|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:20PM
#591
|
|
|
Um... isn't teamwork one of the big things of DnD? I mean, why play with a bunch of other people if you're not going to be working together?
Technically, ALL editions of DnD have "forced" teamwork on the PC's. 4E just makes teamwork easier.
On the subject of teamwork, I think it is important to note that 4E makes solo-adventuring difficult. The game's current incarnation, unlike any previous edition, does design classes in a way that makes them comparatively less able to stand alone. A defender's marking ability is pointless if he's the only guy to attack; the purpose of many of a leader's powers is null if there aren't allies to support; sneak attack is tough to trigger if you have nobody to flank with; etc. Obviously since D&D is intended to be a group-play game, this isn't a huge issue, but it's something to consider. On that note, would anyone like to help me write up some rules and guidelines for solo adventuring in 4E, possibly with intent to submit to Dragon magazine?
Cheers,
Kyle
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:25PM
#592
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Though I tagged it as OT above, I'm curious.
What can the Fighter do that the Druid can't do (and potentially better)?
They can specialize via feats in multiple areas and the druid can't, really. The wild shapes won't give enough feats/abilities for them to to match every way a fighter can fight. Since the fighter ALWAYS has all of his areas of specialty handy, he can adapt on the fly to multiple different situations/opponants and the druid cannot.
I know you haven't actually gotten a chance to play yet, but really, this is really a misconception that is just... glaring.
If I may ask, what makes you think that you are "forced into teamwork" in 4th Edition?
Going by what a lot of 4ed players have said about the game. I've heard a lot about how deadly 4ed is and how groups perish if they don't work together. Now, this has usually been in response to my arguments about healing surges and full overnight rest making it harder to kill people, so maybe they were just lying to me.
In my experience with it, you can play however you did before (for example, ignoring your teammates and doing whatever is best for you, at the moment), and it works just as well as it ever has (which is to say "less good than if you were working together").
Additionally, contrary to what the roles seem to imply to people, you don't need a member of each role any more than you needed "Melee Guy, Healer, Skill Monkey, and Mage" for previous editions. Again, it doesn't work any worse than it ever has (and may work better now, since characters at least have access to their own out-of-combat healing without someone getting Cure Light Wounds in an item and "pretending" to be a cleric).
Soloing appears to work better, since it is easier to make up for your flaws, at least enough to get by - there are many ways to trigger healing surges, many ways to deal more damage, and many ways to hit multiple foes and inflict status effects.
I hope so. I don't like being railroaded into things in an RPG.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:37PM
#593
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
A statement that is just as applicable to fighters and attack bonuses. If you claim that a DM can and has to spend effort to force the druid into being equal to the fighter, then you yourself are acknowledging a balance issue.
Then focus on one, and support it on a secondary level with summons. You don't need to prepare those, and there aren't too many counters for them.
I think I see the issue. I'm talking about cleric and wizard save or die/suck spells, not druid summons which won't have a save DC. You've mistaken the conversation and are arguing something different than we're discussing.
But the game should be able to function with no houserules whatsoever. If you have to houserule to get the game to work right (especially when using a canned setting), then there is a problem with the game.
And yet no game ever made can. They ALL cannot take into account every situation you will get into as a player or DM, and so give general "rules" that must be modified or changed as needed by the groups playing the game.
And conversely, many Druid spells exceed any capability that fighter feats have. No fighter feat can contend with Air walk or Insect Plague... and nothing can make a fighter cry easier than a targeted Dispel Magic followed by Rusting Grasp.
Then it's a good thing that the players don't fight each other and that the druids encountered aren't stupid enough to take the time and effort to take out the fighter in that manner while everyone else is also a problem. Besides, your example is meaningless. There are spell/ability combos that can and will make any class cry.
And druids can shift from form to form, and each form often specializes in something different (dire bear = grappler, et cetera). So again, no advantage either way, unless you count the fact that a Wild Shaped druid can still cast spells at the cost of one feat.
They can't do multiple forms at once, and so will never be the equal of the fighter who can do his multiple specializations as he wills.
A druid can do any one of them quite well, and can do even more quite well once he gains access to elemental transformations.
That's nice.
Either you had a healing spellcaster (of which the best was cleric), or you relied on disposable items and thus reduced your overall gold income in having to depend so heavily on one-use items.
Or you had some crusaders with the blasted healing strikes. In no case were you REQUIRED to have a cleric or healing spell caster.
As did I. It simply meant that the party couldn't do certain things without, especially if it required magic. Just as a party without a healing class is going to need an F-ton worth in potions to compensate, forcing the DM to modify the game to suit them (possibly granting more money, or expecting them to have less magic items).
Yeah, but so what. No party will be able to do everything, but any part of virtually any class combination can do very well.
