A solo creature faces some unique conditions. So it helps to give it unique rules.
First, the party will get 5(ish) actions per round. The solo needs to be given some way to accomplish more than one thing per round or he will be actioned to death.
This can be handled by giving the solo multiple initiative points, acting in each. It can also be done by giving the solo an array of triggered actions so that each character might "give" an action to the solo when they attack.
Stormbringer had a rule that was very interesting it was a Riposte rule. In D&D terms you might translate it to.. a failed enemy attack triggering an extra attack or retaliatory damage (if you wanted to avoid extra rolls).
If it was a broadly used rule but required high skill so I guess not so generic) but skilled enemies being ganged up on get in some extra licks this kind of rule could avoid needing special rules for solos.
Stormbringer had a rule that was very interesting it was a Riposte rule. In D&D terms you might translate it to.. a failed enemy attack triggering an extra attack or retaliatory damage (if you wanted to avoid extra rolls).If it was a broadly used ru
Yeah. Now we just need to figure out a good way to build in the system rules for having those kind of boss fights. Of course, DM fiat works well in every edition, but is there a way to provide rules or guidelines that contribute in the creation of that type of fight?
Check out the Angry DM. His site has one idea that worked well for me when I tried it. With this method, a boss monster has 3 "stages". Each stage has 1/3 of the original monster's hit points. Each stage acts differently in a tactical sense. For example, I ran the boss Sinruth - from Rivenroar - with these rules. His first stage had him fighting in a fairly normal manner as he didn't take the threat of the PCs seriously. Once he realized he was facing a real threat, he moved on to being "serious"...throwing AoE, trip attacks, and even had a minor action to do more damage to prone characters (synergized with his trip). Once he was again reduced to zero HP his final stage threw away all the weapons and engaged in brute hand to hand - holds, punches, using grabbed characters as a shield.
Each stage is a separate 'creature'. I even used 3 different miniatures. It also serves to "clear the baffles" for statuses. When you remove one mini and place the next, all statuses (ongoing damage, prone, etc.) are removed. There's also a trigger that is kicked off for each stage when it hits zero HP. Lots of places to play around and put in memorable moments!
When played right, it doesn't have to feel like playing a video game boss (unless that's what you shoot for). Instead it is a whole story told within the confines of a single battle.
There's another system called the "worldbreaker" (found on the At-Will blog) that I'm going to try as well. In this one, solo monsters have the ability (usually triggered) to change the rules of the world in their immediate area for limited times. This creates a new tactical situation which the characters must react to.
I'm sure there are other ways do do all of this. Though I must admit I feel they got the Beholder right in the base rules. Find inspiration out there and try it on your players. I bet they will enjoy it for the change of pace if nothing else.
Yeah, I've taken ideas from all over the place and made various types of bosses.
I think a 'bosses' section of the DMG that really gets into the various possibilities for solos would be great. It should probably also discuss the more 'story oriented' things. Explain how serious foes of the PCs should have strategic resources, give examples, etc. Talk about how to integrate them into the story and build plots around them, etc.
Heck, a lot of 'bosses' don't really need to be particularly impressive combat threats either. Often defeating them can be more about foiling their plans or coming up with the right plot device to beat them. This is especially true for endgame types, though usually there's a big fight there somewhere at the end (but it doesn't really need to be the boss itself laying down the hurt, still it will likely involve some solos).
There was a lot of talk about this kind of stuff on the 4e boards here and elsewhere before everything got bogged down in endless edition war.
Thanks! Check out the Angry DM. His site has one idea that worked well for me when I tried it. With this method, a boss monster has 3 "stages". Each stage has 1/3 of the original monster's hit points. Each stage acts differently in a tactical sense.
Stormbringer had a rule that was very interesting it was a Riposte rule. In D&D terms you might translate it to.. a failed enemy attack triggering an extra attack or retaliatory damage (if you wanted to avoid extra rolls).
If it was a broadly used rule but required high skill so I guess not so generic) but skilled enemies being ganged up on get in some extra licks this kind of rule could avoid needing special rules for solos.
Stormbringer was a fun game. I was also quite partial to Pendragon.
This is much like a triggered (immediate response) action. And I think you have a really good example of how to use it if the party faces a swordmaster. I can see a pirate, monk, knight...any number of classical arms experts with a power like this. Perhaps the knight does a shield bash on anyone who misses in a melee attack while the pirate would do a classic riposte. I also like your idea of fixed damage for triggered actions. It would really keep a triggered action from slowing the flow of combat.
Stormbringer was a fun game. I was also quite partial to Pendragon.This is much like a triggered (immediate response) action. And I think you have a really good example of how to use it if the party faces a swordmaster. I can see a pirate, monk, knig
A solo creature faces some unique conditions. So it helps to give it unique rules.
First, the party will get 5(ish) actions per round. The solo needs to be given some way to accomplish more than one thing per round or he will be actioned to death.
This can be handled by giving the solo multiple initiative points, acting in each. It can also be done by giving the solo an array of triggered actions so that each character might "give" an action to the solo when they attack.
Stormbringer had a rule that was very interesting it was a Riposte rule. In D&D terms you might translate it to.. a failed enemy attack triggering an extra attack or retaliatory damage (if you wanted to avoid extra rolls).
If it was a broadly used rule but required high skill so I guess not so generic) but skilled enemies being ganged up on get in some extra licks this kind of rule could avoid needing special rules for solos.
Well, there are certainly lots of solos (and elites too, even a few standards) that have this kind of thing in 4e. It is not a bad mechanic, but its main purpose is to force the PCs to use different tactics (IE if the solo hits back on a failed melee attack you might want to avoid melee attacking it unless you have a really high bonus and use ranged attacks etc preferentially, or use reach weapons, etc).
You DO still need 'condition shedding/avoidance' mechanics though. Stun locked solos are after all worthless and can't use reactions. Of course the exact timing of those mechanics can allow you to create openings for your melee guys (solo is stunned until at least the start of its next initiative gives you a window, etc).
I have to admit, making really good solos is kind of a black art and usually means you have to tune them to the party they're going to face. I've made some really good ones, but it isn't hard to end up with a bad one either. It is kind of an 'advanced' skill. Hopefully 5e solos (whatever that means) will be better tested right off so DMs aren't stuck trying to figure out which ones are usable.
Stormbringer had a rule that was very interesting it was a Riposte rule. In D&D terms you might translate it to.. a failed enemy attack triggering an extra attack or retaliatory damage (if you wanted to avoid extra rolls).If it was a broadly used ru
Yeah. Now we just need to figure out a good way to build in the system rules for having those kind of boss fights. Of course, DM fiat works well in every edition, but is there a way to provide rules or guidelines that contribute in the creation of that type of fight?
Check out the Angry DM. His site has one idea that worked well for me when I tried it. With this method, a boss monster has 3 "stages". Each stage has 1/3 of the original monster's hit points. Each stage acts differently in a tactical sense. For example, I ran the boss Sinruth - from Rivenroar - with these rules. His first stage had him fighting in a fairly normal manner as he didn't take the threat of the PCs seriously. Once he realized he was facing a real threat, he moved on to being "serious"...throwing AoE, trip attacks, and even had a minor action to do more damage to prone characters (synergized with his trip). Once he was again reduced to zero HP his final stage threw away all the weapons and engaged in brute hand to hand - holds, punches, using grabbed characters as a shield.
Each stage is a separate 'creature'. I even used 3 different miniatures. It also serves to "clear the baffles" for statuses. When you remove one mini and place the next, all statuses (ongoing damage, prone, etc.) are removed. There's also a trigger that is kicked off for each stage when it hits zero HP. Lots of places to play around and put in memorable moments!
When played right, it doesn't have to feel like playing a video game boss (unless that's what you shoot for). Instead it is a whole story told within the confines of a single battle.
There's another system called the "worldbreaker" (found on the At-Will blog) that I'm going to try as well. In this one, solo monsters have the ability (usually triggered) to change the rules of the world in their immediate area for limited times. This creates a new tactical situation which the characters must react to.
I'm sure there are other ways do do all of this. Though I must admit I feel they got the Beholder right in the base rules. Find inspiration out there and try it on your players. I bet they will enjoy it for the change of pace if nothing else.
These seem like awesome systems. Piecework creatures look great too.
In general, it seems the key is to find a way to handle the hps differently. Stages, pieces... all those things interact with the way a solo takes damage (and conditions). That seems to be the key point to designing a Solo monster.
Check out the Angry DM. His site has one idea that worked well for me when I tried it. With this method, a boss monster has 3 "stages". Each stage has 1/3 of the original monster's hit points. Each stage acts differently in a tactical sense. For exam
*remembers one DM I had who's idea of "challenge" was "Have the party fight 2 Level+5 Solos, then 4 Level 5+Solos, then a Level+6 Solo with no breaks in between*
*shudders* Worst part about that is we still won, and the DM RFED'd us.
Depending on what level you are that doesn't sound to unreasonable. You pretty much had your daily affects for all those encounters. Depending on the group make up that could go from challenging to cake walk.
Spoilered for length and lack of topicality to the topic itself.
It was actually split up into two encounters. The first one had the 2 Level+5 solos and assorted Level+5 Standards, though hilarity ensued when the DM realized half the party had hilarious resistance against fire attacks(this was a level 21 one-shot, one Tiefling, two of us had Exalted Angel), so he throws in a random Elite that has an aura 10 that sets all of the party's fire resistance to 0. That fight wasn't too bad. The second was waaay worse.
6 man party, split us into 2 teams of three with an impassable barrier seperating us(we even made multiple checks and determined literally nothing aside from divine intervention could possibly get anythign through it, keep this in mind for later). He then set the same elite into the field, except it couldn't target or be targeted by anything and it's aura 10 expanded to aura infinite. Each team had to fight 2 Level+5 Solos(one dragon per side) and about 5 Level+4-5 Standards that immediatly self-destructed(damaging us) and respawning as soon as we dealt any damage to them and did heavy enough famage to bloody most of our party and take one guy down to negative HP. This guy was on the other side of the barrier than I was.
Then a Solo from our side was up on turn, ran over and threw about a gallon of lava at the guy on the other side of the barrier....yeah. The way he worded it, he pretty much said it only worked because the solo lobbed the lava OVER the barrier, but then told us it was impossible to fly over it because it stretched to the cieling, and only attacks with the Hurl keyword can pass it......yeah.
Once we finally won that fight, he throws an Evil Level+6 Phoenix at us with defenses high enough our Bard couldn't hit his Will on a roll of 19(which almost caused ur Bard to ragequit) and had our DMPC run out on us, leaving us with 4 characters left. This was still considered the same encounter of the last bit though. We scored about 5 crits on it at which point he has a Solo we killed earlier come back and instantly kill us with no save.
To say our party was annoyed was an understatement
lol I had a DM make a monster we could only hit on 17s or so once. I faked extreme hunger, called for a food break once the fight was done, and had a good chat with him about the difference between real challenge and fake challenge.
He hasn't done it again. Instead, damage increases, defenses go up, but not astronomically, cool effects are added, etc.
Anyway, what was your DM's problem? Why did he do that?
Depending on what level you are that doesn't sound to unreasonable. You pretty much had your daily affects for all those encounters. Depending on the group make up that could go from challenging to cake walk.[/quote]Spoilered for length and lack of t
Anyway, what was your DM's problem? Why did he do that?
Without the intention of putting words in anyone's mouth, this - to me - looks a lot like the following: "Rawr I am the mighty DM, fear me for I am all-powerful and shall destroy you with my extreme skills! What you defeated the monster that should have killed you? HAVE SOME MORE! You beat them too? STILL MOAAAR! YOU BEAT THAT TOO? YOU ALL DIE!"
Also known as Revenge / Power Fantasies.
Again, just my interpretation of the story.
Without the intention of putting words in anyone's mouth, this - to me - looks a lot like the following:"Rawr I am the mighty DM, fear me for I am all-powerful and shall destroy you with my extreme skills! What you defeated the monster that should ha
Anyway, what was your DM's problem? Why did he do that?
Without the intention of putting words in anyone's mouth, this - to me - looks a lot like the following: "Rawr I am the mighty DM, fear me for I am all-powerful and shall destroy you with my extreme skills! What you defeated the monster that should have killed you? HAVE SOME MORE! You beat them too? STILL MOAAAR! YOU BEAT THAT TOO? YOU ALL DIE!"
Also known as Revenge / Power Fantasies.
Again, just my interpretation of the story.
With great power comes great douchebaggery.
Without the intention of putting words in anyone's mouth, this - to me - looks a lot like the following:"Rawr I am the mighty DM, fear me for I am all-powerful and shall destroy you with my extreme skills! What you defeated the monster that should ha
A large part of a player's combat paradigm is 'kill the other guy' when a player makes the jump to DM they sometimes have issues letting go of this concept as a measure for whether or not they are doing combat right.
A large part of a player's combat paradigm is 'kill the other guy' when a player makes the jump to DM they sometimes have issues letting go of this concept as a measure for whether or not they are doing combat right.
I am used to trying to go all out as a player when trying to beat the enemies. I felt a strong temptation as a DM to do the same vs players, which is not what you are supposed to do. My guess is something similar might have happened, but he gave in to temptation.
You want to make the fight hard, but you don't want to actually beat the PCs most of the time. You want the PCs to think there is real danger of losing, but make it so they still don't actually lose unless everything goes against them.
DMs can always rig it so they win without cheating by upping the challenge or picking on a party's weak spots.
