|
Razorwired posted:Were you the one that posted that the best way to be a mid level "Fighter" when 3.5 ended was actually to be a Berserker of the Lion Totem 1/Duelist of Setting Specific Bullshit 1/Class With Free Weapon Focus 2/Thief 3/Fighter 3? Because whoever it was had a perfect example of why I told my late 3.5 parties no Multiclassing. Why would you play 3.x with no multiclassing? I'm being sincere in that question. 3.x's multiclassing is one of the only major changes from AD&D that has a positive side. I mean, a massive loving negative side, but it's still 3.x's big claim to fame. I legit don't understand what you get out of 3e with no multiclassing that wouldn't be done better in just some form of AD&D.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Rosalind posted:I've actually seen this line of thinking from other people before. They seem to think every class should be capable of anything if you build it right and that the game needs to accommodate whatever weird build you come up with. I had a friend who was obsessed with the idea of a "wizard with a sword" and he would write these lengthy diatribes to me about why 4E sucked because he couldn't play this character he wanted to play and he can do it in 3.5 and Next therefore they're better. I responded with both Bladesinger and Swordmage but he said that those "just weren't the same". This is one of those things I always used to beat my head against, the idea that "I want to play a lightly-armored skirmishing warrior who fights using two weapons or maybe a bow...no I don't want to play a Ranger, I want to play a Fighter." I've never understood either the objection some people have to the idea of playing a different class that gives them more of what they want but doesn't have the name they want it to or the desire to play a class-based game but then simultaneously also wanting the ability to (clumsily) try and make whatever you want on top of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Why would you play 3.x with no multiclassing? Seriously. Multi-classing is often the only thing keeping the terribly-balanced and mechanically boring classes up-to-par with standard encounters. I understand why looking at that string of class names on a character sheet might be a mess, but consider those extra classes as feats or sub-archetypes from Pathfinder and it doesn't look so bad. Ff you don't want to multiclass in pure 3.5, you are probably looking for a better system. It's really hard to make balanced encounters for characters that often vary wildly in power (my own experience of unoptimized Monk 8 with a Druid 8 in the party).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:26
|
|
|
4e even allows you the freedom to build against type in some cases--most classes in a given role can minor in a second role of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:4e even allows you the freedom to build against type in some cases--most classes in a given role can minor in a second role of some kind. Or do straight up unexpected stuff. The quintessential examples (because they are both Things You Can Do and really really strong) are the Psychologist Barbarian who has good WIS and CHA and charges into battle clad in superheavy armor instead of being a lightly armored noble savage, and the Lazylord, a hero who leads from the frontlines...by just barking orders like R. Lee Ermey or executing masterplans like Jim Phelps from Mission Impossible. There's a whole list of stuff like this out there too - it's telling that for the most part, the whole 'I want to be lightly armored and mobile but I want to play a Fighter!' stuff is not actually an issue in a game that is competently designed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Or do straight up unexpected stuff. The quintessential examples (because they are both Things You Can Do and really really strong) are the Psychologist Barbarian who has good WIS and CHA and charges into battle clad in superheavy armor instead of being a lightly armored noble savage, and the Lazylord, a hero who leads from the frontlines...by just barking orders like R. Lee Ermey or executing masterplans like Jim Phelps from Mission Impossible. There's a whole list of stuff like this out there too - it's telling that for the most part, the whole 'I want to be lightly armored and mobile but I want to play a Fighter!' stuff is not actually an issue in a game that is competently designed. Rogue who wears hide armor, carries a shield, and does attack penalties/action denial so you never hit anything again. Cleric with no wisdom who just has strength and charisma (and charisma is really optional) and at heroic tier does near striker damage at will. X-thousand ways to play various defenders as martial controllers. Valorous bards. About what I have experience with so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
That's not even touching some hybrid combos. I've heard swordmage|barbarian works for a literal Conan the Librarian And of course, Fighter may as well be a loving striker with how much damage it can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:3.x broke people. I'd say that it was the 3.x Fighter specifically that broke people. Most other classes, actual combat efficiency aside, had their own thing and were based on vaguely-specific (in DnD terms) archetypes. But the fighter was no one and everyone at the same time. The Wizard could literally Do Everything when in game, but in character creation he was still The Wizard, while someone looking at the fighter could only imagine endless possibilities (of character creation, and just one spammable gimmick during actual play). I'll again say that the only solution for DnD (probably a future version) at this point is to fully embrace the "three pillars" approach and have different classes for each aspect of the game, and allow players to pick and choose. That way you need only design "dude who is good with bows" once, and then either attach it to "survivalist" or "mercenary" or "dirty hippie" and be done with it. Also I feel like saying something like "my character is a human archer/ranger/lord" is the most DnD thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
