What do you hate about D&D:Next?

Why do  you hate D&D:Next?



  • Fantasy Vietnam - I can't play a heroic character from first level, I have to start somewhere around level 5 to get that feeling in 5E.

  • Options - I need interesting options at every turn. During creation, interaction, exploration, and combat. We don't get that in 5E.

  • Non-Vancian Caster - I need a non-vancian caster or I can't play a Wizard the way I like. Its extremely simple to fix this. There's no excuse that it isn't fixed.

  • Interesting options for martial classes - My players demand interesting martial classes that are effective and equal to the Wizard in usefulness. Something 4E did well, but previous editions did not. I don't care if there are simple options for those that want them, but there must be options to be complex or at least interesting.

  • Monster Math - The monster math is so far off at this point that there is little point in testing anything else. You can't tell if a feature is a good one if the best option is to do a basic attack or cantrip to end the fight faster.


I'm sure there are more, what do you hate about 5E? Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


However, what's the problem with having the ability in the game for Fighters to choose? Okay, so you want your Fighters to be heavily training martial warriors and nothing else.  I'm cool with that.



Me too.

But maybe someone else wants to play a Fantasy Warrior, throwing boulders with his STR 20, shrugging off fireballs with his high HP, and bouncing ranged weapons. The latter case is a Supernatural Fighter. He's not "magical", but he's a great warrrior in a fantasy setting and can therefore do the normally impossible.



Supernatural is effectively magical.  A synonym for magical is miracle, which itself is a synonym for supernatural.  A supernatural fighter is using abilities beyond the normal to do what he does.  Effectively using a specialized telekinesis or somethig to cause ricochets.

I think there's room for both.



So do I.  It's called different classes.  Some martial classes will be mundane.  Other martial classes will be supernatural.

 




Ok, this is just getting ludicrous now...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVXhzuwdpxI - Not real life, but a realistic 3D game that uses physics shows how it would be possible

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIVQyXq_q0g - The two balloon one, because apparently people are blind.
No I'm not I already explained why this is no good as a representation of D&D or real combat. apart form I forgot it's very obviously set up, as I said try it with a medieval longbow using clothyard shafts a t proper target into another target.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKY9FpRGyJI - Not rricochet, but 11 arrows in the ground before the first one hits, less than 6 seconds for 11 arrows. For future Rain of Arrows multi-attack arguments.
And I've already stated from history fast shooting was the norm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw - 12 shots in 3 seconds.
Er thats a gun?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgl-KQt0-AI&NR=1... - 200 yards with pinpoint accuracy.
With a modern bow!!!! I've seen many shots at up to 150 yards every week with the arrows all grouped together, they checked out our longbows and could not believe inaccurate they were to they're modern bows.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN6DXnTt-5A - Ricochet off a board into the target.
Not sure what you are trying to prove with this why would you bother when you can just shot the target, nice trick shot but in combat pointless.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T39VlHP0oMw - Double ricochet.
again

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXkGNypNm5M - Shoots a diamond ring.
Impresive shot, though looking at the wall behind he had to try many times before sucess. My fellow re-enactors and I'm sure the archer in the video woud also say such a shot is pointless in a combat situation, you wouldn't want to be that close you would not be that calm and judging by the misses he can hit an area of a few inches as a whole grouping with one through the ring. I could do the grouping with my longbow at that range, still the actual shot is impressive but really pointless and for television.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbQezcKi1pc - Mirror shot (shoots behind him)
Again impressive but for a combat situation, why?

Any questions? Yes? Ok:

mathewsinc.com/media/products-video-gall... - Not sure if this is a parody or not.
Nor me, also not quite sure what you mean by this site

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet - The physics behind a ricochet.
Don't patronise me.

At this point after viewing real people ricochet several times repeatedly shoot behind them and shoot with precision accuracy and shoot 11 arrows in 3 seconds. Then reading the physics behind it. If you still want to get rid of the ricochet maneuver for fighters, your just plain in the "fighter's can't have nice things' camp. Because its physically done in real life over and over and over...


 With modern bows set up shots and pointles televsion stunts or do you the conspiricy man believe everything you see on television? Why don't you get a replica english longbow with proper arrows and then join a re-enactment group and shot during a battle then come back to me. however as I stated earlier I personally have no real issue with "ricochet" it's a GAME with magic and monsters, just stop showing set up and pointles youtube crap, try doing it yourself with other people then come back. I need more tea....



Yes, because I'm an expert marksman and would have any chance of hitting my target let alone ricocheting a shot.

How about we get two volunteers to stand near each other and let someone shoot them? What no volunteers? C'mon, it's for science...

Okay last time mate, first off I don't really have any big issues with ricochet in D&D yes it's slightly unbelievable etc. 

 
 

And that is all there really is to it, trick shots are well within the scope of fantasy heros ranging from the Robinhoods and William Tells with various llegends from around the world mixed in there... if the in game world Robinhood cant split the arrow its really not "heroic fantasy" dont care what mythbusters has to say on the matter.

  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."

 

Hate is far too strong a word for how I feel about Next; for me, it's like one of those network cop or doctor shows that I check in on every once in a great while to see if there's anything to catch my interest. Considering all the other RPG options out there for either 'zero to hero,' heroic, or epic fantasy, I'm just not seeing anything in this playtest thus far that sticks out as a selling point. Certain parts also seem undercooked, namely 'Swift-actions-that-aren't-codified-as-Swift-actions,' bizarre monster math, and some of the fiddly dice tricks. But hey, these aren't the final rules, so they might get updated.

I'll probably check in sometime after the Gen-Con packet, hopefully the game will have developed a more distinctive (and hopefully interesting) character to it.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.


However, what's the problem with having the ability in the game for Fighters to choose? Okay, so you want your Fighters to be heavily training martial warriors and nothing else.  I'm cool with that.



Me too.

But maybe someone else wants to play a Fantasy Warrior, throwing boulders with his STR 20, shrugging off fireballs with his high HP, and bouncing ranged weapons. The latter case is a Supernatural Fighter. He's not "magical", but he's a great warrrior in a fantasy setting and can therefore do the normally impossible.



Supernatural is effectively magical.  A synonym for magical is miracle, which itself is a synonym for supernatural.  A supernatural fighter is using abilities beyond the normal to do what he does.  Effectively using a specialized telekinesis or somethig to cause ricochets.

I think there's room for both.



So do I.  It's called different classes.  Some martial classes will be mundane.  Other martial classes will be supernatural.

