Legends and Lore - Live Together, Die Alone

161 posts / 0 new
Last post
Legends and Lore
Live Together, Die Alone

by Monte Cook

When Gary Gygax passed away, the officiate at the funeral service said—and I'm paraphrasing now, because it's been a few years—that it says a lot about a man who is best known for creating a game where the players worked together toward a common goal rather than against each other to get some prize. There's truth in that.

Talk about this column here.

ok, there is good and bad here.


 first I agree there is room in the game for class or builds that are only buff or mostly buff, as long as we also have leaders that focus on both buff and attack.


I would be rather upset if my warlord HAD to be a lazy lord, but I would not mind if there was a more user friendly lazy lords...     

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Helping is good, lazylords are good, yes there could be more of them.  Just not neccesarily less of the more proactive buffers who also hurt while they heal or buff. 4th ed is the first edition I decided to play a cleric, largely because of the fact that they were not just huge heal batteries or helpers, but could also contribute meaningfully to battle.  The leader role is great though, and themes (as in character themes from Dark Sun and the Dragon articles) with it as a core would not go amiss.

That said, trying to go back to the "way it used to be" is not such a hot idea.  At least, not as the only option. 
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
ok, there is good and bad here.


 first I agree there is room in the game for class or builds that are only buff or mostly buff, as long as we also have leaders that focus on both buff and attack.


I would be rather upset if my warlord HAD to be a lazy lord, but I would not mind if there was a more user friendly lazy lords...     



Given that Monte points out that wanting to be the Striker is also a valid playstyle, i think all the points in between are also being considered.  ;)

healing as a minor action?  yay!
healing as a standard action?  boo!
healing as part of a standard action?  yay!
the existence of more than one leader class?  priceless 
ok, there is good and bad here.


 first I agree there is room in the game for class or builds that are only buff or mostly buff, as long as we also have leaders that focus on both buff and attack.


I would be rather upset if my warlord HAD to be a lazy lord, but I would not mind if there was a more user friendly lazy lords...     



Given that Monte points out that wanting to be the Striker is also a valid playstyle, i think all the points in between are also being considered.  ;)





In thaat case you like Mr Cook missed my point.


If I want to be a striker, I will be a striker, but I want my LEADER to have the option. I want a warlord build that is a battle captian on the front line. I could live with not having any mele options for cleric, and have ther option be spellcaster/buffer or buff bot. I just dont want all leaders in that option.     

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

healing as a minor action?  yay!
healing as a standard action?  boo!
healing as part of a standard action?  yay!
the existence of more than one leader class?  priceless 




+1000    

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I think that this week it was a really thought provoking article.

One thing that I liked was the way Monte recognises that there are different types of players then the DPS strikers and, I feel an area that 4e particularly excels at, wants to expand on the base that we have - to give every class a chance to contribute.

Some good stuff there.

Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
ok, there is good and bad here.


 first I agree there is room in the game for class or builds that are only buff or mostly buff, as long as we also have leaders that focus on both buff and attack.


I would be rather upset if my warlord HAD to be a lazy lord, but I would not mind if there was a more user friendly lazy lords...     



+1

I'm perfectly fine with both styles existing, as long as both exist.
Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.



I know I was in the 12.x% that voted otherwise. I normally don't mind being in a minority but that concerns me a lot.
Im kinda in both. They are part of a character's build, but are still "rewarded" by the DM. I voted for the build though, knowing what they meant by it.
Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.



I know I was in the 12.x% that voted otherwise. I normally don't mind being in a minority but that concerns me a lot.



Concerns me a bit too, at least having a guess at what they were aiming for with the poll.

I do notice, however, that a fair amount of hate is heaped on scaling bonuses on weapons being the part of assumed math, even when inherent bonuses showed up to be an alternative to them.  Perhaps that's what we're seeing.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.



I know I was in the 12.x% that voted otherwise. I normally don't mind being in a minority but that concerns me a lot.



It really goes to show that there really is a silent majority and some times the signal to noise ratio on the forums is not reflective of the game as a whole.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Or it may be as kalnur mentioned, that some of that large group are anti the + bonuses.

Its why a poll with 2 questions is highly inaccurate.