I am used to trying to go all out as a player when trying to beat the enemies. I felt a strong temptation as a DM to do the same vs players, which is not what you are supposed to do. My guess is something similar might have happened, but he gave in
Some people can get on a power-trip quite easily. Not saying that's exactly what happened, but - again - my best guess.
Eh, some people just aren't clever when it comes to DMing. They can be perfectly intelligent and good players and nice people. Doesn't mean they can DM their way out of a paper bag.
Eh, some people just aren't clever when it comes to DMing. They can be perfectly intelligent and good players and nice people. Doesn't mean they can DM their way out of a paper bag.
Some people can get on a power-trip quite easily. Not saying that's exactly what happened, but - again - my best guess.
Eh, some people just aren't clever when it comes to DMing. They can be perfectly intelligent and good players and nice people. Doesn't mean they can DM their way out of a paper bag.
Very much true once again. Smart people don't necessarily make good DM's.
Eh, some people just aren't clever when it comes to DMing. They can be perfectly intelligent and good players and nice people. Doesn't mean they can DM their way out of a paper bag.[/quote]Very much true once again. Smart people don't necessarily mak
A large part of a player's combat paradigm is 'kill the other guy' when a player makes the jump to DM they sometimes have issues letting go of this concept as a measure for whether or not they are doing combat right.
Wait the objective is not to kill the player?
Well, I need to start apologizing to about 50 players...
Wait the objective is not to kill the player?Well, I need to start apologizing to about 50 players...
Some people can get on a power-trip quite easily. Not saying that's exactly what happened, but - again - my best guess.
Eh, some people just aren't clever when it comes to DMing. They can be perfectly intelligent and good players and nice people. Doesn't mean they can DM their way out of a paper bag.
Very much true once again. Smart people don't necessarily make good DM's.
I think competitiveness makes it hard for some people to be good DM's. It sometimes difficult to reconcile a cool BBEG that is compelling and then have to make that character representation in combat be a straw man.
Eh, some people just aren't clever when it comes to DMing. They can be perfectly intelligent and good players and nice people. Doesn't mean they can DM their way out of a paper bag.[/quote]Very much true once again. Smart people don't necessarily mak
I think competitiveness makes it hard for some people to be good DM's. It sometimes difficult to reconcile a cool BBEG that is compelling and then have to make that character representation in combat be a straw man.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling like their characters can't compete with with others.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling lik
I think competitiveness makes it hard for some people to be good DM's. It sometimes difficult to reconcile a cool BBEG that is compelling and then have to make that character representation in combat be a straw man.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling like their characters can't compete with with others.
Or, put in a less passive-aggressive way, players feeling like their characters don't fairly or meaningfully contribute to that cooperative effort.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling lik
I think competitiveness makes it hard for some people to be good DM's. It sometimes difficult to reconcile a cool BBEG that is compelling and then have to make that character representation in combat be a straw man.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling like their characters can't compete with with others.
Or, put in a less passive-aggressive way, players feeling like their characters don't fairly or meaningfully contribute to that cooperative effort.
That would be cooperation, though. I was speaking of competitiveness and its negative effects. Thus my quote of another poster talking about competitiveness.
But thanks for the label.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling lik
I think competitiveness makes it hard for some people to be good DM's. It sometimes difficult to reconcile a cool BBEG that is compelling and then have to make that character representation in combat be a straw man.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling like their characters can't compete with with others.
Or, put in a less passive-aggressive way, players feeling like their characters don't fairly or meaningfully contribute to that cooperative effort.
Mostly, that. I've almost never seen any competitiveness at DnD tables.
Competitiveness can cause all kinds of problems, for DMs and players alike. Some view an RPG as a cooperative effort while others see it as a venue to be the best at yet another thing. Some of this is behind the call for balance - players feeling lik
If we're talking about fierce competitiveness between players, then I agree, but I may have seen this only once or twice in my D&D lifetime.
If we're talking about friendly competition amongst friends, I see that all the time, but it happens at and away from the table.
If we are talking about characters competing with each other, it comes up quite frequently during game sessions, depending on character personality of course.
If we're talking about fierce competitiveness between players, then I agree, but I may have seen this only once or twice in my D&D lifetime. If we're talking about friendly competition amongst friends, I see that all the time, but it happens at and
If we're talking about fierce competitiveness between players, then I agree, but I may have seen this only once or twice in my D&D lifetime.
If we're talking about friendly competition amongst friends, I see that all the time, but it happens at and away from the table.
If we are talking about characters competing with each other, it comes up quite frequently during game sessions, depending on character personality of course.
In character competitiveness is fun, and happens all the time, IME.
I was talking about serious competition. The kind that goes beyond harmless fun.
In character competitiveness is fun, and happens all the time, IME. I was talking about serious competition. The kind that goes beyond harmless fun.
Okay. Just finished re-reading the whole thread. Wow, immense amount of great insights, immense amount of people not understanding each other one bit (which is okay, I'm sure I'm doing it too).
Recently this thread seems to have gotten a bit off topic, but I'm good with that. I'll just address all subjects. Also, because of the vastness of points I want to cover, I'll limit myself to just referering to people by name or the topics themselves. Otherwise I'd have to fill another page with quote posts.
Okay, here goes:
@Xtian: Yes, all role-playing games have role-playing in them. However, putting role-playing elements in the rules can only help new players. I don't think it'll actually make it tougher for them to learn the game. Heck, it's a role-playing game. Learning to role-play could only be beneficial, right?
@Green Knight: I see your point. However, like Frostball said: Rifts sounds sweet. I need to get a copy of that game. I don't like the imbalance (I don't think anyone does) but I 'do' like the idea of the options presented.
@Frostball: Lol, agreed.
@Ogiwan: Role-players 'and' power gamers, in my opinnion.
The Whole Overpowered Wizard Issue: Yes, wizards were overpowered and now they're not and I think everyone agrees that's a good thing. No-one is arguing for an unbalanced game (or if they are, I disagree). Like everyone keeps saying though, we'd rather have an imbalanced fun game than a balanced game which wasn't fun.
@Thorbardin "Grids": I agree. I'm sure no-one else feels strongly about this, but I don't play using miniatures and grids often. I'm not saying that's better. I'm just saying that's the way I have the most fun. When I play 4e I use grids, it's fun, it's clear, it's simple. Here's my (personal) problem with grids: I have never seen an instance (ever) of a GM pulling out a battle grid and then putting it away when someone rolls a successful diplomacy check or role-plays their way out of it. I feel that's a huge loss for a role-playing game. I sometimes use miniatures and grids, but I'm always prepared to 'stow' it if the combat is avoided. I think if everyone could use battle grids in that way (as a tool, not a straight-jacket) I'd be more in favor of them (again, personally).
@Thorbardin (again): "GM enforces Awesome" Agreed. Also, too many excellent points for me to cover them all here. Just know that I agree with a lot of your points, and those I don't, I respect.
@MeCorva: Well said!
@Ryklu: I agree with all your posts completely. You have a knack for getting the heart of the issue and making excellent points. Wish I had your skills.
@Autolycus: Agree with all you've written.
@Lord Daxl: Lol, and agreed.
@Rampant: Yes, PC's should be able to teleport and breathe fire at first level (within statistical reason, and yes, it's possible). In Challenger RPG you can do that.
@Kalnaur: Game 'and' Novel would be great. It doesn't have to be only a game or only a story. D&D has, and should have always been a story and a game. That's what makes it better than all the other games out there. That's what makes role-playing games great. If I just wanted pure combat I could pick up any number of combat simulation or board games and play that instead.
@Ed-Warlord: in my opinnion D&D isn't a 'gamist' game it's a 'narrativist' game as you so aptly put (while being sarcastic, I assume?). Others have agreed with me. However, I don't want to get into a fight about it, if it's a gamist game, that's fine with me, if 95% of the players play it as a gamist game that's also fine with me. However, I'm still in that 5% of Narrativists and I want the 'story' elements back in the game (as they were always there previously). I'm sure I'm not alone, either. I'm not saying one or the other is better, I'm just saying both are valid and should be supported in 5e if it is to do the best it can.
@Mablok: Well said.
@TheGreenKnight0: Weaker characters are okay. It's the GM's job to make sure everyone at the table has fun, not the game-books job and that's how it should be. Well written.
@Ogiwan(2): Synergy is good.
@Arelath: Good stuff. Sounds like your game is awesome and everyone is having a lot of fun being 'badass'. When I designed my own RPG I tried to make it so you could play the kind of character you wanted whether badass, role-player, skills master, or explorer. It's all up to you. I think you represent the 'combat' play style and some of the other posters here the 'role-playing' play style. I like both. Both are sweet and epic and I think every good game system should support either play style and a combination of both as well. I'm hoping 5e will support the role-playing style as well as the combat style (which they clearly aced in 4e).
@AbdulAlhazred: I agree. I think we misunderstood each other. I think game balance is awesome too. The more balanced the better, just not at the expense of role-playing. I value role-playing a lot more than mechanical game balance.
@Tony Vargas "Concerning: too many supplements": I totally agree. I only ever put out one core book for my RPG and a supplement with some adventures (so far). Endless supplements tend to clutter the game system. Good point.
@Lokiare: Yes, you can role-play in 4e, no one ever meant to say differently. However, I think you'd find the level of role-playing in a 4e youtube video to totally fail compared to that of, let's say, role-playing in just about any other RPG including (but not limited to): Gurps, Pathfinder, 3e, 1e, Challenger RPG, Horror Rules, and three little kids playing 'sand castles'. Sorry if that sounded rude, just meant to say that a game system 'can' influence ratio of role-playing and I'm hoping 5e will compliment role-playing better than 4e. If you disagree, we're probably just misunderstanding each other on a very basic level and you should ignore the above statements as a ludicrous mistake on my part.
@Thorbardin "System Catering"(2): Agreed.
@Rampant: Yeah, everyone should be badass. Nothing wrong with that, so long as they 'want' to be.
@Lokiare: You asked for a clarification, so here it is: Yes, me and my group (and others) have problems role-playing in 4e. If the problem is so large WotC made a public statement to the effect that they're addressing the issue, I suspect we're not alone either.
@Rampant(2): 95% of the forum posts are crap? I wouldn't quite say that. I 'would' agree with you that you can't listen to everyone or let them make your choices for you. I'm all in favor of a GM making his call, whatever it is, the GM should always have that power.
@DmGorgon: Agreed.
@Lokiare(2): I and my players are sweet-ass at math as well. However, 4e still falls short when we're looking for our role-playing. One of my players can add up his weapon damage, attacks, and initiative so fast his turn is order in the blink of an eye (and a clatter of dice) yet he misses the role-playing as well. On a related note, every second taken figuring out dice rolls, interrupts, monster hp, attack rolls, etc. (math) is a second you could've been role-playing. I, and many people here, think 5e's combat should be even faster and more efficient. I'm not saying faster combat is the answer to lack of role-playing, however, I think it would help the game regardless.
@Wrecan: I agree with you. I myself found the disassociated modifiers, pyschological blocks, and whatnot an issue in 'getting into' 4e. I.e. the learning curve. I, like you said, came to the game expecting to know how to play (I thought I knew D&D) so naturally I was a little disappointed. I still bounced back and read every page word for word. I ended up knowing the system perhaps better than any previous edition, but I still found it lacking in the RPing department. There's just too many rules and mechanical stuff about combat to leave as much room for RPing (at least for us old guys with dice).
@Thorbardin(3): I think I must have missed page 42. in essence as well. I read the whole thing thoroughly (PHB, DMG, and MM) but I still didn't 'absorb' the information there which was so apparently important. My feeling is that if someone who reads the books as thoroughly as I do (and I'm sure Thorbardin too) could miss that 'important part' it needs to be emphasized a lot more in 5e. Perhaps expanded to 100+ pages?
@Gunthar: I think all good GMs should be able to (and sometimes have to) 'soup up' characters. It's just a part of being a good GM. It's not the game's job to balance itself, it's the GMs job. No system is perfect so every system will always fail at balancing a game, but a GM (individual with individual players) never will (if he's good at what he does).
@Scottevil912: I agree about knowing the game and not using miniatures. I'm sure the people playing with miniatues 'got into' the system a lot faster. It took me a while but I eventually amassed a good set of miniatures, laid out battlemats, and did everything 'properly'. Can't say I was overly impressed with the result. It was great as a miniatures game, not so much as an RPG. I could always just role-play Warhammer if I wanted a miniatures game anyway. Also, I'm getting older, so I don't go for 'games' so much anymore. Work takes up a lot of my time. However, I have a special place set aside for RPGs because they have 'story'. It's what seperates them from other games. Where I've stopped playing video games, computer games, board games, a lot of the sports (I used to enjoy in my youth) and other things; I still find time to play RPGs. Why? for the miniatures combat? for the rolling of oddly shaped dice? No. What gets me to keep coming back for more is the 'story' and the camraderie of the other players. I've always loved a good story and probably always will. It's one of the most creative things around. Sure, I could just read a novel, but in D&D we're all 'part of the story'. I mostly GM because I like 'creating' the story. When I play as a player I want to 'be a part of' and 'create a story'. Sure I might die (my character), I might lose or fail, or spill pop, or not get to do cool stuff in battle, or whatever, but as long as it was a good story; I'm happy.
I'm not saying this is how everyone should play the game. I love choice. If you're just in it to kill orcs and roll dice, that's cool. I even enjoy doing that on occassion. I just hope 5e allows me to get back to the 'stories'. Sometimes I and my players have more fun discussing old 'adventures' than actually playing the game. Crazy? maybe. Heck of a lot of fun? Yes!
