handful of subraces. Having 16+ subraces of Dragonborn to echo every type of Dragon ever published just feels bloated to me, unless it's part of a setting-specific supplement with the whole point of emphasizing diversity of Dragonborn.

    Also, subraces so far have been differentiated solely by ability score bonuses (which is pretty much the reason I haven't been impressed by them), which makes it pretty hard to conceive of how we could see 16+ Dragonborn subraces. I suppose if they were separated by breath weapon element as well as ability score bonus, that could work. (I.e. Red Dragonborn have Fire and STR +1, while Gold Dragonborn have Fire and WIS +1, while other Fire-based Dragons have some other ability boost.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    It's alsto the reason many people like Faerun. You're basically equating you not liking something with it being bad. It just means you don't like it.
    Yeah, well, those of us who have suffered through years of Tyranny-of-Magic would prefer if that sort of game design (which is perfectly valid for those who enjoy it) stayed in setting-specific or modular rules.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  22. - Top - End - #1072
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    You have to like math to get into any RPG and be good at math to get a handle on the mechanics...
    This isn't even remotely true. There are a whole host of RPGs where the math is sufficiently minimal for this to not be an issue (Wushu, Risus, some Fudge builds) and others where there is essentially no math at all (Fiasco, Microscope). The statement applies to all long form traditional RPGs, but that's about the only category where it does so.
    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.

  23. - Top - End - #1073
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Not to start a fight, because I do agree that fighters have been given the short end of the stick from time to time, but I hear this argument all the time and I have to ask, can you think of any stories in which the guy with the big sword manages to keep pace with the mages without a) Having magic himself or b) Having "magic" items that otherwise provide him with super-normal abilities?

    Of the top of my head I can't think of any. Sure I can think of stories where the fighter and the wizard were on the same side and adventured together, and within the framework of the story, they were roughly equal, but even then it seems clear that the fighter would be outmatched in a straight one on one.
    Well, there are two different aspects to this. The first is people who survived without any external help. Realistic heroes like Conan, Aragorn, and the like often had special items, but needed them only for specific purposes, and their items were usually interchangeable; Aragorn picked up a ghost touch longsword when dealing with ghosts, but he didn't need that specific sword to be a good warrior. Mythological heroes like Beowulf, Odysseus, and the like were just stronger, faster, smarter, and better than normal people; they didn't go up against the equivalent of high-level D&D casters, but they (A) broke the laws of physics to a greater or lesser extent and (B) went up against mid-level threats like Circe, the dragon, and so on. There's no reason that those kinds of fighters can't be extended to high levels with the same theme and justifications.

    The second aspect is fighters who relied on an item, rather than items, plural. King Arthur and Excalibur, Marvel's Thor and Mjolnir, Cu Chulainn and Gae Bolg--all of those have one iconic, named item that grants them special power, but (A) they're already exceptional in their own right and (B) they're the only ones who can use the item or the ones who can use it best. Take away their special items and they lose some nifty benefits, but they can survive and thrive without them. Giving fighters signature magic items to expand their capabilities wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as they're plenty capable without it.

    The fighter isn't either of those. Take a fighter and remove all of his items once he hits mid levels, and he can't compete against things that a normal (if very skilled) human can't deal with. Take all of those items and give them to a commoner, and he can use them just as well as the fighter can. There is certainly a space in the narrative for the guy who can't compete in a fair fight without fancy items, but that guy either is defined by his signature items (e.g. Iron Man) or doesn't get into fair fights in the first place (e.g. a rogue), neither of which is what the fighter is "supposed" to be.

    4e tried really hard to make this work, but I have to agree with the two criticisms that it spawned. 1) That magic didn't feel magical anymore and 2) That all the classes felt very very similar in play.
    It's possible to give the fighter Nice Things without bringing the casters down to his level and/or making everything feel same-y. Witness 3e's Tier 3 class variety and 4e's Essentials: both allowed for mechanical variety (the Tier 3's much more than Essentials, obviously) while still feeling different and both being interesting.

