|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 6:11AM
#881
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
My group is like that as well, which is how I know to call this BS.  At least try to make a somewhat realistic claim next time.
Um, yeah. You might want to take some of your own advice there. :P
Ahh. Because I can see something that you can't, I must be arguing for the sake of it.
And I disagree, as do the vast majority of players that I've played with over the decades.
And it's equally factual that they are not useless, and are in fact, far from useless. You've never heard me say that they aren't outclassed ::shrug::
outclassed=useless, why would you ever play a subpar class.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 6:22AM
#882
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2006
|
outclassed=useless, why would you ever play a subpar class.
For the challenge of it.
I once had a character who could only speak 12 words. He was a strong warrior, but wandered off and was a challenge for the group. We all had fun..and I didn't take it anywhere that the group wasn't willing to go with it.
There are some folks who won't/can't play the opposite gender...or a certain race...or a certain class. I can and have played all classes, and often would give them a flaw to add to the roleplaying. Most times, these were purely cosmetic, but sometimes they had real hits against ability to perform in combat. No one ever complained that I was't holding my end of the game up because combat was never as pronounced as it is today. The hours spent in combat (real time) vs the hours spent in roleplaying was something like 1-3.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 6:46AM
#883
|
|
|
No one ever complained that I was't holding my end of the game up because combat was never as pronounced as it is today. The hours spent in combat (real time) vs the hours spent in roleplaying was something like 1-3.
Good for you. But here in the WOTC forums, half the posters think that if your character can't solo the BBEG and all his forces by level 8 with a hand tied at his back, then it's not worth playing.
C'mon, don't you remember all the discussions with people claiming that the sorceror was a weakling because it couldn't learn all the spells in existence or that a wizard who sacrificed a single caster level would go from god allmighty to useless pile of *****?
People will complain for every little and big diference. That's why 4e was made the way it is. Everything worcks in the same way, so people complain less. Of course, the end result is that the guy who studied centuries in his arcane tower ends up doing the exact same thing as the guy who trained in a hundred wars. But nevermind that.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:39AM
#884
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
See I love roleplaying interesting characters but I want those characters to be useful. Also I should not need to multi class into a caster class just to perform a few specific rituals. I love the idea that anyone who has taken the time can now learn rituals. I do not see why people are saying magic is gimped, or weaker, or less magical. The mechanics do not effect the world. Just because a wizard and fighter use similiar mechanics does not make what the wizard does any less unique, it just makes it easier to balance which makes it more fun.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 8:30AM
#885
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2006
|
Good for you. But here in the WOTC forums, half the posters think that if your character can't solo the BBEG and all his forces by level 8 with a hand tied at his back, then it's not worth playing.
.
And the WOTC forum posters are always correct 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:05AM
#886
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
And the WOTC forum posters are always correct
no there not, but if Im making a character for a roleplaying game I want that character to be useful, in at least 75-80% of situations.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:33AM
#887
|
|
|
no there not, but if Im making a character for a roleplaying game I want that character to be useful, in at least 75-80% of situations.
QFT
Suck it up and drive on.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:25AM
#888
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2007
|
I have. I've had parties where the GM agonized over the fact that any attack against character A would instantly kill character B. I've had half and half parties that fell apart because the people were tired of doing what basically amounted to math homework to make their characters. I've had someone walk out of a fight because the BBEGs AC had to be so high his build couldn't hit it to allow other players a challenge. And I seen players give up the game because they couldn't nerf themselves enough to play with their friends.
And that is WITH everyone refusing to use Polymorph, Scry and Die and other BS caster tactics that break the game. Which is why I'm wondering why people want them back, since you basically have to treat them like nukes. "Put them over to the side in case the GM gets uppity..."
Also you don't Gate your friends you gate your enemies to bad places. Negative Energy Plane's a favorite.
This respone is not solely directed at you but you had a good start point for me. There have been a great number of people on the board that keep ranting and raving about how unbalanced this or that was in the game. You mention that players had to 'nerf' themselfs and quit because of that.
