What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 151 to 160 of 198
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 02:16 PM #151
I share with you a desire to keep single classing viable. I don't think the 2-level fighter dip is as appealing though. I we were just starting this with my old crew...
Consigliori: "You know what we won't see anymore? Fighter Dipping."
Ryan: "What? Why not?"
Consigliori: "Because you can ALWAYS get more feats."
Ryan: "Huh. I hadn't thought of it that way."
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 02:21 PM #152
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 02:27 PM #153
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
It worries me that the prevalence of feats means people won't take fighter levels at all. A barbarian, ranger or paladin all get full BAB and pretty similar hp to a fighter - and equal or better saves. When feats are a precious commodity, those four fighter feats are a real advantage. It seems when everyone gets bonus feats (and nothing but bonus feats) after 6th level, favoured enemies, smites, spells and rages are going to be a lot more tempting. (The ranger already gets four feats, but Endurance and Track aren't that fantastic).
I suppose the question boils down to - are a particular combat class's class features worth >4, 4 or <4 feats?
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 02:47 PM #154
I agree that might happen, but I don't think it's going to break anybody's game. Being 4 feats ahead is being 20,000 exp ahead along any given feat chain your character wants. That's a real factor.
At the same time, yeah, maybe we'd see fewer fighters. But IMO, the fighter's something of a weak class to begin with. Did you see the Dead Levels article at WotC? Fighters got, a real ability to "shore them up." Think of it another way: If your campaign was full of rangers, paladins, and barbarians instead of fighters, would it really suffer? Now if a player really wanted a soldier-style character, thought the fighter was weak, and you agreed, there's loads of alternate options available.
Nifft - I agree that 4e will likely look a lot like Saga. But also, I want to let people with a PHB and some dice just show up, and know how it works. At least when it comes to my own projects, if I make big revisions, I end up making more and more tiny ones. If the rules are in flux, it's harder for a new player. I want a player to be able to (for example) get to 6th level, go to Japan, and then drop back into my game six months or a year later and still know how to play. I may convert this to 4E when it comes out, but that depends a lot on what 4E looks like (i.e. does it have a SRD? What's the community reaction? Is everyone converting or is the community forking?)
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 03:00 PM #155
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
I really like the idea of this system, but I have to comment on one slice of balance... Sorcerer/Wizard. I'm specifically looking at the top-level spells here.
The Sorcerer has 3 slots per day, with one 3rd level spell known.
The Wizard has 2 slots per day -- memorized in advance, of course -- and a minimum of four spells known. He can, of course, add as many more spells as he likes assuming time and money are available.
Worse still, the wizard can still specialize. At that point, he has the same number of spells per day as a sorcerer... Not to mention that he still knows a lot more than one spell.
I see this as being as bad, potentially, as a fighter never being played because feats are more prevalent. At least the fighter has Weapon Specialization going for him... A sorcerer versus a specialist wizard doesn't have much going for him at all.
"On a long enough time line, everyone eventually rolls a 1."
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 03:20 PM #156
Hi Wolff; you raise a good point, and it's one of my bigger concerns for the game.
I'd say there are 4 effective options:
1) Introduce an XP cost for learning spells (not my preference).
2) Write a few feats to address this very problem
3) Make an alternate class feature and stick it in the appendix
4) Allow / encourage the use of an alternate class, like the Warlock, depending on the Sorcerer the player wants.
Either introduce an xp cost for learning spells (not my preference) or write a few feats with this dilemma
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 03:54 PM #157
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
I've been thinking about this more, and I do like the concept, but I do have issues with the execution.
How about letting the sorceror pay 5000 XP to add one spell?
I agree with the earlier comments about fighters: why play a fighter if you can pick up the feats later anyway? Better to play something else and get cool class features first.
With regards to limiting base saves, can I suggest you limit the total, not the individual? This would allow greater variety.
Have you looked at what happens when characters have large numbers of extra feats?
It seems to me that there's a major imbalance with respect to the Craft Wand feat. A wizard with a collection of wands could dominate the party. In a normal game, the HP of the combat types would increase suficiently to balance it, but that cannot happen here.
