|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:39PM
#141
|
|
|
The various options will be hard to balance against damage.
True.
At the same time, this is already the problem concerning Wizard spells. Its hard to balance maneuvers versus damage. At least the Fighter will be playing the same game by the same rules.
Also, at least damage is the mechanic being used as the measure. Since damage effectively ends most combat challenges, thereby eliminating any threat, the offense-makes-the-best-defense seems truer than ever. So if anything can be a legitimate measure of effectiveness, it seems hit points is the only candidate.
Sacrificing hit points for features is a tough dilemma. Sacrificing damage for maneuvers, is samewise tough. This difficulty of choosing which is better is itself evidence of the choices balancing with eachother. Especially when evaluating the desirability of the choices at the aggregate level concerning what many informed players tend to choose.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:42PM
#142
|
|
|
As such, the progression that focuses on d6s, allows for a meaningful benefit at every level - so no dead levels - and also stays close enough to the standard damage-per-level progression.
I hate d6's, they're so boring 
 d4 and d12 UNITE AND CONQUER
Heh heh. Well, I hate that d4 caltrop.
Well, I love the geometric purity, but they make awful dice.
And d12 seems unwieldly high, and redundant compared to 2d6.
Now, if they discontinue the d12 dice, and instead reuse this shape for a d4 (inscribing 1 on three sides, 2 on three sides, etc.), I can totally get into d4s.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:43PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
As such, the progression that focuses on d6s, allows for a meaningful benefit at every level - so no dead levels - and also stays close enough to the standard damage-per-level progression.
I hate d6's, they're so boring
d4 and d12 UNITE AND CONQUER
i'm going with this!
 
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:45PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
....the hell is that
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:45PM
#145
|
|
|
As such, the progression that focuses on d6s, allows for a meaningful benefit at every level - so no dead levels - and also stays close enough to the standard damage-per-level progression.
I hate d6's, they're so boring
d4 and d12 UNITE AND CONQUER
i'm going with this!
Thats an interesting use of a d24. All you need is these plus a d20, and done.
At the same time, many of the players who dont get into rolling a diversity of dice, would probably just prefer the average (rounding up), rather than rolling.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:48PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
The various options will be hard to balance against damage.
True.
At the same time, this is already the problem concerning Wizard spells. Its hard to balance maneuvers versus damage. At least the Fighter will be playing the same game by the same rules.
That's a good point. I have to think about that one for a bit.
Also, at least damage is the mechanic being used as the measure. Since damage effectively ends most combat challenges, thereby eliminating any threat, the offense-makes-the-best-defense seems truer than ever. So if anything can be a legitimate measure of effectiveness, it seems hit points is the only candidate.
Right, which is why I mentioned that they would have to examine the advantage/disadvantage rules and attacks of opportunity (if they add them) when trying to measure damage against options. Those rules affect the party damage output and damage received.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:49PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
is a 18 dice into 1. each die can generate from d2 to d100 reading in various combinations the sides.
it's pretty handy,i can assure you.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:51PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Heh heh. Well, I hate that d4 caltrop.
Heh. As a teenager in the 80's, I impaled my bare foot multiple times in the darkness. I have managed to avoid that as an adult, though.
And d12 seems unwieldly high, and redundant compared to 2d6.
It's slight, but there is a difference between the two. 2d6 gives a bit higher average damage and a higher minimum damage.
Now, if they discontinue the d12 dice, and instead reuse this shape for a d4 (inscribing 1 on three sides, 2 on three sides, etc.), I can totally get into d4s.
I own a d4 like that. I bought it at a convention several years ago.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:55PM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
EDIT:side note as the fighter levels the cost of certain parts needs to fall. like as the die gets bigger it needs to be able to buy more powers. a d12 of CS should be able to buy more stuff than a d6 of CS. you are giving up twice the possible damage.
I agree. This is one of the first things that came to mind for me when I read Mike's first article on CS. It will be interesting to see how different size CS are balanced. I suspect this is an area where they will need a lot of playtest feedback to get right.
maybe some manuvers would have a small table that goes wit it to determin the efectiveness of the manuver.
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
10-12
so you trow the dice you sacrificed to use the manuver and look up the result.
so when you use a D12 to use a manuver you can get the better results.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 1:37PM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
But what is the second class? I don't think complexity alone is enough for a class to stand on; it needs an actual definition, something that makes it different from other classes.
It could be any melee class. Generally, several classes in each category are released in an edition. They could work one of the melee classes to be simple. I know it can be done, but I'm not one of the designers, so I haven't done it myself.
I'm still not seeing anything wrong with a class that can be as complex as the player wants. In fact, to me that is a strength, because you don't need dozens of classes. You just include options within each class so that they can be tailored to suit the needs of different players.
It's like saying that you can make a wizard as complex or as simple as you want simply not not using all your spell slots or choosing new spells. Better to have a wizard for those who want complex arcane, and the 3e warlock for those who don't.
No, it's like saying you can make a wizard as complex or as simple as you want by picking Burning Hands for all of your spell slots, or choosing from the whole list.
I still don't see why someone should be forced to look at the whole list in order to decide to only use burning hands. Better to just use a class like the 3e warlock for the simple class so that the person who doesn't want to have to think about all the options, doesn't have to.
This is what the builds/schemes/whatever they will be called are for. If you're building a protective fighter, the recommended CS option for 1st level is Shield Another, or whatever it's called. If you're an archer fighter, the suggested option is Quick Fire. By choosing a build, you can simply take the recommended option and not have to look at the whole list. 4e had a similar thing, as did 3.5e. Each of those editions had suggested choices for each class.
|
|
|
