General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I don't like it. It gives everyone the exact same chance to hit (minus proficiency, magic items, feats and powers).
A fighter should not attack as good as a wizard. Sorry I think that diminishes the fighter. Outside, of that this feat gives almost no effect to the standard game. As argued, "basic" attacks are the at-will powers and true basic attacks are only used when triggered by a specific event. This virtually makes this feat useless. I attack you with my CON??? This does follow with Iron Heroes. Was this a rumor for being in PHB 2 or something?
Why use any of the DMG page 42 stuff when you can simply use an at-will?
Why are the martial at-wills simply not covered under that chart? Throw in a couple of other effects on it like push 1 square etc. Instead we have at-wills that force a player to "spam" the two at-wills they do have.
Hah, I knew you wouldn't like it.
I only care about in game effect. Yeah, it might be unrealistic to wield a melee weapon with your constitution. But who cares? The in game effect of this weapon is to let you make basic melee attacks exactly as good as someone who specializes in strength based melee. If they have a +8, then you will have a +8, since your best stat probably matches theirs numerically.
As for making the wizard just as good as the fighter, uh, it makes the wizard just as good as the fighter at making basic melee attacks. That's it. And the wizard is still using a staff while the fighter is wielding a longsword or better. Plus the fighter has all those crazy melee powers that the wizard hasn't got.
As for the feat's usefulness, it has two major uses. First, there are melee classes that don't use strength for their primary attacks. That usually means that they have weak charges and opportunity attacks. This helps make them more well rounded. Second, there are ranged classes that have trouble when they're caught unexpectedly in melee. This gives them a backup plan.
It gets the job done quickly and efficiently. And best of all, its going to absolutely enrage the sort of people who want to view the rules of the game as laws of physics, which is always a plus.
I don't like it. It gives everyone the exact same chance to hit (minus proficiency, magic items, feats and powers).
A fighter should not attack as good as a wizard. Sorry I think that diminishes the fighter. Outside, of that this feat gives almost no effect to the standard game. As argued, "basic" attacks are the at-will powers and true basic attacks are only used when triggered by a specific event. This virtually makes this feat useless. I attack you with my CON??? This does follow with Iron Heroes. Was this a rumor for being in PHB 2 or something?
Why use any of the DMG page 42 stuff when you can simply use an at-will?
Why are the martial at-wills simply not covered under that chart? Throw in a couple of other effects on it like push 1 square etc. Instead we have at-wills that force a player to "spam" the two at-wills they do have.
[Jack Sparrow] Welcome to Fourth Edition Mate! [/Jack Sparrow]
Seriously, at this point, you're better off starting with a different system. I think C&C might be right for you; most characters are limited to melee or ranged attacks; magic is limited to casters-only, saves are based on all six scores, and every thing else (pushing, stunting, etc) is left to DM fiat. Tack on a good skill system and you're off to the races.
A fighter should not attack as good as a wizard. Sorry I think that diminishes the fighter.
What really diminishes the fighter are magic spells/spellcasters that make the fighter's contribution to the combat either insignificant or of marginal significance. 4e attempted to address this issue.
The by-product of the method they chose is that wizards now attack as well as fighters. But they effect of those attacks are more in line with a fighters, not dramatically better (as spells in previous editions were).
Quote:
This virtually makes this feat useless. I attack you with my CON???
It's a broader version of the Swordsage feat Intelligent Blademaster, which is good if you want to hit more often w/OA's and with powers that grant extra basic attacks.
Quote:
Why use any of the DMG page 42 stuff when you can simply use an at-will?
Because the stunts described on page 42 can be as strong as Encounter or Daily powers, depending on the circumstances.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I don't like it. It gives everyone the exact same chance to hit (minus proficiency, magic items, feats and powers).
A fighter should not attack as good as a wizard. Sorry I think that diminishes the fighter. Outside, of that this feat gives almost no effect to the standard game. As argued, "basic" attacks are the at-will powers and true basic attacks are only used when triggered by a specific event. This virtually makes this feat useless. I attack you with my CON??? This does follow with Iron Heroes. Was this a rumor for being in PHB 2 or something?