    I also find the argument that fighters shouldn't have to rely on magic items interesting given that (at least pre-3.x) mages relied on magic items as well. Specifically their spell books but also spell components, without which a mage was powerless after they spent their spells.
    The spellbook is the iconic item, akin to the signature sword, which none of the other casters need, and indeed the wizard can master any old spellbook to cast from, it just might not have the same spells. The spell components weren't magic items in the D&D sense of the word; they could use any old items for spells, and in fact wizards scrabbling around for reagents after theirs were stolen is a common stereotype of older editions. That's more the equivalent of a fighter who just needs to have some weapon to pull his weight, whether a longsword or a branch snapped off a tree. To get a wizard as item-reliant as a fighter, think of a UMD rogue who's outfitted with wands and scrolls--he's got all the magic of a "real" wizard, given enough cash, but none of it is him doing the actual magic and he's useless without his stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    I'm referring to "player fiat" as anything that allows a player to dictate what occurs in the game world without asking permission. It could be a spell or maneuver or anything else; I honestly don't think spells are considerably different from fate points, action points or anything else in this regard when we're talking about the gameplay elements involved.
    Well, again, I think it's important to differentiate between players using the rules framework and players dictating outcomes, just like there's a difference between a DM giving his NPC fighter a magic sword and a DM dictating that his fighter will hit 90% of the time, but if by player fiat you're just referring to codifying rules so that the fighter doesn't have to rely on the DM's favor, then I'm all for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon
    The factotum is an example of how this doesn't work. Improvising is 100% RP base. Its not always available. You can't quantify "Improvisation". The factotum is truly a pathetic example of mechanizing things like insight.
    Now this is an example of the fiat problem I was talking about. Improvising in an RPG doesn't work like improvising in a book. In a book, if the protagonist needs an avalanche there are convenient boulders nearby, if he needs to improvise a bomb from common materials they're there and the process of doing so can be handwaved, and so on. Improvisation shouldn't be the basis of a single class, but it should be codified mechanically, whether in-game (DC X check to make a bomb) or metagame (spend a plot point, oh look, boulders!) because the environment won't always have the perfect tools for improvising and DM fiat can vary in effectiveness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74
    This is true to some extent; Fighters will need something "fancy" to compete with other concepts when those other concepts are truly powerful. But although I like the idea of high-level Fighters getting appropriate "fancy" abilities, I like even better the idea of some non-"fancy" abilities still being powerful. The Warblade and the 4e Fighter are good models of how, although the Fighter probably can't compete at epic levels without some kind of ususual power source, he can get past the low levels and still be awesome without needing anything other than pure martial skill.
    The fighter doesn't need a very fancy concept, necessarily, it just has to be something broader and more evocative than "guy who uses a sword." Fighters have "guy with sword" and "fighting style guy" and they get things like the very blah Weapon Supremacy; barbarians have "stronger than mere mortals" and "too stubborn to die" and they get things like the superhuman Frenzied Berserker. The warblade has a bit of the barbarian's schtick (Tiger Claw) and a bit of "impossibly fast and precise" (Diamond Mind and Iron Heart) as far as combat skill goes, with a bit of the Sublime Way "special fancy training" stuff that all the martial adepts have thanks to his maneuver and class features; his concept encompasses "weapons guy" but isn't limited by it.

    Of course, special abilities and context define the class as much as the other way around; the warblade and the fighter have the same basic flavor, but the fighter is held back by the inertia of his only special abilities having been weapon-focused while the warblade was free to try new things. The 4e fighter is only epically skilled because 4e drops the ceiling of what "epic" means fairly low: the 29th level fighter powers in the PHB are all basically the stuff you've been doing for the past ten levels, but with more damage and a few minor perks, while the casters have been brought down so that they're within the fighter's reach. 7[W] or +100 damage from the 4e fighter or the warblade let you kill things better, but they aren't anything new and different and they aren't what the fighter needs.

    This isn't even remotely true. There are a whole host of RPGs where the math is sufficiently minimal for this to not be an issue (Wushu, Risus, some Fudge builds) and others where there is essentially no math at all (Fiasco, Microscope). The statement applies to all long form traditional RPGs, but that's about the only category where it does so.
    You're right, my bad. I should have said to get into the rules-heavy games I'd mentioned generally requires that you like and be good at math, so 3e is no worse than AD&D in that respect. Though I haven't ever met anyone that got into gaming via rules-light/math-light games like the ones you mentioned, I've only seen people who got in via the big-name games and migrated to the more niche ones thereafter; do you know how common it is, if at all, for people to be exposed to RPGing by games like those?
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  24. - Top - End - #1074
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Not to be snarky, because I hate when 4e fans snark like this to the things Mike Mearls talks about, but that sounds remarkably like "Expertise Dice". Admittedly they're still rough around the edges, and in need of some working but it's more or less what it seems like they're going for.
    You know, the paragraph THAT YOU CUT OUT, immediately after what you quoted said:

    "and on a hit you can impose a condition which matches your unmodified d20 roll and have each condition have a cost to impose in lost expertise dice or critical dice if the player chooses to use it."

    So I'm not sure why you think I noeed to be TOLD that this sounds like expertise dice. I'm really not. Especially if you're not trying to be snarky telling me what I just told you as if it would be a revalation is a really wierd thing to do.

    But you know what, non of this can be done yet with expertise dice, the number of manuevers is low, and looks to be getting lower as their discussing needing feats to take additional manuevers. And a level 1 fighter needs to be able to attempt ALL that crap, because those are all pretty basic fighting moves. Which means they need to be inherent in having expertise dice, not specific manuevers.

    The limit NEEDS to be something about when you use them, because "blind every turn" is always overpowered, NOT "knowing the manuever". Which is why I suggested several alternate methods to limit use other than just knowing the manuever or encounter or daily based use.