For example. If I think a player item should be part of their build, but still rewarded by the DM (just like exp is, or even levels if you ignore EXP), but also think that the + bonuses should be removed from the game (my game currently uses inherent enhancement) what group would I fall under?

If a player wants a flaming sword because it makes sense for his character (and is possibly built around it to show off this aspect) why should I deny that as a DM and give him some silly frost mace? At the same time, I shouldnt have to have a boss every 5 levels drop a flaming sword cause he needs a new +.
The thing is, the scaling bonus part of magic items doesn't matter to me so much (I actually prefer inherent bonuses with boons/training/whatever that third category is) and I keep meaning to sit down and write up every magic item as an alternate reward so I can run my sword and sorcery-esque campaign (never can find the time).

I guess for me (and this may be the wrong thread for this discussion) it boils down to the PC being the only narrative control a player has by default and IMO every decision that affects the PC should be in the hands of the player, not the DM [I recognize this is an extreme on the scale but what I want is closer to that extreme than 'the DM controls everything' side of the scale].
Or it may be as kalnur mentioned, that some of that large group are anti the + bonuses.

Its why a poll with 2 questions is highly inaccurate.


For example. If I think a player item should be part of their build, but still rewarded by the DM (just like exp is, or even levels if you ignore EXP), but also think that the + bonuses should be removed from the game (my game currently uses inherent enhancement) what group would I fall under?

If a player wants a flaming sword because it makes sense for his character (and is possibly built around it to show off this aspect) why should I deny that as a DM and give him some silly frost mace? At the same time, I shouldnt have to have a boss every 5 levels drop a flaming sword cause he needs a new +.



What I find to be a nice variant that stops the player from needing a new plus but still able to keep an item if they like it is for the item to "respond to the player's growth in power and spontaneously do so itself", basically growing a new plus after X amount of encouters/XP/story, where X is the story specific place it feels right for the plus to appear.  Thus the item begins to be defined by the actions of the player.  I.E. rewarding the players for being uber awesome badasses and or roleplayers gives them their new plus, not that boss or chest with the item in it.

I prefer pluses attached to items, btw. ;)
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]



In thaat case you like Mr Cook missed my point.


If I want to be a striker, I will be a striker, but I want my LEADER to have the option. I want a warlord build that is a battle captian on the front line. I could live with not having any mele options for cleric, and have ther option be spellcaster/buffer or buff bot. I just dont want all leaders in that option.     




I think you missed my point

Point A --Striker--------------------Battle capable Leader-----Lazylord-- Point B

What you want is one of the "points in between" I mentioned.

I want that, too.

Reading that article, I think Monte recognizes that their are players who NEED to be Strikers, and those who are totally selfless, and that there are lots more people who fall somewhere in between those two extremes. You and I and most of the people on this board are probably that group of "lots more," to varying degrees on the scale.

i voted in the minority.  however, if bonuses were inherent--as a core element of the game--i might have voted differently.
...framing the poll question like that not only rendered it useless from an information-gathering perspective, but borderline unethical from a journalistic perspective.

What do you mean borderline?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Could we see the return of a weaponless armorless pacifist?

Can that not already be done with the Warlord or Shaman?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I voted in the majority on the poll because I don't believe magic items should be part of character advancement.

This is not the same as me saying "a player who wants to be a fire specialist should have to use cold powers".  I think that a player should be able to play an elemental specialist, or any other character concept that the system supports, independent of magic items.  Relying on a particular magic item in order to make a build or concept playable just rubs me the wrong way; I don't think that's the role that magic items should serve.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.



I know I was in the 12.x% that voted otherwise. I normally don't mind being in a minority but that concerns me a lot.



It really goes to show that there really is a silent majority and some times the signal to noise ratio on the forums is not reflective of the game as a whole.




Makes me feel a lot better, to be honest

For the third week in a row, Mr Cook talks about the history and possible future of D&D as if 4e had never existed. 

What if those who wanted to play 'support' characters also got to contribute in their own right?  What if every class had some abilities that could help out his alllies?  Wow, that would be like... like... 4th edition.  


And, the odd disturbing note:

Rather than try to make the cleric or the bard a class everyone wants to play, you could look at the type of player that likes clerics or bards and really play up those aspects of the class that they like.

