Page 6 of 50 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151631 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Do you think summoners in 4E (druids or wizards) are overpowered? Because they certainly do come with their own free actions.

    See, I think this just needs to be balanced. If players summon a creature, they expect it to do something, not to require the summoner's actions to move around (you're a summoner, not a puppet master). This is similar to how players, when they fight with two weapons, expect to roll two attack rolls.
    Good point about expectations.
    This concept of free additional actions goes completely contrary to all my IRL experience. Unless the summoned creature is more competent than the summoner- which should not happen without major consequence- and arrives fully informed and prepared for the situation, it is going to require a lot of direction to be at all useful- not a quick command or two while the summoner focuses on something else entirely.

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Balance does not mean every single option is mathematically equal, which is something people who complain about people that want balance do not understand.

    Balance as part of game design is little more than making every option's difference in power fully intentional. One option being more powerful than another does not a bad, or even unbalanced game make. One option being more powerful than most options, and only because the people that wrote it didn't realize the option would be the best by a large margin. That's bad, unbalanced game design, and it hurts the game far more than it helps.
    I disagree on two points; first, I don't think intention matters in whether something is balanced or not (otherwise 3.5's Toughness would totally be a balanced choice), and second, balance is actually better defined as "equal power, equal cost": that is, there is some sort of fair cost for everything, and it is proportional to the effectiveness of the option. Whether that cost is character points, XP, levels, feats, magic item slots, gp, spell slots, or something more exotic is not important; the important thing is that there is a fair exchange rate. (This is complicated extraordinarily by the use of multiple exchange rates in the same system, such as levels, feats, magic item slots, gp, spells, and so forth, with inefficient conversions between.)

    Importantly, balance does not rely on equality of options; instead, it relies on more effective options costing more, in some meaningful sense.

    And, as I previously stated, perfect costing is not only extremely difficult, it's not very fun for players who enjoy optimizing. Therefore, a certain proportion of "discounted options" is reasonable. (Just like in life, where it's possible to buy groceries with nothing but coupons if you spend enough time optimizing them.) Imbalance becomes problematic, however, when there is an enormous difference in resulting effectiveness; consider a family that rose to wealth and influence by clipping coupons, and how absurd that would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    Actually, I would argue it's your choices in play where system mastery should matter, not your choices during character creation before play even starts.
    That's a matter of preference, I believe; I don't know of any solid line of reasoning why one or the other style is always strictly superior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in"Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"Use of gray may indicate nitpickingGreen is sincerity

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    That's a matter of preference, I believe; I don't know of any solid line of reasoning why one or the other style is always strictly superior.
    I can think of a good one: Choices in play happen all the time; Choices in character creation happen relatively rarely. For that reason you get a lot more "mileage" out of effort put into designing good in-play choices than effort put into creation choices. This is not to say that character creation doesn't matter, I just don't think it should be the focus.

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    I disagree on two points; first, I don't think intention matters in whether something is balanced or not
    Wrong emphasis and definition. Not "this is intended to be balanced", but "it is intentional for this to be weaker than that (when 'this' is in fact weaker than 'that') in an arena". In short, balance as careful and clear design. 3.5 isn't balanced because what the designers where trying to do, and what they ended up doing, are almost at opposites from each other.

    And, as I previously stated, perfect costing is not only extremely difficult, it's not very fun for players who enjoy optimizing.
    Given some of the crap optimizers pull and how hostile most of them are, it's a very hard sell to say that it's bad if the game is not fun for optimizers.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Wrong emphasis and definition. Not "this is intended to be balanced", but "it is intentional for this to be weaker than that (when 'this' is in fact weaker than 'that') in an arena". In short, balance as careful and clear design. 3.5 isn't balanced because what the designers where trying to do, and what they ended up doing, are almost at opposites from each other.
    Would you say that it was balanced if they had, in fact, come out with something identical to 3.5 after long, careful, and logical thought, and having settled on the precise interplay of classes, feats, and spells that we see?

    See, I'm disagreeing with the idea that it is correct to define perfect balance as "it does what the designers intended". Certainly, that's a useful property, but it's not the same as balance; otherwise, it is meaningless to discuss how much to prioritize balance in your design, since obviously however much effort you put into it is enough, as long as you're aware of the consequences. Simply saying "sure, it's balanced, the designers thought about it carefully and it turned out like they expected" is pointless if that wasn't even the goal at all.

    Instead, there should be an objective way to evaluate how well the designers did on a specific area of the game, based not on whether they intended what they wrote as a whole, but whether the result is good or bad. Balance isn't the only consideration in game design, or even necessarily the most important. But it does need a metric of its own, separate from other ways to evaluate a game's quality.

    Don't reduce "is this game good in various ways" to "does it do what its designers expected".

    Given some of the crap optimizers pull and how hostile most of them are, it's a very hard sell to say that it's bad if the game is not fun for optimizers.
    I'm not referring to cheaters, to munchkins, or even to powergamers. Instead, I'm referring to optimizers: those who a) have a given character concept and b) wish it to perform well against challenges without overshadowing allies. [Or, as the case may be, those who a) wish to build a character capable of performing well without inciting envy and b) fine-tune a concept from that.]

