Google Hangout Feedback.

If you havn't seen it...  here.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Fighter adding skill dice to all Str checks sounds good for a basic system.  Though i'm sure i'd opt for the more customizeable system.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

My favorite points were

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.

2) Another discussion, and this time more in depth, about the cognitive disconnect about skills. I feel like I should link that one section in threads about skill usage over and over

3) The discussion about making sure classes feel unique was nice to hear. I'm glad that's a design goal.

4) I feel the part about fighters and out of combat abilities is very sound reasoning, but will probably just fan the flames already present on the boards :P

5) I'm getting more and more weary the more they talk about multiclassing. At least this time they discussed that some combinations "Might not work as well". Sounding more and more like 3e multi-classing to me.

6) Trevor's example of fighting a woman with a giant sword sounds like it needs to be core.
My two copper.
My favorite points were

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.

2) Another discussion, and this time more in depth, about the cognitive disconnect about skills. I feel like I should link that one section in threads about skill usage over and over

3) The discussion about making sure classes feel unique was nice to hear. I'm glad that's a design goal.

4) I feel the part about fighters and out of combat abilities is very sound reasoning, but will probably just fan the flames already present on the boards :P

5) I'm getting more and more weary the more they talk about multiclassing. At least this time they discussed that some combinations "Might not work as well". Sounding more and more like 3e multi-classing to me.

6) Trevor's example of fighting a woman with a giant sword sounds like it needs to be core.

The biggest flaw in 3e multiclassing was numbers. I don't think it's going to be as much of an issue here. 

Multiclassing worked pretty nicely in SW Saga. 
The biggest flaw in 3e multiclassing was numbers. I don't think it's going to be as much of an issue here.


IDK, I always thought 3e's biggest MC flaw was when you tried to combine caster and non caster class levels, or even when you tried to mix caster classes like cleric and wizard.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The biggest flaw in 3e multiclassing was numbers. I don't think it's going to be as much of an issue here.


IDK, I always thought 3e's biggest MC flaw was when you tried to combine caster and non caster class levels, or even when you tried to mix caster classes like cleric and wizard.

Right.

The numbers (of slots).

The base idea/system was good.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.


I wasn't very happy about the MDD retool.  Basing it off of the weapon's damage die makes the damage dice of the weapon too important.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.


I wasn't very happy about the MDD retool.  Basing it off of the weapon's damage die makes the damage dice of the weapon too important.



I'm talking about the concept in general. I'm not putting down any assumptions on how it will actually work until I see it.
My two copper.
1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.


I wasn't very happy about the MDD retool.  Basing it off of the weapon's damage die makes the damage dice of the weapon too important.



I'm talking about the concept in general. I'm not putting down any assumptions on how it will actually work until I see it.


I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:47PM, Jenks wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:45PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:16PM, Jenks wrote:

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.



I wasn't very happy about the MDD retool.  Basing it off of the weapon's damage die makes the damage dice of the weapon too important.




I'm talking about the concept in general. I'm not putting down any assumptions on how it will actually work until I see it.



I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.


That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones.
This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced.

Can someone present the transcription of this in text?
1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.

I wasn't very happy about the MDD retool.  Basing it off of the weapon's damage die makes the damage dice of the weapon too important.

You could still have flat damage bonus to make it matter not quite as much.

For instance.

1|W| + 5
2|W| + 10
3|W| + 15  -> 2|W|+10, and 1|W|+5

ect... 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Can somebody sum up what they said? At least the most important mechanical bits, like the retooling of MDD or the part about fighters using SD on all Strength checks? Where I am right now, I have a lousy internet connection, and I'll have to wait until Sunday to see the video.
Ah. Caster multiclassing... Well, 

the basic problem with THAT was, nothing in the game was as good as getting the next level of spells as soon as possible.  Lack of similar casters was what made SWSaga's multiclassing work, perhaps.... 

I had some further thoughts on the subject, but I didn't like them. 

Something closer to a Gestalt character? Use a feat to multiclass (so you have to write down which classes are multiclassing), and two levels in one would add one gestalt level of the other?

So, a Fighter 4/Wizard 6, would have the abilities of Wizard 8, Fighter 7, and have 'wasted' one feat, as well as ever being at the very top in any one class? 

the basic problem with THAT was, nothing in the game was as good as getting the next level of spells as soon as possible.  Lack of similar casters was what made SWSaga's multiclassing work, perhaps.... 
 


The same is what made d20 modern's multiclassing work so well.
My two copper.
I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.


