|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 6:21AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Prayer and Bane. That's automatic +3 AC right there for 9 rounds. That bonus alone gives you an auto win for the encounter.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 12:27PM
#12
|
|
|
I'm just glad Lokaire is not in charge of D&D Next.
AOEs would be nerfed to the point of uselessness and there would be no DOTS.
There wouldn't be any shovels and bows otherwise the PCs could dig a hole, conceal it, lure the monsters into the hole and shoot the monsters trapped inside it.
There wouldn't be oil otherwise the PCs might lure the monsters into a room full of it, put it on fire and trap the critters inside it.
There wouldn't be forced movement either otherwise the PCs might push a monster off a cliff.
So far, there is one broken spell in the playtest. That's Hold Person because there is no saving throw. Hold Person + any ranged attack is broken. I really doubt it's going to stay that way. Give the game designers a break.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 12:37PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2010
|
There wouldn't be forced movement either otherwise the PCs might push a monster off a cliff.
Better still would be to just not have cliffs (or any other form of altitude), since falling damage is the ultimate in instant death effects, and we can't have those, right?
And of course, no wizard ever memorized feather fall, because 100% of spell slots go to damage spells.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 1:00PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
yep pretty much.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 1:38PM
#15
|
|
|
we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...
We do?
Well, we could just go the route of 'Target: +Best Mod vs [Ref/Will/Fort] 1/2/3 Wpn + [5/10/15] [Element] DMG / Roll a 9 or better to end' for spells. That would be a thrilling and infallible model which would be so blindingly exciting that I'd have to observe it from my Pathfinder game.
That said, if we are going to go back to using things like saving throws and spells that function as, well, spells then I'd agree that some things were broken in the 3.5 days. The first thing is that Wizards needs to not publish books upon books of spells, because each spell functions as its own mini mechanic so they need to be more properly vetted (Like 'orb' spells that bypassed Spell Resistance). Secondly, there were some combinations that were not done well. Spells that do not require a save typically lend themselves to broken combinations/abuse. And sometimes spells can overlook some mechanics that were intended to balance the effect. An example of that would be Hold Person + Slow. Hold Person allowed you to break it if you took a full round action to do so. Slow, however, prevented a person from taking a full round action and only allowed a standard action. So if you combine the two the balancing effect inherit to Hold Person was bypassed. Now, OTOH, that requires two failed saves to be put in place but I dont think that was considered in original design intent.
I'd trade it all for a little more!
Grognard? Is that French for awesome?
Blocked users: Salla, Titanium Dragon
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 2:36PM
#16
|
|
|
we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...
We do?
Well, we could just go the route of 'Target: +Best Mod vs [Ref/Will/Fort] 1/2/3 Wpn + [5/10/15] [Element] DMG / Roll a 9 or better to end' for spells. That would be a thrilling and infallible model which would be so blindingly exciting that I'd have to observe it from my Pathfinder game.
That said, if we are going to go back to using things like saving throws and spells that function as, well, spells then I'd agree that some things were broken in the 3.5 days. The first thing is that Wizards needs to not publish books upon books of spells, because each spell functions as its own mini mechanic so they need to be more properly vetted (Like 'orb' spells that bypassed Spell Resistance). Secondly, there were some combinations that were not done well. Spells that do not require a save typically lend themselves to broken combinations/abuse. And sometimes spells can overlook some mechanics that were intended to balance the effect. An example of that would be Hold Person + Slow. Hold Person allowed you to break it if you took a full round action to do so. Slow, however, prevented a person from taking a full round action and only allowed a standard action. So if you combine the two the balancing effect inherit to Hold Person was bypassed. Now, OTOH, that requires two failed saves to be put in place but I dont think that was considered in original design intent.
The worst was stuff like Grease that required a balance check that could never be made by anyone with a heavy armor. Black Tentacles with the grab mechanics was pretty bad too. Forcecage with no saving throw was also horrific. Another problem specific to 3rd edition was that you could always target your opponent's weak saving throw for a 75% (or more) chance of success.
I understand Lokaire's fear of having spells that can lock down a target with very little chance of breaking the effect. But this thread is rediculous.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 3:35PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Utility:
Clairvoyance / Scrying + Teleport without Error
Combat:
Mass Hold Person/Monster + Meteor Swarm
Anything:
Contact other Plane / Limited Wish / Wish + Wish
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 3:41PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2012
|
I'm just glad Lokaire is not in charge of D&D Next.
AOEs would be nerfed to the point of uselessness and there would be no DOTS.
There wouldn't be any shovels and bows otherwise the PCs could dig a hole, conceal it, lure the monsters into the hole and shoot the monsters trapped inside it.
There wouldn't be oil otherwise the PCs might lure the monsters into a room full of it, put it on fire and trap the critters inside it.
There wouldn't be forced movement either otherwise the PCs might push a monster off a cliff.
So far, there is one broken spell in the playtest. That's Hold Person because there is no saving throw. Hold Person + any ranged attack is broken. I really doubt it's going to stay that way. Give the game designers a break.
LOL! Agreed.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 3:42PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2012
|
we want to prevent the synergies of two spells together from making the Wizard put every other class to shame...
We do?
Well, we could just go the route of 'Target: +Best Mod vs [Ref/Will/Fort] 1/2/3 Wpn + [5/10/15] [Element] DMG / Roll a 9 or better to end' for spells. That would be a thrilling and infallible model which would be so blindingly exciting that I'd have to observe it from my Pathfinder game.
That said, if we are going to go back to using things like saving throws and spells that function as, well, spells then I'd agree that some things were broken in the 3.5 days. The first thing is that Wizards needs to not publish books upon books of spells, because each spell functions as its own mini mechanic so they need to be more properly vetted (Like 'orb' spells that bypassed Spell Resistance). Secondly, there were some combinations that were not done well. Spells that do not require a save typically lend themselves to broken combinations/abuse. And sometimes spells can overlook some mechanics that were intended to balance the effect. An example of that would be Hold Person + Slow. Hold Person allowed you to break it if you took a full round action to do so. Slow, however, prevented a person from taking a full round action and only allowed a standard action. So if you combine the two the balancing effect inherit to Hold Person was bypassed. Now, OTOH, that requires two failed saves to be put in place but I dont think that was considered in original design intent.
The worst was stuff like Grease that required a balance check that could never be made by anyone with a heavy armor. Black Tentacles with the grab mechanics was pretty bad too. Forcecage with no saving throw was also horrific. Another problem specific to 3rd edition was that you could always target your opponent's weak saving throw for a 75% (or more) chance of success.
I understand Lokaire's fear of having spells that can lock down a target with very little chance of breaking the effect. But this thread is rediculous.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 4:00PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Why would we want to prevent those combinations altogether? Those would simply be examples of creative and strategic players being innovative with their attacks.
Some of us don't want to do that - rewarding creative and strategic players is a good thing. All this does is punish players for daring to play a spellcaster.
That's not the answer - the answer may well be (and likely is) a combination of bringing the casters down a bit while also bringing the martial characters up into a happy medium. The answer is not, in my opinion, punishing players for choosing any particular class which fits their character concept. That is quite poor game design and/or DM'ing, I think.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