    The confusion is natural, perhaps, since munchkins tend to adopt the name "optimizer" as a sort of protective camouflage, trying to avoid repercussions. Unfortunately, accepting this sort of evasion doesn't do anyone any favors.

    If you don't care whether it's possible to improve the effectiveness of the characters you create, that's fine, but a lot of people do, and by no means all of them are fun-hating jerks. (Not even close.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in"Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"Use of gray may indicate nitpickingGreen is sincerity

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Blue Lantern's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Would you say that it was balanced if they had, in fact, come out with something identical to 3.5 after long, careful, and logical thought, and having settled on the precise interplay of classes, feats, and spells that we see?

    See, I'm disagreeing with the idea that it is correct to define perfect balance as "it does what the designers intended". Certainly, that's a useful property, but it's not the same as balance; otherwise, it is meaningless to discuss how much to prioritize balance in your design, since obviously however much effort you put into it is enough, as long as you're aware of the consequences. Simply saying "sure, it's balanced, the designers thought about it carefully and it turned out like they expected" is pointless if that wasn't even the goal at all.

    Instead, there should be an objective way to evaluate how well the designers did on a specific area of the game, based not on whether they intended what they wrote as a whole, but whether the result is good or bad. Balance isn't the only consideration in game design, or even necessarily the most important. But it does need a metric of its own, separate from other ways to evaluate a game's quality.

    Don't reduce "is this game good in various ways" to "does it do what its designers expected".
    Balance does not mean "it does what the designers intended", it means that when given a choice in how to create and personalize my character, the possibilities open to me are pretty much equivalent, not equal, from a mechanical stanpoint. I also disagree that this make choices pointless, if anything make them more meaningful, I can choose abilities that fit my idea without worring that the character end up too weak or too strong.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    I'm not referring to cheaters, to munchkins, or even to powergamers. Instead, I'm referring to optimizers: those who a) have a given character concept and b) wish it to perform well against challenges without overshadowing allies. [Or, as the case may be, those who a) wish to build a character capable of performing well without inciting envy and b) fine-tune a concept from that.]

    The confusion is natural, perhaps, since munchkins tend to adopt the name "optimizer" as a sort of protective camouflage, trying to avoid repercussions. Unfortunately, accepting this sort of evasion doesn't do anyone any favors.

    If you don't care whether it's possible to improve the effectiveness of the characters you create, that's fine, but a lot of people do, and by no means all of them are fun-hating jerks. (Not even close.)
    The need to optimize to create a "viable" charachter (for a given definition of given) only exists in an imbalanced system, if, for instance, the feats for archery are equivalent in power to the ones for two handed fighting, then there is no need for me to have to optimize only to create an archer that can stand his ground against an unoptimized thw fighter.
    Also if that is the case I can create an optimized archer that is better at archery that an archer who for some reason put some character resources into other things, maybe for flavour, maybe for the sake of having a second option, but without the former completely overshadowing the latter.
    I don't see this as a bad thing.

    In a system that actually manages that the only ones who are "punished" are the ones who actually want to break the game.

    It won't happen but a man can wish.
    After years of disintoxication I'm back in the D&D tunnel

    "I donít understand God. I donít understand how He could see the way people treat one another, and not chalk up the whole human race as a bad idea. I guess Heís just bigger about it than I would be."
    Jim Butcher-Dresden Files, book 3

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Lantern View Post
    Balance does not mean "it does what the designers intended", it means that when given a choice in how to create and personalize my character, the possibilities open to me are pretty much equivalent, not equal, from a mechanical stanpoint. I also disagree that this make choices pointless, if anything make them more meaningful, I can choose abilities that fit my idea without worring that the character end up too weak or too strong.
    Well, I'd like something very near that: the ability to make a more or less decently-performing character with either next to no system knowledge, or next to no attention paid to effectiveness, combined with the ability to make a somewhat better-performing character with the application of a good bit of knowledge.

    The need to optimize to create a "viable" charachter (for a given definition of given) only exists in an imbalanced system, if, for instance, the feats for archery are equivalent in power to the ones for two handed fighting, then there is no need for me to have to optimize only to create an archer that can stand his ground against an unoptimized thw fighter.
    Also if that is the case I can create an optimized archer that is better at archery that an archer who for some reason put some character resources into other things, maybe for flavour, maybe for the sake of having a second option, but without the former completely overshadowing the latter.
    I don't see this as a bad thing.
    Yeah, that's basically what I'd like. I'd say that the need to optimize only occurs in severely imbalanced systems (such as 3.5); a perfectly balanced system, however, makes choices so similar in overall mechanical effectiveness that it loses a certain interesting dimension. (It is also ferociously hard to design.)

    A good system neither requires nor eliminates optimization; it should be possible to roll up your first character and have fun with it without spending 35 hours reading the various options and their explanations, and it should also be possible to make an even more interesting and effective character after spending that time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in"Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"Use of gray may indicate nitpickingGreen is sincerity

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Blue Lantern's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    I can think of a good one: Choices in play happen all the time; Choices in character creation happen relatively rarely. For that reason you get a lot more "mileage" out of effort put into designing good in-play choices than effort put into creation choices. This is not to say that character creation doesn't matter, I just don't think it should be the focus.
    I agree with you, but there is the school of thougths claiming that, because character creation choice have usually more far reaching and permanent consequences they should matter more.