 




Ok, this is just getting ludicrous now...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVXhzuwdpxI - Not real life, but a realistic 3D game that uses physics shows how it would be possible

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIVQyXq_q0g - The two balloon one, because apparently people are blind.
No I'm not I already explained why this is no good as a representation of D&D or real combat. apart form I forgot it's very obviously set up, as I said try it with a medieval longbow using clothyard shafts a t proper target into another target.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKY9FpRGyJI - Not rricochet, but 11 arrows in the ground before the first one hits, less than 6 seconds for 11 arrows. For future Rain of Arrows multi-attack arguments.
And I've already stated from history fast shooting was the norm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw - 12 shots in 3 seconds.
Er thats a gun?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgl-KQt0-AI&NR=1... - 200 yards with pinpoint accuracy.
With a modern bow!!!! I've seen many shots at up to 150 yards every week with the arrows all grouped together, they checked out our longbows and could not believe inaccurate they were to they're modern bows.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN6DXnTt-5A - Ricochet off a board into the target.
Not sure what you are trying to prove with this why would you bother when you can just shot the target, nice trick shot but in combat pointless.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T39VlHP0oMw - Double ricochet.
again

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXkGNypNm5M - Shoots a diamond ring.
Impresive shot, though looking at the wall behind he had to try many times before sucess. My fellow re-enactors and I'm sure the archer in the video woud also say such a shot is pointless in a combat situation, you wouldn't want to be that close you would not be that calm and judging by the misses he can hit an area of a few inches as a whole grouping with one through the ring. I could do the grouping with my longbow at that range, still the actual shot is impressive but really pointless and for television.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbQezcKi1pc - Mirror shot (shoots behind him)
Again impressive but for a combat situation, why?

Any questions? Yes? Ok:

mathewsinc.com/media/products-video-gall... - Not sure if this is a parody or not.
Nor me, also not quite sure what you mean by this site

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet - The physics behind a ricochet.
Don't patronise me.

At this point after viewing real people ricochet several times repeatedly shoot behind them and shoot with precision accuracy and shoot 11 arrows in 3 seconds. Then reading the physics behind it. If you still want to get rid of the ricochet maneuver for fighters, your just plain in the "fighter's can't have nice things' camp. Because its physically done in real life over and over and over...


 With modern bows set up shots and pointles televsion stunts or do you the conspiricy man believe everything you see on television? Why don't you get a replica english longbow with proper arrows and then join a re-enactment group and shot during a battle then come back to me. however as I stated earlier I personally have no real issue with "ricochet" it's a GAME with magic and monsters, just stop showing set up and pointles youtube crap, try doing it yourself with other people then come back. I need more tea....



Yes, because I'm an expert marksman and would have any chance of hitting my target let alone ricocheting a shot.

How about we get two volunteers to stand near each other and let someone shoot them? What no volunteers? C'mon, it's for science...

Okay last time mate, first off I don't really have any big issues with ricochet in D&D yes it's slightly unbelievable etc. 

 

 

And that is all there really is to it, trick shots are well within the scope of fantasy heros ranging from the Robinhoods and William Tells with various llegends from around the world mixed in there... if the in game world Robinhood cant split the arrow its really not "heroic fantasy" dont care what mythbusters has to say on the matter.


And there is the irony, I have minimal issues with it in a game, just don't try and prove to me that it is effective in a real life situation that's all.
Improvisation is a thing that EVERY player can do if they want to. That does not mean that every martial class's ONLY class ability should be "make something up every round if you want something interesting to do."

Just because you like it does not mean everyone who wants to play a non-magical character should be forced to do it.

And just because you like to improvise that does not mean some classes should have absolutely no tools to affect any part of the narrative while others are decked out with abilities that can run rough shod over every part of it.

You want to improvise? Fine, play any class and improvise.

Different people like different things. You do not get to decide that martial classes should not get any interesting abilities because of what you like.

Yes, yes, and also: yes.

In general, players will improvise in one of two situations:
1) The player typically prefers to improvise.
2) Improvising provides a greater benefit than other actions.

In the first case, having codified actions isn't going to prevent the improvisation.  That player likes to improvise, and nothing on their character sheet or in the rule book is going to stop them.

In the second case, it comes down to the DM.  If you make improvising worth trying, players will try it.  I assure you.  Players like to win.  Using 4E as an example, if you make improvising weaker than at-will powers, expect such players to rarely ever improvise.  If you make them equal in power to at-will powers (or slightly better), expect players to only use them once they are out of encounter powers.  But if you make them equal or better than encounter powers (maybe even as good as daily powers), expect players to attempt to improvise quite often.

Now, a question about people complaining about the lack of improvisation: Are you people who like to play Fighters and want to improvise or are you DMs who want players of Fighters to HAVE to improvise?

If it is the former, you can just improvise if you like to improvise.  But if you feel like you are discouraged from improvising because the DM makes such actions very weak, talk to your DM.  Getting rid of codified actions isn't going to fix this problem, it will simply force you to take those weak improvised actions!

If you are the DM, you have total control over this.  Want your players to improvise?  Make it worth it.  If you let wizards make improvised magical attacks that can deal more damage than any spell, you will find your players will improvise a lot.

And that reminds me...did anyone ever give a response to the question of: Why is the Fighter getting codified actions such a huge issue, but there is nothing wrong with the Cleric, Wizard, and Druid getting codified actions?


To an extent, yes.  The issue is that the farther and farther you get away from realistic, the more people have issues with it.


True enough but I don't think that line should be anywhere near "Sometimes I can hit more than one guy with a ranged attack." Esepecially when his teammate gets to roll some d6s and be like 
"That many." 
"That's a lot of damage." 
"No, that's how many enemies die."



I'm not against martial characters getting nice things.  For multiple enemies, I'm good with multiple attacks. I'd rather see the fighter shoot/throw twice, then bounce an axe or arrow off one enemy into another on a regular basis.  Either that, or make it some sort of non-traditional magic so that the ability has some sort of explanation that works.   

And the whole "But fighters aren't maaaaagical argument," doesn't work here. They can make that distinction fine, whatever and have different mechanical implementations, but that doesn't excuse the
"I can blow up a city in my sleep." 
"Okay, cool whatever, you're a wiza- DID THAT FIGHTER JUST MOVE 12 SQUARES IN ONE ROUND, I THINK THAT BREAKS THE LAND SPEED RECORD ON FOOT, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BREAK RECORDS IN ALL THAT ARMOR GET YOUR **** TOGETHER WOTC." effect and they should still have the same rough mechanical equivalent effectiveness.



I'm also okay with some stretching.  I'm not goin to bother to try and figure out real world speeds and compare those to movement.  As I noted in my last post, to an extent the stretching is fine.  Realism =/= reality, so stretching works.  It's when they stretch to far and break something that I have an issue.

TLDR: Just because fighters can't fly around, and make other stuff fly around, doesn't mean they should be relegated to "Full attack, full atack, colorfully described full attack, move regular attack." 



I agree.  I also think that there are lots of fun an interesting ways that don't stretch things to the breaking point to accomplish it. 
I'm not sure how you are drawing this conclusion from what I wrote.

I fully endorse wizards and warriors being on equal footing, but in their own unique ways.

The problem I had is with your assertion that fighters who throw boulders, shrug off fireballs and bounce ranged weapons should be relegated to epic levels (which in traditional D&D is post 20th level) when wizards get to do  this stuff well before then (Spike Stones - level 7; Protection from Energy -  5th level; Telekinesis - 9th level; by the way they can also conjure clouds of posion, enslave extraplanar creatures, attac people in their sleep, and transform other creatures into toads at this point).

