|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:20PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2006
|
CharOpers, sound off.
Tales from the Rusty Dragon (http://rustydragon.blogspot.com) - A 4th Edition Conversion Project Covering Paizo's Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:21PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
Get rid of specific memorization for wizards and clerics. Allow them to be able to cast whatever spell they know, just limit the number of spells per day that can be cast as it is now.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:24PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2006
|
It IS NOT DUMBED DOWN. It is streamlined. 3.5 rules are not difficult, they are tedious. People say hard, but more than likely they mean time consuming and tedious.
You have the same amount depth, if not more, in the Saga Core book than you do in the DnD Corebooks. The only difference is its faster and less tedious.
I agree with AT-AT on all points except Saga's skill system. Saga is not 'dumbed down' at all really aside from skills (my one and only remaining gripe with Saga). It is streamlined so that actual gameplay flows faster and more smoothly. The number and variety of options can hardly be considered simple. It's just organized and presented in a more concise fashion. Personally, I prey that 4th Edition takes a page from Saga at least in regards to classes. Provides a very easy way to customize your characters while balancing them. I love the fact that you can play the same race/class as another player and be absolutely nothing alike in terms of ability. I also love that there are social aspects of the game woven right into certain class options for many of the classes. It's nice to have options built in that are intended for actual role playing instead of just hack and slash roll playing!
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:25PM
#34
|
|
|
Sounding Off.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:27PM
#35
|
|
|
Quick, someone use Time Regression to save the thread, just in case.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:31PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2005
|
For those that still can't get the links to work they are on You Tube and are linked below. D&D 4th Ed.: Behind The Scenes, Part 1D&D 4th Ed.: Behind The Scenes, Part 2
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:39PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2007
|
Sounding off!
(I will be here, hopefully watching the CO greats rebuild Pun-Pun in 4E)
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:49PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2003
|
'Reppin the 339!
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:52PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2004
|
Well, it seems pretty definitely that per-encounter resources is the way they have gone with spellcasters. I only hope that the main Fighter problem has been addressed - i.e. useless in any situation other than combat.
[edit] Sounding off?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:52PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
Base level raised to 30: Not only is this pointless but way to imitate WoW. Release a new major patch, raise the level cap by 10.  Is it going to go to 40 in 5E?
The D&D Rules Cyclopedia listed a maximum level of 36 for most classes. The Second Edition AD&D game was capped at 20, which went up to 30 in DM's Option: High Level Campaigns. Third Edition had again had a cap of 20, which was removed under Epic rules that theoretically allowed unlimited advancement. Level 30 is precedented.
Further, your comparison to World of Warcraft doesn't fit at all. This isn't Blizzards of the Coast dropping ten new levels on top of your existing charts so you can roll into the lower planes with your established characters and find better magic items. Though it is speculatory, I like to think what we can expect is a retuning of the entire range of levels such that 5th level in 4e doesn't really line up in terms of power with 5th level in 3.5. Accurately converting the 3.5 level scheme to 4e and then adding 10 more to the top probably isn't and certainly shouldn't be the plan. The move to 30, I'm willing to bet, has more to do with scaling existing abilities across a larger range for more gradual and regular improvement rather than for simple power-creep.
More Entrenched Defined Roles: Defines roles is a bad thing. Why do you think we have so many player created classes? No one wants to be "Okay, I heal, and only heal." or "I play tank and only swing my sword." It's boring. You should've made more broad roles for characters, not more specific ones.
I don't think it was stated that the roles were necessarily tied to class. While the "I heal and only heal" statement doesn't currentlly apply, something along the lines of "I heal but probably nobody else does" seems to fit. Likewise, statements like "I can't afford to get hit in combat" and "I CAN afford to get hit in combat" are role defining as well.
In short, specialization of members within a group allows for greater success of that group. I don't think that's a novel idea at all and the fact that you think it shouldn't be represented in the game takes me by surprise.
New Resource Management: Wow...just wow...whoever DMs for your play testers must really...really suck. If your games are getting boring just because the casters aren't doing something then some DM doesn't know how to do his job worth two lumps of Dragon....
I don't know how to respond to this. Are you suggesting that a DM doesn't know what he's doing if he can't find something for a Wizard who's blown all of his spells to do that anyone else in the party (rogues) can't do just as well or better?
|
|
|
