|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 9:43AM
#311
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
One of the issues with errata is that if you build your character with a character builder, but don't play with your laptop at the table, you might get confused by discrepancies between whan your character sheet says and what the book at the table says. This is exacerbated by the fact that sometimes the character builder gets things wrong. So when you see a discrepancy, you're never sure if its' because of errata or computer glitch.
That may be the most easily quantified reason yet for having a zero errata policy.
I generally dont see the errata as being for my table .. I assume its for those folk doing public play for instance in online environments. If I have an issue with something and find there is an errata I will analyze the errata and decide if I like it (they can be pretty heavy handed and even change the flavor of something with there changes )
Character builder apps can be designed with flexible databases for managing rules adjustments (they did a little of that in the old offline character builder where elements were excludable). The value of a customizeable CB is huge so writing it from the beginning that way would be smart.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 9:44AM
#312
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
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.
Thats kind of a funny point. Too much emphasis on balance and theres no room for dice anymore. =-D
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 9:46AM
#313
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
One of the issues with errata is that if you build your character with a character builder, but don't play with your laptop at the table, you might get confused by discrepancies between whan your character sheet says and what the book at the table says. This is exacerbated by the fact that sometimes the character builder gets things wrong. So when you see a discrepancy, you're never sure if its' because of errata or computer glitch.
Yes! We and other groups I`ve played with, has a no lap-top at the table policy, which I like.
Me and my group all use the laptop builder, so we're still on the same page.
I meant no lap-tops while we are playing. While building characters, they can use the character builder. But the next campaign I`m running, I think I`ll have them roll dice for their stats, there is something special about building a character like that!
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.
I don`t really care about balance. I run a highly narrative and rp-based game, so the numbers and the crunch doesn`t really matter that much, but thanks for the heads up! I could give the players a 15 and a 7 and have them role the rest, maybe, or something to that effect. Or have 18 be the max stat at 1st level, even with bonuses. I don`t think 4d6 and cut the lowest, 6 times, would give too good or bad numbers- if it does, it can be adjusted. I remember 2nd ed. had rules on too good stats or too low, so you had to role again..
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 9:49AM
#314
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
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.
Thats kind of a funny point. Too much emphasis on balance and theres no room for dice anymore. =-D
Haha, that`s true! I thought it, you said it! But I don`t care if the game is a little unbalanced, and I doubt my players would care, it hasen`t been an issue for all of the 15 years we have played! If it gets too bad, you always have magic items to balance it out! That`s what I did in 2e!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 9:50AM
#315
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
I generally dont see the errata as being for my table .. I assume its for those folk doing public play for instance in online environments. If I have an issue with something and find there is an errata I will analyze the errata and decide if I like it (they can be pretty heavy handed and even change the flavor of something with there changes )
Character builder apps can be designed with flexible databases for managing rules adjustments (they did a little of that in the old offline character builder where elements were excludable). The value of a customizeable CB is huge so writing it from the beginning that way would be smart.
Not to disagree with you in any way. But I have to comment on char builder programs; the very idea of them just makes me sad. Half or better of the magic of D&D is from the physical artifacts, the dice, the char sheets, mini's and maps. Somehow the idea of forcing the digital world in on that simple interaction between the physical world and the imaginary one that we create difuses some of the joy for me.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:07AM
#316
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Half or better of the magic of D&D is from the physical artifacts, the dice, the char sheets, mini's and maps.
Utterly personal response and probably only true for 10 percent or so ... When they analysed learning techniques to discover how people learned for some just the fact of having a book and things to push around with what they were doing was a significant factor for a "some". For others the thing needs to be heard... It kind of centered around specific senses.(tactile being for you).
For some these games we play are way to immobile you need the game to have people up moving around. So when we played back in high school we actually walked around and described motions of the characters to a lesser extent acted them out it was very satisfying. How about fields and forrests and riversides instead of somebodies basement.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:31AM
#317
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
There was no need to raise the DCs though, or more precisely he should not have done it because it breaks the system. That is the point.
