|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 6:59AM
#11
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that your are arguing for having less options rather than getting to make choices, having the DM spice an encounter is all fine and dandy but if you need to do that most of the time to keep things interesting, then the gimmicks are going to lose their value quick. Plus, not everyone is going to find a great DM. =( Sure, it may be in the player's best interest to simply keep spamming their standard damage ability, but if they wanted to have more flavour in their combat then they should switch it around.
So you are saying that player should underpeform just to have more options?
How about having the base package give you more options?
They are already going there with their inclusion of Martial Dice Manuevers and at-will Cantrips, all they need now is to be balanced so they are able to be used diversely, because as of now you have cases like Lance of Faith spam and spells like Resistance hanging around on the practice squad.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 11:39AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
For those saying that using minis and a grid causes combat to be static - you should go check out the combat rules from HackMaster; They are made specifically for use with minis and grid and are the most dynamic and engaging RPG combat system I have ever experienced.
The difference: They aren't turn based. Character actions have their times measured in seconds and initiative is a "count up" that tracks the seconds since the encounter started. Players are able to move every second, which allows and encourages things like falling back while fighting so as to keep yourself from being surrounded and includes quick and easy rules for incidental knockbacks on heavy-hitting attacks. The system also relies on a mechanic of most things being opposed rolls, further keeping the player active and engaged.
Just in case, here's a TL;DR version: It's not the minis and grid that make things static - it's turn based combat with very little benefit built in for actions besides standing still and slugging it out.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 8:53PM
#13
|
|
|
I honestly don't see a lack of spell slots being a problem. The Wizard now works kind of like the Cleric. They "prepare" spells equal to their level+1. You've got 3 or 4 Cantrips, not just one that you spam.
At first level, you've got 2 spells prepped, can cast a combination of them 4 times and then have your Cantrips to fall back on. By the time you're 6th level you can have 7 spells prepped and cast 10 a day + Cantrips. That should enable you to throw 2-3 "real" spells per combat encounter on top of the Cantrips (assuming about 5 encounters per day).
Sorry, I was trying to be funny with the wizard thing, but I wasn't exactly far off. At first level, the best offensive spell the Wizard can cast is ray of frost, because of its damage potential, range, special slowing power, and ability to use it again and again. Your point about the number of spells is off a bit. At first level, you can "prepare" 2 spells (3 if you took Scholarly mage), and you can only cast two spell slots worth of them. That's not a whole lot of choices. By the time you're 6th level, you can cast 10 spell slots worth.
The reason that I believe that Wizards need more spell slots is that they have nothing else. Clerics at 6th level have more. More hit points, better armor, martial dice, martial attack bonus, weapon proficiencies. They do only have 7 spell slots to cast, but they also get 3 channel divinity "slots"... so 10 magical things, plus some cantrips.
In fact, you get a better 1st level "mage" as a 1st level Arcanist cleric, well except for the magic bonus.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 4:28PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Dec 26, 2012
|
As someone who loves playing a Wizard, I will agree that my first experiences with the class have left me underwhelmed. I've played a lot of 4E and it wasn't just the extra options because, to be honest, even if 4E, characters were often using their default favorites, it was how inadequate I felt in comparison to the fighters and rogues. At least cleric got to heal and channel occasional, adding to their usefulness.
I can't honestly blame the Fighters for doing the same thing. The 3d6 bonus they get in our current test campaign is so significant, the maneuvers need to be very good for them not just default to big damage. Even when they knew they didn't need to use the extra, sometimes they'd throw it on anyway just for the "oooh" factor. It felt very unfair when compared to my poor little magelet who had very few "oooh" power that I would never be able to use just for fun.
I don't mind faster combat with more direct results... it puts the focus back on the interaction between players and the roleplaying fun. There does need to be balance, though, between classes and even within the class so that the options we do have all offer something worth considering.
~Val
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 2:02PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2012
|
I agree about the disappointment of playing a caster in this ruleset - particularly a wizard. I'm going back to give 4e another try. I can tell from reading the forums that many feel that martial classes were cheated in prior editions, but I don't play a wizard to get a "ray o' frost gun" with unlimited bullets - the combat cantrips would just be cast over and over again.
We wanted to fight Asmodeus but we had no magic weapons, so we made weapons out of second level monks.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2013 - 5:11PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
I think the relevant classes should get one extra maneuver so as to give them more options in combat. If you choose your feats carefully you can get some extra stuff to do from that. I think the DM should make the battles interesting at least 25% of the time by adding in terrain, special conditions, or special monster behaviors. That isn't always possible, but as a player I always look for ways to do something interesting such as knock a monster off a ledge or things like that. It helps if you have manuevers and feats that give you options instead of a mere passive bonus. That is why I prefer systems where every choice you make has both an active and a passive ability attached to it.
