|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:07PM
#331
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
This definately sounds like a playstyle issue. As Garthanos has emoted several times in the past AD&D just didn't suit his Fantastical uber extreme playstyle. ... I think your severe hatred for TSR D&D is also bleeding over into several of your posts.
Oh, I never got the hatred part. I just figured Garanthos drank sometimes then posted.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:08PM
#332
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The worst imbalance I have actually seen wasnt in D&D and not when playing I was DMing Stormbringer. Dice determining to much how awesome characters are is damn problematic.
In a roleplaying game, I can actually get behind it, it emphasizes that you don`t need an "awesome" character to have fun, and that being best is not what the game is about, it`s about roleplaying.
i dont assume the role you want to play is watching others while your character is bleeding out and never really contributing. Constantly artificially rescuing the character that is only average because the others rolled awesome (or in one case cheated) arranging special items for him which he chould use better than the awesome characters was mildly fun for me as GM ... but the game didnt really help that much.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:11PM
#333
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
@Brightmantle:
To some extent I agree with Garthanos. I played 2e for many years. Our main party was composed by a drow fighter (me), a human fighter and a necromancer. That campaign went on for roughly ten years in RL. At the beginning everything worked but by the time we got to 15th level we all realized that the two fighters had become the the necromancer's henchmen.
Our master allowed me to dual class to cleric and the human fighter dual classed to psion and slowly the gap between us and the necromancer closed, because at the end we became some sort of spellcasters as well, something we didn't want to do in the beginning.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:16PM
#334
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
I see people referring to "casual gamers." As opposed to what?
"Casual gamer" is a term that refers to one player most groups have who isn't really that into D&D. He doesn't learn the rules very well, nor does he roleplay much. He's just there because it's what his friends want to do, and an evening sitting around with friends and maybe splitting a pizza is generally a pretty good evening, just on its own.
In context, this is probably not really what Zard was taking about, but that's the standard definition of the lingo, as I understand it.
I've seen errata just ruin evenings of war gaming, so I am biased from non-RPG experience. But I think the premise that it leads to mismatched expectations holds true in either situation.
Also it makes a mess of the books.
No, imho it isn't ever worth the trouble that it causes. Much easier to just play through any glitches and let individual tables work out their own sollutions.
Personally, I like errata. It warms my heart to know that someone at WotC is sitting around trying to think of ways to make the game better for free. So long as you're not playing in organized play, I've always basically viewed them as a big chunk of optional rules, and that's how they've mostly played out, in my experience. I'd be miffed if there was a no errata policy in 5e. I did have a problem with some of 4e's errata, but it was because of poor implementation, not just the concept of errata.
Don't do this in 4e it breaks the game. Literally if you allow rolled stats in 4e you will likely have a broken game. Every time I've tried to make a character with rolled stats (actually rolled not the BS rolls the builder gets). It is game breakingly strong. I also average arrays with a 12 being the lowest stat and at least 1 to 2 18's before adding any kind of bonus.
It's my experience in any edition that if you roll stats, you explicitly allow for the possibility of having characters who are greatly stronger or weaker than average. I'm not sure how 4e is different in this area.
Heck, I even saw low rolls turn a 3.5 druid relatively tame, once.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:17PM
#335
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
When a dungeon master caters to one particular P.c. to the point that he gives him every thing he needs to outstep the other p.c.'s there is a problem in his style in itself. The d.M. controls the spells and resources the p.c.'s have at every level of the game, a Cleric though would have the spells available in the p.h. I have routinely slain high level mages in D&D as a fighter, or cavelier, or Ranger. Your D.M. helped the Necromancer become what he was. Had he a better grasp of the mechanics or a desire to be fair he could have curtailed the mage easily.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:18PM
#336
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
Example: game 7 or 8 in a 3.5 game one PC had a 32 AC the next highest was 22, the lowest was 16, I remember these numbers well becuse the swing was DOUBLE... I realized my mosters with +9 or 10 to hit were already auto hiting the 16, and hitting the 22 about right, but could not touch the 32. SO I made a masterswordman (Hobgoblin) who had +16 to hit, so he hit the PC in quastion on a 16+, but I gave him both power attack and expertise (so he could take penelties) I then gave him a force of foot oldiers he had trained, and they had +6-+10 to hit (3 diffrent stats) and sent them at the party
I was told by setting my challange to the highest AC I punished other players that could not get there ACs so high.
