- 06:42 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Evenglare in post I don't want to be a druid/cleric, I want to be a fighter.
Curious on the thoughts of other people around here concerning balance, character optimization, munchkining whatever you want to call it. In 3.5 and pathfinder and all of that people say that clerics and druids can potentially make better fighters than fighters. Potentially. But you could always find specific cases where they don't, thus avoiding strict superiority and justifying, on some level, the choice of fighter. It's a stretch, and you have to optimize your fighter mightily to retain relevance out of the lowest levels, but it can be an interesting, even enjoyable challenge to do so.
It's really that 3.x Clerics/Druids/etc making virtually as good melee combatants as fighter /while also casting spells that are very useful to the party/. The fighter can marginally defend his own little conceptual niche in spite of the higher-tier classes, but they're still far above him in overall effectiveness.
So here's the question, if you want to be a fighter, do you pick fighter or a class tha...
- 05:26 PM - Derren quoted Evenglare in post Best Science Fiction RPGs
There's also Numenera, and uh... not sure what else. I had trouble finding a really good fantasy/science fiction RPG, so I created/am creating one using the 13th Age rules.
Fantasy/SciFi practically screams Shadowrun. It is also one of the view settings were magic and technology coexist without there being a conflict between them or that technology was mostly destroyed by an apocalypse.
Some time ago there was a Shadowrun spotlight week (a concept which sadly has been abandoned apparently) and it got its own forum chock full of information for new players.
Sadly it seems to have been deleted. At least I can't find it any more.
- 05:18 PM - Sword of Spirit quoted Evenglare in post This Game is Deadly
I would say that the Starter set is "normal adventuring", and it starts at level 1. If you want to play a less deadly 5e game, you should probably start at level 2+, but I wouldn't say starting at level 3 is the norm. I will check with my group to see what they prefer, I don't actually mind level 1 and 2, since it's only supposed to be 1-2 sesions before you are level 3.
Just passing on what I've heard from wizards. They say level 3 is the old level 1.
My interpretation is that 1st level is meant to represent 1st level in most editions of D&D. Since 4e characters start out more competent, you can start 5e characters at 3rd level to better approximate the power level of a starting 4e character.
- 04:57 PM - Lidgar quoted Evenglare in post This Game is Deadly
I think our group got to level 3 within a couple of hours with the starter set, there were only 3 of us playing though so it may have been a bit quicker than normal.
That does seem very fast. It took an 8 hour session for our group of 5 PC's to get to 3rd level playing the starter set.
While we had some folks go to 0 hp, no one died. The DM actually threw in a few extra critters to make sure it was challenging enough - which it certainly was. He kept rolling criticals...over and over again...
I was running the cleric, and liked the limited resources you have at 1st and 2nd level to heal the party. Certainly feels more like the challenges faced in earlier editions (1e/2e) at those levels.
- 03:55 PM - Ruin Explorer quoted Evenglare in post Comment on the negative article by John Dodd
I'd say the pathfinder starter does a pretty poor job introducing the players to what an actual game and character creation will be like. Especially since they cut down the rules like AOOs where as 5e is the actual game presented in a neat fashion.
This is an interesting point.
Whilst we'll never know, I suspect, I wonder if 5E will see more players retained by the rules staying approximately the same complexity, or whether the better initial product will mean that, even though the rules become more complex with the full product, PF retains more.
Impossible to say, I guess. Having tried starters of various games with various groups in the past, I could see it going either way. The only thing that is always off-putting is when the rules of the full game directly remove something fun from the starter game (but that's really rare).
- 02:08 PM - Blackbrrd quoted Evenglare in post This Game is Deadly
Just passing on what I've heard from wizards. They say level 3 is the old level 1.
They are? Where?
I do know that level 1 of 4e more or less resembles level 3 in 5e, but I haven't seen what you are saying here...
- 11:54 AM - Uskglass quoted Evenglare in post Best Science Fiction RPGs
There's also Numenera, and uh... not sure what else. I had trouble finding a really good fantasy/science fiction RPG, so I created/am creating one using the 13th Age rules.
Do you have it shared somewhere? I'd be interested in taking a look. Thanks
- 10:45 AM - jadrax quoted Evenglare in post Have we seen a list of backgrounds yet?
