|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 1:24PM
#21
|
|
|
I'd like to see DDN give each class a base bonus to hit in combat. This bonus wouldn't scale with level, so it fits with their flatter-math concept. For example:
Wizard: +0
Cleric: +1
Rogue/Thief: +2
Barbarian: +3 (or maybe +2, but with an additional +1 while raging.)
Fighter: +3
Paladin: +3
Monk: +3
etc.
I'd like to see this as a single bonus to all combat, but I suppose it could be diversified into a ranged bonus and a melee bonus.
I... I like this.
TY for the feedback, I'm glad you liked it. BAB was one of the things that I liked at first about 3e (which I felt was a vast improvement over AD&D 2e, the edition I came in with). It eventually became apparent though that BAB was flawed in the way the iterative attacks were often largely useless. The static bonus is, I think, a nice middle-ground between BAB and 1/2 character level. It allows some classes to just be flatly better at hitting, but it doesn't make other classes incapable to accomplish that goal.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 1:43PM
#22
|
|
|
TY for the feedback, I'm glad you liked it. BAB was one of the things that I liked at first about 3e (which I felt was a vast improvement over AD&D 2e, the edition I came in with). It eventually became apparent though that BAB was flawed in the way the iterative attacks were often largely useless. The static bonus is, I think, a nice middle-ground between BAB and 1/2 character level. It allows some classes to just be flatly better at hitting, but it doesn't make other classes incapable to accomplish that goal.
Yeah, BAB was a good idea badly implemented. Iterative attacks were one of the worst concepts in 3.x in my opinion. Why not just give warrior types extra attacks as class features? The only downside to that would have been penalizing multiclassing... or is that even a downside at all? I don't want to see a return to dimishing return attacks. I'm going to stop now... i could rant about this forevor...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 1:48PM
#23
|
|
|
TY for the feedback, I'm glad you liked it. BAB was one of the things that I liked at first about 3e (which I felt was a vast improvement over AD&D 2e, the edition I came in with). It eventually became apparent though that BAB was flawed in the way the iterative attacks were often largely useless. The static bonus is, I think, a nice middle-ground between BAB and 1/2 character level. It allows some classes to just be flatly better at hitting, but it doesn't make other classes incapable to accomplish that goal.
Yeah, BAB was a good idea badly implemented. Iterative attacks were one of the worst concepts in 3.x in my opinion. Why not just give warrior types extra attacks as class features? The only downside to that would have been penalizing multiclassing... or is that even a downside at all? I don't want to see a return to dimishing return attacks. I'm going to stop now... i could rant about this forevor...
Diminishing return attacks were definitely bad. I did like the monk's attack concept though, an extra attack for only a -2 penalty. If opting for more than one attack in a round gave just a single penalty to all the attacks like that, it would be a better system.
To tie that into my idea above: suppose the fighter gets a +3 to hit for being a member of the fighter class. At higher levels he can make additional attacks, but doing so makes him less accurate. So the fighter could make 1 attack at a +3, 2 attacks at a +2, three at a +1, or four at a +0. Maybe the number of extra attacks is limited so the class bonus never goes below +0.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 1:52PM
#24
|
|
|
Hmm... i like where you are coming rom but i think that with that system as is you would pretty much always choose to make as many attacks as you could.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:02PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
To tie that into my idea above: suppose the fighter gets a +3 to hit for being a member of the fighter class. At higher levels he can make additional attacks, but doing so makes him less accurate. So the fighter could make 1 attack at a +3, 2 attacks at a +2, three at a +1, or four at a +0. Maybe the number of extra attacks is limited so the class bonus never goes below +0.
In a system with flatter math, +3/+2/+1/+0 is just 3E's iterative attacks all over again.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:07PM
#26
|
|
|
Hmm... i like where you are coming rom but i think that with that system as is you would pretty much always choose to make as many attacks as you could.
Maybe. It all depends on how flat the AC math is. Taken as is, without knowing the AC math, I'd tie the additional attacks to character levels (e.g. reach lvl 6, unlock the ability to take 2 attacks with a -1 penalty). There are other potential ways to balance it, like including the to hit penalty in the damage roll as well, restricting the fighter's strength bonus to damage to one of his targets, etc.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:09PM
#27
|
|
|
To tie that into my idea above: suppose the fighter gets a +3 to hit for being a member of the fighter class. At higher levels he can make additional attacks, but doing so makes him less accurate. So the fighter could make 1 attack at a +3, 2 attacks at a +2, three at a +1, or four at a +0. Maybe the number of extra attacks is limited so the class bonus never goes below +0.
In a system with flatter math, +3/+2/+1/+0 is just 3E's iterative attacks all over again.
That's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing the choice between:
+3
OR +2/+2
OR +1/+1/+1
OR +0/+0/+0/+0
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:43PM
#28
|
|
|
As a DM and PC, I love me some melee combat/encounters, but I'd seriously like to see D&D Next do something to make it less melee-centric. D&D 4e has become, for our hobby shop and home games, less "playable/enjoyable" in non-combat situations. I thought 4e was going to fix this with skill challenges, but it's been my experience that skill challenges either bring the game to screeching hault or don't have the same "meatiness" as combat encounters do. I'm the first to admit that I'm not the best arbitor or player D&D has ever seen, but IMHO 4e quickly looses steam when the party isn't in full combat mode.
Just my 2 pennies.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:49PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
^ I would rather see multiple attacks for martial classes instead of damage scaling up with level. If there must be some kind of scaling I would prefer the critical hit threshold being lowered rather than an extra [w]
I'll take the opposite position on that. Multiple attacks are a pain in the butt ... one attack roll, one damage roll, we're done.
You may not like 5e then...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:53PM
#30
|
|
|
Another thing I'd like to see is an increase in combat speed in D&D Next.
|
|
|
