Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
With a Fane. You know with Monte there's just got to be a Fane somewhere.
Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012
- Thread starter Phaezen
- Start date
With a Fane. You know with Monte there's just got to be a Fane somewhere.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
But that was always the choice in older editions:
be a fighter and be mediocre all the day, or be a cleric and be great in one encounter per day.
4e originally had the "elegantly balanced" approach: every class is equally useful at each encounter.
4e Essentials+core allows fighters that are equally good over the course of a day, and about equally good in each encounter... just play a knight and a normal fighter in a game of 4e and you see how good it works.
And it is not just extra work. You can build a fighter that has some cool tricks in his sleeve and can do things the other one can only dream of. But you also have to work more during the game to make most out of your abilities.
Good thing: your more/less efficiency delta is only about 20%... which is no problem in the actual game.
The most basic fighter, seems well enough. The only thing you need to run it are few lines of text, and guidelines like those on page 42 in 4e.
It only does not work that easily in 4e to incorporate this page, because of the "elegant balance"... You are drawn into this isolated combat, because everything works so well together and you don´t need to improvise. Also it is difficult to allow cools stunts as a DM, because you must be careful not to make those stunts better as powers.
I think [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] is right on the mark with respect to complexity of character builds.
More interesting will be to see how they handle things that can't be left to individual players (they can to groups, though). How healing works is one big part of it, as are magic items.
More interesting will be to see how they handle things that can't be left to individual players (they can to groups, though). How healing works is one big part of it, as are magic items.
But in :Next levels, the that /4e rogue is 5th level and the /3e rouge is second level. Which one do you pick now?
For OD&D you start at first level (or even 0th level - see DCC), for /4e you start as an accomplished hero at 4th level. They are both rogues described by one set of rules but there are various variables you can use to calibrate them.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
No, they were definitely excellent idea. I am not sure how good they really work as part of the "core" of a D&D that is to appeal to old-schoolers.
I think the name "healing surge" was wrong, just as the name "hit point" was wrong since OD&D. But since I don't expect the latter to change, I don't know about the chances for the former.
I agree with this. Baked in complexity isn't simplicity.
I imagine something more like.
- You have the Storyteller fighter. You roll d20+N to hit. If you roll 19 or 20 it's a critical hit; you can tell me the special effect that has happened and I'll implement it.
- You have the Designed fighter. You have the options you selected to be good at during character design: the special attack(s) of trip (and/or disarm and/or smash and/or impale). You can choose these as you want. There's about a 1/10 chance of successfully achieving a special attack.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
That's the problem. There's a spectrum. Balance or "realism". Pick one, you can't have both. If you allow the only healing to come from "logical" places like Cleric spells and potions, then you need to be prepared for the group without a Cleric to carry around hundreds of potions or to die because they can't heal themselves when a group that has a cleric will survive without a scratch on them.
Plus, you are thinking of them the wrong way. I like to think that each person's soul has so much "energy" in it that restores itself with rest and that cleric healing simply reaches into your soul and siphons off some of that energy to heal them. The person can only be healed as long as their soul still has enough energy left.
malkav666
First Post
My only real concerns are twofold:
1. As a DM of this unity edition am I going to have a harder time with rules adjudication if all of my players are essentially using very different character options.
I mean will the options really try and give the feel of many editions (which seems like it would make it more difficult to referee) or will it mimic one flavor of the game and attempt to paint the other playstyles within that ruleset (which is what I personally think they will try and do). And if the second is true what wil the framework look like. I know that personally I would be less interested in a 5e with a 4e framework that had 3e flavored "powers" and arbitrary bonus inflation. Just as I am feel that many 4e players would not be interested in a 3e framework with feats that could be optimized to give you a few ADEU benefits. But I could be wrong.
And the idea of running a game where both are being used simultaneously seems at first glance like it would be a headache to run, and more difficult to gague what types of challenges the group could take on, or manage resources for the group. But these are just concerns. I await eagerly to how they will handle it.
2. My second concern is on varying playstyles at the same table. To me it seems like some of the barriers between fans of different editions seem to strongly orbit around playstyle. If you have players who think that wuxia, space flying, half-hamster, teleporting, shard minds are silly. Will they be cool with playing at a game with one at the table, even if they get to play their fighting man?
As a DM I can see having a harder time with group inclusion due to the fact that a good bit of the edition divides are on playstlye. I mean 4e is a very tactical miniatures based combat game, most of the old editions can resolve combats orally with maybe a a stray piece of notebook paper to convey strange terrain. How do you reconcile those playstyles at the same table and give both players what they want? How would a 4e cleric heal a character who does not have healing surges? Would those players even want to be at the same table? They all seem to be seeking different things from the game, and as the DM that can be a tough nut to crack.
I don't know the idea seems very alien to me. I am trying really hard to keep an open mind about it though. I think in the end though, I have a suspicion that what we will be presented with is the illusion of choice. A lot of the core elements of gameplay must have balance, and to do that there has to be an underlying system of governance. As a DM I don't think it will be easy to deal with multiple frameworks, and as a fan I am not sure I would like playstyle defining elements of an iteration of the game I love shoehorned into a framework that doesn't suit them. But the good folks at WOTC design games for a living, I do not. Maybe they can make it work. In fact I hope they can.
love,
malkav
1. As a DM of this unity edition am I going to have a harder time with rules adjudication if all of my players are essentially using very different character options.
I mean will the options really try and give the feel of many editions (which seems like it would make it more difficult to referee) or will it mimic one flavor of the game and attempt to paint the other playstyles within that ruleset (which is what I personally think they will try and do). And if the second is true what wil the framework look like. I know that personally I would be less interested in a 5e with a 4e framework that had 3e flavored "powers" and arbitrary bonus inflation. Just as I am feel that many 4e players would not be interested in a 3e framework with feats that could be optimized to give you a few ADEU benefits. But I could be wrong.
And the idea of running a game where both are being used simultaneously seems at first glance like it would be a headache to run, and more difficult to gague what types of challenges the group could take on, or manage resources for the group. But these are just concerns. I await eagerly to how they will handle it.
2. My second concern is on varying playstyles at the same table. To me it seems like some of the barriers between fans of different editions seem to strongly orbit around playstyle. If you have players who think that wuxia, space flying, half-hamster, teleporting, shard minds are silly. Will they be cool with playing at a game with one at the table, even if they get to play their fighting man?
As a DM I can see having a harder time with group inclusion due to the fact that a good bit of the edition divides are on playstlye. I mean 4e is a very tactical miniatures based combat game, most of the old editions can resolve combats orally with maybe a a stray piece of notebook paper to convey strange terrain. How do you reconcile those playstyles at the same table and give both players what they want? How would a 4e cleric heal a character who does not have healing surges? Would those players even want to be at the same table? They all seem to be seeking different things from the game, and as the DM that can be a tough nut to crack.
I don't know the idea seems very alien to me. I am trying really hard to keep an open mind about it though. I think in the end though, I have a suspicion that what we will be presented with is the illusion of choice. A lot of the core elements of gameplay must have balance, and to do that there has to be an underlying system of governance. As a DM I don't think it will be easy to deal with multiple frameworks, and as a fan I am not sure I would like playstyle defining elements of an iteration of the game I love shoehorned into a framework that doesn't suit them. But the good folks at WOTC design games for a living, I do not. Maybe they can make it work. In fact I hope they can.
love,
malkav
Phaezen
Adventurer
Diving back through the Legends & Lore Articles, we find this:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Head of the Class)
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Head of the Class)
Similar Threads