Really look at what this sentence is saying.  What does the kind of player who likes Clerics and Bards like?  Well, obviously, what Clerics & Bards already do (some healing, some buffing, some praying, some singing)!  Ergo, there's no need to change or improve those classes, ever.  You could refine them a little, make the Cleric even more a Cleric and the Bard even more a Bard.  But make a Cleric that actually participates in the fight rather than just standing around healing?  People who already like Clerics won't like that!


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

This article is interesting but also shallow.

It assumes to know what people who play Bard or Cleric like about those classes. I like playing Combat focused Bards and Clerics, I like the battle leader role not the sit back and heal type. In fact I hate sit back and heal or buff.

I 100% agree with the idea of supporting peoples playstyle preferences but they should be options not straightjackets.

I think that intent, to support playstyles, is what the article wants to focus on but doesn't express properly. If it was about Defenders it'd be saying similar things regarding expanding options to support people who like playing protectors. The issue being that Defnders are more than just protectors and part of the genius of 4e is that classes have playstyles that achieve their role whilst looking like something else. Fighters defending is a part of their playstyle of hitting things, they don't go out of their way to defend others in normal situations, they just fight and their features take care of the rest.

This is what 4e does well for the most part, it's not something which should be abandoned, though options can still be improved.
Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.



Last week's poll question was so disconnected from the article itself as to be non-indicative of, well, anything. The article was all about overhauling the system to not be on a treadmill, but presented that as "the dm controlling the options". Those are completely different matters, and framing the poll question like that not only rendered it useless from an information-gathering perspective, but borderline unethical from a journalistic perspective.

The polls were questionable before.   At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just making the results up.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


Point A --Striker--------------------Battle capable Leader-----Lazylord-- Point B



It would be more accurately portraid like this, I think.

ME ----(striker)----------------------(battle captain)-----------------------(heal battery)- US


I feel Monte's more aiming at "while each class has a focus, it should be possible to slide considerably on the ME --- US scale with each class, depending on your preference"

Which is something I can get behind.

As for the poll; I didn't vote. The option I wanted ("both") wasn't on it.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I feel Monte's more aiming at "while each class has a focus, it should be possible to slide considerably on the ME --- US scale with each class, depending on your preference"

Nod.  Of course, that could also be a rationale for the return of the band-aid cleric and meat-shield fighter.

4e did something pretty cool in making each class balanced & contributing.  It's easy to say, "lets make more different kinds of classes," it's not so easy to balance them.  4e classes work as well as they do because of their common structure, and the re-balancing of the game around tactical combat (in it's own 'silo') with non-combat having a mostly-separate set of options.  A class tuned way over to the 'us' side of your scale would be harder to balance against a class on the other extreme.  If such a class isn't powerful enough, it'd be non-contributing and largely ignored, if too powerful, it would become a 'must have' like the old sole-source-of-healing Cleric, and people who might not be so into such an extreme role might feel obliged to play it (or the DM obliged to throw one in as an NPC). 


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I feel Monte's more aiming at "while each class has a focus, it should be possible to slide considerably on the ME --- US scale with each class, depending on your preference"

Nod.  Of course, that could also be a rationale for the return of the band-aid cleric and meat-shield fighter.

4e did something pretty cool in making each class balanced & contributing.  It's easy to say, "lets make more different kinds of classes," it's not so easy to balance them.  4e classes work as well as they do because of their common structure, and the re-balancing of the game around tactical combat (in it's own 'silo') with non-combat having a mostly-separate set of options.  A class tuned way over to the 'us' side of your scale would be harder to balance against a class on the other extreme.  If such a class isn't powerful enough, it'd be non-contributing and largely ignored, if too powerful, it would become a 'must have' like the old sole-source-of-healing Cleric, and people who might not be so into such an extreme role might feel obliged to play it (or the DM obliged to throw one in as an NPC). 