So to reiterate...I believe that martial characters should evntually grow into the  likes of Hercules, Cuchullain and Gilgamesh, but that they should do so before the end of PHB levels.

To that end, I propose tiers similar to what we saw in 3E/4E:

levels 1-5 Adventurer tier - Bilbo Baggins, The Gentleman Bastards, Logen Ninefingers & Gang; Gord the Rogue
levels 6-10 Heroic tier - Conan; the Black Company; Fellowship of the Ring; Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser
levels 11-15 Legendary tier - Elric of Melnibone; Li Mu Bai; Beowulf
levels 16-20 Mythic tier - Rialto the Magnificient; Gilgamesh; Rand Al Thor

Using these as a guideline, classes are balanced according to the expected power levels of each tier. People wanting a gritty game keep things relegated strictly to the adventurer tier, those wanting a sword and sorcery experience stop levelling after heroic tier, and those wanting the full shebaz keep going until mythic tier.



Well, forgive me if I do not want to take D&D in that direction, just because you can't reconcile the difference between spellslingers and Demi-Gods existing at different levels in the game.

You want Wizards and Fighters to be balanced? I'm right there with you. Hell, Fighter is my favorite class, and I haven't touched a magical class since the tail end of my terrible run with 4th.

But what I don't want to do is change the level concept entirely, and alter the D&D game from what it has been, to a new power level entirely. The whole idea of the 1-20 level system is that it marks your competence level.

Level one is Bob (from Tim Burton's Batman), who is barely more competant than the other thuggish mooks of Gotham, and is only really distinguished by his name.

Level twenty IS BATAMAN. The peak of human acheivment and ability.

Some, and I might be so bold as to claim most, of us don't want Wuxia style things in the base game. I would be more than fine with that style of game in a suppliment, or what have you, but not as a base. And Hell. I'd be right there at Epic levels, going "At this level, Fighters should get the Salmon Leap, like in the Táin."

D&D has always been a game that supports the Fighter as being the Badass Normal, and I love it for that.

That all being said, yes, it is bullshit when a Wizard gets Meteor Swarm, and the Fighter gets +1 to BaB, ala 3e. However, I don't think the solution is making one of the explicetly MUNDANE classes excede mortal ability before the end of the regular competency tracking system.

TL;DR version - Just because a Wizard can sling a fireball, doesn't mean the Fighter has to throw his axe in a spinning circle to hit 20 Orcs.

“Pride, envy, avarice - these are the sparks have set on fire the hearts of all men.” ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

"Feelins'? Look mate, you know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy! Professionals have standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." ―Sniper


Its called skill. You know 'best at fighting' and all that stuff...Smile



No amount of skill can reliably pull that off in combat.  There's a huge difference between "best at fighting" and "does absurd things that even the best at fighting can't do".  Richochet is in the second category.



Except at the level you get ricochet you are well above normal and doing equally absurd things like falling off cliffs and getting up and walking away,



Falling and surviving is a necessary demon.  It comes as a result of the hit point rules and in order to correct it, you'd have to add an entirely new and complex subsystem.  Unnecessary complexity should be avoided.  

carrying hundreds of points of gear with no penalties,



What is a point of gear?

getting hit with a flame thrower and walking away or slaying demon kings or whatever.



So now you're arguing that all damage is physical? 


To an extent, yes.  The issue is that the farther and farther you get away from realistic, the more people have issues with it.


True enough but I don't think that line should be anywhere near "Sometimes I can hit more than one guy with a ranged attack." Esepecially when his teammate gets to roll some d6s and be like 
"That many." 
"That's a lot of damage." 
"No, that's how many enemies die."



I'm not against martial characters getting nice things.  For multiple enemies, I'm good with multiple attacks. I'd rather see the fighter shoot/throw twice, then bounce an axe or arrow off one enemy into another on a regular basis.  Either that, or make it some sort of non-traditional magic so that the ability has some sort of explanation that works.   

And the whole "But fighters aren't maaaaagical argument," doesn't work here. They can make that distinction fine, whatever and have different mechanical implementations, but that doesn't excuse the
"I can blow up a city in my sleep." 
"Okay, cool whatever, you're a wiza- DID THAT FIGHTER JUST MOVE 12 SQUARES IN ONE ROUND, I THINK THAT BREAKS THE LAND SPEED RECORD ON FOOT, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BREAK RECORDS IN ALL THAT ARMOR GET YOUR **** TOGETHER WOTC." effect and they should still have the same rough mechanical equivalent effectiveness.



I'm also okay with some stretching.  I'm not goin to bother to try and figure out real world speeds and compare those to movement.  As I noted in my last post, to an extent the stretching is fine.  Realism =/= reality, so stretching works.  It's when they stretch to far and break something that I have an issue.

TLDR: Just because fighters can't fly around, and make other stuff fly around, doesn't mean they should be relegated to "Full attack, full atack, colorfully described full attack, move regular attack." 



I agree.  I also think that there are lots of fun an interesting ways that don't stretch things to the breaking point to accomplish it. 




hilariously enough 60 feet in 6 seconds isn't even sustained human running speed. it basically falls between avergae human walking speed and avearge human running speed.  Current movement speed is in no way a stretch of reality.  a double move comes out to about 6.8181 miles per hour.  30 feet in 6 seconds comes out to 3.40909 miles per hour which is indeed about average walking speed.
Shamanstar, that experiment already failed, proving you wrong. Thus the new edition.



Do we really have to pull this out again in every thread?

No 4E did not fail because of the game or any specific mechanics. It failed because of WotC poor business practices. From not getting preview copies out to other companies and alienating them with the GSL (which specifically prohibited selling 3.5E or earlier material at the same time) to they way they treated their customers to their inability to create the software package they promised on release to the way they advertised 4E by telling 3.5E players they were playing wrong to the Essentials debacle which was basically a money grab. WotC made quite a few business mistakes. Heck, I personally despise WotC and all the corporate greed it stands for, but I love 4E.

4E failed because the company failed, not because it wasn't a good game...Smile



Your love for 4e doesn't prove that it failed due to poor business practices. 



Your hate for 4e doesn't prove that it failed due to mechanical shortcomings.



Ahh, but I'm not making that claim.  I'm merely refuting YOUR claim since you have nothing to back it up other than your like for 4e and hate for WoTC. 

However I've linked multiple times to sales goals that spelled the end of 3.5E and 4E. So I've shown more evidence than you have...Smile



Sales goals aren't a shoddy business practice.  Sales goals are pretty sound, actually.   

hilariously enough 60 feet in 6 seconds isn't even sustained human running speed. it basically falls between avergae human walking speed and avearge human running speed.  Current movement speed is in no way a stretch of reality.



