Community

Jul 18, 2012 -- 3:31PM, thespaceinvader wrote:

My point is that for one character archetype to have its abilities hard-coded into the game, and the other to have to beg for them, is inherently and annoyingly imbalanced.

If the Fighter has to improvise swinging on a chandelier and dropping on the head of the enemy, why DOESN'T the Wizard have to improvise casting his fireball?

More to the point, perhaps, if the Fighter has to improvise everything, why on earth would I buy the book that tells me that?

I know where you were going, but the counterpoint is strong.  Improvisation is quite powerful in the hands of someone who is imaginative and has a decent-to-good DM with some guidelines.  You (I think) recognized immediately where I was going with the fireball spell; for all the complaining about improvised fighters, removing the restrictions on magic -- and that's exactly what the codifications are for -- do keep it weaker than it could be (or stronger in the case of a terrible DM).

But not too many people are saying/have said that they don't want to give the fighter -anything-; that's a bunk argument.  MM has already said the fighter is still under construction, so -anyone- pulling -anything- about the fighter right now is literally just making stuff up.  We can make guesses and assumptions about themes, but we know in part and guess in part.  It's the long wait that's hurting everyone the most.  For myself, I'd start by using the Pathfinder Combat Maneuver mechanic.  Simple, elegant, very powerful.  Add in guidelines for generic situations (situational modifiers are a good thing!) in improvisation, then focus on teaching DM's how to properly run a game (perhaps with a section on how to 'properly' run a game for each primary style, assuming 'storyteller', 'powergamer', and 'tactician').  A comprehensive approach to a comprehensive problem.

Edit: What should the dc be to swing on a chandelier?  At what foot?  From what leaping distance?  In what armor?  Fill me out a quick, simple chart that shows those three simple derivations, say at all armor levels (L/M/H) and 5' intervals in both height of the chandelier above the characters head and leaping distance.  Bonus points for adding in running room required, clearance room, or any of the like.

Jul 18, 2012 -- 3:31PM, thespaceinvader wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 3:19PM, anjelika wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 3:14PM, thespaceinvader wrote:

Jul 18, 2012 -- 3:10PM, Swede1985 wrote:

Do you need a "Swing on Chandlier" rule? 

No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.

You want to give me shapeable fireballs with no hardcoded maximum ranges?

Well...if you insist...

My point is that for one character archetype to have its abilities hard-coded into the game, and the other to have to beg for them, is inherently and annoyingly imbalanced.

If the Fighter has to improvise swinging on a chandelier and dropping on the head of the enemy, why DOESN'T the Wizard have to improvise casting his fireball?

More to the point, perhaps, if the Fighter has to improvise everything, why on earth would I buy the book that tells me that?

A wizard isn't going to be swining on chandliers. He's not going to be taunting a room full of orcs to make sure they attack him instead of his more vunlerable allies. You and the DM are supposed to be playing TOGETHER, right? There are some things that the fighter can DO that other classes probably shoudn't try, including jumping on the heads of enemies, disarming foes, pushing ogres into lava pits...whatever. Wizards have a hard-set list of spells with range and damage built into them, but that doesn't keep them from using their spells to...I dunno, shrink a door so it breaks off it's hinges, casting light on someone's eyeballs, using shocking grasp to electrify a sword. There's a certain amount of freedom with each. If a DM tells you, "No, you can't do that cause I think it's stupid and I don't want you too," that means you have a piss poor DM. 

But I really just wanted a list of fighter specific abilities that would be cool to see. I'm not here to talk about "RP Philosophy" or "Edition Wars". 

What should the DC for a fireball be?  How big?  How bright?  How hot?  For how long?  Bonus points if you include the penalties for lack of oxygen in the atmosphere afterwards, accounting for the char factor in the dead orcs, and the material the floor's made out of.

Improv is very powerful.  But it should be EQUALLY powerful, or not powerful, for everyone.

And, I ain't gonna pay to be told to do it.

If a single original idea survives into D&DN it will be a miracle (7th level cleric spell).

Jul 18, 2012 -- 2:36PM, thestoryteller wrote:

I'm really shocked how hated this playtest is.

I am "very satisfied" as is my entire group.  Literally, the only thing I dislike so far is the existence of daily resources, but that's not a dealbreaker and never has been.  Why is this game fitting us so perfectly, but is evidently just offending everyone else?

In many cases its the group and not the game. The question you have to ask yourself is "Would we have just as much fun playing monopoly, cards, or some other game?"

If the answer is yes, then its not the game its the group and you can make anything fun. At which point I don't really think you can give relevent feedback because you'll answer every question with 'it was fun for us'...