It is, partly, but if the quest reward is a small percentage of the total XP pool of the adventure (the others attained by defeating monsters and disabling traps) the quest reward is more the cherry on top of the murdered goblins cake. The way it was written it seemed to me more of a convenient checklist for the players so they knew what they where doing and so they wouldn't forget to take the princess back home after ripping some trolls to shreds (forgive my hyperbole). It alone is not a solution and has little or no influence on percieved class imbalance or not being able to contribute in combat when the adventure is a connect the encounters to the goal format where each encounter or (skill)challenge takes an hour.
Got you. Well on the subject of balance, there will never be true balance and I am not sure what's wrong with no true balance if the it feels like each player has approximately equal stuff to do via their character each session.
If they ever reach that point we'll find out, however we're not even there yet.
I don't need the fighter to be a social adept or a exploration master, I just think he needs to contribute somethign to those pillars that a wizard can't do better by wiggling his fingers.
The Fighter(or Barbarian) is in the skirmish of orcs putting blade to task. The Cleric is at the overflow, using his weapon to fend off any orcs that made it past the fighter, using any oppurtunity to call on his divine connection to keep the fighter healthy and strong (stronger if possible) The Wizard uses hold portal to keep the entrance shut off to a second group of orcs permitting time to empty the room of the first wave. The Rogue sees the orc leader to the rear, takes a few turns to stealth around, by this time the fighter has thinned the herd, the Cleric gets another oppurtunity to heal the fighter. The Wizard seeing that the leader is clearly still healthy and strong enfeebles him with a spell. The Rogue seizes the oppurtunity to back stab the orc leader, greatly diminshing his hit points, sure he had to spend a few turns sneaking but in the end it was worth it because the Fighter and Cleric approach the enfeebled orc leader and quickly finish the job. All rejoice, share in the loot and needing a good long week of rest return to the tavern to meet with Regus the Dwarven Trader who explains to them that more trouble is coming and the Growlak Blacktooth has banded the Gnolls under one banner and has allied with the Orcs in a bid to wipe humans and elves from Thyatis. DUN DUN DUN The Rogue finds this out all to well when he meets with his Guilds prince and finds that, uncharacteristically, his prince intends to lend support to Blacktooth and has ordered his guild to do the same or face the consequences. Without his party present the rouge would not dare face down his prince alone and uses his cluff to convince the Prince he is onboard and high tailed it to the Tavern. The Wizard meets with Nalthos and old wizard and long time friend and mentor, he reports something strange is going on in Thyatis and that an old darkiness may be once again creeping in the unseen places.
and so and and so forth.
Which of these activities do you feel are not represented in Next, or 4e for that matter? I'll grant 3.x went overboard eliminating the wizard and cleric's weaknesses via spells (because only being able to cast 30 spells a day totally makes up for it, right?), but honestly this is exactly how things work new school. Wizard damage spells are distinctly underwhelming compared to their debuffs, rogues are inferior combatants when they aren't gaining advantage from some source (and I don't for a second believe that stealth should be the only possible source), clerics are healers with distinctly secondary melee roles... This is exactly how the fight would go today, and there is nothing about this that is "old school."
My player and I offer you this.
Fighter apporaches our solo boss. Swings dealing attack rolls and damage plus strength.(using his STR) Wizard cast ray of frost dealing d10 damage.(using his INT) cleric throws radiant lance (using his +3 WIS) barbarian rages, charges and attacks. Monster dies.
Party sits down for ten minutes. Some story is told, players question why so little and no magic item table, GM shrugs and player in kitchen inquires as to weather or not there is mountain dew.
Similar battle. Goblins and a drow. Fighter apporaches our [goblins.] Swings dealing attack rolls and damage plus strength.(using his STR) Wizard cast ray of frost dealing d10 damage.(using his INT) cleric throws radiant lance (using his +3 WIS) barbarian rages, charges and attacks. Monster[s] die[s].
More story is told, players in tavern. A player inquires weather as to or not if he is there. Repeatedly. The GM assures him that he is there. The player, excited as to this fact inquires if any girls are there, and announces that if there are in fact girls he would like to do them.
Fighter apporaches [Troll]. Swings dealing attack rolls and damage plus strength.(using his STR) Wizard cast ray of frost dealing d10 damage.(using his INT) cleric throws radiant lance (using his +3 WIS) barbarian rages, charges and attacks. [Troll] dies.
EVERY version of D&D could have played out the same way. You are specifically constructing a straw man. Hell, you're so old-school you are still using GOTO.. That's some OG programming there.
