|
6 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2007 - 11:29PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2005
|
Faster gameplay = More fun.
Old system "The wizard casts as spell at you give me a saveing throw. What type? A Will save. Is it mind affecting, cus I have a bonus against mind affecting? Ya it is. Ok so D20 plus my save bonus plus my racial bonus plus that spell bonus. Whats the DC? 15. O I made it. What did you roll? A 17. Hmm".
New system "The wizard casts a spell, you feel an affect in your mind but it fails to take holde. Next."
um well if you speak that way...I can make the other one just as fast and thother really slow to.
Old system: "The wizard cast a spell at you make a will save it is mind affecting so your x bonus kicks in. I got a 21. Ok you make it."
New system" A wizard cast a spell at you. What is you mental defense since well you are getting bonus because well Bob over there has the 'coolness' talent tree...and well you are getting bonus from your own iron will talent tree...um..wait a second aha the wizard has the talent tree 'anti-coolness'...so Bob's bonus doesn't count. Ok mmmm....the spells fails to overcome your defense. Oh your Iron Will talent tree goes off..."
You guys want to speed up your game...learn the rules and what is on your character sheet...honestly we don't know what 4th edition mechanics will be like. But sorry it doesn't matter. I hope they put in a guide on common sense DMing.
Also I like monsters making invidual rolls it keeps one effect from just winning the day. So what it take a little slower if the wizards rolls good the fighter or anybody else might noty get to go. Also mind effect should not be universal effective that is just retarded.
Also I see stactic defense as a more effective tool for DMs to railroad PCs. Thus it is a crappy rule.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2007 - 11:47PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2007
|
Saga doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed. How many times must I repeat this?
I hope so too. Now can you asure me WoW doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed. 
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 12:30AM
#33
|
|
|
If it's really that big of a deal, you can always remember Rule Number 0.5...
"Defense" is what they call Taking 10 on your Saves.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 1:17AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
This change would seem a bit more fun to casters, then, wouldn't it? Now instead of just casting a spell and waiting to see who dodges it, he gets to ROLL A DIE! Woo!
It's really the same mechanic as melee attacks. Would it be more "fun" if players rolled to dodge rather than rolling to hit?
I like the idea of one consistent mechanic: you only roll a d20 when you're trying to DO something. Not having something done to you.
My only real concern is that things would get a bit odd if reflex saves and AC were merged, since that's a major difference between fighters and rogues in D&D.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 1:48AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2004
|
sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't believe that the Saving throws would be reduced to being defenses like armor or the Saga over simplification. It may work in the setting of Star Wars, but it isn't a given to be in 4th ed just because it is in Saga.
Saga doesn't equal cannon for 4th ed. How many times must I repeat this?
I sorry, but the old system is clunky. They are streamlining the game, just like Saga did (not to mention that many of Saga's mechanics were from the 4e playbook). Sooo...
Which is quicker? Saga.
Which saves the DM time? Saga.
Which is easy for multiclassing? Saga.
Which has the fewest complications? Saga.
Which is more exciting for the caster? Saga.
Which makes more sense, 3.x's AC and reflex saves to avoid damage or Saga's Reflex Defense? Saga.
Which is easier to build high level characters? Saga.
Which is more balanced between classes? Saga.
That's 8 for Saga and a big 0 for 3.x, I find it hard to believe that they are not going in this direction, especially how successful it's been for the Star Wars RPG (considering it had rules that were almost the same for 3.x).
The goal of streamlining is to reduce rolls, complications in leveling, balance, and ease of use. The Defense system fits this to much greater degree than AC and Saves.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 1:53AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2004
|
I also have to say I am tired of hearing that Star Wars is a different animal than D&D. It's not, the themes are really similar. All you have to do is look at ANH and you'll see a classic dungeon crawl to rescue the captured princess from the Evil Wizard's dark knight. Many dungeon crawls revolve around taking down a bunch of speed bumps before the facing the BBEG, not unlike SW.
