New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 37 of 50 FirstFirst ... 12272829303132333435363738394041424344454647 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,110 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #1081
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    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.
    Pathfinder

  2. - Top - End - #1082
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    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.

    And it makes me sad that nobody responded to my comment about new Subrace ideas
    Ancient Mountain Hammer
    Earthstrike Quake
    Moment of Perfect Mind


  3. - Top - End - #1083
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    I'm of the opinion that casters need to be significantly less powerful than they were in 3rd edition, or they need to have more of a drawback to using their most powerful spells than, "oh, no, I just used up one of my highest spells slots, which I'll get back tomorrow and used up several gold worth of spell components which I won't miss because I'm rolling in moolah." Magic should be either safe or powerful, but not both, at least not for the same spell.

  4. - Top - End - #1084
    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 noparlpf View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadzar View Post
    I'm of the opinion that casters need to be significantly less powerful than they were in 3rd edition, or they need to have more of a drawback to using their most powerful spells than, "oh, no, I just used up one of my highest spells slots, which I'll get back tomorrow and used up several gold worth of spell components which I won't miss because I'm rolling in moolah." Magic should be either safe or powerful, but not both, at least not for the same spell.
    Agreed; bringing casters back to their 2e incarnations and the drawbacks surrounding them (less reliable casting, more resistible spells, smaller spell selections, slower power growth, etc.) while boosting noncasters to superheroic/mythic heights at high levels would be the best approach. If on a relative scale of 1 to 10 the AD&D power scale is noncasters 4, casters 8 and the 3e power scale is noncasters 2, casters 10, I'd like to see all the classes brought to the 7-8 range.
    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

  5. - Top - End - #1085
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    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.
    I admit to not being very up on my Conan literature, but I was always under the impression that while Conan often defeated wizards, it wasn't usually by way of a one on one knock down drag out fight. Conan was often much sneakier than our favorite Austrian muscle builder portrayed him, though I will admit my impression could be very wrong.

    Batman I would say falls under the man relying on "magical" gadgets, where in this case the magic is of the "sufficiently advanced technology" kind. Take away Batman's bat belt (and kryptonite plunger ) and all you have is a rich guy who can punch.

    I can't speak for The First Law as I have not read.

    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.)
    Facts not in evidence. XP as the power indicator was around long before 2e. It wasn't until 3e where they equalized the XP requirements per level and started using level as the overall power indicator.

    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.
    Usually when I see complaints about the fighters vs casters in D&D, it's never complaining that the fighter can't take on a dragon or a circe. It's either that the fighter can't take on the caster on equal footing, or that the fighter is relegated to second string when taking on those threats with an equal level caster. It's also worth noting that at least for the circe, Odysseus only defeated her by way of the greek equivalent of a "Contact Outer Plane" spell and a magic herb.

    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.
    Of course with only 6 HP max and a lousy BAB, your commoner isn't likely to get past the first round. That fighter on the other hand...

    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.
    Oh agreed. I'm not against giving the fighter nice things. I'm against trying to force parity where that parity either removes the "magic" from magic or where that parity is about bringing everyone down rather than bringing the fighter up (and yes, I do agree that with the removal of 99% of the restrictions on casters, 3.x casters need to be brought down).

    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.
    Actually, by the book, a wizard can only prepare spells from their own spell book. They can read and copy spells from other books, but each book is unique to the spell caster. 3.x (of course) lightened this restriction, but even then, it's not an assured thing.

    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.
    Again, I have to wonder if perhaps we're better off just getting rid of the plain old fighter in the first place. Is there any particular archetype that other martial classes wouldn't do better?

    You know, the paragraph THAT YOU CUT OUT, immediately after what you quoted said:
    Honest to god, even though I read your post 3 times because I was sure that you could not have missed the similarity, I somehow missed your inclusion of the expertise dice. My mistake.

    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.
    Indeed. You only need to really enjoy math if you want to get into char op. It's perfectly possible to play many (most) RPGs with only a grade school level familiarity with math.

  6. - Top - End - #1086
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    The only drawback to spellcasting I don't want to see is punishing spellcasters for doing what they're supposed to be doing, casting spells. No to having to lose hit points. No to risk of insanity. No to be unable to cast spells for a number rounds thus doing nothing but watch everyone else play, usually "fatigue". Their spells have to actually work, meaning opponents are not making their saving throws 95% of the time or some such or everyone and their grandmother has spell resistance.

