|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 3:56PM
#31
|
|
|
I just hope that the non-magicky powers at high levels match up to the magicky powers in terms of power and coolness. (It bugs me a little that in the current release the monk's Hurricane Strike is literally 2-12 times more powerful than the fighter's Shove Away, plus it knocks the target prone, apparently all because the monk maneuver is "magical.")
This doesn't require that fighters smash through mountains or anything. Just let them reliably do the kind of cool stuff that Conan and Legolas and other epic martial fantasy heroes do, and balance it numerically against the combat effects that casters can achieve. And for Pelor's sake, don't cut off new martial abilities at level 10 when caster spells scale up to level 17. An action point is not equivalent to a Wish spell.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:04PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
If your tastes run to the outre, on the fringes of traditional D&D tropes, that's what you can expect.
Some day we may be able to build characters like the legendary and mythic ones mentioned in the 2e phb ... without going to a different game. Till then Beowulf and CuCulaine, Herakles (as well as Gilgamesh and Roland)... get to be lame or item dependent Atlanteans... overwhelmed by the spell casting supremacists pretenses that balance is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:07PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2012
|
"Slapping in every single person's desires into the Core would be like putting wings, floaties, bench seats, and helicopter blades on a bicycle. It's not mean-spirited - it's recognizing that if you did so, the bicycle would be ugly, expensive, and immobile." - Professor Daddy
Nice.
Also I have now become confused. What is considered Core in the current playtest, and what is considered Advanced? I’m assuming from what I am reading, in Core, your abilities: Maneuvers or Spells, specialties et cetera are all determined for you at character creation. There is a default choice, for new players. Although they have included some extra material there like other choices for advanced players. Does that sound right? I know the specialty thing is, because it was stated in a Legends and Lore Article, but I don’t know about the other abilities that, currently if you took the playtest as is, have choice (like spells). I haven’t looked at the playtest packet in a bit. So if that’s all true, then can we put neat-o maneuvers that are even less Corey then the other listed maneuvers. Are maneuvers and Spells equivalent? Can’t be, can they? Or how else would a wizard do anything, where as a fighter could still, although boring weapon attacks. Assuming no one uses any improvisation. How does a wizard improvise without a spell to improvise with? I haven’t even talked about the Orisons and Prayers a Cleric gets (they would be cantrips and spells if they were arcane). And no a Tome for Core would be insane and expensive. But if it combined all the typical three starting books into one then it would also be weird for doing so, but would be an interesting read, to see how they link it all together. Although it would not make sense for it to all be smushed together considering they are catering to different aspects of the game. Although I don’t have a problem with the DMG and MM being smashed together since I believe they share similar purposes, unless MM is useful only for self-created adventures in which case there you go again, another reason to have it separate. WOW Rasta Popoulos that was crazy what you said, I’ve said it before in another post, the Monk being out of place in a western medieval RPG. +7 awesome points for you man. Seriously I’m going to take your quote and drop it in a message on the Oriental Adventures, that is a perfect encapsulation of how I feel. “Well the first thing I've ever dropped in my games was the monk class.
Not having a "shaolin kung fu master" in the middle of a western-medieval campaign makes the game seem much more like D&D to me, actually.
And I suppose western-medieval fantasy is what mostly defines D&D, what it's always been about from the start.
There have been several Official Settings and Suplements with different approaches using the D&D basic rules, but well that's supposedly not core.
So the Monk as a core class has always felt extremely out of place to me. I would never, ever, include it in the game unless there was actually oriental-flavoured stuff in the setting I'm running.” – Rasta Populous. Thanks man.
I should mention I have never liked spells that have some other character’s name attached to them based solely on the fact that without real-life research there is no way to know why it’s there. I only vaguely know. Otherwise it would make sense that some spells have their original creator’s name attached to them. Clockwork Necktie that is exactly what I just said, bingo. Haven’t read page 3 or 4 at time of post.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:09PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I think that if they are in the PHB they should come with a disclaimer. That way you don't have new players showing up at your table with abilities that are not allowed. Lets continue to empower the DM.
Then should there be a disclaimer on every single... well, everything in the book? Because it's possible for the DM to say "That's not in my game" to pretty much everything. What if my game world has no magic users? Should every caster class and spell in the game come with a disclaimer that your DM may not allow them? What if my game world only has humans? Should every race have a disclaimer saying that your DM may not allow them? Hell, what if my game world has no HUMANS?