Why use any of the DMG page 42 stuff when you can simply use an at-will?
maybe it's not clear from the rules, but it is noted in the example: Stunts can be as powerful as encounter powers, so they are better than at-wills. The problem is coming up with a good stunt - unlike real powers, you have to convince your DM to stunt, requiring a DM that is not too stingy and a player that is creative.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Cleric (Elf)
Level 1
STR 12
CON 12
DEX 18
INT 8
WIS 18
CHA 10
Armor
Chain
Weapons
Long Bow +6/1d10+5
Mace +3/1d8+1
Feats
Weapon Focus (Bows)
Features
Divine Fortune (+1 to attack or save)
Turn Undead
Healing Word
Powers
E1 Cause Fear +4/(moves away)
E2 Divine Glow +4/1d8+4 (+2 bonus to attacks for allies)
E3 Lance of Faith +4/2d6+4 (+2 bonus to attacks for an ally)
D1 Beacon of Hope +4/(weakened)
Warlock (Human)
Level 1
STR 10
CON 12
DEX 16
INT 12
WIS 8
CHA 18
Armor
Leather
Weapons
Rod (club) +2/1d6 + curse
Crossbow +5/1d8+3 + curse
Eldritch Blast +5/1d10+5 (twice per encounter) + curse
Feats
Action Surge
Improved Misty Step
Features
Eldritch Blast
Curse +1d6
Fey Pact
Powers
E1 Eyebite +4/2d6+4 (invisible)
E2 Witchfire +4/2d6+4 (-3 to attacks)
E3 Dreadful Word +4/2d8+4 (-1 will)
E4 Eldritch Blast
D1 Curse of the Dark Dream +4/3d8+4 (slide 3)
A 12 round encounter without dailies
Average damage if all hit:
Warlock 139
Cleric 114
Rogue 176 (1/2 attacks are sneak attacks)
Wizard 81 + 22 to secondary targets
Fighter 130 + 5 to secondary targets
A 12 round encounter with spammed at-wills without dailies
Warlock 135
Cleric 88
Rogue 143 (1/2 attacks are sneak attacks)
Wizard 102 + 49 to secondary targets (1/2 hit secondary- scorching burst)
Fighter 125 +25 to secondary targets (1/2 hit secondary- cleave)
What is the difference?
Most of the damage is front loaded into the first few rounds of combat in the group with no at-wills in the other group the wizard and fighter become much better with spammed scorching burst and cleave, both almost rivaling the striker over the long haul. It is interesting that the cleric is much better with the bow than using his spammed lance of faith. The strikers are both better with their bonus damage from encounter powers hitting heavy early on in a fight. The wizard suffers from going to the dagger.
With the to-hit chances factored in the fighter and rogue should do more average damage. The warlock’s, wizard’s and cleric’s damage will go down, most dramatically the warlocks will, then the wizard then the (bow)cleric. The spammed (lance of faith)cleric will decrease in damage proportionally to the warlock. Accounting for bonuses it is generally harder to hit REF than AC on many creatures.
Seriously, at this point, you're better off starting with a different system. I think C&C might be right for you; most characters are limited to melee or ranged attacks; magic is limited to casters-only, saves are based on all six scores, and every thing else (pushing, stunting, etc) is left to DM fiat. Tack on a good skill system and you're off to the races.
It is interesting that you have used this line of thought several times. Do you seriously think that I and all of the people who possibly agree with this change should just pick up and go? My group plays 4e, I am going to play 4e. Sure I personally would be happy with Savage Worlds but not everyone shares my sentiment. Should I suggest our group dump 4e? So what now, what is your suggestion still to dump the 4e system?
I enjoy the 4e core mechanics.
Getting back on track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
The by-product of the method they chose is that wizards now attack as well as fighters. But they effect of those attacks are more in line with a fighters, not dramatically better (as spells in previous editions were).
Ok, I'll concede the point this is one of the "ideas" of 4e. This feat actually moves the game further in that direction and if you can use any Stat to make an attack with your powers why not allow it with a basic attack. Sure.
It still does not touch that At-wills are limited sit in front of the TV brain dead attack that makes people turn off their creativity in favor of the designers creativity and only two tiny aspects of that.
Stunts should be good, they should encourage to think creatively the game mechanics should encourage this. And they do. However if you are busy spamming two nifty mini-bonus powers your eyes will never open to that awesomeness.
