I like the idea of Legacies, and hope it really gets fleshed out well. Between High Level adventuring options and Legacies, I think there is a future in the future of this game.
I like the idea of Legacies, and hope it really gets fleshed out well. Between High Level adventuring options and Legacies, I think there is a future in the future of this game.
I've been running legacies in my campaign for a long time. My PC's got a tavern, then an arena, then a flying arena, and then a small army of followers (who got turned into zombies while they where away).
It would be nice to have ideas like that put in the book. Just don't say things like "a fighter GET'S an army of...". Leave them as suggestions, not rules.
I've been running legacies in my campaign for a long time. My PC's got a tavern, then an arena, then a flying arena, and then a small army of followers (who got turned into zombies while they where away).It would be nice to have ideas like that put
It would be nice to have ideas like that put in the book. Just don't say things like "a fighter GET'S an army of...". Leave them as suggestions, not rules.
I agree, and from what was stated in the article, they are making suggestions on what you can get instead of formulas of what you get.
I agree, and from what was stated in the article, they are making suggestions on what you can get instead of formulas of what you get.
Legacy system Without any followers? Your wish is granted!
Legacy system optional for high levels? Your wish is granted! Expertise Dice Pools For casters' metamagic? No. No wish for you.
Q&A Haiku Time! It's the legacy djinni!:r1: Legacy systemWithout any followers?Your wish is granted!:r2: Legacy systemoptional for high levels?Your wish is granted! :r3: Expertise Dice PoolsFor casters' metamagic?No. No wish for you.
That should cover the worst worries about the Legacy system, though I'm still curious about balance. Getting the balance right so that such non-direct bonuses to characters are significant without be overly powerful when compared to characters who don't develop them is hard.
The metamagic question is fine, but I think it is a little funny also because he could have just said "No." and achived the same thing. And honestly, I don't want expertise dice for meta-magic. I don't think every class has to have a unique game mechanic, but I do think that magic and martial need to feel and work differently.
That should cover the worst worries about the Legacy system, though I'm still curious about balance. Getting the balance right so that such non-direct bonuses to characters are significant without be overly powerful when compared to characters who do
So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle.
Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.
So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle.Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.
Speaking as someone whose's a fan of 4X games, I've got to say I really like what they're saying about the Legacy system right now. What I want to know, though, is if it is limited to Level 10+ characters, or if a party of adventurers who have, say, cleared out all the hostile tribes on the Isle of Dread, allied themselves with all the peaceful tribes, and then declared one of themselves King would also be able to use it at about 6th or 7th level.
Speaking as someone whose's a fan of 4X games, I've got to say I really like what they're saying about the Legacy system right now. What I want to know, though, is if it is limited to Level 10+ characters, or if a party of adventurers who have, say,
So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle. Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.
Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.
Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.
That should cover the worst worries about the Legacy system, though I'm still curious about balance. Getting the balance right so that such non-direct bonuses to characters are significant without be overly powerful when compared to characters who don't develop them is hard.
The metamagic question is fine, but I think it is a little funny also because he could have just said "No." and achived the same thing. And honestly, I don't want expertise dice for meta-magic. I don't think every class has to have a unique game mechanic, but I do think that magic and martial need to feel and work differently.
I would still like to see a expertise caster.
You deal 1d10 damage as a ranged touch attack. Then you can spend a die to make it a cone, or change the damage type, or to make it a burst (5' per die spent), 2 dice for a scorching ray style split, or just roll them for extra damage.
Granted, it's going to be a completely different set of "maneuvers". So calling it something else like "augment" would be fine, but there's concept room a "build your own at-will" mage.
I would still like to see a expertise caster.You deal 1d10 damage as a ranged touch attack. Then you can spend a die to make it a cone, or change the damage type, or to make it a burst (5' per die spent), 2 dice for a scorching ray style split, or j
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
Haha, exactly.
Though, less ridiculously, I suspect there will be something in there about using the "legacies" to shape the setting for future campaigns. Something most people seem to do anyways, but with an official framework to go with it.
Haha, exactly.Though, less ridiculously, I suspect there will be something in there about using the "legacies" to shape the setting for future campaigns. Something most people seem to do anyways, but with an official framework to go with it.
Granted, it's going to be a completely different set of "maneuvers". So calling it something else like "augment" would be fine, but there's concept room a "build your own at-will" mage.
It isn't the idea of wizards having at-will options that I object to, it is working off the same mechanics as the martial classes I don't want to see. A wizard who could apply so many meta-magic effects to spells per encounter is fine, I just don't want it to feal like I'm playing a martial class with more ranged options. And as much as the entire fluff may be different, if the classes work off the same underlying mechanics they tend to feel the same. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
It isn't the idea of wizards having at-will options that I object to, it is working off the same mechanics as the martial classes I don't want to see. A wizard who could apply so many meta-magic effects to spells per encounter is fine, I just don't w
But it doesn't seem like a system at all. It sounds like it just refers to others systems and give bonuses to it.
"Level 13: Build a small castle, craft a uncommon item, or gain 1d6+2 warriors."
But it doesn't seem like a system at all. It sounds like it just refers to others systems and give bonuses to it."Level 13: Build a small castle, craft a uncommon item, or gain 1d6+2 warriors."
But it doesn't seem like a system at all. It sounds like it just refers to others systems and give bonuses to it. "Level 13: Build a small castle, craft a uncommon item, or gain 1d6+2 warriors."
I doubt it's anything that bland. I think it'd probably be more like Cook-Moldvay DnD's "name" levels, where you can build castles and gain tax-paying followers once you clear the surrounding area of monsters.
I doubt it's anything that bland. I think it'd probably be more like Cook-Moldvay DnD's "name" levels, where you can build castles and gain tax-paying followers once you clear the surrounding area of monsters.
there's concept room a "build your own at-will" mage.
3.5 Warlock. I'd like to see it come back in some form. Not necessarily as an actual Warlock, but that idea. Blast Shape and Eldritch Essences modifying some fundamental ability.
Doesn't have to use XD, and frankly if they're really going down the "XD=martial" route then it shouldn't. But even without XD, there's still concept room for a "build your own at-will" caster.
3.5 Warlock. I'd like to see it come back in some form. Not necessarily as an actual Warlock, but that idea. Blast Shape and Eldritch Essences modifying some fundamental ability.Doesn't have to use XD, and frankly if they're really going down the
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
Probably more along the lines of the legacy items of 3e that grew with your character. The epic fighter can do that, but his son will likely start off with a sword+1.
Probably more along the lines of the legacy items of 3e that grew with your character. The epic fighter can do that, but his son will likely start off with a sword+1.
1. He didn't really address the potential complications of a follower-themed legacy with a non-follower legacy.
2. I would like to see the Legacy system available at any level (yes, even 1st) if it is appropriate for the campaign or setting.
3. I don't want to see XD in magic. As for meta-magic, I like defined ways of casting spells in higher slots to gain certain benefits. And having that capability built into a class (rather than having to "buy" it through feats or specialties).
1. He didn't really address the potential complications of a follower-themed legacy with a non-follower legacy.2. I would like to see the Legacy system available at any level (yes, even 1st) if it is appropriate for the campaign or setting.3. I don't
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
My brother is out usual Dm and all his campaigns ate tied tigether somhow. We did have campaighns that played in the same region but years after a earlyer campaign played out there.
and this gave things that where nice to see we adopted a small village and build out recources there like cleric building his temple. a later campaign played in the same area but about 150 years later, it was nice to see that the vilage had grown to now be one of the major cities of the are.