I thought most people reading this forum would understand basic, I also program in Visual Basic, C++ and PhP
but the recent legends and Lore seems to have brought into perspective something I have been suspecting
Here are a few things to note;
Most classes(if not all) can utilize their best score to calculate base attack. Each class seems to have a "base attack" mechanic which mirrors all other classes in regards to their main attack.
Quick Example Sorcerer INT (Magic) Cleric WIS (Magic) Fighter STR(Weapon) Rogue DEX (Weapon)
all of the damage output in the game has been geared toward creating equal output for each class...even though SOME classes (cough cough Barbarian) are pumping out far more damage than other classes at the moment, it has been stated that the Devs are working on balancing.
They seem to be using an x+b formula to generate combat stats, the classes are blandly similar in regards to combat. Really, playing a Fighter is pointless, it would be better to play a Cleric which has more than enough attack to hit any AC, plenty of hit points, can heal himself with a word, gains martial damage die at high levels and has access to spells and armor.
The classes seem pointless and boring. NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE ANY REAL WEAKNESS, sure they seem unique but not really.
With endless cantrips Magic is just weapon by any other name.
Weapon Price Damage Weight Lance of Faith free 2d6 radiant nil Ray of Frost free 1d10 nil
Note: My friend just now made a great analogy, he said classes in this game are like having five different guns that all shoot the exact same bullet. You can call them what you want but in the end they are all just damage. So I will leave you with that short phrase that summarizes what would have been an otherwise long rant.
My point being, classes don't seem to serve any real roles, no flavor. I remember in AD&D each class served a clear role and could carry out those roles in distinct ways, I was hoping to see a return to not only the simplicity of AD&D (which NEXT clearly favors simplicity, a direction I strongly encourage and applaud) but please do not sacrifice unique weaknesses. There will be disagreements of course, this is a forum afterall to which all of the world has access and yearning to express myriad opinion, this one is just mine.
My proposed class generation formula. ((general weakness + unique weakness) - (general strength + unique strength) ) + unique stengths^levels
You're wasting your breath. This point has been made over and over, since the first play test. Yet look how each iteration has progressed. There's no flavor in D&D any more. The focus on class and role developement is entirely on MMO style combat balance. Everyone's doing roughly the same damage, it's just decribed in different ways.
The majority of today's generation of D&D players grew up on MMO's rather than books. It's all about crunching those numbers and exploiting the mechanics to build a better character than anyone else at the table. And if the rogue they built cannot match or beat the damage output of a fighter, who by the way is based on being a just that, then they complain about it. No one is satisfied these days by roleplaying the part of a rogue and being able to do things a fighter can't, he also has to be able to put out more damage as well. Sneak attacks are basically guaranteed. It's not about the story or the parts played in it any more where each character is built for entirely different things, some for combat, some for exploration, some for support, all playing different roles in order to get through the story as a group. These days it's just being able to feel like you're the best at combat, no matter what you decide to play.
I'm not saying all classes should'nt be able to excell to some degree or play some role in combat. But it's ridiculous that even leveled rogues, or monks, etc, should be as good at martial combat as a fighter, who's very title and role should say otherwise. Rogues and other classes serve different roles and excell at things fighters cannot. Why should they be as good at martial combat or dealing martial damage? Why should clerics these days be a single classed version of a gish character with magic as strong or stronger than that of a wizard who only has magic and cannot wear armor, heal, buff, stand toe to toe in melee, etc? If he's a cleric of war, sure give him some decent martial ability, but nothing close to a fighter, if he's a cleric serving a god of magic, give him access to some wizard spells, but don't make all clerics capable of out damaging a wizard with his spells against a target. Clerics by role and generality should be pious, god fearing, mace swinging, banes of the undead, and primarily support. If that's not the role you want to play with a cleric, try something that more suits what you want to play.
I don't know. That's just the way I feel about it and my opinion. I'm sure there'll be plenty to disagree. I'm just sick of it all being about "me,me,me" when it comes to combat. I just think if combat, and excelling at it is someone's cup of tea, then they should play a fighter or wizard. But players want to play any role they want and still be the best at combat.
I have no delusions as some on these forums do, that I am better at game design than someone whose played as long, or longer than I have, get's paid to design rpgs, and has designed previous rpgs, and has a team of other developers of roughly equal skill and pay, to help and consult with. But I'm also aware this isn't an indie company or kickstarter where the developers pretty much call the shots. These developers, even if they don't agree with one particular person's view or style of play, at least, though experience, know and understand these viewpoints and styles of play. But they answer to management who I'm sure in most cases do not play these games, and who are looking out for corporate interests and trying the make as big a profit as possible. And what we'll most likely get is an edition the panders to the most vocal group.
