|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 12:04AM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
OK,
scenario time (no specific rules set):
A band of hobgoblins has hostages and is barricaded in a thatch roofed hut with solid stone walls with one entrance which they are carefully watching. They have stated that the surrounding forces (the PCs) can either accept a binding geas (magically enforced oath) to allow them to leave or they will butcher their captives. Any detected assault will result in the aforementioned slaughter of the captives.
I have no problem with the following outcomes:
Wizard: Scries the interior, teleports in, casts an instantly incapacitating spell on the hobgoblins poised to butcher the hostages prior to defeating the rest with his allies who charge at his signal.
Fighter: Bursts in through the rear wall, butchering the hobgoblins guarding the hostages before they can overcome their shock at his entry prior to defeating the rest with his allies who charge at his signal.
Rogue: Slithers in silently through the thatch on the roof, silently dispatching the guards on the hostages prior to defeating the rest with his allies who charge at his signal.
Cleric: Using his divine magic and combat skills to perform some combination of the above.
Do you have a problem with this scenario? If so, why?
I have a problem. That scenario can be done easily in 3.5, and the edition is terribly unbalanced and stupid in regard of caster / non-caster parity. The scenario doesn't actually tell me anything about the actual capacities of the characters. It could easily be balanced or terribly unbalanced, depending on the costs of scrying / teleport, the level of the characters and the huge amounts of other abilities the characters have. In a word, that scenario is not useful to determine the relative power level.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 1:09AM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
OK,
scenario time (no specific rules set):
A band of hobgoblins has hostages and is barricaded in a thatch roofed hut with solid stone walls with one entrance which they are carefully watching. They have stated that the surrounding forces (the PCs) can either accept a binding geas (magically enforced oath) to allow them to leave or they will butcher their captives. Any detected assault will result in the aforementioned slaughter of the captives.
I have no problem with the following outcomes:
Wizard: Scries the interior, teleports in, casts an instantly incapacitating spell on the hobgoblins poised to butcher the hostages prior to defeating the rest with his allies who charge at his signal.
Fighter: Bursts in through the rear wall, butchering the hobgoblins guarding the hostages before they can overcome their shock at his entry prior to defeating the rest with his allies who charge at his signal.
Rogue: Slithers in silently through the thatch on the roof, silently dispatching the guards on the hostages prior to defeating the rest with his allies who charge at his signal.
Cleric: Using his divine magic and combat skills to perform some combination of the above.
Do you have a problem with this scenario? If so, why?
Or the PC's accept the terms, then deal with the 3d6 damage/ fortitude save to avoid being sickened (3.5) and attack anyway.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 1:40AM
#143
|
|
|
Curses, I knew I forgot something, teach me to try and cover everything in five minutes (also, my failures at communicating my complete thoughts over this sort of medium). I figure the base scenario works whether it is the initially described hobgoblins, Gith planar pirates barricaded in their captain's cabin on one of their ships or band of Djin courtiers in an Efreet Sultan's harem in the City of Brass. I did, of course, mean for both letting the monsters leave (perhaps letting them leave means they will escape with the Macguffin? cause the PCs to suffer for failing another geas perhaps?) and accepting the geas to be unacceptable alternatives (this is why I specified no particular rules system? Perhaps the result of violating a geas is similar to willfully breaking a Blood Contract in V:TM revised? ie instant, unavoidable, irrevocable destruction of the character). I admit this would be a railroad but that is because in this instance my intent is to say that if all the characters have an equal opportunity to shine, there is no problem, if only one character has an opportunity to shine (or will as the level of play increases through what 4th refers to as Paragon and Epic tier) then we have a problem. I think this still boils down to an issue of Plot Coupons, when characters can use them and what characters can have them (for me, the optimal answers are yes, when the player wants to, and all). The thing is I don't particularly think that Higher level play breaks down so much as it was insufficiently supported (this is a trans edition problem in my eyes, Gygax and co apparantly thought that players would quit playing the same character around name level in first, boy was he wrong in my limited by somewhat expansive (Roleplaying on 3 different continents) experience. The basic themes of storytelling (and plots to) remain the same. The "rescue the hostages" should be just as viable an adventure at 20th level as it was at 1st, the difference being that the scope of the consequences of failure should be greater (or just as personal, why wouldn't the enemies of the 20th level character's kingdom seek to kidnap his child and use it as a weapon to keep him at bay [wait a minute, I recognize that plot, that (or a variant) was used by Feist in The King's Buccaneer and by Eddings in the Mallorean. What a coincidence  ]).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 5:38AM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
The D&D world has an altered set of physics...To me D&D is cinematic real.