My brother is out usual Dm and all his campaigns ate tied tigether somhow.We did have campaighns that played in the same region but years after a earlyer campaign played out there. and this gave things that where nice to see we adopted a small villag
Legacy system Without any followers? Your wish is granted!
Legacy system optional for high levels? Your wish is granted! Expertise Dice Pools For casters' metamagic? No. No wish for you.
Haikus always lead to limericks. At least, in my game they do!
The Legacy system seems to hint at each player eventually having a network or coterie of characters; will there be Legacies for those who don't want to manage a stable of characters across several levels and will those options be balanced against the multi-character player?
There's many options you will find And we have several designed It's not just cohorts But all different sorts Of legacies to leave behind
What options for high-level play will be available for those who don't want to use the Legacy system?
Legacies are for the story And not for your inventory There will be options For your adoption To have high-level play glory
Could Expertise Dice be used by spellcasting classes as a way to incorporate meta-magic into D&D Next?
We have spellpower more exact Unlike 3e which was just whack We have the meta Still in the beta So our answer may sound abstract
Haikus always lead to limericks. At least, in my game they do!:r1: The Legacy system seems to hint at each player eventually having a network or coterie of characters; will there be Legacies for those who don't want to manage a stable of characters a
Really am pumped about all this legacy business going on. What seems really cool is that because of the way they are doing it you could likely say hey everyone grab two legacies...you guys are super important. Just seems cool. It seems like offering ideas of what to do in these levels. I mean for most of the games I am in and run once you make it to the level 16 area you should have something going on like the descriptions from all the posts concerning the legacy system. I'm also diggin on the community idea of passing on your weapon, or kingdom, or whatever as a way of maintaining a consisten setting. Or just having your old legacy items showing up as magic items in later campagins. An excellent way to break some dramatic irony on the players that they are in the same campaign setting, and didn't even know it. For those of us that like to run one campaign setting where the player's characters eventually become important members of the world this legacy system is sounding like a bunch of awesome.
Really am pumped about all this legacy business going on. What seems really cool is that because of the way they are doing it you could likely say hey everyone grab two legacies...you guys are super important. Just seems cool. It seems like offeri
Granted, it's going to be a completely different set of "maneuvers". So calling it something else like "augment" would be fine, but there's concept room a "build your own at-will" mage.
It isn't the idea of wizards having at-will options that I object to, it is working off the same mechanics as the martial classes I don't want to see. A wizard who could apply so many meta-magic effects to spells per encounter is fine, I just don't want it to feal like I'm playing a martial class with more ranged options. And as much as the entire fluff may be different, if the classes work off the same underlying mechanics they tend to feel the same.
But i do.
I want something very much like a ranged fighter, but who uses magic intead of a bow.
Granted, i can reflavor my bow to a lightning bolt or some such, but it doesn't quite work without AOE and elemental attacks.
3.5 Warlock. I'd like to see it come back in some form. Not necessarily as an actual Warlock, but that idea. Blast Shape and Eldritch Essences modifying some fundamental ability.
Doesn't have to use XD, and frankly if they're really going down the "XD=martial" route then it shouldn't. But even without XD, there's stillconcept room for a "build your own at-will" caster.
Right. It doesn't have to use XD specificly, but be XD-like.
The 3.5 warlock works alright, though i feel there's room for improvements.
It isn't the idea of wizards having at-will options that I object to, it is working off the same mechanics as the martial classes I don't want to see. A wizard who could apply so many meta-magic effects to spells per encounter is fine, I just don't w
I like what i hear about the Legacy system so far and i look forward to it. Reminds me of Background Trait and how they have story driven benefits, but to a larger scale.
I am glad to hear that the Legacy system is being designed more as a means of increasing a character’s story options. I am all for story creep.
I'd like to see how strong magic ends up before thinking of introducing meta-magic.
I like what i hear about the Legacy system so far and i look forward to it. Reminds me of Background Trait and how they have story driven benefits, but to a larger scale. I am glad to hear that the Legacy system is being designed more as a means of i
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
I dunno; it seems to me more like how Conan wound up conquering Aquilonia and becoming its king, or how PCs could build castles and attract followers in oDnD.
I dunno; it seems to me more like how Conan wound up conquering Aquilonia and becoming its king, or how PCs could build castles and attract followers in oDnD.
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
I dunno; it seems to me more like how Conan wound up conquering Aquilonia and becoming its king, or how PCs could build castles and attract followers in oDnD.
I'm referring to question 3, not 1 or 2.
"Right now, we’re experimenting with expertise dice being the primary expression of the growth of a character’s martial prowess..."
I dunno; it seems to me more like how Conan wound up conquering Aquilonia and becoming its king, or how PCs could build castles and attract followers in oDnD.[/quote]I'm referring to question 3, not 1 or 2."Right now, we’re experimenting with e
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
I dunno; it seems to me more like how Conan wound up conquering Aquilonia and becoming its king, or how PCs could build castles and attract followers in oDnD.
I'm referring to question 3, not 1 or 2.
"Right now, we’re experimenting with expertise dice being the primary expression of the growth of a character’s martial prowess..."
Ah, fair enough. I thought you meant "Epic Destiny".
I dunno; it seems to me more like how Conan wound up conquering Aquilonia and becoming its king, or how PCs could build castles and attract followers in oDnD.[/quote]I'm referring to question 3, not 1 or 2."Right now, we’re experimenting with e
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Yet if you try to give non-casters anything more potent or unique than Parry or Danger sense, then suddenly a lot of people (including, I would guess, you) are going to start crying about Fighters being too magical.
There's just no winning. Either martial classes do nothing but the mundane, which obviously magical classes should be able to do, after all it's just mundane stuff... or martial classes can do extraordinary things, and are too magical. The only thing that will appease a large segment of gamers is to have martial characters be completely useless and redundant, which is something that will drive away the other segment of the playerbase. It is literally a no win situation.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Yet if you try to give non-casters anything more potent or unique than Parry or Danger sense, then suddenly a lot of people (including, I would guess, you) are going to start crying about Fighters being too magical.
There's just no winning. Either martial classes do nothing but the mundane, which obviously magical classes should be able to do, after all it's just mundane stuff... or martial classes can do extraordinary things, and are too magical. The only thing that will appease a large segment of gamers is to have martial characters be completely useless and redundant, which is something that will drive away the other segment of the playerbase. It is literally a no win situation.
I've got no problem with over the top maneuvers for martial classes. I'd actually enjoy it, to be honest. I think TWF and FoB are woefully underpowered, actually. I think most of DDN is tepid in its overall gameplay. Let everyone have the mundane. Let the warriors have Florentine longswords or the ability to smash through stone pillars with wrought iron tetsubo. Let the Monks hit 6 people in a single round. That will provide a nice contrast to "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!", But let everyone have Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will, Parry, Cleave, Danger Sense and the like as long as they're willing to devote a Feat to it.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
Class balance should be, to borrow wrecan's phase, opt-outable. Classes by default should be designed with balance in mind, with throwing in anything that disrupts that balance be up to the player and/or DM.
Classes can't be balanced by a completely optional game mechanic.
Besides, IIRC, magic classes get feats too. SO while Martial characters are spending their feat space just to play catch-up, Magic classes have all their cool toys are base features, AND have a bunch of feats to play with. It's 3.x all over again.
