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.
So "Players have to master the Cascading bonus Accounting to enjoy the game" is the new "THAC0 kept the riff-raff out?" Good to know.
Yes, clearly that is exactly what I implied. I also reduced D&D to nothing but a series of simple second grade addition lessons since I enjoy doing that level of math so much.
Why are we arguing over bonuses? In 3.x, I'd happily re-calculate anything that gave my character an advantage. Or an NPC. It'd be nice if I didn't have to, but it'd be nice I didn't have to cook dinner and I just replicated it like on ST:TNG.
What really sucked were ability score penalties. Not only was the character/monster weaker, but I had to do a bunch of math to figure out exactly how! Mind you, I didn't ban Ray of Enfeeblement because of math. Don't tell anybody this, but with that spell, I just reduced the attack bonus and called it a day. When someone casts Ray of Enfeeblement on a monster, it is not surviving long enough to justify re-calculating his skills.
I originally said they SHOULD be able to do so. I did not say a player that does not enjoy it is not worth their salt.
Fair enough. I get what you are saying, I truly do. But it was irritating enough for us to recalculate everything that we were happy we didn't need to do that as much with 4e. Our games would stop as everyone calculated buffs right before the combat. The math wasn't complicated at all. But, it wasn't fun for us.
I also understand you weren't necessarily trying to be insulting. I appreciate you clarified your point some. My response was snippier than it needed to be. I think I must be having a bad day and not knowing, because everything I say comes out crabby, vague, and confrontational.
I don't see the net loss here. As much as I love 4e (and I do truly enjoy the game) there are some things that were lost in the translation. This just isn't one of those things for me.
I can respect this is something that you enjoyed about the game. Truly I can. It just wasn't for us.
No seriously I don't understand the sudden influx of people telling me I'm wrong. Uh, no. I'm not wrong. In m opinion, 3.5 was easier then 4e. You cannot prove me wrong. So why are you trying to?
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Fair enough. I get what you are saying, I truly do. But it was irritating enough for us to recalculate everything that we were happy we didn't need to do that as much with 4e. Our games would stop as everyone calculated buffs right before the combat. The math wasn't complicated at all. But, it wasn't fun for us.
I also understand you weren't necessarily trying to be insulting. I appreciate you clarified your point some. My response was snippier than it needed to be. I think I must be having a bad day and not knowing, because everything I say comes out crabby, vague, and confrontational.
I don't see the net loss here. As much as I love 4e (and I do truly enjoy the game) there are some things that were lost in the translation. This just isn't one of those things for me.
I can respect this is something that you enjoyed about the game. Truly I can. It just wasn't for us.
bert1000 the comments you quoted were made in the context of a reply to a poster, who complained that in his game that ritual were too long and thus were not used. Since I interepted some of the comments made by that poster that class balance and/or skill overshadowing was not a big issue, then I made my reccomendation to drop the casting times.
It would not be a general reccomendation of mine, though I do think that the designers were a little too conservative with casting times
Rituals are too expensive to cast, and they take way too long to cast. Most of the great utility spells from 3.5E will never be used in a stress situation because of the casting time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostSoul
Maybe casters need to think more strategically.
What do you mean by "think more strategically"?
I've never heard that before regarding D&D, but it seems to be a often repeated buzz word for 4.0E.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
Any player worth their salt should be able to account for every effect on their character even at epic levels. it is no worse than performing an office job. Also I submit that figuring out those cascading effects is part of the fun.
You are right about character abilities, that is if the character started at first level and worked its way up.
One test to determine if a character is a never-played invention is if the player has little clue how to use all its abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alleynbard
Some players would rather the game not come to a screeching halt as they perform math that is "no worse than performing an office job." That isn't fun for me, it wasn't fun for my players. When accounting for every effect on your character becomes a chore after about 9th level, the game ceases to be fun for some people.
How does this bring the game to any sort of "screeching halt as they perform math"?