Of course a game has to work. But that is not the only factor a game has to be fun too. Most DMs modify what they play I would venture. Others may alter it more than others.
Of course it has to be fun. I'm just saying that I have a lot of fun fighting my way through dungeons killing monsters. Always have. It's why I continue to play. No need to modify the dungeons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
Yes, nothing is ever perfect it is good enough.
Nothing is ever perfect. But what is "good enough" is highly subjective. Once, I had a DM who just kept increasing the hitpoints of one of the bad guys we were fighting because he felt the stats of the enemy weren't good enough. He was going to die in 2 rounds instead of the 8-10 rounds he wanted him to last. So, as the battle went on and on, everyone at the table kept complaining that they had no idea what they were doing wrong, because no matter what they did, the enemy seemed indestructible. Around round 7 or so, all of us weren't having any fun anymore. We wanted our characters to be cool and able to defeat the enemies. We'd trapped him in a corner and were just making attacks on him over and over again. It wasn't much fun.
Finally, the creature died. The DM later revealed that that he'd been modifying the hitpoints of the creature in order to make the game better for everyone. Everyone universally agreed that it was not "better". The DM said it was and got in a big argument with us over it.
That's where I learned a valuable lesson. People have more fun when things aren't changed. Even if something seems like it'll be better to me, I attempt to avoid it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
First, effective analysis. 3e - damage was more variable, 4e has more average damage. The example of 10 STR guy attacking with a staff is perfect for accentuating your overall point but it fails to see the role that a player with a 10 STR character is trying to fill with their character. If you have a 10 STR character do you really expect your character to be good at attacking with a staff? I don't think so. The expectation should be that you are not effective at doing that. So where this was effective analysis it was simply pointing out that a 10 STR guy is not very effective at fighting.
Of course you don't expect to be good at the staff if you have a 10 STR. But, then again, perhaps your character concept is "A super intelligent wizard, a prodigy in spellcasting. His spells are very hard to resist and are very powerful, but he's weak and uncoordinated."
If I make that character in 4e, I can have fun beating up the enemies. I can cast magic missiles at them and hit on a regular basis and do effective damage. If you remove my at-will powers, however, I can only use a couple of encounter powers each combat that are spells. The rest of the time, I'm forced to attack with my staff with my 10 STR. And I'm really bad at it. So it's no fun.
So, my only recourse is to lower my INT from 20 to 16 in order to have enough points to have a 16 STR, so that I have some chance of hitting with my staff attacks. But now, my INT is so low that I'm only moderately good at casting spells, and I'm strong. It doesn't fit my character at all.
You are telling me that in your game, either you have a STR or DEX score or you are a bad character. Which, IMHO, would take away the fun of some people.
For instance, I played a character with 8 STR and 20 INT in 3.5e. I recreated him in 4e with the same stats(well, the STR and INT were the same).
In 3.5e, it was no fun to play him for the first 4 levels or so. He didn't have enough spells, and I couldn't hit anything with an 8 STR. I had a 12 DEX, so I couldn't really hit anything with a bow either. If I didn't think the fight was hard enough, I'd simply delay every round without doing anything. I'd often read a book instead of paying attention to the fight in these cases. It wasn't much fun, but I was biding my time until the role playing portions of the game and for the time when I'd be high enough level to have a spell to cast every round.
In 4e, it was fun from the beginning. I was Magic Missiling every round, I was using Flame Burst. In an average 7 round combat at 1st level, I used Force Orb once, Flame Burst 4 times and Magic Missile twice. Not a huge amount of "spamming". But it was better than the equivalent in 3.5e: 2 Magic Missiles then delaying for 3 rounds. I am doing something that feels effective every round now and I am playing the character I want to play.
In your proposed system, I'd be forced to be a mediocre Wizard if I wanted to help my party do damage after I was out of encounter powers.
Compare that to a Fighter who can basic attack with the exact same stat as his at-will powers. He loses nothing at all. In fact, if you give him the same solution and give him more encounter powers, he just gets better.
