Developer Talk = Gospel?

[Staffan]

Wait... there really is an ignore function? I always thought people were just speaking metaphorically!

Quick, tell me where to find it! (I am totally not kidding here.)

See the attached file.

 

[cangrejoide]

I am in absolute disagreement with this statement (and this, perhaps, is one of my underlying issues with 4e). Five out of six characters in my current D&D group have pets. In the last group, six out of seven characters had pets. I love pets. In almost every game I play, I want to have a familiar or an animal companion or somesuch. To me, removing such things is a huge turn-off to the system.

I'm also okay with wizards being more powerful than other characters. Not to the extent that they were in 3e, but more powerful nonetheless. I know that many people will disagree with this sentiment, but I'm fine with the guy who studies magic to be able to do more than the guy who swings a sword. The magic guy's early life is a lot harder than the sword-swinger's, but his long, hard road pays off when he can do all sorts of crazy things.

I love pets, but I hate pets when they become more effective than half of the party. Or abused to make some sort of exploited combo. The way I see it Pets in 4E will be akin to feats, used for roleplaying and just granting minor bonuses to the characters.

The Wizard Uber alles syndrome is not good for RPG ( Unless the RPG focused on this), when you have a group that wants to play different characters it just sucks that the Wizard can do everything your character can and better. In many fanatasy novels/settings you see wizards hiring a warrior to deal with a problem or a hiring a thief to steal something, as it stands in older versions of D&D the only reason for a wizard to hire someone else was because he was lazy.

If Wizard Uber Alles is the way you want your wizard to 'feel' like, I suggest you try out other RPGS, ARS Magica for example ( and even in this game wizards hire other people to do stuff, go figure).

PCs are as "cool" as their creators make them. Combat efficacy does not a character make.

This is true if you were gonna write a novel, but in a game like D&D ( all editions) if you were to make a noncombat character you would start to feel left out or bored early on the game. And like it has been said before combat prowess does not determine how cool your character would be, that fals down into Roleplaying territory.

 

[Nifft]

I really find it odd when someone says Wizards, Druids, and Clerics deserve to be more powerful, as if the abstract idea of studying or praying a lot is somehow inherently more worthy of mechanical reward than the abstract idea of honing your physical skills.

Some people who play D&D feel better about their mental abilities than their physical skills.

Cheers, -- N

 

[generalhenry]

some people who play d&d feel better about their mental abilities than their physical skills.

lol

 

[On Puget Sound]

No matter how cool your not-very-capable but awesomely fun character concept is...

In every session, one or more other players' equally cool and important (to them) characters will end up bleeeding their lives out on the dungeon floor, while the remaining team works frantically to save the situation. At that point, the fact that you were raised by a circus troupe of gypsy vampires, have a phobia about rodents, and make up a song about every foe you kill suddenly seems unimportant. The team needs you to DO SOMETHING NOW, and if you aren't at least close to as capable as your teammates (and their foes), you're going to be resented.

Others will have less fun because of your choices, even if you are oblivious to their distress and having the time of your life.

The above is true for most gaming groups; obviously there are groups where combat rarely or never happens, but those are far enough outside the norm that most of these forums would not apply; those DMs are charting their own unique courses.

 

[SkidAce]

Another aspect of the issue...why does my fighter have to have as many actions as everyone else? That "feels" artificial at the onset. I have fun with bards (singing ecouragement while the druids wolves attack..etc) fighters (rallying all the henchman) etc.

I dont want 100 skeletons either as the owner or waiting for my turn, but I don't need artificiality either, if the lord fighter brought a henchman, I help with the rolls and positioning. Plenty to do.

It's a team game, played with friends. If the druidish princess gets extra actions...I dont feel cheated.
p.s. of course, anything can be taken to extreme, followers summoning summoners summoning minions could get out of hand, but I dont need artificial rules limitations to fix it, my friends and I will work it out.

 

[sidonunspa]

Death to pets.
Death to uber casters.

Long live equity.

But the quest for "equality" is the start of a slippery slope.

At some point you may sit down with a player that makes the
other players feel like they dont know how to play the game.

Hell I know I've done it more then once.

Before you know it all classes will be the same and deal the
same damage per round.

Creativity is commonly sacrificed in the name of "equaity"

 

[Keenath]

I remember a game I dungeon mastered where one of my players was a conjurer/summoner, and managed to get something like 7 elementals into the fight before the end. His final turn took him like 10 minutes to complete.

Oh, that's not even that bad. I had a druid drop that Elemental Swarm on my game before a big battle, and he rolled well. It took something like twenty minutes per turn. We eventually got him to dismiss all the little ones that weren't worth anything anyway, but... ugh.

I love pets, but I hate pets when they become more effective than half of the party.

Yeah, I'm with you. I love animal companions, familiars, etc. I just want them to WORK.

 

[Keenath]

Another aspect of the issue...why does my fighter have to have as many actions as everyone else? That "feels" artificial at the onset. I have fun with bards (singing ecouragement while the druids wolves attack..etc) fighters (rallying all the henchman) etc.
...
It's a team game, played with friends. If the druidish princess gets extra actions...I dont feel cheated.

It's not a question of feeling cheated for getting less actions. That would be an interpersonal issue. This is a game balance issue -- More actions is an inherent power increase. Or else the minions are unable to compete with the PCs, and then why are you bothering with them? Striking a balance between the two would be virtually impossible.

Edit: Let me quote from the original blog post by WotC_Rodney:

If you and your follower can each [attack] in the same round, you've effectively granted yourself a whole extra standard action, an incredibly valuable commodity in the economy of actions of a d20 game. Some games have attempted to address this by making the follower less effective, but that's kind of bogus; it's pretty boring, for one and it's got a psychological effect that devalues the follower ("Well, I've got this follower, but he can't shoot the broad side of a barn, so he can just carry my stuff for me"). A follower should have value and be an asset, but the mistake that I think has been made in the past is making the value of the follower unbalance the economy of actions and try and scale it back in other ways. If we do followers, I want to do them in a way that makes them fun to use, effective, and avoids tinkering with the action resources given to the heroes.

 

[Harr]

Hm, regardless of people's individual opinion of Psychic Robot either way.. you DO have to give him credit for predicting the exact derailment this thread was going to suffer. It's almost eerie. Kudos.