Then again, the lazylord build is an example of an nearly pure "us" build in terms of not really being so interested in just themselves but in everybody working together as a team, but still contributing heartily to battle without personally contributing to battle is really cool.  Not only that, but one companion character I can think of named Splug, made for the one person adventure they published had an ability called "cringe".  He got a +2 bonus to his defenses until the end of his next turn, and "an ally can make an at-will or charge attack as a free action in his stead".  Now, more powers like that where being a coward actually put the foes right where you wanted them and allowed others to attack for you would be great for those who wanted to make "non-combat" characters.  Handing over free hits to other players is a great way to be "Us" centered, pacifistic and still able to contribute while also adhering to a strictly less "useful" character combat-wise, and I would totally support it, provided that it was not the only choice available.

And now I find myself thinking of a bard coward build to mirror Edward the "spoony" bard from Final Fantasy IV. . .
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Yeah the most important part in what I said was "slide considerably". All classes should be able to support a broad part of the scale. While some might be inherently closer to one side or the other, I think the Thaneborn Barbarian proves quite clearly that no class needs to be firmly on either side.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I voted in the majority on the poll because I don't believe magic items should be part of character advancement.

This is not the same as me saying "a player who wants to be a fire specialist should have to use cold powers".  I think that a player should be able to play an elemental specialist, or any other character concept that the system supports, independent of magic items.  Relying on a particular magic item in order to make a build or concept playable just rubs me the wrong way; I don't think that's the role that magic items should serve.



I agree.  I also voted that magic items should be the cream not the meat and potatoes.  I'd be happy if attack rolls were divorced (almost) entirely from ability scores (excluding basic attacks - albeit Essentials martial classes might need a tweaked class feature to cover them) and magic bonuses.  So the odd feat can help in particular situations but otherwise everybody's attack rolls with their powers could be the same.  No more breast rending about A-classes.  No more hybrid angst.  More versatile multiclass power swaps.  You can always have a rule that you have to pick one of your hybrid classes and that all power swap powers suffer a -1 to the attack roll.

Magic items can then boost your damage, provide you will cool effects on a critical hit and powers that can be used with power swaps (like channel divinity powers).  I'd limit energy conversion weapons to minor action damage conversion until end of next turn once per encounter as a free power (plus the power swap options).  Like channel divinty, no character could use more than one magic item power swap per encounter but it might add a bit of versatility to encounters.

 
I voted in the majority on the poll because I don't believe magic items should be part of character advancement.

This is not the same as me saying "a player who wants to be a fire specialist should have to use cold powers".  I think that a player should be able to play an elemental specialist, or any other character concept that the system supports, independent of magic items.  Relying on a particular magic item in order to make a build or concept playable just rubs me the wrong way; I don't think that's the role that magic items should serve.



I agree.  I also voted that magic items should be the cream not the meat and potatoes.  I'd be happy if attack rolls were divorced (almost) entirely from ability scores (excluding basic attacks - albeit Essentials martial classes might need a tweaked class feature to cover them) and magic bonuses.  So the odd feat can help in particular situations but otherwise everybody's attack rolls with their powers could be the same.  No more breast rending about A-classes.  No more hybrid angst.  More versatile multiclass power swaps.  You can always have a rule that you have to pick one of your hybrid classes and that all power swap powers suffer a -1 to the attack roll.

Magic items can then boost your damage, provide you will cool effects on a critical hit and powers that can be used with power swaps (like channel divinity powers).  I'd limit energy conversion weapons to minor action damage conversion until end of next turn once per encounter as a free power (plus the power swap options).  Like channel divinty, no character could use more than one magic item power swap per encounter but it might add a bit of versatility to encounters.



None of this sounds up my alley, but I am glad for the window into how the other half lives.


"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I feel Monte's more aiming at "while each class has a focus, it should be possible to slide considerably on the ME --- US scale with each class, depending on your preference"

Nod.  Of course, that could also be a rationale for the return of the band-aid cleric and meat-shield fighter.

4e did something pretty cool in making each class balanced & contributing.  It's easy to say, "lets make more different kinds of classes," it's not so easy to balance them.  4e classes work as well as they do because of their common structure, and the re-balancing of the game around tactical combat (in it's own 'silo') with non-combat having a mostly-separate set of options.  A class tuned way over to the 'us' side of your scale would be harder to balance against a class on the other extreme.  If such a class isn't powerful enough, it'd be non-contributing and largely ignored, if too powerful, it would become a 'must have' like the old sole-source-of-healing Cleric, and people who might not be so into such an extreme role might feel obliged to play it (or the DM obliged to throw one in as an NPC). 