That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones. This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced.


Yeah, I don't see properties making weapons better than damage.  While they certainly could, in the right combinations, in many cases, properties exist to weaken a weapon.  Specifically, the Loading, Heavy, and Special properties, as well as applying the Two Handed property to the whip.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.




Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:52PM, cassi_brazuca wrote:



Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:49PM, MechaPilot wrote:

I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.





That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones. This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced.





Yeah, I don't see properties making weapons better than damage.  While they certainly could, in the right combinations, in many cases, properties exist to weaken a weapon.  Specifically, the Loading, Heavy, and Special properties, as well as applying the Two Handed property to the whip.




Properties such as reach an light are very important across all levels, so, in the current package, chosing a greatsword over a reach weapon, it's not a good choice, because what the greatsword have to balance (higher damage die) this becomes useless as you level, but reach don't.
Yes, we have weapons with this kind of properties like Loading . These weapons have higher damage die, that becomes useless as your level. They are part of the underpowered weapons. So if they make weapon's damage die important, this weapons will be balanced.

I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.


That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones. This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced.


Yeah, I don't see properties making weapons better than damage.  While they certainly could, in the right combinations, in many cases, properties exist to weaken a weapon.  Specifically, the Loading, Heavy, and Special properties, as well as applying the Two Handed property to the whip.



Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.



Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:47PM, Jenks wrote:



Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:45PM, MechaPilot wrote:



Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:16PM, Jenks wrote:

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.





I wasn't very happy about the MDD retool.  Basing it off of the weapon's damage die makes the damage dice of the weapon too important.






I'm talking about the concept in general. I'm not putting down any assumptions on how it will actually work until I see it.





I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.


That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones. This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced. Can someone present the transcription of this in text?




You know as much as I've tried to disagree with this there is one thing this brings back that I can't argue with as much...The strenegth based fighter.  Right now dexterity based fighter is basically top of the heap.  Like the better choice right now is the dex based fighter.  Making a strength based fighter seems like a poor choice because the dex based fighter has better AC, better initiative, the damage disparity between the finess weapon and the d10 and d12 weapons is negligable at anything above like 4th level.  As much as I dislike it because this means the disparity between the weapons is now somewhat crazy it does give an undeniable reason for going with a strength build.  

I'm still a little torn but I'm willing to give it a try should it come up.  

I also like it because it brings back multiple attacks in the best way possible . Also it still overall follows the original idea I suggested for fighters in the speculation forums way back in the beginning of this.  

My major question is fun though.  If MDD is replaced by weapon die, what does that do to parry?  Is the ammount of damage you can block with parry now determined by the weapon you weild?
I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.


That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones. This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced.


Yeah, I don't see properties making weapons better than damage.  While they certainly could, in the right combinations, in many cases, properties exist to weaken a weapon.  Specifically, the Loading, Heavy, and Special properties, as well as applying the Two Handed property to the whip.



Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.



I wouldn't mind something like
Light weapon = d6
One handed = d8
Two Handed = d10
My two copper.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 2:06PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:52PM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 1:49PM, MechaPilot wrote:

I do agree that the retool is a good concept.  It allows people who like multiple attacks to make them, though I don't know how well it will go over not being able to attack the same enemy more than once, and it reduces how much they are required to use maneuvers.  Both of those are good things, I'm just concerened about the effect it will have on weapon choice and weapon viability.



That is a wonderful news for me. Now the weapon's damage die are important and weapons that focus on damage are so good as the weapons that focus on properties, unlike the current package when the weapons that focus on properties are better then the damage focus ones. This will make weapon choice important and, if done right, balanced.



Yeah, I don't see properties making weapons better than damage.  While they certainly could, in the right combinations, in many cases, properties exist to weaken a weapon.  Specifically, the Loading, Heavy, and Special properties, as well as applying the Two Handed property to the whip.




Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.


I disagree. We can have a big damage difference between weapons. Properties are good.


I wouldn't mind something like
Light weapon = d6
One handed = d8
Two Handed = d10



Pretty much what I was thinking. Fighter's could have weapon specialization to bump up damage so they get to keep their d12 damage dice.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 2:15PM, Jenks wrote:

Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.




I wouldn't mind something like
Light weapon = d6
One handed = d8
Two Handed = d10




Pretty much what I was thinking. Fighter's could have weapon specialization to bump up damage so they get to keep their d12 damage dice.


