|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 6:55PM
#51
|
|
|
I prefer to have (I typically play melee combatants):
1: Hit something
2: Hit something harder
3: Hit something even harder than that on a limited basis
4: splash damage on 'weaker' or 'mook' monsters
5: a decent ranged attack for emergencies.
6: Hit something and apply a condition (prone, push, immobilize).
7: limited ability to combine the above.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 14, 2012 - 9:10PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Based on what mmo's I've enjoyed playing, I'd say I'm happiest with three to five reliable maneuvers and one or two "oh****" buttons with huge cooldowns.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 1:52AM
#53
|
|
|
It is the same for everything. If a DM decides magic is no longer prevelant and you must search for musty tomes to find any spells, that is great. If he decides that magic is so prevalent that you can walk to ye-ol-magic store, thats great. If he wants to decide how spells interact with the world, thats great. What is not great is when a player has a written ability that is so specific that it tells the player how the DM is supposed to react when they use that ability.
I take it damage isn't a specific in this regard, as it's still up to the DM how the NPC reacts to the damage... other than, of course, the NPC dying if that damage is sufficient.
Example: A spell or effect that makes the target wet itself and whimper in terror would be considered bad, whereas a spell or effect that causes fear in the target would be acceptable as how the target reacts to the fear is still in the DM hands.
Do I understand your aim clearly?
The players job is to live in the world crafted by the DM and role play in that game world. The DM's job is to provide those details and plots for the player. Out side of basic game mechanics any other mechanic only serves to restrict one side or the other in their given role in the partnership of the game. When eithor one starts to force the other via mechanics to not do their task in that partnership there is a problem. If a player ignors the world and setting provided by the DM then the game breaks down. If the DM tells the player how to react to a situation the game breaks down. If a player tells the DM what the effect of their attack is the game breakes down. If the DM tells the player which target they must attack the game breaks down.
I think I have a grasp on your game-table philosophy, thank you.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 2:51AM
#54
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
I want the ability to be able to improv my actions when need be. I don't want to be limited to just what my PC has on it's character sheet.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 15, 2012 - 5:32AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
I like lots of options, more options the better. If I'm playing a Fighter, for example, I want to have some mechanical weight to perform stunts. This is so that I can adjucate how effective my options are. If I know that it'll be nigh impossible to shove an ogre off a cliff (mechanically speaking) then I'm probably not going to try that. And though off the cuff can be fun and interesting, it leaves too much up to each individuals interpretation. With a more hard-coded approach to actions (in combat mostly) makes for a better game IMO because everyone's on the same page. This doesn't mean that improv is bad or anyrhing and I use it quite frequently, it just gives a player and DM a better understading where these types of actions fall in application to the overall world.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 17, 2012 - 7:38PM
#56
|
|
|
Fighters get maneuvers, sorcerers and warlocks get spells known, clerics get some kind of swapable "known spell" list, wizard gets fire and forget spells and rogues get nothing. Each of these are options that each of these classes can chose from each round.
At level 1, all classes get somewhere between 3 and 5ish cool moves to do in combat at level 1. At level 5, it's more like 7-11. I don't know about you guys, but I'm very happy with these figures. This for me is the right amount of options at these levels. You start with small and you rapidely learn more. Well except the rogue, but that one is clearly not finished.
However, if things continue at this rate, fighters will get over 100 maneuvers to pick from each round at level 19 (10 styles each with 10 maneuvers). That's too much, so I assume that the game designers will find some way to slow down how fast you acquire combat options at higher levels.
Since this hopefully hasn't been decided yet, maybe we'll get to choose.
How many (meaningful*) spell slots do you think the wizard should have say at level 10, 15 and 20?
How many spells known do you think is right for a spontaneous caster at level 10, 15 and 20?
How many spells do you think is right for a class that can swap his "known spells" every day like the cleric? At level 10, 15, and 20?
Do you think the rogue should get more than 2 combat options (hide and sneak attack) at level 1?
*By meaningful, I mean that has an actual impact in combat. If your at-will deals 4d4+4 with no miss chance and your Burning Hands still deals 4d4, it's not meaningful. For instance, if a wizard has 40 spell slots but only 20 of them that are better than his at-wills, then the wizard has 20 meaningful options in combat plus at-wills.
I want an infinite number of meaningful options. It's okay if I only get to have 4-8 of them on any one character, but I want the variety to construct my concepts and fighting styles from, and to sculpt to fit my various character personalities.
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:17AM
#57
|
|
|
I don't need mechanically delineated options specifically for battle; I'm known for combat-use of Arcane Lock and Light magic, and I do things like kick people off bridges, throw burning torches, use the bodies of my enemies as poison needle cover, stuff people up chimneys, set halls on fire with lantern oil, and use my Lance of Faith as a gouging implement.
I don't need the rules to list options and how to run each. In such setups, I tend to think of the world as interlocking mechanics with only the stated options as roads, like most card games, instead of a physical place where I can try anything, like a non-electronic role-playing game.
I'm fine with a sword-and-board fighter. The 3e Book of Nine Swords had an intereating idea, but the multiple-paragraph-long maneuvers were trying, and some maneuvers were lesser/greater duplicates. I disliked 4e for similar reasons, as well as the mechanical mentality I felt it engender.
I look forward to playtesting the Combat Superiority fighter; if I had to pick, around 3-4 distinct but general-use abilities I can apply creatively sounds amicable, but until then, I won't know for sure!
|
|
|