Yeah.  A move of 30 in 3e with the run feat feat let you move 150 feet in 6 seconds.  When I was in junior high school, I did 300 feet in 10 seconds while on grass. 

Sales goals aren't a shoddy business practice.  Sales goals are pretty sound, actually.   



Sales goals in general? Sure.

A sales goal that a product has NEVER met in its more than 30 years of existence?

Unreasonable at least.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

  And Hell. I'd be right there at Epic levels, going "At this level, Fighters should get the Salmon Leap, like in the Táin."
 


Weird leaping over and through enemy lines by the Celts I believe was mentioned by Caesar I recall, shrug not sure acrobatic fighting styles ought to be treated as the province of epic play... the mix of sport feats and fighting feats in legend has me picturing spears used in pole vaulting and similar things.

When we start playing D&D the historical recreation let me know.

CuhCulain being a featured inspiration along side others like Beowulf, and Hiawatha and Herakles in the 2e phb is one of those potentials and promises unfullfilled... 3e from what I hear came a touch close and 4e came closer in style but not necessarily magnitude ... 
  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."

 

  And Hell. I'd be right there at Epic levels, going "At this level, Fighters should get the Salmon Leap, like in the Táin."
 


Weird leaping over and through enemy lines by the Celts I believe was mentioned by Caesar I recall, shrug not sure acrobatic fighting styles ought to be treated as the province of epic play... the mix of sport feats and fighting feats in legend has me picturing spears used in pole vaulting and similar things.

When we start playing D&D the historical recreation let me know.

CuhCulain being a featured inspiration along side others like Beowulf, and Hiawatha and Herakles in the 2e phb is one of those potentials and promises unfullfilled... 3e from what I hear came a touch close and 4e came closer in style but not necessarily magnitude ... 



Are you just musing to yourself, or...?

“Pride, envy, avarice - these are the sparks have set on fire the hearts of all men.” ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

"Feelins'? Look mate, you know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy! Professionals have standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." ―Sniper

Sales goals aren't a shoddy business practice.  Sales goals are pretty sound, actually.  



Sales goals are in fact a great business practice....realistic sales goals.

Just because other parts of their company can make a 50 million dollar profit margin doesn't automatically make it realistic for D&D to hit those marks, especially when you seperate out sales of related Novels and any Computer Licensing.

If no other RPG in the industry comes close to the 50 million mark, then setting down a 50 million dollar bullseye is being unrealistic. Its setting your product up for failure. Nothing wrong with WANTING 50 mil, but expecting it, when nobody else can and is doing it, is bollocks.

Bringing in the argument that older editions when adapted for inflation would have made the 50 mil pricetag is also bollocks because times change, economies are different, and so is the market. More competitors, and more choices for entertainment venues means expectations change. Novelty wears off, and the next fad takes its place. Magic still makes this kind of money, so if they had another CCG line and expected that CCG line to come close to magic, that would be more reasonable, because CCGs are more profitable all around, they are a collectors game, and collection/collectability has its addiction involved. It feeds into the obsessive/compulsive side of human consumerism. D&D is not a collectables game. People collect the books, supplements, etc... but its ot based around the concept of collecting, and you even hint you might add that element to the game and people scream foul. Random collectable Minis for D&D didn't sell well. They had a niche following, but not well. Random cards to enhance D&D were tried, and that blew up in their faces as well.

They need to readjust their sales goals for D&D, pure and simple, OR they need to include all of D&D in the making of the goals, that means Novels, Supplements, Movie and Video Game tie-ins and Licensing all should count towards the goal.

Reasonable expectations would be, stay in the top 5 slot for RPGs, or for sales goals, an appreciable increase in sales, up 5 or 10% of the previous year (as long as there are releases to justify an expected return that is, no new books, don't expect increased sales), or, find what the profit margin is for the top selling game out currently in the RPG genre, and set a goal within 10% of that figure. Don't expect D&D to be M:TG or Skyrim, its apples to oranges 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
  And Hell. I'd be right there at Epic levels, going "At this level, Fighters should get the Salmon Leap, like in the Táin."
 


Weird leaping over and through enemy lines by the Celts I believe was mentioned by Caesar I recall, shrug not sure acrobatic fighting styles ought to be treated as the province of epic play... the mix of sport feats and fighting feats in legend has me picturing spears used in pole vaulting and similar things.

When we start playing D&D the historical recreation let me know.

CuhCulain being a featured inspiration along side others like Beowulf, and Hiawatha and Herakles in the 2e phb is one of those potentials and promises unfullfilled... 3e from what I hear came a touch close and 4e came closer in style but not necessarily magnitude ... 



Are you just musing to yourself, or...?


 

To put it another way let me know when you advocate putting wish and flight and meteor swarm spells in an epic module.
  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."

 

Zappy, Shamanstar, Arithezoo: nope. The publicly broadcast WotC games were with the same players, and same DM (Perkins). The lack of improvised action in 4e was not a function of the people playing, but of the system itself. See also the most recent podcast with Kim Mohan in which the developers declare explicitly that this was a factor in DDN's design: the need to avoid overly codified powers, as they stifled creativity.

Anyone still arguing that the wizard can do more with spells than the fighter can without is also avoiding the key point: a wizard can do that stuff once a day, anf only if the spell is known. The fighter can do anything the player can imagine, and do it all day long.

And of course, it's all moot anyway. That part of the design is done, and had been for over a year now.
The lack of improvised action in 4e was not a function of the people playing, but of the system itself.  


That is just plain Bull Crap

There is no lack of improvised action in 4e.
  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."

 

What people forget about this is, the Wizard can also do everything the fighter can...so no equality is achieved by this argument.

The difference is, the Wizard can improvise all he wants, AND also use spells, and depending on how lenient your DM is, the Wizard could arguably do more, as in addition to the ability to improvise mundane actions like everyone else, the Wizard could possibly improvise uses of different spells, and even talk their DM into non-codified magical affects as reasonable given a specific need/storyline.

Codified effects don't stifle creativity, just like lack of codified effects don't necessarily encourage improv, the DM and the Players bring what they bring...the same group of players, in different situations will react differently, and it is expectation more than codification that pushes it. In the broadcast games, because there was a higher expectation to have to improvise in the 5e games, the 5e players improv'd more, that's all...and as another person said, not everyone even WANTS to rely on improv, just because that's the name of the game for so many, doesn't mean its the be all and end all for everyone else.

I want my creative imaginative actor type players to feel comfortable at the same table with the more mechanically minded ones who just want to play what's on their sheet, and I don't want either to feel left out or at a disadvantage because of it.

that's the bottom line, really, everyone, inclusivity, that's the supposed overarching goal of DnDNext, as stated by the developers over and over again, Play the Game YOU want!
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
  And Hell. I'd be right there at Epic levels, going "At this level, Fighters should get the Salmon Leap, like in the Táin."
 


Weird leaping over and through enemy lines by the Celts I believe was mentioned by Caesar I recall, shrug not sure acrobatic fighting styles ought to be treated as the province of epic play... the mix of sport feats and fighting feats in legend has me picturing spears used in pole vaulting and similar things.

