Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Eternity Publishing Hosted Forum
paradox42's crazy cosmology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Raithe the Dreamer" data-source="post: 5111107" data-attributes="member: 55982"><p>Complexity is fun for some folks, though. I happen to be one of them that enjoy a more complex system because that means you can do more with it. I'm also a rather simulationist player, and I like having rules for weird situations and the like. 4E is a rather gamist system, and it's very much not my cup of tea.</p><p></p><p>I think that's going to depend on the individual players. I've introduced several people to 3E that had no trouble getting used to it and a number that at the same time had trouble with it. It's just not a game for everyone (and nor should it be).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Die rolls only become inconsequential in the higher tiers of epic, from what I've seen. 3E's epic system by and large had a ton of problems, which I'll be the first to admit (and I'm sure paradox42 remembers many times where I went on a rant about it, too!).</p><p></p><p>Pathfinder doesn't have Epic rules yet (other than a brief section on how to go beyond 20 if you want to, which isn't really supported or intended to be balanced), but they've already suggested that they won't have an entirely open-ended approach and will probably have a level cap (of perhaps 30th or 36th--for the nostalgia factor--level).</p><p></p><p>It was partly the attempt at making 3E's epic system entirely open ended that caused so many problems for it, and WotC learned from that with 4E in capping the game at 30th.</p><p></p><p>4E's epic play has other problems that are different, and some that are similar (from everything I've seen, once you get into the Epic tier, characters are nigh unkillable, much as they were in 3E).</p><p></p><p>I had heard that about the shaman at least. But that's still only a handful of classes, and you have to buy extra books for it to start getting interesting. The base game itself is so narrow it's saddening for me personally.</p><p></p><p>Classes should have roles, but they should be suitably generic. A fighter's role should mostly be "does damage with weapons," and how the character decides to do damage with those weapons should be their own choice. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Fighter-based Archer, for instance, but in 4E, you have to be a Ranger to be an Archer. That means a wilderness focus for the character and other things.</p><p></p><p>Spell selections for casters was pretty heavily nerfed in places. Divine Power doesn't turn Clerics into Fighters with full casting anymore. Polymorph provides bonuses to stats instead of replacing them, so a Wizard can't just dump physical stats if he wants to focus on Polymorphing and wading into battle. The Fighter itself doesn't look much different from the 3.5 fighter, but nothing can really stand up to it in raw combat/damage anymore. With the Weapon Training ability, his iteratives become very likely to hit, and the newer Fighter only feats are quite nice. Fighters are also the only class that can use two Critical Feats at once (your criticals can gain additional effects like causing Bleed damage, Staggering, or Stunning the foe).</p><p></p><p>Because they don't have the Intelligence for it? D&D is about playing characters in a world, and not everyone is "born" with the Intelligence to be a Wizard, just as not everyone is "born" with the Strength to be a Fighter. Yes, Wizards still have a handful of show-stopper spells, and they rock at battlefield control. Save or Dies have largely been nerfed across the board, and a Wizard all on his own is going to be in trouble if he doesn't have his front-liners to let him be "god," (as Treantmonk likes to say).</p><p></p><p>The powers that Wizards and spellcasters in general possess comes from their versatility, and 7th-9th level spells, mostly. The spells jump up in power there, but they're never optimally used for damage.</p><p></p><p>In theory, sure. The Wizards only going to be able to do so a few times per day if he's even remotely trying to diversify his spell selection, and a Wizard that does nothing but prepare blasting spells *should* be good at it. He's still not going to outpace, say, a Fighter-based bowman, generally, in terms of damage per round.</p><p></p><p>Statistically, Wizard damage is cut about in half over time (whether it's from Spell Resistance, successful saves, or misses on attack rolls), whereas Fighters are mostly contending with DR, which they can now bypass with enhancements to weapon alone again (a weapon counts as a special material if it has a high enough enhancement value). With Weapon Training, Fighters hit far more frequently with their attacks than they used to (their base full attack at 20th is at +25/+20/+15/+10 before enhancements and ability scores).</p><p></p><p>It's true that the Wizard has more AoE capabilities than a Fighter does, but there's not really much of a way around that. In return, the Fighter's much tougher, will generally have higher AC, and the Wizard can even make him better at everything he does. Spells are often most useful when using them to make the specialists do better at what they specialize in.</p><p></p><p>Haste, in a group with a few people making regular attacks, is almost always going to outdamage a Fireball for a Wizard.</p><p></p><p>They do, yes. It has to do with a lot of things, but Fighters got some rather nice boosts. Power Attack adds a useful amount of damage without actually killing chance to hit that much (with a two-hander, it's -1/+3, with a one-hander -1/+2), and there's actually a ranged equivalent in core in the game. The Vital Strike chain even allows them to get a single attack roughly equivalent to a full attack as a Standard Action, allowing them to remain mobile (not *quite* there because they don't get to multiply Str bonuses and such with the attack).</p><p></p><p>It's honestly completely all right for a caster that focuses on AoE damage to shine in those situations, though. The Fighter gets to keep his damage per round whether it's an AoE situation or a single-target one. The Wizard's is generally going to drop off quite a bit.</p><p></p><p>Correct. What was nice about it was that it was compatible with everything else we owned, and gave people more options. What 4E alone does is give people *only* the Tome of Battle option, which is a poor way to go.</p><p></p><p>I don't. I hate the dissociative nature of 4E's power system. Why can a Fighter only (for instance--I don't have a power to directly correlate here) Bull Rush or Trip once per encounter? That's ridiculous in my mind. I can put up with it to an extent, but when martial maneuvers start having Daily limits, I have to throw my hands up and walk away.