|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 10:46AM
#721
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
Typical 4e mindset here. The reason it was great to have all those different pole weapons was because they each had a specialized purpose. Most importantly, the wide selection existed for aesthetic and role playing reasons.
For me, medieval history is a big part of my role playing style. At least you agree that 4e makes no attempt to facilitate these kinds of gaming styles.
My son, who is still quite enamored with 4E, has told me a story of the reaction his usual group had when he ran a campaign that he wanted to have a Dark Age, post-fall-of-the-Romans-pre-Renaissance feel to it. So he outlawed anachronistic items like plate armor, crossbows, and so on... and had his players go nuts wondering why he was "penalizing" them so much.
I too had this problem. I wanted to run a crusades campaign, but then realized that 4e couldn't handle it. The moment you start reducing available weapons, armor, and classes the system breaks down.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 10:52AM
#722
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
Typical 4e mindset here. The reason it was great to have all those different pole weapons was because they each had a specialized purpose. Most importantly, the wide selection existed for aesthetic and role playing reasons.
For me, medieval history is a big part of my role playing style. At least you agree that 4e makes no attempt to facilitate these kinds of gaming styles.
My son, who is still quite enamored with 4E, has told me a story of the reaction his usual group had when he ran a campaign that he wanted to have a Dark Age, post-fall-of-the-Romans-pre-Renaissance feel to it. So he outlawed anachronistic items like plate armor, crossbows, and so on... and had his players go nuts wondering why he was "penalizing" them so much.
I completely understand that he was making houserules to capture the flavor he wants for his game. However from a game play point of view, these house rules penalize classes that make use of the banned equipment, whereas classes that do not use this items are made much stronger.
Fighters and paladins get screwed under these rules, where as wizards, avengers, and monk are not affected at all.This is only a problem to the extent he and his players care about game balance. An less game breaking alternative might be leave all those items in the game and just reflavor their appearance.
Not liking the new forums.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 10:56AM
#723
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
I completely understand that he was making houserules to capture the flavor he wants for his game. However from a game play point of view, these house rules penalize classes that make use of the banned equipment, whereas classes that do not use this items are made much stronger.
Fighters and paladins get screwed under these rules, where as wizards, avengers, and monk are not affected at all.This is only a problem to the extent he and his players care about game balance. An less game breaking alternative might be leave all those items in the game and just reflavor their appearance.
I agree that those effects all happen, but the problem lies not with what he wants to do, but in 4E's inability to handle it.
As I said elsewhere, the minimum standard for a new edition of a game that's been around for thirty-six years is that the latest edition must be able to do everything the previous editions were quite capable of doing.
Now, when I said this originally, it was in reference to non-combat oriented campaigns, but it applies just as well to period-accurate campaigns. All the previous editions could handle it, fourth can't.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 10:56AM
#724
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Typical 4e mindset here. The reason it was great to have all those different pole weapons was because they each had a specialized purpose. Most importantly, the wide selection existed for aesthetic and role playing reasons.
For me, medieval history is a big part of my role playing style. At least you agree that 4e makes no attempt to facilitate these kinds of gaming styles.
My son, who is still quite enamored with 4E, has told me a story of the reaction his usual group had when he ran a campaign that he wanted to have a Dark Age, post-fall-of-the-Romans-pre-Renaissance feel to it. So he outlawed anachronistic items like plate armor, crossbows, and so on... and had his players go nuts wondering why he was "penalizing" them so much.
I too had this problem. I wanted to run a crusades campaign, but then realized that 4e couldn't handle it. The moment you start reducing available weapons, armor, and classes the system breaks down.
why not just I dont know reflavour what exists rather than banning it?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 10:58AM
#725
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
I completely understand that he was making houserules to capture the flavor he wants for his game. However from a game play point of view, these house rules penalize classes that make use of the banned equipment, whereas classes that do not use this items are made much stronger.
Fighters and paladins get screwed under these rules, where as wizards, avengers, and monk are not affected at all.This is only a problem to the extent he and his players care about game balance. An less game breaking alternative might be leave all those items in the game and just reflavor their appearance.
I agree that those effects all happen, but the problem lies not with what he wants to do, but in 4E's inability to handle it.
As I said elsewhere, the minimum standard for a new edition of a game that's been around for thirty-six years is that the latest edition must be able to do everything the previous editions were quite capable of doing.
Now, when I said this originally, it was in reference to non-combat oriented campaigns, but it applies just as well to period-accurate campaigns. All the previous editions could handle it, fourth can't.
Doesn't it impact game "balance" of previous editions too?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 10:59AM
#726
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
Typical 4e mindset here. The reason it was great to have all those different pole weapons was because they each had a specialized purpose. Most importantly, the wide selection existed for aesthetic and role playing reasons.
For me, medieval history is a big part of my role playing style. At least you agree that 4e makes no attempt to facilitate these kinds of gaming styles.
My son, who is still quite enamored with 4E, has told me a story of the reaction his usual group had when he ran a campaign that he wanted to have a Dark Age, post-fall-of-the-Romans-pre-Renaissance feel to it. So he outlawed anachronistic items like plate armor, crossbows, and so on... and had his players go nuts wondering why he was "penalizing" them so much.
