|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 6:49PM
#41
|
|
|
Wizards power needs to be dialed up a bit in AD&D at level 1-4 or so and dialed down at higher levels.
Well, I can understand your desire for the wizard to be more balanced in power with other classes all along the way, and I know some other players would like it best that way too.
But that`s only a matter of preference of concept, really.
That characteristic in particular of the wizard was not really an "error of design" in AD&D but really something intentional.
A wizard, in AD&D, was supposed to struggle hard (very hard!) to survive and master his knowledge of magic in the lower levels, during which he could only produce a few weak magical spells each day... but if he did get past those trials and became a master of magic (high level) in the long run, he would then have access to the most powerful tools all around.
As an example, that concept is seen very iconically in Raistlin in the first Dragonlance books, where early in his life he was very much dependant on his brother (the fighter!) and his companions, but after several hard and dangerous trials he grew to be one of the most powerful men in Krynn.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 6:52PM
#42
|
|
|
Wizards power needs to be dialed up a bit in AD&D at level 1-4 or so and dialed down at higher levels.
Well, I can understand your desire for the wizard to be more balanced in power with other classes all along the way, and I know some other players would like it best that way too.
But that`s only a matter of preference of concept, really.
That characteristic in particular of the wizard was not really an "error of design" in AD&D but really something intentional.
A wizard, in AD&D, was supposed to struggle hard (very hard!) to survive and master his knowledge of magic in the lower levels, during which he could only produce a few weak magical spells each day... but if he did get past those trials and became a master of magic (high level) in the long run, he would then have access to the most powerful tools all around.
As an example, that concept is seen very iconically in Raistlin in the first Dragonlance books, where early in his life he was very much dependant on his brother (the fighter!) and his companions, but after several hard and dangerous trials he grew to be one of the most powerful men in Krynn.
im a lover of all things dragonlance except saga system, and i see no reason why a low level struggle is not a good thing, its how we make our living in the real world start from the bottom and work up the ladder. that is the real class balance in the game. its the question :
can i make it one day to be a powerful wizard? yes you can but so can everyone else that works hard and makes it happen
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 07, 2013 - 7:17PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Wizards power needs to be dialed up a bit in AD&D at level 1-4 or so and dialed down at higher levels.
Well, I can understand your desire for the wizard to be more balanced in power with other classes all along the way, and I know some other players would like it best that way too.
But that`s only a matter of preference of concept, really.
That characteristic in particular of the wizard was not really an "error of design" in AD&D but really something intentional.
A wizard, in AD&D, was supposed to struggle hard (very hard!) to survive and master his knowledge of magic in the lower levels, during which he could only produce a few weak magical spells each day... but if he did get past those trials and became a master of magic (high level) in the long run, he would then have access to the most powerful tools all around.
As an example, that concept is seen very iconically in Raistlin in the first Dragonlance books, where early in his life he was very much dependant on his brother (the fighter!) and his companions, but after several hard and dangerous trials he grew to be one of the most powerful men in Krynn.
Its not so much the blance thing but more than a few AD&D games do not get to high level due to the xp system so sucking at lower levels and then gaining at higher levels is kind of flawed. Much the same reason why level limits sucked IMHO.
I wouldn't go to overboard in 2nd ed but maybe 3 spells at level 1 and keep an eye on some of the higher level spells for example. In the lead up to 3rd ed one of the optional rules in Dragon magazine was wizard get bonus spells lik a cleric and that gave them 3 spells at level 1, specialisation could give them another one and signature spell could provide a 5th. We were running this in the lead up to 3.0 but I don't think the PCs used a signature spell and I can't remember if they were specialised or not. In the current AD&D game the wizard found a wand of magic missile at reasonably low level so that helps him out and he is a wild mage so he gets an extra spell. Let the DM decide if a class needs help if need be. Thieves smetime struggle as well so I'll help the PC out via a magic weapon.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 9:12AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
rules that made it harder to shoot into a melee
I do not agree with this statement.
2nd edition
shooting into melee between 2 Human sized creatures 50% chance of hitting your ally.
3rd edition
-4 to hit 0% chance to hit your ally.
2nd edition also had the -4 to hit, 0% chance of hitting ally. A called shot allows you to do this.
I don't think that's ever spelled out under called shots in the PHB or DMG, but it is in Combat and Tactics. So technically an optional rule, I guess, but one that makes perfect sense.
I know this because it came up in the very first session of my new 2e campaign which has all the same players from my previous 3.5 campaign.