I'd throw the advantage toward 4th Edition, if only for the fact that the DM doesn't need to do all these minor tweaks to make sure that any given adventure is unassailable by a specific party.
That's your opinion, and it's fine. Mine is that it was VERY easy to do in 3ed, so the added variety and freedoms made it better.
Yes... I love how 3rd Edition allowed spellcasters to work on their lonesome because the mundane members of their party were useless in the face of more powerful forces. You're right, teamwork is overrated... let the sidekicks (read as anyone who doesn't have magic spells) sit on the sidelines while the big boys play. 
No wizard or cleric could function solo for any serious length of time. He would eventually die. That is unless the DM went out of his way to carefully plan encounters that would not kill him. Spellcasters NEED a party.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:47PM
#594
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2007
|
They can specialize via feats in multiple areas and the druid can't, really. The wild shapes won't give enough feats/abilities for them to to match every way a fighter can fight. Since the fighter ALWAYS has all of his areas of specialty handy, he can adapt on the fly to multiple different situations/opponants and the druid cannot.
How is being able to change your shape as a standard action not more versatile? One minute you're a bear, the next you're a tiger. That's adapting to circumstances.
"Oh no, it has four legs! All those feats I can't retrain are wasted!" *druid turns into a shark or something*
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:57PM
#595
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2007
|
I think I see the issue. I'm talking about cleric and wizard save or die/suck spells, not druid summons which won't have a save DC. You've mistaken the conversation and are arguing something different than we're discussing.
Fffffffffffffffffffffff!
Spellcasters NEED a party.
...of other spellcasters! I don't even understand how he can try to argue this. Everything a party does is tailored for them by the DM. If a DM can make a dungeon for a four man party, he can make one for a single cleric. It's not an issue. A whole party of casters is fine. A whole party of melee is fine! It's when you mix them, that causes problems.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:01PM
#596
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2007
|
I guess I'm one of those oddball folks who agrees with the whole 'Tyranny of Fun argument' or at least large parts of it, but yet still is a big fan of 4e. It might be trite, but I think there's more to it than edition hate. People keep saying it over and over because I think they're trying to work it out. So it comes up alot. It bugs people--and the handwaving dismissals just cause more pent up frustration. I think that's why these arguments tend to go round and round in circles.
I can't help feeling that all the attempts to give people cool new options (a good thing) ends up actually restricting people's freedom to do cool things--gets in the way of roleplaying (a bad thing). Sounds like a paradox, but it's weirdly true.
An example:
Spinning Sweep-Ftr 1 Encounter Power
Basically you attack someone and can knock their legs out from under them, knocking them prone. Sounds like a pretty cool fighting move. But why can't you do it more than once a round? Why just fighters and not, say rogues or rangers?
If you can, then the power is worthless, if you just admit you can't you lose options in combat. It's like the old 2e days when nobody but a theif could hide in shadows or pick a lock. So the more powers there are, the fewer the options and the more disconnect there is between the storytelling of the game and the wargaming of the game.
There's actually a table in the DMG that is just wonderful. On pg. 42 it talks about adjudicating freeform actions as powers on the fly. It's great. In some ways, it's a wonderful alternative to the set of level dependant, class specific powers. You can swing on chandeliers, kick over barrels of flaming debris, anything you could do in a fantasy action flick. But that's the weird thing. There's actually a lot to love in 4e too. Roleplay has become a much bigger part of the game, with whole pages full of flavor text and chapters discussing drama and storytelling. It's just a strange mix, and I think it catches people off guard I think.
Personally I sometimes think it would be a nice fix (for an alternate chargen method in a campaign at least) to have players make characters as human 'monsters' from the Monster Manual and level them up according to the DM Toolkit for leveling up monsters. You'd have a lot more freeform characters that wouldn't feel so locked into their powerup tables.
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:15PM
#597
|
|
|
Neat. MaxPerson doesn't know how to build a Fighter. One would imagine that his demonstrated ignorance of both editions would convince people that he isn't really worth discussing the game with... Good Fighters are one-trick ponies in 3.5. Versatile Fighters are dead weight in a remotely well-played party.
If you can, then the power is worthless, if you just admit you can't you lose options in combat. It's like the old 2e days when nobody but a theif could hide in shadows or pick a lock.[/quote]
The power deals damage and knocks a person prone. A 42ed attack that just knocks somebody prone would maintain the number of options and the utility of the power in question.
Just like the above, I believe that every such objection is quite easily resolved and more a matter of how a person thinks (or rather, doesn't).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:22PM
#598
|
|
|
An example:
Spinning Sweep-Ftr 1 Encounter Power
Basically you attack someone and can knock their legs out from under them, knocking them prone. Sounds like a pretty cool fighting move. But why can't you do it more than once a round? Why just fighters and not, say rogues or rangers?