I think that is too simplistic. I like more varied weapon choice.
Sounds like nothing of interest was discussed in this video. One full hour of nothing.
...whatever
Sounds like nothing of interest was discussed in this video. One full hour of nothing.



I thought there was plenty of interesting stuff talked about
My two copper.
Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.

I disagree. We can have a big damage difference between weapons. Properties are good.


Properties are good in that they can give character to a weapon, but damage is solely the measure of a weapon's effectiveness as a weapon.  In most cases, proerties do not warrant a reduction in damage.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.




Jan 11, 2013 -- 2:15PM, Jenks wrote:

Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.






I wouldn't mind something like
Light weapon = d6
One handed = d8
Two Handed = d10





Pretty much what I was thinking. Fighter's could have weapon specialization to bump up damage so they get to keep their d12 damage dice.


I think that is too simplistic. I like more varied weapon choice.




I rarely agree with lawolf but I kinda have to on this one if you have d4 weapons and d12 weapons the d4 weapons are not even an option.  The difference between a d4 and a d12 isn't bad.  The difference between 5d4 and 5d12 is fricken crazy big. 
Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.

I disagree. We can have a big damage difference between weapons. Properties are good.

 
Properties are good in that they can give character to a weapon, but damage is solely the measure of a weapon's effectiveness as a weapon.  In most cases, proerties do not warrant a reduction in damage.

 

I heavily disagree with you. Damage is not the only thing that makes a weapon good. Accuracy and properties such as reach makes weapons good too.




Jan 11, 2013 -- 2:15PM, Jenks wrote:

Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.






I wouldn't mind something like 
Light weapon = d6
One handed = d8
Two Handed = d10





Pretty much what I was thinking. Fighter's could have weapon specialization to bump up damage so they get to keep their d12 damage dice.


I think that is too simplistic. I like more varied weapon choice.

 


I rarely agree with lawolf but I kinda have to on this one if you have d4 weapons and d12 weapons the d4 weapons are not even an option.  The difference between a d4 and a d12 isn't bad.  The difference between 5d4 and 5d12 is fricken crazy big. 

 

I heavily disagree with you. The difference between 5d4 and 5d12 is proportionaly not bigger than it was. Enemies have scaling HP.
The difference is proportionaly the same. Damage and HP scales.
Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.

I disagree. We can have a big damage difference between weapons. Properties are good.


Properties are good in that they can give character to a weapon, but damage is solely the measure of a weapon's effectiveness as a weapon.  In most cases, proerties do not warrant a reduction in damage.



I don't think damage is solely what defines a weapon's usefulness (notice no d12 long range weapons).  Now I will agree that damage is a major part of determining a weapon's usfulness, but not the solely defining thing.  properties such as finess (which allows you to go first and to have a better ac and mobility), and reach (which allows you to attack far more people),  light (which allows it to be weilded as part of a two weapon fighting build), or load free (which means it can do less damage because you can fire it more frequently).  these things all add to and change damage equasions both offensive and defensive.  So while yes damage is important it isn't the only deciding factor.
Sounds like nothing of interest was discussed in this video. One full hour of nothing.



I thought there was plenty of interesting stuff talked about



All I'm hearing in this threas is a few fiddly bits of little significance. That's all well and good if you're happy with 5E as it stands now, but rather empty to those of us who aren't.
...whatever
Scaling based on [W] would probably work better if the number of dice was kept down to 5 or 6 and the damage difference between weapons was reduced. A dagger should deal d6, a greatsword d10. Then the damage trade off comes a relatively equal defense trade off or the ability to use Dex as a your primary stat.

I disagree. We can have a big damage difference between weapons. Properties are good.

 
Properties are good in that they can give character to a weapon, but damage is solely the measure of a weapon's effectiveness as a weapon.  In most cases, proerties do not warrant a reduction in damage.

 

I heavily disagree with you. Damage is not the only thing that makes a weapon good. Accuracy and properties such as reach makes weapons good too.


What accuracy property?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

One thing that kind of upset me was that they still haven't figured out if they want rogue tricks like Taunt in the game     I got the impression that the designers don't exactly agree on what to do with non magical abilities like Taunt.   Mearls clearly wants mechanics that resolve the narrative.   Crawford seems to think it should be optional.  



What accuracy property?


I was referring to a 4th Edition difference between weapons.
Interesting bit at the end - A new class will be added to the playtest at Winter Fantasy, and published to the rest of us shortly afterwards.

AS WELL, there will be an entirely new class that has not been in the game before.  According to Jeremy, "A new class with familiar parts."  No hints as to what it might be.

