|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:04PM
#61
|
|
|
please explain.
High combat, low (mostly arcane) 'magic'.
how is the warlock low magic? it's entirely magic, in almost any thing I've ever seen a warlock.
So it is a Wizard?
What?
you think everything magical is a wizard?
The hell?
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:09PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
please explain.
High combat, low (mostly arcane) 'magic'.
how is the warlock low magic? it's entirely magic, in almost any thing I've ever seen a warlock.
So it is a Wizard?
What?
you think everything magical is a wizard?
The hell?
If they have decided that the wizard class covers all arcane spellcasters, it could be... but then even the bard class could be a form of wizard modified by a theme - they pretty much were in 2e and 3e weren't they? I hope not though, bards had just about become playable in 4e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:17PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Hell, Warlock could very well be a bard, or an Arcane analogue of Cleric.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:24PM
#64
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
- Sesquipedalian
Date Joined:
May 20, 2001
|
The designers just don't get it. Why should I have to wait until I'm 6th level to play a Necromacer or an Axe Specialist? No thank you WoTC! If that's the way you're going to design 5e I will not buy a single book.
They say D&D players are creative. You could make your own necromancer at level 1 if your DM approves. It's not that difficult, and D&D is the most flexable game when it comes to characters, game play, and rules building.
Spoiler:
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:31PM
#65
|
|
|
If they have decided that the wizard class covers all arcane spellcasters, it could be... but then even the bard class could be a form of wizard modified by a theme - they pretty much were in 2e and 3e weren't they? I hope not though, bards had just about become playable in 4e.
If they have decided that, I won't stick around past the playtest. And even in 3e, bards were an independant class with it's own class features, but shared spells with the wizard.
They should be more like they are in 4e, where they are a fantastic class both in fun and efficacy, though.
The Pathfinder bard also isn't that bad, but still needs a better spell list, and so use songs as a minor or free action.
The designers just don't get it. Why should I have to wait until I'm 6th level to play a Necromacer or an Axe Specialist? No thank you WoTC! If that's the way you're going to design 5e I will not buy a single book.
They say D&D players are creative. You could make your own necromancer at level 1 if your DM approves. It's not that difficult, and D&D is the most flexable game when it comes to characters, game play, and rules building.
DnD is far from the most flexible game when it comes to any of that.
Hell, Warlock could very well be a bard, or an Arcane analogue of Cleric.
Or it could (and should) just be it's own class, and not even use the same spell as a wizard.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:35PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Personally, I expect them to remove striker features and increase damage across the board except for backstabbing which may go back to a high damage but less frequent surprise attack. Warlock's curses could then involve minor debuffs with at-will attacks, a few theme based spell powers, and boons coming from the themes.
They could potentially do bards as a theme. If you add the majestic word and bardic knowledge in as the basic frame of the theme you could have a skald theme that synergised well with martial bards, a druidic bard that could overlay with any of the classes, a fey bard that might synergise well with more arcane classes and so on. It would also fit with the jack-of-all trades type character. It's doable but of course we don't know how powers are going to be assigned yet. A bard class produced via a theme may grant access to unique scaleable powers on a special list. I think the 4e bard has been popular enough to justify itself as a class but if druid is folded back into cleric (I hope not) then the bard's identity as a class could be in doubt.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:39PM
#67
|
|
|
Personally, I expect them to remove striker features and increase damage across the board except for backstabbing which may go back to a high damage but less frequent surprise attack. Warlock's curses could then involve minor debuffs with at-will attacks, a few theme based spell powers, and boons coming from the themes.
They could potentially do bards as a theme. If you add the majestic word and bardic knowledge in as the basic frame of the theme you could have a skald theme that synergised well with martial bards, a druidic bard that could overlay with any of the classes, a fey bard that might synergise well with more arcane classes and so on. It would also fit with the jack-of-all trades type character. It's doable.
Many things are doable. Fewer are worth doing.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 4:57PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Personally, I expect them to remove striker features and increase damage across the board except for backstabbing which may go back to a high damage but less frequent surprise attack. Warlock's curses could then involve minor debuffs with at-will attacks, a few theme based spell powers, and boons coming from the themes.
They could potentially do bards as a theme. If you add the majestic word and bardic knowledge in as the basic frame of the theme you could have a skald theme that synergised well with martial bards, a druidic bard that could overlay with any of the classes, a fey bard that might synergise well with more arcane classes and so on. It would also fit with the jack-of-all trades type character. It's doable.
Many things are doable. Fewer are worth doing.
Paraphrasing Douglas Adams springs to mind - infinite possibilities not all of which are worth doing ergo there must be a finite number of worthwhile possibilities. Any finite number divided by infinity is so close to zero it isn't worth worrying about. We should have stuck with 1e... :P
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 5:20PM
#69
|
|
|
Personally, I expect them to remove striker features and increase damage across the board except for backstabbing which may go back to a high damage but less frequent surprise attack. Warlock's curses could then involve minor debuffs with at-will attacks, a few theme based spell powers, and boons coming from the themes.
They could potentially do bards as a theme. If you add the majestic word and bardic knowledge in as the basic frame of the theme you could have a skald theme that synergised well with martial bards, a druidic bard that could overlay with any of the classes, a fey bard that might synergise well with more arcane classes and so on. It would also fit with the jack-of-all trades type character. It's doable.
Many things are doable. Fewer are worth doing.
Paraphrasing Douglas Adams springs to mind - infinite possibilities not all of which are worth doing ergo there must be a finite number of worthwhile possibilities. Any finite number divided by infinity is so close to zero it isn't worth worrying about. We should have stuck with 1e... :P
LOL
Oh Douglas Adams. The world is a less funny place without you.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:41AM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
please explain.
High combat, low (mostly arcane) 'magic'.
how is the warlock low magic? it's entirely magic, in almost any thing I've ever seen a warlock.
So it is a Wizard?
See, this is something I hope stays from 4E. Classes actually being different from each other.
"Hi I'm an Archivist!" "Great what do you do?" "I cast broken spells as a standard action to solve encounters." "Cool, a new wizard."
"Hi I'm a Barbarian!" "Great what do you do?" "I use my wrath in combat to power through my enemies with incredible strength and endurace!" "Cool! I expect you to be totally different from a fighter then! What kind of abilities does this rage feature give you?" "Uhm, strength boost so... I can charge and full attack better with it." "Oh. So... you're another fighter then? Go join the 'ranger' back there, he pretends to be different just because he can cast a few useless spells but ultimately he just full attacks like the rest of you."
I want my warlock cursing, moving about, isolating dangerous opponents with his spells, reaving his allies for power, channeling the vestiges through his body and punishing his foes with terrible retribution.
I want my wizard casting powerful spells that shape the battlefield, summoning creatures, conjuring zones and other powerful effects to hinder his opponents and turn the tide of the battle.
I want my sorcerer blowing stuff up, while looking cool doing so, I want him to gain features and powers from his easily reflavorable heritage, I want him to be powerful yet lack in precision and effectiveness.
I want them to actually do different things in a battle. Not just variations on the same full attack / save or lose spell.
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
|
|
|