@Lokiare(3): Yes, I most definitely 'did' give 4e a fair shake. Probably more than a fair shake. I read every word and made some actually quite unfair characters. I like 4e. Just wanted to say that. It just feels like a 'different' game. It has its good points and as a miniatures combat/combination RPG it does a damn fine job. However, it takes more than cool combat bonuses to get me to come back over and over to a game, especially after working 6 hours overtime.
@Orzel: Agree.
@Lord Daxl: Agree.
@Aldrein: Agree.
@Kalnaur: Agree.
@Anthony J: Agree. It didn't 'feel' like D&D. +1
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
@Shasarack: Agreed. I appreciate 4e's balance statistically as well. It was the best feature of 4e, in my opinnion. However, that's the whole problem. If that doesn't make sense, we probably aren't understanding each other very well and you should ignore the rest of this paragraph. 4e's balance was awesome, but for me D&D isn't 'only' about balance. It's about the story. Hey, that's just me.
@English Language: I agree about the 3.5 wizard. I personally banned a lot of the spells until the point where no one wanted to play a wizard anymore because I (the GM) had banned or limited all the coolest powers.
@Shasarack(2): "There's nothing that can't be solved with the additon of more dragons." Lol, that's epic. Mind if I put it up on my website? (credited to you, of course).
Minions Subject: Pros/Cons:
What I don't like about minions is that they make for a 'disregarded' foe. In my book, no foe should be 'disregarded'. However I do like the simplicity they add to gameplay. When I designed Challenger I instituted 'monster stacks' to stand in for large numbers of weaker foes. So you speed up the game and keep it dangerous at the same time. So, for example, instead of 100 individual orcs you'd have 10 bands of ten orcs each (with higher TN's to hit and HP/damage/attacks) or even a challenge called '100 orcs' (at epic levels of play). This makes large groups of monsters dangerous at all levels and keeps the game fast and furious.
Oh yeah, minions are kind of off topic for this thread, but whatever.
@Gelatinous Octahedron: I think you wrote something like: "A properly built 4e Pacifist takes" x and y and a load of combat powers and whatnot at 23rd level. Eh? A proper pacifist in Challenger takes the Diplomat and Skiller classes and then maxes out several Social skills to smooth out situations.
On an unrelated note: you seem to have an insane amount of insight and clarity into the 4e system. All of your posts are pretty epic. Kudos.
@Gunthar(2): Star Trek, lol. Loved the Red shirt minion and Khan Solo monster reference. Hilarious.
Website Referals:
Thanks to everyone for posting up the great websites to check out: Angry DM, Piecework Creatures, and Stormbringer game. I appreciate it.
@Rampant(2): I agree about the tendency for some (new mostly) GMs to try to kill off the players. It's kind of whacko, but I've seen it happen. Any GM worth his salt 'never' attacks or competes with the players. That would just be silly. The GM has ultimate power (or he or she should).
@Gelatinous Octahedron(2): "Making Battles Tough but not Unwinnable": I completely agree. That's what I've been doing for years and wrote into the GM's Section of my RPG. Well said.
@Jharii: Player competition? If it's friendly it's good, as soon as it comes to blows or real issues (power being one) it's 'always' bad. Any good GM should stop it instantly in its tracks. I always 'balance out' the players who feel 'squashed' to make the game fun for all. It may seem heavy-handed, but in any game I run there's not really such a thing as 'power gaming to be way better than everyone else'. My players would pretty much laugh at anyone seriously trying to out power-game them in games I run. As soon as it becomes an issue, I always step in and 'balance' things. That's something no rules system will ever be able to do (achieve perfect balance) and if it does, please let me know. It'll always come down to the GM to make the final balance call. Master GMs always make the right calls and create the best games (in my experience). I'm sure there're some people who will disagree but I'm also pretty sure there are those who're saying 'yeah, I agree'. Regardless, that's the way I do things in my games, and so far everyone's been more than happy with it.
***To Sum Up***
Wow, where to start. Hm, okay. "To each his own." I'm just hoping 5e will let all of us 'storytellers' 'weirdoes' and 'other assorted crazies' play the game how we want to but still allow everyone else the game they know and enjoy too. It's a tough job. Hey, even if they don't do it, I'll still be happy. I can fully respect a company or person for standing up for what they believe (heck, that's what I'm doing right now). Whether you agree with me or not, I still respect your opinnions and your game style. I think everyone deserves the game system they want to play.
If WotC doesn't put out that game system (for me) I'll just keep working on my own game system and I'll be happy. If they include my play style in 5e I'll, again, be happy. It's kind of a win-win situation for me here.
I hope I haven't inadvertently insulted anyone, their game, their play style, or misspelled their name. It happens. If I did, I sincerely apologize, it wasn't my intention, I was probably just expressing my own 'opinnions' just a little too strongly.
Like I said, "To each his own." Happy Gaming to one and all, and to all a Good Knight. (or was that Santa Claus?)
--David L. Dostaler Author, Challenger RPG (free)
Well, in the words of Mr. Bean: "Brace Yourself."Okay. Just finished re-reading the whole thread. Wow, immense amount of great insights, immense amount of people not understanding each other one bit (which is okay, I'm sure I'm doing it too).Recently
Kind of. I loathe normal video game bosses (talking about classic JRPG ones here) for one simple reason: they end up being "spam Omnislash, Energiga, Ultima and look at all the cool pics until he's dead". So in a way, I'm looking for the exact opposite.
One good example of boss fights I enjoyed are boss battles from Kingdom Hearts II. Why? Because of reactive commands. I'd love to see solo monsters with rules that force the players to interact with the actual monster to defeat him. Sure, you can just kill it by punching through his life, but there's a huge advantage in playing with his abilities: intercepting his attacks to retaliate, anticipating his moves to slash through his belly, redirecting a spell on the castle walls to break them down on him... cinematic stuff like that. That's what I'd expect from a good boss fight, at least.
Like the fight I have planned at the top of a tower, a blue dragon flying around it, and the players need to either grab and toss these elemental thunder minions at it to stun it, or they need to jump on it's back when it's eliptical flight gets close to the tower, or they can just pelt it with ranged attacks, but some measure of all three will get the job done the fastest.
I think of not only Kingdom Hearts II bosses, but Legend of Zelda and even God of War bosses; the kind where "there's a trick to it".
Yeah. Now we just need to figure out a good way to build in the system rules for having those kind of boss fights. Of course, DM fiat works well in every edition, but is there a way to provide rules or guidelines that contribute in the creation of that type of fight?
Yes, there are. One thing is to build in synergy as a boss fight, such as the theme for Tiamat that gives minions a defense boost when near their dragon overlord, and then can give the dragon master the ability to munch minions for temp HP. What this does, similar to video game bosses, is create the tension of wanting to kill or keep under control the minions while also dealing damage to the monster boss.
One of the greatest inventions for 4th edition was an elite or solo that could spawn minions that had no xp value when that monster spawned them because it means that the boss man has an endless supply of minions that must be dealt with.
And that's just a few different methods, and just dealing with what has been published. I have, for example, built a monster that is an island made up of two flippers, a head, a tail and it's body (the body is armored, and is a hazard instead of a monster proper), and once it's head is bloodied it will run unless you disable the flippers and tail first, and when you attack one part, it counters with it's flippers, or it's tail, or, if crit hit, uses it's body to attempt to knock the players prone. It's all within the rules of the game, but because of the synergy, it will take effort on their part to beat the creature, and the "gotcha" of the creature running is communicated through monster knowledge so they don't get effed.
I have more, I but I have somewhere to be. I'll come back with more later.
Like the fight I have planned at the top of a tower, a blue dragon flying around it, and the players need to either grab and toss these elemental thunder minions at it to stun it, or they need to jump on it's back when it's eliptical flight gets clos
Well, I need to start apologizing to about 50 players...
Wow, thats harsh!
Usually I just aim to kill the characters but to actually kill the players...
Well yeah, kill the characters, then when the players are mourning and weeping you come up behind them....
[Note: Nothing in this post (or any of my posts for that matter) are an admission of guilt.]
So who wants to start up a game, I'll DM!
Wow, thats harsh!Usually I just aim to kill the characters but to actually kill the players... :mymy:[/quote]Well yeah, kill the characters, then when the players are mourning and weeping you come up behind them.... [Note: Nothing in this post (or an
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
I have several styles including DMing some pure diceless free form (character design pick your favorite system for expressing the character) , The latest D&D scratches a really old heavier mechanical itch...
D&D has never been good at light role gaming, Fate and several others do that extremely better...
I have several styles including DMing some pure diceless free form (character design pick your favorite system for expressing the character) , The latest D&D scratches a really old heavier mechanical itch... D&D has never been good at light role gam
I have maybe a dozen fun items with larger blades someone might like to borrow for such a special occasion.. I dont recommend the dragon handled one, the grip is nasty and the gladius is dull, but a couple of the Katana are live steel and so is that Knights dagger, the ninjato is a stage piece. My bow has decent poundage but my wifes I wouldnt recommend...
I could equip a fair sized party or one ranger ... but you would have to be careful which ones you grabbed
WOW a LARP flash back to college days, I approve. The AD&D flash backs the forum have been giving me arent as pleasant
I have maybe a dozen fun items with larger blades someone might like to borrow for such a special occasion.. I dont recommend the dragon handled one, the grip is nasty and the gladius is dull, but a couple of the Katana are live steel and so is that
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
Insofar I count:- Phases- Piecework creatures- Reactive commands- Minion spawning- Battlefield changes- Rules changes Some rules that can help:- Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system.- Provide rules f
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
I think one other big pices that should never be assumed is to know your players, and know the capabilities of their characters. That tower I spoke of has wrecked stairs, and mainly is engineered to be climbed by traversing wide spans and holes in the floor to get to the top; my players have either teleportation or good enough athletics that they should be able to find a way across those spans, and that's the way the tower was made, to cater to their specific abilities. Likewise, I know the player who plays the barbarian loves being reckless, so I gave the dragon an eliptical patern so it would fly close to the tower and then dip down, giving that player a chance to leap atop the dragon. That kind of thing not only creates the king of engagement in video games, but also in films.
Insofar I count:- Phases- Piecework creatures- Reactive commands- Minion spawning- Battlefield changes- Rules changes Some rules that can help:- Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system.- Provide rules f
Well, I need to start apologizing to about 50 players...
Wow, thats harsh!
Usually I just aim to kill the characters but to actually kill the players...
Well yeah, kill the characters, then when the players are mourning and weeping you come up behind them....
[Note: Nothing in this post (or any of my posts for that matter) are an admission of guilt.]
So who wants to start up a game, I'll DM!
Gives a new spin to the phrase, "killer DM."
I have a t-shirt that says, "GMs don't kill characters. No, wait, that's wrong - we do."
Wow, thats harsh!Usually I just aim to kill the characters but to actually kill the players... :mymy:[/quote]Well yeah, kill the characters, then when the players are mourning and weeping you come up behind them.... [Note: Nothing in this post (or an
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
That's exactly my point. Why put more work on the DM?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
This feels like computer game logic, which is something I find quite repellent in a TTRPG. For everything that's in this list, I'd replace it with:
• Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable. I personally don't need this level of crunch.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle.
Insofar I count:- Phases- Piecework creatures- Reactive commands- Minion spawning- Battlefield changes- Rules changes Some rules that can help:- Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system.- Provide rules f
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
This feels like computer game logic, which is something I find quite repellent in a TTRPG. For everything that's in this list, I'd replace it with:
• Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable. I personally don't need this level of crunch.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle.
You may be able to wing it like that but starting DMs are not going to be able to do that, so some guidelines or optional rules for creating memorable enemies would be very helpful...
Insofar I count:- Phases- Piecework creatures- Reactive commands- Minion spawning- Battlefield changes- Rules changes Some rules that can help:- Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system.- Provide rules f
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
The problem isn't that some characters are optomized. It's that whole swaths of characters representing some of the most basic fantasy tropes are largely irrelevant at higher levels.
The problem isn't that some characters are optomized. It's that whole swaths of characters representing some of the most basic fantasy tropes are largely irrelevant at higher levels.
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
This feels like computer game logic, which is something I find quite repellent in a TTRPG. For everything that's in this list, I'd replace it with:
• Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable. I personally don't need this level of crunch.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle.
I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that sounds rather elitist and conceited. Remember you are not the only person playing this game. The hope of any new edition is new players. They do not have your, or my, experience. Dismissing them with a simple "do what's right" is rather silly. How are they supposed to know? You personally don't like a lot of crunch. Fine. I do. Why is it that your way is the "chosen most awesome" and only way? If you don't need tons of options don't use them. However do not deny others options they would like to have.
Insofar I count:- Phases- Piecework creatures- Reactive commands- Minion spawning- Battlefield changes- Rules changes Some rules that can help:- Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system.- Provide rules f
You see slight where none is intended. I too, am expressing my opinion (which follows all the mandates of your signature, as I'm sure yours does too). You too aren't the only one playing this game (quite obvious this, no?). I'd like to encourage all players, old and new, to have rules that help them tell better stories, not become better tacticians on the battlemap. I can absolutely appreciate that there are many who think the previous sentence is the same thing: good tactical battles ARE good stories. I don't, well not in same way many here would I reckon. My way is most certainly not the "Chosen Way", nor do I believe your's is either. In truth we probably sit closer to the middle than our last two posts suggests; we both like crunch AND roleplaying - just obviously to varying degrees of importance. But in discussions like this, it's often the case that we'll polarise other's words (and perhaps even our own) to express a view that isn't safely in the middle being all things to all people. I'm not denying anyone anything, but if every time I disagree with a someone's opinion on these boards with an opinion of my own, then I am somehow denying them - then I am at a loss as to how we can disagree. It's good to disagree, agreed?