These two statements are what we, who see no reason why spellcasters should be the only people capable of doing cool stuff, want applied. That altered set of physics (or of reality, if you'd rather) is what lets a fighter take a Ogre's club to the ribs, cracking a few of them and making him start to hack up blood, only for the fighter to stand straight and, within a few seconds, take down that Ogre after the Warlord yells, "Stand tall, and remember that the Iron Band [the fighter's old merc company] does not fall while a battle is still fought!"
Its cinematic badassery, aided in no small part by the fact that the fantasy world is different from ours. We're not saying, "Raaaa, wizards are stupid, why should bat guano and some harsh language blow up stuff?" We're saying, "Dude! Right after your Wizard blew away those mooks, my dude totally just pwned the ogre!"
Sure, we point to the tales of Roland, Beowulf, Cu-Cuthein, and the like to show that there is a literary tradition behind badass fighters. We bring up the square-cube law to show that there is obviously some pretty major differences between our world and a fantasy world. We're not saying, "raaa, Giants are stupid." We're saying, "Since Giants are impossible in our world, the fantasy world obviously operates under different rules, which means that martial characters can do stuff that can't be done in real life."
Now, to bring this back to high-level play, we are also concerned about those characters that are awesome because of skill, stubbornness, and that special spark (i.e. martial characters) become boring to play at high levels if a strict adherence to realism is the defining characteristic. We're fine with Wizards being able to do awesome things, as long as martial characters can do awesome things too.
All we want is for everybody to have the same access to fun and awesomeness, regardless of class.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 5:48AM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
All we want is for everybody to have the same access to fun and awesomeness, regardless of class.
Ok no argument there. Just what composes that fun is the argument. In the earlier editions of D&D, some of the greatest heroes to ever walk my world were fighters. They could do damage at a continuous pace like no one else. They would rip the throat out of an ogre bare handed if they wanted.
I'm not against fighter fun honestly. I've only ever played martial characters myself and I had tons of fun. In my campaigns as DM, the fighters were invariably the high spirited rush in where angels fear to tread kind of characters. The wizards were always proposing caution.
If I had a fun meter, I am certain that the fighters were being played by people having more fun than anyone else. But maybe laughter, and smiles, and them telling of the legend of their fighter is insufficient proof. I'm sure the quieter wizard player was having his fun in his own way.
We want things better but the older editions of D&D were fun. They can be improved yes and more balance is an admirable goal. But not at the expense of fun which is what 4e did.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 8:54AM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
All we want is for everybody to have the same access to fun and awesomeness, regardless of class.
Ok no argument there. Just what composes that fun is the argument. In the earlier editions of D&D, some of the greatest heroes to ever walk my world were fighters. They could do damage at a continuous pace like no one else. They would rip the throat out of an ogre bare handed if they wanted.
I'm not against fighter fun honestly. I've only ever played martial characters myself and I had tons of fun. In my campaigns as DM, the fighters were invariably the high spirited rush in where angels fear to tread kind of characters. The wizards were always proposing caution.
If I had a fun meter, I am certain that the fighters were being played by people having more fun than anyone else. But maybe laughter, and smiles, and them telling of the legend of their fighter is insufficient proof. I'm sure the quieter wizard player was having his fun in his own way.