I've played my Eladrin Wizard to 12th level, and even at that level I have a good understanding of every power, feat, skill and item that I wrote on my character sheet. Not just for combat, but for role playing.
There is very little math involved, and it is a lack of understanding of character abilities that slows a game down.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
Last edited by Hereticus; 24th April 2009 at 02:42 AM..
I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated. We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.
Oh yeah, totally. You're not experiencing it, so that means the problem doesn't exist for someone else!
__________________ While I play D&D, it is not my game of choice, regardless of edition.
"You're insane AND Jurassic, GW." - garyh
"The reverse side also has a reverse side." - Japanese proverb
----- Steamworks: A guide for introducing technology to a fantasy setting. (d20) Journey: The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath your feet... (Work in progress)
Wait, seriously, figuring out that +4 strength and an increase to "large" size creates a net increase of +1 attack, +2 damage, +1 weapon die, is part of the "fun?" Like, just being told that wouldn't be as fun?
Wait, seriously, figuring out that +4 strength and an increase to "large" size creates a net increase of +1 attack, +2 damage, +1 weapon die, is part of the "fun?" Like, just being told that wouldn't be as fun?
Really?
I wouldn't count it as fun or un-fun. I'd count it as something that you just do automatically.
I don't get the claims of changing all your skills. Strength goes to what, climb? How often do you use climb in battle? And for those isolated events in which you would, then you'd already know to look specifically at climb.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that 3.5 was just an easy breasy no math allowed play through. I just think that 4e is just as bad as 3.5 was.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
I think alot of these claims of math slowing the game down are quite exaggerated. We are not figuring out integrals, we are doing addition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GnomeWorks
Oh yeah, totally. You're not experiencing it, so that means the problem doesn't exist for someone else!
Serious question, what type of math slows the game down?
You have the most creative and imaginative group here you could ever want, someone may have a solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Wait, seriously, figuring out that +4 strength and an increase to "large" size creates a net increase of +1 attack, +2 damage, +1 weapon die, is part of the "fun?" Like, just being told that wouldn't be as fun?
Someone who does not like spelling should not attempt a crossword puzzle, yet some people find them very enjoyable.
There is math and memorization involved with every edition of D&D, but there are ways to simplify it.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
Last edited by Hereticus; 24th April 2009 at 03:27 AM..
How does this bring the game to any sort of "screeching halt as they perform math"?
I've played my Eladrin Wizard to 12th level, and even at that level I have a good understanding of every power, feat, skill and item that I wrote on my character sheet. Not just for combat, but for role playing.
There is very little math involved, and it is a lack of understanding of character abilities that slows a game down.
I'm confused. You just made a reference to a 4e character (I presume) and I wasn't talking about 4e. I was talking about 3e. We have no issues with this in 4e. In fact, that was one of the things that really appealed to me about 4e.
In 3e when buffs were applied there was some math involved, progressively more as more buffs are added. It takes some time adding up those bonuses and their cascading effects. More often than not, this happened before combat so it meant there was a delay that many of us weren't fond of.
In addition, when a character gains a buff, it rarely comes from their own suite of abilities. What you are asking is that my fighter not only know what he does but what the whole range of wizard and cleric spells as well? Certainly, if the same buff is consistently cast upon him, that is possible. But I don't expect any player to know exactly what everyone else at the table is capable of doing.
I'm confused. You just made a reference to a 4e character (I presume) and I wasn't talking about 4e. I was talking about 3e. We have no issues with this in 4e. In fact, that was one of the things that really appealed to me about 4e.
In 3e when buffs were applied there was some math involved, progressively more as more buffs are added. It takes some time adding up those bonuses and their cascading effects. More often than not, this happened before combat so it meant there was a delay that many of us weren't fond of.
In addition, when a character gains a buff, it rarely comes from their own suite of abilities. What you are asking is that my fighter not only know what he does but what the whole range of wizard and cleric spells as well? Certainly, if the same buff is consistently cast upon him, that is possible. But I don't expect any player to know exactly what everyone else at the table is capable of doing.