I don't have the foggiest notion of what new players want. I can only localise my experience: I know that none of my players want more battlemap crunch. If new players are anything like my players, then having more rules for adjudicating various stages of a boss battle, wouldn't be what would draw them to the system. But who knows what new players want...I'm sure WOTC would love to know.
Wanting less crunch isn't catered for on the way to more crunch, by the by. It's not usually the case that one can just ignore various bits of crunch and hope for an intact gaming system. I'd like a system that works fantastically well with as little crunch as humanly possible. And therein lies the challenge for 5e with its modules. So that the core has a little bit of crunch and then there are uber-crunch modules with crunchiest crunch for players like yourself that sit neatly tucked in a box I need never open.
@ZappyYou see slight where none is intended. :) I too, am expressing my opinion (which follows all the mandates of your signature, as I'm sure yours does too). You too aren't the only one playing this game (quite obvious this, no?). I'd like to encou
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
This feels like computer game logic, which is something I find quite repellent in a TTRPG. For everything that's in this list, I'd replace it with:
• Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable. I personally don't need this level of crunch.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle.
I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that sounds rather elitist and conceited. Remember you are not the only person playing this game. The hope of any new edition is new players. They do not have your, or my, experience. Dismissing them with a simple "do what's right" is rather silly. How are they supposed to know? You personally don't like a lot of crunch. Fine. I do. Why is it that your way is the "chosen most awesome" and only way? If you don't need tons of options don't use them. However do not deny others options they would like to have.
Damn right.
Insofar I count:- Phases- Piecework creatures- Reactive commands- Minion spawning- Battlefield changes- Rules changes Some rules that can help:- Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system.- Provide rules f
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Absolutely!
I played in a group where one player actually demanded another player changed characters because they felt the group was suffering. No one else had a problem, they just accepted the character the player wanted. This particular sod was adamant. Eventually the group brought him around to cease his whining.
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
You see slight where none is intended. I too, am expressing my opinion (which follows all the mandates of your signature, as I'm sure yours does too). You too aren't the only one playing this game (quite obvious this, no?). I'd like to encourage all players, old and new, to have rules that help them tell better stories, not become better tacticians on the battlemap. I can absolutely appreciate that there are many who think the previous sentence is the same thing: good tactical battles ARE good stories. I don't, well not in same way many here would I reckon. My way is most certainly not the "Chosen Way", nor do I believe your's is either. In truth we probably sit closer to the middle than our last two posts suggests; we both like crunch AND roleplaying - just obviously to varying degrees of importance. But in discussions like this, it's often the case that we'll polarise other's words (and perhaps even our own) to express a view that isn't safely in the middle being all things to all people. I'm not denying anyone anything, but if every time I disagree with a someone's opinion on these boards with an opinion of my own, then I am somehow denying them - then I am at a loss as to how we can disagree. It's good to disagree, agreed?
I don't have the foggiest notion of what new players want. I can only localise my experience: I know that none of my players want more battlemap crunch. If new players are anything like my players, then having more rules for adjudicating various stages of a boss battle, wouldn't be what would draw them to the system. But who knows what new players want...I'm sure WOTC would love to know.
Wanting less crunch isn't catered for on the way to more crunch, by the by. It's not usually the case that one can just ignore various bits of crunch and hope for an intact gaming system. I'd like a system that works fantastically well with as little crunch as humanly possible. And therein lies the challenge for 5e with its modules. So that the core has a little bit of crunch and then there are uber-crunch modules with crunchiest crunch for players like yourself that sit neatly tucked in a box I need never open.
Most all of that is certainly true. I also can't say that new players would want lots of crunch. However I find it hard to believe that many new players could get by with what you originally said.
Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable.
That is where I feel new players would gain the benefit of additional crunch. That seems to me to be how to do what you say. I don't think every creature in the Monster Manuals needs every bit suggested by TheMormegil however I think the DMG should have more on increasing encounter difficulty than the 4E one does. Two monster manuals, or versions of each creature (one crunch heavy and one crunch light) seems excessive to me and I'm not sure its necessary. I guess it really just depends on how difficult it is to add on, or take it off.
I most definitely want WOTC to live up to its stated design goal of letting everyone play the way they want. And for Next edition to be adaptable to all styles. Yours as well as mine.
Most all of that is certainly true. I also can't say that new players would want lots of crunch. However I find it hard to believe that many new players could get by with what you originally said.That is where I feel new players would gain the benefi
The Whole Overpowered Wizard Issue: Yes, wizards were overpowered and now they're not and I think everyone agrees that's a good thing. No-one is arguing for an unbalanced game (or if they are, I disagree). Like everyone keeps saying though, we'd rather have an imbalanced fun game than a balanced game which wasn't fun.
And this is where things get weird. I think you're absolutely right that people don't generally want an unbalanced game; after all, you don't see a lot of people going around proposing house rules with the explicit purpose of making a game less balanced, whereas you do see people house ruling or calling for errata to correct perceived imbalances. And yet there's this prevailing notion that a game can be "too balanced," or that trying to design a balanced system somehow makes it less fun than a system which is designed as unbalanced (whether deliberately or not). In my opinion, it's more of a case that some, but not all, methods of balancing a game make it less fun, but that a more balanced system is not in and of itself less fun (I would argue that, all other things being equal, a balanced system is more fun than an unbalanced system, which is why I'm such a proponent of aiming for balance). I can see where people dislike the route 4e took to balance the classes, but there seems to be a lot of conflating balance with unfun due to 4e being the most balanced edition of D&D and also being one that many people consider to not be fun.
And this is where things get weird. I think you're absolutely right that people don't generally want an unbalanced game; after all, you don't see a lot of people going around proposing house rules with the explicit purpose of making a game less balan
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. ...So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
No, it isn't. If you don't care about combat, it matters not one iota whether combat is balanced or not because you don't care about it by definition. You aren't "constrained" by combat balance in any way, shape or form because it isn't applicable either way.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or wit
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Right. Things strike me the opposite way. I don't really care exactly how the rules work beyond that they get out of the way and provide tools I can use however I want to. None of the people I typically play with care about optimization and I could care less what sort of challenges they can take as long as it is fun. They do all want to be able to build their characters up in whatever way they want though. In the old days when the game got to 9th or 12th level all the non-casters would start to get bored. The implications of the way classes worked were pretty constraining on story stuff too. I mean even the stupidly powerful relatively mundane monstes like the tarrasque were a joke really for any moderately resourceful caster.
4e suites us well. We can fight, RP, and make up any old crazy stuff we ever could in the old days. There are less fixed expections based on things like specific crafting rules and crud that doesn't really work well in previous editions either.
It isn't really so much about "everyone has to be equal" as it is about "when some classes are drastically unequal that puts a crimp in my style." I also appreciate the way the 4e designers thought through various PC abilities and implemented them in a way that is plot friendly. I've never in 4e had to have an 'anti-magic zone' or other awkward handwaving just to make things work in the face of magic gone rampant.
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
Right. Things strike me the opposite way. I don't really care exactly how the rules work beyond that they get out of the way and provide tools I can use however I want to. None of the people I typically play with care about optimization and I could care less what sort of challenges they can take as long as it is fun. They do all want to be able to build their characters up in whatever way they want though. In the old days when the game got to 9th or 12th level all the non-casters would start to get bored. The implications of the way classes worked were pretty constraining on story stuff too. I mean even the stupidly powerful relatively mundane monstes like the tarrasque were a joke really for any moderately resourceful caster.
4e suites us well. We can fight, RP, and make up any old crazy stuff we ever could in the old days. There are less fixed expections based on things like specific crafting rules and crud that doesn't really work well in previous editions either.
It isn't really so much about "everyone has to be equal" as it is about "when some classes are drastically unequal that puts a crimp in my style." I also appreciate the way the 4e designers thought through various PC abilities and implemented them in a way that is plot friendly. I've never in 4e had to have an 'anti-magic zone' or other awkward handwaving just to make things work in the face of magic gone rampant.
I can’t speak to the first part, but on your second points I agree completely. I was able to put together a complex political intrigue campaign to convince my wife to play, And was able to spend 10 minutes on a essentials char sheet and start playing DnD with my 6 year old son, who had never played before. Having simple straightforward skills made it easy for them to know what skills were necessary so it never go in the way of interacting with NPCs. The combat was simple enough that my son was able to narrate his actions and resolve the dice in a reasonable time frame (around 45sec-1min). My wife, playing a psionicist, was taking around 1 - 2 minutes to resolve her turn which I think is reasonable.
I have the same opinion about class equality, However, I have a different experience with magic gone rampant. In LFR I have runepriest with ritual casting (not strong by any stretch). Towards the end of heroic tier when there more disposable income and I could get improved ritual casting, I started to be able bypass a number of the skill challenges that came up. I only had a few rituals that I got for my concept, but I could easily had a better class choices and purchased additional rituals, that where rules legal, to have it running even more rampant. The difference is the plot power is accessible to everyone in 4e.
I can’t speak to the first part, but on your second points I agree completely. I was able to put together a complex political intrigue campaign to convince my wife to play, And was able to spend 10 minutes on a essentials char sheet and start p
Right. Things strike me the opposite way. I don't really care exactly how the rules work beyond that they get out of the way and provide tools I can use however I want to. None of the people I typically play with care about optimization and I could care less what sort of challenges they can take as long as it is fun. They do all want to be able to build their characters up in whatever way they want though. In the old days when the game got to 9th or 12th level all the non-casters would start to get bored. The implications of the way classes worked were pretty constraining on story stuff too. I mean even the stupidly powerful relatively mundane monstes like the tarrasque were a joke really for any moderately resourceful caster.
4e suites us well. We can fight, RP, and make up any old crazy stuff we ever could in the old days. There are less fixed expections based on things like specific crafting rules and crud that doesn't really work well in previous editions either.
It isn't really so much about "everyone has to be equal" as it is about "when some classes are drastically unequal that puts a crimp in my style." I also appreciate the way the 4e designers thought through various PC abilities and implemented them in a way that is plot friendly. I've never in 4e had to have an 'anti-magic zone' or other awkward handwaving just to make things work in the face of magic gone rampant.
I can’t speak to the first part, but on your second points I agree completely. I was able to put together a complex political intrigue campaign to convince my wife to play, And was able to spend 10 minutes on a essentials char sheet and start playing DnD with my 6 year old son, who had never played before. Having simple straightforward skills made it easy for them to know what skills were necessary so it never go in the way of interacting with NPCs. The combat was simple enough that my son was able to narrate his actions and resolve the dice in a reasonable time frame (around 45sec-1min). My wife, playing a psionicist, was taking around 1 - 2 minutes to resolve her turn which I think is reasonable.
I have the same opinion about class equality, However, I have a different experience with magic gone rampant. In LFR I have runepriest with ritual casting (not strong by any stretch). Towards the end of heroic tier when there more disposable income and I could get improved ritual casting, I started to be able bypass a number of the skill challenges that came up. I only had a few rituals that I got for my concept, but I could easily had a better class choices and purchased additional rituals, that where rules legal, to have it running even more rampant. The difference is the plot power is accessible to everyone in 4e.
There are still more limiters. You can't just strategic teleport to any old place unless the DM decides it would be fun and drops a circle there and gives you the 'coordinates' for it for instance. Now, you COULD scry that, but still the DM has to put it there. Of course there are a lot of fun ways to leverage that. A spy is inserted to build a quick circle in a storeroom somewhere, etc. You can't just 'scry and die' though. Scrying in general is expensive. Doable, but not something you are likely to try without some good expectation that it is likely to work. Worst case it at least is costly enough that the players will only do it when it is really needed.
The lack of things like alignment detecting mechanics and such things are handy too. The realization that things like invisibility, flight, etc are not really low level effects and giving you the choice of limited versions OR a ritual that costs a bunch for a longer term strategic version.
Casting wasn't always a huge problem in AD&D, but there were always those weird issues that would crop up that made something like a spying or mystery scenario tougher to do. You'd also always be wondering why anyone would need adventurers to deal with something that systematic application of low level magic would handle (IE you just use Detect Lie on everyone that could possibly be a suspect, etc). You can of course come up with reasons those things might not work, but then if they are just there to be thwarted by the DM why do they exist at all? The way this kind of thing was thought through a lot more in 4e is refreshing to me.
I can’t speak to the first part, but on your second points I agree completely. I was able to put together a complex political intrigue campaign to convince my wife to play, And was able to spend 10 minutes on a essentials char sheet and start p
More importantly, if it were a matter of playstyle, my favorite games wouldn't be 4e, GURPS, The One Ring and Old School Hack.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle. [/quote]You don't get to tell me that, actually. More importantly, if it were a matter of playstyle, my favorite games wouldn't be 4e, GURPS, The One Ring and Old School Hack.
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Absolutely!
I played in a group where one player actually demanded another player changed characters because they felt the group was suffering. No one else had a problem, they just accepted the character the player wanted. This particular sod was adamant. Eventually the group brought him around to cease his whining.
I had the exact opposite experience. I had two players one was a Half-Orc Barbarian and the other was a Halfling rogue. The Barbarian would rush up and kill the mobs with one hit. The rogue every once in a while got a chance to deal some damage and take out some enemies.
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Absolutely!