2e doesn't have an equivalent to the Prceise Shot feat, fortunately, which in my opinion was what really made 3.5 firing into melee a joke. Once you get that feat it's completely free of risk or penalty, and I don't think that it ever should be.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 10:15AM
#45
|
|
|
Bounded Accuracy is one of the best things about 5e! Bigger numbers =/= better. You say a +5 is "lame", but why? What makes that particular number "lame" but a +20 good?
The player gets a sense of achievement, and reason to keep on playing to achieve more. That this is largely illusion since +1 to hit is balanced by the monster AC going up by one does not mean it is ineffective in getting the player to play more. On the contrary, the treadmill is highly motivating and a useful feature of a huge number of games.
On the contrary, having such high attack bonuses was a big mathematical problem in past editions. Before 3e, when AC had a cap of -10, it meant high level fighters ended up almost always hitting (and no, that is not okay). With 3e, it led to AC creep and a ever-widening difference in hit rates between fighters and other classes. 4e resolved this by giving everyone the same attack bonuses, but the bonuses still grew at such a rate that you couldn't use monster at a much lower or higher level than the players are. Keeping the bonus range between 0-5 allows you to use a much wider range of monsters, and that is one of the greatest benefits of bounded accuracy in Next.
Which is a solid reason to reject bounded accuracy. When you get to 10th level, you actually want to still be scared of that silly kobold you battled at 1st? Now bounded accuracy seems likely to just be a fraud since increasing damage has much the same effect as increasing accuracy in making a monster a wimp you ignore once you have gained a few levels, but it is still a drag on the game. And the game has developed a library of monsters, making it almost impossible use them all. We don't need to use a wider range of monsters. In fact players get bored quickly with the "same old monster".
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:06AM
#46
|
|
|
rules that made it harder to shoot into a melee
I do not agree with this statement.
2nd edition
shooting into melee between 2 Human sized creatures 50% chance of hitting your ally.
3rd edition
-4 to hit 0% chance to hit your ally.
2nd edition also had the -4 to hit, 0% chance of hitting ally. A called shot allows you to do this.
I don't think that's ever spelled out under called shots in the PHB or DMG, but it is in Combat and Tactics. So technically an optional rule, I guess, but one that makes perfect sense.
I know this because it came up in the very first session of my new 2e campaign which has all the same players from my previous 3.5 campaign.
2e doesn't have an equivalent to the Prceise Shot feat, fortunately, which in my opinion was what really made 3.5 firing into melee a joke. Once you get that feat it's completely free of risk or penalty, and I don't think that it ever should be.
That is actually not completely true in 3.x.
the -4 penalty was always there (except with precse shot) but:
if you shoot someone on the opposite side of an ally, the enemy has cover. Which usually resulted in +4 AC. Even worse, if you would have hit without cover, the arrow hits the ally... if your rolled numberit hits the ally, you deal damage...
i am hover not sure, if that rule got lost in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5...
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:15AM
#47
|
|
|
Just let me add another thing:
One thing that makes ADnD stand out for me is that as a player you did not expect to be able to fight on full potential, no matter what:
- if you fought in close quarters, the DM coud rule, that you can´t swing big weapons
- if you are behind your frontline, you can´t easily shoot an enemy halfling
On the other hand, you were equally entitled to improvise a bit:
- if you shoot at a giant, behind your halfling, you could easily shoot over the small one
- if burning hands would hit the allys left and right from you, you just turned the hands 90° so that the half circle is vertically...
Maybe that is not in the actual rules, but using the enviroment, applying your few ablities creatively... use some common sense instead of just looking up rules... this is D&D for me... and is has its roots in the way ADnD worked.
And DnD next, even though I also think the fighter needs a little less bound accuracy... (hey he should learn how to hit better... it is his only job... unless he merges with the warlord)
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:15AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
That is actually not completely true in 3.x. the -4 penalty was always there (except with precse shot) but: if you shoot someone on the opposite side of an ally, the enemy has cover. Which usually resulted in +4 AC. Even worse, if you would have hit without cover, the arrow hits the ally... if your rolled numberit hits the ally, you deal damage... i am hover not sure, if that rule got lost in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5...
I don't recall seeing that in 3.5 but it may be there. There are so many fiddly rules like that, it's entirely possible I missed it.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 12:31PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Improved precise shot negated the firing into cover part as well. The basic archer build in 3.XYZ uses the following feats.
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot
Rapid Shot
Anything after that is pure gravy. Thats also why you saw Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin etc based archers. Pathfinder now has a archer build becuase Paladins can now smite with any attack and not just melee.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 9:26PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Been thinking. Thanks to dual classing a racial limits 2e on release was less balanced than 3e ever was. It was an easy houserule fix.
|
|
|
