|
12 months ago ::
Jul 21, 2012 - 8:59PM
#21
|
|
|
Ok, before this gets out of hand and I get accused of these things, let me clear something up:
1) I hate characters with panoplies of magic items. I use magic items only as mythical MacGuffins in my games, and it sure as hell won't be +X something. I want Fighters to be awesome without any kind of magic items and without tightly codified maneuvers or limited resources.
2) I don't really care what maneuvers people want to have--I'm cool with having maneuvers in the game as long as there are other options, and maneuvers are not the default assumption. I mean, I'm not totally opposed to maneuvers at all--I played 4e and a couple of Warblades--I just don't like limited resources. That means I would have preferred if I could trade out my dailies in 4e somehow (and I'd rather not even necessarily have Encounter powers) in favor of permanent passive buffs. And while Warblade maneuvers were limitless, they didn't really do a whole lot except allow you to move and deal the damage of a full attack--well, and Iron Heart Surge.
So, yeah, I'm ok with 4e maneuvers (though I'd prefer Tome of Battle Maneuvers), but I also want another option that is not inherently less powerful.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 21, 2012 - 10:51PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
thestoryteller, you are a cool dude. 
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
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 21, 2012 - 10:55PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2012
|
thestoryteller, you are a cool dude.
Seconded.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 21, 2012 - 11:02PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I just don't like limited resources. That means I would have preferred if I could trade out my dailies in 4e somehow
I like melodies with highs and lows that I can regulate by choice, ie it gives me strategic choices not just tactical or stylistic ones. I like all archetypes to have access to those bursts of lime light... figure out ways to accomplish that stuff..
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 8:04AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
[F]ully geared up with powerful magical items. For that reason, I'm not too concerned with the wizard's god like spells which don't exactly do anything different than my helm of teleportation, boots of flying, and ring of spell reflection.
Just a personal thing, but that whole image - of a teleporting, flying, spell-reflecting Fighter, decked out in magic items - makes me cringe.
In a bad way.
Like it or not that's how D&D played at high levels. In a world with magic I would expect nothing less anyway.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 8:13AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
An Atlantean soldier armed to the teeth with magic items that give him the mobility and something extra ... or one armed with relic class item the witchblade or stormbringer or sword of victory. Perseus was rather an item toter.
Honestly I dont mind if that is some of the fighters...
but I also like my Lancelots, Beowulfs and CuCulaines and Herakles. The exemplar legendaries and mythics have been mentioned by the Players handbook itself ... they were just failed on the follow through until 4e.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 8:32AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
When I play a high level fighter in 2e I exepect to be making several attacks per round and fully geared up with powerful magical items. For that reason, I'm not too concerned with the wizard's god like spells which don't exactly do anything different than my helm of teleportation, boots of flying, and ring of spell reflection.
In fact, I really don't need maneuvers in the game which are more powerfull than my improvised actions. On top of that, unless I have a mental block and can't think of anything good to do as an improvised action I won't even use them. For that reason, I'll gladly trade in my maneuvers / powers for several attacks per round. In fact, I do recal asking one 4e DM if I could just dump all the mind numbing mechanical powers for more attacks per round.
That's fine for you, but I want to play a character that can be more than just a coat rack for magic items. I also hate it when magic items are required for balance because that completely screws with people that like to run low-magic campaigns. I also don't know why you seem hostile to the fact that a maneuver, something the fighter has practiced and trained on, might be more powerful than random things he makes up on the spot (which doesn't make either one useless).
In that case you'll also have to ban powerful wizard and cleric spells as well. I mean, you either want to play with powerful magic in the game or you don't, but that's just a play style preference. IMO, the game should support low-magic and high magic games. In order to do that boots of flying and helms of teleportation must be in. Of course, there is no reason why any particular group must play with them, but those items should exist in the game just as they have always existed in D&D.
The fact is D&D had volumes of magical items, just look at the Encyclopedia Magical volumes from 2e. Gear has always been a major part of D&D and so is magic and you just can’t argue against that fact. The inclusion of these kinds of resources does not in any way exclude low magic campaign settings at all. In fact, 2e supported both methods of play equally. It even supported many historical campaign settings that encouraged low to no magic in the game.