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 05:31 PM #158
Novice (Lvl 1)
1) The sorc could take Extra Spell (I think it's from Complete Arcane - you could adjust it to allow 3rd level spells.)Originally Posted by Quartz
2) Introduce feats (from other sources / made up on your own) that require fighter levels as pre-reqs. Maybe tactical feats from the new splatbooks could require Fighter levels? Also, Fighter is really the only (core rules) way to play a heavy-armored combatant without a strong moral compass (which many players don't want to be saddled with). I think that the Fighter niche can be made safe pretty easily.
The magic item discussion was really interesting, that had been on my mind for a while, but I still have a couple other observations about the system:
1) It basically removes PrC's. This might be a good thing or a bad thing depending on preferences, but some players might raise a stink about not getting a chance at them.
2) It basically removes metamagic (someone touched on this above). You can't quicken anything, you can only apply some of them to the lowest level spells (e.g., you can't apply anything to Fireball). I think you mentioned the Sudden metamagics, but IIRC they require the base feat as a prereq, and I wouldn't want to take Quicken (which I couldn't use) and a slew of other MM feats just to get Sudden Quicken (which I could use 1/day).
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 05:43 PM #159
Thanks mfrench, you brought up exactly what I wanted to say re: the sorc issue.
Mostly-removing PrC's is definitely by design. If your players want to play, say, a tattooed monk, I'd suggest chatting with the player about character concepts and how to accomodate that rather than seeing "Being a tattooed-covered monk whose tattoos contain mystical powers" as something that can only be expressed through a prestige class.
Monday, 25th June, 2007, 05:49 PM #160
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I see class balance as being more of a non-issue. People not choosing classes doesn't really seem to be that big of a deal in actual play-- if no one plays a class the point of "Doesn't this class suck?" never gets brought up. (I mean, yeah it sucks, but npcs can still take it.) Classes balanced from 1-20th level with a certain amount of feats available probably aren't going to be equally balanced at 1-6th level with a completely different amount of feats available. You could introduce changes to make the Fighter more viable (basing it off something other than more feats), but at that point you're almost writing a new class just to preserve the name "Fighter". And with 68 Base Classes and counting (that was the last number mentioned, I haven't been counting), its not like their aren't options out there.
Capping base saves: My theory is if a player multiclasses to get an awesome Save, he's either shafting other Saves (like the guy with the Fort +12, Reflex +2 and Will +0), or he's shafting other class abilities, like a Monk 2/Ranger 2/Cleric 2. He'd have a Fort +9, Ref +6, and Will +6 (base). At that point, having great saves is his class ability, because everything else is a bit of a mish-mash.
I'm also a little proud that a lot of this-- Rogue 6, Wands-- I was talking about two pages ago. If a lackluster class ability (like Trapsense +2) makes people more likely to take a level of something else, I don't see that as a bad thing. (Although looking at the chart, I'd probably just move Imp Uncanny Dodge down to 6th level-- but I'm nicer about defensive abilities. And that solves the problem of barb/rogues being better Uncanny Dodgers than single class rogues.)
Instead of having Craft Items simply be a gold and xp trade, I'd so go back to the old school idea of needing unique components. If to make a Wand of Fireballs you need the horn of a Red Dragon, the balancing factor isn't money or xp. (You could limit it to something like CL equal to Age Category of the Dragon, depending on how... um, draconian you wanted to be.) Personally, I like unique components because it encourages player creativity, and the items end up feeling less generic.
I like the idea of the titans as gods, and I wanted to put forth a few more less anthropomorphic beings to be worshipped. Dragons, natch, have the CR to be revered as living gods. Kraken are both mighty and very intelligent. I also like the idea of people worshipping big monsters, like a tribe of islanders who revere a megladon as their totem animal. Elemental Weirds from the MM2 are great for people who want to worship elemental forces, they cast as 18th level Sorcerers and get a list of at will divinations (which is interesting in how divine relates back to perception and to godliness). In a 6th level world, a CR 9 or 10 creature, or one with the ability to cast 4th or 5th level spells could easily be considered "gods".
Justice is blind, and therefore does not decorate well.