And your point is wrong. In the scenario we were discussing, the system was already broken because Danny's character rendered Ursula's character incapable of meaningfully participating in an encounter, which is a flaw in the system. Raising the DCs beyond the guidelines was the only way to allow Ursula any chance to participate meaningfully, and that resulted in Danny feelig like his character was being nerfed.
The system is the problem here because it does nto allow two very reasonable people -- Danny and ursula -- to participate in social encounters simultaneously. It forces the DM to decide which of the two players' contributions will matter.
Say I put the diplomancer I created for 5e into a game. If the DM increases all persuasion DC's because of that then he broke the system.
The DM doesn't need to do that in 5e because the system as designed allows both ursula and Danny to participate.
Again, you seem to completely ignore the issue with Ursula. All of your comments on the scenario ignore the very existence of Ursula. And until you address that element of the hypothetical you will continue to misunderstand it.
That is the problem here. The DM changed all the DCs to challenge a player who had built himself to not be challenged by those tasks.
No. The problem is that the system let him build a character not to require the aid of the other players thus marginaliing the other players.
Your concern, or at least the one you raised, is that someone of high enough skill discourages team work because he does not need help because he can accomplish anything within the normal DC range. That is a concern I can share.
That is precisely what MWAO raised. You just didn't acknowledge it until I had to repeat it several times and for some reason you still don't understand that's what MWAO was raising as well.
You are wrong. The DM in MWAO's hypothetical was nto raising the DCs without cause. He was raising the DCs, and I quote fro MWAO's own post... "all social situations are meaningless because the Diplomancer always wins" with a Diplomancer and "a player who has made a solid 'I can talk' character, but isn't good at making the difficult Diplomacy rolls".
I did not "raise the concern". MWAO did. You misunderstood MWAO's hypothetical.
"Some players have to talk to the NPCs, regardless of whether or not that's a good idea."
meaning they are the only ones who can do the talking the diplomancer isn't making this check at all.
"So in a party with a Diplomancer, the DM decides to make all the Diplomacy rolls really difficult. There's a player who has made a solid 'I can talk' character, but isn't good at making the difficult Diplomacy rolls. But he has to talk to the NPCs."
The DM is forcing the solid I can talk character to talk (okay because this gives them the spotlight for something they wanted to do a little bit of so this is kinda fine), and is giving him DC's built for the Diplomancer (this is the problem). The specific example includes an element that the diplomancer cannot contribute (since if he were then ursala would have no problem beating the DC) yet the DM is using the higher DC's. He borked the system.
Yes it is wrong that the system allows Danny to overshadow Ursala. It was also wrong of the DM to up all the diplomacy DC's especially when the diplomancer wasn't making the check involved. Moreover he is ignoring combined checks entirely. In the combined checks system it doesn't matter as the solid I can talk character will likely always help (in previous editions the help DC was always DC 15 to add a bonus to the diplomancer's roll).
The problem you express, and rightly so, is that the diplomancer doesn't really need the help on his turn like ever. I agree with that. However the given example insinuates that the solid I can talk character is being forced to make the check on her own and is being given a DC that was artificially raised to challenge the diplomancer...even though the diplomancer isn't even making the same check (were he making the same check the artificially increased DCs wouldn't be a problem because ursala would have been helping him beat the crazy high DC the DM set).
"You end up with a situation where the Diplomancer is upset that the other player keeps talking. The other player is upset that the DM upping the DCs to deal with the Diplomancer and that the Diplomancer just wants to roll a d20 and barely roleplays. And the DM is upset that all social situations are meaningless because the Diplomancer always wins."
This speaks of various non system problems. One in particular being the diplomancer being upset with someone else's entirely stat correct role play which is never cool (it is entirely cool for someone to call you on not playing to your stats at least in my mind). Another being that the DM artificially raised all DC's because he was upset that a player could perform to a certain degree. Literally the DM raised the DC's not to try and fix anything (which if done properly would have been done including the requirement of ursals help) he did it because he was upset at the diplomancer's success rate. He literally nerfed the diplomancer and in doing so everyone else as well. He took a course of action that was incorrect.