The difference is simply the trappings.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 2:41AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Faster gameplay = More fun.
Old system "The wizard casts as spell at you give me a saveing throw. What type? A Will save. Is it mind affecting, cus I have a bonus against mind affecting? Ya it is. Ok so D20 plus my save bonus plus my racial bonus plus that spell bonus. Whats the DC? 15. O I made it. What did you roll? A 17. Hmm".
New system "The wizard casts a spell, you feel an affect in your mind but it fails to take holde. Next."
The DM still has to make the same kind of calculations, only flipped on the attacker's side. Still require the same time.
Furthermore, it's not actually ALWAYS a nice thing to remove rolls to speed up play. You must focus on removing unnecessary things. Now just because the designers have teached you (correctly) that simplifying is good, that doesn't equal to remove everything 
Otherwise what's the next step? Remove combat to speed up the game, toss a coin to decide who wins because it's faster and easier?  Rolling saving throws is a fun part of the game!
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 3:10AM
#38
|
|
|
"What is unbalanced should be removed from D&D" was the mantra of 3ed.
"What is unfun should be removed from D&D" is the mantra of 4ed.
So why are we changing from saving throws to static defenses?
I can see the only benefit when you have a mass-target spell/effect and everyone needs to roll a saving throw. With static defense you roll only once (the caster does), and save some time.
But every other situation? A character stepping onto a trap? Someone getting poisoned? A single-target spell?
Do we realize that a PC's static defense is totally UNFUN? 
What is more fun between the following:
a) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... QUICK! Make a Reflex save!!"
b) DM: "You see a sphere of fire coming towards you at lightning speed... and miss"
Static defenses = every time you're going to stand and stare while the DM tells you if whatever hits you succeeds or not. No more thrill of making your own roll. No more watching you pal cursing himself for using an unlucky die. No more chanting and candles before the roll against the big evil spell...
A static number works very well for AC instead, because most of the time AC protects just against the usual damage. Nothing thrilling, and rolling AC defensively against every single arrow or axe swing is overkill.
But spells, traps, poisons, gaze attacks, magic items effects, crushing walls... these are usually important effects, it's a pity not to be able to get at least the feeling that it's YOUR OWN luck saving you, and not the DM's unluck!!!
Static defenses are ok for monsters, in which case maybe it's more fun for the player to roll a "spell attack roll", but certainly not for PC. 
Another blow.
The more I know about 4E, the less enthusiastic I am about it. Really, it's not just the usual "oh-my-god-they-change-the-rules-I-will-never-buy-the-new-books" crap. It's that I like less and less what I see.
It seems to me that they are trying to bend D&D rules to a faster video-game-like pace. That's an error: D&D (I am speaking about the one played with paper and pencil and dice) is not a video game, should not be a video game and will never be a video game.
The result of making rules more and more similar to authomatic video-game mechanics will be that the players will have no reason to play the table game (it will be no different and it will never have things as graphics etc.) and will resort to play only the video games. Farewell to the books?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 4:55AM
#39
|
|
|
My vote is only use static defenses when play NEEDS to sped up. Otherwise always let the pcs roll their defenses.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 7:38AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Let's not forget that the "speed up" happens only with mass spells. Every other spell, trap, poison, etc. will not see any speed up at all.
I'm only wondering if this is really worth...
Because when I cast a spell I am not passive even in 3ed, I am never passive. I was active in the first place when I choose to cast, what spell to cast, against what target/area, what metamagic to apply (if I'm a spontaneous caster), and maybe some extra ability to apply on the fly or special effect to choose...
An extra roll to succeed with the spell is already often required (touch spells, rays, caster check vs spell resistance...). Having to roll for ST makes it perhaps tiny slightly bit more exciting, but it has never been "passive" before!
So for me the loss when I'm on the receiving end of the spell far outruns the benefit when I'm casting it.
I'd prefer it worked two different ways for PCs and the DM, and who cares about the rules being equal.
|
|
|
