Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Well, if you're suddenly interested in playing a Rogue, why can it be wrong for the game?Dannyalcatraz said:
4th ed, the Good & the Bad?
- Thread starter Silverblade The Ench
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Imagine playing a wizard (maybe of 10th level) that is about to enter a null-magic zone that covers the full dungeon the party has to explore. Will it be fun for him? I mean, he can still provide flanking benefit or use aid another, can't he, just like the Rogue when they entered the undead-infested dungeon, right?Dormammu said:
Phlebas
First Post
Hussar said:
The rogue can do a lot more than just aid another - stand off with a bow and pepper the slow moving zombies - run in with sword (you still do damage - use 2w and you'll be making a reasonable contribution), throw oil and a match..... Just 'cause you can't use ONE of your class abilities does not make you 0% effective!
No problem with redefining some of the immunities, but a blanket 'SA everything' doesn't seem necessary....
Phlebas said:
Yeah but what's the point of being the rogue then since pretty much ANY class can do these things.
The argument that "you can do other stuff thus the class isn't useless" doesn't make much sense IMHO since such an argument means "class don't matter" and you might as well get rid of the class structure.
re: Superheroic D&D
Again, Gygax can not complain that D&D is become superheroic when in 1E, the heroes were actually TOUGHER than in 3.x especially at level 10+. Run "Against the Giants" with 1E characters and the same module with 3.x characters of the same level and you'll see what I mean.
As well, why do we ALWAYS ignore the superhero that has existed since 1E? Namely the mage. People don't want "superheroic" fighter but something resembling Aragorn/Conan/medieval-era, yet we're fine with wizards of the same level that literally can bring mountains down.
WHY are we ok with this?
re: D&D shouldn't be balanced.
This rewards system mastery and is actually one of the things that would discourage new players. If I'm a new player and I pick a non-magic user, why should I be inherently gimped?
Happy New Year to everyone as well
Phlebas
First Post
AllisterH said:
well you could argue the rogue with high dex is much better at ranged and grenade than other characters, but if you want a unique ability that you can use regardless then thats your POV, & its a valid point.
My opinion is that their will be circumstances when you shine, and circumstances when you're the support act and since a tomb-robbing rogue is going to be the busiest PC scouting, trap-finding / disarming (all class specialities) the fact that in combat he's going to be doing what everbody else is doesn't really seem to much of an anti-climax....
and I'm comfortable with the fact that in some, limited, circumstances class will not matter - as long as you can still contribute / play why do you have to pull out a special ability when a common ability will do?
Happy new year to all btw
Doug McCrae
Legend
No he doesn't.Dannyalcatraz said:
Flasks of acid/alchemist's fire = 1d6 damage. That's not a great contribution. It's pathetic.
Panamon Creel
First Post
Especially if the rest of your mid to high level party's fighters and mages are dishing out 30+ hp per damage per attack. It sucks when your PC is completely nerfed or nearly useless in a fight.
My present thoughts
1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good. All versions of level drain were annoying both in implementation and in the potential long-term effects to PCs.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Neutral. I'll note that I preferred 3.xE ability score damage to prior editions' save or die mechanic, but there are other ways to approach poison (or perhaps ability score damage is still in).
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good. I prefer death to be the result of multiple actions, not a single bad die roll.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Neutral. I haven't really used ethical alignments in a long time.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Good, assuming that they keep a class (Rogue) as a sneak attack monkey. Those monkeys get bored fast with immune to crit. creatures.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good, although I'm a bit skeptical that it will be significant.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good. Most of the NPC's stats (for the vast majority of NPCs) don't matter in the first place.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good; mostly to streamline high level PC generation.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good. Heck, assuming it's done reasonably well, it's why I'll convert. All my recent 3.xE games have had pages of changes to spellcasting, and I have an entire alternate spellcasting system.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided. Frankly, I thought that merging the Illusionist into the Magic-User was one of the better changes in 2nd ed from 1st. However, that doesn't mean that either splitting up the 3E Wizard into different classes, or doing something else is a bad thing; I'll have to learn more.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Undecided. If we get to get rid of Spell Component Pouches (& individual largely irrelevant material components for each spell) I like it. Otherwise, it depends on what they're doing with it.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Mildly good. I kind of like the present 3.xE system, with mild modifications. Frankly, I think that the largest revamp needed is to remove most spells which completely remove the need for skills. In any case, I'll have to see their imlpementation, but for now, mildly good.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Mildly good. I like Gnomes (my last PC was a Gnome), and I mildly dislike yet another draconic humanoid (I'm pretty neutral to the other changes). However, this is likely to be more offset by what sounds like a much better implementation of the races themselves - it would be nice for race to matter more than marginally for some mid-level PCs.
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - mildly bad. Personally, I like multiple pantheons, but they do take up a lot of space, so I can understand why they're getting axed. I'll have to note that of FR material, the god/goddess information is the material I use most - much more than the prestige classes, feats, map, or anything else FR-specific. On the other hand, I likely will be able to use my older material with few changes (since little of it is mechanical).
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Undecided. There were several problems in implementation of prestige classes (LV1 typically being stronger than later levels; having to plan out their acquisition from character creation in most cases; making chaining partial prestige classes typically the best power-gaming option), but they were better than the 2nd ed Character Kits; I'll have to learn more about what replaces them (Paths?)