When we start playing D&D the historical recreation let me know.

CuhCulain being a featured inspiration along side others like Beowulf, and Hiawatha and Herakles in the 2e phb is one of those potentials and promises unfullfilled... 3e from what I hear came a touch close and 4e came closer in style but not necessarily magnitude ... 




Yes, Caesar did mention Celts doing that in his accounts. It did not add up to much as the Celtic acrobats were dealt with quickly enough. Acrobatic fighting  that is effective should not really be available until epic.  Being an acrobat at 1rst level is not the same as being an acrobat at 20th level. It would be foolish to believe that low level acrobats could fight that well. It would be equally unreasonable to believe that a 1rst level monk could fight like a martial arts master.
I am not a 4e hater, in fact, I was an early adopter. But, I do feel differently playing a 4e PC and a D&DNext PC. With 4e I feel like a button pusher and card player. When I play a D&DNext PC I feel more like the character. This is a personal feeling/opinion. I don't claim that everyone feels this way, but I definitely know that I do. If I want a strategy game, I'll play 4e. If I want to really immerse myself I'll play D&DNext.

Codified effects may not stifle creativity, but sometimes it does inhibit fluidity and cause option paralysis. I've experienced both as DM and player.

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

 

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

 

 

Naw, the Wizard just breaks out Jump, Levitate, Fly or any number of spells to get across...



Sorry, dont have those spells either.

Maybe I should not have gotten so many 'Kill the Enemy' spells and just loaded up with the 'Do stuff that my other party members already do better then me wasting my precious precious spell slots' spells instead.



Except you can load up on both in 5E and just use the one that you need when you need it...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What people forget about this is, the Wizard can also do everything the fighter can...so no equality is achieved by this argument.


Except that the fighter is much more likely to succeed climbing that tree, or grabbing that rope, or lifting that boulder, than the wizard...and much more likely to survive if he or she fails.  Balance achieved.

The primary strength of D&D as a game, over any other game which came before it, and particularly over board games and CRPGs, is that ability to do or experience anything you can imagine.  As the designers note in the podcast mentioned above, the previous two editions lost sight of that.  The new edition is specifically going to address that failure. 

Yes, some people don't like improvisation.  I'm not sure why they would be playing D&D.


D&D has always been a game that supports the Fighter as being the Badass Normal, and I love it for that.

That all being said, yes, it is bullshit when a Wizard gets Meteor Swarm, and the Fighter gets +1 to BaB, ala 3e. However, I don't think the solution is making one of the explicetly MUNDANE classes excede mortal ability before the end of the regular competency tracking system.

TL;DR version - Just because a Wizard can sling a fireball, doesn't mean the Fighter has to throw his axe in a spinning circle to hit 20 Orcs.

So then what would your solution be?  How do you keep the Wizard's ability to toss out Time Stop, Meteor Swarm, and Wish while at the same time putting the Fighter on even footing without breaking your sense of mundane-ness?
Zappy, Shamanstar, Arithezoo: nope. The publicly broadcast WotC games were with the same players, and same DM (Perkins). The lack of improvised action in 4e was not a function of the people playing, but of the system itself.

So you completely missed everything I was saying?
The same people improvised because there was no other choice.  They didn't improvise when they had codified actions because improvising would have been worse.  If they didn't care and liked to improvise, they would have.

And you STILL haven't answered the big question: why have spells?  If improvisation is so awesome, and codified actions stiffle creativity, why have spells?  Why have any codified actions at all?  Why have rules for resolving Coupe de Grace, Aid Another, Withdraw, Trip, etc?  Why have rules to explain how rage, wild shape, and turn undead work?  Why not simply explain what each class is and have players improvise? 

This has nothing to do with frequency of use.  A level 20 Wizard has enough spells to be casting them essentially at-will, especially when you factor in ritual casting.  A level 20 moon circle druid can be in animal form pretty much as often as they want.  And yet no one says, "These things stiffle creativity!"  But try to give the Fighter a single codified action and suddenly, "Why are you stiffling my creativity?!"

You can't have it both ways.  Codified powers can't stiffle creativity for some classes and not for others.  They can't exist alongside improvised actions for some classes and not for others.

Now, some have said things like, "But the Fighter will typically have better stats for physical improvisation."  Sure, better than the Wizard.  But the Wizard has better stats for mental improvisation.  You can't allow one and not the other.  And on top of that the Wizard has spells.
And what about the Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin.  All three have the same attack power and HP as the Fighter, and the Paladin even has the same HP.  All three will have the same physical stats, and thus all three can improvise.  But the Fighter isn't allowed to have codified actions because those stiffle your creativity, while the Barbarian can rage and get access to all sorts of cool abilities, and the Ranger and Paladin both get spells.

What people forget about this is, the Wizard can also do everything the fighter can...so no equality is achieved by this argument.


Except that the fighter is much more likely to succeed climbing that tree, or grabbing that rope, or lifting that boulder, than the wizard...and much more likely to survive if he or she fails.  Balance achieved.

The primary strength of D&D as a game, over any other game which came before it, and particularly over board games and CRPGs, is that ability to do or experience anything you can imagine.  As the designers note in the podcast mentioned above, the previous two editions lost sight of that.  The new edition is specifically going to address that failure. 

Yes, some people don't like improvisation.  I'm not sure why they would be playing D&D.






Yo can I get a link on that podcast?  I'd like to hear it.  I don't doubt they said it I am just looking for something to listen to.


However, what's the problem with having the ability in the game for Fighters to choose? Okay, so you want your Fighters to be heavily training martial warriors and nothing else.  I'm cool with that.



Me too.

But maybe someone else wants to play a Fantasy Warrior, throwing boulders with his STR 20, shrugging off fireballs with his high HP, and bouncing ranged weapons. The latter case is a Supernatural Fighter. He's not "magical", but he's a great warrrior in a fantasy setting and can therefore do the normally impossible.



Supernatural is effectively magical.  A synonym for magical is miracle, which itself is a synonym for supernatural.  A supernatural fighter is using abilities beyond the normal to do what he does.  Effectively using a specialized telekinesis or somethig to cause ricochets.

I think there's room for both.



So do I.  It's called different classes.  Some martial classes will be mundane.  Other martial classes will be supernatural.

