|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 12:55AM
#201
|
|
|
Pretty sure that the major difference between strikers and defenders is their ability to survive. Fighters and rogues will both hurt things a lot in melee, but the fighter will do it in a way that draws attention to himself, while the rogue will do it and run.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 4:03AM
#202
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2005
|
I don't know if anyone else has thought of this yet (*cough* didn't read all the posts since last time I posted *cough*) but I think this new Crit System might be also meant to underline the functions of these 'Roles'? I mean, if fighters are meant to function as 'Defenders', perhaps they're not supposed to be able to inflict more damage than 'Strikers' -- unless they wanted to spend X number of Feats to achieve Bonus Dice on Crits? That is why I believe that Sneak Attack/Skirmish will probably function as it did in 3E (which would benefit Rangers and Rogues a lot) since weren't these 'Strikers' supposed to be the "heavy hitters" of 4E?
I would be very worried if that's the case, because it is very WoW tactically (at least as I have had it explained to me), intentionally or not. There is no need to artificially create tactical roles in that manner, none at all. It smacks of design laziness, frankly. I will be very disappointed in WotC is they feel they need to emphasise game mechanics over everything else to the point of sacrificing what little realism is left. I am all for assigning roles but I expect them be - to an extent - created organically by the optimum function of the character class, not created to fill a role that is mostly an artificial rules construct. I.e Rogues and Rangers should be strikers because they have high damage capability (presumably combined with mobility), not because everyone else has been hamstrung in the damage department.
Whether this is the case or not it remains to be seen, of course.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 6:12AM
#203
|
|
|
Frustration with kiddy powergamers.
Frustration with people who think other people are kiddy powergamers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my most recent campaign I've had PCs killed by getting ganged up on with 2/2 total enemy attacks while already damaged, a x4 crit with a scythe, a vrock, and an elemental (technically necromental). Yeah, elder redcaps (the critty one) are nasty, but so is everything else.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 10:58AM
#204
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Frustration with kiddy powergamers.
Is this about Scythe Paladin?
Well, I hated him too, since I was the DM and it is not cool to have your big mean red wyrm be taken down in one hit. And I'm not saying "in one SoD", it was pure hard damage. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 1:13PM
#205
|
|
|
Is this about Scythe Paladin?
You know, the scythe may sound silly, but you'd get the same effect from using Bahamut's favored weapon -- the heavy pick. Just my 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 2:04PM
#206
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
You know, the scythe may sound silly, but you'd get the same effect from using Bahamut's favored weapon -- the heavy pick. Just my
Well, some people have the hots for the Grim Reaper look. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 3:24PM
#207
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2004
|
What are we talking about again?
Damage potential: The basic design of 3.X was that fighters did good consistent damage, while rogues had a lower average damage though greater potential due to the sneak attack ability. This should remain true in 4E.
Fudging rolls: I too DM. I feel like I have cheated my players whenever I pull punches, and maybe that is why the inopportune critical has turned the tide of battle into a TPK on more than one occasion. At other times, PCs have overcome far more than they should have ever been able to, much to the detriment of my plotting and planning.
I am very optimistic about the new critical system. Lucky rolls will still rule the day, but DMs and players alike will have a much easier time coping with these statistical anomalies. The new rules also seem less subject to the aforementioned rules abuse (optimization), which may just be enough to pull the rug out from under the powergamers.
Remember the new design concept where no character will be ineffective? The reverse may be true. The new rules set may prevent optimizers from being all out glory hogs and let those who are more interested in role-play than roll-play have some fun in the sun.
As a player, wouldn't you rather triumph through superior tactics and stretegy, than blind luck or system abuse?
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 16, 2008 - 7:57PM
#208
|
|
|
The complexity isnt the same.
If normal is 1d8+6, then crit is 8+6. Its simply max with no additional complexity.
However, adding a superfluous 1d6 not only makes it more complex, 8+6+1d6, the complexity makes no sense. And it gets arbitrarily added because of a +1 weapon. Its the opposite of streamlining.
Extraneous nonsense is what needs to be REMOVED from D&D, not added to it.
PS,
IIRC, adding to the nonsensical complexity ... only PLAYER CHARACTERS benefit from the magic sword +1 to crit with extra +1d6 damage. NPCs who might be identical to the PCs in every way DONT benefit from this extra magic crit damage. It makes no sense.
Designwise, the extra 1d6 is clutter. The opposite of streamlining.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 17, 2008 - 1:57AM
#209
|
|
|
PS,
IIRC, adding to the nonsensical complexity ... only PLAYER CHARACTERS benefit from the magic sword +1 to crit with extra +1d6 damage. NPCs who might be identical to the PCs in every way DONT benefit from this extra magic crit damage. It makes no sense.
Designwise, the extra 1d6 is clutter. The opposite of streamlining.
The article said "monsters" not "NPCs who might be identical to the PCs in every way." You could be right, but it's not cut and dry. Perhaps the author just said "monsters" in an offhand way when he was thinking of owlbears or goblin soldiers with cheap short swords and that he said "PCs" when he was thinking of any heroic class characters. I wouldn't bet my life on either interpretation, but I lean toward the far more sensible one that the monsters with no magic will not as a rule have exceptional crits.
Since 3e is more streamlined, can you tell me real quick how much damage my +2 shocking burst collision greatax does on a crit and which damage types are for each die? I have a 17 strength, +2d6 sneak attack, and I'm power attacking for -3 to hit/+6 damage. Oh, and I'm a gnome, so it's a small greatax. Let's assume I'm not using any fancy PrCs.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 17, 2008 - 7:58AM
#210
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2008
|
alright so stop me if you heard this idea before:
For crits just role x2 or whatever the damage multiplier is or take the max damage the weapon normally deals. If you say have a short sword and you roll a 1 then just deal the max damage of 6 but if you say roll a 5 then you deal 10 damage.
This way you can never deal anything less the weapon's normal best and you have a chance to really put on some hurt.
What do think of that solution?
Lots-O-RPG's Played: D&D (Advanced 2nded, 3.0, 3.5, 4thed & Pathfinder), StarWars (RCR & Saga), Scion, Shadowrun (4thed), Call of Cthulhu (Original % & d20), Warhammer, BESM (d20-3.5 compatable), Fudge (Fudge on the fly variant).
|
|
|
