|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:51PM
#11
|
|
|
I would like to see additional attacks on the Fighter.
Some, not many (no more than 3-4 even at 20th level) but AS WELL as MDD, not instead.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 5:23PM
#12
|
|
|
I think your points are great: I have one MDD related suggestion to add:
Have MDD once per round and recharge at the END of your turn, not at the start. This will prevent dice from being 'wasted' by not being used. You can use dice for defense and know that any you don't used can be used for offense. if they recharge at the start of your turn you have to guess if you will be able to use them for defense, and if you save some, and aren't attacked, they are wasted. I think this will make players use them for offense 95% of the time, to guarantee they are used.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 5:36PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
MDD -> Weapon Damage Dice. Same thing, except it's based on your weapon instead of a flat d6.
Actually, a personally better suggestion was that certain weapon types (like two handed) would get a bump in MDD, so a D8 instead of D6.
The issue with [W] dice is that the higher diced weapons are superiour, no matter the size. D4 is inferior to D6, which is inferior to D8s... Yadda yadda.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 5:37PM
#14
|
|
|
You might be able to use MDD each turn, but you only get one reaction per round. So its really only used on your turn and possibly one other during the round.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 5:47PM
#15
|
|
|
MDD -> Weapon Damage Dice. Same thing, except it's based on your weapon instead of a flat d6.
Actually, a personally better suggestion was that certain weapon types (like two handed) would get a bump in MDD, so a D8 instead of D6.
The issue with [W] dice is that the higher diced weapons are superiour, no matter the size. D4 is inferior to D6, which is inferior to D8s... Yadda yadda.
A good way to fix this is have only d6, d8, and d10 damage weapons (some classes may have a weapon talent to bump damage up one step).
Then using a 2H weapon for 1 extra damage per W comes at the cost of defense. Using a light 1H weapon vs a regular 1H weapon is a trade off for using the superstat Dex as your primary attack attribute. The trade-offs become much more manageable if we remove the d4 and d12 weapon.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 6:05PM
#16
|
|
|
The biggest problem I see is the way martial classes have been homogenized over the last few packets....
The problem is not limited to the martial classes. All the classes have been growing steadily similar in structure, capabilities and effects. You may blame the Balance Brigade, which whines like a cat in a tornado about how "overpowered" mages are and demand that fighters get magic-like dice to deal damage apparently out of the ether, and then whine about how rogues need to do as much damage-per-combat as fighters in order to prove they're contributing, and then want even mega-uber-spells like Wish to be watered down to the point that the very mightiest mage on the planet can do no more damage with it than could a reasonably well-equipped tenth level fighter...
And then they complain that the classes are too bland and homogenized.
LOLZ on the bolded part.
Balance for me does not require homogenization. Balance for me involves keeping resources on a relatively appropriate scale across-the-board. So a level 9 spell that's usable 1/day should be equivalent to a level 9 martial maneuver that's usable 1/day (if such a martial maneuver existed). If the assumption is that a daily is more powerful than an encounter and an encounter is more powerful than an at-will, then the question becomes, "by how much?"
Just slapping together stuff -- even if it's slapping together stuff in a homogenized fashion -- is lazy design, if you can call it system design at all.
Example: If, in terms of damage alone, a basic attack is anywhere between 1d4 (2.5) and 1d12 (6.5), or an average of 4.5 damage per hit -- assuming martial characters are the baseline, with MDD that's an average of 8 dpr at level 1 -- how do we ensure that a spell like Ray of Frost or Burning Hands is roughly within the same range as a martial basic attack? Should it be doing roughly 10% ~ 20% less (1d6+INT mod) for being ranged, or should it be doing even less damage because it adds an effect? Would Sleep be 4x more powerful (affecting enemies whose total HP is 32), by virtue of being a daily? Should it actually be a higher level spell due to the condition it inflicts (unconscious)?
Just saying "screw it, it's magic, let it do whatever feels appropriate for something magical" is easily a slippery slope towards the godcasters in 3E, which not everyone is willing to play. And of course, implying that high level play is caster-only -- so much so that you cannot meaningfully participate if you lack magical items, divine blessings or spells boosting you -- is a very limited perception on how high level play should work, considering how, as far as I can recall, high level play is supposed to be of the world-changing variety (not necessarily the high-magic variety).
EDIT: Before I forget, no I don't want DBZ martial characters that can use Ki to fly through the air and throw energy balls at each other. Let the wizards handle the kamehame wave-ing and flight and go sparkly light pew pew. However, I do want martial characters to be able to train their muscles to godhood -- the Atlas Superpower so to speak -- so by the time Wizards are raining meteors and summoning demons, the martial characters aren't cowering behind their magically superior companions just because they didn't get any magical blades or what not; instead, I want them to go at demons, dragons and even gods and be able to hack at them.