This.Class balance should be, to borrow wrecan's phase, opt-outable. Classes by default should be designed with balance in mind, with throwing in anything that disrupts that balance be up to the player and/or DM.Classes can't be balanced by a complet
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes. The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.
Classes shouldn't be balanced by mundane Feats. Classes shouldn't be balanced by making mundane Feats available to only a select few classes, either. The current design philosophy is forcing an impasse. Something's gotta change. Manuevers need to be overhauled, and Feats need to be expanded. If DMs choose to remove the expanded Feats that is their choice.
Martial classes wouldn't be playing catch up with magic classes. Magic classes IMO want non-magic Feats, especially when they have much fewer spells like they do in DDN.
I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes. The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.Classes shouldn't be balanced by mundane Feats. Classes shouldn't be bala
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.
All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Yet if you try to give non-casters anything more potent or unique than Parry or Danger sense, then suddenly a lot of people (including, I would guess, you) are going to start crying about Fighters being too magical.
There's just no winning. Either martial classes do nothing but the mundane, which obviously magical classes should be able to do, after all it's just mundane stuff... or martial classes can do extraordinary things, and are too magical. The only thing that will appease a large segment of gamers is to have martial characters be completely useless and redundant, which is something that will drive away the other segment of the playerbase. It is literally a no win situation.
I've got no problem with over the top maneuvers for martial classes. I'd actually enjoy it, to be honest. I think TWF and FoB are woefully underpowered, actually. I think most of DDN is tepid in its overall gameplay. Let everyone have the mundane. Let the warriors have Florentine longswords or the ability to smash through stone pillars with wrought iron tetsubo. Let the Monks hit 6 people in a single round. That will provide a nice contrast to "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!", But let everyone have Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will, Parry, Cleave, Danger Sense and the like as long as they're willing to devote a Feat to it.
I'm not going to argue the TWF stuff; there's not enough released to make a determination. However, if you look at FoB and DS without regard for the extra attack for a fighter you get:
These calculations assume a level 10 character with a +5 attribute damage. Since the assumption is a level 10 character, the 6d6 critical damage die is calculated into the final value. I don't think the FoB as a power is the problem. It's the extra attack of the fighter that puts the fighter over the top. Here are the DPR stats for the same fighter with an extra attack:
At 65% - 23.45 At 50% - 18.125 at 35% - 12.8
So, FoB being underpowered as a general statement is inaccurate in my opinion.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.
All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Huh? That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that while a wizard might be able to throw a fireball, the fighter has spent his time learning how to perform the Sevenfold Blade Barrier Technique (Parry maneuver) instead.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Yet if you try to give non-casters anything more potent or unique than Parry or Danger sense, then suddenly a lot of people (including, I would guess, you) are going to start crying about Fighters being too magical.
There's just no winning. Either martial classes do nothing but the mundane, which obviously magical classes should be able to do, after all it's just mundane stuff... or martial classes can do extraordinary things, and are too magical. The only thing that will appease a large segment of gamers is to have martial characters be completely useless and redundant, which is something that will drive away the other segment of the playerbase. It is literally a no win situation.
I've got no problem with over the top maneuvers for martial classes. I'd actually enjoy it, to be honest. I think TWF and FoB are woefully underpowered, actually. I think most of DDN is tepid in its overall gameplay. Let everyone have the mundane. Let the warriors have Florentine longswords or the ability to smash through stone pillars with wrought iron tetsubo. Let the Monks hit 6 people in a single round. That will provide a nice contrast to "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!", But let everyone have Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will, Parry, Cleave, Danger Sense and the like as long as they're willing to devote a Feat to it.
I'm not going to argue the TWF stuff; there's not enough released to make a determination. However, if you look at FoB and DS without regard for the extra attack for a fighter you get:
These calculations assume a level 10 character with a +5 attribute damage. Since the assumption is a level 10 character, the 6d6 critical damage die is calculated into the final value. I don't think the FoB as a power is the problem. It's the extra attack of the fighter that puts the fighter over the top. Here are the DPR stats for the same fighter with an extra attack:
At 65% - 23.45 At 50% - 18.125 at 35% - 12.8
So, FoB being underpowered as a general statement is inaccurate in my opinion.
I find DDN in general to be lackluster. I want FoB to be brought up to a Fighter with extra attack's level. I want balance through buffs rather than balance through nerfs, to use MMO parlance.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.
All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Huh? That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that while a wizard might be able to throw a fireball, the fighter has spent his time learning how to perform the Sevenfold Blade Barrier Technique (Parry maneuver) instead.
To argue that Parry and AC are similar even though one is more effective is the epitomy of the paraphrased quote I used.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Yet if you try to give non-casters anything more potent or unique than Parry or Danger sense, then suddenly a lot of people (including, I would guess, you) are going to start crying about Fighters being too magical.
There's just no winning. Either martial classes do nothing but the mundane, which obviously magical classes should be able to do, after all it's just mundane stuff... or martial classes can do extraordinary things, and are too magical. The only thing that will appease a large segment of gamers is to have martial characters be completely useless and redundant, which is something that will drive away the other segment of the playerbase. It is literally a no win situation.
I've got no problem with over the top maneuvers for martial classes. I'd actually enjoy it, to be honest. I think TWF and FoB are woefully underpowered, actually. I think most of DDN is tepid in its overall gameplay. Let everyone have the mundane. Let the warriors have Florentine longswords or the ability to smash through stone pillars with wrought iron tetsubo. Let the Monks hit 6 people in a single round. That will provide a nice contrast to "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!", But let everyone have Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will, Parry, Cleave, Danger Sense and the like as long as they're willing to devote a Feat to it.
I'm not going to argue the TWF stuff; there's not enough released to make a determination. However, if you look at FoB and DS without regard for the extra attack for a fighter you get:
These calculations assume a level 10 character with a +5 attribute damage. Since the assumption is a level 10 character, the 6d6 critical damage die is calculated into the final value. I don't think the FoB as a power is the problem. It's the extra attack of the fighter that puts the fighter over the top. Here are the DPR stats for the same fighter with an extra attack:
At 65% - 23.45 At 50% - 18.125 at 35% - 12.8
So, FoB being underpowered as a general statement is inaccurate in my opinion.
I find DDN in general to be lackluster. I want FoB to be brought up to a Fighter with extra attack's level. I want balance through buffs rather than balance through nerfs, to use MMO parlance.
I agree with that sentiment. I agree that the Monk's FoB needs alittle more to it. I would rather see it get alittle more than see the fighter get a little less. But in seculsion of the rest of the game, FoB is not necessarily underperforming in relation to fighter's DS. It's more of a class to class issue in my opinion. The power itself is more than comparable to its counterpart.
Ironically, if you DS as a monk as your primary attack and use FoB in case you miss on your first attack, you get:
At 65% - 30.825 At 50% - 24.6 At 35% - 18.375
That means that the combination of DS and FoB together (use DS as a primary attack; use FoB if you miss your primary attack), you get a pretty good DPR. But then a fighter can still match and exceed it through the use of Glancing Blow.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.
All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Huh? That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that while a wizard might be able to throw a fireball, the fighter has spent his time learning how to perform the Sevenfold Blade Barrier Technique (Parry maneuver) instead.
To argue that Parry and AC are similar even though one is more effective is the epitomy of the paraphrased quote I used.
Yes? They are; in both cases, you're parrying the other dude's sword with your sword. It's just that the Fighter has learned or developed a secret technique that lets him do it better. The fighter should do it better, because he's supposed to be better at fighting than the wizard is!
