|
1 year ago ::
Feb 03, 2012 - 7:04PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2007
|
This will result in either the class being useless outside of a purely vs. undead campaign, being silly overpowered whenever undead do show up, or possibly both!
Thought: what if the game accounted for this and was designed to work with it? For example, most divine classes would be explained to be very effective against undead. The DM would be told to understand this to mean that for encounters involving undead, there should be x much more EXP's worth of undead in the fight for each character especially effective against undead, to make the encounter just as difficult as it would be for a party without those kinds of classes.
Tangential, thread-irrelevant side note: The DMG needs to have a section explaining the eternal flaw in the EXP system in regards to the number of opponents. In my experience, encounters tend to get wonkier the more sources of attack are included. Or does the DMG already cover this?
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 03, 2012 - 7:06PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
There really isn't anything mechanical about it because the mechanics are just a means to an end and they are not that important.
Its a game - without mechanics, its not a game, if the mechanics are not important to you then you might consider whether it makes sense posting here.
I played in a AD&D game at a convention in the 1980s they handed me a 12th level fighter another new player played a 14th level thief... any way we both felt like we were henchmen watching a wizard show... say what you want if the mechanics are that off kilter its really hard to see yourself as Conan.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 03, 2012 - 8:49PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
For my sake, hopefully Roles take a hike with 5th Ed (just like we know Power Sources are).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 4:45AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2008
|
The roles are not really important imo (let play the players as they want) the only ancestral principle to keep for 5th ed : more damage = risky, weak protection, more probability to be targeted by the enemy (Edited to fix page error)
Moderated by
Dragonette
on Feb 04, 2012 - 10:52AM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 5:04AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2011
|
The roles exist without being stated.
I don't want the roles to be a straight jacket though. Ideally I want a system where the party organically shifts the roles around to the situation at hand
ex: Fighter and Ranger and Cleric are battling orcs. The Fighter with his big shield does the initial defender type stuff while the Ranger digs in with his twin blades. If the fighter suffers a bad critical hit though, the ranger jumps in to defend his comrade to give the cleric enough time to bring him up to his feet.
In that example the Fighter is better built to take punishment, but the ranger can step up from time to time. I think making defender mechanics like marking or auras something that everyone could potentially do would go a long way. You can still focus on it
It's like flanking being a 'striker mechanic'. Everyone benefits from that +2 to hit, but the Rogue's the one that focuses with Sneak Attack.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 5:50AM
#36
|
|
|
People wih years of experience make mistakes just like everyone else, not knowing what to do because your stuck weighting the best of many varies solutions can cause you to hesitate just as a complete lack of experience.
Yeah but it doesn't happen all that often, I would argue.
Regardless, it sounds like reverse (meta-game) psychology when someone wants to just keep combat going at a reasonable pace instead of letting it bog down so everyone continues to have fun. One person be pissed cause he didn't get to take forever on his turn is less important then 4-6 other people getting pissed cause one guy is taking forever.
Moderation is the key here. I certainly allow my characters to plan what they are doing and converse among one another for tactics, but they have never abused it to the point of being ridiculous. I would say that nobody is against urging your player(s) onward if they take a while, I am against "Okay you don't know what you are doing, your character will stand around like a fool for one round, done, next!".
There is a wide gap between the two extremes, one that should be made use of, IMO.
I agree with all your points here.
I see it only as a solution to a problem of combat progressing too slowly or individuals take too long on their turn. If that isn't a problem at the table its not neccessary.
I had to do this at my table because I am the only DM and we have tables with as many as 8 players. I haved someone take 5 minutes just to pick their first attack. If everyone else is taking 1-3 minutes on their turn and one guy is taking 5-8 minutes its like we have a extra person at a already large table.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 6:00AM
#37
|
|
|
The roles exist without being stated.
I don't want the roles to be a straight jacket though. Ideally I want a system where the party organically shifts the roles around to the situation at hand
ex: Fighter and Ranger and Cleric are battling orcs. The Fighter with his big shield does the initial defender type stuff while the Ranger digs in with his twin blades. If the fighter suffers a bad critical hit though, the ranger jumps in to defend his comrade to give the cleric enough time to bring him up to his feet.
In that example the Fighter is better built to take punishment, but the ranger can step up from time to time. I think making defender mechanics like marking or auras something that everyone could potentially do would go a long way. You can still focus on it
It's like flanking being a 'striker mechanic'. Everyone benefits from that +2 to hit, but the Rogue's the one that focuses with Sneak Attack.
I think this is a good example. 4e provided tools for this situation. I just wonder if the penalty is too great. in this situation the ranger could use a heal check to second wind the fighter, get in a good positon and total defence to raise his defense to a decent level or aid defence to make the defender less squishy till he can get the heal he needs. I would view any of those things as jumping in to defend a comrade. But, they all come at the cost of a standard action. So is the problem about changing roles on the fly or change roles on the fly with out such a significant sacrifice?