    @tuggyne
    It seems we agree on the general principle but not on the implementation, devil in the detail indeed...
    On a personal note though I believe that a system in which character creation can take a number of hours with double digit is doing it wrong.

    On a side note I would also add that a perfectly balanced system is only possible within a system with a really close and limited matematical array of ooptions; 4e is the closest thing to a mind as an example and we all know how that turned out.
    After years of disintoxication I'm back in the D&D tunnel

    "I donít understand God. I donít understand how He could see the way people treat one another, and not chalk up the whole human race as a bad idea. I guess Heís just bigger about it than I would be."
    Jim Butcher-Dresden Files, book 3

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Lantern View Post
    On a personal note though I believe that a system in which character creation can take a number of hours with double digit is doing it wrong.
    My apologies, my clarity seems to be lacking*. I was referring more to overall investment of time in learning the system, not expenditure of time making one character. (Although, obviously, making your first character involves both of those.)


    *And that's why I'm off to bed now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in"Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"Use of gray may indicate nitpickingGreen is sincerity

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

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

    Optimizers are an important group, and shouldn't be marginalized because it can be taken to extremes. Role-players have the same issues in the other direction ("I don't want my Monk to be so weak, it doesn't fit my vision of the character, change something to make it work!"). Both of these problems can be fixed by better design.

    However, when it comes down to it, I disapprove of the breadth and depth of the character creation mini-game in 3.5. It is the single biggest turn-off to new players, it is so much more determinant of how well you do than what you do while playing that it makes in-game decisions relatively meaningless, and fixing it so it maintains its robustness while addressing the former two is nigh impossible.

    That being said, I am fine with compromising, so long as the core math of the game is, in fact, balanced. What do I mean by that? I mean that all classes, in fact that all builds for each class, can handle a roughly equal number of level-appropriate challenges, at least within a certain degree of deviation. So, let's say the difference between any two given builds in overall utility against all the challenges at that level should not exceed 20-25%. One Fighter build might be 15-20% better than another Fighter build, or another class build, but that's the most optimized build vs. the least, there. If that's the case, then your average party is assumed to not differentiate more than maybe 10-15%. Ideally, that would also indicate that while PC X is on average 10% below the party average, there are still a subset of challenges that he is the best equipped to handle.

    If this is your balance goal, then it informs you of how to approach design; you create benchmarks for challenges (CR, mostly), and build your challenges first, with their differing immunities, specialties, etc. Then you design classes and feats and what-not which also match those benchmarks, with their own specialties, strengths, and weaknesses. Then you run the math; using average damage, high estimate and low estimate, and taking into account odds for SoDs and basic tactics, and you can figure out what percentage of CR X encounters level Y build A is capable of handling (hopefully 50 or above). That percentage is that particular build's score, and through rigorous testing you get to the point where no known build exceeds the designated variation in effectiveness from any other build. Ta-da, balance!
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    09/14: Special guest post on Quests and Travel, with a whole new quest-generation system!

  11. - Top - End - #161
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Would you say that it was balanced if they had, in fact, come out with something identical to 3.5 after long, careful, and logical thought, and having settled on the precise interplay of classes, feats, and spells that we see?
    No, intentional bad game design is still bad game design. Also, not what I was saying.

    See, I'm disagreeing with the idea that it is correct to define perfect balance as "it does what the designers intended".
    I'm not defining perfect balance. I never was defining perfect balance. I might as well stop bothering trying to explain, since I will apparently still **** up explaining things to you to the point that you are not even addressing anything I have actually said.

    Don't reduce "is this game good in various ways" to "does it do what its designers expected".
    I'm not. You are.

    I'm not referring to cheaters, to munchkins, or even to powergamers.
    Neither am I. From the point of view of someone who doesn't can't optimize, optimizers are worse for a game world by orders of magnitude than cheaters, munchkins and powergamers. Those people can be dealt with in sensible fashions without apparently being objectively wrong in the eyes of the general community. Optimizers on the other hand: you either agree with the "common perception of the rules", or you are a terrible DM who needs to ****ing stop playing. Optimizers are the reason I outright stopped playing D&D.

  12. - Top - End - #162
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Chosen Spot
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Lantern View Post
    I agree with you, but there is the school of thougths claiming that, because character creation choice have usually more far reaching and permanent consequences they should matter more.
    Regarding "permanent" that I've emphasized above...

    This may just be a gaming group thing, but if a player in our group makes a choice when creating/leveling their character and a couple of levels later it's not working out (e.g. "Dang, feat ABC I picked a couple of levels ago doesn't work at all like I thought it did and it's messing things up."), we usually just let them retcon their choice. For us, it's fairly easy to work this into the roleplaying via a retraining sub-storyline.
    Last edited by Kerrin; 2012-10-19 at 01:16 PM.
    Frolic and dance for joy often.
    Be determined in your ventures.
    -KAB

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Getting good game balance is hard. In order to get good balance, your mechanics need to be rooting in good math. Almost every game mechanic when you take it down to it's most base level is math, and by understanding that you can make different options mechanically balanced with one another.

    Here's the problem, perfect balance is boring, if two sides are exactly equal there's no choice, no room for customization. In a perfectly balanced game(say checkers, or even chess), there is ALWAYS a best move, always a choice that is better than all others(even if the math involved may be quite difficult).