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Raithe the Dreamer, post: 5111107, member: 55982"] Complexity is fun for some folks, though. I happen to be one of them that enjoy a more complex system because that means you can do more with it. I'm also a rather simulationist player, and I like having rules for weird situations and the like. 4E is a rather gamist system, and it's very much not my cup of tea. I think that's going to depend on the individual players. I've introduced several people to 3E that had no trouble getting used to it and a number that at the same time had trouble with it. It's just not a game for everyone (and nor should it be). Die rolls only become inconsequential in the higher tiers of epic, from what I've seen. 3E's epic system by and large had a ton of problems, which I'll be the first to admit (and I'm sure paradox42 remembers many times where I went on a rant about it, too!). Pathfinder doesn't have Epic rules yet (other than a brief section on how to go beyond 20 if you want to, which isn't really supported or intended to be balanced), but they've already suggested that they won't have an entirely open-ended approach and will probably have a level cap (of perhaps 30th or 36th--for the nostalgia factor--level). It was partly the attempt at making 3E's epic system entirely open ended that caused so many problems for it, and WotC learned from that with 4E in capping the game at 30th. 4E's epic play has other problems that are different, and some that are similar (from everything I've seen, once you get into the Epic tier, characters are nigh unkillable, much as they were in 3E). I had heard that about the shaman at least. But that's still only a handful of classes, and you have to buy extra books for it to start getting interesting. The base game itself is so narrow it's saddening for me personally. Classes should have roles, but they should be suitably generic. A fighter's role should mostly be "does damage with weapons," and how the character decides to do damage with those weapons should be their own choice. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Fighter-based Archer, for instance, but in 4E, you have to be a Ranger to be an Archer. That means a wilderness focus for the character and other things. Spell selections for casters was pretty heavily nerfed in places. Divine Power doesn't turn Clerics into Fighters with full casting anymore. Polymorph provides bonuses to stats instead of replacing them, so a Wizard can't just dump physical stats if he wants to focus on Polymorphing and wading into battle. The Fighter itself doesn't look much different from the 3.5 fighter, but nothing can really stand up to it in raw combat/damage anymore. With the Weapon Training ability, his iteratives become very likely to hit, and the newer Fighter only feats are quite nice. Fighters are also the only class that can use two Critical Feats at once (your criticals can gain additional effects like causing Bleed damage, Staggering, or Stunning the foe). Because they don't have the Intelligence for it? D&D is about playing characters in a world, and not everyone is "born" with the Intelligence to be a Wizard, just as not everyone is "born" with the Strength to be a Fighter. Yes, Wizards still have a handful of show-stopper spells, and they rock at battlefield control. Save or Dies have largely been nerfed across the board, and a Wizard all on his own is going to be in trouble if he doesn't have his front-liners to let him be "god," (as Treantmonk likes to say). The powers that Wizards and spellcasters in general possess comes from their versatility, and 7th-9th level spells, mostly. The spells jump up in power there, but they're never optimally used for damage. In theory, sure. The Wizards only going to be able to do so a few times per day if he's even remotely trying to diversify his spell selection, and a Wizard that does nothing but prepare blasting spells *should* be good at it. He's still not going to outpace, say, a Fighter-based bowman, generally, in terms of damage per round. Statistically, Wizard damage is cut about in half over time (whether it's from Spell Resistance, successful saves, or misses on attack rolls), whereas Fighters are mostly contending with DR, which they can now bypass with enhancements to weapon alone again (a weapon counts as a special material if it has a high enough enhancement value). With Weapon Training, Fighters hit far more frequently with their attacks than they used to (their base full attack at 20th is at +25/+20/+15/+10 before enhancements and ability scores). It's true that the Wizard has more AoE capabilities than a Fighter does, but there's not really much of a way around that. In return, the Fighter's much tougher, will generally have higher AC, and the Wizard can even make him better at everything he does. Spells are often most useful when using them to make the specialists do better at what they specialize in. Haste, in a group with a few people making regular attacks, is almost always going to outdamage a Fireball for a Wizard. They do, yes. It has to do with a lot of things, but Fighters got some rather nice boosts. Power Attack adds a useful amount of damage without actually killing chance to hit that much (with a two-hander, it's -1/+3, with a one-hander -1/+2), and there's actually a ranged equivalent in core in the game. The Vital Strike chain even allows them to get a single attack roughly equivalent to a full attack as a Standard Action, allowing them to remain mobile (not *quite* there because they don't get to multiply Str bonuses and such with the attack). It's honestly completely all right for a caster that focuses on AoE damage to shine in those situations, though. The Fighter gets to keep his damage per round whether it's an AoE situation or a single-target one. The Wizard's is generally going to drop off quite a bit. Correct. What was nice about it was that it was compatible with everything else we owned, and gave people more options. What 4E alone does is give people *only* the Tome of Battle option, which is a poor way to go. I don't. I hate the dissociative nature of 4E's power system. Why can a Fighter only (for instance--I don't have a power to directly correlate here) Bull Rush or Trip once per encounter? That's ridiculous in my mind. I can put up with it to an extent, but when martial maneuvers start having Daily limits, I have to throw my hands up and walk away. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Eternity Publishing Hosted Forum
paradox42's crazy cosmology
Top