Look, I have never found the math from any edition difficult, nor keeping track of my character's abilities. It's part of the game, all editions, and I had done it gladly.
I've had plenty of epic level 1/2/3 characters, and it was never difficult adding single digit numbers together. As someone said upthread, we were happy to be able to add more bonuses. It was not a chore.
This reminds me of a commercial for microwavable macaroni and cheese. The child that it is appealing to thought that boiling water was too difficult.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
This reminds me of a commercial for microwavable macaroni and cheese. The child that it is appealing to thought that boiling water was too difficult.
I didn't say we found it difficult. I said it was not something we wanted out of our gaming experience. I was never fond of the cascading buff system.
Really, is there any need to come after me? I didn't attack you. I haven't attacked 3e. I played it for its entire life span. Why? Because it was D&D. But I never particularly loved aspects of the game. This is one of them.
We are not lazy, we just look for different things in our games. Is there a reason you find that offensive?
I am happy with 4e and I believe in letting others be happy with the game they love. I was expressing an opinion of 3e that in no way should be taken as a condemnation of others who enjoy it. I did get a bit snippy. But that really had no origins in how I feel about 3e or those that play it. In fact, I said as much to Mournblade. I am far from a badwrongfun kind of guy.
I am happy Pathfinder is coming out. I am pleased that 3e still has a vibrant community. I don't find any of this a threat to me or my game of choice.
Why can't you at least show the same modicum of respect as I am showing you?
Last edited by alleynbard; 24th April 2009 at 04:15 AM..
No offense intended, and I apologize if I came of sounding grumpy.
I enjoyed playing Clerics in 1/2/3 edition, and I always tried to throw as many bonuses at possible at other characters. But I liked Clerics for more than their spell casting abilities. They were the city builders and always involved with what was happening in the city.
One interesting comment that was given to me was by one of the Fighters. He had always thought that my character was a useless combatant who did not contribute to the success of the party as I had few individual kills. I had missed a week, and upon my return he had realized the value of all the bonuses and protections that I gave out.
I especially liked the Status spell, because I knew where I had to give help.
I guess that I missed your concern because all the bonuses were second nature to me. The DM was a chess master, so he probably had everything processed in his mind without an afterthought.
If you don't mind me asking, what were some of your favorite characters?
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
No seriously I don't understand the sudden influx of people telling me I'm wrong. Uh, no. I'm not wrong. In m opinion, 3.5 was easier then 4e. You cannot prove me wrong. So why are you trying to?
You might not be wrong. Of course, you might not be representative either.
No seriously I don't understand the sudden influx of people telling me I'm wrong. Uh, no. I'm not wrong. In m opinion, 3.5 was easier then 4e. You cannot prove me wrong. So why are you trying to?
The more serious answer, and I doubt you really want one, is that people hold the opposite opinion and strongly feel you are wrong. People sometimes mistake personal taste for some kind of objective reason. Also, there's some weird idea floating around that people change their opinions based on reason. Technically, this true. The problem is that sometimes personal taste is miss-classified as opinion. This causes some people to think that personal taste can be changed based on some kind of argument. This is false, but it seems true when personal taste is miss-classified as opinion.
Someone who does not like spelling should not attempt a crossword puzzle, yet some people find them very enjoyable.
There is math and memorization involved with every edition of D&D, but there are ways to simplify it.
Yes, yes. I can understand finding 3e fun. I just am not sure that actual human beings find the actual fun to reside in the fact that many spells and effects modified variables that seed other equations, resulting in cascading changes to the end-product stats you actually use.
I can understand people having fun WITH a game where spells and effects modify seed variables.
But having fun BECAUSE spells and effects modify seed variables? Really? What part of that is more fun than achieving the same end result without the seed variables and cascading mathematical changes? The challenge of remembering how to do simple but memorization-intense basic algebra?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