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Anyone can parry or sense danger; that's what their AC and Spot/Listen bonuses are for, respectively. Classes with Expertise dice are simply capable of doing them much more effectively than anyone else, if they've developed the special techniques to do so.
All classes are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Huh? That's not what I was saying at all. I was just saying that while a wizard might be able to throw a fireball, the fighter has spent his time learning how to perform the Sevenfold Blade Barrier Technique (Parry maneuver) instead.
To argue that Parry and AC are similar even though one is more effective is the epitomy of the paraphrased quote I used.
Yes? They are; in both cases, you're parrying the other dude's sword with your sword. It's just that the Fighter has learned or developed a secret technique that lets him do it better. The fighter should do it better, because he's supposed to be better at fighting than the wizard is!
Let me "get this straight". You parry with an armor class. Which is a combination of armor and Dexterity, having nothing to do with any weapon you are or aren't wielding. So your AC (without the TWD Feat), which doesn't go up while wielding a sword, is a case where you are parrying the opponent's sword with your own. When you're unarmed then, do you grab a rubber chicken out of thin air to parry with? Anyone with a weapon (and unarmed specialists) can parry. Not everyone with an AC can. Martial classes should be better at parrying, but that is not a reason to deny the ability to parry to the wizard with his staff. To say that is covered by AC is patently ridiculous, because that would be the equivalent of saying the Wizard is just as good at parrying with his bare hands as he is with his staff as he is with a clown/bicycle horn.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
This is one of the best things I've ever read. Well played.
I think I want a game where story creep is practically inevitable.
I want a game where I have to adjudicate every little request of the players AND at the same time run a world full of 100's of henchmen and markets and everything that comes with it. Yep I want to spend my free time simulating a quasi-medieval world filled with magic, rather than you know telling a half-way decent story with 4-6 players...
This is one of the best things I've ever read. Well played.I think I want a game where story creep is practically inevitable.[/quote]I want a game where I have to adjudicate every little request of the players AND at the same time run a world full of
I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes. The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.
You grossly underestimate the depth and variety that the XD mechanic can support. It's like spells. You can't seriously come to me and say that there's no way to do new things with a new spellcaster class - it's simply flat out incorrect. Different spell progressions, different spells themselves, all is on the table. The same potential exists for XD.
And I'd like just one person who says they don't want XD spread around the classes to come up with another mechanic that accomplishes the same goals, is as simple yet still as deep, and as dramatically improves the game and the individual experience of playing a class with it.
"I don't want them to extend it because why can't they just think up new stuff?!"
Thinking up new stuff is hard. XD is a fantastic mechanic, and they shouldn't avoid spreading it just because of your failure of imagination as far as how they can make classes unique within it.
They haven't even tried to make classes unique yet. They've just barely identified that it is in fact a good mechanic. Now comes polishing it, and getting the most out of it. Don't throw away the potential just because that potential hasn't been realized yet.
I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes. The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.[/quote]You grossly underestimate the depth and variety that the XD mechan
I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes. The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.
You grossly underestimate the depth and variety that the XD mechanic can support. It's like spells. You can't seriously come to me and say that there's no way to do new things with a new spellcaster class - it's simply flat out incorrect. Different spell progressions, different spells themselves, all is on the table. The same potential exists for XD.
And I'd like just one person who says they don't want XD spread around the classes to come up with another mechanic that accomplishes the same goals, is as simple yet still as deep, and as dramatically improves the game and the individual experience of playing a class with it.
"I don't want them to extend it because why can't they just think up new stuff?!"
Thinking up new stuff is hard. XD is a fantastic mechanic, and they shouldn't avoid spreading it just because of your failure of imagination as far as how they can make classes unique within it.
They haven't even tried to make classes unique yet. They've just barely identified that it is in fact a good mechanic. Now comes polishing it, and getting the most out of it. Don't throw away the potential just because that potential hasn't been realized yet.
It isn't about how much depth and variety ED can support. I see how it can be a good thing. You're missing my points here.
Point 1: By giving ED to every Martial class, they are making a homogenous mechanic I find boring. The fact that it is the current mechanic that can accomplish such widespread goals is evidence that there is a problem with such widespread goals. It doesn't make ED better or worse, it makes their current implementation problematic.
Point 2: By placing what was once a Feat into the maneuvers system, you remove any non-martial classes ability to gain said ability. Even if you provide a maneuver/ED Feat, magic classes could end up paying prohibitive feat taxes just to get what in previous editions were easily and commonly available powers (wtf is with Parry being a maneuver?).
I'm not throwing away the potential. I'm trying to return the potential to ED. As it stands, the system has been reduced to bland nothingness. It has been expanded to the point that it has lost its meaningful use. The form of ED had a function. That function has been run to the four corners of D&D, to the detriment of the form.
I don't see current ED implementation as simple yet still deep, dramatically improving the game and the individual experience of playing a class with it. I see it as shallow and reducing the play experience of classes with it. ED has the potential to improve the game, but not the way it currently plays.
I'd rather see them optional then see them applicable to only a small section of classes. The former keeps more options open, whereas the latter intentionally removes options.[/quote]You grossly underestimate the depth and variety that the XD mechan
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Does that mean that spells should then be remade into feats so martial characters can dabble into magic? I'd kill a man for a consistent way of acquiring even a lower level spell like Fly without relying on magical items.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cl
So, you're complaining that it makes classes too homogenous in one breath, and in another that it doesn't allow all classes access?
Which is it?
Every martial class having ED is homogenous. Turning what were Feats into Maneuvers doesn't allow all classes access to basic abilities. I've said it multiple times now. Are you just skimming the thread?
Every martial class having ED is homogenous. Turning what were Feats into Maneuvers doesn't allow all classes access to basic abilities. I've said it multiple times now. Are you just skimming the thread?
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Does that mean that spells should then be remade into feats so martial characters can dabble into magic? I'd kill a man for a consistent way of acquiring even a lower level spell like Fly without relying on magical items.
I liked the abilities in Playtest 1 that allowed any class to pick up a spell or two. I'm all for a formalized gish class that lets players fine tune just how much of a martial class and how much of a magic class they want to be. I'll kill the man with you.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
I like the potential the legacy system has although I worry that some of the old high level 1st Ed AD&D concepts may be forced on it. I see no reaqson why a fighter might actually want to set up a rekigous knightly order just because he has no divine abilities himself. And attracting a band of followers and forming a mercenary company should definately be an option for everyone if not the whole party. Or maybe a pirate fleet, or building an orphanage.
But beyond class restrictions, the thing that worries me most about this is enconomy. If I set up a guild or mercenary company it should have a cost to create, maintain and expand it and there needs to be some method of measuring income. After all, whether you have setup a mercenary band, pirate fleet or guild house; these sorts of enterprises are often about control and profit.
But for the costs to be meaningful, the economy needs to have a solid structure. There is no point in some high level adventurer thinking about constructing a castle and paying for it with an old cast off +1 weapon. So I can only hope that as they look at this they consider the need for a proper look at costs for equipment, living, magic items and wages. In 2nd ed they called it Birthright ... ... ...
I like the potential the legacy system has although I worry that some of the old high level 1st Ed AD&D concepts may be forced on it. I see no reaqson why a fighter might actually want to set up a rekigous knightly order just because he has no divin
It is now official. The plan is for every single Martial class in DDN to have ED. We have now traded our unique classes for homogenous game design.
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no!
I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added class features will flavor the pot!
