+ Log in or register to post
Results 41 to 50 of 87
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 06:48 AM #41
Lama (Lvl 13)
Also, didn't 3.x have pretty strict limits on class dipping? I wasn't around at the time, but -20% XP per extra class sounds crippling.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 07:07 AM #42
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 08:29 AM #43
Magsman (Lvl 14)
OTOH the idea of giving encounter spell slots is even less to my taste... The biggest problem for me (besides the general distaste) is that either encounter powers are kept very very few - but once the can is opened in the game, PCs will be able to stack several options of this kind - or they will altogether be usable almost at-will, unless the length of an encounter is forced-stretched to a large number of rounds as in 4e.
I was hoping for something more imaginative for school specialization, not a "standard" rule valid for all traditions but instead ad-hoc rules for each of them (e.g. 3ed Unearthed Arcana). Surely the first approach is easier for the designers, but the second would mean that the experience of playing an Evoker is significantly different compared to that of playing a Necromancer or a Diviner and so on... which IMHO would wonderfully increase the variety of the game!
PS The part about wizard tradition is the only one that I disliked and worry about, all the rest in this interview look fine and interesting
Last edited by Li Shenron; Friday, 14th September, 2012 at 08:34 AM.
"There is no survival without order, there is no evolution without chaos."
"You have to see past the RAW to understand the rules of the game."
"And rules are OVERRATED by the way!
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 09:10 AM #44
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Rangers with spells.
No need to back to town for a healer.
I can stay in the wild FOREVER!
They better not get rid of my Tree Shape ninja move!
My beard is hairy.
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 09:24 AM #45
Defender (Lvl 8)
This is the first time I have been disappointed with their future plans, the only part I dig is Tieflings no longer being of Devilish ancestry only, I like the broader Planetouched deal (I have one of Yugoloth descent as a major antagonist in my current campaign).
Oh, the rogue options sound okay.
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 12:58 PM #46
Guide (Lvl 11)
The principle effect of ignoring a mechanic is on the mechanics themselves, and that is both necessary and seemly. If one ignores feats then the rule changes, if any, required to restore mechanical balance will probably be no more dependent on roleplaying considerations than the rules were initially. Moreover, ignoring broad rules like feats will tend to affect the PCs in roughly equal measure. Overall, if one minimizes the influence of campaign-dependent elements in the game's mechanics, ignoring one such element generally won't require making the game *even more dependent* on specific elements of the campaign in order to restore mechanical balance.
In contrast, when a roleplaying restriction is used to justify a mechanical element more powerful (or restricted) than would otherwise exist, by necessity the new balance has greater campaign dependence than the same game without that element. A DM might knowingly ignore the roleplaying assumptions (no "little blue dwarves"), and I have no problem with the DM who does so, just like I have no real problem with DMs who de-emphasize balance in the first place. What I object to, however, is a design principle that, in aggregate, ends up creating more work for DMs who do want to pay attention to balance.
Basically, I want the rules to minimally impinge on how I run the game while keeping a semblance of mechanical balance. If I, as DM, ever think to myself "I should introduce a complication for Player A" not because that would be interesting or flow naturally from the situation, but because player A is playing a class with bigger guns only granted because complications are assumed to occur, then the rules are shaping the campaign in a way I find unnatural and a little burdensome. If a lot of game elements are designed this way eventually it might graduate to very unnatural and substantially burdensome. If certain very strong setting assumptions are part of some game's core identity (e.g. the role of magi in Ars Magica) then my objection is lessened with respect to related areas in that game.
So, when roleplaying considerations are included in a class, but have no impact on mechanical power, I have no complaint. When they are included and have a mechanical impact carefully designed to match each instance of roleplaying consideration in kind (something like FATE), I also have no complaint. What I hate is a tradeoff like "Always helps an elf in need" for a blanket "+1 to weapon attacks" because the first statement can have such highly variable implications. The impact of helping an elf in need should be the esteem of the elves, reciprocal help when needed, extra trouble in the city of elf-haters, or even a gift from the Elven Queen of a weapon that is conveniently +1 higher than the PCs current one. The latter even mimics a mechanical benefit I wouldn't like, but it's OK because roleplaying considerations led to an appropriate roleplaying response.
I hope that adequately describes my perspective!
Last edited by Ainamacar; Friday, 14th September, 2012 at 01:06 PM.
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 01:18 PM #47
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
1) Doesn't this depend on what the encounter spells are? For example, an encounter-recharging Magic Missile wouldn't exactly "destroy" old-school play.
2) If you use AD&D as the baseline, you'll find that old-school D&D spell casters aren't really resource-poor. It's true they got fewer spells, but they made up for it in magic items. Take a look at the random treasure tables, the items-by-level chart for NPCs, and some of the module treasures/equipment lists for pregens.
Wands, scrolls, and other charged items start becoming common around mid-level (with scrolls being found even at low level). So a caster 'popping off'' some kind of spell effect every round isn't a new thing.
AD&D combat can be swingy and deadly, but in it's default mode, it's not a low-magic game.
"You should probably put your bandit hat on now. Personally, I- I don't have one, but I modified this tube sock." - Ash, Fantastic Mr. Fox.
The Chronicle of Burne, and Some Others of Lesser Importance: Updated 05-17-2009! Current episode: Flight of the Philip.
The Port on the Aster Sea Our 4e setting. It's a heartbreaking work of staggering genius!
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 01:42 PM #48
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I much prefer when specialist wizards have either specialty spells on their lists, or when the specialist wizards each get an unusual, different benefit, making them play differently.
Abjuruer: some bonus to saves vs. spells, using dispels/counterspells
Evoker: bonus damage, maybe a specialty energy type
Conjurer: increased duration/durability of conjurations
Necromancer: bonuses when using attacks/skills in regards to undead, maybe get to use a couple relevant cleric spells
Transmuter: transmutation spells harder to resist/save against, gets save bonus to avoid transmutation
Diviner: bonuses to skills, some exclusive scrying rituals
Illusionist: illusions more believable (harder saves), some illusions gain a real component
Enchanter: bonuses to skills, enchantments last longer or are harder to throw off
I'm not a fan of spellcasting rangers or paladins, to be honest, nor was I ever (since AD&D). I am guessing non-casting options will exist.
Glamour is a rocky road!
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 01:45 PM #49
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Friday, 14th September, 2012, 01:57 PM #50
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
But he also doesn't enforce the rules on it nor use the -20%XP?
Then whose fault is that?!? Seems to me... that DM is reaping what he sowed.
The whole '1 level class-dipping' issue looks exactly like the '15-minute workday issue'. People from the outside looking at an issue from above and getting all p.o.d, saying in a perfect world it shouldn't exist... and demanding something be done to fix it. But all the while not actually having it happen to them in the game they were DMing... because *IF* it was... they'd do something themselves about it to actually make sure it didn't happen since they didn't like it. Because that's what DMs do. They choose how their campaign is going to run, they choose what rules will and won't be used... and then they enforce those decisions.
But if the DM doesn't enforce his own desires with his players... he has no right to complain that the game itself wasn't set up from the get go to do it for him. That's not accepting personal responsibility.
By kitcik in forum Character Builds & OptimizationReplies: 1Last Post: Tuesday, 8th February, 2011, 06:28 PM
By caudor in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 37Last Post: Friday, 16th April, 2010, 07:53 AM
By Krug in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media LoungeReplies: 0Last Post: Wednesday, 20th January, 2010, 01:25 AM
By MerricB in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 77Last Post: Monday, 10th December, 2007, 05:56 PM
By MerricB in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 35Last Post: Monday, 10th December, 2007, 10:22 AM