    Alright then, so what drawbacks could I like?

    1) Bring back spellcasting times. A 3rd level spell has a casting time of 3. You start casting on initiative count 17. Spell goes off on initiative count 15. If damaged before then, concentration check to maintain casting. Next round you still start on initiative count 17.

    2) Focused learning. Spellcasters cannot learn every spell everywhere. Specialization is standard. Have interesting and useful class features related to the specialization. Bring back 2E cleric spell spheres concept but keep 3E's spontaneous curing.

    3) Alter particular spells that cause people to hyperventilate with rage. No attack spell can ever be no save. Change the level of spell. Slightly change how the spell works to a more reasonable effect.

  7. - Top - End - #1087
    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
    Usually when I see complaints about the fighters vs casters in D&D, it's never complaining that the fighter can't take on a dragon or a circe. It's either that the fighter can't take on the caster on equal footing, or that the fighter is relegated to second string when taking on those threats with an equal level caster. It's also worth noting that at least for the circe, Odysseus only defeated her by way of the greek equivalent of a "Contact Outer Plane" spell and a magic herb.
    Those two examples relate to the second-string complaint: fighters usually fall behind when fighting high-level monsters because they lack special movement methods, the right weapons to get through DR, the BAB and Str to outgrapple the big high-HD monsters, and so forth, and they usually fall behind against enemy casters because they don't have varied enough offense to get through the casters' defenses and strong enough defenses to resist the casters' offense.

    The role of the gods in the Odyssey is a bit overstated since it's an epic; Athena supposedly made the soldiers listen to him in the meeting at Troy as well, but in D&D terms that could just as easily be fluff for a good Knowledge (Nature) check and a good Diplomacy check, respectively. If you feel Odysseus isn't a good example of a fighter, there are plenty more to choose from--several other Greek heroes, Gilgamesh, Sigurd, Arngrim, Roland, Maugris, the Knights of the Round Table, and on and on.

    Of course with only 6 HP max and a lousy BAB, your commoner isn't likely to get past the first round. That fighter on the other hand...
    There are commoners above level 1, you know; obviously you don't hand a 20th level fighter's stuff to a level 1 character and expect him to do the same. Still, whether an individual character will survive to use the gear isn't what I was talking about. The wizard's spellbook is a bunch of scribbles to a non-wizard; a cleric's holy symbol does nothing on its own; equipment like this is needed for certain classes, but any ol' spellbook or holy symbol will do, so taking them away might really piss those casters off but restoration is one dead wizard or one church favor away and while the items are gone the casters retain the ability to get them back/get more. A staff, wand, or scroll works flawlessly and automatically for wizards and clerics while others have to sink ranks into a skill keyed off a secondary or tertiary attribute to even have a chance to use them; this equipment isn't necessary for any class, but the casters do it better.

    Such isn't the case for any of the fighter's stuff. There used to be fighter-only weapons and armor in 2e, but not in 3e or 4e, and even the fighter-only gear wasn't so amazingly powerful that it made up for their general lack of features. Give a commoner the wizard's spellbook and staff and it's useless to him; give a commoner the fighter's gear and he can use it just as well, and though there will obviously be a discrepancy in base numbers that's a quantitative difference (that could also occur between a fighter with good stats and high HP rolls and one with bad stats and low HP rolls, by the way), not a quantitative one.

    Actually, by the book, a wizard can only prepare spells from their own spell book. They can read and copy spells from other books, but each book is unique to the spell caster. 3.x (of course) lightened this restriction, but even then, it's not an assured thing.
    Once the wizard has an enemy spellbook, they can either make one of their own by copying from the captured one (AD&D) or "take over" the new spellbook (3e), and in either case they replenish their spells (albeit not necessarily the same ones) at a fraction of the cost of going out and getting new ones. By contrast, a fighter can't do that as easily, since buying equivalent gear is prohibitively expensive when you don't have any gear to trade in and he can't very well go out and kill someone for more stuff since he needs the gear to compete, as opposed to the wizard who needs his spellbook only to prepare spells and thus has spells at his disposal to help him get another spellbook.

    There are of course other considerations, such as the propensity of paranoid wizards to protect their spellbooks better, the ability of wizards to make duplicates of their spellbooks, and so forth, but the bottom line is that if you strip a wizard and a fighter naked of all their gear and throw them in a cell, the wizard can get back to normal much faster and easier than the fighter.