In terms of the wizard... I can certainly see the problem if you don't allow the party to get a full rest very often. I feel like they do very well with AOE attacks, but against a single monster they would probably be inferior. My suggestion for wizards is to turn their daily spells into at-wills after a certain point. So maybe starting at level 8 you can cast rank 1 spells as often as you want, or maybe a better system is if you only need a short rest instead of a long rest to recharge them. I could see this scaling to rank 2 spells at around level 13, and rank 3 spells at around level 18. That could balance things out nicely... but it might be too powerful as well. It certainly would fit my idea of what a high level wizard is like...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2013 - 10:37AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
What about this idea: Give everyone "ability slots" like a caster. Either that or power points to spend (like 4e psions or the 5e sorcerer that was out for a bit).
As you level up in any class you will get slots that you can us to memorize spells or have "strength reserves." For casters, this will be just be their spells as classically done in 1-3.5e. For martial classes this will be their manuevers. The higher level that you put a manuever in the more of an effect that it will have. So Cleave in a level 1 slot may only do +1d6 + Str damge to nearby enemies, for example. At higher levels and in higher slots it will do more damage. So a Cleave in a level 3 slot could do +6d6 + Str to nearby enemies. Or maybe it could be a really good deflection, where you use a level 4 slot to deflect an attack's damage (reduce by 4d6) and bash the enemy off balance. Or maybe an Arrow of Slaying in a level 6 slot that gets +2d4 attack and +8d10 damage for archers. For rogues, things like sneak attach could scale with higher levels. In essence, just like a wizard is storing energy to cast that one really big spell, a rogue could be waiting for the one really good sneak attack where he give it his all.
If you don't want to do slots, then do power points per day. Lvl1 manuevers/spells cost 1 point, lvl2 costs 2, lvl3 costs 4, lvl4 costs 8, ect. Make it to were you know different manuevers/spells and learn more per level. Then, in combat or out, you can spend power points to use the abilities. The more points spent on a manuever the more powerful it becomes. Caster's spells will all have certain ranks that cost an exact amount of power points. Enemies could have this as well. Some classes, like a psion or something, will have the ability to either transfer or steal power points from others, and some attacks will be so brutally draining on the enemy that they will eliminate enemy power points. I personally like this system and think that it has a lot of potentional. The number of power points given could be determined from a base at level up + some stat modifier (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics, Str for warriors, ect.)
Make a diverse list of manuevers (there's already a pretty good start), both offensive and defensive, and give all classes "ability slots" to be able to "cast" their stored energy. That will help out with balancing damage issues, give variety and strategy to how you play a character, and make it so that people will actually WANT to have more slots or power points to "cast" things, instead of taking away caster's slot because they are "overpowered."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 7:23PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
The problem with resource systems is that they are defining features of the class. So if everyone has points or ability slots, than nobody feels special. This is a fairly common complaint about 4E and it is also an issue with MMOs, though obviously some people prefer it that way.
They already have this with manuevers that scale with the number of martial dice you spend, so I don't really see the point. It sounds like they might be moving away from martial dice as a resource and having it be a pure damage bonus with manuevers being an unrelated add-on to your actions. If they do that, then I could see a reason to add in more scalable effects... but for now I think they have it covered. I guess it would be cool if some of the feat activated abilities scaled as well... but that is more complex since any class can choose a feat and might not have the resource to activate it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 10:02PM
#19
|
|
|
I am with you in finding the wizard disappointing. I played one and was just casting ol' Ray of Frost almost the whole time. Only having two 1st level spells meant there was liitle other choice. I understand that will improve at higher levels, but that does me no good as I will not go through the boredom to get to those levels.
And on a tangent, what is with Detect Magic being 1st level with no ritual option? The idea of taking that over something that actually keeps me alive seems foolish. I can't see taking that at any level where I actually care about 1st level spells.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 10:23PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2012
|
I too found that the current system has a degree of limitation in action if you are trying to grab the "special ability" feel. The maneuvers are not worth converting martial damage die for in most cases. I like the direction of cantrips contributing to damage stability for casters over time but it is even harder to narrate a spell effect differently then a Fighter's swing of his weapon so it can be redundant.
|
|
|