- - - - -
Personally I think the problem with this whole MDD thing (among other stuff) involves the devs trying to stretch themselves way too much. In particular, why do we *have* to stick to 20 levels? Why not just have everyone at 12 levels, or 15 levels?** It's easier to balance out stuff without nerfing anyone if the game isn't stretched out over so many levels after all. I mean, Men and Magic at least appeared to be balanced if you kept the game up to level 10 since the most powerful spells of the game weren't available 'till level 11, which means everything was scaled more or less appropriately in spite of the lack of rules and relative deadliness of the campaigns.
EDIT: Perhaps another problem with D&D and TRPGs in general is that sometimes we set story first before game. It's kinda difficult pulling off a Wrath of the Titans scene where this mortal man is fighting giants and even gods while having dice and game rules running side by side. Not that having a great story is a bad thing -- narrative and drama *is* a central aspect of TRPGs after all -- but it's not exactly easy to create a story that's flexible enough to take into consideration the fact that you're not just running a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure living pocketbook session. www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/how-to...
** stretching spells over 10 levels, with players getting level 1 spells at level 1, level 2 spells at level 2, etc., then limiting spell slots to maybe 1 per level (and maybe three spells at level 1) so that a caster would have only 12 spell slots to worry about, then adjusting martial characters to make them just as compelling, is much easier (and removes the need to separate spell level from class/character level) than what every edition has done prior to 4E regarding spells (I mean outside of D&D, how does getting a level 3 spell at level 5 make sense?). Everything past level 10 would then be in a module: maybe one module grants more spell slots at higher levels, maybe gives epic wizards metamagic abilities, or what not.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 6:25PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
With the introduction of bounded accuracy scaling damage/HP is the only thing left to show improvement. In the past, your AC would have outclassed a creature to the point where they were no longer a threat. Now, that creature can still hit you, but in order to show how much more bad-assery you have you can only get you for 10% of your HP and you can drop him with one or two hits.
I'm ok with MDD becoming [W] damage dice. I feel that the 2h weapon weilder should be more lethal. The 2h weapon weilder is trading sheild AC for more damage. And with bounded accuracy that sheild AC is big advantage. On average a 2h weapon weilder will be doing 2 more points of damage per [W] than a sword and board weilder. 1d8 vs 1d12. At higher levels it scales proportionately.
Light weapon weilders are probably the ones who will suffer the most under this. But they're Dex classes to begin with. They already have several benefits over Str classes. I'm ok with them getting some other benefits, like improved MDD for special moves and such to help ease the gap.
And as for the racial weapon mastery junk. It can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned. I think it's one of the worst ideas of DDN.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 10:09PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2002
|
Two-handed weapons need to deal more damage than one-handed weapons, martial damage dice included, lest the percentage of their difference change as levels go up. 1d8+3+1d6 vs. 1d12+3+1d6 at first level feels like a lot (+2 damage on average, +4 max), but that +2/+4 difference at higher levels when the damage is 1d8+5+5d6 vs. 1d12+5+5d6 is nothing ... if it was 11 damage vs 13 damage on average at 1st level, then it should be more like 27 vs 32.
If we're dealing with weapon dice, then we're looking at 2d8+3 vs. 2d12+3 at some point; 12 vs 16 average. Going up to 5d8+5 vs. 5d12+5 has averages of 27.5 vs 37.5 (very close to the scaling damage of 36.66 a simple proportion gives).
Remember, for a fighter, a shield is kind of an HP boost. If an enemy has a 40% chance to hit a Fighter with 100 hp, then +2 AC is equivalent to a +33% hp boost (this number depends on what the average chance of a monster hitting a Fighter would be). If we want a Fighter with a greatsword vs. a Fighter with a large shield and a longsword to be on equal footing with each other, the greatsword needs to deal more damage than the longsword.
But then again, I am Captain of the Balance Brigade, so ...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 1:05AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
With the introduction of bounded accuracy scaling damage/HP is the only thing left to show improvement. In the past, your AC would have outclassed a creature to the point where they were no longer a threat. Now, that creature can still hit you, but in order to show how much more bad-assery you have you can only get you for 10% of your HP and you can drop him with one or two hits.
Its amazing the developers could stare at all that potential only to pick at that one benefit especially when going with one bounded stat undermines the benefit of a bounded stat.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 1:43AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I recommend that anyone who has not seen the last Google+ hangout with Mike Mearls to find it and watch it.
He discusses a probable revamping of how these things work and they will be a) unlike they are now and b) similar to some of the suggestions in this thread.
Specifically: Replacing MDD with an increase in damage (2[W], 3[W]. etc.) as the character goes up in level. Additionally, he proposed that a fighter who was able to do 2[W] damage (due to his level) would be able to choose between doing 2[W] to one target or making two attacks at 1[W] each to two different targets (splitting attacks would be mandatory). The cost for maneuvers would be a reduction in damage (pay a "[W]") to add some additional effect onto the attack.
Carl
|
|
|