Everyone has their favorite editions, that's natural. But if 5th is supposed to include something for everyone, then they've already failed. Because a lot of players who favor the earlier editions and TotM style play, and have recieved no support from WotC since they took the reigns, want a lighter rule system with only the rules essential to play, with enough Apendix N or fluff to aid beginning players and DMs. That's a core. From there WotC could have added more meat and crunch, feats, skill systems, AEDU, battle grid support, to build off that simple core and customize the game to suit most every player's style. It's easier to add systems like AEDU, feats, etc to a simple core than to strip excess rules and bloat after the core system as been statistically codified to support it. WotC could have then released this simple core in a core rulebook which included some of the more important modular options within, or at the very least, released these modules and options alongside the core rulebook. That way everyone could have essentially the game they wanted to play on release. WotC could even do them in boxed sets if they wanted. If it weren't for everyone expecting the core alone to include everything they want, we might have already had the 5th edition core ,and have been instead, testing module designs now. As it is though, we've already moved past the simple core and story based classes and roles that many wanted, so it looks like AD&D players get the shaft again.
They're repeating the same mistake they did last time by balancing the game into monotony. Really, why bother with a new edition? Money, I guess.
but the recent legends and Lore seems to have brought into perspective something I have been suspecting
Here are a few things to note;
Most classes(if not all) can utilize their best score to calculate base attack. Each class seems to have a "base attack" mechanic which mirrors all other classes in regards to their main attack.
Quick Example Sorcerer INT (Magic) Cleric WIS (Magic) Fighter STR(Weapon) Rogue DEX (Weapon)
all of the damage output in the game has been geared toward creating equal output for each class...even though SOME classes (cough cough Barbarian) are pumping out far more damage than other classes at the moment, it has been stated that the Devs are working on balancing.
They seem to be using an x+b formula to generate combat stats, the classes are blandly similar in regards to combat. Really, playing a Fighter is pointless, it would be better to play a Cleric which has more than enough attack to hit any AC, plenty of hit points, can heal himself with a word, gains martial damage die at high levels and has access to spells and armor.
The classes seem pointless and boring. NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE ANY REAL WEAKNESS, sure they seem unique but not really.
With endless cantrips Magic is just weapon by any other name.
Weapon Price Damage Weight Lance of Faith free 2d6 radiant nil Ray of Frost free 1d10 nil
Note: My friend just now made a great analogy, he said classes in this game are like having five different guns that all shoot the exact same bullet. You can call them what you want but in the end they are all just damage. So I will leave you with that short phrase that summarizes what would have been an otherwise long rant.
My point being, classes don't seem to serve any real roles, no flavor. I remember in AD&D each class served a clear role and could carry out those roles in distinct ways, I was hoping to see a return to not only the simplicity of AD&D (which NEXT clearly favors simplicity, a direction I strongly encourage and applaud) but please do not sacrifice unique weaknesses. There will be disagreements of course, this is a forum afterall to which all of the world has access and yearning to express myriad opinion, this one is just mine.
My proposed class generation formula. ((general weakness + unique weakness) - (general strength + unique strength) ) + unique stengths^levels
You're wasting your breath. This point has been made over and over, since the first play test. Yet look how each iteration has progressed. There's no flavor in D&D any more. The focus on class and role developement is entirely on MMO style combat balance. Everyone's doing roughly the same damage, it's just decribed in different ways.
The majority of today's generation of D&D players grew up on MMO's rather than books. It's all about crunching those numbers and exploiting the mechanics to build a better character than anyone else at the table. And if the rogue they built cannot match or beat the damage output of a fighter, who by the way is based on being a just that, then they complain about it. No one is satisfied these days by roleplaying the part of a rogue and being able to do things a fighter can't, he also has to be able to put out more damage as well. Sneak attacks are basically guaranteed. It's not about the story or the parts played in it any more where each character is built for entirely different things, some for combat, some for exploration, some for support, all playing different roles in order to get through the story as a group. These days it's just being able to feel like you're the best at combat, no matter what you decide to play.
I'm not saying all classes should'nt be able to excell to some degree or play some role in combat. But it's ridiculous that even leveled rogues, or monks, etc, should be as good at martial combat as a fighter, who's very title and role should say otherwise. Rogues and other classes serve different roles and excell at things fighters cannot. Why should they be as good at martial combat or dealing martial damage? Why should clerics these days be a single classed version of a gish character with magic as strong or stronger than that of a wizard who only has magic and cannot wear armor, heal, buff, stand toe to toe in melee, etc? If he's a cleric of war, sure give him some decent martial ability, but nothing close to a fighter, if he's a cleric serving a god of magic, give him access to some wizard spells, but don't make all clerics capable of out damaging a wizard with his spells against a target. Clerics by role and generality should be pious, god fearing, mace swinging, banes of the undead, and primarily support. If that's not the role you want to play with a cleric, try something that more suits what you want to play.