    So pure mechanical choices are boring. Fun choices are intangibles, choices which cannot be mathematically compared to one another. Something lie, what's better, the ability to pick locks, or the ability add fire damage to an attack. There's no way to say which of those two is better because they are completely different. You *can* balance incomparable, but the math involved is very difficult, and it involves lots and lots of playtesting(hint hint, look at what WotC is doing now). So interesting choices make games take a long time if they are done well(see Starcraft II)

    In 3.x, we had lots of great incomparable, but they were poorly balanced and rushed out the door, causing balance to suffer. 4e, had much better balance, but didn't really have interesting incomparables, every character felt pretty much the same, the math they used the build the system was overly clear.

    So far 5e seems to be trying to find a better balance, and allow some of the problems to go away by making an airtight core system.
    "Sometimes, weíre heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  14. - Top - End - #164
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
    However, when it comes down to it, I disapprove of the breadth and depth of the character creation mini-game in 3.5. It is the single biggest turn-off to new players, it is so much more determinant of how well you do than what you do while playing that it makes in-game decisions relatively meaningless, and fixing it so it maintains its robustness while addressing the former two is nigh impossible.
    However, I will not play a game if I don't get to make interesting decisions when creating my character. Heck, as a player who plays mostly in unfortunately unreliable online games, I've probably spent more time making characters than actually playing them. Which is sad, but that's how it is.

    With that said, I like the "character creation minigame." Give me stuff to choose, stuff that matters, and stuff that isn't "you get a +1 to a skill of your choice at level 2." To this end, I think there are some goals DnD Next should focus on:

    1. Keep build options light "fighting styles" and "specializations" in the game. These prepackaged options work as shortcuts for players who don't care about the "character creation minigame." Make them the default, even.
    2. However, also include an option for someone to make interesting choices every single level. Nothing turned me off from 3.5 quite so much as dead levels, because in a slow-moving game, it really irritated me that I would finally gain a level and have nothing to show for it other than my numbers increasing a bit. 4th edition did a very good thing by removing dead levels from (almost) all classes. Leveling up should be a major event, in my eyes.
    3. Balance is already being discussed to death so I'll just say in short that there should be a good level of balance, at least on the level of 4th edition. Moving to something else would be a step backwards. Balance does not innately mean homogeneity, unless you have perfect balance which is impossible anyway for a game like DnD (and thus there is no point in discussing it).
    4. Don't restrict the "interesting choices" to a handful of classes. I want my fighter with no dead levels. I don't want to be told "if you want to make interesting choices every level, play a wizard." I won't accept that.


    I don't see these things as particularly difficult to do or too much to ask for. As I've seen it, they've already proven they can do it. If they move backwards by not doing it, then I don't see a point in purchasing the game.

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Madfellow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012

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

    I agree wholeheartedly.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    With that said, I like the "character creation minigame."
    I do agree with this; I recently got the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game and I'm kind of frustrated that there is no character creation mini-game (random generation notwithstanding). You can freely create a new hero with any level of power you can imagine, go for it. Well, OK, that's fine and the people I play with are all responsible enough to use that maturely and it's no problem at all, but it doesn't give me a little nibble of the game to play right then. It really irks me.

    I want to make meaningful choices at chargen, as well, but I have been surprised in how few choices I can make and feel quite satisfied.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    09/14: Special guest post on Quests and Travel, with a whole new quest-generation system!

  17. - Top - End - #167
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    also include an option for someone to make interesting choices every single level. Nothing turned me off from 3.5 quite so much as dead levels, because in a slow-moving game, it really irritated me that I would finally gain a level and have nothing to show for it other than my numbers increasing a bit.
    So, which one are you protesting -- dead levels, or choice-less levels? Because there's a big difference in some systems. Legend, for example, has no dead levels, but often you level up without making any choices -- your new special ability is pre-determined by your previous special abilities.

    If 5e Specialties were designed to be always taken as a package, not breakable into individual feats, would that actually be a bad thing? Well, yes, because I have no faith in WotC's ability to balance Feats well enough to keep me from being frustrated that I can't pick and choose. But if they could balance them well enough, would it bother me to have my new level-up abilities pre-determined? I'm honestly not sure what my own answer to that question would be.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    123456789blaaa's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    <snip>


    Given some of the crap optimizers pull and how hostile most of them are, it's a very hard sell to say that it's bad if the game is not fun for optimizers.
    Why are you saying that optimizers pull crap? do you know that you haven't just had a bad experience with the (relatively) small amount of optimizers you've met? As for hostility I can name a ton of nice,helpfull amazing optimizers on these very forums . Do you have proof that most optimizers are hostile as opposed to just a few? Aren't you being hostile to optimizers right now? You seem to be generalizing a lot.

    Also,It seems kind of unfair for you to say that games should only cater to your type of fun. What makes your fun more important then an optimizers fun?
    Please, call me Count

    Thanks go to Shecky for the nickname and Serack for the avatar ^,..,^

    Proud member of the Purple court.

    Quote Originally Posted by afroakuma View Post
    Really though, you're looking at a shapeshifted angel of some sort getting all Discovery Channel about how exactly Friendship Is Magic.