Why can I only make one attack per standard action, barring special abilities? This is a silly argument. I remember when rounds were an entire minute, but you still only had one attack roll for the round. How on earth was that explainable? Back then the explanation was that even though you were fighting (swinging, parrying, blocking) for the whole round, you only had the potential for one attack to get through. That was the one you rolled. These days, many encounters don't even last as long as one round back then.
If you can deal with the explanation of old then encounter abilities can make just as much sense. You can easily say that you can try the same trick many times during the combat encounter, but there is only one chance for it to be effective. If you can not accept that explanation or any other, for that matter, then there is nothing that I can say as you've already made up your mind.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:49PM
#599
|
|
|
I think I see the issue. I'm talking about cleric and wizard save or die/suck spells, not druid summons which won't have a save DC. You've mistaken the conversation and are arguing something different than we're discussing.
That's the problem. Druids and Clerics both had very potent versatile abilities that put both classes a skosh above the Wizard. Either of them can sacrifice prepared spells to summon or heal, meaning that anything they cannot defeat through use of whatever spells they have, they can find other means... either through domain abilities or what have you.
Moreover, Save DCs on spells can be raised as easily as attack bonuses for fighters can be. Either through use of magic items or simply magic enchantments, there are means by which you can excel. This is much worse considering that most creatures in higher levels usually have a great AC, but have at least one poor save (and as a spellcaster, only one poor save is all you need).
And yet no game ever made can. They ALL cannot take into account every situation you will get into as a player or DM, and so give general "rules" that must be modified or changed as needed by the groups playing the game.
Doesn't matter if they take into account all scenarios. The question is whether or not they have properly covered every scenario they do in a means that isn't exploitable. Pun-Pun is an exploit based on multiclassing, splatbook material, polymorph effects, and familiar loopholes. Are you telling me that multiclassing, splatbooks, polymorph and familiars are not covered by 3rd Edition?
Then it's a good thing that the players don't fight each other and that the druids encountered aren't stupid enough to take the time and effort to take out the fighter in that manner while everyone else is also a problem. Besides, your example is meaningless. There are spell/ability combos that can and will make any class cry.
It's not a question of whether or not he fights the fighter. If they are fighting a flying creature, what can the fighter contribute that will be as meaningful as a druid with Air Walk? When fighting other melee combatants, you could either rely on a fighter to trade hits with them, or an Insect Plague to take them out with no real issue.
They can't do multiple forms at once, and so will never be the equal of the fighter who can do his multiple specializations as he wills.
At which level is he able to have his "multiple specializations"? More importantly, what's stopping a druid from getting those same feats, other than the fact that he doesn't get as many.
That's nice.
It's superior to a fighter. I'd say it's nice at the very least.
Or you had some crusaders with the blasted healing strikes. In no case were you REQUIRED to have a cleric or healing spell caster.
Ah yes... "you don't need a cleric because there are cleric variants". Nice argument, but faulty. That's like "I don't pollute with car emissions because I drive a bus".
Fine, if you like technicalities let's go with this. Divine casters are absolutely required to continue through the game without access to vast amounts of disposable healing capability. Your only other option is to rest after every fight for the next couple days.
Yeah, but so what. No party will be able to do everything, but any part of virtually any class combination can do very well.
Try running an undead campaign with a group of players who all want to play as rogues. 4th Edition makes it a possibility, and concludes with the idea that DMs don't have to cater their monsters to what the players choose to create as their character. Any class combination can still do well, if not better than they could in previous editions.
That's your opinion, and it's fine. Mine is that it was VERY easy to do in 3ed, so the added variety and freedoms made it better.
And it's far easier to not have to do that at all.
No wizard or cleric could function solo for any serious length of time. He would eventually die. That is unless the DM went out of his way to carefully plan encounters that would not kill him. Spellcasters NEED a party.
Or they need Rope Trick. If you don't have a party, you can simply use any number of spells which allow you to put yourself in a safe place for a period of time. A cleric is actually quite combat capable, considering that he wears heavy armor and has a 3/4s attack bonus. The only one who probably couldn't support himself easily is a Wizard... and he gets Rope Trick.
Of course, once you go into the higher levels the converse becomes true. No fighter can function solo for a serious length of time at high level. He has no magical means by which to counter greater threats, and since most of those greater threats carry a damage reduction that can only easily be bypassed by magical means....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:53PM
#600
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2007
|
I'm sure he meant 'encounter' and not 'round'. Even so, it's just a matter of letting it make sense. How come a wizard can only cast sleep once before resting?
People have come up with tons of justifications.
-There are only so many openings during a fight for you to do craziness
-After you do it once, everybody is wise to your trick
-The fighter is just the one that trained to do it
It's all on the same level of class based gaming. Sure it makes sense than any character nimble enough to trip somebody can run around doing it all day, but a game can't work that way. You just have to let it go.
|
|
|
