Tweet gleanings

[Sammael]

"Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class."

Yes, please. But make it work, not like in 3.5.

Well, if I was able to make it work in my own system revision, I'm sure Monte and Mike won't have much trouble. It's all just a question of setting the design goals and priorities in the right order.

 

[Sammael]

Note they are saying "might" as far as those rare classes. So it just depends on what they mean by 'more complex' too.

Also what does an "uncommon/rare" class mean? I mean, I like a world where PC classes are rare to begin with. PCs are special by virtue of being PCs.

Extrapolating from the seminar and previous information (still all IMO):

Common classes (easy to build, easy to run, probably a greater % of the classed population): Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, (probably) Rogue

Uncommon classes (slightly more difficult to build and run): Bard, Priest

Rare classes (the most difficult to built and run, smallest % of the classed population): Assassin, Wizard

 

[avin]

Different levels of complexity for different classes - like
No more power sources - neutral (if out in game words, don't care)
No more roles, either - i kinda liked, but understand some don't.
Magic items decoupled from character advancement - perfect
Return of Vancian casting - not a caster, neutral.
Different classes shine at different things - but every class must be able to shine in combat, otherwise, boo.
3E style multiclassing - ewww... never a fan of MC in any edition.
Rituals - you know, this is something that almost everybody liked from 4E, so I'm glad they will be in. In fact, just like I wanted to.
WAY too many classes - love it.
Spell power decoupled from character power - don't care
Status effects not standardized - hmmm...
Trading-in low level abilities for high level ones - yeah, this is my main beef...

 

[avin]

Well, if I was able to make it work in my own system revision, I'm sure Monte and Mike won't have much trouble. It's all just a question of setting the design goals and priorities in the right order.

You know Monte loves Wizards, don't you?

 

[Sammael]

You know Monte loves Wizards, don't you?

And Mike hates them, so that balances out. Hopefully.

 

[Henry]

Yeah, I used to be swayed by the argument. But no amount of charisma based skills is going to make an uncharismatic or socially awkward player less so.

All it seems to do in actual play, is muffle the more outgoing players while the less outgoing players are nudged into making a diplomacy roll.

Why? Well because certain classes in 3e became "talky" classes, and others were prevented from doing so. Rather than let shy or awkward players stay in their comfort zone (and maybe loosen up) they are instead pressured into becoming the face of the party because they have the right class or trained skills.

It is simply unecessary. There is no reason why one class or another should be better at roleplaying and diplomacy than another. Not even the bard, as

Separate argument, and OLD argument, but I disagree. I do believe every character should not be impeded from being "talky" via class, but That doesn't mean that shy players are pushed because they're a talky class.

Now, if you didn't want any limelight, don't take any diplomacy/bluff/intimidate or whatever is equivalent. If you the player want to be "talky", DO spend some of your character resources and take it. Don't cheat the system by optimizing yourself for something else totally, sit there with a 10 CHA and zero skill in bluff, and and try to game your personal talents to "talk your way" past an NPC. If you are personally withdrawn, you took those diplomacy skills for a reason, probably to fantasize yourself as a suave person, and far be it from me to dissuade you because another person at the table is more personally magnetizing.

Anyway, that's how I see it. In Pathfinder, I like that even a dense fighter can be a pretty smooth talker, he's just not quite as good at it as the bard, but he's no slouch, like he would be in 3E, doubly penalized by both lack of skill points and cross-class penalties.

In truth, I think this belongs in a different thread though.

 

[fba827]

KInda upset that spell power is set as opposed to scaling. Would kinda make sense (for a fantasy universe) that as you got more powerful, certain effects would as well.

(ie. i'd expect a balor's implosion or fireball to be better than a basic 4th or 5th level wizard)...

You can still have "hidden" / pseudo scaling within the context of having set power levels. They did this in 4e (for some classes/powers) where you could (for example) swap out a Level 1 encounter power for a Level 13 encounter power that would do the -exact- same thing with just higher damage or strong er effects (a daze upgraded to a stun, or a push 2 ugraded to a slide 4, etc). So it is scaling if you chose the equivalent/upgraded power.

 

[mcintma]

Curbing the power of the wizard at mid-high level is OK, but I hope they account for that at low levels - i.e. Wiz cannot be sad-sack at low as per 1-3e and just pull even at lvl 10+.

Not sure how they'll accomplish this and retain the Wiz flavor; better HP? No spellbook or familiar dependance? Allow armor? Better or longer-lasting defensive spells?

 

[StarFyre]

ya, but that's something else i don't like.
i prefer uniqueness.

I don't want the final fantasy effect: fire 1, fire 2, fire 3, etc.

I'd rather have fireball, sleet storm, detect magic, sleep, meteor swarm, time stop, succor, etc

all of these do something different and at different power levels, but oh well.

But at the end of the day, i'm the DM. My players are the ones that will ultimately accept or reject the system (I'll DM what they prefer).

Sanjay

 

[RandomCitizenX]

Common classes (easy to build, easy to run, probably a greater % of the classed population): Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, (probably) Rogue

Uncommon classes (slightly more difficult to build and run): Bard, Priest

Rare classes (the most difficult to built and run, smallest % of the classed population): Assassin, Wizard

I'm pretty sure the live feed listed Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard as Common classes; Warlock as an Uncommon class; and Assassin as a Rare class. In case the info was not passed on or some such (or I may be mistaken on what was said)