I played in a group where one player actually demanded another player changed characters because they felt the group was suffering. No one else had a problem, they just accepted the character the player wanted. This particular sod was adamant. Eventually the group brought him around to cease his whining.
I had the exact opposite experience. I had two players one was a Half-Orc Barbarian and the other was a Halfling rogue. The Barbarian would rush up and kill the mobs with one hit. The rogue every once in a while got a chance to deal some damage and take out some enemies.
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep e
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Go find another DM maybe you will have fun. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted...
The rogue's player is just a whiner
The barbarian's player is a better player
The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stealer
All the while admitting you "dont' know the situation". But nowhere in there would you concede the possibility that the game rules may have played a factor?
One guy wants to play a rogue. His conception of the rogus is someone who sneaks up to people and delivers devastating sneak attacks. His buddy wants to play a barbarian. his conception of the character is someone who, in a rage, charges the enemy. Both of these should be viable characters in the game, right?
So, maybe, if the game isn't working the way it should, it might be the game's fault? Can you concede that as a possibility? Can you concede the rogue may not be a whiner, the barbarian may not be an optimizer?
The solution, without changing games, seems to be either the rogue shouldn't play the prrfectly reasonable character he wants or the barbarian shouldn't play the perfectly reasonable character he wants. That doesn't sound like a reasonable result to me.
All this "blame the player" garbage has to stop. As long as the players want to play concepts that are not disruptive or inherently breaking (i.e., I want to play a god) and are consistewnt with fantasy tropes, the game should be able to accommodate them.
If it fails to do that, then the game is at fault, not the player.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted... The rogue's player is just a whiner The barbarian's player is a better player The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stea
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Go find another DM maybe you will have fun. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted...
The rogue's player is just a whiner
The barbarian's player is a better player
The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stealer
All the while admitting you "dont' know the situation". But nowhere in there would you concede the possibility that the game rules may have played a factor?
One guy wants to play a rogue. His conception of the rogus is someone who sneaks up to people and delivers devastating sneak attacks. His buddy wants to play a barbarian. his conception of the character is someone who, in a rage, charges the enemy. Both of these should be viable characters in the game, right?
So, maybe, if the game isn't working the way it should, it might be the game's fault? Can you concede that as a possibility? Can you concede the rogue may not be a whiner, the barbarian may not be an optimizer?
The solution, without changing games, seems to be either the rogue shouldn't play the prrfectly reasonable character he wants or the barbarian shouldn't play the perfectly reasonable character he wants. That doesn't sound like a reasonable result to me.
All this "blame the player" garbage has to stop. As long as the players want to play concepts that are not disruptive or inherently breaking (i.e., I want to play a god) and are consistewnt with fantasy tropes, the game should be able to accommodate them.
If it fails to do that, then the game is at fault, not the player.
All the while admiting I don't know the situation because I dont. Whats wrong with that. I will give my evaluation on what I am given.
No sorry. Rage quit sounds like player fault to me. Perhaps it comes from the lessons of sportsmanship.
I concede the possibility of rules.
I think it more LIKELY a personality problem than a rules problem. Yes. I concede it could be a rules problem. It could also be a problem with the heat in the play room. Should I make a list of every possibility now in a response?
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted... The rogue's player is just a whiner The barbarian's player is a better player The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stea
I think it more LIKELY a personality problem than a rules problem. Yes. I concede it could be a rules problem. It could also be a problem with the heat in the play room. Should I make a list of every possibility now in a response?
Since the person to whome you were responded posited it as a rules proble,, yes , that should have been mentioned in your post if you considered it a possibility. That would have been the respectful thing to do in a conversation -- acknowledging what the guy to whom you are responding actually wrote.
Because otherwise, all you actually did was insult each of the players and the DM involved, and then, in a supreme bit of irony, invoked sportsmanship and mutual respect. Well, right back atcha, buddy.
Since the person to whome you were responded posited it as a rules proble,, yes , that should have been mentioned in your post if you considered it a possibility. That would have been the respectful thing to do in a conversation -- acknowledging wha
1.) Agree that play style is a important factor; imbalance certainly may cause an issue for some but not for others.
However: 2.) Imbalance definitely does cause problems, at least for some. People should have the freedom to play in a group where different classes have similar overall power levels at the same level. Balancing doesn't remove the freedom to play in a colorful, varied world or to tell stories - even stories involving competent and incompetent characters traveling and adventuring together. But it gives freedom (for those who want it) to have characters be very different thematically and yet still equal in level.
1.) Agree that play style is a important factor; imbalance certainly may cause an issue for some but not for others. However:2.) Imbalance definitely does cause problems, at least for some. People should have the freedom to play in a group where di
I think it more LIKELY a personality problem than a rules problem. Yes. I concede it could be a rules problem. It could also be a problem with the heat in the play room. Should I make a list of every possibility now in a response?
Since the person to whome you were responded posited it as a rules proble,, yes , that should have been mentioned in your post if you considered it a possibility. That would have been the respectful thing to do in a conversation -- acknowledging what the guy to whom you are responding actually wrote.
Because otherwise, all you actually did was insult each of the players and the DM involved, and then, in a supreme bit of irony, invoked sportsmanship and mutual respect. Well, right back atcha, buddy.
By stating "I don't know the situation", that is a tag to indicate I am not actually asserting anything. I am evaluating on the limited information at hand, so the lecture does not quite apply here.
I edited my post about what I wrote about go find another DM. I meant it from MY perspective, If I was thier DM. I see how the person I quoted could think I was saying they were a bad DM.
That was not my intention. I apologize and so I took that bit out.
I still do not have sympathy for rage quit players, though I've met most of them in Live Action Roleplay more so than the Table top social situation.
There will often be times where one player outshines another. I have been outdone many times.
There can also be no doubt some players do not work for some groups. Some DM's do not work for some groups. That's just the way it goes.
Since the person to whome you were responded posited it as a rules proble,, yes , that should have been mentioned in your post if you considered it a possibility. That would have been the respectful thing to do in a conversation -- acknowledging wha
I can't say I am sympathetic to the rogue character. Again, rage quit because the barbarian did better? Ok. Go find another DM maybe you will have fun. Spare me the drama.
Sorry that just sounds well like whining. Maybe the other character PLAYED better?
Group was probably better off without him. I don't know the situation, but it sounds more like an optimizer stealing the fun more than a balance issue. I play D&D with high school kids and they act better than that.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted...
The rogue's player is just a whiner
The barbarian's player is a better player
The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stealer
All the while admitting you "dont' know the situation". But nowhere in there would you concede the possibility that the game rules may have played a factor?
One guy wants to play a rogue. His conception of the rogus is someone who sneaks up to people and delivers devastating sneak attacks. His buddy wants to play a barbarian. his conception of the character is someone who, in a rage, charges the enemy. Both of these should be viable characters in the game, right?
So, maybe, if the game isn't working the way it should, it might be the game's fault? Can you concede that as a possibility? Can you concede the rogue may not be a whiner, the barbarian may not be an optimizer?
The solution, without changing games, seems to be either the rogue shouldn't play the prrfectly reasonable character he wants or the barbarian shouldn't play the perfectly reasonable character he wants. That doesn't sound like a reasonable result to me.
All this "blame the player" garbage has to stop. As long as the players want to play concepts that are not disruptive or inherently breaking (i.e., I want to play a god) and are consistewnt with fantasy tropes, the game should be able to accommodate them.
If it fails to do that, then the game is at fault, not the player.
This. Bravo.
Wow, that was the longest rambling or incoherent ad hoc justifications I have ever seen. breaking it down, you asserted... The rogue's player is just a whiner The barbarian's player is a better player The barbarian's player is an optimizing fun-stea
The problem is when one character outshines another(possibly multiple other) characters so many times and by such an obnoxious degree where playing any class but the one outshining you so abdly is more of a strain on party resources than anything else(because since he's doing everythign much better and efficiently, there is no reason to not play as it, not playing as it is just gimping yourself).
@MournThe problem is when one character outshines another(possibly multiple other) characters so many times and by such an obnoxious degree where playing any class but the one outshining you so abdly is more of a strain on party resources than anythi
ok, why can't a simple solution be done? You give option for character optimization, and it's up to the dm and a group decision if using them or not.
I belive it works, and I just give some exemples from my experience.
The first is a friend of mine, that hates overpowered characters, so, when he dms (aLlmost always, best dm I've ever known) he just uses core manuals, and, if someone whants to do something out of core, he looks at it and decide. And eventualy come to an agreement with the player on how to nerf it when overpowered. Another, on the other hand, is an optimization fanboy. One of the main reasons he prefer 3.5 to 4 edition is character optimization. So, generaly, when I play with him are groups where everyone uses optimized characters (and there are a loat of fighter or barbarians, just to say). So the first will be happy without char op (thou he dislike fourth edition for fluff reasons), the second is happy with it. How to solve? In group I dm now, there are the optimization lover, another experienced player, and four new players. How to handle it? I just take a look at the optimizer build and allow him no too much overpowered stuff, just enouth to make him happy. He still has some moments when he shines much more than others, but they are higly limited (also combat is not important there, so no one realy cares), on the other hand he is a really good book keeper, so he helps me a lot with helping the new players with complex rules. And it works well.
ok, why can't a simple solution be done? You give option for character optimization, and it's up to the dm and a group decision if using them or not.I belive it works, and I just give some exemples from my experience.The first is a friend of mine, th
ok, why can't a simple solution be done? You give option for character optimization, and it's up to the dm and a group decision if using them or not.
Sorry, but I think you believe in the designers too much. 4E, ironically, came closest to allowing this kind of thinking, since there were actual goals for what each class could accomplish. In 4E's case, allowing something like PH only would significantly limit the power range of characters, assuming you pay attention to errata. I don't think the 4E designers are as deliberate as you believe though - I have a hard time imagining that someone sits down and says, "I'm going to design the best melee feat for divine classes today" or "I'll add some stuff that makes it possibly for AC to be 7 higher than the typical value at this level." It happens, and someone might think he made a powerful feat or a pretty decent item, but I don't think someone does the math for every published rule.
If you're talking about 3E, I really really doubt there was a deliberate power level to anything. I just can't believe that someone wrote Divine Metamagic because he thought there needed to be a way for clerics to use Righteous Might all day long. Natural Spell happened because it sounded cool, not because someone thought the PH needed an option for druids to be incredibly powerful just in case the group wanted to play that way. Shivering Touch as the bane of all creatures with average Dex? Looks like a mistake to me. Even some martial stuff looks like a mistake - no one planned on insane Power Attack multipliers. People wrote stuff, it got published, and players figured out the uses.
It would be nice if the designers could know exactly (or even approximately) what they were making, but we've never seen that and, as pessimistic as it sounds, should never expect to. I do hope to see more deliberateness and more understanding of how different rules fit together. I just don't think the designers will have even a moderately complete picture of what a character can be built in a game as free and open as D&D.
Sorry, but I think you believe in the designers too much. 4E, ironically, came closest to allowing this kind of thinking, since there were actual goals for what each class could accomplish. In 4E's case, allowing something like PH only would signific
The first is a friend of mine, that hates overpowered characters, so, when he dms (aLlmost always, best dm I've ever known) he just uses core manuals, and, if someone whants to do something out of core, he looks at it and decide. And eventualy come to an agreement with the player on how to nerf it when overpowered.
The most broken stuff in both 3.5 and 4E is core.
The most broken stuff in 3.5 tended to be high level casters, with druid, wizard, and cleric leading the charge with high level broken spells from PHB. But even low level spells were often potentially plot rending or obsoleted non casters. Splat books did a lot to make non-casters more useful, with tome of battle beting the best example of this. Tome of Battle melee pcs were stronger than PHB melee PCs, but they were still behind PHB casters.
In 4E the best class at each role is in PHB (Fighter/Ranger/Warlord/Wizard) as are a good number of the most powerful powers like come and get it, twin strike [still DPR king], sleep, hail of steel and paragon paths like kensei, divine oracle, dagger master, etc. And most of the best races are from the PHB1. Pity the poor paladin, warlock, or cleric who tries to keep up with the fighter, ranger, or warlord without splat books and dragon.
The most broken stuff in both 3.5 and 4E is core. The most broken stuff in 3.5 tended to be high level casters, with druid, wizard, and cleric leading the charge with high level broken spells from PHB. But even low level spells were often potential
Sorry, but I think you believe in the designers too much. 4E, ironically, came closest to allowing this kind of thinking, since there were actual goals for what each class could accomplish. In 4E's case, allowing something like PH only would significantly limit the power range of characters, assuming you pay attention to errata. I don't think the 4E designers are as deliberate as you believe though - I have a hard time imagining that someone sits down and says, "I'm going to design the best melee feat for divine classes today" or "I'll add some stuff that makes it possibly for AC to be 7 higher than the typical value at this level." It happens, and someone might think he made a powerful feat or a pretty decent item, but I don't think someone does the math for every published rule.
If you're talking about 3E, I really really doubt there was a deliberate power level to anything. I just can't believe that someone wrote Divine Metamagic because he thought there needed to be a way for clerics to use Righteous Might all day long. Natural Spell happened because it sounded cool, not because someone thought the PH needed an option for druids to be incredibly powerful just in case the group wanted to play that way. Shivering Touch as the bane of all creatures with average Dex? Looks like a mistake to me. Even some martial stuff looks like a mistake - no one planned on insane Power Attack multipliers. People wrote stuff, it got published, and players figured out the uses.