4) I feel the part about fighters and out of combat abilities is very sound reasoning, but will probably just fan the flames already present on the boards :P



I understand where they are coming from on this, though you are right, probably not everyone will.  The question was basically "what out of combat abilities will a fighter have", and the answer can be summed up as "whatever your imagination can come up with."  They acknowledged that classes will not all be mechanically good at everything.  The fighter will have lots of mechanical abilities related to combat, while the bard will have lots of mechanical abilities related to the social scene.  That's not to say that fighter can't contribute to social encounters, its just that he won't be as good at it as a bard.  And vice versa; the bard won't be able to contribute as much to combat as a fighter can.  When it comes to areas not covered by mechanics, the sky's the limit.

And that's just fine.  People have different skill sets, and I for one don't feel the need to say that everyone has to be equally good at everything.  It's not like that in the real world, and it certainly doesn't need to be like that in a fantasy world.
I'm so sad that they made no mention of when the sorcerer and warlock will make a return...


AS WELL, there will be an entirely new class that has not been in the game before.  According to Jeremy, "A new class with familiar parts."  No hints as to what it might be.




If I was a betting man I'd put my money on something using the sorcerer mechanics we saw in a previous packet rebranded with a new class name, and hopefully more options.

But that's just what I'm speculating.

When is winter fantasy btw? 
If you havn't seen it...  here.

I have not watched it yet. Before I do, I just want to say you are a pillar of an example on how a thread creator should be. First thing you do: Spew your opinions, and if anyone asks for a link you call them a nub? Nope! You post a link to the flippin' thing, THEN post about it. I want to bake you cookies now, but I've got a video to watch.

*watching*


AS WELL, there will be an entirely new class that has not been in the game before.  According to Jeremy, "A new class with familiar parts."  No hints as to what it might be.



My guess would be a new take on the Fighter/Mage concept as its own class. 4E had the Swordmage, but that class was defined by its Defender role, which wasn't really what the classic AD&D Fighter/Mage was all about. 
...whatever

On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks. I still would rather have some module that edits out all that charm type stuff, might make it myself. However I think that would be a nice little side note that a DM can just pick up if he or she wants a little more integrity with specific NPCs. (Kind of go this from 13th age. They have a side rule that says players can only be DEAD killed by named NPCs.)

My favorite points were

1) The retooling of the MDD and Maneuvers seemed like a step in the right direction. I like that maneuvers will be back to being fighter only as well.

2) Another discussion, and this time more in depth, about the cognitive disconnect about skills. I feel like I should link that one section in threads about skill usage over and over

3) The discussion about making sure classes feel unique was nice to hear. I'm glad that's a design goal.

4) I feel the part about fighters and out of combat abilities is very sound reasoning, but will probably just fan the flames already present on the boards :P

5) I'm getting more and more weary the more they talk about multiclassing. At least this time they discussed that some combinations "Might not work as well". Sounding more and more like 3e multi-classing to me.

6) Trevor's example of fighting a woman with a giant sword sounds like it needs to be core.

The biggest flaw in 3e multiclassing was numbers. I don't think it's going to be as much of an issue here. 

Multiclassing worked pretty nicely in SW Saga. 



 Thats because they stripped out the spellcasters lol. 3.5 style  MC made the most sense and worked very well overal with the exception of spellcasters and subjective things like I don't like PCs have 4/5/6 classes/PrCs. Sga MC did clamp down on things like defenses stack to prevent the lvl 1 fighter/barbarian having +4 fortitude and you only got 1 feat instead of all of them with a lvl dip. Saga had the best MC in the post 2nd ed era.

 D&DN doens't seem to matter to much with caster level though.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I like how they addressed the math, and reassured us that that's the easiest thing for them to fix (acknowledging that MDD was too powerful at this point).   Also, it was nice to hear them talk about monsters and how they envision development of more challenging foes without giving them a "one size fits all" label with associated abilities/defenses to label them as a "solo" monster, and future for swarms and large scale combat module, etc.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

On the part about taunt. Idea: what if they added a side bar next to the charmed condition that says the DM may rule that some named NPCs can not be Charmed or even swayed with simple Charisma checks.

As someone vehemently opposed to non-magical compulsions, this would be even worse.  I really dislike when PCs and NPCs use different rules, so suggesting that some NPCs might have special NPC exemption based on plot armor is twice as repugnant.

The metagame is not the game.

Sign In to post comments