    Please don't ask questions like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fouredged Sword View Post
    It is fairly hard to render a body into a form a necromancer can't do SOMETHING with it. They are the Martha Stewart's of spellcasters.

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 123456789blaaa View Post
    Why are you saying that optimizers pull crap? do you know that you haven't just had a bad experience with the (relatively) small amount of optimizers you've met? As for hostility I can name a ton of nice, helpfull amazing optimizers on these very forums. Do you have proof that most optimizers are hostile as opposed to just a few? Aren't you being hostile to optimizers right now? You seem to be generalizing a lot.
    When you don't agree with the optimizers on rules interpretation, and in fact view a lot of the stuff they argue for as outright broken, all those "nice helpfull[sic] amazing optimizers" turn very hostile, very quickly. I've pretty much outright stopped bothering with the D&D forums, and D&D in general because of them (likely even the same people you would name as a part of that list even), something I point out in my last post.

    Also,It seems kind of unfair for you to say that games should only cater to your type of fun. What makes your fun more important then an optimizers fun?
    Not what I'm saying. tuggyne[sic] was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.

  20. - Top - End - #170
    Ettin 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 Zeful View Post
    Not what I'm saying. tuggyne[sic] was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
    Well, tuggyne's right on that front, it is undesirable if 5e isn't fun for optimizers...just as it's undesirable for it to be not-fun for the beer-and-pretzels crowd, or the story-teller crowd, or what have you. It's impossible to completely cater to every sort of player, but you want as many categories of player as possible to have something of interest.

    People like to claim that optimization culture is a 3e thing. It's not, but because different kinds of optimization happened in each edition, people who can and do optimize in one edition might view another as too hard or too easy to optimize. 3e and 4e have lots of prerequisites, hoop-jumping, and "you must have X to do Y," so optimizing in that ruleset means working your build out ahead of time to ensure you can do what you want to be able to do. AD&D has less flexible classes (with most customization coming in the form of learning spells, making and finding items, and such), as well a fairly delineated level progression ("name level," level caps, different XP tables, UA class variants, etc.), so optimizing in that ruleset means strategic multi- and dual-classing and seeking out magical stuff to make you better. Optimization-in-build vs. optimization-in-play, if you will. For a game to be "bad" or unfun for optimizers would mean it would either have to be practically impossible to optimize (lots of randomness, DM fiat everywhere, etc.) or pointless to optimize (homogeneous options, no advantage to be gained, etc.). Those kinds of games are good for PC-killers like one-shots, old-school dungeoncrawls, tournament play, and such; non-serious games like Paranoia, where the rules don't really matter anyway; and PCs-as-inferior-underdogs games like WHFRP and CoC, where the whole point is that the PCs are relatively powerless and doomed to die; none of which modern D&D really resembles.

    Similarly, the people who argue in WotC D&D about the technical literal meaning of RAW are the same people who argue in AD&D about vague and contradictory rules; too many rules is just as bad as too few rules. The people who get upset when 3e DMs don't allow PrC early-entry and ban material for bad reasons are the same people who argue with 2e DMs about banned kits and subsystems or 4e DMs about banned themes and rituals. The fact that there are a lot of powergamers/munchkins/rules lawyers/[derogatory term du jour] online doesn't mean that they should be catered to less than the drama queens/"real" roleplayers/[derogatory term du jour] or the noobs/hack-n-slashers/[derogatory term du jour].

    I haven't seen the overly-hostile optimizers you mention, at least on these forums, but I'll take your word for it that you have been burned by them before. Even so, dismissing optimizers as worse than cheaters is not the right reaction--you can deal with them sensibly just as much as cheaters, and usually more so. Calling out D&D forums as being the most wretched hives of scum and villainy around is the wrong reaction--the stuff you can pull in GURPS and Shadowrun is less out-of-genre than D&D but no less crazy. Wanting a game to be badly designed to have more vague and undefined rules to stop them (which would only lead to "story lawyering" on the part of the bad players and god-moding and railroading on the part of the bad DMs) is not the right reaction--note that there's a big different between a rules-light game and one with incomplete or vague rules.
    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!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    123456789blaaa's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    When you don't agree with the optimizers on rules interpretation, and in fact view a lot of the stuff they argue for as outright broken, all those "nice helpfull[sic] amazing optimizers" turn very hostile, very quickly. I've pretty much outright stopped bothering with the D&D forums, and D&D in general because of them (likely even the same people you would name as a part of that list even), something I point out in my last post.
    I could say the same thing for many people hostile to optimizing except in the other direction. I have seen many people hostile to optimization who react badly to the notion that the monk (for example) is underpowered. There are hostile people and pleasant people on both sides. There is also the fact that most optimizers don't share the same opinions (see Answerer and Thiagomartell on these very forums). You can't group us all together like that. One optimizer may think something is outright broken while another might think it's fine.

    I'm also a little confused as too why you have "stopped bothering with dnd because of optimizers" when non-optimizers still vastly outnumber optimizers. This is an optimization friendly forum (and this is the only one I can really think of besides the minmaxboards). Go to a site like RPGnet or ENworld or the 3.5 private sanctuary forums or the kick the boot forums or the pathfinder forums or etc etc etc and you will see a ton of people who share your opinions and maybe one or two guys per thread (probably not even that) who don't.