This garbage isn't about "empowering the DM". The DM is already empowered by the rules to pick and choose game elements. They just have to say so. All this is is bitterness from people who can't STAND the thought that something THEY don't like could ever DARE to be in the game without being labeled "NOT CORE! USE AT OWN RISK! DMS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WON'T LET YOU USE THIS ANIME $&^%!" People who want other gamers to feel like they are not playing the game the "right" way because they aren't playing a clone of AD&D. All this doom and gloom about how having anything but bog-standard old-timey fantasy shlock in the books will cause entitled players to DEMAND their poor, long-suffering DMs to add buster swords and spiky hair or whatever else is a scapegoat of those durned kids these days is nonsense. Just have the orbs to tell your players you dislike anything thought up after the 80's instead of forcing us all to jump in our time machines.
IMO, the removal or inclusion of races and classes shouldn't break the game. Such things don't require a disclaimer unless that class only caters to one particular playstyle (ie. 4e warlord). In that case, the player should be informed that the group's playstyle might not find the class acceptable. Elements that are playstyle specific like healing surges, resting rules, magical -martial powers should be optional. If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM. The game should be playable without them in the exact same way that the game is playable without humans.
I fully support modules for all playstyles, I just don't see why the core of the game must contain playstyle specific elements. Sure I might want to play "old school" but I wouldn't want those "old school" elements to be part of the core either. Therefore I don't understand why some "new school" players are trying to force their playstyle on the core. Maybe they want the core rules to be written in such a way that it subjugates the DM's role to that of cog in the mechanics. Perhaps, they want the authority to show up at the table and slam the PHB down like a fundamentalist preacher. Therefore, setting player expectations is a big part of DM empowerment.
So far the designers are doing a good job at identifiing elements that are contentious. In fact, the optional resting rules are a great example.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:14PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM.
piss poor game design then... as that would mean adding them in will unbalance the game.. hurray. Guess what the game needs to be balanced in both contexts. Especially since the traditionalists have no problem with spell casters being over powered... let there game become imbalanced.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:36PM
#36
|
|
|
@Garthanos and dmgorgon - what do each of you mean by "core"? Are you both talking about the first PHB? If so, bear in mind that there will be an explicit new magic-sword-guy class in that book, somewhat based on the mechanics of the draconic sorcerer from a previous playtest, specifically designed to do magicky sword things. So the fighter can remain pristinely mundane (unless you multiclass or take dabbler feats) while this new class does magicky stuff.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 5:24PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
@Garthanos and dmgorgon - what do each of you mean by "core"? .
Professordaddy means the concept should not be appearing in the PHB because it will offend him... or it will take up space reserved for boring traditional things... something in the middle of that. Even under the banner of the monk.
I pointed out his misuse of the term core (according to the Next definition). But you have to respond to peoples use of terms in the manner which they reveal there intent is.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 6:22PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM.
piss poor game design then... as that would mean adding them in will unbalance the game.. hurray. Guess what the game needs to be balanced in both contexts. Especially since the traditionalists have no problem with spell casters being over powered... let there game become imbalanced.
yes it would be bad design. Playstyle options can be balanced within their own context. Spells that are overpowered (save or die) and magical-figther powers would be playstyle options. The core wouldn't include either.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 6:28PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
@Garthanos and dmgorgon - what do each of you mean by "core"? Are you both talking about the first PHB? If so, bear in mind that there will be an explicit new magic-sword-guy class in that book, somewhat based on the mechanics of the draconic sorcerer from a previous playtest, specifically designed to do magicky sword things. So the fighter can remain pristinely mundane (unless you multiclass or take dabbler feats) while this new class does magicky stuff.
Core could be the PHB with all the options excluded. Of course, in some cases you might be forced to pick an option, which would make the core rules something that each game simply derives from.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 6:28PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
If the game is balanced with them in mind then that power to remove them is taken away from the DM.
piss poor game design then... as that would mean adding them in will unbalance the game.. hurray. Guess what the game needs to be balanced in both contexts. Especially since the traditionalists have no problem with spell casters being over powered... let there game become imbalanced.
yes it would be bad design. Playstyle options can be balanced within their own context. Spells that are overpowered (save or die) and magical-figther powers would be playstyle options. The core wouldn't include either.
The core has wish spells -- And the monk examples are not actually over powered at all just not the style of the very people that want to ensure over powered casters
|
|
|