 




Ok, this is just getting ludicrous now...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVXhzuwdpxI - Not real life, but a realistic 3D game that uses physics shows how it would be possible

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIVQyXq_q0g - The two balloon one, because apparently people are blind.
No I'm not I already explained why this is no good as a representation of D&D or real combat. apart form I forgot it's very obviously set up, as I said try it with a medieval longbow using clothyard shafts a t proper target into another target.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKY9FpRGyJI - Not rricochet, but 11 arrows in the ground before the first one hits, less than 6 seconds for 11 arrows. For future Rain of Arrows multi-attack arguments.
And I've already stated from history fast shooting was the norm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw - 12 shots in 3 seconds.
Er thats a gun?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgl-KQt0-AI&NR=1... - 200 yards with pinpoint accuracy.
With a modern bow!!!! I've seen many shots at up to 150 yards every week with the arrows all grouped together, they checked out our longbows and could not believe inaccurate they were to they're modern bows.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN6DXnTt-5A - Ricochet off a board into the target.
Not sure what you are trying to prove with this why would you bother when you can just shot the target, nice trick shot but in combat pointless.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T39VlHP0oMw - Double ricochet.
again

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXkGNypNm5M - Shoots a diamond ring.
Impresive shot, though looking at the wall behind he had to try many times before sucess. My fellow re-enactors and I'm sure the archer in the video woud also say such a shot is pointless in a combat situation, you wouldn't want to be that close you would not be that calm and judging by the misses he can hit an area of a few inches as a whole grouping with one through the ring. I could do the grouping with my longbow at that range, still the actual shot is impressive but really pointless and for television.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbQezcKi1pc - Mirror shot (shoots behind him)
Again impressive but for a combat situation, why?

Any questions? Yes? Ok:

mathewsinc.com/media/products-video-gall... - Not sure if this is a parody or not.
Nor me, also not quite sure what you mean by this site

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet - The physics behind a ricochet.
Don't patronise me.

At this point after viewing real people ricochet several times repeatedly shoot behind them and shoot with precision accuracy and shoot 11 arrows in 3 seconds. Then reading the physics behind it. If you still want to get rid of the ricochet maneuver for fighters, your just plain in the "fighter's can't have nice things' camp. Because its physically done in real life over and over and over...


 With modern bows set up shots and pointles televsion stunts or do you the conspiricy man believe everything you see on television? Why don't you get a replica english longbow with proper arrows and then join a re-enactment group and shot during a battle then come back to me. however as I stated earlier I personally have no real issue with "ricochet" it's a GAME with magic and monsters, just stop showing set up and pointles youtube crap, try doing it yourself with other people then come back. I need more tea....



Yes, because I'm an expert marksman and would have any chance of hitting my target let alone ricocheting a shot.

How about we get two volunteers to stand near each other and let someone shoot them? What no volunteers? C'mon, it's for science...

Okay last time mate, first off I don't really have any big issues with ricochet in D&D yes it's slightly unbelievable but for me HP's are the biggest problem with this. As for finding volunteers yes it would be trouble, having said that I know someone who if asked would think about it . I have seen many people hit by arrows though, but in re-enacment they have to have blunts on but it does still hurt and causes many bruises. The issue with finding examples in real life is as follows, in order to fire an arrow hard enough to cause an effective ricochet at a moving target (they are not going to stand still) is range this has got nothing to do with the bows pull (longbows will reach a much higher range) it's more to do with pulling the shot off. Instead of a nice calm set up shot with balloons and silence and in your own time and extra shots if you fail, this is life or death the noise is loud you have to pick the right target from many running towards you you cannot take your time (pull release repeat) then (and here is the HP problem) you have to make sure the first target is dead or seriously injured from the arrow and then have it hit the second one, you MIGHT pull off a great shot but no-ones going to witness it because the next second you will be dead, and that is the issue in D&D HP's don't work like that except with minions so yes I dont' have a massive issue with ricochet in D&D because of HP mechanics, but in real life you cannot prove a ricochet is effective in combat, for tourney archery hell yeah it would be great although most will hate you for showing off and the medieval mindset is one of "great shot but how is that useful in real life?". Also in a real battle by the time the enemy gets that close (and this is probably why no-one has thought about trying this) you drop your bow and grab your side arm a short sword in my case (althougth this year I am getting a pick) or you will die. Any way I'm done on this as it is very off topic (in your own thread), there is no need to PM either mate. Thanks for the discussion though. My cups empty hmmm "to the kettle huzzah!"



You don't see the disconnect?

A Fighter can fall 100 feet and dust themselves off and get right back in the fight, they have enough skill to wrestle demons, slay dragons, and face off with Asmodeus himself, but yet they can't nick an ordinary mortal and hit another one with the same arrow? Yeah, Fighters are supposed to be the 'best at fighting', but can't pull off a high end trick shot once per encounter? Not even against opponents they can hardly miss at all?

I'm about ready to start advocating that y'all get a new class called Warrior that can't do anything a regular human can't, not even things that talented people can do. The Warrior wouldn't get high hit points, it would get no ability scores above 16 (because 16 is the pinnacle of real world abilities). It would get one armor choice to be trained in and 2 weapons, because otherwise it would take too long to train in more than that. It would get a +1 to attack rolls every 5 levels up to +4 at 20, because that's the best normal real world humans can do right? That's all it would get no special abilities.

Then you people can go play with that class and we can get a half way decent Fighter...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
not necessarily, professordaddy, that all depends on what ability scores the Fighter has, and what ability scores the Wizard has, as well as how each Player proposes what they are doing.

Many wizards have a higher Dexterity than the fighters I've seen, to aid in their AC, and hitting with ranged and finesse type weapons because they don't use the more militant types, so pulling off many of the more acrobatic stunts could be easier for the caster, especially as he's not in heavy armor either. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
not necessarily, professordaddy, that all depends on what ability scores the Fighter has, and what ability scores the Wizard has, as well as how each Player proposes what they are doing.

Many wizards have a higher Dexterity than the fighters I've seen, to aid in their AC, and hitting with ranged and finesse type weapons because they don't use the more militant types, so pulling off many of the more acrobatic stunts could be easier for the caster, especially as he's not in heavy armor either. 


  actually from the hints we have about the next packet the wizard literally can't be as physically capable as the fighter because the fighter has a higher availability of stat increases.
not necessarily, professordaddy, that all depends on what ability scores the Fighter has, and what ability scores the Wizard has, as well as how each Player proposes what they are doing.

Many wizards have a higher Dexterity than the fighters I've seen, to aid in their AC, and hitting with ranged and finesse type weapons because they don't use the more militant types, so pulling off many of the more acrobatic stunts could be easier for the caster, especially as he's not in heavy armor either. 


  actually from the hints we have about the next packet the wizard literally can't be as physically capable as the fighter because the fighter has a higher availability of stat increases.



Yeah, not so much a big fan of that, I mean, yes, it makes sense that fighter types would work out and thus get more strength faster than others, and maybe improve their Dex and Con too, wearing armor all the time while maneuvering, but the Wizard is using his mental abilities all the time, plus dodging around avoiding hits and such because he's not in armor. The whole stat boost instead of feats potential isn't something I'm looking forward to. I'm hoping the new packet is better than what I'm expecting, but right now, it doesn't sound like it will be, but its a complete overhaul, so who knows.

In fact, the complete overhaul nature of the next packet kinda puts the lie to the belief that DnDNext is nearly complete at its core, the only core parts that are complete, really, is the part that's existed in all editions, 6 ability scores, AC, Hps, Classes, and Races, and the use of a d20 as the framework, everything else is still dynamic and changing.

