|
3 months ago ::
Mar 21, 2013 - 4:45PM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2007
|
I dunno about near-miss -- because even though it's not as tactically rich as 4E, personally I think 4E is generations ahead of its time anyway,
Heh. I think of 4e as not being generations behind it's time...
I personally found it to be a complete waste of time.
I found 4E to be a complete enjoyment of time so much so that going back and playing other versions of DnD felt clunky and out dated and I came from 2E. My group and I have decided that while we will give DnDNext a chance we will stick iwth 4E if it doesn't give us what we like (ie more 4E) luckily that has come about via faster healing mechanics and clerics not having to take an action in combat to heal hopefully Next will keep moving in that direction. One thing I would like to see is more of a control element for Wizards. Mike has made it known that he likes big flashy damaging spells and I think the blaster caster model of mage is definately more present than a controller mage at this point in Next developement.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 21, 2013 - 5:12PM
#152
|
|
|
the ability to attune to one more magic item without suffering from over-attunement
Over-attunement... ok color me intrigued.
Basically, if you wear more than [your level] magic items, you start to suffer side effects based on the nature of the item. These are usually pretty soft; they're not like mechanical penalties for the most part. In my experience, it doesn't come up all that often, since 13th Age, in addition to soft-limiting the number of items you can use, also makes magic items kind of rare and kind of a big deal. (Although they're not all that powerful, and the game math doesn't really expect them - the bonuses only go up to +3.) The "expected" number of true magic items isn't any particular number. Each one is supposed to be kind of a big deal. I haven't really run into the cap in games I've run because 1 magic item/level ends up being about right-feeling to me anyway.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 21, 2013 - 5:35PM
#153
|
|
|
the ability to attune to one more magic item without suffering from over-attunement
Over-attunement... ok color me intrigued.
While there are trivial magic items and you can purchase or acquire stuff like runes or oils that enhance your equipment, true magic items have a semblance of sentience in the form of quirks and personalities. When attuning yourself to an item (so you can actually use it as a magical item), you can sense the personality enroaching upon your own, but you normally have the ability to suppress the magic item's influence on you. The more magic items and/or the more powerful the magic item is, the harder it is to suppress it: if the number of magic items** you're attuned to is greater than your level, you are overwhelmed by all the magic items you're attuned to and basically are forced to role-play all those personalities in addition to, or instead of, your own character (gotta love the conflict when two wholly different personalities from two magic items both have to be RP'ed).
In addition, some magic items are, in fact, jealous of other magic items and can actively suggest you dispose of the rest. And note that it's wholly possible that magic items become addicted to runes and/or oils (even if there are no mechanical benefits for doing so), and would refuse to function as magic items unless given a constant supply of said items.
Overall it's an interesting way to keep the magic item hoarding to a minimum, really.
EDIT: Oops, seems Lesp already answered the inquiry.
** each champion tier magic item counts as two magic items, and each epic tier magic item counts as three magic items
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 21, 2013 - 5:51PM
#154
|
|
|
Well, you answered it better and in greater detail. I don't really have the rules for that super well-ingrained, because I prefer to take a pretty light touch with the magic items personalities thing. I definitely don't what to feel like there are a dozen characters travelling with the PCs at all time, and most of them are hats and stuff.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 21, 2013 - 5:55PM
#155
|
|
|
Well, you answered it better and in greater detail. I don't really have the rules for that super well-ingrained, because I prefer to take a pretty light touch with the magic items personalities thing. I definitely don't what to feel like there are a dozen characters travelling with the PCs at all time, and most of them are hats and stuff.