I don't know. That's just the way I feel about it and my opinion. I'm sure there'll be plenty to disagree. I'm just sick of it all being about "me,me,me" when it comes to combat. I just think if combat, and excelling at it is someone's cup of tea, then they should play a fighter or wizard. But players want to play any role they want and still be the best at combat.
I have no delusions as some on these forums do, that I am better at game design than someone whose played as long, or longer than I have, get's paid to design rpgs, and has designed previous rpgs, and has a team of other developers of roughly equal skill and pay, to help and consult with. But I'm also aware this isn't an indie company or kickstarter where the developers pretty much call the shots. These developers, even if they don't agree with one particular person's view or style of play, at least, though experience, know and understand these viewpoints and styles of play. But they answer to management who I'm sure in most cases do not play these games, and who are looking out for corporate interests and trying the make as big a profit as possible. And what we'll most likely get is an edition the panders to the most vocal group.
Everyone has their favorite editions, that's natural. But if 5th is supposed to include something for everyone, then they've already failed. Because a lot of players who favor the earlier editions and TotM style play, and have recieved no support from WotC since they took the reigns, want a lighter rule system with only the rules essential to play, with enough Apendix N or fluff to aid beginning players and DMs. That's a core. From there WotC could have added more meat and crunch, feats, skill systems, AEDU, battle grid support, to build off that simple core and customize the game to suit most every player's style. It's easier to add systems like AEDU, feats, etc to a simple core than to strip excess rules and bloat after the core system as been statistically codified to support it. WotC could have then released this simple core in a core rulebook which included some of the more important modular options within, or at the very least, released these modules and options alongside the core rulebook. That way everyone could have essentially the game they wanted to play on release. WotC could even do them in boxed sets if they wanted. If it weren't for everyone expecting the core alone to include everything they want, we might have already had the 5th edition core ,and have been instead, testing module designs now. As it is though, we've already moved past the simple core and story based classes and roles that many wanted, so it looks like AD&D players get the shaft again.
They're repeating the same mistake they did last time by balancing the game into monotony. Really, why bother with a new edition? Money, I guess.
It is a tough call, as I grew up on D&D since the blue box, and after playing other games beyond D&D, I can appreciate a consistent world where classes as not lopsided so a wizard rules at higher levels, and a fighter becomes a side kick. Other games have the same problem whenever dealing with magic. From a development standpoint you have to start somewhere, so if you are a big fan of AD&D then you better speak up on how the current playtest should be changed to bring some of the unique features back to the game, including class weaknesses.
Overall, whenever dealing with a game using dice, there is only so many ways to roll, so over time it all starts to look the same. But that is why we play RPGs, because the dice are secondary to the story.
but the recent legends and Lore seems to have brought into perspective something I have been suspecting
Here are a few things to note;
Most classes(if not all) can utilize their best score to calculate base attack. Each class seems to have a "base attack" mechanic which mirrors all other classes in regards to their main attack.
Quick Example Sorcerer INT (Magic) Cleric WIS (Magic) Fighter STR(Weapon) Rogue DEX (Weapon)
all of the damage output in the game has been geared toward creating equal output for each class...even though SOME classes (cough cough Barbarian) are pumping out far more damage than other classes at the moment, it has been stated that the Devs are working on balancing.
They seem to be using an x+b formula to generate combat stats, the classes are blandly similar in regards to combat. Really, playing a Fighter is pointless, it would be better to play a Cleric which has more than enough attack to hit any AC, plenty of hit points, can heal himself with a word, gains martial damage die at high levels and has access to spells and armor.
The classes seem pointless and boring. NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE ANY REAL WEAKNESS, sure they seem unique but not really.
With endless cantrips Magic is just weapon by any other name.
Weapon Price Damage Weight Lance of Faith free 2d6 radiant nil Ray of Frost free 1d10 nil
Note: My friend just now made a great analogy, he said classes in this game are like having five different guns that all shoot the exact same bullet. You can call them what you want but in the end they are all just damage. So I will leave you with that short phrase that summarizes what would have been an otherwise long rant.
My point being, classes don't seem to serve any real roles, no flavor. I remember in AD&D each class served a clear role and could carry out those roles in distinct ways, I was hoping to see a return to not only the simplicity of AD&D (which NEXT clearly favors simplicity, a direction I strongly encourage and applaud) but please do not sacrifice unique weaknesses. There will be disagreements of course, this is a forum afterall to which all of the world has access and yearning to express myriad opinion, this one is just mine.
