|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 12:00PM
#171
|
|
|
How do you know the fighter doesn't get extra feats to compensate? Are you assuming the worst for the fun of it?
You're right. We don't know that the fighter doesn't get extra feats to compensate for having to buy good options. I'm also hoping that they do get extra feats for this purpose. However, all we know is what the devs tell us. If they say the options come from spending feats, then decline to tell us the fighter gets extra feats to compensate (they had a perfectly good moment in the chat to tell us just that), and they make a horrible joke about the fighter being reduced to a tea caddy (I do believe it was just a joke, albeit a bad one, that was in very poor taste, and that they knew would cause controversy on the forums), it's hard to blame people for falling to pessimism.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 12:00PM
#172
|
|
|
I know your trying, but that doesn't sound very reassuring Azzy.
The baseline chassis are the problem for me; from the impressions I'm getting, they're leaning too far into building classes on the basis of tradition. Hardly seems of a designe structure that can be easily modded into something I don't loathe.
Why, if tradition is the less complex option (and there are many people want something more traditional), do you have a problem with it being the baseline? It's the fiddly options that are going to require more care to address and balance. If baseline martial characters can be brought into parity with casters, this is the stage to do it.
As much as I despise traditionalism, I agree.
I bring up my virulent hatred of tradionalism because it's signifigent, I think, that we agree on this, in spite of such different points of view.
In the case of DnD, the tradional form of classes is also simpler. A simpler core game is good. The fact that they plan to balance the classes in that simpler core game is fantastic.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 12:08PM
#173
|
|
|
I find it very easy to blame people for falling to pessimism. I do it all the time, it's not difficult at all! (Sometimes I kick myself for it!)
If the fighter spends feats to get necessary class options, he'll be given extra feats - assuming he has anything else he needs to spend feats on. Maybe feats are just going to be 'the currency with which classes purchase class options'. That seems unlikely to me, but less unlikely than 'Fighters have to purchase their competence when no other class does, and they don't get extra currency to do it'.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 12:14PM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I'll believe it when I see it. WOTC has a long history of non kept promises. I hope they'll be in. The more I read, the more I think they got the message that a lot of people want something other to do with our martial heroes than swing a weapon each and every round. (and switching weapons don't count :p), but are not doing anything about it. They keep saying "some people want a very simple class for the fighters". I dunno. I never saw them acknowledge that some people also want more "advanced" fighters.
You just contradicted yourself with those two sentences. Look, we can either take what they say at face value and assume that there are going to be the option for maneuvers/powers, or we can completely ignore what they say and make baseless assumptions. Like, for instance, they're not doing what they're actaully saying--they're actually taking the worst elements of Rifts, Shadowrun, Champions and tacking them on to the basic framework of FATAL.
The solution to that could be to create a very simple class, i dunno call it 'the peasant hero', give him a wepon and he'll swing eachr round, and a men at arm class with more advanced powers/manoevers...
Or you cound just build a single class that has the option to do either.
Sorry. English is not my first language. Let me try to rephrase that.
I was saying that, while there is a lot of talk about wanting a more complex fighter than just a weapon swinger, we have yet to see a real exemple on how they plan to do it. WOTC keeps saying instead that people want a basic fighter. I believe, from what I read on the forum and blog, that the line is pretty blurry there. Yeah, there is people wanting a simple class, people wanting a more complex class (I am from this opinion). They keep pushing that people want the fighter to be simple. And I have yet to see a real acknowlegment to the crowd of people wanting it more complex, except vague promises, and side notes.
Don't get me wrong, I'll give 5e a clear chance to win me over. I do love every edition of d&d even if 4th is, for the moment, my favorite. (for the ease for the dm to develop encounters, and the balancing it introduced).
I won't judge the product until it's complete and I have read it cover to cover. And played a few months. It' s just that I'm a bit circonspect when I see them focusing on something I, and quite a few other feel wrong.
I may be wrong, and if I am, I'll be the first to say it 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 1:50PM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I'll say the fighter is going to decide the game for a lot more people than the wizard does. As many as want a fighter with super powers others want a more traditional fighter. So if they are going to hit the sweet spot they are going to have to find a solution that satisfies both sides.
As for overall structure. Abandoning the traditional D&D class structures is what got them in trouble with 4e in the first place. I think they should find ways to achieving "some" of the goals of 4e without having to change those fundamental structures. It seems a commonsense business decision to me.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 2:27PM
#176
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
The baseline chassis are the problem for me; from the impressions I'm getting, they're leaning too far into building classes on the basis of tradition. Hardly seems of a designe structure that can be easily modded into something I don't loathe.
Why, if tradition is the less complex option (and there are many people want something more traditional), do you have a problem with it being the baseline? It's the fiddly options that are going to require more care to address and balance. If baseline martial characters can be brought into parity with casters, this is the stage to do it.
As much as I despise traditionalism, I agree.
I bring up my virulent hatred of tradionalism because it's signifigent, I think, that we agree on this, in spite of such different points of view.
In the case of DnD, the tradional form of classes is also simpler. A simpler core game is good. The fact that they plan to balance the classes in that simpler core game is fantastic.
