|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:27PM
#1
|
|
|
So in the Escapist Expo James Wyatt had an interview. I haven't seen any threads specifically about this interview (if they are there, sorry for the duplicate topic), but one point here particularly irked me. He said basically "We don't want the Fighter to have as many options as the Wizard because "it's magic". It's a world full of magic and magic is the stuff that can do all this stuff...over the life of the edition, maybe there will be as many Fighter maneuvers as there will be Wizard spells at launch." Seriously, this is the sort of thing that alienates players like me who want Fighters and Wizards on equal footing. Vertical power is not enough. Options, both in and out of combat, are necessary to compete. Telling us up front the Fighter is going to get fewer options, and Wizards get more options because "magic" is basically telling anyone who wants a Fighter with a real breadth of options to go take a long walk off a short pier. Seriously, saying a Fighter after years of splat book support might have access to as many abilities as a Wizard has in core at launch is downright insulting. I can only hope this is a point they backtread on, and very quickly. Because this current design concept runs directly counter to the idea of wanting to make a game that can please all players.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:36PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I would honestly expect fewer options for the fighter-types, just because it's... just... harder to come up with lots and lots and lots of different options for that kind of stuff, than it is to come up with "magic can do anything, ever, at all" spell ideas.
I mean, I don't like the attitude toward Fighter options (and I'm going from what you said here), but I think the reality is that it may just be too much harder for them.
*shrug*
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:37PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
When is 13th Age due?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:46PM
#4
|
|
|
But number of choices is not what matters, rather the nature of those choices.
Also CS is more multiplicative in its use and application than spells.
You can possibly string together multiple CS moves into a single round. Every combination of such CS abilities constitute a different move.
Also, spells are much more dependant of variable effects than fighter attacks, since the attacks can more easily be shaped by the context.
This was seen very clearly when some players in out 4e group made the new Essentials fighter, that almost exclusively uses basic attack. The roleplaying and variation in attacks skyrocketed. Suddenly all kinds of interesting attacks started to happen, and not just the same boring powers over and over.
"Bah, I backhand the orc at the door with the mace!" - Basic attack
"I lunge!!" - Basic attack
"I shove the sword into its mouth!" - Basic attack
There just needs to be more spells to measure up both in fun and combinatory effect, because magic missile or fireball is just much more defined than a vague attack of some kind.
Then there is also that thing about magic.
Everything does not have to be equal. To say the fighters does not have the variety of a magic user does not screw fighters over, it just makes magic more like magic.
As the spells and CS works right now, fighters are far ahead when it comes to real round to round options (note that wizards do not have the real option to cast every memorized spell at any round, their choices are much more limited)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:48PM
#5
|
|
|
I would honestly expect fewer options for the fighter-types, just because it's... just... harder to come up with lots and lots and lots of different options for that kind of stuff, than it is to come up with "magic can do anything, ever, at all" spell ideas.
I mean, I don't like the attitude toward Fighter options (and I'm going from what you said here), but I think the reality is that it may just be too much harder for them.
*shrug*
The attitude regarding it really is the worst thing. Not "We can't really think of enough options that won't alienate the other half of the player base, expect to see optional quasi-magical martially geared classes you can use to get more options while playing a martially focused character", which would be almost reasonable though still disappointing. But no, his explanation was literally that the Wizard gets more spells because it's magic. That's not something I made up or am exagerating, it's literally what he said, and the fact that that is the mindset and attitude of the developers at the moment blows my mind.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 4:59PM
#6
|
|
|
But number of choices is not what matters, rather the nature of those choices.
Also CS is more multiplicative in its use and application than spells.
You can possibly string together multiple CS moves into a single round. Every combination of such CS abilities constitute a different move.
Also, spells are much more dependant of variable effects than fighter attacks, since the attacks can more easily be shaped by the context.
This was seen very clearly when some players in out 4e group made the new Essentials fighter, that almost exclusively uses basic attack. The roleplaying and variation in attacks skyrocketed. Suddenly all kinds of interesting attacks started to happen, and not just the same boring powers over and over.
"Bah, I backhand the orc at the door with the mace!" - Basic attack
"I lunge!!" - Basic attack
"I shove the sword into its mouth!" - Basic attack
There just needs to be more spells to measure up both in fun and combinatory effect, because magic missile or fireball is just much more defined than a vague attack of some kind.
