|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:38AM
#21
|
|
|
@OP: The fighter isn't finished. They've said it's not finished. Anyone who complains about it being not finished is... well. You look... foolish, I guess, is the best way I can express that.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:38AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
This thread so far:
OP: I have this great idea to mock every edition that's not 4e! Listen to me!
Other people: Okay that's terrible logic and here's why
Araleth: hey that troll idea could actually be a fun alternative to play...
Others: oh hey they had that, it was kind of a fun idea for a way to change it up
OP: I'm going to pretend everyone but this guy agreed with me
everyone else continues discussing araleth's point.
On a side note I really do hope they have a 3.5 editition style warlock, that was one of my favorite classes to play. Whil.e it had a limited selection you could do a lot with it if you rp'd it right.
I don't think he's mocking non-4e, he's mocking the /current/ 5e 'basic game' state.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:39AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2007
|
I want a wizard who can only cast magic missile. It takes too much thought to decide what spell to use. Plus, this way all the wizard players can learn to improvise and roleplay properly. It will be just as much fun as the 5e fighter, right guys?
I can't love this post enough. I'd say let the wizard cast magic missile as a touch attack as well so he's the force damage equivalent of a fighter with an axe and a crossbow (without all that pesky attack rolling) and explain that his "claim to fame" is that he auto-hits with "magic."
More spells (the color spray wizard, the sleep wizard, the ray of frost wizard, etc.) could be added later as additional optional modules.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:47AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I don't think he's mocking non-4e, he's mocking the /current/ 5e 'basic game' state.
except that the fighter not being able to do anything is a complaint that's been around since 4e began. Besides the fact that it's been pointed out numerous times that comparing them to a wizard is just silly. All the mechanics for things a fighter needs to do are spelled out in the rules, they can attempt to trip opponents, they can use their fancy sword fighting skills, they can even use some awesome taunts against the enemy. However, the things a wizard wants to be able to do are not able to be spelled out in something as simple as just giving them magic missle. It simply isn't possible to limit a wizard to a single mechanic.
And speaking as someone who's recently played a classic "dumb fighter" as well as a witty sorc in 3.5, I can say from experience that it can be very fun to play a fighter with similar mechanics to 5e. Leaping out of my tent and cleving off the head of a goblin with a single swing of my hammer, saving the party caster from getting stabbed in the throat was one of my favorite momment in dnd, regardless of class. Saying that fighters are boring because they're rules-lite, or that they need rules dictating their every action is just silly.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:53AM
#25
|
|
|
It's not silly. To some people, not having several pages of rules about all the different ways they can swing their sword is, in fact, boring. Nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is when they come into the playtest and complain that the fighter doesn't have those several pages, although they know full well the designers are going to provide them. Just makes the complainers look whiningly impatient or incapable of incomprehension.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:53AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Yeah, the Wizard can't be as simple as the Fighter. But it can damn sure be a lot simpler than "Choose among these thousands of spells. If you choose right you're amazing, choose wrong and you'll be fighting Vampires with ventriloquism."
You, I , & the next person know it's NOT that bad.
If Kung Pow taught us anything, its that you can't defeat evil with ventriloquism. Exposing new players to that possibility is a cruel thing to do. And I say this as a player who's very first experience playing 3rd edition was as a Wizard who memorized ventriloquism... I still have flashbacks at night... 
What? Teaching them to think is cruel? Allowing them to choose is bad? Either they'll learn not to "arm" themselves with ventriloquism when monster-hunting, or they'll learn to think outside the box abit.
Sounds like you learned the former of those lessons.
BTW; I could likely (because it'll vary upon the DM & dice rolls) fight a vampire with ventriloquism. No, it won't kill the monster. And it won't be all that I use (I'd hope). But I'll still use it to good+ effect.
I've also been known to use Tensers' Floating disc offensively.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 2:13AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
You, I , & the next person know it's NOT that bad.
Nope, that was an exaggeration. Still, lots of spells to choose from, and mistakes are easy to make. A simple Wizard that looks like a Warlock or some such would be easy to play and give the players who like simple classes a caster.
What? Teaching them to think is cruel? Allowing them to choose is bad? Either they'll learn not to "arm" themselves with ventriloquism when monster-hunting, or they'll learn to think outside the box abit.
Sounds like you learned the former of those lessons.
That was a joke. I did actually play a Wizard with ventriloquism the first time I ever played 3rd, because I was going to a party and I thought I could use it for something. Then a trip to the basement, hidden passage, horrible monster, etc and so forth. But I wasn't suggesting that no one should play a Wizard that isn't simple, just that something closer to a Warlock is harder to screw up.
BTW; I could likely (because it'll vary upon the DM & dice rolls) fight a vampire with ventriloquism. No, it won't kill the monster. And it won't be all that I use (I'd hope). But I'll still use it to good+ effect.
I've also been known to use Tensers' Floating disc offensively.
One of the guys I play with used Tenser's Floating Disc to kill an Ogre Chieftan. He got on a high cliff above the chieftan (we were supposed to be spying on them), put a giant rock on the disc, levitated it over the chieftan and let it fall. He also used Create Water to seal a wooden door, Acid Splash to erode away the mortar around the bricks of a prison cell he was in, and I'm convinced that if he ever gets access to Prestidigitation again he'll rampage through armies unchecked.
Anyway, that is not an argument against a simple caster. Its an argument for the Wizard, whom I am not arguing against. I agree with the idea that simple classes are good, because some players don't want to put that much thought into the game. I don't think these players should be limited to the Fighter. Is there anyone who disagrees with me on this point, keeping in mind that the 'complex' Wizard and Cleric will remain in the game for your enjoyment?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 2:26AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
This is a really good idea. I mean, I always wondered why they ever printed so many spells for the wizard and cleric, when they only ever needed one. All these rules about when you can use spells and how many you can use, it's all just holding back the creativity. I mean, once the spell desciption is written out, that's the end of it. No improvisation, no trying to do something that isn't a spell.
I really feel like this would be a revolution for clerics and wizards. They'd finally have a chance to be characters instead of just walking spell lists. We've finally found where the roleplaying went, scotsmen! It was ground up and used as ink for spell descriptions. If we go through with this genius plan, we'll finally be playing a roleplaying game again, rather than just Wizard101, the Pen and Paper Edition.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 2:29AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
3.5e warlock wasn't much more than this for most people (and the had all those nifty invokations too). I would honestly be suprised if by the end of the edition there isn't a super simplistic caster that basically spams one spell.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 2:33AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
3.5e warlock wasn't much more than this for most people (and the had all those nifty invokations too). I would honestly be suprised if by the end of the edition there isn't a super simplistic caster that basically spams one spell.
I want it at the beginning of the edition. If simple classes are a good thing, which I do believe they are, then the Fighter shouldn't be the only one. People who enjoy simple classes enjoy more than just Fighters after all.
Variety consarn it!
|
|
|
