Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Psion]

I am, however, convinced that that the style of mechanics in Book of 9 Swords ARE poised to "take over" D&D, because wotC's design and development staff has been experimenting a LOT with the mechanics of late. You're likely to see MORE of the stuff as "per-encounter" rather than less of it.

That notion, more than anything else, is what I view as the biggest problem with the book.

One (IMO weak) argument that has been advanced for elevating the power level of melee types in Bo9S is that it finally gives them something "neat" to do. Okay. Wizards can do a few nifty things, agreed. But they can't do them continually.

This is what I view as role-balancing. Making everyone feel important by giving them different circumstances in which to shine. If you make everyone balanced per-encounter, you remove one axis of different situations to let them shine. The game becomes that much closer to all PCs being essentially the same under the hood, with different window dressing.

If that's what you came to the table for, then fine, Bo9S is the book for you. I can happily not use it.

But if you institute these changes to the base of the game, then you have damaged the playability of the game AFAIAC, and it becomes more difficult for me to avoid.

All I can say, Henry, is that I hope you are totally and completely wrong, that like so many other mechanical variations the game has seen in the past, most of the changes get forgotten, and the fundamental strengths of the game are preserved.

I fear otherwise.

 

[Thurbane]

The problem for me with Bo9S and MoI was that most of my group have only just come to grips with the 3.5 ruleset (having come from a 1E/2E background). Introducing books that have whole new mechanics and rulesets (manouvres & stances, Essentia) just does not fit in with our game. They also didn't sit too well flavorwise. For those same reasons, I have no plans to include Psionics.

I have found things like PHBII, Miniatures Handbook, Tome of Battle and Tome of Horror to be much more useful for our games. YMMV.

 

[Psion]

But yes, basically, a huge goal with both for me was to get fighters back on par with other classes when it came to high-level combat.

As far as I have ever seen, there is nothing weak about the continual damage stream producing double-damage power attack fighters in the environment of "high-SR but totally vulnerable to melee after the 3.5 nerfing of DR" creatures that wasn't addressed by the high level feats in the PHBII.

 

[hong]

That notion, more than anything else, is what I view as the biggest problem with the book.

No. It is the second biggest strong point of the book, after the shifting of emphasis to personal-level combat tactics.

This is what I view as role-balancing. Making everyone feel important by giving them different circumstances in which to shine. If you make everyone balanced per-encounter, you remove one axis of different situations to let them shine. The game becomes that much closer to all PCs being essentially the same under the hood, with different window dressing.

In D&D there are 1e6 different axes for situations to vary from each other. Removing one isn't going to make things crash and burn. Even in Iron Heroes there are far fewer ways in which situations can vary, and nobody ever complained that IH characters were all the same.

If that's what you came to the table for, then fine, Bo9S is the book for you. I can happily not use it.

Oh well.

But if you institute these changes to the base of the game, then you have damaged the playability of the game AFAIAC, and it becomes more difficult for me to avoid.

No. You have improved the playability of the game, because no longer is it beholden to the vagaries of different classes having different schedules to keep to.

All I can say, Henry, is that I hope you are totally and completely wrong, that like so many other mechanical variations the game has seen in the past, most of the changes get forgotten, and the fundamental strengths of the game are preserved.

I fear otherwise.

Oh well.

 

[hong]

The problem for me with Bo9S and MoI was that most of my group have only just come to grips with the 3.5 ruleset (having come from a 1E/2E background).

It took you seven years to come to grips with 3.5?

 

[hong]

As far as I have ever seen, there is nothing weak about the continual damage stream producing double-damage power attack fighters in the environment of "high-SR but totally vulnerable to melee after the 3.5 nerfing of DR" creatures that wasn't addressed by the high level feats in the PHBII.

Contrary to popular belief, not everybody uses wacky monsters exclusively as high-level opponents.

 

[Psion]

Contrary to popular belief, not everybody uses wacky monsters exclusively as high-level opponents.

Nay, nay. These aren't wacky monsters. These are pretty much the norm, both in terms of appearance in new monster books and utilization in adventures.

Indeed, I find that in order to keep from pissing off the mage players and give them a chance to shine in combat over the melee combat monsters, I have to go out of my way to make openings for the mages and play up the weaknesses of melee types.

 

[hong]

Nay, nay. These aren't wacky monsters.

Yes, yes. They are wacky monsters.

These are pretty much the norm, both in terms of appearance in new monster books and utilization in adventures.

No, it may be a D&Dism to use lots of wacky monsters, but that doesn't make it any less of a D&Dism. Just like resting for 8 hours once you're out of spells for the day.

Indeed, I find that in order to keep from pissing off the mage players and give them a chance to shine in combat over the melee combat monsters, I have to go out of my way to make openings for the mages and play up the weaknesses of melee types.

Whereas I have to go out of my way to use wacky monsters with SR instead of just using normal (evil) people as villains. Like everyone else does who doesn't view things through the lens of D&D.

 

[Psion]

(Chronologically altered for juxtaposition...)

Yes, yes. They are wacky monsters.
(...)
Like everyone else does who doesn't view things through the lens of D&D.

So, we are talking about D&D and I'm not supposed to be defining things in terms of D&D?

No, it may be a D&Dism to use lots of wacky monsters, but that doesn't make it any less of a D&Dism. Just like resting for 8 hours once you're out of spells for the day.

Well, if giving different character types capabilities that are different beyond their names and cosmetic effects is a D&Dism, I'll stick with the D&Dism. kthxbye.

 

[hong]

(Chronologically altered for juxtaposition...)



So, we are talking about D&D and I'm not supposed to be defining things in terms of D&D?

Exactly. You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate, rather than mistaking idiosyncrasies of the ruleset for things of substance. Else we'd still be using THAC0.

Well, if giving different character types capabilities that are different beyond their names and cosmetic effects is a D&Dism, I'll stick with the D&Dism. kthxbye.

D00d, everything is a cosmetic effect. In the end it's all random scratches on character sheets.