Then again, the lazylord build is an example of an nearly pure "us" build in terms of not really being so interested in just themselves but in everybody working together as a team, but still contributing heartily to battle without personally contributing to battle is really cool.  Not only that, but one companion character I can think of named Splug, made for the one person adventure they published had an ability called "cringe".  He got a +2 bonus to his defenses until the end of his next turn, and "an ally can make an at-will or charge attack as a free action in his stead".  Now, more powers like that where being a coward actually put the foes right where you wanted them and allowed others to attack for you would be great for those who wanted to make "non-combat" characters.  Handing over free hits to other players is a great way to be "Us" centered, pacifistic and still able to contribute while also adhering to a strictly less "useful" character combat-wise, and I would totally support it, provided that it was not the only choice available.

And now I find myself thinking of a bard coward build to mirror Edward the "spoony" bard from Final Fantasy IV. . .




OK I have read the artical and yes it sounds like support for my Princess Build / Noncombatant ie the LazyLord might actually get some official support...  how unexpected.... how wierd.

Further I have also been long saying that many modern hero groups do heavier supporting one another - dang this article is echoing many of my thoughts.

I would freak if next we hear about avoiding the tpk collapse caused by loss of a combatant when characters are interdependent by allowing the fallen to inspire those left standing..

 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but...

Or it may be as kalnur mentioned, that some of that large group are anti the + bonuses.

Its why a poll with 2 questions is highly inaccurate.


For example. If I think a player item should be part of their build, but still rewarded by the DM (just like exp is, or even levels if you ignore EXP), but also think that the + bonuses should be removed from the game (my game currently uses inherent enhancement) what group would I fall under?

If a player wants a flaming sword because it makes sense for his character (and is possibly built around it to show off this aspect) why should I deny that as a DM and give him some silly frost mace? At the same time, I shouldnt have to have a boss every 5 levels drop a flaming sword cause he needs a new +.



What I find to be a nice variant that stops the player from needing a new plus but still able to keep an item if they like it is for the item to "respond to the player's growth in power and spontaneously do so itself", basically growing a new plus after X amount of encouters/XP/story, where X is the story specific place it feels right for the plus to appear.  Thus the item begins to be defined by the actions of the player.  I.E. rewarding the players for being uber awesome badasses and or roleplayers gives them their new plus, not that boss or chest with the item in it.

I prefer pluses attached to items, btw. ;)



I'm totally behind you on this one, Kalnaur! To me, magic items have always been unique items that grow and evolve based on the character's fighting style. Fight a lot of undead? The weapon becomes a weapon of undead-bane. Fight a lot of evil outsiders? The weapon becomes a holy weapon. The video game Fable III does this very well.
 
Though, there was a 3.5 book, Weapons of Legacy, that more or less details weapons advancing with their users. The listed weapons weren't customizable, but there was a appendix that allowed the DM to create their own. Now, if only there was some way to graft that to 4E...
Sorry to backtrack a bit, but...
 Now, if only there was some way to graft that to 4E...



DMG2 mentions in the Alternate rewards area items being enhanced over the course of characters careers based on events within the heros story, I beleive... the example was somebodies sword becoming a flaming weapon after defeating an elemental or something similar... I am told the idea was also mentioned in AV2.

The DMG2 is a great book by the way highly recommend it.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

healing as a minor action?  yay!
healing as a standard action?  boo!
healing as part of a standard action?  yay!
the existence of more than one leader class?  priceless 



After plaing MMOs as long as I have, I honestly don't mind options that include healing as a standard action as long as that's not all your standard actions and if the game isn't balanced around that type of healer.
Yeah, I think 4e nailed it on leaders. I also don't really get the whole negativity about Aid Another. There's nothing about that which isn't cool. You always have the option to contribute, and that contribution can take all kinds of forms, even if there is some other player making the big check for whatever, so what? Nobody complains that buffing leaders are a bad thing, yet they have this strange issue with using a skill to 'buff' another character's check? I find that puzzling. There's probably nothing wrong with giving non-leader characters some kind of explicit way to offer assistance either, but there are already a lot of situations where that happens naturally. Most PCs can use some power that helps an ally do something or gives them a tactical advantage, you can flank, you can provide cover, etc. Outside of combat situations there are other opportunities. Most of those really are in the realm of creating an SC, which is really what any significant task is going to be. Secondary skills work well, and using powers, rituals, etc in those situations is always an option for any player.

