cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I am disappointed in Mike. I do not see the virtue in continuing to re-spark the flames of the edition war every 3-6 months like this. What's the end game here?
He was asked a question and he answered. Simple as that.
I am disappointed in Mike. I do not see the virtue in continuing to re-spark the flames of the edition war every 3-6 months like this. What's the end game here?
Just say no was the order of the day for 9th level side kick martial types in 1e land.
DMs without guidance are not bad DMs they are just poor at estimating game balance on the fly and allowing martials to do awesome improv is exactly about that.
I really don't see much evidence in the history of RPGs that this way of approaching it provides dynamic and capable "martial" characters.
This applies to everything from the stuff [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] is talking about, to exactly how many orcs my Conan-esque fighter can slay per game-unit-of-action, to the need in AD&D for my fighter to PC to get a girdle of giant strength if s/he is going to emulate a comic book hero like Power Man or even Captain America.
Every RPG ever has to deal with actions not covered by the rules. And in the absence of rules, DMs arbitrate based on acceptable realism. Typically cinematic. The "does this feel real?" test. Asking "would seeing a character do this in a movie break my immersion or seem implausible?" If someone asks if their character can do something, it's DMing 101 to think "is this physically possible?"
Especially (b), ie the fact that spellcasting in D&D almost never requires a successful check.Seems to me, a/b/c do a lot of work.
Early on during the 5e/D&D Next design period, Mearls had an interesting blog about classic D&D fighters as "easy mode" and classic D&D MUs as "hard mode".In "player-facing" systems, players who play martial characters KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) their conception of their martial character's thematic portfolio will coherently port from their mind to actual play and (b) they can reliably depend upon being able to change the gamestate and attendant fiction through that archetype manifestation as a result.
This is constantly underplayed by detractors of this approach, but it is definitely a thing for both long term players of martial characters who have been denied this in GM-mediated play (or at least rendered less secure) and in new players who look at their player counterparts who choose spellcasters and merely by din of doing so KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) and (b) will be realized because of the nature of D&D's supernatural-effect-by-fiat (I cast x spell vs some form of possible misadventure to spellcast because dice are rolled) inherent to spellcasting PCs.
Especially (b), ie the fact that spellcasting in D&D almost never requires a successful check.
Especially (b), ie the fact that spellcasting in D&D almost never requires a successful check.
Think about what, supposedly, the fiction of D&D spellcasting involves - precise hand gestures, speaking complex arcane syllables of such power and profundity that only a few of them can be impressed into a human brain at any one time (ie Vancian spell memorisation/preparation), pulling various material components out of pouches etc - not to mention the actual channelling and deployment of the arcane forces conjured up by the performance of these various acts. Then reflect on the fact that, per the game rules, this is never mucked up!
I am disappointed in Mike. I do not see the virtue in continuing to re-spark the flames of the edition war every 3-6 months like this. What's the end game here?
That's something I wouldn't have liked (and hated about the Essential classes). Imho, it was one of the greatest achievements of 4e to make all classes equally complex by using the same mechanical framework.I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules, and more thematic ties between power types.
At least he's acknowledging that!Yeah, it’s brilliant at what it focused on. Best take on D&D combat across all editions.
That's an interesting take. I would have liked to see how that might have worked. I never quite understood why there had to be zero overlap between the powers used by the different classes.I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them.
A simple spellcasting system that hooks into the basic action resolution system (roll Arcana vs DC, Success With/Cost or Complication or Fail Forward) would do wonders for parity (particularly noncombat action resolution) in a system like 5e.
Just two things.
1) What do you mean by non-combat action? I seem to be misunderstanding as arcana checks already exist within the 5e game unless you're only referring to success w/cost, fail forward ...etc
2) I would prefer Arcana vs DC in combat, you would have to be careful how this integrated with saving throws (if at all).