It would be nice if the designers could know exactly (or even approximately) what they were making, but we've never seen that and, as pessimistic as it sounds, should never expect to. I do hope to see more deliberateness and more understanding of how different rules fit together. I just don't think the designers will have even a moderately complete picture of what a character can be built in a game as free and open as D&D
Minor nitpick: speaking as someone who played a druid in 3.5, I found that Natural Spell really wasn't as overpowered as all that....at least in the context of Living Greyhawk and organized play. The main reason for this was action economy. Wildshape could turn a high-level druid into a combat monster, sure...but if you wanted to cast spells while wildshaped, you had to spend your actions on spellcasting instead of shredding monsters with your superpowered full attacks. So wildshaping for a spellcasting-oriented build was mainly for defensive buffing and utility. Still good, and worthwhile for many builds, but not crazy-broken.
However, I do agree with your larger point. A system as complex as D&D has emergent properties. The way different elements interact produces unforeseen effects that can trip up even the smartest designers.
Minor nitpick: speaking as someone who played a druid in 3.5, I found that Natural Spell really wasn't as overpowered as all that....at least in the context of Living Greyhawk and organized play. The main reason for this was action economy. Wildsha
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?
Just wow.
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?Just wow.:mymy:
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?
Just wow.
You seem to have missed all the lead up to that event.
It's called a tipping point.
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?Just wow.:mymy:[/quote]You seem to have missed all the lead up to that event. It's called a tipping point.
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?
Just wow.
It wasn't just one time. It followed this pattern over the course of a year (playing 6+ hours one time per week). The rogue might swap blows with an enemy a few times, then the Barbarian who was done slaughtering the first guy would step over and smash the guy the rogue was fighting. Basically it didn't matter what the rogue did, they were always out shined by the Barbarian. Even when the Barbarian tried to hold back, the rogue would get in trouble and the Barbarian would rush in and finish off the enemies.
It was kind of the straw that broke the camels back kinda thing...
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?Just wow.:mymy:[/quote]It wasn't just one time. It followed this pattern over the course of a year (playing 6+ hours one time per week). The rogue might swap blows with an enemy a few times, then
Minor nitpick: speaking as someone who played a druid in 3.5, I found that Natural Spell really wasn't as overpowered as all that....at least in the context of Living Greyhawk and organized play. The main reason for this was action economy. Wildshape could turn a high-level druid into a combat monster, sure...but if you wanted to cast spells while wildshaped, you had to spend your actions on spellcasting instead of shredding monsters with your superpowered full attacks. So wildshaping for a spellcasting-oriented build was mainly for defensive buffing and utility. Still good, and worthwhile for many builds, but not crazy-broken.
However, I do agree with your larger point. A system as complex as D&D has emergent properties. The way different elements interact produces unforeseen effects that can trip up even the smartest designers.
No, no, no. They should only transform into bears and fighting animals, while also stocking up on pre-combat buffs, if they outright replaced the fighter. If they're the primary casters, they should transform into birds or flying dinosaurs.
No, no, no. They should only transform into bears and fighting animals, while also stocking up on pre-combat buffs, if they outright replaced the fighter. If they're the primary casters, they should transform into birds or flying dinosaurs.
Our last play session ended when the Rogue rage quit because he couldn't get to the boss monster before the Barbarian (who killed it with 1 hit, due to a crit).
So having imbalanced characters does ruin the game for some people...
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?
Just wow.
It wasn't just one time. It followed this pattern over the course of a year (playing 6+ hours one time per week). The rogue might swap blows with an enemy a few times, then the Barbarian who was done slaughtering the first guy would step over and smash the guy the rogue was fighting. Basically it didn't matter what the rogue did, they were always out shined by the Barbarian. Even when the Barbarian tried to hold back, the rogue would get in trouble and the Barbarian would rush in and finish off the enemies.
It was kind of the straw that broke the camels back kinda thing...
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
Wow, ragequitting because your friend hit with a crit?Just wow.:mymy:[/quote]It wasn't just one time. It followed this pattern over the course of a year (playing 6+ hours one time per week). The rogue might swap blows with an enemy a few times, then
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
One thing I was really pleased with PATHFINDER is letting the sneak attack and critical hit apply to most creature types. I can't rememeber which creature types are still immune, I think it is only ooze and golem that are immune now.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
This.
I think 4e and pathfinder both screwed up in their attempts to solve this with the rogue, because in both games sneak attack is still the proposed method by which the rogue is truly effective. I think SA should be suplimentary, rather than the core of the class.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
Martial could certianly use a controller, and the rogue has a tradition of being the best guy to team with a fighter, what if instead of sneak attacking the focus became all sorts of nastys maneuvers that send your foes careening around the field dazed and confused and stabbing each other?
Martial could certianly use a controller, and the rogue has a tradition of being the best guy to team with a fighter, what if instead of sneak attacking the focus became all sorts of nastys maneuvers that send your foes careening around the field daz
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
If your favourite character archetype is to do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters and you are playing a class that does not do lots of damage then you are just playing the wrong class.
Playing a cleric or wizard or warden is not a "trap option" because they dont do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters.
If your friend is playing a Barbarian that kicks in the door, charges in and does lots of damage and you are playing a Rogue that sneaks around in the shadows waiting for the right chance to gank monsters from behind then maybe there is just a clash of play styles.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
If your favourite character archetype is to do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters and you are playing a class that does not do lots of damage then you are just playing the wrong class.
Playing a cleric or wizard or warden is not a "trap option" because they dont do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters.
If your friend is playing a Barbarian that kicks in the door, charges in and does lots of damage and you are playing a Rogue that sneaks around in the shadows waiting for the right chance to gank monsters from behind then maybe there is just a clash of play styles.
Tactics are good. Setting up the rogue to place optimal strikes is a good tactical solution. Yet if there is an oppurtunity to take out the boss, without the sneak damage, the party should take it. This I find, is a common flaw in the tactical rogue player's plan. They need to be set up.
My rogue player is pretty good at confounding me, and has changed what I estimated to be 5-8 round boss combats, into 2-3 rounds of the rest of the party playing cleanup crew.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
ok, why can't a simple solution be done? You give option for character optimization, and it's up to the dm and a group decision if using them or not.
Sorry, but I think you believe in the designers too much. 4E, ironically, came closest to allowing this kind of thinking, since there were actual goals for what each class could accomplish. In 4E's case, allowing something like PH only would significantly limit the power range of characters, assuming you pay attention to errata. I don't think the 4E designers are as deliberate as you believe though - I have a hard time imagining that someone sits down and says, "I'm going to design the best melee feat for divine classes today" or "I'll add some stuff that makes it possibly for AC to be 7 higher than the typical value at this level." It happens, and someone might think he made a powerful feat or a pretty decent item, but I don't think someone does the math for every published rule.
If you're talking about 3E, I really really doubt there was a deliberate power level to anything. I just can't believe that someone wrote Divine Metamagic because he thought there needed to be a way for clerics to use Righteous Might all day long. Natural Spell happened because it sounded cool, not because someone thought the PH needed an option for druids to be incredibly powerful just in case the group wanted to play that way. Shivering Touch as the bane of all creatures with average Dex? Looks like a mistake to me. Even some martial stuff looks like a mistake - no one planned on insane Power Attack multipliers. People wrote stuff, it got published, and players figured out the uses.
It would be nice if the designers could know exactly (or even approximately) what they were making, but we've never seen that and, as pessimistic as it sounds, should never expect to. I do hope to see more deliberateness and more understanding of how different rules fit together. I just don't think the designers will have even a moderately complete picture of what a character can be built in a game as free and open as D&D.
Eh, I agree that there has rarely been, pre-4e, even the vaguest notion of actual overall understanding of the impact of options system-wide. They were rather tacked onto 2e, and broke it thoroughly but at least you could play with core and things were not AS bad. 3.x was just out the window. Nothing was even close to thought out from day 1 and there were tons of ridiculous things you ran into starting on about page 3 of the PHB. Didn't matter if you used splats or not.
4e IMHO is a different beast entirely. There IS some degree of power creep, in the form of better options. OTOH there's equally been nerfing of the most problematic things. Overall the game has improved over the course of time and TBH I'd say 2012 4e is really no worse than 2008 4e was, probably better really.
This is something that 5e simply MUST DO is be well thought out in terms of how the game works. We're not going back to pre-4e random garbage thrown at the game in each splat and a core that was put together with no thought to how the rules either promoted a good game or allowed all the players to both play valid and interesting choices.
My experience is that players DO care about being effective. I don't think every player cares if they have a character that is as good as all the other ones in every situation, but nobody should be consistently overshadowed to the point where the player would conclude that their character might as well not be there. Even short of that I see players getting a bit 'restless'. Even in my 4e game I see this with one player that has a very solid rogue build and one that has a decent Cavalier build, mainly because the e-classes just aren't quite up to the level of the PHB1 ones. Rage quitting is clearly a bit extreme, but I think I'd have problems keeping everyone happy playing 3.5 or PF where some of them would either have to swallow being second tier or else play a different character than they want.
Sorry, but I think you believe in the designers too much. 4E, ironically, came closest to allowing this kind of thinking, since there were actual goals for what each class could accomplish. In 4E's case, allowing something like PH only would signific
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
If your favourite character archetype is to do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters and you are playing a class that does not do lots of damage then you are just playing the wrong class.
Playing a cleric or wizard or warden is not a "trap option" because they dont do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters.
If your friend is playing a Barbarian that kicks in the door, charges in and does lots of damage and you are playing a Rogue that sneaks around in the shadows waiting for the right chance to gank monsters from behind then maybe there is just a clash of play styles.
Tactics are good. Setting up the rogue to place optimal strikes is a good tactical solution. Yet if there is an oppurtunity to take out the boss, without the sneak damage, the party should take it. This I find, is a common flaw in the tactical rogue player's plan. They need to be set up.
My rogue player is pretty good at confounding me, and has changed what I estimated to be 5-8 round boss combats, into 2-3 rounds of the rest of the party playing cleanup crew.
4e definitely helps this. Getting CA CAN involve the old 'hide in the shadow and backstab' but it can also just mean outmaneuvering your opponents. Actually to be honest if you're willing to look through a few feats you'll find that getting CA is virtually automatic for most rogues nowadays. You can still specialize in the hide and stab sort of thing, but with Cunning Stalker and Deceptive Strike (or is it Clever Strike, I can never remember) you BASICALLY cannot avoid getting CA except in a few corner cases, and there's always other ways to sort those out too. The halfling AD rogue in my current game literally has 100% CA. The only time he didn't was when I had him blinded and dazed the other day.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
So this player decided to quit rather then try another type of character?
I would have gone for a Ranger or Sorcerer if he just wanted straight up damage. Hard to argue with a Twin Strike at 20 squares!
Edit: I just keep imagining Bart Simpson and the Electric Cupcake, lol
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."
My final 3.5 campaign before switching to 4E had this problem. I was playing a Rogue, and none of my Sneak Attacks worked because we were suddenly fighting lots of Undead and Abominations. Sure I could spend two Feats to make up for it, but then character concept goes out the window.
It is okay for a character to be exceptional in a very narrow field and merely effective at other times. It is never okay for a character to only be effective in a narrow field, and ineffective at all other times.
If your favourite character archetype is to do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters and you are playing a class that does not do lots of damage then you are just playing the wrong class.
Playing a cleric or wizard or warden is not a "trap option" because they dont do lots of damage and kill lots of monsters.
If your friend is playing a Barbarian that kicks in the door, charges in and does lots of damage and you are playing a Rogue that sneaks around in the shadows waiting for the right chance to gank monsters from behind then maybe there is just a clash of play styles.
Tactics are good. Setting up the rogue to place optimal strikes is a good tactical solution. Yet if there is an oppurtunity to take out the boss, without the sneak damage, the party should take it. This I find, is a common flaw in the tactical rogue player's plan. They need to be set up.
My rogue player is pretty good at confounding me, and has changed what I estimated to be 5-8 round boss combats, into 2-3 rounds of the rest of the party playing cleanup crew.
4e definitely helps this. Getting CA CAN involve the old 'hide in the shadow and backstab' but it can also just mean outmaneuvering your opponents. Actually to be honest if you're willing to look through a few feats you'll find that getting CA is virtually automatic for most rogues nowadays. You can still specialize in the hide and stab sort of thing, but with Cunning Stalker and Deceptive Strike (or is it Clever Strike, I can never remember) you BASICALLY cannot avoid getting CA except in a few corner cases, and there's always other ways to sort those out too. The halfling AD rogue in my current game literally has 100% CA. The only time he didn't was when I had him blinded and dazed the other day.
I agree the 4e rogue plays nice. I have only run one of them, as for some reason other classes are chosen. Last night during my ENCOUNTERS creation (we didn't get the 1st encounter done because there was a new player unfamiliar with 4e and only one set of books os creation took longer than it should (no lap top)) I was trying to encourage a rogue class but nobody bit. I figured they would be especially favourable for Web of the SPider Queen.
My favorite character archetype is the Rogue. I would be more than a little annoyed if my character were rendered ineffectual despite my best efforts. "Play a different class" is not an acceptable solution. No class should be a "trap option."My final
4e IMHO is a different beast entirely. There IS some degree of power creep, in the form of better options. OTOH there's equally been nerfing of the most problematic things. Overall the game has improved over the course of time and TBH I'd say 2012 4e is really no worse than 2008 4e was, probably better really.
This is something that 5e simply MUST DO is be well thought out in terms of how the game works. We're not going back to pre-4e random garbage thrown at the game in each splat and a core that was put together with no thought to how the rules either promoted a good game or allowed all the players to both play valid and interesting choices.