    Again, I have to wonder if perhaps we're better off just getting rid of the plain old fighter in the first place. Is there any particular archetype that other martial classes wouldn't do better?
    I'm all for that, honestly; the fighter as it stands is a 5-level NPC/dip class at best. If it is to be kept around, when he gets to the mid levels the fighter should have to take a PrC or multiclass to a real class.

    Alternately, do it the 1e way: paladin, ranger, and other fighter subclasses are purely superior to the base fighter mechanically, and if a paladin or ranger breaks his code he gets punished by becoming a fighter. So you create a fighter class and just say "a barbarian is the fighter plus X, Y, and Z, a paladin is the fighter plus A, B, and C," and so forth, and the fighter would just be the name you gave to the basic skeleton several classes share. That would work pretty well for NPC classes, actually: do the same with a rogue chassis (take away SA, Evasion, and rogue talents), a wizard chassis (limited spells known and he has to cast from the spellbook instead of preparing spells), and a cleric chassis (one domain plus healing spells only) and you have your town guards, artisans, sages, and temple healers, and upgrading nameless NPCs to "real" character means overlaying a "real" class instead of rebuilding them.

    *scribbles a memo to himself*

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    The only drawback to spellcasting I don't want to see is punishing spellcasters for doing what they're supposed to be doing, casting spells. No to having to lose hit points. No to risk of insanity. No to be unable to cast spells for a number rounds thus doing nothing but watch everyone else play, usually "fatigue". Their spells have to actually work, meaning opponents are not making their saving throws 95% of the time or some such or everyone and their grandmother has spell resistance.
    Fully agreed. I particularly dislike the casting check to channel magic approach--Vancian casters do all the ritual ahead of time to prepackage the energy, you're not trying to channel anything in the middle of combat!

    1) Bring back spellcasting times. A 3rd level spell has a casting time of 3. You start casting on initiative count 17. Spell goes off on initiative count 15. If damaged before then, concentration check to maintain casting. Next round you still start on initiative count 17.
    On top of this I might add that you have to declare which spell you're casting, target the appropriate creature or area, etc. Spellcasting times make them slightly easier to interrupt, while pre-declaration lets the enemies go "He's casting a fireball! Take cover!" and have them actually be able to react to 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

  8. - Top - End - #1088
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Indeed. You only need to really enjoy math if you want to get into char op. It's perfectly possible to play many (most) RPGs with only a grade school level familiarity with math.
    Caveat: Char Op also doesn't really require much math, strictly speaking. Unless you're playing FATAL or something (which expects the players to work out quadratic equations mid-combat) all it needs is a basic understanding of how probability works.

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    The only drawback to spellcasting I don't want to see is punishing spellcasters for doing what they're supposed to be doing, casting spells. No to having to lose hit points. No to risk of insanity. No to be unable to cast spells for a number rounds thus doing nothing but watch everyone else play, usually "fatigue".
    In a way I agree with you but only because the magic system of D&D operates under a flawed fundamental assumption: The idea that to have decent magic, you need to give up the ability to do absolutely anything else aside from casting spells. Except knowledge checks. If you're lucky.

    Make spellcasters well-rounded human beings who are perfectly capable of contributing to the party without using any magic, and encouraging/forcing them to not use spells for everything is suddenly much less of a problem.

    If we have to keep the "magic-only or no magic at all" thing though, I perfectly agree, wizards should be able to successfully cast every round (multi-round casting times notwithstanding) without penalty.
    Last edited by Craft (Cheese); 2012-11-30 at 03:24 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #1089
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Alternately, do it the 1e way: paladin, ranger, and other fighter subclasses are purely superior to the base fighter mechanically
    Thats not true. Since Weapon Specialization was only available to single class Fighters, in addition to somewhat lower XP requirements, Fighters were the absolute best class at fighting. Also, good luck finding a Paladin with really good stats relevant for combat. With that big hunky 17 sitting at Charisma, typically there wasn't much left to fill out Str, Dex and Con.