So basically you would build a class out of three parts, each of which would correspond to a pillar. It sounds nifty in theory but I imagine it would require A). actual good game designers and B). a shitload of playtesting to make sure the combinations don't turn into a random collection of trap choices and must-haves all mixed together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
If they decide that ability scores should again define your chance of success, then yeah, it will mess everything up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
So. Here's the thing. There is a group of people - who knows how large - that do not care that a lightly armored skirmisher survivalist fighter is a ranger. They want to be a Fighter. They do not care that a fighter can easily be a striker. It says "Defender." The 3.x fighter is not weak, because look, it has all the right proficiencies and high BAB and HP. And of course I have Profession: Sailor; I'm a sailor! What I'm saying is that, for plenty of people, the actual mechanics never enter the conversation. This is the Skill: Profession crowd. Do you know what Profession: Sailor does? It does not help you tie ropes. It does not help you fight on a boat. It does not help you balance on a swaying ship. It does not help you climb up the mast. It lets you make x gold / week. THat's it. In fact, it makes you worst at all these things, because you're wasting skill points that could be spent on those skills. For these people, what matters is what your character sheet says. The mechanics don't matter - Profession: Sailor does not make you a better sailor. The ROLEPLAYING doesn't matter - it's why 4e has "NO ROLEPLAYING" even though you can take athletics and actually be a sailor. What matters is that your character sheet is nice. 3.x is the best game imaginable for this, because if you literally ignore how all the mechanics actually play out, you can make ANYTHING! This is the group that generally talks about how these mishmash multiclass monstrocities are overpowered, and yet all their examples can easily be seen as hilariously weak by anyone at all - because the mechanics don't matter. It's why they need Craft and Profession, even though the skills actually do close to nothing - because the mechanics don't matter. There are people who defend the Toughness feat, which Monte Cook, it's literal creator, stated was a mistake - because the mechanics do not matter. It's why they hate the 4e Fighter - it puts "defender" on their character sheet. Who cares that it doesn't have to be a defender, that you can easily make it into a striker - it ruins their character ideal. Mind you, again, it's not the roleplaying that matters either - it's the bizarre metagame of character creation that matters. In fact, even this isn't entirely true - it's not that the mechanics don't matter, it's that the mechanics are in of themselves bad. It's why ENWorld spend months demanding taht Next have 3.x style multiclassing. The example came up over and over and over again, this literal exact example: I need a thief who takes a level in cleric because he finds religion. No, I can't just roleplaying finding religion - it must be enshrined on my character sheet. And so, finally, Next allows this to happen - but wait! Someone points out that taking a level in cleric might increse your power! They interacted with the mechanics...! Suddenly, EN World hated it. How dare you let a rogue just casually multiclass into cleric. There have to be roadblocks! There have to be pitfalls! There have to be ways to stop you from doing it! And it was the same loving people! But no - as soon as the actual real world mechanics infected their dreamy character sheet visions, it was corrupted. Kill it. It's a truly bizarre mishmash of metagaming and freeform that makes absolutely no sense at all, and they will defend it to their death, and you have 3.x to thank for all of it. No, I'm sorry. 3.x absolutely broke people. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
I've been playing Baldur's Gate over again and the, "You can be a cleric and a wizard but they're both two levels behind and you get the restrictions of both classes" seems a better multiclass solution than 3e ever had.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:I've been playing Baldur's Gate over again and the, "You can be a cleric and a wizard but they're both two levels behind and you get the restrictions of both classes" seems a better multiclass solution than 3e ever had. The one problem that system has is that it's one of those balance-over-time things that AD&D did. Taking two classes is much more powerful at low levels than it is at high levels, and it's much more powerful than starting with one class initially but the single-class person theoretically pulls out way ahead at high levels. The game as written (not in BG) also limits multiclass-capable races of advancing beyond a certain point. Of course, it turns out most actual play is centered around those low levels and not high levels, that campaigns almost never go from level 1 to level 30+ and that to balance the game around every game doing that is therefore a little faulty. Not to say it couldn't be done that way again, though, assuming the game was designed for it from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
3e really should have been a point buy system. Most of the classes were apropos of nothing. For example, to be a character who swung on chains (maybe you wanted to be Tarzan) you had to prestige into it, and it required an evil alignment. There is no iconic Master of Chains character, there aren't any 1 Psychic Warrior/ 2 Totem Barbarian / 4 Favored Soul characters in fantasy fiction. Why not call it a wash and make it an ala carte system instead of pretending these rule niches are important archetypes that need to be represented?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:3e really should have been a point buy system. Most of the classes were apropos of nothing. For example, to be a character who swung on chains (maybe you wanted to be Tarzan) you had to prestige into it, and it required an evil alignment. There is no iconic Master of Chains character, there aren't any 1 Psychic Warrior/ 2 Totem Barbarian / 4 Favored Soul characters in fantasy fiction. Why not call it a wash and make it an ala carte system instead of pretending these rule niches are important archetypes that need to be represented? Did someone say 3.5 points system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
A much better option is simply playing Mutants & Masterminds, which despite being superhero flavored doesn't do a terrible stab at fantasy and is, in fact, a point-based d20 system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:The one problem that system has is that it's one of those balance-over-time things that AD&D did. Taking two classes is much more powerful at low levels than it is at high levels, and it's much more powerful than starting with one class initially but the single-class person theoretically pulls out way ahead at high levels. The game as written (not in BG) also limits multiclass-capable races of advancing beyond a certain point. Of course, it turns out most actual play is centered around those low levels and not high levels, that campaigns almost never go from level 1 to level 30+ and that to balance the game around every game doing that is therefore a little faulty. I don't think multiclassing was actually that powerful at low levels. Take the classic fighter/mage; compared to a vanilla fighter it lost HP and AC and took more than twice as long to level up. In exchange, it got the ability to cast a single spell. Multiclassing didn't really pay off until around level 5 or so, and by the time you got there, the rest of the party was already level 7 or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:There is a group of people - who knows how large - that do not care that a lightly armored skirmisher survivalist fighter is a ranger. They want to be a Fighter. They do not care that a fighter can easily be a striker. It says "Defender." Kai Tave posted:This is one of those things I always used to beat my head against, the idea that "I want to play a lightly-armored skirmishing warrior who fights using two weapons or maybe a bow...no I don't want to play a Ranger, I want to play a Fighter." I've never understood either the objection some people have to the idea of playing a different class that gives them more of what they want but doesn't have the name they want it to or the desire to play a class-based game but then simultaneously also wanting the ability to (clumsily) try and make whatever you want on top of it. That's not to say there's no way you could take the existing names and make them work, but you'd need to shoehorn some of them into themes or whatever. Not keep "kind of likes the forest" a character-based decision on par with "can do loving magic". Kai Tave posted:a shitload of playtesting to make sure the combinations don't turn into a random collection of trap choices and must-haves all mixed together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:No, I'm sorry. 3.x absolutely broke people. I agree completely with the rest of the analysis, though I firmly believe that these people were already broken to begin with. These are the people that tell you over and over again how Roleplaying has nothing to do with what's on your character sheet but then argue that putting certain things on your character sheet makes you worse at Roleplaying. The inconsistency is maddening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Vasja posted:I agree completely with the rest of the analysis, though I firmly believe that these people were already broken to begin with. These are the people that tell you over and over again how Roleplaying has nothing to do with what's on your character sheet but then argue that putting certain things on your character sheet makes you worse at Roleplaying. The inconsistency is maddening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Or do straight up unexpected stuff. The quintessential examples (because they are both Things You Can Do and really really strong) are the Psychologist Barbarian who has good WIS and CHA and charges into battle clad in superheavy armor instead of being a lightly armored noble savage, and the Lazylord, a hero who leads from the frontlines...by just barking orders like R. Lee Ermey or executing masterplans like Jim Phelps from Mission Impossible. There's a whole list of stuff like this out there too - it's telling that for the most part, the whole 'I want to be lightly armored and mobile but I want to play a Fighter!' stuff is not actually an issue in a game that is competently designed. I played a strength-primary dragonborn Skald, and you have no idea how much additional fun it is to wear scale armor and be awesome at athletics. I played him as a paladin of Kord. There was a table flip (in-character) and I almost pushed the end-campaign boss out of a tower on the first turn of the fight. And I said "come at me, bro" a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
The major impression I get as a result of that article and associated discussions on the forums is that people are WAY too loving obsessed with the labels. There's a massive cluster-grog thread going on about bloodied as a concept and its utility in HP-thresholding SoSuck effects so that damage is still meaningful. And basically everything affter the first two posts has been massive back-and-forth bitching about how golems don't HAVE blood so Bloodied is just SO breaking my IMMERSIONS. gently caress off, it's a game term, like hit, miss and hit points. Call it whatever you want. The terminology is not the point. In short, one of the biggest apparent problems with next (although the WotC forums are a tiny echo chamber against the rest of the internets) is that the audience are toxically spergy about terminology, and seem for the most part not to actually give a gently caress about game design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:No, I'm sorry. 3.x absolutely broke people. And I think it also suffers from the Law of Unintended Consequences. D&D is, more often than not, a gateway into P&P RPGs, which is great. Unfortunately, I think the relative granularity and and overall sperg of 3.x (which, to be fair, continued in the great sperg tradition of AD&D before it) helped to create a small, vocal class of uber-spergy grogs who are pretty decent at ruining the game for the rest of us. Vocal enough that Pathfinder is a thing and Next is slowly being poisoned by their very loud demands. thespaceinvader posted:In short, one of the biggest apparent problems with next (although the WotC forums are a tiny echo chamber against the rest of the internets) is that the audience are toxically spergy about terminology, and seem for the most part not to actually give a gently caress about game design. Case in point. What I'm wondering, though, is how you can bring new people into the hobby when the audience that the "next" edition of D&D is catering to is acts? D&D is, for better or worse, one of the gateways (and it's how my 6th grade self got drawn into it via the AD&D FastPlay games) and it plays an important role in inducting new people. But I'm reminded of one of Fred Hicks' recent posts on RPGNet where one of his big lines is how tribalism in the hobby hurts the hobby, and for all of the stated design goals of Next saying that they want to bring these warring tribes together, I certainly hope it at least tries to do that in the end. Post in reference: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?710454-Why-is-the-state-of-the-RPG-Market-so-poor&p=17439830#post17439830
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:In short, one of the biggest apparent problems with next (although the WotC forums are a tiny echo chamber against the rest of the internets) is that the audience are toxically spergy about terminology, and seem for the most part not to actually give a gently caress about game design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Goons, it is that time of the year again. THE HOLIDAYS. WELCOME TO THE SECRET SANTA THREAD SWAP No Music Discussion, meet the D&D Next Thread. A new version of D&D is coming out, and this is the thread about it! It is also about cooking and riddles. It is a kind of Christmas Carol! MERRY CHRISTMAS
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
what is the best kind of steak to eat while listening to kanye west (but not Yeezus, which was a poo poo album)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
How does it feel to be incorrect in every way? Also the correct Kanye food is croissants. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
I AM THE MOON posted:what is the best kind of steak to eat while listening to kanye west (but not Yeezus, which was a poo poo album) A medium prime rib with bleu cheese sauce, because even if the music sucks the food should be good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
That was not the question K Prime , I did not ask what to eat, only which type of steak should I be eating while listening to good songs like "All of the Lights" and not bad songs like "On Sight." Please keep the Dungeons and Dragons and Cooking and Riddle thread on topic. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
I AM THE MOON posted:That was not the question K Prime , I did not ask what to eat, only which type of steak should I be eating while listening to good songs like "All of the Lights" and not bad songs like "On Sight." I don't really agree with your premise that Yeezus is a bad album, so I guess I would suggest a steak that gives some kind of bonus to wisdom or perception or something (charisma? that's like bardish, right?) so you can better identify good music!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
No, they're toxically spergy about whatever they're toxically spergy about, and will use anything to argue against it despite it having nothing to do with their actual reasons. "I don't like it because (completely bullshit but easily arguable reason)" sounds better than "I don't like it because it's from someone popular/makes my tastes more mainstream/I'm not 16 anymore/I've had a lovely day and am taking it out on people who like different music than me".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
So music goons, Bards are singers and songwriters, right? Post the best Bards you got.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
http://book.dwgazetteer.com/bard.html Is Bard even a class in the core D&D Next book? I forget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:http://book.dwgazetteer.com/bard.html There is no "core D&D Next book" as D&D Next hasn't been published yet. There is a bard class in the latest playtest packet, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
That's really confused the crap out of me that they are releasing modules before any of the core books are done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
The most Bard artist is Spencer Krug. Sunset Rubdown are basically the most fantasy band that isn't metal, and like a real Bard, Krug is a jack of all trades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Well, I'm gonna answer my own question here. The Best Bards Bob Dylan Tom Waits Nick Cave
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
What Dead Can Dance song would be most appropriate for a not-Dragonlance game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Well, I'm gonna answer my own question here. No Phil Ochs? What is this, freshman year at Bard College?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:No Phil Ochs? What is this, freshman year at Bard College? Hey gently caress you, I multiclassed from Wizard, so I'm trying to catch up here. Geez. (Totally gonna look that guy up) Error 404 fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 01:07
|
|