Yeah, this was something I was trying to get across as well. You can look at 4E and feel pretty confident that you know when something is "too good," even before it gets hit with errata. Prior stuff was harder to identify as out of line and was more subject to arguments ("It's fine because of the expensive components," or "It's fine because some creatures are immune," or "It's fine because I just won't use it that often.") Before 4E, fixing things on your own was pretty much the only way, and there was nothing like a clear baseline to look at. I really hope DDN doesn't throw us back into the dark!
Yeah, this was something I was trying to get across as well. You can look at 4E and feel pretty confident that you know when something is "too good," even before it gets hit with errata. Prior stuff was harder to identify as out of line and was more
Martial could certianly use a controller, and the rogue has a tradition of being the best guy to team with a fighter, what if instead of sneak attacking the focus became all sorts of nastys maneuvers that send your foes careening around the field dazed and confused and stabbing each other?
I've always wanted the rogue to use tricks and a mix of melee and middling ranged weapons to disrupt the enemy in ways that really, really suck for them.
hamstringing, blinding, the things you describe, and more. Just as many attacks per turn as the fighter, but with effects instead of lots of damage. Also, specializing in off turn response attacks (opportunity, reactions and interrupts in 4e) that lock down or otherwise say "no" to enemies as they try to do things.
In next, such a character could use one of the attacks from their next turn as a response to something that a monster does, applying an effect that hampers it's ability to do whatever it was trying to do.
All the things I've described for a 4e martial controller, basically. (for the record, I don't care about any grid. I want a martial controller because this concept is awesome, and it should be both martial and a controller.)
Maybe a X/day backstab that does high damage. Maybe.
I've always wanted the rogue to use tricks and a mix of melee and middling ranged weapons to disrupt the enemy in ways that really, really suck for them. hamstringing, blinding, the things you describe, and more. Just as many attacks per turn as the
4e IMHO is a different beast entirely. There IS some degree of power creep, in the form of better options. OTOH there's equally been nerfing of the most problematic things. Overall the game has improved over the course of time and TBH I'd say 2012 4e is really no worse than 2008 4e was, probably better really.
This is something that 5e simply MUST DO is be well thought out in terms of how the game works. We're not going back to pre-4e random garbage thrown at the game in each splat and a core that was put together with no thought to how the rules either promoted a good game or allowed all the players to both play valid and interesting choices.
Yeah, this was something I was trying to get across as well. You can look at 4E and feel pretty confident that you know when something is "too good," even before it gets hit with errata. Prior stuff was harder to identify as out of line and was more subject to arguments ("It's fine because of the expensive components," or "It's fine because some creatures are immune," or "It's fine because I just won't use it that often.") Before 4E, fixing things on your own was pretty much the only way, and there was nothing like a clear baseline to look at. I really hope DDN doesn't throw us back into the dark!
THIS!
I'm not going back, man.
Yeah, this was something I was trying to get across as well. You can look at 4E and feel pretty confident that you know when something is "too good," even before it gets hit with errata. Prior stuff was harder to identify as out of line and was more
Martial could certianly use a controller, and the rogue has a tradition of being the best guy to team with a fighter, what if instead of sneak attacking the focus became all sorts of nastys maneuvers that send your foes careening around the field dazed and confused and stabbing each other?
I've always wanted the rogue to use tricks and a mix of melee and middling ranged weapons to disrupt the enemy in ways that really, really suck for them.
hamstringing, blinding, the things you describe, and more. Just as many attacks per turn as the fighter, but with effects instead of lots of damage. Also, specializing in off turn response attacks (opportunity, reactions and interrupts in 4e) that lock down or otherwise say "no" to enemies as they try to do things.
In next, such a character could use one of the attacks from their next turn as a response to something that a monster does, applying an effect that hampers it's ability to do whatever it was trying to do.
All the things I've described for a 4e martial controller, basically. (for the record, I don't care about any grid. I want a martial controller because this concept is awesome, and it should be both martial and a controller.)
Maybe a X/day backstab that does high damage. Maybe.
4e can totally do a character like that. You could go to the trouble of making up a new class, or you could say make a bard that is functioning like that and reflavored.
I've always wanted the rogue to use tricks and a mix of melee and middling ranged weapons to disrupt the enemy in ways that really, really suck for them. hamstringing, blinding, the things you describe, and more. Just as many attacks per turn as the
Martial could certianly use a controller, and the rogue has a tradition of being the best guy to team with a fighter, what if instead of sneak attacking the focus became all sorts of nastys maneuvers that send your foes careening around the field dazed and confused and stabbing each other?
I've always wanted the rogue to use tricks and a mix of melee and middling ranged weapons to disrupt the enemy in ways that really, really suck for them.
hamstringing, blinding, the things you describe, and more. Just as many attacks per turn as the fighter, but with effects instead of lots of damage. Also, specializing in off turn response attacks (opportunity, reactions and interrupts in 4e) that lock down or otherwise say "no" to enemies as they try to do things.
In next, such a character could use one of the attacks from their next turn as a response to something that a monster does, applying an effect that hampers it's ability to do whatever it was trying to do.
All the things I've described for a 4e martial controller, basically. (for the record, I don't care about any grid. I want a martial controller because this concept is awesome, and it should be both martial and a controller.)
Maybe a X/day backstab that does high damage. Maybe.
4e can totally do a character like that. You could go to the trouble of making up a new class, or you could say make a bard that is functioning like that and reflavored.
Sometimes, the fact that the character is using magic matters to whether or not it's filling the concept. And the bard just has a ton of stuff that's oriented toward completely other things.
I'd rather do it by hybriding rogue with something else, since they refuse to make a class to do it.
But this is like the swordmage, or other spellblade classes. Yes, you could do them with multiclassing, but they work better when the concept is just built from the ground up to do that thing.
To me, there is a popular archetype that just isn't being mechanically represented in DnD, and it should be.
That is, the tricky, dodgy skirmisher that doesn't pack much of a punch, but can seriously hamper and disable opponents while being next to impossible to pin down, going so far as to completely frustrate their ability to do anything worthwhile.
Of course, I call that archetype "Rogue", so there's a problem of what I think the rogue is at core being different than others, who see backstab as definitive of what the rogue is.
I've always wanted the rogue to use tricks and a mix of melee and middling ranged weapons to disrupt the enemy in ways that really, really suck for them. hamstringing, blinding, the things you describe, and more. Just as many attacks per turn as the
So, I saw the topic, and wondered how anyone could have a problem with balance. After reading through more than 50 pages of posts(yep - I read just about everything), I've come to the conclusion that the idea of "balance" is incredibly misunderstood.
Balance does not mean that all classes have to do all things either the same or equally well. What balance means is that no class or character is useless in any given situation. There should be no point at which a player wants to leave the table to put in a quick round or two of Rock Band, because his character isn't needed in that situation(I've seen this happen in most editions from BECMI to 3.5, haven't played 4E enough to judge). Every class/character should be able to contribute to every situation.
Let me give you an example - Diplomacy is a skill every class should have. However, this doesn't mean that every class should have the same diplomatic skill in every situation. Paladins/Clerics have more influence in the religious realms, rogues with shady underworld figures, fighters with soldiers and mercs, cavaliers with nobility, wizards with scholars, barbarians with tribal cultures, etc., etc., etc.
However, this doesn't mean that the classes are completely useless out of their field. The fighter or barbarian may back up the rogue's diplomacy attempt by looking or acting really mean while the rogue tells the shady underworld guy he better cooperate, because no one wants a fight.
A system that allows this kind of flexibility allows each character to shine, but other characters to contribute to the situation where another character shines. This same theory goes for combat, as well.
Remember - Allowing a character to shine doesn't mean rendering other characters useless. The character may have the spotlight, but the other characters are still on stage.
Balance isn't about making all characters perfectly equal in a pvp deathmatch. Balance is about making sure that players don't want to leave the table through either frustration or boredom.
So, I saw the topic, and wondered how anyone could have a problem with balance. After reading through more than 50 pages of posts(yep - I read just about everything), I've come to the conclusion that the idea of "balance" is incredibly misunderstood.
There should be no point at which a player wants to leave the table to put in a quick round or two of Rock Band, because his character isn't needed in that situation(I've seen this happen in most editions from BECMI to 3.5, haven't played 4E enough to judge).
I know for a FACT that when people played AD&D and BECMI they were not leaving the table to play ROCK BAND.
(I know your point)
I know for a FACT that when people played AD&D and BECMI they were not leaving the table to play ROCK BAND. :)(I know your point)
So, I saw the topic, and wondered how anyone could have a problem with balance. After reading through more than 50 pages of posts(yep - I read just about everything), I've come to the conclusion that the idea of "balance" is incredibly misunderstood.
Balance does not mean that all classes have to do all things either the same or equally well. What balance means is that no class or character is useless in any given situation. There should be no point at which a player wants to leave the table to put in a quick round or two of Rock Band, because his character isn't needed in that situation(I've seen this happen in most editions from BECMI to 3.5, haven't played 4E enough to judge). Every class/character should be able to contribute to every situation.
Let me give you an example - Diplomacy is a skill every class should have. However, this doesn't mean that every class should have the same diplomatic skill in every situation. Paladins/Clerics have more influence in the religious realms, rogues with shady underworld figures, fighters with soldiers and mercs, cavaliers with nobility, wizards with scholars, barbarians with tribal cultures, etc., etc., etc.
However, this doesn't mean that the classes are completely useless out of their field. The fighter or barbarian may back up the rogue's diplomacy attempt by looking or acting really mean while the rogue tells the shady underworld guy he better cooperate, because no one wants a fight.
A system that allows this kind of flexibility allows each character to shine, but other characters to contribute to the situation where another character shines. This same theory goes for combat, as well.
Remember - Allowing a character to shine doesn't mean rendering other characters useless. The character may have the spotlight, but the other characters are still on stage.
Balance isn't about making all characters perfectly equal in a pvp deathmatch. Balance is about making sure that players don't want to leave the table through either frustration or boredom.
Agreed. Some people get that, though, and still think balance doesn't matter.
I houserule an aid another system that has teirs of help, rather than just "if you make the check, you give a +2 bonus". Barely making the check lets you roll a d4 and add that to the other player's roll, a huge success let's the two of you roll d20s, and the person making the main check uses the higher roll, with stages in between.
Agreed. Some people get that, though, and still think balance doesn't matter. I houserule an aid another system that has teirs of help, rather than just "if you make the check, you give a +2 bonus". Barely making the check lets you roll a d4 and add
People still do play BECMI and 1E, so they could currently be leaving the table to play Rock Band. However, back in the day, I saw people leave the table to play Archon, Ultima, and Zyll. How's that for a blast from the past?
People still do play BECMI and 1E, so they could currently be leaving the table to play Rock Band. However, back in the day, I saw people leave the table to play Archon, Ultima, and Zyll. How's that for a blast from the past?
People still do play BECMI and 1E, so they could currently be leaving the table to play Rock Band. However, back in the day, I saw people leave the table to play Archon, Ultima, and Zyll. How's that for a blast from the past?
So, I saw the topic, and wondered how anyone could have a problem with balance. After reading through more than 50 pages of posts(yep - I read just about everything), I've come to the conclusion that the idea of "balance" is incredibly misunderstood.
Balance does not mean that all classes have to do all things either the same or equally well. What balance means is that no class or character is useless in any given situation. There should be no point at which a player wants to leave the table to put in a quick round or two of Rock Band, because his character isn't needed in that situation(I've seen this happen in most editions from BECMI to 3.5, haven't played 4E enough to judge). Every class/character should be able to contribute to every situation.
Let me give you an example - Diplomacy is a skill every class should have. However, this doesn't mean that every class should have the same diplomatic skill in every situation. Paladins/Clerics have more influence in the religious realms, rogues with shady underworld figures, fighters with soldiers and mercs, cavaliers with nobility, wizards with scholars, barbarians with tribal cultures, etc., etc., etc.
However, this doesn't mean that the classes are completely useless out of their field. The fighter or barbarian may back up the rogue's diplomacy attempt by looking or acting really mean while the rogue tells the shady underworld guy he better cooperate, because no one wants a fight.
A system that allows this kind of flexibility allows each character to shine, but other characters to contribute to the situation where another character shines. This same theory goes for combat, as well.
Remember - Allowing a character to shine doesn't mean rendering other characters useless. The character may have the spotlight, but the other characters are still on stage.
Balance isn't about making all characters perfectly equal in a pvp deathmatch. Balance is about making sure that players don't want to leave the table through either frustration or boredom.
Agreed. Some people get that, though, and still think balance doesn't matter.
I houserule an aid another system that has teirs of help, rather than just "if you make the check, you give a +2 bonus". Barely making the check lets you roll a d4 and add that to the other player's roll, a huge success let's the two of you roll d20s, and the person making the main check uses the higher roll, with stages in between.
I would like to see that system fully fleshed out if you wouldn't mind. A PM works.
People still do play BECMI and 1E, so they could currently be leaving the table to play Rock Band. However, back in the day, I saw people leave the table to play Archon, Ultima, and Zyll. How's that for a blast from the past?
The point being, as you made it, that one should not be leaving a game table to go play a different game, otherwise the current game is not achieving one of the primary requirements of entertainment: Engage your audience/never bore your audience.
Agreed. Some people get that, though, and still think balance doesn't matter. I houserule an aid another system that has teirs of help, rather than just "if you make the check, you give a +2 bonus". Barely making the check lets you roll a d4 and add
People still do play BECMI and 1E, so they could currently be leaving the table to play Rock Band. However, back in the day, I saw people leave the table to play Archon, Ultima, and Zyll. How's that for a blast from the past?