  10. - Top - End - #1090
    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 Zombimode View Post
    Thats not true. Since Weapon Specialization was only available to single class Fighters, in addition to somewhat lower XP requirements, Fighters were the absolute best class at fighting. Also, good luck finding a Paladin with really good stats relevant for combat. With that big hunky 17 sitting at Charisma, typically there wasn't much left to fill out Str, Dex and Con.
    Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was talking core 1e, before the fighter got any perks of his own, and making a strict comparison of class benefits (i.e. for a given stat line and level, paladin > fighter and ranger > fighter). Obviously if fighter were just a build skeleton rather than a class it wouldn't have its own progression, stat requirements, etc. and things that were "fighter only" would actually be "any Fighter class only."
    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

  11. - Top - End - #1091
    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 Menteith View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    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.
    And I'm saying that it's a bad approach that can lead to D&D Next only supporting a narrow group of concepts just like 3rd edition does.
    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.

  12. - Top - End - #1092
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    D&D doesn't attempt to be GURPS.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  13. - Top - End - #1093
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    As I have explained before, more than once, covering concepts that are perfectly within the themes of a heroic fantasy game does not mean that a system attempts to be GURPS. Your arguments would be valid if I were arguing that I should be able to play a mad scientist, gunslinger or, say, a sentient animal straight out of the box. It does not apply when I talk about dexterous fighters, crossbow snipers or throwing specialists.
    Last edited by Morty; 2012-11-30 at 08:27 AM.
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #1094
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    Yet the questions remain what archetypes are so archetypical that D&D just has to include them and how much crunch you need to make such characters good enough to please most players.
    People may say its wrongbadfun, but in the games I played, people who want to play an archer played a PHB fighter with a bow and PHB archery feats and everyone was happy.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  15. - Top - End - #1095
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    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.
    Well, I can't blame for not understand it since you're not familiat with the series, but the chakra gates are something every human has and all spiritual beings have spiritual pressure. Bruce Lees and Grey Mousers don't matter in the series, because there is no such thing as Bruce Lees and Grey Mousers in the plot.
    You also did not mention Bunshichi Tawara, who uses no powers in a world full of superpowered people and is consistently deemed the most powerful character in the series.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    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.
    I never said they were. I said their shtick is hitting things very hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    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.
    And why is that a bad thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    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.
    You seem to have misunderstood what I meant, specially because I never said I was talking about skilled humans who hit things with swords. I was talking about characters whose shtick was hitting really hard without using special powers.

    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.
    I don't see why not.

  16. - Top - End - #1096
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    What archetypes? I've explained before - if a given concept is something you could see in a heroic fantasy story, it should be doable. By the way, want to know what sort of character can't work in core 3rd edition? Drizzt. Also his arch-rival Artemis Entreri. Their combat stats in the FRCS book are rather telling.
    As to how much crunch - not very much. D&D Next has already made dexterity-focused fighters more viable by something as painfully simple as extending the list of weapons you can use with finesse, and letting them be used this way without a feat. Suddenly, Drizzt with his twin scimitars, high Dexterity and average Strength is no longer going to scratch ineffectually at anything roughly equal to him in level. Other options that are lousy in 3rd edition can be brought to at least the baseline level of usefulness with similar changes, if only the designers want it. The best way to make various combat styles cool and useful would be to make unique manuevers that are used with particular weapons and methods of fighting, though.
    Last edited by Morty; 2012-11-30 at 08:38 AM.
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #1097
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    deuterio12's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Well, I can't blame for not understand it since you're not familiat with the series, but the chakra gates are something every human has and all spiritual beings have spiritual pressure. Bruce Lees and Grey Mousers don't matter in the series, because there is no such thing as Bruce Lees and Grey Mousers in the plot.
    You also did not mention Bunshichi Tawara, who uses no powers in a world full of superpowered people and is consistently deemed the most powerful character in the series.
    Super-muscles is most definetely a super power. The other guys have fancy martial arts. Bunshichi is simply physically strong enough to punch cars into the air while increasing his body mass out of nowhere, so poor normal human beings don't stand much of a chance, even if they know kung-fu.

    Kenapchi kinda falls on the same category. He never bothered to develop a Bankai simply because he's so overwhelming strong/fast/tough he can just mindlessly slash away while parrying the enemy blades with his face and still come out ahead.

    Poor Rock Lee on the other hand kinda the humor relief of Naruto and he basically losts all of his major fights despite his hellish training in unlocking the chakra gates.