One person's sensible pattern is another person's boring routine. I don't want ED for every martial class in the game. As it stands, I feel many maneuvers need to be remade into Feats. There is no reason a magic class shouldn't be able to Parry or have Danger Sense. With them as maneuvers, only classes with ED will have a chance at doing these.
Does that mean that spells should then be remade into feats so martial characters can dabble into magic? I'd kill a man for a consistent way of acquiring even a lower level spell like Fly without relying on magical items.
I am pretty confident/hopeful that there will be specialties/feats that give characters ED/spells. A Wizard could spend a feat to have 1d4 ED and one Maneuver (maybe taking the Feat more than once adds a Maneuver or bumps the dice). Similarly, spend a feat to gain a 1st level spell 1/day (maybe another feat is 2/day, or a higher level spell 1/day).
Sensible patterns in mechanical expression arising! Oh no! :panic:I actually adore what XD have done for the game, and really appreciate it as a unifying mechanic for martial capability. -- Really looking forward to the myriad ways in which added cla
*snip gigant quote pyramid* Let me "get this straight". You parry with an armor class. Which is a combination of armor and Dexterity, having nothing to do with any weapon you are or aren't wielding.
Well, yeah. The parrying is the Dex bonus, and/or a portion of your armor bonus (if you're wearing heavy armor).
So your AC (without the TWD Feat), which doesn't go up while wielding a sword, is a case where you are parrying the opponent's sword with your own. When you're unarmed then, do you grab a rubber chicken out of thin air to parry with?
Have you ever train in any real medieval combat? There's very little pure dodging; you use footwork together with your blade to redirect enemy attacks. You don't meet with a direct blow; that'll ruin your sword. Instead, you redirect it so that it doesn't hit you, and possibly so that you'll open them up for an attack of your own.
Anyone with a weapon (and unarmed specialists) can parry. Not everyone with an AC can. Martial classes should be better at parrying, but that is not a reason to deny the ability to parry to the wizard with his staff. To say that is covered by AC is patently ridiculous, because that would be the equivalent of saying the Wizard is just as good at parrying with his bare hands as he is with his staff as he is with a clown/bicycle horn.
When he has a staff, he parries (and dodges, it's all a part of the same maneuver). When he doesn't, he's forced to just dodge away from the angry man with a sword.
Well, yeah. The parrying is the Dex bonus, and/or a portion of your armor bonus (if you're wearing heavy armor).Have you ever train in any real medieval combat? There's very little pure dodging; you use footwork together with your blade to redirect e
ugh they are giving expertise dice to all martial classes? didnt mearls say he had reservations about ed for the monk? god i hope they change that. i just so dearly hope that isnt the case.
ugh they are giving expertise dice to all martial classes? didnt mearls say he had reservations about ed for the monk? god i hope they change that. i just so dearly hope that isnt the case.
Every martial class having ED is homogenous. Turning what were Feats into Maneuvers doesn't allow all classes access to basic abilities.
I'm not fully convinced that giving all martial classes ED is a bad thing. By the same token, all casters have "spells," so I see a definite comparison here. This is especially true given the variety of maneuvers you can have, although they need to work on something that allows for some measure of scaling because having all maneuvers equally available at level 1 is going to be very limiting, so maneuvers are just simply going to be better than others (within class lists of course).
One thing that does concern me is how the three classes compare in their use of Expertise, or more specifically how the Fighter compares to the Monk. The Monk has fewer maneuvers, but has some interesting and thematic class abilities, while the Fighter just gets more maneuvers. The Rogue, well... just gets less maneuvers. I am concerned that they are moving down a similar path to the Fighter from 3rd edition where it just got more feats, even though some of those feats were exclusive to the Fighter, it still ended up feeling very plain.
Conceptually, I can understand that making certain maneuvers exclusive can help shape a class that deals with maneuvers, but that is only going to work with a small number of maneuvers that you ensure a class gets. Skill Mastery helps define a Rogue as a skill monkey, Deadly Strike helps establish the Fighter as a damage dealer (with the most effecient damage dealing maneuver), but the role that other maneuvers play at defining a class go way down after that since many might not take those particular manevuers. Parry might end up being unique to the Fighter, but since you don't start with it and since many / most fighting styles don't have it included, a lot of fighters aren't going to have it. If each fighting style had some exclusive maneuvers it just muddies the water since we are then talking about a large number of "class defining" maneuvers that are only situationally around, unlike the aforementioned Deadly Strike, which every Fighter under the sun has.
You also have a problem where most maneuvers need to be balanced against other maneuvers (at least within whatever bands, levels, or restrictions they put on maneuvers, if any). For example, you can't simply have all of the Fighter exclusive maneuvers being better than the shared maneuvers, especially since "exclusive" might just mean until the next book is released. Defined class features, like Ki for the Monk, don't have any of those restrictions and can be as powerful or as weak as needed for what the designer is trying to accomplish.
Basically, to sum up, I think any class that is going to use ED and maneuvers also needs to have class features that help ensure that the class is unique instead of just relying on any kind of list of maneuvers, no matter how exclusive it might be.
I'm not fully convinced that giving all martial classes ED is a bad thing. By the same token, all casters have "spells," so I see a definite comparison here. This is especially true given the variety of maneuvers you can have, although they need to w
One thing that does concern me is how the three classes compare in their use of Expertise, or more specifically how the Fighter compares to the Monk. The Monk has fewer maneuvers, but has some interesting and thematic class abilities, while the Fighter just gets more maneuvers. The Rogue, well... just gets less maneuvers. I am concerned that they are moving down a similar path to the Fighter from 3rd edition where it just got more feats, even though some of those feats were exclusive to the Fighter, it still ended up feeling very plain.
All true. But don't read too much into this. They've just established that they (and we) really like the XD mechanic, and they're rolling it out to more things. The Fighter hasn't seen a direct, focused treatment since that decision was made, and as the first class that got it I'm not surprised that it doesn't look quite as shiny as the more recent ones.
The point is don't look at the current state and extrapolate intent based on it. But, should an updated Fighter come along the road in the next packet, and that doesn't meet your expectations, then absolutely give them that feedback.
All true. But don't read too much into this. They've just established that they (and we) really like the XD mechanic, and they're rolling it out to more things. The Fighter hasn't seen a direct, focused treatment since that decision was made, and
The point is don't look at the current state and extrapolate intent based on it. But, should an updated Fighter come along the road in the next packet, and that doesn't meet your expectations, then absolutely give them that feedback.
At what point should I complain if they haven't updated the Fighter? At what point will they discern patience on my part as liking the Fighter (ie. "the complaints have gone way down on the Fighter, I think that means they are starting to like it")?
However, I think this can tie again back into the lack of indication on their part on where certain things stand in the playtest packages. Where do they consider the Fighter or this Monk or the Cleric in the development process? Do they really like this Monk and want it to work or are they testing the water?
I read a post in the Dungeon Masters feedback section where a playtester (a DM) was saying that his players struggled a little trying to figure out the differences between feats, features, and class abilities. From this, I assume that the playtesers in question are pre-3ed and are simply not familiar with how WotC terms things (they eventually figured it out based on context), but the package doesn't make any mention on how sparse the rules are. The package is written to kind-of be like a real RPG product, while skimping on some descriptive text here and there because it is not actually a real RPG product. However, there is no indication on the level of knowledge they expect people to have.
At what point should I complain if they haven't updated the Fighter? At what point will they discern patience on my part as liking the Fighter (ie. "the complaints have gone way down on the Fighter, I think that means they are starting to like it")?H
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it. They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the best course of action for their development process.
