|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 2:29PM
#561
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2012
|
Because casters can possibly be able to do anything with the right spell they need to be less good at everything. So maybe magic just needs to be weaker.
Thats the whole Jack of all trades master of none theory anyways.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 5:00PM
#562
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Because casters can possibly be able to do anything with the right spell they need to be less good at everything. So maybe magic just needs to be weaker.
Thats the whole Jack of all trades master of none theory anyways.
Yep, and it didn't work out too well for the 3.x Bard.
The other way for 'magic to do everything,' while casters remain balanced is to limit each caster to a very small slice of the 'do everything' magic pie. So, a school-specialist this time around would /just/ have access to his school, no other, and with that school would master a small number of spells that he uses at full potential (or perhaps have a small number of full-power 'high level slots,' or whatever).
There's also a question of what constitues 'everything' - having something to contribute in each of the 3 pillars isn't 'able to do everything,' it's just, well, 'well rounded.' A school-specialist or fighter who's "not able to do everything" should still participate usefully in each of the 3 pillars.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 6:21PM
#563
|
|
|
I'd like them to keep the option for a generalist wizard, who can potentially learn any spell in the game - but he doesn't get to pick which ones he learns.
This was probably my absolute favorite type of character to play. With a big enough list of possibilities, it's like you're getting a new character every time you play a new wizard.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:04AM
#564
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2006
|
Don't generalize on the 3 pillars. Focus on ensuring that all classes contribute evenly throughout, but not in the same way!
Its not so difficult to see that people, by and large don't want to "wait there turn" if they do want to suck at something, let them make the choice to gimp there charcter, don't toss it on everyone.
Otherwise you get into the situation wherein a player decides that Feature X is just too awesome to be without, but also wants to be a generalist. (say its a fighters "X-treeeeme strike") He/she can't do it since the fighters lobbed into specialist pillar-combat. No matter what choice the player makes he-she is dissastified. THe only way to get what he-she wants is for the deves to support it, or to make it so that people can cherry pick there favorite features from classes. (read: op multiclassing)
Or at least that's the flaw I see in it.
The essential theme song-
Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat
Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 12:10PM
#565
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I'd like them to keep the option for a generalist wizard, who can potentially learn any spell in the game - but he doesn't get to pick which ones he learns.
DM design my character for me and balance the whole system while you are at it because the designers are sloppy.. and dont care.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 10:13AM
#566
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Don't generalize on the 3 pillars. Focus on ensuring that all classes contribute evenly throughout, but not in the same way!
Classes need not contribute to all three pillars equally. Some Classes can contribut to individual pillars more than they contribute to other pillars. Much like the Fighter Class contributes to combat more than any other pillar possibly to the extent of not contributing to the other pillars because the Class will make you the best in that combat pillar. Characters however should be able to contribute to all pillars, via the selection of themes and backgrounds, but should not be required to. If I want to make a character that is nothing but a combat monster then I should be able to make that. Some Classes will be able to contribute equally to all pillars, however that will come at the cost of not being the best in any of those pillars. However the Character with that class can then become the best in one of those pillars by expending his thems and backgrounds to do so. Effectively the Specialist could remain a specialist or build out to generalist with it's options. At that same time the generalist can build to be a better generalist or it can build to a specialization. Effectively you could build characters to the same parity of usefullness you just do it in different directions. One character starts with a generalist class and specializes by choosing stacking themes and backgrounds, or continues to be a generalist character by selecting non stacking themes and backgrounds. The other character starts with a specialist class and grabs differentiated themes to make them cover more ground, or selects themes to stack with its specialization to make it even more specialized in the area to which you are stacking.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 12:16PM
#567
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
Maybe characters should have three options within each pillar:
A) Specialist, you're marginally better than most other characters at some aspect of this pillar. When those things come up, you shine. When they don't, others are marginally better than you.
B) Contributing, you're able to make meaningful contributions to the party's success in all aspects of this pillar.