Backgrounds are one page as shown from several previews. TOC has backgrounds from 125 to 142, that 17 backgrounds by my count. 16 if pg125 is just explanation. How did you get 8?
The only preview I saw was the Hermit, and that did not get all the Background on one page.
Edit: Actually having looked at it again, I think we can be pretty sure that a Background will be approximately 1.5 pages, so around 11 in total in the PHB.
edit2: My prediction is 'Acolyte, Charlatan, Criminal(Spy), Entertainer, Folk Hero, Hermit, Noble, Outlander, Sage, Soldier, Urchin'
- 10:45 AM - Blackbrrd quoted Evenglare in post This Game is Deadly
Well normal adventuring is supposed to start at level 3, 1 and 2 are supposed to be apprentice levels where you are doing small time stuff. I agree it's deadly but it's definitely by design. By level 3 you should have enough HP to start doing some real adventuring. I think our group got to level 3 within a couple of hours with the starter set, there were only 3 of us playing though so it may have been a bit quicker than normal.
I would say that the Starter set is "normal adventuring", and it starts at level 1. If you want to play a less deadly 5e game, you should probably start at level 2+, but I wouldn't say starting at level 3 is the norm. I will check with my group to see what they prefer, I don't actually mind level 1 and 2, since it's only supposed to be 1-2 sesions before you are level 3.
- 08:55 AM - billd91 quoted Evenglare in post I don't want to be a druid/cleric, I want to be a fighter.
Do you play the class you want and have it fit your original vision for your character (Fighter) or do you concede your original vision to something mechanically superior (Cleric or Druid)?
If I want to play a fighter... I play a fighter. Mechanical superiority is unnecessary.
- 07:32 AM - JamesonCourage quoted Evenglare in post The edition wars have hit a new low
Also burning these books is disrespectful of the people who worked literally hundreds of hours making them. This isn't even just not liking the books, it's making sure others don't even get to experience it. It takes it a step further than just dismissing the author's work, it's actively destroying part of their life.
As someone who has written three books, I completely agree with this. When you put you hard work, your creativity, your soul on paper, and someone maliciously destroys it, yeah. I'm more than willing to admit that I'm thin-skinned enough to feel a little upset by it.
It's bad enough when there's some criticism, though I appreciate it if it's constructive. But to have someone take something that you've cared about for months or years, that you've put hundreds of hours into, that you've willingly shared with others to increase their enjoyment, and then have them destroy your work as a show? To take something you've been dedicated to creating, and to obliterate it because it's that t...
- 05:52 AM - Sacrosanct quoted Evenglare in post The edition wars have hit a new low
Not in the slightest. Agree with me or not, that's your right. But I stand by my feelings on the matter. (And it's not just the burning, but the making a spectacle of it.)
I AM curious, if it's such a non-issue to you, why do you feel the need to argue over it? You may feel that it's silly for me to react this way, but you're expending just as much energy on something you feel doesn't matter. I'm not being snide here; I'm honestly curious. What do you get out of it?
this thread, and others like it, are already spreading like wildfire in the internet. And the reactions of some, equating this on the same level as historical book burnings, gives gamers a much worse reputation than what Bryce is doing. Nothing like a giant lack of perspective to quell stereotypes of gamers being overreactionary
Also burning these books is disrespectful of the people who worked literally hundreds of hours making them. This isn't even just not liking the books, it's making sure others don't even get to exper...
- 02:54 AM - MoonSong quoted Evenglare in post The edition wars have hit a new low
I'm with mouse, any burning of books is despicable. I DO enjoy 4e, I love all D&D, but burning books is one of the worst things in my opinion, in this respect I could not care less about edition wars. It's just wrong. I'm sure he did it because "edgy shock factor!".
Yes, book burning of any kind is just wrong. Some books aren't worth the paper they are print on, but even in those cases, the paper can still be recycled. Burning a book for anything other than survival is just pointlessly polluting the environment and well, it is a book, if you don't want it, sell it, give it away, donate it to a library. And if it is a 4e book, well give it to me, these guys have become ridiculously hard to find in my country.