    EDIT: I also forgot to mention the RPG youtube brigade as an example of a community made up almost entirely of non-optimizers.

    EDIT: the post above this one is gold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Not what I'm saying. tuggyne[sic] was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
    Ah I see. I think I'll withold my opinions on this one.
    Last edited by 123456789blaaa; 2012-10-20 at 07:55 PM.
    Please, call me Count

    Thanks go to Shecky for the nickname and Serack for the avatar ^,..,^

    Proud member of the Purple court.

    Quote Originally Posted by afroakuma View Post
    Really though, you're looking at a shapeshifted angel of some sort getting all Discovery Channel about how exactly Friendship Is Magic.

    Please don't ask questions like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fouredged Sword View Post
    It is fairly hard to render a body into a form a necromancer can't do SOMETHING with it. They are the Martha Stewart's of spellcasters.

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    you can deal with them sensibly just as much as cheaters, and usually more so.
    No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.

    To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.

    And 123456789blaaa: That's why I can't play D&D anymore. It has nothing to do finding players like-minded or otherwise, I could likely find a group on a D&D forums to run with in a week. Or in the years since I stopped. But it wouldn't change that I would need to be a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D. And being that kind of a hard-ass, or knowtowing to someone in order to make sure I can do anything is not something I want to be. So I don't play, and I don't take solace in things that are good for optimizers.

  23. - Top - End - #173
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    123456789blaaa's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.

    To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.

    And 123456789blaaa: That's why I can't play D&D anymore. It has nothing to do finding players like-minded or otherwise, I could likely find a group on a D&D forums to run with in a week. Or in the years since I stopped. But it wouldn't change that I would need to be a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D. And being that kind of a hard-ass, or knowtowing to someone in order to make sure I can do anything is not something I want to be. So I don't play, and I don't take solace in things that are good for optimizers.

    But if they are like you then they won't optimize so why would you have to be "a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D." . I have the feeling I'm missing something...

    Also, check my sig.
    Please, call me Count

    Thanks go to Shecky for the nickname and Serack for the avatar ^,..,^

    Proud member of the Purple court.

    Quote Originally Posted by afroakuma View Post
    Really though, you're looking at a shapeshifted angel of some sort getting all Discovery Channel about how exactly Friendship Is Magic.

    Please don't ask questions like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fouredged Sword View Post
    It is fairly hard to render a body into a form a necromancer can't do SOMETHING with it. They are the Martha Stewart's of spellcasters.

  24. - Top - End - #174
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Not what I'm saying. tuggyne was implying that a game that isn't very fun for optimizers is an undesirable state, either because of bad design, or taste. Given my experience with the optimizers on this forum, I disagree, on both it as an undesirable state, and bad design.
    I wasn't quite saying it was bad design per se, although I can see why it would be easy to get confused, as I wasn't massively clear there. Rather, I am saying it's a bad idea to design a game (however good otherwise) to ignore a particular subset of your target market, when (as Pair O'Dice has eloquently explained) it's such a substantial chunk of your past, present, and future players.

    I do, however, consider it bad design to make a game that is vastly imbalanced, or to achieve balance by making all options identical; whether any of these is done intentionally or by accident I consider beside the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.

    To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.

    And 123456789blaaa: That's why I can't play D&D anymore. It has nothing to do finding players like-minded or otherwise, I could likely find a group on a D&D forums to run with in a week. Or in the years since I stopped. But it wouldn't change that I would need to be a harshly iron-fisted DM, or a remora of a player in order to actually play D&D. And being that kind of a hard-ass, or knowtowing to someone in order to make sure I can do anything is not something I want to be. So I don't play, and I don't take solace in things that are good for optimizers.
    I find this very sad, for three reasons: first, you've obviously experienced mostly "optimizers" who, through accident or intent, have not made characters that fit with the party power level. (It's also possible for an entire party to optimize beyond what a DM can deal with, but this is a bit less common, and tends to be simpler to tone down.) Mistakes do happen, even with experienced optimizers at times, and it's reasonable for players and DMs to work together to fix them, rather than immediately kicking someone out as soon as they slip up.

    Secondly, that you're unable to distinguish probable power levels (which is a bit unfortunate, but certainly not a character flaw) and more importantly can't tell the difference between an honest mistake that could reasonably be corrected and a dishonest determination to slip something past you at all costs and with no compunction. I have a personal friend in somewhat the same situation; the only "optimizer" he knows that is at all a decent person is me, and he's had the pain of DMing a party/campaign crossover where one entire party is player-killing munchkins (who, of course, all labeled themselves as optimizers). So you have my sympathy for the players you've dealt with that have betrayed your trust.

    And thirdly, the fact that your decision not to DM (because of the danger of lurking optimizers) led directly to a decision not to play (because you don't want to be a parasite) seems really sad, and unnecessary to me. Sometimes, we have to live with not being able to contribute much toward a common goal. But being a perpetual player should not be considered so dishonorable that you give up on playing entirely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in"Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"Use of gray may indicate nitpickingGreen is sincerity

  25. - Top - End - #175
    Ettin 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 Zeful View Post
    No, I can't. I can't tell powerlevel apart from extensively documented builds, so if a player were to subtly optimize, I would be outright incapable of doing anything but throwing the player out of the group once caught. I cannot build anything to challenge his dominance at the table, I cannot trust the player at the table or in private, and unlike cheaters, munchkins, rules-lawyers, and powergamers, I have no ability to tell if the player in question is actually breaking discipline, and skewing the power until he has already done so.

