|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 12:58PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2011
|
While overall I like the way this all sounds as a bundle, im a little dubious of high level play because it has never panned out in my eyes the way they have stated they wanted it.
3e had issues with overabundance of power which made the game awful depending on your gaming group (and I have had some bad luck in that avenue) and left some players feel left out.
4e was just... eugh... at high levels. It was nigh on the same as low levels but with more dice, which is fun every now and then, not on every turn. And thus far 4e is my favourite edition, up to about level 13.
I don't think I ever played a high level campaign in 2e but I heard the usual murmurings about imbalance (which I know will always happen so im not counting that as a negative).
Basically im reserved till I see empirical proof of this working, but as for the concept, I'm right behind WotC wishing this works.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:03PM
#12
|
|
|
@thecasualoblivion The point of #2 is that the mechanical expression of a PC and the narrative expression have been divorced. Level one just means goblinslayer. Whether you are a Diabloesqe necromancer trained many years in the jungle or a 1st year student from a magic school matters not. Level 1 means your wizard can take 2 hits best from a mundane commoner wielding a dagger.
No, it doesn't.
If the system treats your PC as a doormat, its a doormat. No amount of the setting calling your PC a hero will change that. If the mechanics make your PC feel like a red shirt, no amount of fluff will make it not so.
Fluff needs to reflect the mechanics.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:09PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
@tco
The mechanics does match a lot of the more reasonable fluff.
At level 1 you are not the hero unless the villain is a mere goblin and the people and guards are 1hp smucks.
But if the villain is a 5d6 fireball slinging level 7 mage and the town guard are level 3 fighters in this setting, your level 1 fighter is a fresh recruit.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:19PM
#14
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I agree with Orzel. The answer is tellign you exactly how a DM can use the mechanics to create a campaign where the adventurers are raw recruits (the goblins are minions of the villain and the town guardsmen are all 1st-3rd level fighters), or the adventurers are bad-ass heroes (a goblin is the villain and the guardsmen are all 1 hp cannon fodder).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:32PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 2:52PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
On the one hand I'm happy to see them firmly establish a starting 'power level'. Unfortunately it's not the one I wish they would have picked. Still, if they come out with an optional rules module that can deal with 'zero level' I suppose it's the best I can hope for. Could definitely have been MUCH worse.
The REAL problem is their continued talking like Backgrounds solve anything. They don't. They're an OPTIONAL system which many of us won't be touching under any circumstances, so you can't shift ANY required component of the game under that modular umbrella. It MUST be its own, fully self-contained module.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 3:29PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
On the one hand I'm happy to see them firmly establish a starting 'power level'. Unfortunately it's not the one I wish they would have picked. Still, if they come out with an optional rules module that can deal with 'zero level' I suppose it's the best I can hope for. Could definitely have been MUCH worse.
The REAL problem is their continued talking like Backgrounds solve anything. They don't. They're an OPTIONAL system which many of us won't be touching under any circumstances, so you can't shift ANY required component of the game under that modular umbrella. It MUST be its own, fully self-contained module.
If you feel it solves an inherent problem to the game why don't you use it. Yeah it is optional but it solves a problem you see within the system. So you use the option. I don't see a problem here at all. You see a problem in the system they have provided a solution the solution is optional you use the option to solve the problem you see within the system. Refusing to touch it even though it provides a solution to your problem is just undue stubborness. That isn't their problem at all.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 4:06PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
@thecasualoblivion The point of #2 is that the mechanical expression of a PC and the narrative expression have been divorced. Level one just means goblinslayer. Whether you are a Diabloesqe necromancer trained many years in the jungle or a 1st year student from a magic school matters not. Level 1 means your wizard can take 2 hits best from a mundane commoner wielding a dagger.
No, it doesn't.
If the system treats your PC as a doormat, its a doormat. No amount of the setting calling your PC a hero will change that. If the mechanics make your PC feel like a red shirt, no amount of fluff will make it not so.
Fluff needs to reflect the mechanics.