You are correct that there is a lack of indication on their part where certain things stand in the playtest packets. Absolutely, 100% correct. The problem is that people demand indications, and search for any scrap or shred of indication they can find, no matter how tenuous or unrepresentative it might be.
The bottom line is that everything is in flux. If they find something amazingly better, they can change entire class designs as a result. That happened for the Rogue. But that means that the previous Rogue wasn't an indication of the intent for the final product, just the best iteration up until the point they released it.
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it. They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the bes
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it. They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the best course of action for their development process.
Ahh, but without indications, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between a class that they haven't got to yet and class that they would like to consider "finished".
The problem is that people demand indications, and search for any scrap or shred of indication they can find, no matter how tenuous or unrepresentative it might be.
Of course, because I want to be an effective playtester.
I want to know if they are looking for information on how the Wizard plays at the table, how easy it is to make, how long it takes to pick spells as she levels, how long it takes to pick a spell to cast during combat, etc. There are all kinds of things I can pay attention to and provide feedback on, far too many for me to report on all of these things. I don't want to waste my time or their time on things that they don't care about (regardless of the reason why they don't care, although I wouldn't mind knowing that too).
Ahh, but without indications, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between a class that they haven't got to yet and class that they would like to consider "finished".Of course, because I want to be an effective playtester.I want to kno
If your complaint is about the internal schedule of the playtest, then no, you shouldn't bother making it. They're going to release things as they damn well please, and you have no right to expect anything other than them determining what is the best course of action for their development process.
Ahh, but without indications, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between a class that they haven't got to yet and class that they would like to consider "finished".
By tracking the rate of changes as the packets come along, and by testing them, and seeing if they need further work. That's the purpose of this entire exercise.
And indications on what they're wanting to focus on are not what I meant, I'm talking about people who want indications on things like "are they going to have alignment mechanics required or optional" or "are they going to have both vancian and non-vancian casting equally represented" or "are they going to have the ranger be its own class or a sub-type of fighter." Those are the questions that any individual packet cannot answer, no matter how much those people would like them to.
And they care about everything. They may care more about things by giving them more direct, focused attention, but they do care about everything. Anything you comment on in the feedback is worth doing.
Ahh, but without indications, how am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between a class that they haven't got to yet and class that they would like to consider "finished".[/quote]By tracking the rate of changes as the packets come along, an
By tracking the rate of changes as the packets come along, and by testing them, and seeing if they need further work. That's the purpose of this entire exercise.
But that just goes back to my earlier question. You said this:
The point is don't look at the current state and extrapolate intent based on it. But, should an updated Fighter come along the road in the next packet, and that doesn't meet your expectations, then absolutely give them that feedback.
I take that to mean that I shouldn't look at the current Fighter and assume that this is the Fighter they intend to print, so I shouldn't bother to complain about it as it is, and I should wait until they make an updated Fighter and I should examine that one. But, if I sit passively waiting for another Fighter, how are they going to know that I don't like the current one and that it needs more work? How are they going to distinguish between a "I'll wait until a new version is made before I give more feedback" and "this class is growing on me, I don't have any more complaints about it"?
And indications on what they're wanting to focus on are not what I meant, I'm talking about people who want indications on things like "are they going to have alignment mechanics required or optional" or "are they going to have both vancian and non-vancian casting equally represented" or "are they going to have the ranger be its own class or a sub-type of fighter." Those are the questions that any individual packet cannot answer, no matter how much those people would like them to.
The package can answer such questions. With the Monk, we got our first class that has a alignment restriction in it. Was this done because they set on including alignment restrictions or are they merely testing the waters? Do they want to see how those alignment restrictions play at the table with their new alignment rules? Do they intend that the Monk class would be removed if you took out alignment restrictions (assuming no house rules)?
Now, I agree that indications on what is not in the current packet is not something I really need. The packet shouldn't be telling me anything about the Ranger unless the Ranger is in the packet, but once it is, there is a great deal they could tell me, and I think this most recent Monk article was a set in the right direction. They should have done that for every class in the current packet that changed (with a footnote saying why some classes didn't change if they in fact didn't change).
And they care about everything. They may care more about things by giving them more direct, focused attention, but they do care about everything. Anything you comment on in the feedback is worth doing.
But they only give us a certain amount of space in the survey to put down observations, and they can't actually care about everything simultaneously, otherwise they would be (and probably are) flooded by information that they have to sort through and organize and catalog. There are only so many hours in a day and only so many things they can work on before the next packet should be delivered to players. For example, getting information on how long it takes to pick which spell to cast is not important to them right now since how wizards cast spells is going to be quite different in an upcoming package, so they could easily tell us not to care about such things. If they wanted to know how long character creation took if you start at level 5, for example, they would make sure players knew to say whether they were using custom specialties, the listed specialties, or no specialties at all. The list can go on and on.
But that just goes back to my earlier question. You said this:I take that to mean that I shouldn't look at the current Fighter and assume that this is the Fighter they intend to print, so I shouldn't bother to complain about it as it is, and I should
No, you should absolutely complain about the current fighter if you find it unsatisfying, but what you shouldn't do is complain that because the current fighter is unsatisfying, that the intent behind the fighter is unsatisfying. That's a step beyond what you can do.
No, you should absolutely complain about the current fighter if you find it unsatisfying, but what you shouldn't do is complain that because the current fighter is unsatisfying, that the intent behind the fighter is unsatisfying. That's a step beyon
*snip gigant quote pyramid* Let me "get this straight". You parry with an armor class. Which is a combination of armor and Dexterity, having nothing to do with any weapon you are or aren't wielding.
Well, yeah. The parrying is the Dex bonus, and/or a portion of your armor bonus (if you're wearing heavy armor).
So your AC (without the TWD Feat), which doesn't go up while wielding a sword, is a case where you are parrying the opponent's sword with your own. When you're unarmed then, do you grab a rubber chicken out of thin air to parry with?
Have you ever train in any real medieval combat? There's very little pure dodging; you use footwork together with your blade to redirect enemy attacks. You don't meet with a direct blow; that'll ruin your sword. Instead, you redirect it so that it doesn't hit you, and possibly so that you'll open them up for an attack of your own.
Anyone with a weapon (and unarmed specialists) can parry. Not everyone with an AC can. Martial classes should be better at parrying, but that is not a reason to deny the ability to parry to the wizard with his staff. To say that is covered by AC is patently ridiculous, because that would be the equivalent of saying the Wizard is just as good at parrying with his bare hands as he is with his staff as he is with a clown/bicycle horn.
When he has a staff, he parries (and dodges, it's all a part of the same maneuver). When he doesn't, he's forced to just dodge away from the angry man with a sword.
You don't parry with your Dexterity. You dodge with your Dexterity. Accelerating a static 3 pound weight is a factor of your strength, not your Dexterity.
I have trained in medieval combat, yes. Most D&D characters wear lighter armor than full plate. I'd describe parrying a little differently, but you are right that you never meet weapons blade to blade. I have a pair of tai chi swords struck blade to blade repeatedly just so that I can physically show this to people in real life.
You missed the point of my rant completely, apparently. If AC included weapon use to defend, weapons would modify one's AC. They don't, aside from a very select few Feats. AC has nothing to do with using weapons to defend, which is why your AC isn't improved by using a weapon. Dodging =/= Dodging + Parrying, and it seems to me you are saying they are.