    To me, with my own abilities in mind: there is no functional difference between an optimizer and a powergamer, other than discipline, which I can't just trust.
    So...you don't like optimizers as a DM because you don't know the rules well enough to gauge power level, you don't trust your players and so impose a "discipline" that they can "break," you expect people to try to sneak things past you as a DM, and your first reaction to "catching" someone with a more-powerful-than-average character is to kick them from the group, and as a player because you feel their rules knowledge eclipses yours and therefore any group with the two of you would involve your "kowtowing" to them and the DM or being a "remora"? How do you play any RPG more rules-heavy than FATE if that's your attitude towards the rules? And even rules-light games like FATE require a heck of a lot of player-GM trust with all the narrative control given to players.

    We have two rules in my group to rein in over-optimization. Rule #1 is "Don't be a ****" and Rule #2 is "Be honest with the group," and we've never had a problem. I think you've either been incredibly unlucky in your selection of players, or any "acting out" they're doing is in response to said iron-fisted DMing. I do hope you give D&D another chance with a good group sometime; with a group of players who are friends rather than jerks, it's nowhere near as bad as you describe.
    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!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    I wasn't quite saying it was bad design per se, although I can see why it would be easy to get confused, as I wasn't massively clear there. Rather, I am saying it's a bad idea to design a game (however good otherwise) to ignore a particular subset of your target market, when (as Pair O'Dice has eloquently explained) it's such a substantial chunk of your past, present, and future players.
    Which is a valid point, but a matter of taste.

    I do, however, consider it bad design to make a game that is vastly imbalanced, or to achieve balance by making all options identical; whether any of these is done intentionally or by accident I consider beside the point.
    Which is again, not what I was saying or how I was using the word.

    I find this very sad, for three reasons: first, you've obviously experienced mostly "optimizers" who, through accident or intent, have not made characters that fit with the party power level. (It's also possible for an entire party to optimize beyond what a DM can deal with, but this is a bit less common, and tends to be simpler to tone down.) Mistakes do happen, even with experienced optimizers at times, and it's reasonable for players and DMs to work together to fix them, rather than immediately kicking someone out as soon as they slip up.
    I'm just really bad at building synergies in games. When I would play mechwarrior with my family, I was the last person to adapt between rounds, or to the mechanics themselves, making even hilariously casual competitive play for fun a harrowing experience. This pattern would continue itself through my MTG days (which was a much better time, despite losing a vast majority of my games, small tweaks to my deck over time resulted in many wins and plays that were not predictable), and then into D&D. The skills and mindset required for optimization is something I've never had, this makes it hilariously easy to outpreform me as a DM.

    Secondly, that you're unable to distinguish probable power levels (which is a bit unfortunate, but certainly not a character flaw) and more importantly can't tell the difference between an honest mistake that could reasonably be corrected and a dishonest determination to slip something past you at all costs and with no compunction.
    It has to do with who brings it to my attention, because as I've stated, I will not notice. If it's the player himself, then it's something that can be corrected. If another player brings it to my attention, then depending on how the accused reacts, something may possibly be worked out. Both of these situations have happened in games I ran. But, I have to have a standard to adhere to, and because I can't sit down with the character sheet and look it over myself, I have no choice but to assume malice where stupidity may suffice, especially considering my capacity with optimization, and where the default for each scale is between people.

    And thirdly, the fact that your decision not to DM (because of the danger of lurking optimizers) led directly to a decision not to play (because you don't want to be a parasite) seems really sad, and unnecessary to me. Sometimes, we have to live with not being able to contribute much toward a common goal. But being a perpetual player should not be considered so dishonorable that you give up on playing entirely.
    Like has been said by outright better speakers numerous times: It's no fun to constantly be unable to be shown up at what you're supposed to be good at. And for me it's no fun to know that in most groups other than complete new players, I'm likely going to be shown up no matter what I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    So...you don't like optimizers as a DM because you don't know the rules well enough to gauge power level, you don't trust your players and so impose a "discipline" that they can "break," you expect people to try to sneak things past you as a DM, and your first reaction to "catching" someone with a more-powerful-than-average character is to kick them from the group, and as a player because you feel their rules knowledge eclipses yours and therefore any group with the two of you would involve your "kowtowing" to them and the DM or being a "remora"?
    More or less.
    How do you play any RPG more rules-heavy than FATE if that's your attitude towards the rules? And even rules-light games like FATE require a heck of a lot of player-GM trust with all the narrative control given to players.
    I don't. Very few RPGs have sufficiently interested me like D&D did. The ones that have are generally "no one wants to run" games like Shadowrun, or are games few people have even heard of (and I barely remember myself).

    I do hope you give D&D another chance with a good group sometime; with a group of players who are friends rather than jerks, it's nowhere near as bad as you describe.
    I want to give D&D another shot, it's why I'm here. But for me 3.5 is almost totally ruined as a system, and playing it would require far more work and interpersonal dependence than I'm capable of.