  18. - Top - End - #1098
    Orc in the Playground
     
    tbok1992's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    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.)
    That sorta viewpoint that the "weird" races shouldn't be core bugs me SO MUCH, as I think the Dragonborn helped get a lot of new people into D&D. If it were up to me, not only would Tieflings and Dragonborn be core in 5e, but so would Warforged, Thri-Keen, Giff (As in the hippo people), Aasimar and Hengeyokai, just to give a good representation of other settings iconic races.

    And I think I'd not so much want a subrace for every color of Dragon (Red, white, black, ect.) as one for each type (Chromatic, metallic, Lung, Linnorm, ect), with the different sub-types being differentiated by various resistance/damage-type choices baked within each. I mainly want that LInnorm-dragonborn race, as I love the idea of a freakish, deformed Dragonborn sub-race for player use.

  19. - Top - End - #1099
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    I think the core rules races should be all of a generic standard sub-race. For playtest it's okay to have their ideas for sub-races tested in the same place, but for the PHB, there should just be elf, and dwarf, and gnome and not some 20 subraces with the racial stats being broken up into shared and race-specific traits.
    Though I actually doubt that would happen.

    Best go back to how it was in 2nd and 3rd Edition (and I think even 1st as well).
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  20. - Top - End - #1100
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    I think the core rules races should be all of a generic standard sub-race. For playtest it's okay to have their ideas for sub-races tested in the same place, but for the PHB, there should just be elf, and dwarf, and gnome and not some 20 subraces with the racial stats being broken up into shared and race-specific traits.
    Though I actually doubt that would happen.

    Best go back to how it was in 2nd and 3rd Edition (and I think even 1st as well).
    I don't think the gnome or half-orc are needed in core, if the goal is for a really basic edition. Elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings should be sufficient for a basic book, much like the red box. (Heck, make non-humans classes again! )

    I honestly would rather see dragonborn than gnomes, but I don't think either one is needed if a "BECMI" version is the first thing they come out with.

    -O

  21. - Top - End - #1101
    Orc in the Playground
     
    tbok1992's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

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

    To be honest, if Gnomes are core, I really want them to be Tinker gnomes. Love those little guys, though I will admit they fit waaaaaay better in Spelljammer than in Dragonlance.

  22. - Top - End - #1102
    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 Yora View Post
    I think the core rules races should be all of a generic standard sub-race. For playtest it's okay to have their ideas for sub-races tested in the same place, but for the PHB, there should just be elf, and dwarf, and gnome and not some 20 subraces with the racial stats being broken up into shared and race-specific traits.
    Though I actually doubt that would happen.

    Best go back to how it was in 2nd and 3rd Edition (and I think even 1st as well).
    Let's have halflings in core, not gnomes. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings are the really core races. Maybe half-elves or half-orcs, but those less so. Oh, and Grippli, but mostly just because psychic frogs are cool.
    Jude P.

  23. - Top - End - #1103
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I never said they were. I said their shtick is hitting things very hard.
    Except it's not. You're missing the forest for the trees (really, one tree). It's not like Buffy just stands there and punches stuff hard; she's inflicting the equivalent of status conditions all the time - knocking enemies back, grappling them, "dazing" them, and so on - instead of just gradually working through a mass of hit point tofu. She's a canny combatant and "punching stuff hard" is just a baseline for the sort of fight scenes we see in the series.

    That's the sort of fiat system I'm talking about - one where the "Fighter" gets the ability to impose their own direction on combat rather than just being the "hit hard" guy and relying on the DM's permission to do anything beyond that. It's not about, "Buffy shoots fire from her eyes and burns things," it's "Buffy can stagger her opponent, releasing a grapple and preventing them from attacking next round" or something of that nature.

    -O

  24. - Top - End - #1104
    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 obryn View Post
    Except it's not. You're missing the forest for the trees (really, one tree). It's not like Buffy just stands there and punches stuff hard; she's inflicting the equivalent of status conditions all the time - knocking enemies back, grappling them, "dazing" them, and so on - instead of just gradually working through a mass of hit point tofu. She's a canny combatant and "punching stuff hard" is just a baseline for the sort of fight scenes we see in the series.

    That's the sort of fiat system I'm talking about - one where the "Fighter" gets the ability to impose their own direction on combat rather than just being the "hit hard" guy and relying on the DM's permission to do anything beyond that. It's not about, "Buffy shoots fire from her eyes and burns things," it's "Buffy can stagger her opponent, releasing a grapple and preventing them from attacking next round" or something of that nature.