I don't disagree with you either. I don't even think that AD&D was exactly horrible at doing this, it kind of depended on the DM to some extent. There is a bit of another aspect to it though, which is what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When the PCs sit down at the table in the back of the bar to make their plans for the big raid on the dragon's lair who's key there? The 9th level fighter, the 9th level rogue, or the 9th level wizard? In the old days the wizard brought like 50 spells to that table. For him it was just a matter of which ones might be fitted together into a plan and memorizing that particular set of spells. The rogue brought some solid skills to the table, so IF there was a need for stealth etc then he had something to put on the table. The fighter didn't come with nothing, but basically his contribution would be "I'll swing my sword at it when things go wrong or if there's some other monster to overcome." He's just got very little plot power. Chances are pretty good at that point the party would be better off with a cleric or another caster at the table instead.
You can barely imagine a scenario where the wizard couldn't cook up something that would meet the need, possibly with a night's rest. Worst case he needs someone to stand in front of him to keep the bad guys off for a round or two for something to work. Nobody is useless by a long shot, but some characters are vastly narrower in the scope of their abilities, and those abilities are fundamentally at best a somewhat better version of what pretty much anyone can do (swing a melee weapon).
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree. At least though the fighter has a substantial inventory of tricks of his own that are considerably beyond just swinging his sword. They are still mostly melee combat stuff, but they are qualitatively different from what other PCs do. He can also pick PPs, EDs, and even themes, that broaden his capabilities. A lot of stuff is put onto skills too, which if the fighter isn't the best at at least he's got things that might work outside a fight or similar situation better than what anyone else can do.
I don't disagree with you either. I don't even think that AD&D was exactly horrible at doing this, it kind of depended on the DM to some extent. There is a bit of another aspect to it though, which is what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When t
Another thing to consider is that alot of the people arguing against balance may play with houserules that affect balance, but they don't understand how those houserules affect balance. Or they may have a DM that actively balances the game during play and they aren't aware of it. Maybe they've never played a high-powered campaign, who knows. These kinds of details are incredibly important to the argument.
Currently, I am about to start an "E8" campaign - we've tried high level stuff, and the power disparity is so wide between characters that it is just too hard to DM. Even between 2 characters of the same class. I've seen 2 level 10 fighters wade into battle - one can barely get past the monster's DR, the other is dealing 100 points per round. Mind you, I helped one guy optimize his character. The second guy was pissed I even offered to help. He was more pissed when, after the first session, the DM tried to give him some extra goodies to help buff his character into balance with the rest of the party.
This may be our group only, but every campaign that goes beyond level 10 quickly falls apart because of power disparity between party members or the vast amount of planning that DMs have to do to keep magic-users from constantly interrupting the DM with things they can do that disrupt the DMs plans. Often, the DM has had to say "the spell fails." This tends to frustrate players, and they are right to be frustrated - they have worked hard to get their character to that point, but they rarely get to reap the benefits of their new powers, because they would ruin the campaign.
For those that don't like the idea of balance - do you use houserules? Do you play at high levels(over 10)? What is your usual party composition? Do you play core only or do you get access to other materials? Do you ever DM, or just play? Have you ever DMed at high levels? These are very important questions.
Another thing to consider is that alot of the people arguing against balance may play with houserules that affect balance, but they don't understand how those houserules affect balance. Or they may have a DM that actively balances the game during pla
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree.
To some degree the 4e solution to this involves making the planning session irrelevant; 4e doesn't have the spell selection options you see in previous editions, and it has very few trick monsters.
To some degree the 4e solution to this involves making the planning session irrelevant; 4e doesn't have the spell selection options you see in previous editions, and it has very few trick monsters.
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree.
To some degree the 4e solution to this involves making the planning session irrelevant; 4e doesn't have the spell selection options you see in previous editions, and it has very few trick monsters.
Well, no, but it certainly encourages and assists the wizard in particular to be well endowed with a good selection of rituals, which if you actually sit down and start working with them can be pretty amazingly powerful in a story sense. 4e also does have some pretty darn effective potions and other consumables, and alchemical items (much maligned, but a good smoke stick or blast patch at the right moment can be a huge benefit, especially if you use them creatively).
You're right of course though, that's the flip side with 4e. Wizards CAN tune their spell selection, but only to a certain extent (though honestly my tome of readiness wizard with expanded spellbook and improved TOR has a REDUNCULOUS amount of spell selection, as much as most equivalent level AD&D wizards). Spells tend to be less broadly focused in any case, again because you do have rituals for a lot of the more open ended stuff.
I think there's more of a perception amongst players that prep isn't a big deal. In fact though, it is if the DM is one like me that will slap the PCs hard if they don't think. Most of my players have been around the block anyway though, they certainly plan ahead most of the time.
Trick monsters certainly seem to have been looked down on in 4e design. Some of that I can see. Some of it just seems to be a little bit of excessive control freakiness by the original crew of 4e devs. They were a bit restrained. Luckily monsters are so easy to make that this isn't really a big issue. I tend to prefer to put tricks into non-combat situations though.
To some degree the 4e solution to this involves making the planning session irrelevant; 4e doesn't have the spell selection options you see in previous editions, and it has very few trick monsters.[/quote]Well, no, but it certainly encourages and ass
what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When the PCs sit down at the table in the back of the bar to make their plans for the big raid on the dragon's lair who's key there? The 9th level fighter, the 9th level rogue, or the 9th level wizard?
IMX, it's the most assertive, most engaged player. Last week, for instance, it was a witch and a theif who jumped in and came up with plans (quick, slightly insane plans) and engaged in that out-of-the-box problem solving so beloved of those for whom 4e is not so beloved. It's probably a coincidence that they were both pixies. :|
In the old days the wizard brought like 50 spells to that table. For him it was just a matter of which ones might be fitted together into a plan and memorizing that particular set of spells. The rogue brought some solid skills to the table, so IF there was a need for stealth etc then he had something to put on the table. The fighter didn't come with nothing, he's just got very little plot power. Chances are pretty good at that point the party would be better off with a cleric or another caster at the table instead.
Nod. If the fighter were played by an assertive, engaged player and the wizard not so much, the fighter might come up with a plan. It would almost certainly involve the wizard prepping the right spells....
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree. At least though the fighter has a substantial inventory of tricks of his own that are considerably beyond just swinging his sword. They are still mostly melee combat stuff, but they are qualitatively different from what other PCs do. He can also pick PPs, EDs, and even themes, that broaden his capabilities. A lot of stuff is put onto skills too, which if the fighter isn't the best at at least he's got things that might work outside a fight or similar situation.
As much as 4e got folks up in arms over the 'nerfing' of the wizard and corresponding power-up to the fighter and other martial classes, it really didn't solve the problem. Casters, particularly wizards, still had a lot more plot power out of combat than a fighter could hope to.
If 5e had been allowed to be a continued evolution of the game, like other eds, it might have finally solved that issue, as well, perhaps with a concept like the Pillars, and giving each class adequate resources within each pillar.
Instead, 5e is slated to be a reactionary edition, and go back to the 'spot light' balance prior eds attempted.
IMX, it's the most assertive, most engaged player. Last week, for instance, it was a witch and a theif who jumped in and came up with plans (quick, slightly insane plans) and engaged in that out-of-the-box problem solving so beloved of those for who
Why must a 20th level fighter == 20th level mage == 20th level thief in combat? Why is this so important? And when it's all balanced, does this ensure a rivetting roleplaying experience?
The idea of a roleplaying game, which was incidentally taught to me by D&D in 80s, is to become the hero of your favourite novel or movie and bring that character to life through your actions. The rules back in the day were serving the telling of heoric tales and having a semblence of parity with fantasy literature/movies. It was very common to watch a movie or read a book and deduce what "D&D spell" was cast or how powerful a character was. Whether it was true or not, my friends and I often thought that leading fantasy and mythology works were inspirations to the game designers of that day.
There was a rule system, sure; the most advanced seen yet in AD&D with THAC0, races not being classes, annonce your action in reverse initiative order and lots more besides. It's arguably not as elegant as today's game systems (although it still has it's followers), but most importantly it was still highly functional and my friends and I played as much as we could. It was functional because...
It was Story first. The rules were there, and the DM could change any of them. The DM was encouraged to break whatever rule he saw fit for any reason, but most likely he did so to serve the story.
As the roleplaying hobby grew in popularity and other titles for other genres came onboard, the game systems became more refined, more distinct from one another and conversations increasingly became to be about the rules of a system (more than it's genre or story). What we learned is that the good rules evoke the feeling of the game system or genre. While D&D was a constant, these other systems were enticing because they had wildly different systems.
Each time D&D revised it's rule system, it became more refined, more elegant, more options, better art!, but also more about the rules. It was becoming less and less about creating a fictional character from a novel as it was about playing a game. 4e, imo, is the pinnacle of this trend - creating a game where a vast majority of the rules play out with miniatures on a grid. D&D is not the only rpg to become more boardgame-like, the latest Warhammer Fantasy is a huge box of cards and tokens that need booster packs of more cards and tokens to play with more than 3 (I believe).
It is now about the Rules. The story is there, and the DM is required to come up with that. Be prepared for a long argument if you tell a player he cannot have his AoO. Or that your arch-villain moves 7 squares instead of 6.
The idea of balance; of game balance is an incredible feat of math. I can accept that some semblance of equity between the classes is a good thing, but I fundamentally disagree that they should be equal in combat because a roleplaying game is more than it's combat encounters. Great effort went into creating encounter levels, doing I don't know how much math, so that the DM could quickly see the combat challenge against the PCs and provide a balanced challenge.
Back in the day, the DM brought balance to an imperfectly balanced game. Some of my best memories are a result of totally imbalanced things; the deck of many things, a ring of wishes, an artefact like the Appartus of Kwalish or the god Bane or Bhaal (I think) ripping off the leg of the horse you're riding on and beating you about the head with it. (source: Godswar trilogy: FR Waterdeep).
These days, the game system is beautifully mathematical balanced (for combat), but I think this has caused it to suffer in other respects. I'm not a fan of "everything must balance" and in fact it's an indication of a very structured rule set for a boardgame where all players are equal (incl the DM) and not for a freeform roleplaying game limited only by the imagination of the players at the table.
TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU !
there is nothing more to say.
TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU !there is nothing more to say.
what I call 'plot power' or 'story power'. When the PCs sit down at the table in the back of the bar to make their plans for the big raid on the dragon's lair who's key there? The 9th level fighter, the 9th level rogue, or the 9th level wizard?
IMX, it's the most assertive, most engaged player. Last week, for instance, it was a witch and a theif who jumped in and came up with plans (quick, slightly insane plans) and engaged in that out-of-the-box problem solving so beloved of those for whom 4e is not so beloved. It's probably a coincidence that they were both pixies. :|
In the old days the wizard brought like 50 spells to that table. For him it was just a matter of which ones might be fitted together into a plan and memorizing that particular set of spells. The rogue brought some solid skills to the table, so IF there was a need for stealth etc then he had something to put on the table. The fighter didn't come with nothing, he's just got very little plot power. Chances are pretty good at that point the party would be better off with a cleric or another caster at the table instead.
Nod. If the fighter were played by an assertive, engaged player and the wizard not so much, the fighter might come up with a plan. It would almost certainly involve the wizard prepping the right spells....
Honestly, 4e doesn't REALLY have some magical answer to this, it is still true to a considerable degree. At least though the fighter has a substantial inventory of tricks of his own that are considerably beyond just swinging his sword. They are still mostly melee combat stuff, but they are qualitatively different from what other PCs do. He can also pick PPs, EDs, and even themes, that broaden his capabilities. A lot of stuff is put onto skills too, which if the fighter isn't the best at at least he's got things that might work outside a fight or similar situation.
As much as 4e got folks up in arms over the 'nerfing' of the wizard and corresponding power-up to the fighter and other martial classes, it really didn't solve the problem. Casters, particularly wizards, still had a lot more plot power out of combat than a fighter could hope to.
If 5e had been allowed to be a continued evolution of the game, like other eds, it might have finally solved that issue, as well, perhaps with a concept like the Pillars, and giving each class adequate resources within each pillar.
Instead, 5e is slated to be a reactionary edition, and go back to the 'spot light' balance prior eds attempted.
Right, the fighter player (or honestly in AD&D at low level it COULD even be the wizard) doesn't have a lot to bring to the table with his PC. That absolutely doesn't preclude the player from being engaged. It just precludes them from being engaged with their CHARACTER at the time the plan goes off. Realistically something will usually come up and the non-casters will DO stuff. They are just not the prime motivators of what the party can do.
I think it is a bit too soon to say what 5e actually is. Will it almost undoubtedly fail to utilize some of the best rules innovations of 4e? Probably. That doesn't mean it will toss the fighter on the bonfire. It almost certainly will mean you'll be able to play an AD&D style "I just hit things hard" type character, but then again 4e has the Slayer too...
I'd RATHER see 5e continue the mechanical evolution of the game directly from the point where 4e is now. Failing to do that (at least to some degree) isn't an auto-fail. There's also the issue of what exactly the 'options' bring to the table on that score. If there's a well-supported "AEDU across the board" sort of option, then it is really not a concern of mine if there's some other option I don't care for so much.
IMX, it's the most assertive, most engaged player. Last week, for instance, it was a witch and a theif who jumped in and came up with plans (quick, slightly insane plans) and engaged in that out-of-the-box problem solving so beloved of those for who