C) Comic relief: You're laughably bad within this pillar, and a positive obstruction to the party's success in some aspect(s) of it. When this pillar comes up, the DM takes you into account as part of the opposition. Overcoming your disability is part of the challenge to the party, and the fun of roleplaying your character. You still add to the drama and story.
Before you all shoot that down, let me point out that (C) is something you see in fiction all the time. The 'goody two shoes' character who gets in the way of the cunning, amoral plan until the other PCs get him pointed in some other direction and out of their hair. The plucky side-kick who gets used as a hostage half the time.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:20PM
#568
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2006
|
Characters however should be able to contribute to all pillars, via the selection of themes and backgrounds, but should not be required to.
Characters however should be able to contribute to all pillars, via the selection of themes and backgrounds, but should not be required to.
While I think the way you go about it is pretty non-sensical I think I can agree that all characters should contribut ~ evenly to all pillars and at the end of the day thats' all that really matters. I would prefer maybe Class defining what you do in combat and theme taking care of both the Exploration and Social pillars. But that's just me.
The essential theme song-
Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat
Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 4:59PM
#569
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2012
|
I have to disagree with the original poster (and haven't the time to read 57 pages of replies).
Yes, a mage that knows Knock can automatically get through the locked door... but here's why it SHOULD be that way. IF a rogue fails the lock pick roll, he can try again.... and keep trying until he succeeds. A mage that fails to open a door with a spell, doesn't get his spell back to try again.
A mage that takes a fly spell, knock, fireball, gaseous form, teleport, wall of stone, magic missile, etc. Can only do each of those ONCE, and if in a situation that doesn't call for any of those, is at a huge disadvantage. It only seems that a wizard can do everything better than everyone else, but it simply isn't true.
I do agree that a wizard's abilities grew more powerful at a greater rate than everyone else (so let's slow it down and / or speed up everyone else's progression) - but it doesn't mean that the wizard itself is broken. It just needs tweaking.
A wizard may have powerful spells, but if the fighter gets near the wizard before the wizard gets those spells cast, he's turned into goo.
I saw someone playing a wizard who thought they were invincible. They flew up to the front of every fight, convinced that they had the right combination of spells always in effect to make them invlunerable... Until one fight, on the third round they got hit by a dart... and died. An assassin was hiding nearby, and assassinated the mighty 10th level mage with one adamantine tipped dart from a hand crossbow. The dart did 1pt of damage, and killed the mage. So much for the mighty invincible mage.
No one class is an island, they are all useless without the others to back them up.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:08PM
#570
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I have to disagree with the original poster (and haven't the time to read 57 pages of replies).
Yes, a mage that knows Knock can automatically get through the locked door... but here's why it SHOULD be that way. IF a rogue fails the lock pick roll, he can try again.... and keep trying until he succeeds. A mage that fails to open a door with a spell, doesn't get his spell back to try again.
A mage that takes a fly spell, knock, fireball, gaseous form, teleport, wall of stone, magic missile, etc. Can only do each of those ONCE, and if in a situation that doesn't call for any of those, is at a huge disadvantage. It only seems that a wizard can do everything better than everyone else, but it simply isn't true.
I do agree that a wizard's abilities grew more powerful at a greater rate than everyone else (so let's slow it down and / or speed up everyone else's progression) - but it doesn't mean that the wizard itself is broken. It just needs tweaking.
A wizard may have powerful spells, but if the fighter gets near the wizard before the wizard gets those spells cast, he's turned into goo.
I saw someone playing a wizard who thought they were invincible. They flew up to the front of every fight, convinced that they had the right combination of spells always in effect to make them invlunerable... Until one fight, on the third round they got hit by a dart... and died. An assassin was hiding nearby, and assassinated the mighty 10th level mage with one adamantine tipped dart from a hand crossbow. The dart did 1pt of damage, and killed the mage. So much for the mighty invincible mage.
No one class is an island, they are all useless without the others to back them up.
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.
Why does the Wizard need to have the ability to eclipse another party member. The argument that a good Wizard wouldn't prepare the spell doesn't hold water, because that suggests that played correctly Wizards don't take that spell anyway.
So why does it exist?
|
|
|
