Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Psion]

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.

I'll keep my own counsel on what I am supposed to be doing. It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.

And again, if you can think back a few posts, I disagree with the notion that there is no substance in differing refresh rates between different character types. It's going to take an argument more convincing than "nuh uh" to change my mind on that score.

Keep trying though. Maybe you'll come up with another 20 ways to say "nuh uh" that still won't matter more than the observations I make in actual play.

 

[Razz]

For the maneuvers I worked on, I was consciously trying to stay away from energy effects as much as possible because I wanted martial maneuvers to be more martial and less overtly magical than a wizard's spells. Fire might have snuck in there somehow, but again, beyond what I initially worked on, I can't say what the developers thought about this.

The problem is many people are associating Bo9S with stuff like "Street Fighter", "Fatal Fury" and other fighting games and I say this is definitely a really good route to take. But with the tons of fire maneuvers, it only makes sense to have the other energy descriptors.

Especially Sonic and Electricity. Think of a maneuver where you strike so fast you produce electric shock into your opponent or you use a maneuver where you speed by an opponent so fast that you emulate lightning, bursting through your opponent and damaging them (something like you deal electricity damage when you successfully Tumble through an opponent). Sonic damage also makes sense: swinging your blade (or your arms, like Guile from Street Fighter) with precision and speed to produce a sonic boom that flies into your opponent or creating a burst of sound from a kiai shout followed by a sweep of your weapon. I can think of a million others, but it's obvious that maneuvers like this are cooler...

...and we are going for a "cool factor" with Bo9S, correct?

 

[hong]

I'll keep my own counsel on what I am supposed to be doing.

No, no, you are posting your counsel on a messageboard. Therefore, I will feel free to give you my own counsel on what you are supposed to be doing.

And again, if you can think back a few posts, I disagree with the notion that there is no substance in differing refresh rates between different character types. It's going to take an argument more convincing than "nuh uh" to change my mind on that score.

Of course there is substance, in the sense of having a tangible impact on gameplay. However it's a negative substance, in that the downsides outweigh the upsides. It's also entirely different to substance in the sense of emulating genre conventions from anywhere outside D&D-derived material. Which, if you'll notice, is the sense in which I was using the word.

Keep trying though. Maybe you'll come up with another 20 ways to say "nuh uh" that still won't matter more than the observations I make in actual play.

But I'll sure have fun saying it.

 

[Thurbane]

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

*RME* Nope. We had a long break in gaming, we only resumed about a year ago, some of the group less than that.

 

[hong]

It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.

... you mean, like per-encounter balancing is supported by Bo9S?

 

[Nifft]

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.

You did get that by "with both" he means Tome of Battle and PHB-II, right? They're both doing basically the same thing, just in different ways.

So why the gnash?

-- N

 

[hong]

You did get that by "with both" he means Tome of Battle and PHB-II, right? They're both doing basically the same thing, just in different ways.

So why the gnash?

-- N

Psion finds it very difficult to let go of the 1E/2Eism that wizards are broken.

 

[Nifft]

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.

Have you seen these new [Reserve] feats? Now everyone has something cool to do every round, even if they're not opening a can of Wizard Nova (tm) first thing in the morning.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Andor]

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.

I'm not clear what your point is. Do you dislike per-encounter deisign, or role bluring? The fighter is and has always been the ultimate encounter balanced character. From the second he wakes up, till the adventure is over, is abilities are the same in every round. The Rogue is in the same boat, pretty much every other (core) class has some expendable reasources that wear down throughout the day, usually spells, but also Turn attempts, Wildshapes, and other use per day abilities.

So D&D has always had a continuum of endurance from Wizards to Fighters.

Role-wise, it depends on what you're viewing roles as. Pretty much everyone in a party is expected to be able to kill things. There are differences in technique and tactics, but if you're not racking up the tombstones, you're usually not seen as pulling your weight in the party. So let us ignore lethality for a moment.

What other roles do we have in D&D (generically speaking?)

Face Man - Mostly the role of skill monkies, at higher levels spells start to take over. None of the new classes really shine here, although Binders can hold their own.

Lore Master - Useful but undervalued because you can almost alwayd find an NPC to do it. Skill based, untill high-level divinations.

Transporter - Again skill based untill spells take over. Flight becomes pretty critical at higher levels, so almost everone can do it eventually through items or pets.

Healer - Cleric is the lord of healing. Several classes can help but no one can match them.

Special Monster Hunter - Dealing with monsters with funky abilites like incorporeality and possesion. Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, anybody with the right magic items.

Huh. My brain fails me at coming up with other roles. So back to combat we go.

Here we have:

Single target specialist - Role of the big melee guys, Fighter, Barbarian, maybe rogue if it's susceptible and can be flanked. Later superceded/supplanted by save or die spells.

Weenie Hoarde slaying - Spells rule here, Fighter types can cleave pretty well if built to do it.

Meat Shield - HP and AC defined. Usually the role of Fighters and Barbarians, clerics can tank well if built for it. Summons can stand in at higher levels.

Mobility guy - Runs around the battle field and annoys mages and flankers. Mostly a monk role, but again, at higher levels summons can do it.

Hmmm... As I see it, The 9 swords classes don't really hog any of these roles, at best they can fill in a bit for mages once they have run out of spells. Is it a bad thing that the party is less crippled when the big guys run out of spells? Some people seem to think so, I always found the adventuring mode of "Well, we've been at this for 10 minuetes, but we're out of spells so I guess it's time to retreat again." to be pretty damm annoying.

 

[Psion]

You did get that by "with both" he means Tome of Battle and PHB-II, right? They're both doing basically the same thing, just in different ways.

So why the gnash?

So far as there may be a problem, I believe PHBII corrects it in the right way, whereas Bo9S corrects in a poor/detrimental way with the additional drawback of countering the good that PHBII fighter feats did.

IME, the fighter keeps up pretty well with overall game contribution... perhaps too well, given (as I previously explained) that I typically have to compensate in favor of wizards. So for starters, I disagree with the overall premise.

But I do agree that the fighter's feat selection becomes less appealing towards the top end. Thus for the problem I do see, PHBII addresses it well.