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 6:50AM
#38
|
|
|
The strikers seem to have suffered from power creep more then the other classes. When 4e first came out, it was a challenge for rogues to get combat advantage every turn, and quarry is not a huge damage boost by itself. The strikers where doing more damage then anybody else, but not massively more. Now, a competent rogue will have combat advantage on every attack, rangers are getting most of their damage off Twin Strike and extra attacks and slayers have huge flat bonuses to damage and none of them will miss very often. My party's defenders are still doing the same DPR they did when 4e first came out, but the strikers are doing three or more times.
I also want to add that even if the other roles had the same power creep in regards to their role, it wouldn't have helped.
Most people enjoy dealing damage. If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 20% less damage that's a acceptable trade. If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 50% less damage that's kind of sucks. (aka powercreep only to the strikers) If my defender is 60% tougher than the striker and deals 60% less damage that still kind of sucks. Sure, I am untouchable, but all I am doing is standing there being untouchable and throwing cotton balls at my enemies. (Aka power creep for the strikers strikerness and the defenders defenderness). IMO get rid of striker as a seperate role. Defenders defend and deal damage, leaders lead and deal damage and controllers controll and deal damage. Get rid of a role whose purpose is to outdamage anyone else.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 7:42AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The strikers seem to have suffered from power creep more then the other classes. When 4e first came out, it was a challenge for rogues to get combat advantage every turn, and quarry is not a huge damage boost by itself. The strikers where doing more damage then anybody else, but not massively more. Now, a competent rogue will have combat advantage on every attack, rangers are getting most of their damage off Twin Strike and extra attacks and slayers have huge flat bonuses to damage and none of them will miss very often. My party's defenders are still doing the same DPR they did when 4e first came out, but the strikers are doing three or more times.
I also want to add that even if the other roles had the same power creep in regards to their role, it wouldn't have helped.
Most people enjoy dealing damage. If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 20% less damage that's a acceptable trade.
If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 50% less damage that's kind of sucks. (aka powercreep only to the strikers)
Thats partly because its way more complex and anyone can be tough, the Defender is also about manhandling enemies so that they dont target the others so much and he also gets to do his damn if you do and damned if you dont options... both need enhanced. Being able to mark and hold more enemies successfully and make em pay if they dont. The DM needs to violate those marks sometimes too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 8:03AM
#40
|
|
|
The strikers seem to have suffered from power creep more then the other classes. When 4e first came out, it was a challenge for rogues to get combat advantage every turn, and quarry is not a huge damage boost by itself. The strikers where doing more damage then anybody else, but not massively more. Now, a competent rogue will have combat advantage on every attack, rangers are getting most of their damage off Twin Strike and extra attacks and slayers have huge flat bonuses to damage and none of them will miss very often. My party's defenders are still doing the same DPR they did when 4e first came out, but the strikers are doing three or more times.
I also want to add that even if the other roles had the same power creep in regards to their role, it wouldn't have helped.
Most people enjoy dealing damage. If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 20% less damage that's a acceptable trade.
If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 50% less damage that's kind of sucks. (aka powercreep only to the strikers)
Thats partly because its way more complex and anyone can be tough, the Defender is also about manhandling enemies so that they dont target the others so much and he also gets to do his damn if you do and damned if you dont options... both need enhanced. Being able to mark and hold more enemies successfully and make em pay if they dont. The DM needs to violate those marks sometimes too.
The thing is that even manhandling doesn't always help. I have a level 13 swordmage dealing 10.5 DPR. So his whole job is standing there and taking the punches while throwing back cotton balls.
When an enemy violates the mark his punishment is either doing less damage or maybe having his strike re-directed agains one of his allies. Neither improves the damage of my swordmage. The greates let-down was when I was fighting four rounds 1 on 1 vs a standard monster while the others were occupied at other corners of the map and after four rounds of hitting every round (good rolls for the hit, my attack bonus is fairly standard) I finally bloodied my enemy (and that's with encounter and daily powers thrown in the mix during this four rounds). By then the others were done and a striker finally came along and slew the bloodied monster in one rounds. At them moment I could actually make battles faster by stopping to attack. I can just announce "full defence" each round and the combat would be faster since the time it takes me to roll dice and announce damage is more than the negligible damage I deal shortens the combat. And I didn't purposfully minimize my damage. I had an 18 main stat, improved at every opportunity, I have a +3 weapon and even have the focus feat and a shard attached to the weapon, thus midly optimized. There simply shouldn't be so huge damage gaps between the roles/classes
|
|
|