This is one of the main reasons that I like a bell curve for combat and skills over the d20 flat line. A bell curve could be designed to reach that entire party a little more easily than mods to the d20 roll. I guess having nat 1 as an auto fail comes close, maybe nat 1-3 auto fail would be better. Or maybe design the monster so that it could reach the high AC but with a greatly increased chance to fumble versus all AC's in that combat.
This is the other side of balance; when you start tinkering to make something work then something else starts to break up. Hmmm I guess though that if the tinkering was only for one encounter at a time, rather than a systemic change then it would issolate any reprucusions. Hmmmm again but that would lead to encounters being unexpected and potentially threatening to the party...Heh wait a minute, that sounds like a good thing.
So the system by itself should be balanced and left whole, but the DM should feel free to change rules for individual encounters! And the PC's should have the ability to run away, that would help to prevent the dreaded TPK.
Hah, bet that goes over like a led balloon.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:18PM
#337
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
This definately sounds like a playstyle issue. As Garthanos has emoted several times in the past AD&D just didn't suit his Fantastical uber extreme playstyle.
I support a more extreme fantastical style than I actually prefer... nor is that flavor tied to usefulness.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:19PM
#338
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
The d.M. controls the spells and resources the p.c.'s have at every level of the game.
Except the part where Wizards got free spells at every level.
Plus a game where the DM has to design half my character doens't really appeal to me.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:22PM
#339
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
@Brightmantle: To some extent I agree with Garthanos. I played 2e for many years. Our main party was composed by a drow fighter (me), a human fighter and a necromancer. That campaign went on for roughly ten years in RL. At the beginning everything worked but by the time we got to 15th level we all realized that the two fighters had become the the necromancer's henchmen. Our master allowed me to dual class to cleric and the human fighter dual classed to psion and slowly the gap between us and the necromancer closed, because at the end we became some sort of spellcasters as well, something we didn't want to do in the beginning.
Sounds fun being the necromancers henchmen!... Besides, casting time of spells and the fact that a wizard is useless without a spellbook, provides a sense of balance as well. If someone stole the necromancers book while he was asleep, the fighters would be the most powerful! I never got why all characters had to be just as powerful at all levels of play! You knew when you started out that if you chose to be a wizard, you started out really weak, but if you got experienced enough, you could be really powerful. In some situations in 2nd ed., I remember, magic could stop working or didn`t work in some areas or something like that. It made sense in the narrative. The game wasn`t about combat or tactics, so balance in the sense it is used now, did not matter as much. All characters, no matter what class, could get powerful magic items that could balance out the power levels too, if you felt that was needed or wanted.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 1:22PM
#340
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
The worst imbalance I have actually seen wasnt in D&D and not when playing I was DMing Stormbringer. Dice determining to much how awesome characters are is damn problematic.
In a roleplaying game, I can actually get behind it, it emphasizes that you don`t need an "awesome" character to have fun, and that being best is not what the game is about, it`s about roleplaying.
i dont assume the role you want to play is watching others while your character is bleeding out and never really contributing. Constantly artificially rescuing the character that is only average because the others rolled awesome (or in one case cheated) arranging special items for him which he chould use better than the awesome characters was mildly fun for me as GM ... but the game didnt really help that much.
First of all cheaters should be dealt with- thats your D.M.'s fault entirely for allowing it. Secondly if you lay bleeding several times with several different characters of several different classes not being able to contribute - You might be the one who is causing that to happen.
As far as taking the big dirt nap from time to time, it happens in the D&D game. I wouldn't play an adventure game where danger wasn't a very real force.
|
|
|