Then there is also that thing about magic.
Everything does not have to be equal. To say the fighters does not have the variety of a magic user does not screw fighters over, it just makes magic more like magic.
As the spells and CS works right now, fighters are far ahead when it comes to real round to round options (note that wizards do not have the real option to cast every memorized spell at any round, their choices are much more limited)
Yet the wizards have infinitely more options day to day. Seriously, I did the math a few weeks back, and Wizards at the start of the day have literally millions of options right now at only level 5, as to what they will prepare each day. Even if you take all of the Fighter's possible options each round and factor it out for each combat round of the day, the wizard has exponentially more options before you consider his actual in combat ability usage.
Also nothing you said addresses that martial characters have practically no options out of combat. The skill system in the game is practically non-existent, and we already see plenty of spells available that completely subvert the need for skills.
As for removing options increasing roleplaying, that's a false dichotemy. If you can't think of how to describe your action because you are using an ability with that action you aren't trying hard enough. Conversely, if you do think it is necessary to strip things down to the bare minimum to allow the greatest amount of freedom, the logical counterpoint to that is to also strip the casters down to that same level. Don't give them full defined effects like Fireball and Magic Missile. You want to cast charm person? Make a charisma check against their wisdom. Have a basic spell damage and let the casters cast damage dealing spells based on that, and describe it as they wish. Make casters have to improvise everything as well.
Giving one subset of classes a fully fleshed out system with lots of individual clearly defined options and another class far fewer options to encourage roleplaying makes more sense. If you genuinely believe that improvisation allows for better roleplaying you should have spellcasters reduced to the bare minimum so they can improvise as well.
And for your last point, magic does not need more effects to be like magic. That is the exact attitude I have a problem with.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 5:00PM
#7
|
|
|
But no, his explanation was literally that the Wizard gets more spells because it's magic. That's not something I made up or am exagerating, it's literally what he said, and the fact that that is the mindset and attitude of the developers at the moment blows my mind.
Im sorry if it feels condescending if I say so, but I think you are overreacting here, and putting the wrong emotional content on something not intended that way.
Their intention is not to make fighters less fun than wizards! It just isn't.
More spells/CS abilities are not neccessary a good thing. Some people are talking about decision paralysis. I can just imagine the decision paralysis of a fighter with 4 CS dice and 100 abilities to choose from each round.. it just would not work.
Also, CS abilities are purely mechanical. Spells are not.
These fictional spells: "Ice shard - make a magical attack to deal 3d6 frost damage" and "Flame bolt - make a magical attack to deal 3d6 fire damage" just are not comparable to two CS abilities that each constitute a mechanic.
And magic is magic, if it does not feel like magic, then it is not magic.
Conversely fighter abilities must feel like fighter abilities, they don't if there is hundreds of convoluted things to choose from.
I compete in Kendo. The martial art in its entirety probably contains less than five CS moves.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 5:03PM
#8
|
|
|
Given the nature of CS, I think Sesdun has a point - Fighters have options that go beyond the number of spells they have, since they can mix-and-match abilities to create new combinations. This means that the total number of Fighter Maneuvers is less important than how distinct the maneuvers are, and how well they synergize (HA! I'm actually using the word in the right context!). My personal thinking is that the Fighter probably wants to end up with in addition to the starting three, about 10-12 maneuvers, with 3-5 of the total being conditional maneuvers like Glancing Blow or Riposte.
10 abilities to choose from as your go-to active abilities on a round-to-round basis would avoid analysis paralysis, while still maintaining distinctiveness between each of the maneuvers. And the number of combinations is enormous, when you consider how the dice pool and the ability to apportion dice across multiple maneuvers adds complexity.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 5:05PM
#9
|
|
|
Also nothing you said addresses that martial characters have practically no options out of combat. The skill system in the game is practically non-existent, and we already see plenty of spells available that completely subvert the need for skills.
This I'm more worried about, although I think it's less true for Rogues than for Fighters atm.
Fighters need distinctive and engaging options in Exploration and Interaction.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 21, 2012 - 5:19PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Suddenly all kinds of interesting attacks started to happen, and not just the same boring powers over and over.
Basic attack
Basic attack
Basic attack
Look 3 repeats of a boring power.... Any ability is subject to descriptive variation.
|
|
|