I'm hoping enough feedback will come in that they will again erase their lines in the sand about certain things (like they claimed to with Casting Methods) and maybe rethink Bounded Accuracy for instance 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Anyone still arguing that the wizard can do more with spells than the fighter can without is also avoiding the key point: a wizard can do that stuff once a day, anf only if the spell is known. The fighter can do anything the player can imagine, and do it all day long.



Ah, the old "once a day vs. all day long" 15MWD, faux-balancing canard.  Yeah, we've known that's BS for over a decade, now.  Pull the other one.
not necessarily, professordaddy, that all depends on what ability scores the Fighter has, and what ability scores the Wizard has, as well as how each Player proposes what they are doing.

Many wizards have a higher Dexterity than the fighters I've seen, to aid in their AC, and hitting with ranged and finesse type weapons because they don't use the more militant types, so pulling off many of the more acrobatic stunts could be easier for the caster, especially as he's not in heavy armor either. 


  actually from the hints we have about the next packet the wizard literally can't be as physically capable as the fighter because the fighter has a higher availability of stat increases.

But that isn't enough.
Saying, "I can make Strength checks with a +5" vs "I can make Strength checks with a +2" isn't enough of a difference.

If you really want to make the Fighter the class for Imrpovisation, then build that into the class.  Give them features like:

- You can roll a d6 and add it to the result of any check you make as part of an improvised action.  The size of the die increases as you gain levels.  So a high level Fighter can wrestle with giants...and win.
- You can imrpovise as part of another action.  So a Fighter could attempt to trip an orc and then make an attack.  Higher level Fighters gain bonus improvisation actions...so a very high level Fighter might be able to take up to three improvised actions in a single round and still attack.
  And Hell. I'd be right there at Epic levels, going "At this level, Fighters should get the Salmon Leap, like in the Táin."
 


Weird leaping over and through enemy lines by the Celts I believe was mentioned by Caesar I recall, shrug not sure acrobatic fighting styles ought to be treated as the province of epic play... the mix of sport feats and fighting feats in legend has me picturing spears used in pole vaulting and similar things.

When we start playing D&D the historical recreation let me know.

CuhCulain being a featured inspiration along side others like Beowulf, and Hiawatha and Herakles in the 2e phb is one of those potentials and promises unfullfilled... 3e from what I hear came a touch close and 4e came closer in style but not necessarily magnitude ... 



Are you just musing to yourself, or...?


 

To put it another way let me know when you advocate putting wish and flight and meteor swarm spells in an epic module.



Well, you will be waiting a while then. Of course, I am all in favor of changing some of these iconic spells.

Taking longer to cast, only accessable to Tradition paths, changing spell level, etc.

But teaking the Wizard should not mean removing the mundanes from the game.

“Pride, envy, avarice - these are the sparks have set on fire the hearts of all men.” ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

"Feelins'? Look mate, you know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy! Professionals have standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." ―Sniper

not necessarily, professordaddy, that all depends on what ability scores the Fighter has, and what ability scores the Wizard has, as well as how each Player proposes what they are doing.

Many wizards have a higher Dexterity than the fighters I've seen, to aid in their AC, and hitting with ranged and finesse type weapons because they don't use the more militant types, so pulling off many of the more acrobatic stunts could be easier for the caster, especially as he's not in heavy armor either. 


  actually from the hints we have about the next packet the wizard literally can't be as physically capable as the fighter because the fighter has a higher availability of stat increases.

But that isn't enough.
Saying, "I can make Strength checks with a +5" vs "I can make Strength checks with a +2" isn't enough of a difference.

If you really want to make the Fighter the class for Imrpovisation, then build that into the class.  Give them features like:

- You can roll a d6 and add it to the result of any check you make as part of an improvised action.  The size of the die increases as you gain levels.  So a high level Fighter can wrestle with giants...and win.
- You can imrpovise as part of another action.  So a Fighter could attempt to trip an orc and then make an attack.  Higher level Fighters gain bonus improvisation actions...so a very high level Fighter might be able to take up to three improvised actions in a single round and still attack.



Yeah, this makes some sense, but then your going to have people saying "But wait, that's even more the Rogue's thing" then what do you do? The Rogue is to many your gimmick guy, so improv that might be good for the fighter, should be amazing for the Rogue character.

Now, you might do things like "If a fighter hits by a margin of _____ then the fighter can take an immediate improv action, with a + to that action attempt equal to 1 for every point over that margin they hit by" to enhance the fighter's ability to fight and improv, while the Rogue gets the things you suggested above, but really, everyone right now can improv, and that's kewl, I want to see the Fighter and the Rogue doing larger than life stuff, not just being the Jack of All Trades improv masters
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
So then what would your solution be?  How do you keep the Wizard's ability to toss out Time Stop, Meteor Swarm, and Wish while at the same time putting the Fighter on even footing without breaking your sense of mundane-ness?..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />



See post #360 for Wizards.

As for Fighters, well, I think they should be Titaium Rifles to the Wizard's Glass Cannon.

Or, to put another way, I, even as a slavish Fighter fan, have no problem conceptually with never being able to match those spells in effect. But I would still like to be able to kill a Wizard easily, if that makes any sense.

Like, if a Fighter and a Wizard were dropped unprepared into an Arena and had to duke it out, the Wizard would be ****ed. Because, sure, it has all of this magical might at his disposal, but he can't cast anthying higher than a cantrip or maybe 1st level spell in one round. And by the time he could get the good stuff, the Fighter had lopped his head off long ago.

That would also encourage more of the STAY BEHIND THE FIGHTER gameplay.

“Pride, envy, avarice - these are the sparks have set on fire the hearts of all men.” ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

"Feelins'? Look mate, you know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy! Professionals have standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." ―Sniper


Its called skill. You know 'best at fighting' and all that stuff...Smile



No amount of skill can reliably pull that off in combat.  There's a huge difference between "best at fighting" and "does absurd things that even the best at fighting can't do".  Richochet is in the second category.



Except at the level you get ricochet you are well above normal and doing equally absurd things like falling off cliffs and getting up and walking away,



Falling and surviving is a necessary demon.  It comes as a result of the hit point rules and in order to correct it, you'd have to add an entirely new and complex subsystem.  Unnecessary complexity should be avoided.  

carrying hundreds of points of gear with no penalties,



What is a point of gear?

getting hit with a flame thrower and walking away or slaying demon kings or whatever.



So now you're arguing that all damage is physical? 




Falling is not a necessary demon. Simply double the number of dice you roll for each 10 feet you fall. Throw it in an easy chart for lookup:

Feet
Fallen     Damage
10          1d10
20          2d10
30          4d10
40          8d10
50         16d10
60         32d10
70         64d10
80        128d10
81+      Instant Death

It also kind of follows the basic laws of physics with doubling velocity for every second you fall.

Oh good thing you caught the 'point' word in there. For a minute there I thought I had a valid point, but the grammar police sure showed me I was wrong.

