|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 3:06AM
#41
|
|
|
But 3.5 was very easy to break. And it wasn't very complicated -- just start with a couple of two-handed weapon wielders with max strength and Power Attack and add some buffs.
 If that was true, then there would not have been so many people complaining about the amount of system mastery required to play high level LG. I fear your experience with 3E is completely opposite in this regard than mine. Besides, those were fighter-types. Weak compared to most caster builds.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 5:48AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
But 3.5 was very easy to break. And it wasn't very complicated -- just start with a couple of two-handed weapon wielders with max strength and Power Attack and add some buffs.
If that was true, then there would not have been so many people complaining about the amount of system mastery required to play high level LG. I fear your experience with 3E is completely opposite in this regard than mine. Besides, those were fighter-types. Weak compared to most caster builds.
Not if you saw the Fighters that Daren is talking about - they could easily deliver over 100 hp of damage per round before significant caster buffs. Given buffs, they could jump to over 200 hp or more. A friend of mine would do 75 hp of damage on a hit given buffs and her character could attack 4 times a round even if not next to her target...most things, she'd hit 3 times a round, and they'd be dead. Even without buffs, she'd do about 50 hp of damage(boots of speed + dervish + big falchion)
The big issue for 3.5 was more that if you were playing a mod that assumed that a broken character might be playing it, you were doomed if the majority of PCs at the table weren't at least strong. And a lot of mods in LG assumed that a broken character was playing it.
And on top of that, many people would do builds that were crippled long-term because they would do extremely short-term multiclassing that would damage their BAB or caster level. Or they'd do some really unoptimal action, such as saving daily spells to use a magic missile wand or wearing a mithral chain shirt to give their Wizard 5 a spell failure chance - in 4e, those are extremely difficult to do.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 6:45AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
On topic, I have not heard anything to suggest a change to LFR to allow characters to be started above 1st level is coming. We have a couple of times discussed the idea of a one-time character (non-advancing) so that a player without a PC appropriate for the level band adventures being offered could play, but there was not strong support for that idea.
Granted, when/if we see the end of LFR in sight (probably when WotC announces the date for the release of 5e), there might be a reconsideration of starting PCs at a higher level. I will be surprised if before that date, but then I was surprised at the full retrain rule being introduced.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 9:39AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
I do have to say that as we get into P2 I am starting to see some of the same things. I played Spec 2-1 at P2 (high) today with 4 14s and 1 15. Everyone was good and knew what they were doing (although we had not played together before). But the 2 strikers who pumped their initatives -- Rogue Daggermaster and a Ranger/Avenger on a mount just put out ridiculous amounts of damage. One BBG went once -- and by the time he did he was prone, weakened and had 7 hps left. The other BBG never got to go: stunned and then a whirlstorm of damage.
This reminded me a lot of APL14 or 16 in LG.
Yeah, there are certain combos that can make for very powerful builds. Some can do that once per encounter, others once per day. We are likely never to get away from that, but at least in 4th, in a lot of cases, characters that are so heavily focued on max damage output tend to be weak in other areas.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 12:08PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
For my part, if the rumor proves to be true, I would rethink my involvement in LFR. For me, a large--in fact, probably the primary part of the attraction of LFR and before that LG has always been continuity of character: that characters grew organically and continued to play with other organically grown characters. A series of essentially one-shot games holds much less interest for me. And there are now local alternative forms of organized play available, so I wouldn't necessarily have to organize a home game to keep playing.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 1:28PM
#46
|
|
|
For my part, if the rumor proves to be true, I would rethink my involvement in LFR. For me, a large--in fact, probably the primary part of the attraction of LFR and before that LG has always been continuity of character: that characters grew organically and continued to play with other organically grown characters. A series of essentially one-shot games holds much less interest for me. And there are now local alternative forms of organized play available, so I wouldn't necessarily have to organize a home game to keep playing.
Well, the odds are it's not going to be an issue. But while your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's I don't get it. No one says you can't play a character from 1-30 if it's important to you. It would be easy to set up the rules so that "organically grown" characters would have an advantage (at least for the first few levels after being created).
But with the retraining rules, I can see your sense of continuity being in trouble already. One session you're playing with Bob, the strength based cleric of Tempus and the next you're playing with Lucy the pacifist cleric of Sune. Same race, same class and technically the same character.
Or to put it another way ... when I sit down at a table I don't normally know what set of characters I'm going to be playing with. Maybe we've adventured together before, maybe not. Why would their background matter to me?
Allen.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 4:09PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
I like the idea of allowing people to create X level characters at conventions ONLY.
BUT..
I would suggest.. ANY rewards earned.. be "held" until the character earns the level at which they gained these rewards.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 4:13PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2006
|
Oh, and GrahamWillis - the dwarf I mentioned used a *15* in Strength, a +2 bonus, not the *16* that you used for your character. Also, he uses an axe, with a +2 proficiency bonus, not a +3 proficiency bonus. Does your character use an axe?