He gets to basic attack every round. Spamming basic attacks instead of his at-will powers(which changes almost nothing for fighters). He can keep his 20 STR. He gets to do something cool and powerful every round while I get to...watch him play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
Speaking toward your point, the math is their and I believe it to be much more robust than you do. I don't feel removing at-wills will alter the game in a negative way. This does need testing and I concur with several posters with that sentiment. I will try and get some of my own "math" together and post my findings.
I've shown multiple times now that it isn't. You are telling someone to accept a greater than 30% decrease in their effectiveness at their spells in order to satisfy your need to have more basic attacks in your game. Meanwhile, you are taking away almost nothing from other classes. I would agree with this is you changed basic attacks to be based off of everyone's worst stat instead.
I'm fairly certain you'd disagree if I said:
I dislike that fighters can attack so well with basic attacks. They only practice with advanced techniques, all the basics are mostly forgotten. They should use their STR in order to use Encounters and Dailies, but in order to do the mundane stuff they have to remember how to do it properly. They should be using INT for all their basic attacks in order to simulate this.
I think this would make for a good balance. Fighters are forced to use INT for most of their attacks while Wizards are forced to use STR for most of theirs. It balances things out nicely.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
He gets to basic attack every round. Spamming basic attacks instead of his at-will powers(which changes almost nothing for fighters). He can keep his 20 STR. He gets to do something cool and powerful every round while I get to...watch him play.
I think you nailed it here. I remember how mind numbingly boring it was to run out of cool effects for low level casters in the previous editions of the game.
Sadrik, I know you've responded negatively when people have told you this before, but the at-wills allowing you to always do effective/cool stuff regardless of your class is one of the strengths (if not the greatest strength) of 4E. It's a key part of the design. So 4E isn't doing it for you. Find something that does and please don't inflict this idea on a group of players expecting to play 4E.
You keep saying this. But what are the "core mechanics" that you like about 4e that aren't in 3e or 3.5e?
I can summarize the changes from 3.5e to 4e:
-Rebalance the math around having one stat for all of your attacks. Make the math predictable by not allowing it vary much from character to character(all characters have between 16 and 20 as their attack stat for all their attacks).
-Change all the monsters to work with the new math. Give them easier to understand powers and less of them so they are easier to run.
-Remove skill ranks and instead use trained skills. Give everyone improving skills as they go up levels.
-Give all classes a combination of at-will, encounter, and daily powers that give you have something interesting to do every round that isn't as boring as "basic attack" while limiting more powerful abilities to less often. Also, use at-will powers to emphasis the "feel" of a class(class that casts spells, class that attacks in melee, and so on).
-Rebalance feats so they don't have more effect on your class than your class abilities and powers
If you remove all of these things, you have 3.5e. Your proposal removes 3 out of the 5 of them. If you make people use multiple stats, then it throws the math off. Throwing the math off makes all the monsters unbalanced. It removes the uniqueness of each class and makes everyone basic attack all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
It still does not touch that At-wills are limited sit in front of the TV brain dead attack that makes people turn off their creativity in favor of the designers creativity and only two tiny aspects of that.
I keep hearing that from people. I don't know what games you are playing where everyone is being super creative every round and their behavior is being rewarded by your DM. Plus, some people just aren't creative. I want them to play with me as well. But here's how my games from different editions went:
1/2e(they worked about the same):
DM: "Alright, I hate individual initiative. We go clockwise around the table. When I point at you, tell me what AC you hit and how much damage you do. There are 8 people in this group and I want this battle to be done this year."
P1: "I hit AC -2 for 10 damage"
DM: "Miss"
P2: "AC -5, 16 damage"
DM: "Good, next"
P3: "I don't want to waste my spells. This doesn't look that hard. I don't do anything."
DM: "Next"
P4: "Uhh, can I flip over the enemies head and surprise him with an attack from behind?"
DM: "No, you don't have that ability"
P4: "Come on"
DM: "Fine, Make a Dex check"
P4: "I failed by 2"
DM: "You fall on your head and take...14 damage and are laying on the ground. Next"
P5: "AC -6 for 17 damage"
DM: "The enemy dies"
P5: "Hah, shows you for trying to flip over someone's head. My attack killed him. You took 14 damage"
3e:
P1: "I move into melee with him, I attack. I hit AC 22 for 15 damage"
DM: "Alright, next"
P2: "I move into flank with him, I attack. I hit AC 25 for 13 damage"
P3: "I don't want to waste my spells. I think the melee guys have this, I delay"
...