  25. - Top - End - #1075
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    The intelectually challenging aspects of RPGs (in a positive way, as in encouraging problem solving) that makes them interesting primarily to brainy people probably lies a lot more in the unraveling of hidden plots and figuring out the dynamics and relationships in a world that is different from known everyday life in some crucial aspects. I do consider it a design flaw of RPGs that have too many numbers in character creation and unnceccessary calculations during gameplay, but in general the math is trivially easy and barely a serious obstacle that would keep people from getting into the whole business.
    But what you need to really get into the game is a strong desire of exploring the unknown and figuring out how it works and you can make use of it for yourself. And to really enjoy that challenge rather than getting frustrated from getting stuck, you have to bring some amount of smart to the table.
    But you can still totally suck at math.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  26. - Top - End - #1076
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Conan takes down wizards, a lot. Batman regularly keeps pace with Superman (admittedly not the same as fighter/wizard but the dynamic of normal to superpowers is there).
    Note that there IS magic in Batman's world, Zatana, Dr. Strange, several others. Batman is one of the big boys, the magic wielders typically aren't.

    There's nothing inherent about magic that makes magic using characters need to be more powerful.

  27. - Top - End - #1077
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Well, there are two different aspects to this. The first is people who survived without any external help. Realistic heroes like Conan, Aragorn, and the like often had special items, but needed them only for specific purposes, and their items were usually interchangeable; Aragorn picked up a ghost touch longsword when dealing with ghosts, but he didn't need that specific sword to be a good warrior. Mythological heroes like Beowulf, Odysseus, and the like were just stronger, faster, smarter, and better than normal people; they didn't go up against the equivalent of high-level D&D casters, but they (A) broke the laws of physics to a greater or lesser extent and (B) went up against mid-level threats like Circe, the dragon, and so on. There's no reason that those kinds of fighters can't be extended to high levels with the same theme and justifications.

    The second aspect is fighters who relied on an item, rather than items, plural. King Arthur and Excalibur, Marvel's Thor and Mjolnir, Cu Chulainn and Gae Bolg--all of those have one iconic, named item that grants them special power, but (A) they're already exceptional in their own right and (B) they're the only ones who can use the item or the ones who can use it best. Take away their special items and they lose some nifty benefits, but they can survive and thrive without them. Giving fighters signature magic items to expand their capabilities wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as they're plenty capable without it.

    The fighter isn't either of those. Take a fighter and remove all of his items once he hits mid levels, and he can't compete against things that a normal (if very skilled) human can't deal with. Take all of those items and give them to a commoner, and he can use them just as well as the fighter can. There is certainly a space in the narrative for the guy who can't compete in a fair fight without fancy items, but that guy either is defined by his signature items (e.g. Iron Man) or doesn't get into fair fights in the first place (e.g. a rogue), neither of which is what the fighter is "supposed" to be.
    To me, high-level fighters should be like Beowulf. Swimming underwater for hours in mail, fighting giants and dragons with nonmagical weapons, stuff like that. What the fighter needs at high levels is ridiculously superhuman physical stats. And they should be moderately skilled, not to the level of rogues or rangers, of course, but they should do more than just rip monsters in half with their bare hands.
    Jude P.

  28. - Top - End - #1078
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Note that there IS magic in Batman's world, Zatana, Dr. Strange, several others. Batman is one of the big boys, the magic wielders typically aren't.

    There's nothing inherent about magic that makes magic using characters need to be more powerful.
    I hate to be "that guy" (ha ha no I'm not) but Batman is only "powerful" in the DC universe because the writers "write" him to be powerful. If you do a line-by-line comparison, Batman is easily one of the weakest characters on the Justice League. If he was written realistically, he would be the guy who stays and guards the base.

  29. - Top - End - #1079
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashdate View Post
    I hate to be "that guy" (ha ha no I'm not) but Batman is only "powerful" in the DC universe because the writers "write" him to be powerful. If you do a line-by-line comparison, Batman is easily one of the weakest characters on the Justice League. If he was written realistically, he would be the guy who stays and guards the base.
    If anyone in the Justice League was written "realistically" the entire DCU would collapse in on itself. I'm constantly baffled by people who have no problem with an alien god who can punch planets in half and fly faster than the speed of light but can't imagine a paranoid rich guy might put together a contingency or two in case said alien god decides to punch the wrong planet.

    On that note, let me take this opportunity to jump on the "Make Fighters Better Without Nerfing Wizards" bandwagon. Maneuvers, assuming they get better than the ones we've seen, are the way to go in terms of combat power, but it seems like the Fighter is being neglected out of combat. The Rogue has always been the skill-monkey, the Wizard and Cleric have had utility spells in every edition except 4e, but what does the Fighter get?

    I'd suggest that, seeing that 5e is looking to be highly Ability Score dependent, the Fighter's martial training pay off with regular Ability Score bonuses. Like, instead of a +1 every four levels they get one every other level, with caps on how the bonuses stack to prevent munchkinry. Since the Ability Check is such an important part of 5e, Fighters can show off their heroic musculature or fighting intuition regularly outside of combat without upstaging the Rogue at those tasks they choose to specialize in. Plus it turns "strong guy with sword" into an actual archetype instead of a consolation prize.
    Last edited by Water_Bear; 2012-11-29 at 07:34 PM. Reason: Diction.

  30. - Top - End - #1080
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    I'd like to buff fighters a lot, but I'd also like to nerf mages a little. Mages shouldn't become gods until epic levels when fighters are strong enough to punch gods in the face without just burning into ash or something.
    Jude P.

Posting Permissions

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