My proposed class generation formula. ((general weakness + unique weakness) - (general strength + unique strength) ) + unique stengths^levels
You're wasting your breath. This point has been made over and over, since the first play test. Yet look how each iteration has progressed. There's no flavor in D&D any more. The focus on class and role developement is entirely on MMO style combat balance. Everyone's doing roughly the same damage, it's just decribed in different ways.
The majority of today's generation of D&D players grew up on MMO's rather than books. It's all about crunching those numbers and exploiting the mechanics to build a better character than anyone else at the table. And if the rogue they built cannot match or beat the damage output of a fighter, who by the way is based on being a just that, then they complain about it. No one is satisfied these days by roleplaying the part of a rogue and being able to do things a fighter can't, he also has to be able to put out more damage as well. Sneak attacks are basically guaranteed. It's not about the story or the parts played in it any more where each character is built for entirely different things, some for combat, some for exploration, some for support, all playing different roles in order to get through the story as a group. These days it's just being able to feel like you're the best at combat, no matter what you decide to play.
I'm not saying all classes should'nt be able to excell to some degree or play some role in combat. But it's ridiculous that even leveled rogues, or monks, etc, should be as good at martial combat as a fighter, who's very title and role should say otherwise. Rogues and other classes serve different roles and excell at things fighters cannot. Why should they be as good at martial combat or dealing martial damage? Why should clerics these days be a single classed version of a gish character with magic as strong or stronger than that of a wizard who only has magic and cannot wear armor, heal, buff, stand toe to toe in melee, etc? If he's a cleric of war, sure give him some decent martial ability, but nothing close to a fighter, if he's a cleric serving a god of magic, give him access to some wizard spells, but don't make all clerics capable of out damaging a wizard with his spells against a target. Clerics by role and generality should be pious, god fearing, mace swinging, banes of the undead, and primarily support. If that's not the role you want to play with a cleric, try something that more suits what you want to play.
I don't know. That's just the way I feel about it and my opinion. I'm sure there'll be plenty to disagree. I'm just sick of it all being about "me,me,me" when it comes to combat. I just think if combat, and excelling at it is someone's cup of tea, then they should play a fighter or wizard. But players want to play any role they want and still be the best at combat.
I have no delusions as some on these forums do, that I am better at game design than someone whose played as long, or longer than I have, get's paid to design rpgs, and has designed previous rpgs, and has a team of other developers of roughly equal skill and pay, to help and consult with. But I'm also aware this isn't an indie company or kickstarter where the developers pretty much call the shots. These developers, even if they don't agree with one particular person's view or style of play, at least, though experience, know and understand these viewpoints and styles of play. But they answer to management who I'm sure in most cases do not play these games, and who are looking out for corporate interests and trying the make as big a profit as possible. And what we'll most likely get is an edition the panders to the most vocal group.
Everyone has their favorite editions, that's natural. But if 5th is supposed to include something for everyone, then they've already failed. Because a lot of players who favor the earlier editions and TotM style play, and have recieved no support from WotC since they took the reigns, want a lighter rule system with only the rules essential to play, with enough Apendix N or fluff to aid beginning players and DMs. That's a core. From there WotC could have added more meat and crunch, feats, skill systems, AEDU, battle grid support, to build off that simple core and customize the game to suit most every player's style. It's easier to add systems like AEDU, feats, etc to a simple core than to strip excess rules and bloat after the core system as been statistically codified to support it. WotC could have then released this simple core in a core rulebook which included some of the more important modular options within, or at the very least, released these modules and options alongside the core rulebook. That way everyone could have essentially the game they wanted to play on release. WotC could even do them in boxed sets if they wanted. If it weren't for everyone expecting the core alone to include everything they want, we might have already had the 5th edition core ,and have been instead, testing module designs now. As it is though, we've already moved past the simple core and story based classes and roles that many wanted, so it looks like AD&D players get the shaft again.
They're repeating the same mistake they did last time by balancing the game into monotony. Really, why bother with a new edition? Money, I guess.
You said it.
I am a D&D 4th edition fan mainly because of the role system. I don't think a role combat system in a role playing game is something that should be handwaved.
4e had perfect imbalance, no one expected a defender to have a striker's damage out put, but they were expected to be sticky.
You've just described a role system, the only difference is that 4e's worked while your's relied on everyone playing the class the same way instead of really trying to flex whatever power the class actually had.
Yup... for me the explicit roles highlighted classes functional distinctions. Without those classes become "actually" the same instead of cosmetically,= And resource systems being either analogous or the same make things fair which seems and abandoned thing.