(next round)
P1: "I full attack. First attack hits..."
P2: "I full attack. First attack hits..."
P3: "I delay again"
...
(next round)
P1: "Another full attack"
DM: "It dies"
P2: "Alright, I move to the next enemy and attack"
(This is leaving out a reminder every round by the cleric on what his 8 hour long buffs do every time someone attacks, since everyone forgets about them every round. It also leaves out the "5-ft step dance" that happens every round where the monster takes a 5 ft step then so does the Rogue and Fighter)
4e:
P1: "I move into melee with the enemy and then Cleave. I hit AC 19 for 12 damage and the minion over here takes 4 damage and dies"
P2: "I move, then use Deft Stike to move into the flank. I provoke.
DM: "He hits AC 19."
P2: "That would hit, but my Artful Dodger power makes my AC 20. I hit AC 22 for 25 damage"
P3: "I use a Magic Missile at caster looking one at the back. It'll be difficult for you guys to get around their frontliners to attack him. I hit Reflex 16 for 7 damage"
DM: "Enemy hits P1 and does 15 damage and Daze, save ends"
P4: "That's no good. We need you to be able to make OAs in order to protect the Rogue. I use Sacred Flame to give you a save"
Now, I don't think any of these descriptions is exactly "creative". However, out of all editions, I think 4e has the most "interesting" stuff going on. I've never understood why someone would think that basic attacking every round was somehow creative or interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
Stunts should be good, they should encourage to think creatively the game mechanics should encourage this. And they do. However if you are busy spamming two nifty mini-bonus powers your eyes will never open to that awesomeness.
I don't think that something out of the ordinary should be encouraged. Because when it is, then the out of the ordinary becomes the ordinary. I certainly don't want to make up rules on the fly for EACH person's turns for an entire combat. And every time someone tries something outside of the rules, that's what I have to do. I agree that page 42 makes this a lot easier. However, I still don't want to be using page 42 more often than I use the PHB.
I don't want the rules to encourage it either. Otherwise you end up with this:
Wizard: "I cut down the tapestry and let it fall on the enemy's head"
Fighter: "You have the ability to shoot magic out of your hands and you are cutting down a tapestry. Why?"
Wizard: "Because I'm going to do 2d6 damage from it falling on those 4 enemies and they aren't going to be able to attack anyone for at least a round as they have to try to break their way out of it. My Magic Missile is limited to 2d4+4 damage to one target and doesn't hinder them at all."
Fighter: "Why does anyone learn magic if tapestries can do so much damage?"
Wizard: "I'm not entirely sure. Been thinking of asking the DM to let me switch to Rogue. I can do more damage with Acrobatic Maneuvers and it's easier to blind people with bags of flour than it is with magic since the DM ruled that it was a Dex vs Ref attack to blind(save ends)."
Plus, improvised stunts are the bane of predictability in terms of encounter difficulty and strategy. It becomes nearly impossible as a player to figure out what you should do when you have nearly infinite options. If you reduce them to just 3 or 4, it becomes much easier.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
These two issues, when combined mean that all the predictability that has been designed into the core 4e mechanics is thrown out. Since the goal of the 4e core mechanic is to add predictability to the game, I suggest that your goal is impossible. If remove at-will powers you sacrifice the core 4e mechanic.
If the design has been micro-managed to make it so fine-tuned that some relatively minor changes throw the whole thing out of whack, I humbly suggest that the design is too fragile. (and to think I used to maintain 3e was bad for this...yikes!)
Predictability, in a game essentially based around random rolls of dice, equals boredom.
Re: attacking using any stat for your bonus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
It gets the job done quickly and efficiently. And best of all, its going to absolutely enrage the sort of people who want to view the rules of the game as laws of physics, which is always a plus.
Predictability, in a game essentially based around random rolls of dice, equals boredom.
I agree, you certainly want some randomness, but it's a sliding scale. The more randomness you have, the less strategy and tactics mean and vice versa. If the best laid plans have a 50/50 chance of succeeding and the worst laid plans also have a 50/50 chance of succeeding, then it doesn't matter what your plans are. Even WORSE is if your best laid plans have a 5% chance of succeeding because of how random the game is and the worst laid plans have a 90% chance of succeeding.