We want things better but the older editions of D&D were fun. They can be improved yes and more balance is an admirable goal. But not at the expense of fun which is what 4e did.
Can you accept that for some of us, balance=fun, and thus the more balanced something is, (even if the classes have different tricks, one player's abilities do not overide or negate another) the more fun we have with it?
I can accept that in your games with your players and your DMs the game may have been playable in the past and even fun. With only a rudimentary knowledge of older edition workings gleaned from PC games and limited reading, that's all I really can do. However, form reading those books I knew that those systems would never work for me.
So, does your style of gameplay exclude mine? Or could both be included at high level play? More importantly, can there be balance in inentional imbalance? Put another way, if they made a more realistic fighter for you and a more fantastical fighter for me that approached the wizard, would that be problematic for you?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 9:43AM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Can you accept that for some of us, balance=fun, and thus the more balanced something is, (even if the classes have different tricks, one player's abilities do not overide or negate another) the more fun we have with it?
I agree some people need this above all else. I like having it but it isn't an absolute deal breaker for me if I have an otherwise fun game. We all want it if it doesn't take away from other things. I've never heard anyone say they want imbalance for imbalance sake. I just hear people say -- I can't accept X in order to achieve balance.
I can accept that in your games with your players and your DMs the game may have been playable in the past and even fun. With only a rudimentary knowledge of older edition workings gleaned from PC games and limited reading, that's all I really can do. However, form reading those books I knew that those systems would never work for me.
D&D in the 70's and early 80's was a phenom. You couldn't go to breakfast in the school cafeteria and not see a campaign going running at a table. So of course some people can have fun with it. Even 1e. Now I agree that as the game has progressed people don't want to go back. For me 4e was not progress but I understand for many that it filled a need they'd thought unfillable I think.
So, does your style of gameplay exclude mine? Or could both be included at high level play? More importantly, can there be balance in inentional imbalance? Put another way, if they made a more realistic fighter for you and a more fantastical fighter for me that approached the wizard, would that be problematic for you?
Of course. My minimum requirement for a game is that it be fun. I do feel the final fall back is completely modular fighters. If I were an intense 4e fan, I would be worried that they will try to hit what I want and miss. I would never have thought that so many people wanted a fighter that could jump to the moon. (NOT saying you do by the way but some do.)
I think the designers would be wise to address the specific concerns of every large faction they can. If they keep just the 4e base they have now then the game will be an instant failure. If they lose all of the 4e people and recapture every one of the Pathfinder people it will be a failure. They need to recapture 80% of both at a minimum. If they can get some 1e guys too thats even better.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 4:10PM
#148
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
I would actually like to see less but longer lasting levels. I say your standard would be 1-10 and then 11-20 would be an epic type game but one that is different from 1-10.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 9:05PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
Of course. My minimum requirement for a game is that it be fun. I do feel the final fall back is completely modular fighters. If I were an intense 4e fan, I would be worried that they will try to hit what I want and miss. I would never have thought that so many people wanted a fighter that could jump to the moon. (NOT saying you do by the way but some do.)
I don’t think they're that many. How many people have posted on this thread? 10?
Nonetheless remember this is a 4th edition community. Of course they hate vancian magic, realistic fighters and the like.
I think the designers would be wise to address the specific concerns of every large faction they can. If they keep just the 4e base they have now then the game will be an instant failure. If they lose all of the 4e people and recapture every one of the Pathfinder people it will be a failure. They need to recapture 80% of both at a minimum. If they can get some 1e guys too thats even better.
To be honest I was really enthusiastic about the modular approach. But now I’m not that sure... maybe I’m starting to feel the absence of a personal vision of the game they want to design...
People playing Pathfinder will not return just because WoTC release a new edition of D&D. What makes Pathfinder an awesome deal for and rpg costumer are the adventure’s paths, not the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 24, 2012 - 10:10PM
#150
|
|
|
What makes Pathfinder an awesome deal for and rpg costumer are the adventure’s paths, not the rules.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb
1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it."
-Maxperson
|
|
|
