Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2318009" data-attributes="member: 32164">I think you missed my exact claim, rather snipping it at &quot;getting better&quot; and chose to point out that C&amp;C characters have a numerical progression to their abilities (something I've never been in denial about). However, that isn't precisely what I meant by &quot;get better&quot; at things. I admit I should've been more precise. Let me give an example.In C&amp;C or D&amp;D, you can choose to fight with two weapons. However, given the damage potential of one-handed and light weapons, and the hit penalties for doing so, no rational character would use this style given the standard penalties. So you have effectively eliminate a stylistic combat option. It's simply &quot;better&quot; to either fight with a 2-handed weapon or to wield a one-handed weapon and carry a shield for its defensive bonus. And the key is this: in C&amp;C no option exists for making two-weapon fighting mechanically viable. Period, full stop.The &quot;immersion&quot; option is to say &quot;carry two weapons, and only attack with one each round.&quot; Or accept the penalties for trying to attack with both. However, both of these options are simply &quot;poorer&quot; than the two-handed weapon or weapon-and-shield styles. That may be enough for some, but it belies the simple fact that it is POSSIBLE to gain a measurable advantage &quot;in combat&quot; by learning to wield two weapons. You can't learn to do that in C&amp;C. There are plenty of other examples, like weapon finesse (for dex fighters) or arranging things so that an arrow remains a dangerous attack at higher levels (8 hit points of damage is really useful at 10th level?).On this, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The system is balanced such that even with feats, spellcasters rule the game at higher levels. Take feats out and you've removed the only power up that the non-spellcasting classes get. Are you actually going to argue that a 12th level fighter without any feats is as much fun to play as a 12th level mage? Like I said, I consider making choices part of the fun of D&amp;D. Without tactical options/decisions, a great deal of that fun is lost.And I know for a fact that wizards are your preferred character class as a player. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So all modifiers in C&amp;C will stack? Or are you just saying C&amp;C will never go beyond &quot;Advantageous = +2 to +6&quot; and &quot;Disadvantageous = -2 to -6&quot;? If it's the second, that's all well and good, but that could be hand-waved in D&amp;D too.I certainly hope C&amp;C never allows all magical bonuses to stack. That way lies the Monty Haul madness of AD&amp;D. Of course, in games with very few magic items, that's less of a problem.Simplifying 3e is easy: You can take out feats and use the &quot;generic&quot; skill system. Let characters choose a couple (or 3) &quot;Prime attributes&quot; if you insist. Does this really break the game? Lots of people would scream &quot;NOOOO you can't!!&quot; But if 3e isn't balanced when you do this, why is C&amp;C? The classes are better balanced by their different xp progressions? That's nebulously true at best...The only classes that aren't penalized in the transition to C&amp;C are wizards, who lose basically NOTHING. But if wizards are balanced with the other classes in D&amp;D (and even that's up for debate), how are they still balanced when they lose nearly nothing and the other classes lose so much?Sorry, I just don't buy it. C&amp;C's still entertaining, but I just can't see it as some brilliant innovation of &quot;plug and play&quot; game design.Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just to elaborate, that whole post was because I found your whole &quot;tactical&quot; vs. &quot;immersive&quot; player comparison to reek of the old elitist &quot;roleplaying&quot; vs. &quot;rollplaying&quot; argument. Hence my attempt to reframe it somewhat differently, since I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you intended it.It's been an interesting discussion though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 2318009, member: 32164"] I think you missed my exact claim, rather snipping it at "getting better" and chose to point out that C&C characters have a numerical progression to their abilities (something I've never been in denial about). However, that isn't precisely what I meant by "get better" at things. I admit I should've been more precise. Let me give an example. In C&C or D&D, you can choose to fight with two weapons. However, given the damage potential of one-handed and light weapons, and the hit penalties for doing so, no rational character would use this style given the standard penalties. So you have effectively eliminate a stylistic combat option. It's simply "better" to either fight with a 2-handed weapon or to wield a one-handed weapon and carry a shield for its defensive bonus. And the key is this: in C&C [i]no option exists for making two-weapon fighting mechanically viable.[/i] Period, full stop. The "immersion" option is to say "carry two weapons, and only attack with one each round." Or accept the penalties for trying to attack with both. However, both of these options are simply "poorer" than the two-handed weapon or weapon-and-shield styles. That may be enough for some, but it belies the simple fact that it is POSSIBLE to gain a measurable advantage "in combat" by learning to wield two weapons. You can't learn to do that in C&C. There are plenty of other examples, like weapon finesse (for dex fighters) or arranging things so that an arrow remains a dangerous attack at higher levels (8 hit points of damage is really useful at 10th level?). On this, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. The system is balanced such that even with feats, spellcasters rule the game at higher levels. Take feats out and you've removed the only power up that the non-spellcasting classes get. Are you actually going to argue that a 12th level fighter without any feats is as much fun to play as a 12th level mage? Like I said, I consider making choices part of the fun of D&D. Without tactical options/decisions, a great deal of that fun is lost. And I know for a fact that wizards are your preferred character class [i]as a player[/i]. ;) So all modifiers in C&C will stack? Or are you just saying C&C will never go beyond "Advantageous = +2 to +6" and "Disadvantageous = -2 to -6"? If it's the second, that's all well and good, but that could be hand-waved in D&D too. I certainly hope C&C never allows all magical bonuses to stack. That way lies the Monty Haul madness of AD&D. Of course, in games with very few magic items, that's less of a problem. Simplifying 3e is easy: You can take out feats and use the "generic" skill system. Let characters choose a couple (or 3) "Prime attributes" if you insist. Does this really break the game? Lots of people would scream "NOOOO you can't!!" But if 3e isn't balanced when you do this, why is C&C? The classes are better balanced by their different xp progressions? That's nebulously true at best... The only classes that aren't penalized in the transition to C&C are wizards, who lose basically NOTHING. But if wizards are balanced with the other classes in D&D (and even that's up for debate), how are they still balanced when they lose nearly nothing and the other classes lose so much? Sorry, I just don't buy it. C&C's still entertaining, but I just can't see it as some brilliant innovation of "plug and play" game design. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just to elaborate, that whole post was because I found your whole "tactical" vs. "immersive" player comparison to reek of the old elitist "roleplaying" vs. "rollplaying" argument. Hence my attempt to reframe it somewhat differently, since I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you intended it. It's been an interesting discussion though. [/QUOTE]

Verification