Never said anything about simplicity.
What's worrying me is the seemingly wildly different subsystems the baseline classes are being built under, for which I blame the appeal to tradition if it's true. I'm going to hold serious doubts as to whether the devs can build a balanced game, module or no, should that be the case.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 4:19PM
#177
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
]
That wasn't what I meant, actually. The rogue goes from competing with the fighter, to being well over double the fighter's damage, with a crit. The fighter does large damage with a crit, but the rogue already does large damage, just from sneak attack. But sneak attack is balanced against the assumption that rogues don't do much damage outside of it. It is trivial to make that a false assumption, making rogues broken in terms of damage when they're built for crits, by giving them all of the damage the fighter is getting, and then xd6 that was meant to balance the rogue not getting that damage.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that rogues and fighters are doing comparable damage with normal swings. They are not. A fighter does MUCH more damage with a normal swing than a rogue would. When a fighter is doing 40+ points of damage without critting, the rogue needs to have his sneak attack roll well to even match it. When both then crit, the rogue adds piddly damage and now the fighter is doing 80+ AND the fighter hits more often and swings more often.
A high strength rogue can even use the same weapons as the fighter, IIRC. Rogues also, IIRC, have easier access to prestige classes that benefit greatly from crits.
Provided the rogue spends a feat to be able to do so or multi-classes into a martial class to get the ability to use non-simple weapons. Also, fighters will have a ton more feats to be able to do more damage with. Rogues just can't compete.
I also once built a rogue/swashbuckler/duelist that dished out so much damage with a rapier while still having insane skill points that, since there were no full casters in that game, he basically made the other characters moot in the damage and skill sectors of the game.
Rogues are combat beasts.
I agree. But fighters are even beastier if you build them well.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 4:21PM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
How do you know the fighter doesn't get extra feats to compensate? Are you assuming the worst for the fun of it?
You're right. We don't know that the fighter doesn't get extra feats to compensate for having to buy good options. I'm also hoping that they do get extra feats for this purpose. However, all we know is what the devs tell us. If they say the options come from spending feats, then decline to tell us the fighter gets extra feats to compensate (they had a perfectly good moment in the chat to tell us just that), and they make a horrible joke about the fighter being reduced to a tea caddy (I do believe it was just a joke, albeit a bad one, that was in very poor taste, and that they knew would cause controversy on the forums), it's hard to blame people for falling to pessimism.
They also said that the pretty much next to nothing we know so far is in constant flux and changing. I think pessimism at this point is extremely premature.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 4:25PM
#179
|
|
|
I find it very easy to blame people for falling to pessimism. I do it all the time, it's not difficult at all! (Sometimes I kick myself for it!)
If the fighter spends feats to get necessary class options, he'll be given extra feats - assuming he has anything else he needs to spend feats on. Maybe feats are just going to be 'the currency with which classes purchase class options'. That seems unlikely to me, but less unlikely than 'Fighters have to purchase their competence when no other class does, and they don't get extra currency to do it'.
edit. wrong post. hang on...
ok, what I meant to say was, "Yup. There's no reason to freak about fighters right now."
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 19, 2012 - 4:27PM
#180
|
|
|
]
That wasn't what I meant, actually. The rogue goes from competing with the fighter, to being well over double the fighter's damage, with a crit. The fighter does large damage with a crit, but the rogue already does large damage, just from sneak attack. But sneak attack is balanced against the assumption that rogues don't do much damage outside of it. It is trivial to make that a false assumption, making rogues broken in terms of damage when they're built for crits, by giving them all of the damage the fighter is getting, and then xd6 that was meant to balance the rogue not getting that damage.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that rogues and fighters are doing comparable damage with normal swings. They are not. A fighter does MUCH more damage with a normal swing than a rogue would. When a fighter is doing 40+ points of damage without critting, the rogue needs to have his sneak attack roll well to even match it. When both then crit, the rogue adds piddly damage and now the fighter is doing 80+ AND the fighter hits more often and swings more often.
A high strength rogue can even use the same weapons as the fighter, IIRC. Rogues also, IIRC, have easier access to prestige classes that benefit greatly from crits.
Provided the rogue spends a feat to be able to do so or multi-classes into a martial class to get the ability to use non-simple weapons. Also, fighters will have a ton more feats to be able to do more damage with. Rogues just can't compete.
I also once built a rogue/swashbuckler/duelist that dished out so much damage with a rapier while still having insane skill points that, since there were no full casters in that game, he basically made the other characters moot in the damage and skill sectors of the game.
Rogues are combat beasts.
I agree. But fighters are even beastier if you build them well.
There's actually not much difference between a damge rogue and a fighter, in base damage per hit. The only major difference, since both can be built to hit trivially, is number of attacks per turn. A rogue that attacks with str and uses two weapon fighting will out damage the fighter. crit or no crit.
And if you agree that rogues are combat beasts, then there was never any point in you responding to me on this topic, since I spoke in opposition to the claim that rogues aren't very good at combat before 4e.
I've never seen a fighter out damage a rogue in a group of optimizers. not once. I've often seen them be gimli and legolas close, with the rogue still having out of combat utility, though.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
