|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 3:23AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Also, around 16:40 Monte mentions that Fireball should be the best spell, which reeks of bias. I don't want any spells intentionally designed to be "better." You shouldn't have to sacrifice power level for being anything other than a blaster Wizard. I would be fine with something like Charm Person (the spell he compared Fireball to) to be more difficult to use in combat, but perhaps more effective out of combat. In that case the comparison would be a little murkier, with CP's lower power level being compensated for with utility elsewhere.
I believe that was Mike Mearls, not Monte, and I'm pretty sure he was joking when he was talking about fireball being the best spell.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 4:25AM
#12
|
|
|
Also, around 16:40 Monte mentions that Fireball should be the best spell, which reeks of bias. I don't want any spells intentionally designed to be "better." You shouldn't have to sacrifice power level for being anything other than a blaster Wizard. I would be fine with something like Charm Person (the spell he compared Fireball to) to be more difficult to use in combat, but perhaps more effective out of combat. In that case the comparison would be a little murkier, with CP's lower power level being compensated for with utility elsewhere.
I believe that was Mike Mearls, not Monte, and I'm pretty sure he was joking when he was talking about fireball being the best spell.
Hmm, I had the opposite impression. I think he wants Fireball to go back to being awesome. Surprising a large group of foes or setting them up to get roasted together is IMO a pretty iconic D&D tactic.
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 4:33AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Also, around 16:40 Monte mentions that Fireball should be the best spell, which reeks of bias. I don't want any spells intentionally designed to be "better." You shouldn't have to sacrifice power level for being anything other than a blaster Wizard. I would be fine with something like Charm Person (the spell he compared Fireball to) to be more difficult to use in combat, but perhaps more effective out of combat. In that case the comparison would be a little murkier, with CP's lower power level being compensated for with utility elsewhere.
I believe that was Mike Mearls, not Monte, and I'm pretty sure he was joking when he was talking about fireball being the best spell.
Hmm, I had the opposite impression. I think he wants Fireball to go back to being awesome. Surprising a large group of foes or setting them up to get roasted together is IMO a pretty iconic D&D tactic.
I look at it in this light: one of the flaws of 3.5 were the absolute predominance of "You Suck" spells: walls, fogs, save or die, save or lose, no-save-just-lose, buffs... those spells were pretty much the only ones even considered by casters. There was no wizard worth his salt that would choose Fireball over Haste, because Haste was just better in every reasonable situation (subjective, but reasonably true). They want to get the reverse in place: sure, there will be spells that shape the battlefield, inflict conditions and stuff on opponents, that buff your allies and everything, but when all's said and done, a big old trusty Fireball will be slightly better in most situations.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 5:35AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Firesquare.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 5:54AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
Also, around 16:40 Monte mentions that Fireball should be the best spell, which reeks of bias. I don't want any spells intentionally designed to be "better." You shouldn't have to sacrifice power level for being anything other than a blaster Wizard. I would be fine with something like Charm Person (the spell he compared Fireball to) to be more difficult to use in combat, but perhaps more effective out of combat. In that case the comparison would be a little murkier, with CP's lower power level being compensated for with utility elsewhere.
I believe that was Mike Mearls, not Monte, and I'm pretty sure he was joking when he was talking about fireball being the best spell.
Hmm, I had the opposite impression. I think he wants Fireball to go back to being awesome. Surprising a large group of foes or setting them up to get roasted together is IMO a pretty iconic D&D tactic.
He obviously really likes fireball, although I doubt he literally wants fireball to be better than other spells. He might want it to be the best spell in terms of simply doing a lot of damage to a large area, or something like that, but that doesn't mean other spells that do less damage wouldn't have other advantages to compensate. Of course I can't read his mind but I'm guessing he and the other designers would in general like all spells to be relatively equally desirable by players on average.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:24AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I'm not convinced the designers understand what it will take to attract old school gamers.
I was disappointed with what they said about haste. Haste was previously a spell that you could cast on several members of your party. The drawback was that it would age everyone. Oh well, it sounds like they are trying to make it a personal spell that you can’t cast on your companions anymore.
I just hope they don't screw up Charm Person and other spells by nerfing them. I want the option of having charm person last for months just like it did in AD&D. It would also be nice if spells like Raise Dead returned as an in combat spell.