It's the difference(to use a non-D&D analogy) between the board game Diplomacy(which has no dice at all and which has only a couple of basic rules that are easily predicted) and Fluxx(In which you don't even know what the rules are going to be each round and any player could win first turn randomly).
Most people will tell you that Diplomacy is HEAVILY determined by the strategy and intelligence of the players involved. Each move you make must be heavily considered because one bad turn can lose you the game. Fluxx is so random that you can win the game without even realizing it. It doesn't matter what you do during your turn, since what you do has nearly no effect on winning or losing.
I like BOTH games. But I like them for different reasons. Sometimes it's fun to just play a bunch of random cards and have fun with whatever happens. Other times, I like to challenge myself to try to out think other players without the dice giving the game to my opponent despite coming up with the better plan.
I don't think D&D should go to either extreme. But I think the game was TOO far on the randomness side of things in past editions. Now your choices really matter. Pre 3e, I wouldn't care if someone was playing the Gnome Fighter with an 10 strength. It wouldn't matter that much to our chances of success.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
LOL. Sure they do...it's normally for the worse, however.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
If the design has been micro-managed to make it so fine-tuned that some relatively minor changes throw the whole thing out of whack, I humbly suggest that the design is too fragile. (and to think I used to maintain 3e was bad for this...yikes!)
I think the fine tuning has been overstated a little, but the point is that for encounter building guidelines to be of any use, its got to be possible to predict the capabilities of the party.
A simple example would be two high level 3e parties, say 17th. Both parties are built on the same point buy, have wealth spot on the wealth by level guidelines and access to the same splatbooks.
Party A consists of a Fighter, a Monk, a Paladin and a Soulknife.
Party B consists of a Cleric, a Druid, a Wizard and an Artificer.
Party A spent their wealth on Cloaks of the Manta Ray, Rings of Regeneration and Stone Horses.
Party B spent their wealth on the Big 6 and Metamagic rods. They also got the Artificer to make them so they effectively have twice as much.
Any encounter that challenges Party B will splatter Party A in short order, conversely one that party A will find challenging will be steamrollered by Party B.
Now, if the players move tables such that the Soulknife and Druid swap parties, we have a different problem - the Druid will dominate Party A, while the Soulknife will barely contribute to party B.
Now, if you are happy with tailoring encounters to your party and your players are happy with widely varying power within the party then thats great - you don't need to worry about inter- or intra-party balance and can make really any changes to the system that you want.
The point of the mathematical basis of the system is so that you can have encounter building guidelines, that its possible to design new classes and abilities that are in line with the old ones and to ensure that all characters and hence players remain relevant at the table at all times. The more you diverge from the system assumptions, the harder these things are to maintain.
If you do make the changes that have been suggested in this thread, the game won't suddenly stop working, any more than 3e somehow couldn't be used to run both Party A and Party B. Its just that the DM will have to do more work to ensure that the encounters remain interesting, as now the encounter building system will not produce reliable results.
Even with the changes suggested however, I don't think the game would break that much - the core assumptions of +1/2 level to rolls and so on would remain, so the capabilites of the party would not be massively changed (particularly if you are generally using Str or Dex based classes in the first place - then it would hardly change at all). I'd not expect as massive a divergence as would be seen between Party A and Party B for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanefan
Predictability, in a game essentially based around random rolls of dice, equals boredom.
Predictible for the players? Yes, I agree. It should be predictable for the DM however, so that you can plan a climactic battle and not have it ended anticlimactically in the first round, or so you don't accidently TPK your party on what was meant to be a filler fight.
-
I think one thing to note about balance arguements is that you'll still get them no matter how close you get - from WoW for example, where the difference between best and worst is of the order of 10% or so to Exalted, where one character can be orders of magnitude more capable than another. The changes discussed here are likely to cause a variation of somewhat less than 20% or so in capability, so its robuster than it sounds.
I think one thing to note about balance arguements is that you'll still get them no matter how close you get - from WoW for example, where the difference between best and worst is of the order of 10% or so to Exalted, where one character can be orders of magnitude more capable than another. The changes discussed here are likely to cause a variation of somewhat less than 20% or so in capability, so its robuster than it sounds.
