|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:33AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
This is just bad design. You can't design your system like this; it doesn't work. See also: every edition of D&D prior to 4th. What happened in 3.x? Who were the most overpowered classes? Who were the most complicated classes?
The problem with the classes in 3.5 wasn't that they were unequally complex, but that they were unequally powerful. There's a big difference, and the two aspects of class design are not directly related. In fact, they're not related at all. Some of the most complicated classes in 3.5 (arguably the casters from Tome of Magic and the incarnum classes) were some of the least powerful, at least when taken as a single class.
The classes should be equally proficient, equally competant, and equally useful to the party, but that in no way requires that they be equally complicated mechanically.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:35AM
#62
|
|
|
Oh, hey, look its TD. I haven't seen you in a WHILE...
Nice to see you for the playtest man. Tone down the retoric a notch, please? I can roast my marshmallows on it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:42AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Yes, they can't get it through their heads that the "Improvise" section - even though it's a basic, core mechanic & usable by everyone - actually says pretty much everything you need to know about playing a Fighter.
Personally I don't need to see it spelled out for me again under the heading of "Fighter". But maybe they do....
Yeah, yeah. Back in the old days, uphill both ways, fifteen miles through ten feet of snow.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:46AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Then they are failing already.
This is just bad design. You can't design your system like this; it doesn't work. See also: every edition of D&D prior to 4th. What happened in 3.x? Who were the most overpowered classes? Who were the most complicated classes?
Did 3.5 fail? I see evidence that 3.5 is one of, if not the, most successful editions of the game.
Help make Combat Mastery happen: If you like the idea of Combat Mastery, as outlined below, for fighters copy it onto your signature and add interesting combat maneuvers to the list. Two new examples could be throat punch or spit in eye.
Combat Mastery: When a Fighter performs combat maneuvers such as bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, pick up kobold by the neck, etc, the minimum die result is 10.
Fighter Combat Maneuvers: On a given round the fighter can bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, etc, in place of his/her move action. This is a nonattack action that might cause the fighter's opponent to be rendered prone, unarmed, blind for a round, etc, or otherwise grant the fighter advantage or his/her opponent disadvantage as the Fighter sees fit.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 12:57AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I really don't see the point of "splitting" the Fighter, if it comes to that. Keep the options within a single class. Hell, as a "random idea dump", you could easily draw from 3.5's Martial Disciplines to give a few Combat Style options. And still leave a generic "No Style" option for the "it has to not do anything" crowd. What I'm thinking is
Show
Combat Style
Choose one of the following.
Diamond Mind - You use your cunning, intellect, and feel for the battlefield against your foes, allowing you to strike with uncanny speed and precision.
Iron Heart - You use pure weapon skill to complete fighting maneuvers that border on the supernatural.
Stone Dragon - You focus on strength, power, and toughness, giving you the ability to splinter steel and shatter bone.
Tiger Claw - You embrace a feral rage that lurks within your heart, and use overwhelming, vicious assaults to defeat your enemies.
Self Taught - You are not trained in any particular combat style, and instead make your own way in battle, through instinct and improvisation.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:13AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I really don't see the point of "splitting" the Fighter, if it comes to that. Keep the options within a single class. Hell, as a "random idea dump", you could easily draw from 3.5's Martial Disciplines to give a few Combat Style options. And still leave a generic "No Style" option for the "it has to not do anything" crowd.
What I'm thinking is
Show
Combat Style
Choose one of the following.
Diamond Mind - You use your cunning, intellect, and feel for the battlefield against your foes, allowing you to strike with uncanny speed and precision.
Iron Heart - You use pure weapon skill to complete fighting maneuvers that border on the supernatural.
Stone Dragon - You focus on strength, power, and toughness, giving you the ability to splinter steel and shatter bone.
Tiger Claw - You embrace a feral rage that lurks within your heart, and use overwhelming, vicious assaults to defeat your enemies.
Self Taught - You are not trained in any particular combat style, and instead make your own way in battle, through instinct and improvisation.
Why am I choosing one style while that Wizard has eight.
You're a part of the conspiracy to keep the Fighting Man down. You're with the Wizard's Foundation aren't you? Keeping taps on the resistance. 
Seriously though, I'll complain about it because then I'm just better off playing Pathfinder with Tome of Battle tacked on for the same experience of being worse than the Wizard but called overpowered anyway. At least then I could play the Warblade and use four combat styles together.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:20AM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Then... honestly? I'm betting you will be better off with that. Because I'll be honestly surprised if they give us the flexibility of the ToB classes.
Though, hey, maybe each discipline could be a feat by itself. That'd fit with that they've suggested (feats for "maneuvers"; multiple "maneuvers" per feat).
But yeah, no, I just... I can't really imagine this situation turning out such that playing 5e is a better option than playing houseruled 3e.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:24AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Yeah, sucks to be me.
How dare I ask for something equal to a Wizard! (Not directed at you, developers in mind).
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:29AM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
Did 3.5 fail? I see evidence that 3.5 is one of, if not the, most successful editions of the game.
I've heard (though I'm not sure how true it is) that the "true" heyday of D&D was actually back in the 1980s in terms of sales; I know that TSR was terribly mismanaged and yet still managed to keep afloat somehow, with a game much less polished than what has come since. 3.5 is too complicated and the end result of 3.x was a major fracturing of the market. The game is horribly, horribly broken from a mechanical standpoint, leading to all sorts of unfun situations for both GMs and players once you get up to the higher levels, and the game is complicated to the point where it is too much work for new players to get involved with it. I know plenty of people who would like to roleplay but find rolling up a character, be it 3.5 or 4th, too much work, or who find the systems to be unfun to actually deal with due to the rules baggage. And yes, that includes 3.x. 3.x is also terrible to DM for; 4th edition is much nicer on DMs, and any future system needs to make sure that DM usability is a major consideration, as without DMs, you won't have any players either. 3.x took the market down the wrong path; it overcomplicated the game and while 4th fixed many of the issues with 3rd edition, it didn't fix the fact that 3rd edition was probably the wrong approach to begin with. 5th edition needs to be simpler than 3rd and 4th editions.
One thing that 4th did right, though, was making sure that fighters were just as interesting as any other class, and any attempt at changing that is 100% a mistake.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 1:54AM
#70
|
|
|
Reality check:
All classes need to be of equal complexity and be equally fun to play.
If you violate this maxim, you are a failure at game design. It is okay for a player not to understand this, but it is immensely bad for a game designer not to understand this.
I guess this would be true if all players were equal wanted the same things equaly.
Which is to say, not true at all.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