I too had this problem. I wanted to run a crusades campaign, but then realized that 4e couldn't handle it. The moment you start reducing available weapons, armor, and classes the system breaks down.
Yes game balance degrades in 4E if you introduce extensive house rules. So what, in 3E game balanced is screwed up until you introduce your own extensive house rules. 2E, has its own set of mechanical issues.
Not liking the new forums.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 11:01AM
#727
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
why not just I dont know reflavour what exists rather than banning it?
Because you're missing the point. The armor and weapons that did the things plate armor and crossbows and so on do in the game simply did not exist during the period in question. The capability did not exist, not just the items in question. Reflavoring what exists would not reflect that.
[Doesn't it impact game "balance" of previous editions too?
No, not really. That was how the previous editions could handle it and 4E can't.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 11:04AM
#728
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
Roles are nowhere near as restrictive as you make them out to be. Each class has a primary role but at least one or two secondary roles. Furthermore by making feat and power choices you can build up whatever it is that you want to be good at.
For example in 4E the fighter while excelling at the defender role in combat also does very respectable damage (especially if they are fighting with two handed weapons). If the player really wants their fighter to play more like a striker they can take the feats and powers that are damage oriented. So I fail to see how it is at all restrictive.
In the past the game designers wanted to have a "kitchen sink" approach to weapons where they came up with stats for every type of weapon they could think of. Unfortunately, this just had the effect of producing a very bloated weapon table with lot of reduant and sub-standard options. For instance did they really need to have different stats for dagger, dirk, and knife or club and belayingpin, or a dozen different pole weapons? Furthermore who ever used a knife when the dagger cost about the same and had better stats? In 4e the weapons represent categories of weapons and generally all have strengths and weaknesses relative to each other such that all weapons will generally get used.
In terms of different attack modifiers for different weapons depending on different armor, that is a really clunky and tedious subsystem in an edition (2E) that was already festoned with clunky subsytems. 4E makes no bones that it is trying to simulate heroic fiction not medieval history.
Typical 4e mindset here. The reason it was great to have all those different pole weapons was because they each had a specialized purpose. Most importantly, the wide selection existed for aesthetic and role playing reasons.
For me, medieval history is a big part of my role playing style. At least you agree that 4e makes no attempt to facilitate these kinds of gaming styles.
I don't have a 2E PHB or arms and equipment guide in front of me, but there was only slight game difference between that 9 or so diffrent polearms. Within the game mechanics they did not have a specilized purpose, they just took up space. As did many of the other weapons and armors. I am all in favor of an illustration in the PHB depicting several diffrent kinds of historical and fantasy polearms, so that players can have some inspiration on what their polearm looks like. I am however opposed to creating 9 diffrent stat blocks for what is mechanically the same weapon. That is why I really like the armors in 4E each armor has strengths and weaknesses compared to other armors so all of them actualy get used.
Older editions may have been slightly better at simulating medieval Europe, but only in the sense that Rambo was more realistic then the A-team.
Why are you only looking at the weapons and armor from a game mechanics point of view? I could say the same thing about many of the weapons in the 4e game. Why make a broadsword when a longsword would be just as good. Isn't there only a slight difference? Why not just create a weapon called longblade?
Furthermore, there were many more weapons in that book then just those polearms. They even had the roman gladius.
What you have to understand about those books is that in a campaign the DM would be the one who said what weapons were available. Depending on the time period and culture of the campaign some of those polearms wouldn't be available. Within the context of the campaign all those weapons fit together nicely.
You are correct that 2e wasn't a simulation of the medieval arms race, but at least I could create a believable campaign with it, unlike 4e which only works one way.
The armors in 2e were more detailed. 4e has brought nothing new to the system in terms of weapons and armor, in fact the selection is very mediocre at best.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 11:12AM
#729
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
why not just I dont know reflavour what exists rather than banning it?
Because you're missing the point. The armor and weapons that did the things plate armor and crossbows and so on do in the game simply did not exist during the period in question. The capability did not exist, not just the items in question. Reflavoring what exists would not reflect that.
I dont really see the problem I really don't. DnD is fantasy it makes no bones about that. Historical would be kinda dull really. You all get the plague you all die. Your on the crusades you die of heat stroke, a noble gets annoyed with you you die. The middle ages were brutal life expectancy was close to nonexistent, real knights had little honor and were little better than thugs with weapons. I study history, a lot, its all about suspending disbelief maybe 4e isnt for you, but at least in 4e you can have an all martial party and still have a healer. In previous edditions you couldnt have done that.
[Doesn't it impact game "balance" of previous editions too?
No, not really. That was how the previous editions could handle it and 4E can't.
Previous edditions were borked and could not handle a realistic game either due to the way healing worked, oh wait that is if you wanted the characters to survive it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 08, 2010 - 11:12AM
#730
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
[Doesn't it impact game "balance" of previous editions too?
No, not really. That was how the previous editions could handle it and 4E can't.
OK, so AC goes down, mobility goes up, skill checks go up (if applicable)...in all editions?
|
|
|