I agree with almost everything you've said. Still, the difference between the Wizard who decides to put a 12 into their STR or DEX and is using a staff or bow(+3 to hit) vs the Fighter who puts a 20 in his STR and has a fullblade, longsword, or greatsword(+9 to hit) is a difference of 30% just to hit. It's bigger than that in average damage per round. It also causes even weirder problems that are harder to quantify(AC and REF of wizards goes down due to putting points in STR instead of INT).
You are right that it won't cause the huge problems that exist in some other games or some previous editions. But when the difference between the average character is 5-15% then someone who is 30% different seems really far out.
__________________ Majoru Oakheart
Secret Attorney of the Guidelines for the <Sorry, you didn't make the DC 20 Perception check, and you don't have another minor action to try again. Next time try finding an Elf to stand nearby you.>
You are right that it won't cause the huge problems that exist in some other games or some previous editions. But when the difference between the average character is 5-15% then someone who is 30% different seems really far out.
Right, but its the difference between the 10 strength gnome fighter and the 18 strength half-orc fighter we are looking at, not the difference between the 10 strength gnome and CoDzilla. Its a relatively large difference, not an absolutely large one.
I'm not an expert on 4E (quite otherwise, actually), but I've been following the thread for some time and got an idea. The problem is that magic doesn't feel magical when you can hurl it easier than shooting a gun, right?
So, you can keep combat mechanics intact, but add some minor magic-realism crunch. Such as readying spells for 1 round prior to combat (that would affect only surprise encounters, but adds some meaningful flavor) or requirement of holding a magic component, which must be replaced or refreshed every week or so. Or via ritual. That way mages have a minor drawback to take care of and to feel that their magic is justified, special, but balance is almost the same.
I don't play 4E either, but I have been lurking in this thread for a while. I'm not sure how these at-will powers are intended to work in 4E, but I get the impression that they are supposed to be "swords by another name." Meaning, something that you can use all day and be moderately effective with, while saving your "zowie" attacks for special occasions. Is that pretty much how they are supposed to work?
If so, why couldn't you just add some extra oomph and bump them all up to "encounter" abilities, and let the characters use mundane gear and skills for their at-will actions? In 4E, it seems like "magic missile" is just another way of prounouncing "light crossbow" anyway.
But like I said, I'm not very familiar with (or fond of) the 4E mechanics. This could very well make the wonkiness even wonkier, so feel free to school me on the subject.
__________________ - CleverSignature
Last edited by CleverNickName; 6th March 2009 at 08:11 PM..
I don't play 4E either, but I have been lurking in this thread for a while. I'm not sure how these at-will powers are intended to work in 4E, but I get the impression that they are supposed to be "swords by another name." Meaning, something that you can use all day and be moderately effective with, while saving your "zowie" attacks for special occasions. Is that pretty much how they are supposed to work?
Yes, this is pretty much how it's suppose to work. The 4e paradigm for caster is that "casters should never run out of magical effects, even though the one that don't run out are just minor effects", thus the magic missiles that you can shoot all day.
Sadrik's PoV is that all magical effects should be extra special and something you can run out of and when the wizard runs out of magical effects, he should be happy to go from caster to crossbowman or staffdude.
Basically, Sadrik's whole premise is that if it's something that is more than just simply swinging a sword at an enemy and doing some hp damage, it should be something that can run out.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 6th March 2009 at 08:57 PM..
Is that pretty much how they are supposed to work?
Yes.
Quote:
If so, why couldn't you just add some extra oomph and bump them all up to "encounter" abilities, and let the characters use mundane gear and skills for their at-will actions?
Conditionally yes. At-wills do more than generate plain damage. They're a source of different damage types (which get around resistances or exploit vulnerabilities) and valuable effects (like Thuderwave's push). The system assumes PC's can produce these effects... well, at will. Which means calculating encounter difficulty will be more of chore.
Also, at-wills all key off of a classes primary stat, which mundane weapons don't (unless that stat is STR or DEX).
Quote:
In 4E, it seems like "magic missile" is just another way of prounouncing "light crossbow" anyway.
Yes.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