AC and Parry are nothing alike.
Well, yeah. The parrying is the Dex bonus, and/or a portion of your armor bonus (if you're wearing heavy armor).Have you ever train in any real medieval combat? There's very little pure dodging; you use footwork together with your blade to redirect e
Well, I have NOT trained in medieval combat as I find it less then useful in the modern-day business-world setting that I am currently a part of. When dealing with the particulars of how things work in relation to game mechanics, I'd much rather the rules be fun and entertaining, even if that means realism takes a hit from time to time.
Well, I have NOT trained in medieval combat as I find it less then useful in the modern-day business-world setting that I am currently a part of. When dealing with the particulars of how things work in relation to game mechanics, I'd much rather the
The question, originally, was whether martial powers should be mundane - and to what extent non-martial characters should be able to do manouvers. I find it weird that people on the Boards have no trouble with lock picking being a specialized skill that you must train to have, but parrying or other attack manouvers being seen as general that "anyone can do". If a trained fighter is attacking me with a sword, I'm not going to effectively parry him, no matter how dexterous I am. It's like juggling or lock picking or pole vaulting - just because its martial doesn't mean it's easy.
Now, I agree that if someone wants a wizard who can parry, the rules should allow it. But that wizard, who spent the time training staff play didn't spend time learning magic. So, it should be a feat or some other trade off (1 level of fighter?). But please, let's not ignore reality by pretending that in combat, the average studious wizard is going to do anything with that staff other than spells.
Make the fighter feel awesome by treating his training as awesome, and not just as the things you'd be doing if you ran out of spells.
The question, originally, was whether martial powers should be mundane - and to what extent non-martial characters should be able to do manouvers. I find it weird that people on the Boards have no trouble with lock picking being a specialized skill
Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy game, it is not about realistic medieval tactical combat. That is one of the reasons I like to focus on narrative combat instead of tactics. I realize this disrupts the "virtual reality" immersion for some people, but it can't be helped. Combat should contain an element of risk for the characters that can be adjusted by the DM when planning encounters. It doesn't need to be a 90 minute recreation of a 10 minute cinematic combat sequence.
My problem with "traditional spellcasters" is that they are unbalanced as they level up and they are unbalanced (positively or negatively depending on level) with non-spellcasters. I also don't think spellcasting in DnD has typically matched magic in actual mythology (or the Tolkein saga) very well.
I think the concept of expertise dice will provide nice options for people to do something extra with their characters. I definitely hope that Next retains the at-will power concept from 4e.
Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy game, it is not about realistic medieval tactical combat. That is one of the reasons I like to focus on narrative combat instead of tactics. I realize this disrupts the "virtual reality" immersion for some people, bu
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?[/quote]Why is it the answer to all mec
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?
Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story. If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right".
It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games. You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it. However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line. I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that. I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat. You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.
If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful. It's human nature. If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored. Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax. This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.
In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones). This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run. I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?[/quote]Why is it the answer to all mec
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?
Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story. If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right".
It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games. You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it. However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line. I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that. I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat. You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.
If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful. It's human nature. If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored. Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax. This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.
In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones). This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run. I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.
Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track... that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?[/quote]Why is it the answer to all mec
So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle. Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.
Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.
My next character is often not in the same universe.
So if someone can explain how an Eladrin Fighter|Ranger on a homebrewed alternate-earth can leave a legacy for a Gnome Bard on Eberron - and why he would do so...
Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.[/quote]My next character is often not in the same universe.So if someone can explain how an Eladrin Fighter|Ranger on a homebrewed alternate-earth can leave a legac
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?
Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story. If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right".
It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games. You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it. However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line. I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that. I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat. You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.
If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful. It's human nature. If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored. Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax. This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.
In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones). This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run. I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.
Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track... that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...
It depends. The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay. Generalizations are generalizations. How would you address the 5MWD?
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?[/quote]Why is it the answer to all mec
So a couple followers, a crafted item, a title, or a castle. Sounds like the Legacy system is just fluff or it ate the Followers, Structure, Crafting, and Reputation systems.
Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.
My next character is often not in the same universe.
So if someone can explain how an Eladrin Fighter|Ranger on a homebrewed alternate-earth can leave a legacy for a Gnome Bard on Eberron - and why he would do so...
You've seen game of thrones right?
Maybe it unlocks New Game+, and your next character gets to benefit from your Legacy.[/quote]My next character is often not in the same universe.So if someone can explain how an Eladrin Fighter|Ranger on a homebrewed alternate-earth can leave a legac
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?
Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story. If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right".
It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games. You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it. However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line. I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that. I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat. You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.
If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful. It's human nature. If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored. Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax. This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.
In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones). This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run. I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.
Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track... that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...
It depends. The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay. Generalizations are generalizations. How would you address the 5MWD?
Look in the Mechanical Solutions to the 5MWD for answers to that...
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?[/quote]Why is it the answer to all mec
New Game+? "I'm bored with this game. Can we restart? My Level 12 fighter retires and gives his vorpal sword and +2 plate to his level 1 fighter son."
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.
Where's your DM, man?
Why is it the answer to all mechanical questions ends up being "The DM can fix it with an arbitrary and contrived in world event."?
Because, at alot of tables, the DM is responsible for presenting the world and guiding the story. If he or she does not provide the guidelines (like let's say, you need to stop this ritual before midnight), the players expect to be able to take their sweet time and do the job "right".
It's how real life works, and it spills into our, well at least most us it does, games. You tell me to fix my fire control radar that represents the ship's first line of defense, I'll fix it. However, I'll check every piece of circuitry if there is no dead line. I don't do that to be lazy or to rebel or anthing like that. I want my equipment to by perfect; so, when the poop hits the fan, we got the best system ready for combat. You tell me to get the radar up in ten minutes or we're all dead, you can bet your life that I'll have it up in five.
If the DM presents a story that gives no incentive to keep moving, players will abuse every "rule" to make sure they are in the best position to be successful. It's human nature. If the story's presented by the DM doesn't give the incentive, I guess the game can still be fun with tough combats, but it seems to me like that half of the game is being ignored. Daily resources and giving incentive to keep going as those resources dwindle is suppose to build tension and lead to a climax. This is a primary focus, at least in my opinion, in giving the DM tools to create suspense.
In my opinion, you take away those resources, it's just a series of tough fights (or a bunch of easy ones). This is one reason that 4e failed to keep my attention for the long run. I'm not saying its a failure of 4e; it was a failure of the 4e DMs that I was involved with.
Unless of course there is a rule that prevents the problem at the root, then the DM doesn't have to come up with arbitrary and contrived story rulings in order to keep the game on track... that frees the DM up to tell an even greater story, something they can't do if they have to make sure the players are attacked 4-5 times per day and that everything they do has a time limit...
It depends. The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay. Generalizations are generalizations. How would you address the 5MWD?
Look in the Mechanical Solutions to the 5MWD for answers to that...
338 results over 20+pages... Thanks though.
but before the handover takes place, the groups evil archmage nemisis and minions teleport in and steal the gear giving the party an additional adventure possibility and other fun craziness.Where's your DM, man?[/quote]Why is it the answer to all mec
I have been trying to understand the legacy system and twist my head into how something like what was described can work. I keep coming back to something like my Legend idea. Basically a character would have a Legend Legacy rank and their Legacy rank adds free bonuses to their works through fate.
So lets say the basic rule for Legacy is the character's level.
So Mr Fighter hits level 13 and has 50,000 gp.