IMO, spells like haste and charm person can't be compared to a spell like fireball. You can't balance them and they shouldn't be balanced. Trying to make all spells equally desirable and usable in all situations is a ridiculous endeavor. Not all spells serve the same purpose anyway. Spells should vary in power level, usefulness, complexity, serve as cues for role-playing, inspire your imagination, and/or destroy dozens of enemies if needed. They should be 'magical' and shouldn't conform to any restrictive sense of balance. Spells should be capable of doing anything imaginable and include all sorts of quirky aftereffects and consequences. The test of a good spell for me is one that no video game can ever hope to duplicate. The only balancing factor should be spell level. One of the first things I will do is turn to the spell section of the 5e PHB and look for the spell Wish. If I don't see it, at least as an optional spell, I will think twice about purchasing 5e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:28AM
#17
|
|
|
He obviously really likes fireball, although I doubt he literally wants fireball to be better than other spells. He might want it to be the best spell in terms of simply doing a lot of damage to a large area, or something like that, but that doesn't mean other spells that do less damage wouldn't have other advantages to compensate. Of course I can't read his mind but I'm guessing he and the other designers would in general like all spells to be relatively equally desirable by players on average.
Right on - I don't mean to make it sound like Fireball came across as the strictly prefered spell for all things. It needs to be a much better spell than it's been the last two editions though, and using it should be pretty exciting. It used to be that a handful of d6s was kind of a big deal!
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:28AM
#18
|
|
|
A few things I'd like to point out to start this discussion. The first thing that annoyed me was right around 7:50, as it seemed like Mearls was trying to justify displacing the burden of fixing rules "holes" onto the DM. It seemed like he was trying to excuse bad design, even if that maybe wasn't his intent. Later he did talk about how modularity should allow DMs to create the exact game that they want, and I do like the sound of that, but I will not tolerate sloppy rules that the DM can "fix." Modularity needs to make it easier for a DM to plan for and run a game, and rules that need fixing would negate this advantage. Hopefully I'm overreacting here.
You arent from the PAX preview reports I've been hearing. DDN, at least in its current stage, is strongly in the "build your own game system camp". But, you know, pay them for the privelege. Also when invoted to a game of DDN, good luck knowing the rules in advance...
Since 3rd and 4th edition were compared to video games, I'll toss out the meme that DDN is akin to buying a new MMO only to find out you've essentially bought a paid beta test because the suits demanded a release date schedule the programmers couldnt deliver, but released anyways... so sucks to be you consumer!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:31AM
#19
|
|
|
A few things I'd like to point out to start this discussion. The first thing that annoyed me was right around 7:50, as it seemed like Mearls was trying to justify displacing the burden of fixing rules "holes" onto the DM. It seemed like he was trying to excuse bad design, even if that maybe wasn't his intent.
I don't see it like that at all. He was talking about DM empowerment. And that he should have enough power to make a bad system work.
After all, its much easier to allow petty tyrants than make a good game!
We really are getting back to that old school 4th grade feel again!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:47AM
#20
|
|
|
I'm not convinced the designers understand what it will take to attract old school gamers.
I was disappointed with what they said about haste. Haste was previously a spell that you could cast on several members of your party. The drawback was that it would age everyone. Oh well, it sounds like they are trying to make it a personal spell that you can’t cast on your companions anymore.
I just hope they don't screw up Charm Person and other spells by nerfing them. I want the option of having charm person last for months just like it did in AD&D. It would also be nice if spells like Raise Dead returned as an in combat spell.
IMO, spells like haste and charm person can't be compared to a spell like fireball. You can't balance them and they shouldn't be balanced. Trying to make all spells equally desirable and usable in all situations is a ridiculous endeavor. Not all spells serve the same purpose anyway. Spells should vary in power level, usefulness, complexity, serve as cues for role-playing, inspire your imagination, and/or destroy dozens of enemies if needed. They should be 'magical' and shouldn't conform to any restrictive sense of balance. Spells should be capable of doing anything imaginable and include all sorts of quirky aftereffects and consequences. The test of a good spell for me is one that no video game can ever hope to duplicate. The only balancing factor should be spell level.
Spoken like a true caster supremacist. After all, its the fighter/rogue players own fault for being too stupid to pick a real class!
|
|
|