Meh, I rarely give my players more than 1-2 magic items at a time, though the concept has always kept me intrigued  Sometimes I think some of my players WANT to be forced to RP the magic items, but so far I haven't tried putting the idea forward to them :p
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 21, 2013 - 6:07PM
#156
|
|
|
I admit that my first reaction was that the whole thing was kind of dorky and felt a little bit like "Accept RP penalties in exchange for mechanical benefits", which I'm not a fan of, but it's grown on me. The one thing that I have been doing is focusing more on the items that are more interesting/funny/story-driving and the ones that the players seem most interested, because I think that in most cases it's more interesting to have the players have to deal with the incursion of one or two quirks at a time, rather than descending into a wacky morass of many quirks.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 23, 2013 - 12:56PM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2011
|
Give you a contest in the cynicism department. I do not mind a back to the classics approach but they can't seem to figure out what we liked about pre 4th ed either. If I was a betting man I would give D&DN 5 years tops.
I'll see your cynicism and raise you that Next never makes it out of development because poor sales of this summer's planned adventure release (using the Next game engine with pre-gens) will not hit whatever sales targets Hasbro has set.
The resulting Holiday pink slips gut the department beyond an impotent minimum wage brand manager/editor for the digital magazines. The brand will limp along on fan supplied content digital magazines in order to maintain the relevant trademarks for a decade or so until some young executive comes up with some way to mass market the line with a cartoon, video games and actions figures. The digital magazine is then killed so that the website can be used to promote the action figures and video games.
Overly cynical? Probably. But at least they can only go UP from my cynical predictions.
Well, if it was mismanaged badly enough the value might drop to where Hasbro would sell it to someone else...
I'm not that cynical, though.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 23, 2013 - 1:24PM
#158
|
|
|
So? Essentials is still 4E, its not incompatible like 3.0 to 3.5.
3.0 and 3.5 were compatible - anything in 3.0 that hand't been re-done in 3.5 yet was officially useable in 3.5 - FWLTW.
Taking Deft Blade references core to, so does wielding a Gouge. The character is still an Essentials character.
Open CB, choose, 'build an Essentials character' and find Deft Blade or Gouge...
Or choose custom and build to your heart's content. My 3.0 Ranger/fighter/rogue was not compatible with a 3.5 game.
You also know that OCB is not a rules source and the build for you stuff (although you can go back into the Essentials tab and customize from the Heros books only) sucks.
Now, it may just be my experience but I felt 3.0 and 3.5 were radically disconnected compared to 4E and Essentials but you and I have already had this arguement 2 years ago.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 23, 2013 - 1:49PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
Give you a contest in the cynicism department. I do not mind a back to the classics approach but they can't seem to figure out what we liked about pre 4th ed either. If I was a betting man I would give D&DN 5 years tops.
I'll see your cynicism and raise you that Next never makes it out of development because poor sales of this summer's planned adventure release (using the Next game engine with pre-gens) will not hit whatever sales targets Hasbro has set.
The resulting Holiday pink slips gut the department beyond an impotent minimum wage brand manager/editor for the digital magazines. The brand will limp along on fan supplied content digital magazines in order to maintain the relevant trademarks for a decade or so until some young executive comes up with some way to mass market the line with a cartoon, video games and actions figures. The digital magazine is then killed so that the website can be used to promote the action figures and video games.
Overly cynical? Probably. But at least they can only go UP from my cynical predictions.
Well, if it was mismanaged badly enough the value might drop to where Hasbro would sell it to someone else...
I'm not that cynical, though.
Actually, the most likely scenario is: They continue to do rereleases of old material selling a fair number of units, then start developing new material for older systems, ultimately culminating in another edition of D&D based on the older editions.
That assumes they don't scrap the current system in the next few months and start over with a new set of design goals, and instead proceed with DDN. Honestly, I'll be very surprised if they don't scrap it and start over with new design goals in the next 8 weeks.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 26, 2013 - 1:04AM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
So? Essentials is still 4E, its not incompatible like 3.0 to 3.5.
3.0 and 3.5 were compatible - anything in 3.0 that hand't been re-done in 3.5 yet was officially useable in 3.5 - FWLTW.
Taking Deft Blade references core to, so does wielding a Gouge. The character is still an Essentials character.
Open CB, choose, 'build an Essentials character' and find Deft Blade or Gouge...
Or choose custom and
..it's not Essentials anymore.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