Also the damage equals physical is your's and other's thing. I'm just holding you to your own standard. Even if only 10% of each hit is physical and the rest is stamina, luck, etc...etc... you still aren't walking away from a fight with 3rd degree burns on your hand or foot or whatever...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah, the glass-cannon balance method doesn't work.

1. It turns low-level especially Caster players into a game of Rocket Tag
2. It paints bullseyes on the Casters
3. Normal Hazards and Traps that are unforeseen become more deadly to casters than to Fighters and other mundanes

If you make the Wizard so squishy that he can't trip over a cobblestone without going into negative hitpoints, he becomes no fun to play. It also makes it absolutely insane for any creatures with an INT score over say 5 not to gang up on the casters every round, which without any kind of 'Defender' ability to mark/lockdown creatures, kind of invalidates the Fighter's schtick.

At higher levels, the Wizard has spells that make them more resilient than any Fighter around, and they still are a Nova Cannon, while without giving the Fighter any shiny toys (other than magic items maybe) is still slogging along. Shoot, the fighter needs magic items at higher levels to keep up, while the Wizard MAKES magic items, Researches spells, and generally just gets better and better.

if nothing else, all the Glass Cannon thing does for a Wizard is make him hire a bunch of guards to keep people away, I don't know about you, but if I was to play a fighter, I wouldn't want to be relogated to the Wizard's Bodyguard/scroll caddy role 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Shamanstar, that experiment already failed, proving you wrong. Thus the new edition.



Do we really have to pull this out again in every thread?

No 4E did not fail because of the game or any specific mechanics. It failed because of WotC poor business practices. From not getting preview copies out to other companies and alienating them with the GSL (which specifically prohibited selling 3.5E or earlier material at the same time) to they way they treated their customers to their inability to create the software package they promised on release to the way they advertised 4E by telling 3.5E players they were playing wrong to the Essentials debacle which was basically a money grab. WotC made quite a few business mistakes. Heck, I personally despise WotC and all the corporate greed it stands for, but I love 4E.

4E failed because the company failed, not because it wasn't a good game...Smile



Your love for 4e doesn't prove that it failed due to poor business practices. 



Your hate for 4e doesn't prove that it failed due to mechanical shortcomings.



Ahh, but I'm not making that claim.  I'm merely refuting YOUR claim since you have nothing to back it up other than your like for 4e and hate for WoTC. 

However I've linked multiple times to sales goals that spelled the end of 3.5E and 4E. So I've shown more evidence than you have...Smile



Sales goals aren't a shoddy business practice.  Sales goals are pretty sound, actually.   



Sales goals in general aren't shoddy business practices and can motive workers to slave away because they know their jobs are on the line.

The specific sales goals that Hasbro set for 4E and late 3.5E however were horrible business practices because they didn't look at the entire market and realize it was unattainable...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What people forget about this is, the Wizard can also do everything the fighter can...so no equality is achieved by this argument.


Except that the fighter is much more likely to succeed climbing that tree, or grabbing that rope, or lifting that boulder, than the wizard...and much more likely to survive if he or she fails.  Balance achieved.

The primary strength of D&D as a game, over any other game which came before it, and particularly over board games and CRPGs, is that ability to do or experience anything you can imagine.  As the designers note in the podcast mentioned above, the previous two editions lost sight of that.  The new edition is specifically going to address that failure. 

Yes, some people don't like improvisation.  I'm not sure why they would be playing D&D.





Not in 5E. The difference between a Fighter improvising and a Wizard improvising is about 5-15%, then a Wizard can just bypass most challenges with spells if they are inclined, and in 5E they can prepare both combat and utility spells and use the one they want when the situation comes up. So you won't be getting what you want out of 5E either.

The primary strength of D&D is as a co-op fantasy story telling game. It can feature improvisation, but no edition called that out as the primary feature. That's just your personal play style...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
At present, a fighter can do anything a player can dream up. The moment you start limiting that range of possibility by explicitly spelling out what the class can do, you're nerfing the class. No idea why you'd want to do that.



The problem you then run into is what is desribed as Dm may i ?

When i played ADnD 2nd edition the difrences between difrent gaming groups where huge.
A real life example of that is the folowing.

In one group i played with I made a called shot (-4 to hit) to a Ogers leg with my bow and hit.
And the Dm ruled that the ogre fell to the ground and only move half his speed from that point on untill he recieved any healing.

later a played with another group and we where also fighting ogers and i made the same called shot.
In that case the DM just treated it as a hit exactly the same as it would have been without the penalty.


But this wasen't realy aproblem at the time ( still not a problem for me as we don't have organised/pickuo games play like encounter seasons here)
But when you add organised play it becouse a problem you then need more consistancy in rulings from one table to the next.

 

If the context of the orginal statement I responded to was limited to 5e that is true. However, The said statement didn't qualify it as such. if I responded out of context my bad.



I was sorta talking about 5e and how 4e also stated that martial powers were non-traditional magic.  1e, 2e and 3e also had supernatural/magical abilities.  If you have to go back to basic to show non-magical monks, then I'd say things are sorta in my favor on this one ;) 

That being said, quoting 5e doesn't contridict the fact that martial powers were supported since OD&D. Monks were giving cleric abilities and then on page 3 of the Blackmoor supplement II it says this:

Magic: Monks have no magical abilities per se. Besides magical weaponry, monks may only use rings, and those miscellaneous magic items usable by thieves. Potions and scrolls may not be used.



The "per se" means that it sorta kinda does have magical abilities.  i.e. non-traditional types.  If it flat out had no magical abilities, the sentence would have read, "Monks have no magical abilities.  Besides magical weaponry..."




"per se" actually means, "By or in itself or themselves." The semicolon is equivalent to connecting, comparing and/or contrasting seperate statements. So it says exactly the same thing as your rewording.

I don't see how it makes your point at all actually. It was a important enough point in the suppliment that it was its own section of the monk definition. Couple that with the fact that it was the second suppliment after Grayhawk which both went on to be a featured of 1e. I don't believe it can be as easily dismissed as what you've done.

Honestly though, I don't care if it is considered supernatural. It was important that there was a concept that made it a internal power source or exception skill and not "beause a wizard did it." Psionic works perfectly fine for me in that regard.


Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Yeah, the glass-cannon balance method doesn't work.

1. It turns low-level especially Caster players into a game of Rocket Tag
2. It paints bullseyes on the Casters
3. Normal Hazards and Traps that are unforeseen become more deadly to casters than to Fighters and other mundanes



1. And the problem with having low level play be more deadly than high level play is...?

2. And the problem with this is...?

3. And the problem with this is...?

“Pride, envy, avarice - these are the sparks have set on fire the hearts of all men.” ― Dante Alighieri, Inferno

"Feelins'? Look mate, you know who has a lot of feelings? Blokes what bludgeon their wives to death with a golf trophy! Professionals have standards. Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet." ―Sniper