Raven Crowking
First Post
The RCFG Player's Guide will be out this summer, and free.
How Important is Magic to Dungeons and Dragons? - Third Edition vs Fourth Edition
The RCFG Player's Guide will be out this summer, and free.
If players are doing too much blind charging in to the point where it's problematic, may I suggest your next game be Shadowrun? :3c
Hong beat me to it, but yes.
Imagine one game where you have a special power "Herculean Strength." It grants +5 damage.
Imagine another game where you have a special power "Herculean Strength." It grants +10 to variable X, which is related to damage by the equation INT(X/2).
X is the seed variable. The cascading mathematical changes are the things that follow from X.
I can imagine having fun with the second game. I just don't get the claims of people in this thread who say that the second game would be inherently more fun because they like figuring out INT(X/2) at the game table for variously changing values of X. I feel like I'm being put on. That's really what makes the game fun for them?
Mournblade94
Adventurer
As far as I can see I have made 2 claims:
1) Math in D&D is not difficult
2) I enjoy calculations in my gaming (I even do this with video games, in Total War I want to know my armies values, and I LIKE figuring it out.)
I did not ever claim that the CALCULATIONS are what makes the game fun. It is one of the many fun parts that I enjoy. You are not being put on. People after all major in math because they enjoy it (I am not a math major).
I challenge the notion that the simplified math somehow makes 4e superior. That is the purpose to all of my posts.
+
=
Bwuh?
It seems that you are quite clearly saying that, between two identical games, you would prefer one where you have to do arithmetic.
Not that middle school level arithmetic is the only reason you enjoy the game, of course, but simply that you prefer the presence of middle school level arithmetic to its absence. I just have trouble buying it. It seems an outlandish claim, the sort of thing someone says during a heated argument but which they do not actually mean. Much like claiming that the reason you like watching football is because of the fun you get balancing your checkbook after you buy tickets. Obviously balancing your checkbook isn't onerous, and shouldn't stop you from buying tickets, but it seems questionable to highlight it as one of the good parts. Even if you are totally serious and you mean your words exactly as you have said them, I have to ask: do you believe that your opinion on this matter, that simple algebra improves fantasy gaming in and of itself simply because of the entertainment value of math, is represented amongst the population of gamers significantly enough that anyone should do anything about it? Or is it more in line with people who believe that what D&D really needs is book covers made out of mink? An honestly expressed opinion, but which hopefully even those who hold it recognize as an outlier?
Oh, and also? People who hold opposite opinions of Prof Cirno's are constantly told that they're wrong for having those opinions. So that might have a whole ton to do with it.
Folks, Piratecat here. If you're seeing a problem, report it. The button is an exclamation point in a triangle, and it's to the left of every post. Don't take cheap shots at other members, though; that solves nothing and derails threads. Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh? Then it should be no problem for you to link me to when I last did that.
FireLance
Legend
A little late to this discussion, but I was wondering if one way to make rituals more useful without eclipsing skills is to give a small side ability for each ritual that can be used either once per encounter or once per day. For example, Open Lock could allow the character to use an Arcana check in place of a Thievery check to open a lock once per encounter. Comprehend Language could allow the character to understand and speak the language of a creature he is interacting with for one round once per encounter. Raise Dead could allow the character to negate one failed death save once per day, and so on.
The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.
You're right there, we went through three DMs. The first two moved, and a new group member took over. I was running a 3.5E game, so I didn't want to take over. The game ended with us at 12th level.
The owner of the local store is a friend of mine, so he asked me to run the Delve Nights. I had run the Sewers of Silence sample for 8th level characters, and there were six players instead of five. I plan on running the next Delve Nights in May. The players used Water Walking and Speak With Dead.
Ah. Maybe your DM needs to think more strategically!
This time that means that, in order to get good use out of rituals, he should design the dungeons so there are a lot of opportunities for their use.
You're right there, we went through three DMs. The first two moved, and a new group member took over. I was running a 3.5E game, so I didn't want to take over. The game ended with us at 12th level.
The owner of the local store is a friend of mine, so he asked me to run the Delve Nights. I had run the Sewers of Silence sample for 8th level characters, and there were six players instead of five. I plan on running the next Delve Nights in May. The players used Water Walking and Speak With Dead.
The problem with my current 4.0E game is that the fighter types never want to wait. In a group of six, two fighters and a cleric always charge into battle with planning. I know this frustrates the DM too, who has made efforts not to have them killed.
I agree, I would've done so as the DM.
But as a player I would never suggest to the DM that he kill other players characters.
I spoke to the players numerous times in a light manner, and they would get better for an encounter or two, but that was the characters that they wanted to play. One said they didn't care if their character died, they'd just role up another.
Maybe the DM should give those 3 what they deserve and kill them. Then you can talk strategy...
I agree, I would've done so as the DM.
But as a player I would never suggest to the DM that he kill other players characters.
I spoke to the players numerous times in a light manner, and they would get better for an encounter or two, but that was the characters that they wanted to play. One said they didn't care if their character died, they'd just role up another.
Similar Threads