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. My 3.xE feat system is even larger than my 3.xE spell system.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Neutral. It seems like they're spelling out something that's been in the game since OD&D.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Neutral. I prefer "point of light" to "points of light", but really, the default campaign setting has to be pretty atrocious to matter much - I'm going to change it.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Good. Frankly, if it were perfectly backwards compatible, that would mean that there wouldn't be many major changes between 3.xE and 4E, and thus little reason to buy 4E in the first place. I would only consider it "bad" if I considered 3.xE to be extremely well designed.
20. NEW PALADIN SMITES- Good. It's nice to see some variety in what Paladins can do, even if Smite isn't necessarily my favorite of their 3.xe class features, and I don't think that I love all of the particular instances.
21. BLEEDING ABILITY- Mildly Good. It depends on what they use it for.
22. PARAGON PATHS and EPIC DESTINIES- Undecided; as I mention above, I'll have to see how they're implemented. I hope that it's harder to abuse than prestige classes.
23. DIFFERENT CLASSES - Undecided. If, as it sounds, they are making the classes more flexible, and more balanced in relation to each other, then this is (overall) good. I will miss several of the classes (Druid and Monk in particular).
1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN - Good. All versions of level drain were annoying both in implementation and in the potential long-term effects to PCs.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN - Neutral. I'll note that I preferred 3.xE ability score damage to prior editions' save or die mechanic, but there are other ways to approach poison (or perhaps ability score damage is still in).
3. NO MORE SAVE-OR-DIE - Good. I prefer death to be the result of multiple actions, not a single bad die roll.
4. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS - Neutral. I haven't really used ethical alignments in a long time.
5. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING - Good, assuming that they keep a class (Rogue) as a sneak attack monkey. Those monkeys get bored fast with immune to crit. creatures.
6. FASTER GAME MECHANICS - Good, although I'm a bit skeptical that it will be significant.
7. FASTER (N)PC CREATION - Good. Most of the NPC's stats (for the vast majority of NPCs) don't matter in the first place.
8. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS - Good; mostly to streamline high level PC generation.
9. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING - Good. Heck, assuming it's done reasonably well, it's why I'll convert. All my recent 3.xE games have had pages of changes to spellcasting, and I have an entire alternate spellcasting system.
10. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS - Undecided. Frankly, I thought that merging the Illusionist into the Magic-User was one of the better changes in 2nd ed from 1st. However, that doesn't mean that either splitting up the 3E Wizard into different classes, or doing something else is a bad thing; I'll have to learn more.
11. FOCUS ITEMS - Undecided. If we get to get rid of Spell Component Pouches (& individual largely irrelevant material components for each spell) I like it. Otherwise, it depends on what they're doing with it.
12. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP - Mildly good. I kind of like the present 3.xE system, with mild modifications. Frankly, I think that the largest revamp needed is to remove most spells which completely remove the need for skills. In any case, I'll have to see their imlpementation, but for now, mildly good.
13. BASIC RACES CHANGES - Mildly good. I like Gnomes (my last PC was a Gnome), and I mildly dislike yet another draconic humanoid (I'm pretty neutral to the other changes). However, this is likely to be more offset by what sounds like a much better implementation of the races themselves - it would be nice for race to matter more than marginally for some mid-level PCs.
14. RACIAL PANTHEONS GETTING THE BOOT - mildly bad. Personally, I like multiple pantheons, but they do take up a lot of space, so I can understand why they're getting axed. I'll have to note that of FR material, the god/goddess information is the material I use most - much more than the prestige classes, feats, map, or anything else FR-specific. On the other hand, I likely will be able to use my older material with few changes (since little of it is mechanical).
15. ELIMINATION OF PRESTIGE CLASSES - Undecided. There were several problems in implementation of prestige classes (LV1 typically being stronger than later levels; having to plan out their acquisition from character creation in most cases; making chaining partial prestige classes typically the best power-gaming option), but they were better than the 2nd ed Character Kits; I'll have to learn more about what replaces them (Paths?)
16. EFFORT TO BALANCE FEATS - Good. My 3.xE feat system is even larger than my 3.xE spell system.
17. PARTY ROLES - DEFENDER, LEADER, ETC. - Neutral. It seems like they're spelling out something that's been in the game since OD&D.
18. POINTS OF LIGHT SETTING DESIGN - Neutral. I prefer "point of light" to "points of light", but really, the default campaign setting has to be pretty atrocious to matter much - I'm going to change it.
19. LACK OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY - Good. Frankly, if it were perfectly backwards compatible, that would mean that there wouldn't be many major changes between 3.xE and 4E, and thus little reason to buy 4E in the first place. I would only consider it "bad" if I considered 3.xE to be extremely well designed.
20. NEW PALADIN SMITES- Good. It's nice to see some variety in what Paladins can do, even if Smite isn't necessarily my favorite of their 3.xe class features, and I don't think that I love all of the particular instances.
21. BLEEDING ABILITY- Mildly Good. It depends on what they use it for.
22. PARAGON PATHS and EPIC DESTINIES- Undecided; as I mention above, I'll have to see how they're implemented. I hope that it's harder to abuse than prestige classes.
23. DIFFERENT CLASSES - Undecided. If, as it sounds, they are making the classes more flexible, and more balanced in relation to each other, then this is (overall) good. I will miss several of the classes (Druid and Monk in particular).
Sneak attack
Seriously, another option (other than make immunity to sneak attacks rare or non-existent) would be to re-make the rogue so that such a PC can have other useful things to do in most combats other than sneak attack (without carefully designing one's PC to be able to do so).
Leugren said:
Seriously, another option (other than make immunity to sneak attacks rare or non-existent) would be to re-make the rogue so that such a PC can have other useful things to do in most combats other than sneak attack (without carefully designing one's PC to be able to do so).