As fighter maneuvers, I'm not hostile towards them. I'm fine with them, but I just want the option to play a simple fighter with many attacks per round in lieu of codified maneuvers if I so chose. For that reason, if improvised actions can't compete with maneuves, and they are far too mechanical, I'll conclude that playing a fighter just won't be interesting. I guess it really depends on how the game structures fighter maneuves. If the game presents a number of combat options that the fighter can perform at any given time, like trip, disarm, pin, parry, blind, etc. I'll be happy, but if those actions are limited by gamiest resources and the game removes all the great magical items for the fighter, then I'll consider the 5e fighter to be a limited piece of crap.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 8:42AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
To keep "improvised actions as powerful as maneuvers", would it work to just point at the maneuvers themselves as guidelines?
"Look at maneuvers for examples of appropriate effects for any given character level." Plus some kind of explanation that improvised actions should be "as powerful as" limited-use maneuvers only if that action is effectively usable about as often.
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
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 9:00AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I am not buying this "high level D&D has to be a game where a fighter is covered in tons of magical items." Enough players don't like that sort of gameplay that that should not have to be the case. That sort of game should be a modular option. And, if that game is a modular option, players should not have to ban entire sections of another class’s abilities to make that sort of game work. The classes should be balanced against each other, with or without the inclusion of magic items. If a magic item heavy game is played, that sort of game should benefit all players equally. Additionally, the whole point of many of the design choices that DDN is making is to reduce reliance on magic items.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 22, 2012 - 9:13AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
In that case you'll also have to ban powerful wizard and cleric spells as well. I mean, you either want to play with powerful magic in the game or you don't, but that's just a play style preference. IMO, the game should support low-magic and high magic games. In order to do that boots of flying and helms of teleportation must be in. Of course, there is no reason why any particular group must play with them, but those items should exist in the game just as they have always existed in D&D.
The fact is D&D had volumes of magical items, just look at the Encyclopedia Magical volumes from 2e. Gear has always been a major part of D&D and so is magic and you just can’t argue against that fact. The inclusion of these kinds of resources does not in any way exclude low magic campaign settings at all. In fact, 2e supported both methods of play equally. It even supported many historical campaign settings that encouraged low to no magic in the game.
As fighter maneuvers, I'm not hostile towards them. I'm fine with them, but I just want the option to play a simple fighter with many attacks per round in lieu of codified maneuvers if I so chose. For that reason, if improvised actions can't compete with maneuves, and they are far too mechanical, I'll conclude that playing a fighter just won't be interesting. I guess it really depends on how the game structures fighter maneuves. If the game presents a number of combat options that the fighter can perform at any given time, like trip, disarm, pin, parry, blind, etc. I'll be happy, but if those actions are limited by gamiest resources and the game removes all the great magical items for the fighter, then I'll consider the 5e fighter to be a limited piece of crap.
No, in earlier editions of the game high level wizards were problematic if you didn't deck the fighters in magic items (falalalala). In 4e, I could pull that off just fine. Also, did I miss something? Did I somewhere argue that magic items haven't been part of D&D? Did I somewhere say that Boots of Teleportation shouldn't exist for anyone no matter what type of game they are playing? All I said was that I want to be able to create a fighter that is distinct from another fighter in ways other than what sort of magic items he is carrying, and I want him to be a viable member of the party even if he isn't a walking christmas tree.
I am very familiar with 2e. I know about the tomes of books on spells and magic items, and the lack of similar support for pure martial archetypes. I also know that the books may have mentioned low magic campaigns, but there really wasn't any actual support for that playstyle.
As far as your view of wanting to be able to make a simple fighter, I'm not hostile towards that at all. I just want to see a solid set of maneuvers for those that find such a fighter to be boring. Also, improvised actions should always be able to compete with maneuvers just by sheer versatility (right effect at the right place at the right time). However, maneuvers should have more power than an improvised action attempting to achieve the same effect because maneuvers represent actions that the fighter trains in and practices regularly.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