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    I want to give D&D another shot, it's why I'm here. But for me 3.5 is almost totally ruined as a system, and playing it would require far more work and interpersonal dependence than I'm capable of.
    I think you're pretty much trapped in an unwinnable situation. D&D, due to its nature as a rules-heavy gaming system, is naturally going to allow players to "optimize" if they choose to do so. Even 4e, which for all practical purposes narrowed the gap between RAW "low op" and "high op" significantly is still a game where optimization happens (and some would argue, is baked into the system, to a degree that didn't even exist in 3.5). We haven't seen too much of 5e, but I am confident that whatever gets released will be picked apart on the internet (just like 3.5 and 4e were), from which practical optimization will follow.

    What I find more unnerving however, is your general response to "optimization" (and let's be clear that optimization is not always clear cut. One man's optimization, is another man's "in character choice"). You can't be afraid of it. If you worry about optimization, you're going to be spending so much of your time focusing on how to "beat" the optimization, rather than doing all the stuff that makes being a DM enjoyable.

    What Pair o' Dice said worth repeating:

    1) One of the most important rules for being a player: "Don't be a ****". A player that brings a Cleric 1, switches into Psychic Warrior at level 2, and then goes straight Crusader at level 3, should know better than to pick up a 1d2 weapon once they start nearing level 11. At the same time, "don't be a ****" != "don't optimize, ever". Some players will naturally see that Grease is a superior spell than Magic Missile, and that Power Attack and Improved Initiative are better feats than Endurance and Run.

    The dividing line (I think) between "being a ****" and "not" speaks to Pair o' Dice's second point:

    2) "Be honest about what you're trying to build". I tell my players straight up in our 4e game: I expect you to optimize, but don't bring a Ranger with dual frost weapons and a bevy of feats to add to cold damage you deal and tell me your character "is not optimized". Get in the habit of asking about what direction they want to "build" their character to, and why they choose particular feats or spells. You'll not only learn why they're creating the character they are, but also you'll be learning more about the game AND how your player approaches it.

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Well, if you can't trust your Players, you have the least rules-knowledge in the group and you can't identify whether behavior is acceptable or inappropriate, then you really shouldn't be DMing in the first place. That goes for any system.

    But there is a lot of room for Players who don't or can't optimize in D&D 3.X. I run what I consider a fairly high-op game (average encounters are usually CR+4 to CR+8, mooks are optimized for group tactics, monsters get feats/spells/ability scores shuffled around to make them more effective, etc) but there are always a handful of players who need to add up their Attack Bonus every round, and they do just fine. Part of being a Party means looking out for each other and giving the other PCs room to shine; there's nothing parasitic about having to ask for help every now and again with rules issues. A DM who lets a Player sit there feeling useless is, almost by definition, not doing their job.

    Obviously it isn't wrong for you to move to a less optimization-heavy game like nWoD or 4e, but if you really enjoy D&D I recommend finding a group which isn't made entirely of *******s and being "the new guy." As long as your RP is strong and you're willing to ask for help with mechanical issues, it shouldn't be a problem.

  29. - Top - End - #179
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    So, which one are you protesting -- dead levels, or choice-less levels? Because there's a big difference in some systems. Legend, for example, has no dead levels, but often you level up without making any choices -- your new special ability is pre-determined by your previous special abilities.

    If 5e Specialties were designed to be always taken as a package, not breakable into individual feats, would that actually be a bad thing? Well, yes, because I have no faith in WotC's ability to balance Feats well enough to keep me from being frustrated that I can't pick and choose. But if they could balance them well enough, would it bother me to have my new level-up abilities pre-determined? I'm honestly not sure what my own answer to that question would be.
    Well, I more meant choice-less levels, though I guess those aren't necessarily dead levels. I do like to be able to make a choice every level, and have it be more meaningful than "I get +1 to certain rolls that I didn't get last level."

    For me, the easiest comparison to what I'd like would be certain 4th Edition DnD Martial classes. They have no true "dead" levels (at least, early on), but a lot of their "choices" are predetermined. My verdict on them is that they are fun and reasonably balanced, but they're not the type of class I would like to play for an extended campaign (I'd be fine with them in a shorter adventure or a one-shot) because of the low ceiling for customization.

    Fortunately, DnD 4th edition still has the Weaponmaster fighter, so I can still play a fighter where I get to make a choice every level if I want to--I'm not stuck with the Slayer or Knight if I want to play the martial archetype I envision as "the fighter." Ideally, this would be about what I would want DnD Next to offer me. I want both the "weaponmaster," the build where I can make a choice every level, and the "slayer," where many (or even all) are predetermined. And I don't want to be forced to play a spellcaster if I want the "choice every level."

    So I guess, I would say if specialties are the only options for feats--no matter how balanced they are against each other--I would be disappointed.

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Hurricane State
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    But there is a lot of room for Players who don't or can't optimize in D&D 3.X.
    I gotta agree to this.

    Back when I was in high school, I played during lunch with a group of friends, we all were pretty new. My ex was playing a druid, and she ended up begging the DM that she can switch classes because she felt so weak compared to everyone, mostly the ranger. She switched to a bard if my memory is correct.
    Boo!

    Steam ID: Dublock

    Battle tag: Dublock 1-7-2-5

    Feel free to add me but say GitP :)

Posting Permissions

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