|
4 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2013 - 12:25AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
The only people who think 4e classes all feel the same are people who only glanced at the system, or are way too hung up on mechanics. A Sorcerer thrusts out his hand and a sizzling stroke of lightning blasts from his arm into an Orc's chest, hurling the creature off its feet. A fighter grabs a hobgoblin's sword arm in mid-swing and slams his shield into it's jaw with such force that it spins to the ground. In 4e terms, both powers pushed the target 1 square and knocked it prone, and maybe both did lightning damage if the fighter had a magic weapon.
It only feels "the same" because you're just glancing at a power block and reading it like a tech manual.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 20, 2013 - 9:30AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Yes they did that in 4th ed didnt work. Not all classes will be balanced. that is why you group so each other covers the others weakness
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 12:23PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2011
|
The issue here is a unified system (4E) vs. a multitude of subsystems (3E). As a fighter in 3E, I knew as long as I had hit points, I was ready to cause some havoc. As a wizard, though, once your spell reserve is depleted, you knew it was time to take a hike. Two separate systems with their own advantages and disadvantages. That changed in 4E when suddenly the fighter could run out of daily or encounter powers, much like the wizard. This was done in the name of standardization and ease of play. By the time Essentials came out, Wizards decided that maybe some classes SHOULD have more elaborate subsystems, and not everyone needs daily powers. However, I had definitely lost my interest in the system by that point, and I am sure others had too.
Multiple, complex subsystems can be a terrible idea too. Anyone remember the Tome of Magic from 3.5E? Let me copy and paste an Amazon reviewer's description the Truenamer class: "Every time a Truenamer wishes to use an Utterance (their version of a spell), they must make a Truespeak (new skill) check of DC 15 + (CR x 2) + (2 for each previous time the Truespeaker has used that utterance today). While this seems fine and dandy, remember that when you go up a level, your max ranks in a skill only increases by 1, while the difficulty of uttering a Truename of a like level creature (your ally, for example) increases by 2.... He becomes dependant on his Amulet of the Silver Tongue (a magic item which gives +5 or +10 to his Truespeak checks) to use his Utterances more than a couple times in a day. Additionally, to Utter defensively imposes a penalty on the Truespeak check, rather than requiring a Concentration check.... [and so on]"
What a nightmare it can be when a player drops a book down on the table and says "I want to be this guy!"
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:26AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
@Veggie-sama: Thanks for the input. I think that you did a good job of comparing the two different editions. A few thoughts on the 4e section are that, since encounters recharge, it allows for ALL classes to continue into the next battle without a need for an extended rest, not just the warriors. A lot of people seem to have issues with how 4e was done (and I've got a few myself), but it did at least mean that a warrior wasn't stopping after a 5 min work day for an extended rest because his wizard buddy was out of spells and needed to rest. That was one VERY good advantage about it.
Personally, I find most Essentials characters to be completely boring to play because many of them tend to use the same at-wills over and over again to attack, leading to the issue that another thread on hear is talking about with the monotomy of combat. I think that this same tactic was taken into mind when they sent out the latest test packet. A wizard would have a basic at-will that would be used all the time with the occasional "daily" he could throw for big(-ish) damage. This basically devolved him into an archer with a small spell list to make up for the fact that he doesn't get martial damage dice or additional damage on his attack (meaning that there was a decrease of "subsystems" in the overall mechanics).
I agree with you in 3.5 that when the casters ran out of spells they basically would just have to take a hike and run. Which meant that the warriors were screwed in having to deal with all the enemies themselves. They needed a balance where the warrior wasn't just auto-attacking all the time (one reason why I rarely play one) and were the wizard wasn't saying "Oh, last spell. See you guys later. Hope you make it." Having more spell slots is one way of doing that. Spells don't have to be uber damaging or massively crippling, but having more just means that the wizard has more diversity in their "subsystem" than their at-will, auto-attack, ray-o-pain. The other way of balancing would be to essentially give everyone about the same amount of "slots" (number, limit, points, what have you) to do extra stuff besides swinging away with a weapon. As it stands now though, the wizard has far more limited numbers of options, and the warrior can infinitely swing away with bonus damage or dodging or whatever manuevers he has.
That's why I was thinking that limiting the numbers might be good. Mechanically, yes, they will share some similarities, so the means by which they are used will be similar, but the actual abilities themselves will not be. To liken it to other RPG's, it's like saying that will everyone in Final Fantasy uses MP to perform skills, the actual skills themselves will be dramatically different. A mage uses fire/ice/lightning magic, a healer uses healing and buffs, a fighter uses MP to increase damage or attack all enemies, ect, ect. This would be similar to that, with each class being unique in what they do, though similar in the mechanics of how they play. It would also allow for "subsystems" without (hopefully) have so many different ones that it's overly complicated.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:19AM
#15
|
|
|
I think that this blurs the distinction between classes far too much. I think that the common thread between the classes is that they already have one action that can be performed once per round. More than this, and I think it starts to feel like less than D&D (or at least what the core should feel like).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:38AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
A lot of people think that the idea makes the classes too similar. "Blurs the distinction." So then, what does everyone see as being the main distinct features with each class and how can they be incorperated such that everyone can contribute equally but distinctly? That seems to be the heart of the debate.
From what I've been seeing, casters seem to function far too similarly to warrior as they don't have many unique things to rely upon and just end up going back to their ray gun for damage in the end. They also have no use for their primary stat (wisdom or intelligence) and have limits on the number of turns that they are useful. Melee classes don't have these problems. And from what a lot of the other posts on this forum are saying, they like that wizards have less choice, less selection, and are more like warriors.
So how would one of you guys resolve this issue?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:45AM
#17
|
|
|
I would prefer that casters spells be more tactical and not something that shoots a ray gun every round, and if they must do damage every round I would prefer that they be more like Flaming Sphere that take up the wizards concentration slot. I for one would like to see Cantrips that can be cast every round removed from the game.
Primary stats have traditionally given more spells per level and I think returning to this would be a positive for the game. I would also point out that primary stats are too powerful in the bounded accuracy system and in my opinion should be lowered in effectiveness across he board.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 12:05PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
I would also point out that primary stats are too powerful in the bounded accuracy system and in my opinion should be lowered in effectiveness across he board.
Could you define the "bounded accuracy system." I'm sure that I've used it in some addition, I just don't know which you're talking about or exactly what it is.
I agree that if they do spell slots (my preference), then they should tie in your primary stat to increase the number of slots. This should go from a decent amount to a great amount, not from 1 spell slot per tier to *maybe* having 2. Casters need spells to be unique. That's their whole point.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 12:52PM
#19
|
|
|
RE Bounded Accuracy System: If you look at the DCs for skill checks and the to hit rolls in this game vs armor class both change very little as you level up. Your primary stats on the other hand give a very big boost at level 1, and seem kind of out place in this system. Further because the primary stats are so important you get forced into a stat buy system.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 5:51PM
#20
|
|
|
My problem with the system you're describing is that it gets back toward the 4E style "powers", which is what turned a lot of people off who enjoyed the basic "I attack with my sword" old school feel of the game.
Not that I would really know: I started with 4E and loved it, but having fighters say "I hit him with my pounce-of-the tiger blah blah move" was sort of immersion breaking. I know that you're just talking about using the maneuvers already in the game but a "6th level cleave" isn't too different.
|
|
|