I guess part of it is that the 'test for heroic protagonist' isn't just being a little more bad-ass than the local militia. It's being set up to get all the way through a story. Your 1d10 hp AD&D PC was prettymuch the 'red shirt,' you're talking about. He died pretty easily, and had little chance of not staying dead. Getting to 2nd level was a matter of luck and paranoia. By 9th level, he could stand up to a lot of punishment, save vs all sorts of horrible things most of the time, and likely get raised by his buddies if his luck ran out. But he also might roll a 1 on a save or touch the wrong cursed magic item and be "irrevocably slain, Resurection, Wish and the like notwithstanding." Luck and paranoia still played a big part.
3e characters achieved protagonist-like durrability earlier, and 4e characters started with it.
Maybe the crux of the question is "at what level should the player start thinking about naming his character ?"
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 4:23PM
#19
|
|
|
@thecasualoblivion The point of #2 is that the mechanical expression of a PC and the narrative expression have been divorced. Level one just means goblinslayer. Whether you are a Diabloesqe necromancer trained many years in the jungle or a 1st year student from a magic school matters not. Level 1 means your wizard can take 2 hits best from a mundane commoner wielding a dagger.
No, it doesn't.
If the system treats your PC as a doormat, its a doormat. No amount of the setting calling your PC a hero will change that. If the mechanics make your PC feel like a red shirt, no amount of fluff will make it not so.
Fluff needs to reflect the mechanics.
I guess part of it is that the 'test for heroic protagonist' isn't just being a little more bad-ass than the local militia. It's being set up to get all the way through a story. Your 1d10 hp AD&D PC was prettymuch the 'red shirt,' you're talking about. He died pretty easily, and had little chance of not staying dead. Getting to 2nd level was a matter of luck and paranoia. By 9th level, he could stand up to a lot of punishment, save vs all sorts of horrible things most of the time, and likely get raised by his buddies if his luck ran out. But he also might roll a 1 on a save or touch the wrong cursed magic item and be "irrevocably slain, Resurection, Wish and the like notwithstanding." Luck and paranoia still played a big part.
3e characters achieved protagonist-like durrability earlier, and 4e characters started with it.
Maybe the crux of the question is "at what level should the player start thinking about naming his character ?"
This.
The 'test for heroic protagonist' is being able to take a decent number of hits and having robust abilities to overcome challenges, the second of which level 1 PCs in pre-4E D&D also tended to lack and 5E is looking to go back to that. It isn't determined by fluff, and setting fluff is not a replacement for it.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 4:29PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
On the one hand I'm happy to see them firmly establish a starting 'power level'. Unfortunately it's not the one I wish they would have picked. Still, if they come out with an optional rules module that can deal with 'zero level' I suppose it's the best I can hope for. Could definitely have been MUCH worse.
The REAL problem is their continued talking like Backgrounds solve anything. They don't. They're an OPTIONAL system which many of us won't be touching under any circumstances, so you can't shift ANY required component of the game under that modular umbrella. It MUST be its own, fully self-contained module.
If you feel it solves an inherent problem to the game why don't you use it. Yeah it is optional but it solves a problem you see within the system. So you use the option. I don't see a problem here at all. You see a problem in the system they have provided a solution the solution is optional you use the option to solve the problem you see within the system. Refusing to touch it even though it provides a solution to your problem is just undue stubborness. That isn't their problem at all.
No, using it just breaks other things...in this case the pre-3rd experience and the nature of a class-based system. They have said since day 1 that backgrounds, themes, etc will all be optional. You can't then make them the solution to a bunch of different problems because it reduces (or outright removes) the possibility of them remaining optional. It's like inflicting someone with a disease through the use of a product, then putting the cure in a lion's den and telling everyone that you've supplied a solution to any problems their product may have caused. Just because it's a solution doesn't mean it's viable.
My problem isn't with this one issue (power level) but with the default answer we're getting to EVERY situation: "Backgrounds solve it". They don't, and even if they did, they're not supposed to. Every issue/problem needs a separate modular answer, not all of them lumped into one giant monstrous module.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