This problem would happen and work the exact same way in 5e if the DM operated in the exact same way. Even in this 5e build the diplomancer is very good. DC 15 will not be as much a challenge for him past about first level. DC 20 will soon become easy as well via all the rerolling the player is capable of. Now if the DM got upset and artificially upped all the DC's because he wanted the diplomancer to need something higher on the d20 ursala, who is not as built out, would have the same exact problems as are expressed in MWAO's post. Artificially upping the DC's invalidated his example. While the system did create a problem in MWAO's post (more correctly identified and given example of by you thank you very much) the DM's actions also created a large portion of that problem.
In MWAO's post if the DM had left the DC's alone the problem wouldn't be the same. The situation he described wouldn't come up because when the solid I can talk character had to do the talking the DCs would be reasonable, and the I spent all my options on talking guy would smoke the encounters he talked in. Which then brings out your stated issue that he never needs help, and if he is allowed to always talk in every situation would be completely overshadowing ursala. In fact if the DM in MWAO's example just stuck to his model of having scenes where Ursala must do all the talking (insinuated by the diplomancer being completely unable to contribute to beating the DC) the problem is somewhat solved, but not on scenes were they both want to do the talking and can. The problem would then literally be that the diplomancer never needs help and ursala's skills in talking are a waste.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:51AM
#318
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
As a player and DM since 2002, I can say that Balance issues have come into play as a detriment to the game precisely once: in a 3.5 party with two psions, a soulknife, and a (healbot) cleric.
The cleric pretty much sat apart from balance/imbalance, not bothering to utilize the "broken" aspects of the class. The Psions on the other hand, had the best-in-system no-tricks nova capability while the soulknife... pretty much had bupkis.
That problem was solved very quickly by allowing the soulknife to gestalt with fighter and take a few feats from obscure splats, putting him at least on a level where he felt good playing alongside the psions.
Of course, the PvE balance of the group was properly messed up: with the party all at level 9, we took out an EL 14 encounter of PC-classed enemies with max hp/hd (The party, on the other hand, has roughly average hp/hd from rolling). Both psions were near totally out of PP at the end, but that shouldn't have been winnable, much less with no casualties, no use of long-term consumables (item charges and the like) and little actual damage. That's when the DM stopped really using by-the-book enemies as straight-up challenges...
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 11:02AM
#319
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I did not "raise the concern". MWAO did. You misunderstood MWAO's hypothetical.
"Some players have to talk to the NPCs, regardless of whether or not that's a good idea."
meaning they are the only ones who can do the talking the diplomancer isn't making this check at all.
Your interpretation is wrong as MWAO explained in this post. She was makign the same point I was making. You misinterpreted her, you didn't see or didn't care about her clarification. And you keep chug-chug-chugging along. Nobody made this point. You're tilting at windmills.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 12:10PM
#320
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
The worse balance problems I have had where actually in 4e. However, that isn't because 4e is worse balanced then 3e but because the campaign is one where balance matters more. The 4e game I run is a very combat focused game so even a fairly small balance problem screws up the game much more then the 3e games I ran, which where more exploration and role playing oriented. In my 4e game, even a small imbalance or break in the combat balance noticeably throws off the game. In the exploration and role playing games, it both matters less and I can adjust easier. I find 3e is slightly easier to adjust because there are more monsters and they often have more powers, giving you more options to counter a specific character, but that difference isn't that big.
As for what I have run into that is broken, rogues can be very good in combat, exploration and social encounters with high striker damage, skirmish powers to boost defenses, avoid damage and move freely and a bunch of skill boosting powers. A lot of this is that rogues are so good at base that it is hard to build a rogue that isn't highly effective. Lock down fighters, who maximize their mark punishment and personal defenses can often negate individual monsters in fights. Healing focused clerics can make the party indestructible until healing run out and clerics in general have a problem with their daily powers stacking too effectively.
Defenders who focus too much on defense are a problem also, but because they are ineffective rather then dangerous. I see new players make that mistake a lot. Traps that produce characters that are bad in combat by accident are something that Next has to avoid as much as overly optimized ones. All of the controller classes generally work only for experienced players because what the classes do is indirect and requires more character design planning to be effective.
|
|
|