That is too much power gaming... but if your group likes that, then go ahead. My favorite character is my half-orc barbarian/sorc/eldrich knight. Is not the most powerful character in the world (-2 CHA does hurt), he did not choose the best attack spells at every level, but most utility/fun. The theme for the character was spirit walking so all his spells had to be explainable to be used by or against spirits.
It plays very well from an RP stand point, and while he is not the top dog character in the group I have had a great deal of fun RPing him. Many players in our group became disenchanted with their characters when the Min/Maxed them. They made themselves very powerful, but so narrow of focus it was not fun. So the other DM and I (co-DM's) allowed people to re-work their characters so they could 'broaden' their horizons.
It was not a problem with the system that allowed for flexible choices in character design. It is an issue where the players got greedy and limited their characters.
Now I will admit, some of the spells in 3.x were mispowered and were acturally powered more correctly in prior versions (i.e. where dimension door only worked for the caster; greater invisibility only worked for a caster).
Any system that provides a great deal of flexiblity works can be abused to a great deal if you want to do a Min/Max. 4e does not have that same flexilibity as 3.x. 4e does not even have the same depth of spells (powers) as 3.x in the Core books.
Talk all you want about balance and such, but all the character mechanically feel the same and that will grow old over time and eventually hurt the game. As somone else pointed out earlier in the thread, you could pick a class in 3.x and get a totally different mechanical and play feel out of it because they are so different. Now it is basically fluff differences in characters. I know that it not 100% accurate, but it is to a point.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:34AM
#889
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
This respone is not solely directed at you but you had a good start point for me. There have been a great number of people on the board that keep ranting and raving about how unbalanced this or that was in the game. You mention that players had to 'nerf' themselfs and quit because of that.
That is too much power gaming... but if your group likes that, then go ahead. My favorite character is my half-orc barbarian/sorc/eldrich knight. Is not the most powerful character in the world (-2 CHA does hurt), he did not choose the best attack spells at every level, but most utility/fun. The theme for the character was spirit walking so all his spells had to be explainable to be used by or against spirits.
It plays very well from an RP stand point, and while he is not the top dog character in the group I have had a great deal of fun RPing him. Many players in our group became disenchanted with their characters when the Min/Maxed them. They made themselves very powerful, but so narrow of focus it was not fun. So the other DM and I (co-DM's) allowed people to re-work their characters so they could 'broaden' their horizons.
It was not a problem with the system that allowed for flexible choices in character design. It is an issue where the players got greedy and limited their characters.
Now I will admit, some of the spells in 3.x were mispowered and were acturally powered more correctly in prior versions (i.e. where dimension door only worked for the caster; greater invisibility only worked for a caster).
Any system that provides a great deal of flexiblity works can be abused to a great deal if you want to do a Min/Max. 4e does not have that same flexilibity as 3.x. 4e does not even have the same depth of spells (powers) as 3.x in the Core books.
Talk all you want about balance and such, but all the character mechanically feel the same and that will grow old over time and eventually hurt the game. As somone else pointed out earlier in the thread, you could pick a class in 3.x and get a totally different mechanical and play feel out of it because they are so different. Now it is basically fluff differences in characters. I know that it not 100% accurate, but it is to a point.
No they do not feel the same. Similiar mechanics does not mean they play the same. The classes in 4e are still significantly different from each other, without being different mechanically. You should not need much variation in mechanics to roleplay diffrences. A martial character is going to view the world diffrently then an arcane one. A wizard is going to be role played diffrently from a warlock and both are going to be diffrent from a paladin. Im sick of people equating similiar mechanics to all classes being the same.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:30PM
#890
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Never once made that claim. And no, it means you're full of BS, or else your DM royally stinks at playing monsters.
Neither. We're just able to run 3.5 quite quickly. Also, your sig makes that claim.
Answered that several times before. Don't feel like answering it again.
The default answer is that you just want to annoy as many 4E players as possible.
And you'd be wrong. Solo wizard = dead.
No, you'd be full of BS, or else you royally stink at playing Wizards.
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
|
|
|