When Attracting followers, he can attract a number of 1 HD followers equal to is his legacy*5 plus his Charisma score. Every tradesman or man-at-arms and 100 sp per month. Other followers are 50 sp per month. Seargents, lietentants, spell casters, and expert artisans cost 100 gp per month per level.
When Attempting to craft a magical item or pay an artificer to craft an item, he can obtain an item of gp value equal to his legacy*100.
When Building a keep, he can obtain land and property of value up to his legacy*3000
So Mr Fighter buys a 25,000 gp fortress, spends a year proccuring a 5,000 gp frost brand, finances 50 fighting men bleeding him for 500 gp per month, hires 5 1st level fighter sergants eating 500 gp per month, and builds a church with 2,000 gp a month worth of clerics inside.
Better kill some dragons and take their stuff.
I have been trying to understand the legacy system and twist my head into how something like what was described can work. I keep coming back to something like my Legend idea. Basically a character would have a Legend Legacy rank and their Legacy rank
Orzel, your idea is cool for a completely separate game. I feel the Legacy system is going to be very simple. You won't have to calculate exactly how many followers you can afford or any of that other stuff. I'm guessing you will simply choose something and you will get it.
For those who want to calculate and do a little accounting, your system is great. For a casual player, the Legacy system needs to supply a simpler option.
Orzel, your idea is cool for a completely separate game. I feel the Legacy system is going to be very simple. You won't have to calculate exactly how many followers you can afford or any of that other stuff. I'm guessing you will simply choose som
Wait a second. Are you saying that you would like to see some mechanical solutions to the 5MWD problem, but because there are too many possible solutions presented in the thread dedicated to it, you are not going to investigate it?
Well, I suppose that's fine, but are you still going to complain that you haven't seen any mechanical solutions to it?
Wait a second. Are you saying that you would like to see some mechanical solutions to the 5MWD problem, but because there are too many possible solutions presented in the thread dedicated to it, you are not going to investigate it?Well, I suppose tha
Wait a second. Are you saying that you would like to see some mechanical solutions to the 5MWD problem, but because there are too many possible solutions presented in the thread dedicated to it, you are not going to investigate it?
Well, I suppose that's fine, but are you still going to complain that you haven't seen any mechanical solutions to it?
No, but the main person posting could point out his; which was in an entirely different thread anyways. But then the 5MWD is not a problem in my games. I was just hoping to help someone, whom I liked more before getting stonewalled, with my input. Not enough incentive to put my eyes through the pain before an eye exam though...
Wait a second. Are you saying that you would like to see some mechanical solutions to the 5MWD problem, but because there are too many possible solutions presented in the thread dedicated to it, you are not going to investigate it?Well, I suppose tha
It depends. The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay. Generalizations are generalizations. How would you address the 5MWD?
One of two ways:
1) Gank Vancian casting - spells, like other class abilities, would be theoreticaly unlimitted in use, though they might take time or cost money or run risks, particularly spells that are open to systematic abuse. No special benefit for resting means no perverse incentive to rest when not tired.
2) Change resource recovery from player-driven 'rest' decision to DM-driven 'story' or 'milestone' pacing. It's a dressed-up "storytelling" version of the railroading or rest-punishment used to work around the 5MWD, but it's mechanical and the DM doesn't have to make up excuses or torture his plot lines to deny or punish rests.
One of two ways:1) Gank Vancian casting - spells, like other class abilities, would be theoreticaly unlimitted in use, though they might take time or cost money or run risks, particularly spells that are open to systematic abuse. No special benefit
It depends. The rules to take away that problem could easily lead to bland gameplay, or lead to one dimensional gameplay. Generalizations are generalizations. How would you address the 5MWD?
One of two ways:
1) Gank Vancian casting - spells, like other class abilities, would be theoreticaly unlimitted in use, though they might take time or cost money or run risks, particularly spells that are open to systematic abuse. No special benefit for resting means no perverse incentive to rest when not tired.
2) Change resource recovery from player-driven 'rest' decision to DM-driven 'story' or 'milestone' pacing. It's a dressed-up "storytelling" version of the railroading or rest-punishment used to work around the 5MWD, but it's mechanical and the DM doesn't have to make up excuses or torture his plot lines to deny or punish rests.
Ideally I would just get rid of the spell progression chart of the Wizard and allow 8 prepared spells that you can cast at any time. Then use things like Concentration and limit the number of active spells a Wizard can have at any one time to keep them under control. You would still only get certain spells at certain levels. The progression would go like this:
Level Spells Knowable 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1 x 2 x 3 x x 4 x x 5 x x x 6 x x x 7 x x x x 8 x x x x 9 x x x x x 10 x x x x x
They would still learn Int mod spells each level but only be able to prepare 8 spells total including 0th level spells. Between the Concentration mechanic and limits on the number of active spells, as well as only being able to cast one spell per round (or one 1st+ spell and one 0th level spell if hasted) would leave them balanced.
Of course no one would for this as a fix...
One of two ways:1) Gank Vancian casting - spells, like other class abilities, would be theoreticaly unlimitted in use, though they might take time or cost money or run risks, particularly spells that are open to systematic abuse. No special benefit
It appears like we heading towards mudane classes and magic enabled classes playing two different games. Not looking forward to it.
No XD for casters then. Not even for metamagic. It appears like we heading towards mudane classes and magic enabled classes playing two different games. Not looking forward to it.
It appears like we heading towards mudane classes and magic enabled classes playing two different games.
Why do you say that?
How is that different than Defenders in 4E getting Marks, Leaders getting the double-encounter heals, Controllers getting summons, or Strikers getting that Minor Action Damage Boost? If you recall, when 4E first started, there was no real way for classes to get any of those signature traits outside of their Rolls.
Heck, how is that even different from Wizards getting spells?
I don't see a need for Spellcasters to get ED at all - ED are supposed to even the playing field for those that don't use magic. Otherwise the trend is to feel overshadowed by the higher levels when a Wizard gets the Bazooka Cannon Magic Blast.
Heck, you saw what they were planning with Sorcerer and Warlock - almost everyone is going to have it's own unique way of doing things. Is that the same as saying 'Everyone's playing a different game'? Not in the least. Everyone just has a different way of playing One - and that is true for any game.
In short - not all classes need similar features for it to be 'one game'. That's what brings appeal to the different classes in the first place.
Why do you say that?How is that different than Defenders in 4E getting Marks, Leaders getting the double-encounter heals, Controllers getting summons, or Strikers getting that Minor Action Damage Boost? If you recall, when 4E first started, there wa
In short - not all classes need similar features for it to be 'one game'. That's what brings appeal to the different classes in the first place.
Not similar features, definitely. But I think the game at this level should be ruled by a unified system (like the power system in 4E was), which then declines in specific implementations for each class: different sets of manouvers or spells. It may be possible to harmonize various sub systems in a coherent whole, but it is much less likely to succeed, since complexity increases drastically.
Not similar features, definitely. But I think the game at this level should be ruled by a unified system (like the power system in 4E was), which then declines in specific implementations for each class: different sets of manouvers or spells.It may b
I like what i hear about the Legacy system so far and i look forward to it. Reminds me of Background Trait and how they have story driven benefits, but to a larger scale.
I am glad to hear that the Legacy system is being designed more as a means of increasing a character’s story options. I am all for story creep.
I'd like to see how strong magic ends up before thinking of introducing meta-magic.
Legacy system
Legacy system
Expertise Dice Pools