I guess I don't know where you'd significantly improve on what 4e has done here. There is always tweaking of presentation and there can be opportunities to give out more explicit options, but 4e really got this part pretty much right.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
healing as a minor action?  yay!
healing as a standard action?  boo!
healing as part of a standard action?  yay!
the existence of more than one leader class?  priceless 



After plaing MMOs as long as I have, I honestly don't mind options that include healing as a standard action as long as that's not all your standard actions and if the game isn't balanced around that type of healer.



Well I dont play MMOs, I agree, nothing the matter with a cleric having his 2 healing words, and picking up Cure Light Wounds as his Utlity power...I just want to make sure Bless is still an option, and so is healing strike.

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Even WoW healers have begun to incorporate some kind of attacks into their abilities, mostly to gain mana back or buff future heals.
5E is so coming. And with it, all classes will have powers along the way that allow them to create synergy between the players. I wouldn't be surprised if we even see powers that when used on creatures already under a condition, add onto that condition.

Example: Round house kick: 2[w]+strength and the target is dazed (save ends). If the target is already dazed, then it becomes stunned until the end of it's next turn. After that, it returns to being dazed until it makes a save.

Reminds me of Everquest, when you could cause chain reaction by having people use the right kind of powers in the right order. You'd get a wheel in the corner, showing what kind of power you had to use next. 
I don't have all the much to say about the article.  I thought it had some good ideas and a good summary of past game design.  One paragraph of the article did pique my interest though...

it might be worth taking a look at giving everyone more opportunities to aid their comrades. Not just with healing, but with actions and abilities that help others to do well. You could, for example, institute more generous "aid another" or cooperative action rules. Heroic characters might be able to step in and take damage for their endangered allies. You could, in fact, tailor a special option toward every class that gives them some unique way of helping their friends



I relaly like this concept.  If we stick with the four-role schema: controller, defender, leader, and striker, could we give every one a "basic action" that allows you to act as a minor version of that role?



  • Striker we already have: it's the "basic attack" and it lets you do 1[w]+Str/Dex Mod damage if you success on a Str/Dex attack.

  • For defender, we could have a "basic protect".  Identify an adjacent ally.  The next time the ally takes damage before the end of your next turn, reduce that damage by 1[X]+Con/Int mod damage, and you take that amount of damage.  If you absorb all the damage, you also take on any associated conditions and the ally takes nothing.  (Con mod for damage attacking AC, Fort, or Reflex, Int for damage attacking Will)

  • For leader, we could have a "basic bolster" that gives an ally who can hear you an immediate save, much like a Heal check, or adds 1[X]+Wis mod temp hp.

  • For controller, we could have a "basic misdirect" that causes one ally to mark one enemy, if all three (you, ally, and enemy) can see one another, the ally consents, and you succeed on a Cha attack on the enemy.


This gives everyone a bit more flexibility in combat, and, as has been done with basic attacks, you could have skill powers and class powers that build off the basic actions.
Interestingly the poll from last week - 87% feel that magical items should be a reward given out by the DM.  Definitely not reflective of the majority of forumites.



Last week's poll question was so disconnected from the article itself as to be non-indicative of, well, anything. The article was all about overhauling the system to not be on a treadmill, but presented that as "the dm controlling the options". Those are completely different matters, and framing the poll question like that not only rendered it useless from an information-gathering perspective, but borderline unethical from a journalistic perspective.

The polls were questionable before.   At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just making the results up.




While some people may not like these polls, or their results, please don't insinuate that we're making the results up. We're not.

As to the simple two choice format - we know that some people would love to see a middle option, and in some cases a lot of people would choose a middle option. What we're doing with those kinds of polls is giving only optoins on the ends of the spectrum to see what side people would come down on if they had to. It's a different kind of information gathering, but still useful.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager