|
Death Bot posted:For Warlords it's "luckily I still have one coughdrop left guys I would unironically play a system where spellcasting is powered by smug. Anyway, would there be a problem with taking the 4e at-will and encounter system and then using vancian for daily powers? Make the wizards class feature to be choosing from a small list of big game changer powers he can pick 1 or 2 of. kingcom fucked around with this message at 00:47 on May 2, 2013 |
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:37
|
|
"
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
kingcom posted:I would unironically play a system where spellcasting is powered by smug. They did that it's called 4e. In 4e a wizard got to pick two powers every time he leveled up and could choose any setup for them at the start of the day.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:They did that it's called 4e. In 4e a wizard got to pick two powers every time he leveled up and could choose any setup for them at the start of the day. Okay so lets play a game, I'm going to come up with a list of really obvious simple things that allow you to simultaneously solve the problems of 3.5e and keep the intended nature of the rules mostly intact. Then you say "thats how it works in 4e". I don't get it why are people so hostile to the game? I mean I fully understand the group who just doesn't move on because they have to learn/buy a new set of rules or dont want to convert their ruleset. That seems perfectly reasonable but the other side seems to be certain rules they dont like, I mean I think its really dumb there isnt just a big set of super minor spells that are mostly fluff actions a wizard can cast or maybe that you think there is way too many powers to worry about or status effects or theres a split between combat and non-combat or whatever. Despite all that there seems to be a fairly large group of people who just refused it and never moved on? Did 3e just naturally attract the worst grognards? I mean I've been playing rpgs for like 5 years now so I don't know any of the social backstory to how these all came about. I personally am fascinated by grognards.txt about how they spend so much time debating about story games, versimilitute, other pseudoscience term to pretend your not talking about elfgames. kingcom fucked around with this message at 01:09 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Magic in 4e can't do everything though. A Wizard can't do everything. There are clear limits on what he's able to accomplish. It totally can! I don't think you could name something my current high-level 4E wizard character couldn't, technically speaking, accomplish. Obviously, many of those accomplishments involve millions of gold in residuum and/or days or months of effort, but it's all technically there. Even if we're talking about combat, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my wizard's daily powers being Sleep, Web, and Wall of Fire rather than Flaming Sphere, Fireball, and Wall of Fire. The former is a "generalist" wizard, the latter is a "specialist" wizard, but because they're both subordinated to the greater metagame framework of powers and character levels they can happily exist alongside fighters and rogues. If a wizard can shoot a fireball at level 5, a fighter needs to be able to perform a fighting move of comparable power to a fireball at level 5.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Okay so lets play a game, I'm going to come up with a list of really obvious simple things that allow you to simultaneously solve the problems of 3.5e and keep the intended nature of the rules mostly intact. Then you say "thats how it works in 4e".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The followup game where we find the Next dev posts on these subjects and compare and contrast is even more fun! If by fun you mean depressing and incredibly frustrating. So even that game becomes about dark and gritty realism in the remake?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:
quote:The fad lasted for a time, with spell-casters spewing forth streams of sorcerous stuff as if they were magical Gatling guns. Everyone wanted to be a magic-user of that sort-but what could stand before such a character? How much fun is a game in which any challenge or problem can be overcome by calling up yet another
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:The weirdest thing about this is that its not supposed to be endemic to D&D. Admittedly, I'm kind of curious as to what game Gygax is referring to that entails spamming of powers through the power point system because the only one I can think of from back then was Palladium Fantasy. I've said it a few times, but I earnestly believe that 3e to some degree broke D&D. It changed a LOT of stuff, but because it was coming from the dead 2e and because the changes were buried under rules or made on accident, not only were they born in, they were declared things that D&D always had.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Be fair: 3e was very welcome, since 2e frankly overstayed its welcome and was creaking and archaic by the time it got put down, and a lot of 3e's changes were an attempt to fix (real and perceived) problems that 2e had. The issue was that for every good changed 3e did it had a lot of mechanics that had poorly thought out metagame effects that lead to horrible problems in the long term, and sort of unintentionally entrenched a lot of really, really bad nerd habits into the game. The real problem was that when 4e came about and was pretty much a straight improvement, Pathfinder stuck its nose in and went "no no it's okay, you don't have to change or adapt, and this is how things were all along and we're keeping to the true D&D spirit". 3e didn't break D&D, the OGL did.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I've said it a few times, but I earnestly believe that 3e to some degree broke D&D. It changed a LOT of stuff, but because it was coming from the dead 2e and because the changes were buried under rules or made on accident, not only were they born in, they were declared things that D&D always had. Nah, it was the customer base that wrecked things. Specifically the people who never want to change anything, then get used to the new thing, then complain all over again when stuff changes a second time. I'd strongly suspect that a large number of the people saying 3e was great and 4e was terrible are the same people that said 2e was great and 3e was terrible. It's the exact same thing you can see on any MMO forum. Most of the complaints boil down to "I wanted extra stuff and bugfixes, and I want the game to work the exact same way it did <when I started playing>/<in early version my friends said was good>. It's not doing both. This sucks". Then they get used to the new thing, and it becomes the old thing, and they disparage the next thing with the same arguments they used last time, a lot of which relate back to "how things have always been" which is like a compilation of everything they enjoyed out of every version/patch/edition and also stuff they've heard was in versions they never saw but sounds pretty good when you hear about it 4th hand 5 years after the fact. It's obviously conjecture on my part, but in an MMO with a fast(ish) patch cycle, you can observe the same usernames making the same weird/wrong arguments after each patch. I'm almost certain that if you could observe D&D comments the same way, you'd see the same players making the same comments about each version. But you can't, because the "patch cycle" is too long. You can, however look at articles and even some pre-blog web rants about 3e when it was released, and see the same poo poo get said as was said on 4e's release. If you have a stack of old gaming magazines, you can see some of the same stuff for every edition. And those are just the ones they'd publish. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Has WOTC said anything about animal companions / summoned monsters? I imagine those are going to be interesting in a Free Market Action Economy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Free Market Action Economy. I use my Bootstraps Of Two Extra Actions to conjure more Bootstraps and then use those to get two extra actions, and conjure/use more Bootstraps in an infinite loop. I will under no circumstances give these to anyone else. If you wanted them, you should have tried harder in Wizard School and got a decent Wizard Job (yes, mine were inherited from my dad, what of it?)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:My Fighter can climb and jump like Beast in the X-Men, or just hurls his allies where they need to be with his mighty arms (or just builds himself some wings and flaps his way up, don't give me any of that strength/weight ratio bullshit have you seen my loving arms), and who needs invisibility when you can punch a hole in the ground or wall exactly your shape and cover yourself in the dust in moments? He might not be able to mind control but who needs that when your arms are so mighty that a mere flex will send any man or woman rushing to do your handsomely oiled bidding? Yes that was kind of what I meant by the last part of my post.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
I think the fan game Legend did a rather smart move there - essentially, they removed 3.x's whole "epic skill" thing and baked it into the core skill system. You can quite literally "jump good" and then run across the clouds if your skills are high enough, no need for epic levels or anything like that. You can just say "My tumble skill is like +20. I dance across the raindrops to leap atop the flying dragon's back."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'd strongly suspect that a large number of the people saying 3e was great and 4e was terrible are the same people that said 2e was great and 3e was terrible. 3e is a chore, and only seemed suited to play NWN (because the computer did it for you, and who cares about balance in a computer game that many people played SP and modded). Maybe not you, but a lot of people complaining about 1e/2e dont seem to have ever played them, and are complaining about 3e while addressing 2e. 3e was made to be some char-op pre-game game where you "won" by neurotically designing the entire "lifetime" of your character before you started. Pathfinder is the same. I strongly dislike that entire thing. It allows no space for the actual gameplay/narrative/in-game stuff to shape the characters. The items in 3e also took the turn to optimizing, and this also was a bad direction (for me). I was looking for something earlier and found this, which is similar to my feeling on this: http://www.dungeonmastering.com/tools-resources/the-top-5-things-to-miss-about-2nd-edition quote:Encyclopedia Magica: It has been years since I have held any of the Encyclopedia Magica books but I still remember them fondly. They were loaded up with magical items and artifacts, many of them from premade adventurers and settings books, now plucked from their original context. There items ranged from world destroying to completely useless but all of them had story and personality attached to them. It was a major blow going to 3rd edition in that regard, the magic items all felt so common and sterile. The shared continuity of the piles of "history" was actually a good thing. TSR used that before their exec team turned stupid. WotC has no understanding of it at all. If a game actually kept track of time (which seems more rare now from the way people talk?) 2e had some built in limitations on several things that became some of the problems everyone has been complaining about in 3e. Limited Wish, Wish, and Haste as 3 culprits:  That kept Haste as a "holy poo poo make it happen Wizard we're doomed otherwise" back-up plan. This kind of thing was easily expanded on. The Lankhmar setting made spells over level 3 explicitly evil (and I believe disfiguring to the caster?) in order to emulate the setting. "Wish" was not a spell that we ever used. Even from the fake-anti-physics of DnD magic, what the gently caress is a "wish"? There was narrative strength to fire/lightning/cold, polymorphing, scrying, etc... "Wish" only fits in as a lucky find or quest regarding limited availability and desperate need/one-off greed (or altruism). (As in Djinnis, luckblades, etc...) And as has been pointed out in this thread, Fighters were serious business in 2e. It was 3e that made all classes pointless. (Also gently caress the feat system.) http://dasharr.blogspot.com/2009/10/ad-2nd-edition-retrospective.html quote:Another good point of the system is the game worlds published for it, during it's era. This touches on the supplement treadmill I mentioned above, but I think it deserves special mention as a strength of this edition. So many classic worlds were made for 2e: Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Birthright, Ravenloft, just to mention some of the bigger ones. It shows the enduring appeal of these settings that two editions and a new publisher later, Dark Sun is being rereleased as the next setting for 4e (and there are plenty of fans calling for the others). 2E critics might say that it was a mere accident that a weak edition got good settings, but I think that 2e's flexibility (the toolkit approach) made it an ideal basis for experimentation. I think more people should browse through the (VAST PILES) of 2e material as fodder for whatever version they are using. There was some great stuff in there.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
I'm not going to sperg out about it, but I think that a lot of the 2e settings would have played out way better without the underlying D&D-ness. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms are obvious exceptions, and Dark Sun is the only non-generic fantasy 2e setting that worked well with the 2e rules, and even then it modifies them pretty heavily. Edit: 2e is my "favorite" edition, in that it's the one I have the fondest memories of and played the most of. I'm not disparaging it too much, because I still play and enjoy it at times. But if you want to get the most out of Planescape, you're going to need to ignore the gently caress out of a lot of 2e rules.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
Asimo posted:The real problem was that when 4e came about and was pretty much a straight improvement, Pathfinder stuck its nose in and went "no no it's okay, you don't have to change or adapt, and this is how things were all along and we're keeping to the true D&D spirit". 3e didn't break D&D, the OGL did. Splicer fucked around with this message at 11:31 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
Hey guys, since D&D is still really pushing the use of miniatures here's a link to the new painting oath thread: Oath Thread - Season 4: Slidin' Through the Oathiverse It's open to miniatures of any genre or product line, and we're really trying to get more fantasy-oriented stuff in there, so please check it out! It's especially (more) open to D&D/fantasy gamers this time around so I hope to see many of you in there. Lots and lots of sponsors lined up, with more on the way. It should be a good (and busy!) year.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Hey guys, since D&D is still really pushing the use of miniatures here's a link to the new painting oath thread: krushgroove posted:Hey guys, the new painting oath thread is up: Interesting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It's worth noting that Ryan Dancey published his seminal "gently caress 4E it's WoW for babbies play our game instead it's the real D&D" article before 4E was available to anyone outside of closed playtesting. For many people their first "official" exposure to anything to do with 4E was a respected member of the industry ranting about Wizards of the Co$t and the dumbing down of the hobby and appealing to others to join him in the true spirit of D&D (coming soon from Paizo publishing!).  I know, but seriously gently caress Paizo.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
The more I peck away at my 'roll under ability score for everything' hack of B/X, the more I realise I'd rather play a slightly tweaked version of a game I bought 32 years ago than the shiny new edition that's supposed to reunite the fans and save D&D. Does that make me a... a grognard? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The more I peck away at my 'roll under ability score for everything' hack of B/X, the more I realise I'd rather play a slightly tweaked version of a game I bought 32 years ago than the shiny new edition that's supposed to reunite the fans and save D&D. Does that make me a... a grognard? A grognard refused change period. Trying out something new and deciding you don't like doesn't automatically qualify you as a grognard.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The more I peck away at my 'roll under ability score for everything' hack of B/X, the more I realise I'd rather play a slightly tweaked version of a game I bought 32 years ago than the shiny new edition that's supposed to reunite the fans and save D&D. Does that make me a... a grognard?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Interesting. Hey, just trying to get more people into the fun of oathing  I got mod approval, if that's what you're hinting at.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Hey, just trying to get more people into the fun of oathing I was more pointing out the "Hey, this is for your game" for two different games...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
Ha - yes, well targeted advertising and all  e: like I said we're trying to get more people interested, the first couple of oath threads were all about GW so I'm trying to change that perception.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
Asimo posted:RPG mechanics are an evolving technology, but that doesn't mean old games are inherently bad or unusable really. Mostly just a matter of understanding why you like something, rather than liking it because you always have and gently caress that new thing it's different.  because tactical miniature combat isn't my thing at all, but that's by the by. Nice art, though.) Then I looked at the Next playtests, and just last week eBayed 3.5e, again out of curiosity.It's weird, because I'm seeing the evolution of the game in the 'wrong' order (maybe I should get 2e just to complete the progression). Next now looks to me like a simplified version of 3e - but not simplified enough. "Well, we can't drop skills. And we can't drop feats. And we can't drop the 101 other rules that add modifiers in specific circumstances. And we can't drop grid combat rules even though we're dropping the grid. And this can't change, and nor can this, or that..." Grog nostalgia, maybe, but I kinda like being able to write up a character in 5-10 minutes and make a roll without having 27 situational modifiers applied to it. Next isn't going to let me do either. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
No, pretty much everyone likes that. You might want to look at Castles and Crusades, which is a slightly fixed 1e with some better modern design philosophies.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Asimo posted:RPG mechanics are an evolving technology, but that doesn't mean old games are inherently bad or unusable really. Mostly just a matter of understanding why you like something, rather than liking it because you always have and gently caress that new thing it's different. My dad just dug out his 1970s copy of PRESTAGS: Yeoman. I learned to play it in about 15 minutes, and it was awesome. He's trying to find the rest of them. I know you can't really compare that sort of thing to a modern RPG, but the rules are just so clear and concise that it was absolutely amazing to play. I wanted to try out some old wargames because I want to get a handle on where tabletop combat games came from, and what I'll say about it is "if RPGs worded their rules like this and then had a separate flavor text section they wouldn't be as fun, but god drat there wouldn't be any rules arguments". Really. If you want to know how to do something, you look up the relevant section and go "oh, that's how", and it's unambiguous in the wording to the point that it would be hard to find something to argue over. http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/2655/prestags Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:48 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No, pretty much everyone likes that. You might want to look at Castles and Crusades, which is a slightly fixed 1e with some better modern design philosophies. I played Castles and Crusades at a con once and had a blast. It's a really fun game. I don't know how it plays past the earliest levels, but at level 3 it was a really fun game.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If a game actually kept track of time (which seems more rare now from the way people talk?) 2e had some built in limitations on several things that became some of the problems everyone has been complaining about in 3e. Limited Wish, Wish, and Haste as 3 culprits: I haven't played 2e in a loooong time but I don't know anyone who attempted to keep track of the age of their characters because I don't remember any rules for character age other than the life expectancy of the species. Weren't elves immortal in 2e so this was a non-penalty to them?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
There were aging rules in 2e, yes. You rolled your starting age, the DM secretly rolled your age expectancy, there were age categories for all races, with physical attributes deteriorating while Int/Wis getting bonuses. I considered it kinda neat at the time. Elves were indeed immortal, but on old age were compelled to stop adventuring and join the Retreat instead.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
It was kinda a neat mechanic, yeah. Theoretically, if anyone ever tracked it, you could drop dead of having Haste cast on you. Also you could just choose your starting age (as long as you choose at least 16!), but the bit saying that is on the page before the age tables. I thought elves did die of old age (at some point over 1000 years old or something equally massive), but were "compelled" to stop adventuring and disappear "long before" that happened. I thought that was way more mysterious/alien than "yeah they live real long" or "yeah they are immortal but go somewhere else".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:And as has been pointed out in this thread, Fighters were serious business in 2e. It was 3e that made all classes pointless. (Also gently caress the feat system.) Just stating that fighters were serious business in 2E doesn't make it so. Even as someone who enjoyed playing fighters in 2E, the fact that they were substantially weaker than wizards after 5th level was never in any doubt. A 10d6 cap on Fireball meant nothing when fighter HD were capped at 9. Perhaps worse, attribute rewards were incredibly goofy in their distribution. The difference between a fighter with an 18/XX strength and a fighter with a 16 or lower was absolutely huge. Gauntlets of Ogre Power (and later the girdles) were eventually pretty much a necessity. Saves still sucked. And really, what did fighters 'get' in 2E beyond weapon specialization? With the Complete Fighter's Handbook bolt-on, things improved a bit, if in weird ways, but that brought in system mastery as well (dart masters of doom). But spellcasters could still do everything the muggle characters could. A 3rd level cleric was better at trapfinding than the party thief. Wizards could still cast knock, fly, and a boatload of save or dies. While there weren't really any ways to raise the save targets, the numbers were still awfully high a good chunk of the time at the levels players really generally saw. Fighters were still linear and wizards quadratic. Fighters still relied heavily on itemization to compete. The best use for fighters in 2E was to use them as a jumping off point for a dual class into something useful later on, assuming you could muster the stats for it. I will say though that wizards seemingly had a lot more to fear from spell interruption back then. In fact, that's where I'd lay the bulk of the blame for the power gap being exacerbated in 3.x. Fighters had always sucked relative to casters, but while both were boosted be 3E, casters were boosted more. Little changes that weren't really necessarily thought out made things even worse, such as HP inflation, which disproportionately affected fighters and thieves who can only chip away at that resource. Oh, and as far as the spell aging thing, aging was just something the party had to grapple with in general. Ghosts aged PCs 10-40 years a pop. Potions of longevity (which carried an increasing danger of reverting, but offered a bigger age reduction) and Elixers of Youth were required for everyone at one point or another. And again, the fighter who is suddenly 90 years old is a lot more hurt by those age penalties than the wizard is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Vylan Antagonist posted:Just stating that fighters were serious business in 2E doesn't make it so. Even as someone who enjoyed playing fighters in 2E, the fact that they were substantially weaker than wizards after 5th level was never in any doubt. A 10d6 cap on Fireball meant nothing when fighter HD were capped at 9. Perhaps worse, attribute rewards were incredibly goofy in their distribution. The difference between a fighter with an 18/XX strength and a fighter with a 16 or lower was absolutely huge. Gauntlets of Ogre Power (and later the girdles) were eventually pretty much a necessity. Saves still sucked. And really, what did fighters 'get' in 2E beyond weapon specialization? With the Complete Fighter's Handbook bolt-on, things improved a bit, if in weird ways, but that brought in system mastery as well (dart masters of doom). The combination of good hit points, CON, and AC carried 2e fighters a hell of a lot further than you're implying there, and weapon specialisation that scaled number of attacks upwards with level helped a lot too, even if the system for it was clunky. Our main group never really ran into the caster supremacy thing in 2e, but that was because it was much less likely that you'd accidentally build a cheese wizard and also because we had an agreement to not be dicks about it even if we did figure out a way to break the system.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:The combination of good hit points, CON, and AC carried 2e fighters a hell of a lot further than you're implying there, and weapon specialisation that scaled number of attacks upwards with level helped a lot too, even if the system for it was clunky. Fighters needed good HP because they were the ones usually expected to lose them. Bonus CON HP were, if anything, harder to get in general because of the way attributes only rewarded particularly high scores. Fixing that contributed to the HP escalation I mentioned. Fighters received more HP from the highest Con scores, true, but if you had a 17 to drop somewhere, Con wasn't generally the first choice. And yes, starting with 3/2 attacks was nice, while getting 2/1 felt like you'd really arrived, but it was still nothing like hitting 10 opponents at once with a fireball or basically winning the combat with a well-placed web. Again, 2E fighters weren't anything special on their own merits compared to 3E fighters; if anything, 3E fighters were significantly better and more interesting to design. It's that, relatively speaking, casters just got much more of an upgrade in 3.X, shoring up some of the weaknesses that had made their strengths less obvious in 2E. Being able to raise their save DCs, getting significantly more spells in general, and (especially) getting to cast defensively made a huge difference for wizards from my perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Maybe not you, but a lot of people complaining about 1e/2e dont seem to have ever played them, and are complaining about 3e while addressing 2e. A lot of the people who cite AD&D in either a good or bad light seem to have never played either edition of it outside of maybe some BG or Torment. A lot of people project 3E onto earlier editions because 3E is what they started with and they bought the line that it was just a continuation of the grand D&D tradition. Vylan Antagonist posted:Fighters needed good HP because they were the ones usually expected to lose them. Bonus CON HP were, if anything, harder to get in general because of the way attributes only rewarded particularly high scores. Fixing that contributed to the HP escalation I mentioned. Fighters received more HP from the highest Con scores, true, but if you had a 17 to drop somewhere, Con wasn't generally the first choice. It was your second choice, after strength. And when talking about HP, you have to remember that 3E really inflated HP totals on the monsters' end without a similar increase in weapon damage. In regards to saving throws, AD&D fighters got solid saves, but more importantly the way saves scaled favored the target over the caster.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Vylan Antagonist posted:And yes, starting with 3/2 attacks was nice, while getting 2/1 felt like you'd really arrived, but it was still nothing like hitting 10 opponents at once with a fireball or basically winning the combat with a well-placed web.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:In regards to saving throws, AD&D fighters got solid saves, but more importantly the way saves scaled favored the target over the caster. If the fiend folio monsters for ADnD were ported to 3e every party would end up pasted all over the cieling because some of those monsters rained save or dies. That book was my introduction to the game so when I actually went to play it even though I never, ever got a character approaching that level I played a fighter to have the best save against that bullshit I possibly could. MadScientistWorking posted:Wasn't fireball the spell that had the propensity to TPK entire parties depending on the edition? Yes. Sunburst exists, however, which is basically Fireball++ in that it dealt no damage to friendlys or treasure.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Wasn't fireball the spell that had the propensity to TPK entire parties depending on the edition? Yeah. Forgive the reference, but the part in the Dragonlance Chronicles where Raistlin realizes that Fizban is going to cast Fireball and panics doesn't provide the same nostalgic chuckle to anyone who didn't play with that kind of Fireball. Almost every party from a certain period has the same memory: "Hey, this looks like a good time to cast Fireball!" "NO NO DON'T N--"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:28
|
|
