|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:21PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2012
|
The basic RNG would be my choice, but then I'm a massively Mechanical person, so perhaps that's not nearly as important to most people. 
Okay then, here's a question:
In your opinion, is it absolutely necessary to keep modifiers within the range of the RNG, and if so what's the best way to go about it? Should vertical advancement be limited?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:30PM
#52
|
|
|
Oh look, Stafir not standing for saying positive things about 4e.
Well...what else can we expect? An well supported and reasoned opinion? Nah, just getting angry because it's 4e.
you mean you havent blocked him yet? 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:38PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Oh look, Stafir not standing for saying positive things about 4e.
Well...what else can we expect? An well supported and reasoned opinion? Nah, just getting angry because it's 4e.
you mean you havent blocked him yet?
I don't block anyone, no matter how frustrating they get.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:39PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Okay then, here's a question:
In your opinion, is it absolutely necessary to keep modifiers within the range of the RNG, and if so what's the best way to go about it? Should vertical advancement be limited?
Good question, Bobbum!
No. I like Modifiers that don't stack; I like the idea of equal advancement. However, I also think that true strike ala 3.5 was an excellent example of breaking out of the prescribed Range of most Modifiers while still remaining fair to the System (and it's also not too hard to imagine a Martial Version of it). I think 4E might have had too many Modifiers flying around that dissipated too quickly; 3.5 certainly had quite a few, but they all tended to last for the majority of any given Encounter (bless, bull's strength, etc.). I'm not sure what the absolute best way to go about it is, but I'm definitely willing to keep an open mind.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:41PM
#55
|
|
|
Oh look, Stafir not standing for saying positive things about 4e.
Well...what else can we expect? An well supported and reasoned opinion? Nah, just getting angry because it's 4e.
you mean you havent blocked him yet?
I don't block anyone, no matter how frustrating they get.
youre a much stronger man than me, ive got 90% the 5e forum blocked
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:44PM
#56
|
|
|
Okay then, here's a question:
In your opinion, is it absolutely necessary to keep modifiers within the range of the RNG, and if so what's the best way to go about it? Should vertical advancement be limited?
Good question, Bobbum!
No. I like Modifiers that don't stack; I like the idea of equal advancement. However, I also think that true strike ala 3.5 was an excellent example of breaking out of the prescribed Range of most Modifiers while still remaining fair to the System (and it's also not too hard to imagine a Martial Version of it). I think 4E might have had too many Modifiers flying around that dissipated too quickly; 3.5 certainly had quite a few, but they all tended to last for the majority of any given Encounter (bless, bull's strength, etc.). I'm not sure what the absolute best way to go about it is, but I'm definitely willing to keep an open mind.
I gotta admit: I don't follow the question, nor the answer.
I understand that RNG stands for Random Number Generator (at least I think so), but I am still confused. Modifiers within the range of the RNG? The d20 is the RNG, right? What modifiers are we talking about? Stat modifiers? Because those have a range well below the 1-20 range of a d20.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:53PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
I like small modifiers. I think stacking modifiers should be rare and very special, other than the common situational bonuses from flanking or such. I agree that there were too many modifiers that disappeared too quickly in 4e, but I do feel that "end of next turn" modifiers add a lot of interesting complexity to the system. Usually it was penalties that would trip me up.
When 4e first came out, I figured that most feats would give feat bonuses, powers would give power bonuses, and items would give item bonuses, and untyped bonuses would really be situationally dependent things such as from flanking or prone, and as a result would be fairly rare outside of the specific conditions described by the PHB. Therefore you would rarely have to add more than three numbers to your ability score + half level, and one of them (item) would be static. Then it turned out that almost everything gave untyped bonuses, especially to damage, which was crazy.
(I actually initially thought that ALL feats gave feat bonuses and ALL powers gave power bonuses, whether they explicitly said so or not. I thought "feat bonus" meant "bonus that you have because of a feat" not "bonus specifically labeled as a feat bonus." I thought this was the common sense way to read the sentence "A feat bonus is granted by a feat." But apparently I'm an idiot.)
Anywho I am on a quest to never have to add more than 20 to any number. Frankly I would be happy to keep it under 10.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:53PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2008
|
Foxface I feel the exact same from this side of the edition war. I have posted in a few threads trying to find a common ground, a starting place. I realized that 3.5 had several large flaws that needed to be fixed. I feel that 4th has several large flaws that need to be fixed.
If only your posts actually showed this off, at all.
I've seen posts from you several times where you went into 4E threads, and out and out insisted 4E was completely and utterly inferior, and that many of it's innovations should be completely absent from 5E. You are not akin to Foxface. To suggest you are, I would insist, is rather insulting to people like Foxface. You -are- fighting, and are fighting for regression.
Please, don't compare yourself to posters who actually contribute constructively and act innocent. You are just as much a problem as people like Stafir who insist that we just blindly insist that 4E is perfect.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:55PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
What modifiers are we talking about? Stat modifiers? Because those have a range well below the 1-20 range of a d20.
That's not actually true. Even with a low primary ability score your attack will exceed 20 by midparagon, and your static damage modifier will likely exceed your weapon die even earlier.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:59PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
I don't block anyone, no matter how frustrating they get.
I do this as well, as frustrating as it can be. :S
I gotta admit: I don't follow the question, nor the answer.
I understand that RNG stands for Random Number Generator (at least I think so), but I am still confused. Modifiers within the range of the RNG? The d20 is the RNG, right? What modifiers are we talking about? Stat modifiers? Because those have a range well below the 1-20 range of a d20.
Yes, RNG=Random Number Generator. A Modifier within the Range is one that can be accounted for within the System; it's expected that a Character of level X will have +X to his Attack Roll, for instance. That's a massively simplistic analogy, of course, but this is why I pointed out true strike; it's bonus to your Attack Roll is quite a bit outside the Range of expected Attack Rolls in terms of 3.5's AC progression.
Bobbum was asking if I thought a general straight-forward advancement of Classes and their Bonuses to Skills/AC/Attack Rolls/Stats/etc. should be Linear and always remain within the expected norms of the System. I think there's room for exception there, but should be moderated very carefully.
Hope that helps. 
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