    -O
    I would like to see a good called-shot system in place. "I want to hamstring that orc." "I want to try to cut that owlbear's eyes, blinding it." "I'm going to go for his arm so he can't wield his sword properly." (I never understood the point of Regenerate in 3.X when you have to be an octopus to lose limbs.) There's a bit more to combat than "I hit it" or "I grapple it" or "I trip it".
    Jude P.

  25. - Top - End - #1105
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    I would like to see a good called-shot system in place. "I want to hamstring that orc." "I want to try to cut that owlbear's eyes, blinding it." "I'm going to go for his arm so he can't wield his sword properly." (I never understood the point of Regenerate in 3.X when you have to be an octopus to lose limbs.) There's a bit more to combat than "I hit it" or "I grapple it" or "I trip it".
    That's another way to do it, so long as it's pretty codified and with low penalties, but I'd rather a system with more outright fiat on the martial end. You know - Wizards cash in fiat tokens to paralyze monsters and make fireballs appear, Fighters cash in fiat tokens to blind them, knock them down, etc.

    There's a few reasons I think this works better than a codified "called shot" process.

    One is potency. Blind is a heck of an effect, but one that's totally feasible for a weapon-user. If you're inflicting big attack penalties for trying to use it in a called shot scenario (and you'd almost have to to make sure it's not successful every single round), you're actively discouraging its use. If there's a token of sorts to cash in, you can avoid the penalty. More or less, if you make it too easy, you open up stun-locking. If you make it too hard, you might as well not have bothered.

    Second is reliability - Buffy (to keep using this example) does crazy status effect stuff even to the big bads she fights. She puts them off-balance either physically or mentally, distracts them, knocks them back into obstacles, etc. In D&D, if you try to model this with attack penalties, you're losing out on this because that big bad is probably already pretty hard to hit. You're relegating "cool stuff" to attacks vs. mooks, and I don't think that's particularly satisfying.

    One approach to "token fiat" is the 4e/Bo9S way or in that vein. Another is a more flexible Expertise Dice system. A third is kind of like Iron Heroes, where you build up tokens over combat and can cash them in for cool stuff. There's more possibilities, I'm sure - but I don't think a list of called shots is sufficient.

    -O
    Last edited by obryn; 2012-11-30 at 11:38 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #1106
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    What if you gave fighters an "escalation die" mechanic. Fighters are dangerous and the longer they go in a fight, the more dangerous they should be to you. After all, if you can get the drop on Conan, you're fine, but go 10 rounds with him and you're likely to be hurting. So (caveat, all of this is off the top of my head and not balanced or playtested): The fighter gets an "escalation die" that increases one size every 3 levels or so. The when the fighter gets his first hit for the round in, the die comes into play at "1" which is a plus to hit and damage. Every time the fighter hits and enemy, increase the die by one. Every time the fighter gets hit, decrease the die by one. A fighter can exchange the damage / to-hit bonus for either more expertise dice that round (maybe at a 2:1 rate of exchange) or can use those "escalation points" to buy various status effects, like blind for x rounds (where x is the escalation die value) or for extra attacks, or even to be able to shove the enemy x distance (where x is some function of the die value). At higher values (like say 6 or 8) the fighter could spend it to impart more permanent effects like broken limbs, or permanent penalties, basically the fighter's version of Save or Suck effects.

    Think of it as sort of like a reverse mark. Rather than as in 4e where the fighter marks a single enemy and that enemy has penalties for not attacking the fighter, instead the fighter has "marked" all enemies, and the fighter gets stronger the more he's not attacked.

  27. - Top - End - #1107
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Yep, that sounds fairly similar to some of the "token" systems in Iron Heroes, and it's a good starting point. You're right - the details need balanced because you want it to become important before the fight is over. :) But if they straightened that out, I think it sounds like a flavorful, unique option.

  28. - Top - End - #1108
    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
    Well, I can't blame for not understand it since you're not familiat with the series, but the chakra gates are something every human has and all spiritual beings have spiritual pressure. Bruce Lees and Grey Mousers don't matter in the series, because there is no such thing as Bruce Lees and Grey Mousers in the plot.
    You also did not mention Bunshichi Tawara, who uses no powers in a world full of superpowered people and is consistently deemed the most powerful character in the series.
    As I said, and as deuterio and obryn expanded on, the fact that they have chakra gates and spiritual pressure and super strength and all that jazz means they're breaking the laws of physics left and right and way beyond the fighter concept already. Just because they're Str 60 super-ninjas in a setting where everyone else is Str 40 lightning warriors doesn't make them fighters...and the fact that you said that mundane fighter types don't matter in the plot is telling, since that's exactly the problem with the mundane bound-by-physics fighter past low levels.