Yes he does. Honestly -- apart from one point difference in strength you are almost exactly describing my character. And he's human -- whereas a dwarf is a much better fighter (my single +2 human bonus went into intelligence), so I think that easily compensates for the single point of stats. In fact, since the character we are discussing is 12th level, there is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between a 15 and a 16, (three bumps mean the stats difference is 18 or 19 -- no mechanical difference at all).
So not only is it a fair comparison, but my character is actually LESS optimal, by race, than your theoretical failed character.
But your main point is that in LFR, you have to pull punches, wheres in 3.5 a DM didn't need to. This is a serious boggle moment for me where it is hard to believe you say that with a straight face. In 3.5, once I DMd past level 7, almost every single mod I had to work out how *not* to kill players. All it takes is the spring attack shadows to auto-kill party members -- not any complex scenario like you describe. In LFR I have yet to have to pull punches, and that makes me a much happier GM.
I guess I'll just have to assume you have had a radically different play experience from most LFR/LG players -- so long as you are having fun and your fellow players are too, then cool.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 6:33PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
I'm reminded how many complaints there were in LG of how deadly it was and how you needed an optimized PC to just survive. And that was working within the CR guidelines. In LFR you have people calling on others to always build optimized, but lots of complaints of it being too easy.
This is why I had to do the double take. I agree with Graham, I haven't had to pull any punches in 4e but have still had plety of opportunity to challenge the PCs.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 20, 2010 - 11:15PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
For my part, if the rumor proves to be true, I would rethink my involvement in LFR. For me, a large--in fact, probably the primary part of the attraction of LFR and before that LG has always been continuity of character: that characters grew organically and continued to play with other organically grown characters. A series of essentially one-shot games holds much less interest for me. And there are now local alternative forms of organized play available, so I wouldn't necessarily have to organize a home game to keep playing.
Well, the odds are it's not going to be an issue. But while your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's I don't get it. No one says you can't play a character from 1-30 if it's important to you. It would be easy to set up the rules so that "organically grown" characters would have an advantage (at least for the first few levels after being created).
But with the retraining rules, I can see your sense of continuity being in trouble already. One session you're playing with Bob, the strength based cleric of Tempus and the next you're playing with Lucy the pacifist cleric of Sune. Same race, same class and technically the same character.
Or to put it another way ... when I sit down at a table I don't normally know what set of characters I'm going to be playing with. Maybe we've adventured together before, maybe not. Why would their background matter to me?
Allen.
It may seem strange, but it matters very much. As far as retraining goes, I think that's a problem too. I rather dislike that at least in my local area, adjusting the character's stat distribution at every stat gain level in order to maximize the bonuses seems to be becoming the norm. (At least partially, that's because I want to play D&D as it is written and keep the "it wouldn't work in a home game but it's the norm in LFR" stuff to a minimum). Fortunately, equipment is not as changeable as other character components so that tends to keep Bob the strength cleric from becoming Lucy the pacifist cleric.
Part of it may be that I've noticed that people behave rather differently when they do not have to grow characters organically. The few times I played in the Legend of the Green Regent or Mark of Heroes campaigns, even though the adventures were within the same quality range as most living greyhawk adventures and the players were players that I had played with in Living Greyhawk, the approach was vastly different. For the most part, people were bringing the most mechanically abusive characters that they could think of and treated them as throwaways rather than investing them with personalities or aspirations. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that they were essentially creating a new character for every game anyway so there wasn't any motivation to invest the character with anything more than was necessary for the 4 hour slot.
There is another way that character continuity matters even when you have never met the player or character before. A player who has played a character from level 1 tends to understand the character better than someone who has just created him. This is true from a mechanical perspective (there are players with 13th level characters who still haven't figured out that they can charge or use a daily while dazed, don't realize why their fighter wants to be adjacent to the enemies he has marked, and don't know how to calculate damage on a crit, but there is a lot more of that when characters are first created. Playing the character for several levels usually gives the player some experience). Perhaps more importantly, it is true from a role-playing perspective as well. It is my experience that both other players and I tend to understand their characters better as we play them more. In the first adventure that one plays a character, one may have an idea or two but you usually haven't seen how it plays out. By the time you've played a consistent character through several levels, you have a better sense not only of how he reacts to situations but also of how those reactions will impact the rest of the table. Maybe you realized that "quiet and brooding" is ok for a movie or a novel but really limits your ability to interact in a tabletop game. Perhaps you realized that your kender clone is really annoying the other players and toned it down a bit. Or maybe it's just that you've had several weeks to think of your cool catchphrases and to think of witticisms for your swashbuckler so you actually come across as Errol Flynn rather than Elan.
|
|
|
