+ Log in or register to post
Results 101 to 110 of 1497
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 04:10 AM #101
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
"If it has stats, we can kill it." - T.G. Jackson, intro to 3rd ed Hackmaster
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 04:51 AM #102
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
I give up. You win. Hope you are happy with the victory.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 05:43 AM #103
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 06:07 AM #104
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
"Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."
- OD&D vol. 1, Men & Magic
I find this texture between the classes pleasing.
As a side note, reading Manbearcat's posts is like watching an episode of The Big Bang Theory.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 06:28 AM #105
I'm going to do the same, but before I begin I want to make something clear. If you make a single additional statement accusing me (or anyone else) of being unwilling to compromise, then I'll simply assume that all of your statements past and future are being made in bad faith.
First off, there are a number of things I absolutely must see in the next edition of D&D. These are things that the absence of is an immediate dealbreaker.
1) The designers need to acknowledge that many fans want game balance. To be honest, the game doesn't need to actually be balanced, but the designers need to recognize that imbalance is not what we want. Effort needs to made to discuss game balance and provide it for those who want it.
2) The game needs to have a variety of classes and other major options, and they need to be meaningful and effective options. A game that tries to establish the Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard system as the only set of classes won't ever work for me. I don't want a game which assumes every team has a Cleric.
3) The game can't be hideously offensive. It can't be filled with terrible racism, disgusting art, or contain screeds decrying particular political or religious views. It also shouldn't act as a giant soapbox for the designers to rant about their gaming preferences. I'd say that I shouldn't need to say this one, but D&D has a problem with this kind of thing and 5E in particular has drawn some ire due to this kind of stuff already.
4) The game can't depend on DM fiat in order to function. It's fine for people who want to play that way to play that way, but it must not replace rules for people who don't like that style.
Next, I guess I'll list a few things I really want to see, and wouldn't be inclined to buy the game unless it included them:
1) The game needs options to create complicated characters who make interesting tactical choices. This particularly applies to a "fighter" type class. I don't mind if there is a 3E Fighter or Slayer class, as long as I can use a Warblade or 4E Fighter class instead.
2) The game shouldn't be built around the idea of "magic solving everything". People shouldn't need magic to solve problems, and that includes things like healing and counteracting magical threats. At the very least, if such magic is necessary, it shouldn't be restricted to certain classes, and should instead be useable by everyone (such as with rituals).
3) The game must be open to non-traditional fantasy. The game can't get mired in Vance and Tolkein, and instead should branch out to all possible sources of inspiration. Myth, videogames, anime, sci-fi... Anything should be acceptable.
4) The math really needs to work, and shouldn't break down at higher levels. The whole game needs to be thoroughly playtested, and things shouldn't be preserved without appraisal just because of tradition.
As for a few more specific mechanics or concepts I want to see in, but would accept if they don't get in...
1) Healing Surges
2) No "Generalist" Wizard
3) Replacing the Fighter with a range of better-defined martial classes.
4) No "+x" items or magical item dependency.
5) 4E-style defenses and saving throws
6) No feat system (should be replaced with something better)
7) Well-defined class and monster roles
8) Prioritization of fun D&D IP race choices like Dragonborn and Warforged over boring, generic choices like gnomes and elf subraces.
That's nowhere near complete, but it's a start.
So, what's your list? Once we have that, we can start to compromise.
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 06:53 AM #106
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 08:22 AM #107
Magsman (Lvl 14)
OD&D - replaced by AD&D because it was a failure and couldn't sustain itself. AD&D 1E replaced by AD&D 2E, because it couldn't sustain itself. D&D 3E - couldn't sustain itself, so they created D&D 3.5. And now D&D 4. Really, why do they bother with this game, it will never work. They'd be better of to create something like Magic: The Gathering.
Mustrum "Gummibńrchen helfen auch" Ridcully
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 [spoiler]of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>[/spoiler]
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 10:01 AM #108
But if non-combat stuff is meant to work and be viable, this has to change. Bounded accuracy or not, does anyone think that D&Dnext players will have their PCs make checks based on less than optimal stats in circumstances where the consequence for failure is losing the game? There is nothing magical about D&Dnext's stat check mechanics that will make players less able to calculate the odds. If you want creativity and variety in stat checks, players have to be willing to run the risk of failure. And this requires making failure a viable option (ie fun for the players, even if not fun for the PCs).
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 11:59 AM #109
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
Also are you prepared to accept that 4e is literally the only edition of D&D where there is a decent way of bringing the skill disparity down for a non-class skill by investing resources? In 1e it's almost impossible. 2e it depends on the NWP. 3e you'd have to buy ranks in a cross-class skill and are limited to half level rather than level. 4e you simply spend a feat for a new trained skill or gain a new skill through a multiclass feat.
Plus powers (normally but not exclusively utility powers) plus items plus class features, stances, and utility powers which can change the way the skill is used.And, for specialists, it only goes up as stat boosts come into play. And feat. Plus backgrounds and racial bonuses.
So your new claim is that 4e provides numerically measurable bonusses and that is bad? If one person has an Underwater Basketweaving rating of +17, and the other has a +18 then it is always mathematically better to let the person with the +18 make the roll. This applies to AD&D stat rolls every bit as much as to 3.X skills or 4e skills (or, indeed, thief skills and NWPs).Yes, you can use any skill but you're always better off letting someone else make the roll and training in skills where you have an ability score bonus.
At least it's always better unless there is a systematic reason to have more than one person rolling a given skill. Something like a mechanic where the total number of successes matters. And what is the only edition of D&D to have one of those in the core rules? You guessed it. 4e with Skill Challenges.
(I say the core rules because the skill challenge mechanics are little different to the complex skill checks in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana).
I don't know what system mastery you think you have. But it isn't mastery of 4e, whatever else it may be.Some system mastery at work.
Even a superficially uncompromising line may merely be opening a negotiating position - different people haggle in different ways. Distorting the other position demonstrates you are not negotiating in good faith.
Nah.The only franchise I can think of as an example right now is Batman, which has gone "back to basics" in movie form twice and comics four or so times. But that's not a good example as it equates 4e with Batman & Robin and even the most fanatical 4e hater wouldn't go THAT far.
OD&D = Adam West.
1e and 2e = Batman and Batman Returns
3e and 3.5 = Batman Forever and Batman and Robin
4e = Batman Begins
And Batman and Robin wasn't a reboot. 4e certainly was
And yes, 3.5 was a different edition to 3.0. It changed the shape of a horse ffs. (Essentials isn't a different edition - you can have essentials 4e alongside regular 4e and not even notice).
Thursday, 26th July, 2012, 12:28 PM #110
Placing such an action-->consequence constraint only becomes stifling in resolution systems where only the PCs have agency -- like skill challenges (the main non-math reason I dislike them) and the players have no other input.
If the resolution system extends agency to other actors in the scene then limiting the consequences to action doesn't have the same constraint on narrative direction since other actors can invoke directions unforeseen by the players.
If the game system affords other player input, such as Whimsy Cards or the Strands of Fate game's declarations then narrative direction is wide open whether or not a challenge in underway.