    And why is that a bad thing?
    It's not a bad thing mechanically for someone to be reliant on items to do their thing; it works for Iron Man, Green Lantern, Batman, and several more, after all. The issue is that items are part of their concept: Stark and Wayne are stupidly-rich people (and genius billionaire playboy philanthropists) who have a gadget for every situation, and the Lantern can make anything he can think of hard enough. Batman also happens to be a super-ninja, but it's that and the gadgets part together that make him Batman.

    Entirely aside from the fact that those three fall under the wizard or artificer archetype more than the fighter archetype, that's not the fighter's schtick at all. He's supposed to be the ultimate warrior and tactician, all-around competent with all weapons and armor. But the 3e/5e fighter isn't Batman (great in a fight, plus gadgets), he's Iron Man (without his suit he's just a guy), and that's not what the fighter is supposed to be.

    You seem to have misunderstood what I meant, specially because I never said I was talking about skilled humans who hit things with swords. I was talking about characters whose shtick was hitting really hard without using special powers.
    And my point was that they all have special powers relative to the normal human, they're just not "special" relative to the other characters. To use an Avatar example, when I said "without special powers" I meant Sokka compared to benders and you thought Toph and Katara compared to the Avatar.

    ----------------------------

    About fighter token mechanics, another option is momentum or stamina, which is kind of like a hybrid of escalation and IH tokens: You start the fight with X momentum/stamina, you spend it to use things, you automatically gain Y per round (which can be increased or decreased by various actions/factors), and you can go up to -Z into the negatives to overexert yourself but will have to take a breather after that.

    You can use it like expertise dice, if you use no more than (2+Y) per round and the fight lasts (2*X) rounds or something like that; you can use it like encounter powers, if you use up most of X in the beginning and have to ration it through the encounter; you can use it like daily powers, if you go from X to -Z in the first round or two and then can't use any more abilities for several rounds; you can use it like a "rage meter" if you don't use anything in the beginning and then pull out finishing moves once you've build up a lot of stamina; and you can vary how you use it, deciding to play it more expertise-like in encounters against lots of mooks to finish them off reliably and then use it more rage-like in boss encounters to allow you to hit him with the big guns.
    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

  29. - Top - End - #1109
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    I have an aesthetic issue with the token system (Iron Heroes). I'm concerned that by the time you accumulate enough tokens to do your Cool Thing the combat is over. If the combat is not over, the situation that warranted the Cool Thing no longer applies - potential target is dead, moved out of range, no longer as much a threat because party member did something, etc.

    I don't object to a resource management system to do Cool Thing effects; it's just the token system way I don't like. I like the Expertise Dice system because you can decide to do your Cool Thing right then and there and be able to do it. You spend enough Expertise Dice to do it. Big Cool Things require more dice which you get when you level for when those Big Cool Things are more appropriate. The token system encourages use it or lose it mentality; you risk never using it if you need to accumulate a lot of tokens over rounds of play to do a Big Cool Thing.

  30. - Top - End - #1110
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    I have an aesthetic issue with the token system (Iron Heroes). I'm concerned that by the time you accumulate enough tokens to do your Cool Thing the combat is over. If the combat is not over, the situation that warranted the Cool Thing no longer applies - potential target is dead, moved out of range, no longer as much a threat because party member did something, etc.
    FWIW, I agree - I think that's a major potential failing of the system especially when a caster is likely to short-circuit the combat much sooner than that. That would be why it'd have to be handled properly - more along the lines of "Start out with a token, get new tokens regularly for fulfilling certain conditions, everything only costs 1 token and it gets better with level." Any time you need to go 4-5 rounds of combat (or several episodes) to power up your Kamehameha it's too long.

    I like the idea behind expertise dice, but the issue is their at-will nature. You can't boost the Cool Level too high, because you can bet the Fighter is doing that every round if he can. So the massive effects like Blinding and outright Stunning might be out of the question.

    This is why I prefer things more like 4e or Bo9S for martial resource management. It's simple, direct, and puts the results first. I know that's not everyone's favorite, though, so I'm open to other options.

    -O

Posting Permissions

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