|
The Adventurer's League Player Guide for Tyranny of Dragons is out and available here Nothing too exciting but it's there to have a look through. I do kind of enjoy the appendix of lore materials which lists only two 4e books, that also happens to be the only books they don't even bother linking to.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
neonchameleon posted:... I thought they claimed Feats in next would be good. To be fair, Durable is technically half-price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
moths posted:To be fair, Durable is technically half-price. Yeah, they seem to be trying to balance them by making some of them half-feats half-score increases. It's still clunky as Hell but them's Feats for ya.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
zachol posted:I obviously don't "want" lackluster powers, I think they're inevitable and that chains are a better way to soften their impact and the impact inevitably unbalanced individual powers will have. If lackluster powers are a given (which I agree, they're going to happen in any game with as many of them as your typical mid-to-high crunch RPG) then forcing people to take them if they also want to take that really cool ability over yonder strikes me as a real lovely way to go about it. With a "pick what you want" approach you're at least free to skirt around those lackluster choices as you see fit rather than having to go "well I really want Ultimate Facesmasher Stance but that means wasting my level 3 and level 7 picks on poo poo I don't want, or I could take the Bloodmurder chain I guess..." You're not really improving anything at this point. You're trading one set of analysis paralysis for another and limiting peoples' character creation options for no real benefit since the actual sticking point, lackluster powers, exist in both iterations. I also think your concerns about "balancing all particular iterations" is sort of unfounded. The balance issues inherent to 4E largely boil down to a couple of easily targeted issues...things like off-turn attacks and stacking multiple instances of static damage values. It's not like Magic: the Gathering where accidentally introducing a too powerful card into the mix suddenly results in the entire competitive play scene being utterly dominated by some unstoppable combo deck. Come and Get It is as close to a "gold standard must pick if you aren't a moron" as 4E gets but the existence of Come and Get It doesn't cast unbalancing ripples up and down the Fighter's ability assortment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
The power chains in 4e were intra-party in a lot of places (character A can often bring about arrangement or status effect X, allowing character B to do cool thing Y), which I would have loved to have seen more of in a 4.5e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:Nothing too exciting but it's there to have a look through. I do kind of enjoy the appendix of lore materials which lists only two 4e books, that also happens to be the only books they don't even bother linking to. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:The Adventurer's League Player Guide for Tyranny of Dragons is out and available here Those are the only two 4E FR setting books, and they haven't been released as PDFs yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:If lackluster powers are a given (which I agree, they're going to happen in any game with as many of them as your typical mid-to-high crunch RPG) then forcing people to take them if they also want to take that really cool ability over yonder strikes me as a real lovely way to go about it. With a "pick what you want" approach you're at least free to skirt around those lackluster choices as you see fit rather than having to go "well I really want Ultimate Facesmasher Stance but that means wasting my level 3 and level 7 picks on poo poo I don't want, or I could take the Bloodmurder chain I guess..." The point would be, you'd have three or five or whatever thematically distinct options starting at level 1 (this is the chain that pushes people around, this is the chain that focuses on defending allies, this is the chain that creates slowing/entangling zones), and you pick which of those options you want your general combat career to be about, and then that's it, you're done, no more choices that you have to make. Maybe you pick the pushing chain and then at level 13 think oh man that entanging power over there is pretty neat, bummer I don't have it, but that's not a major issue because you're still focused on and enjoying the overall combat style that the chain you picked offers, and the totality of your pushing chain is still preferable to the totality of that entangling chain, for the sort of character you want to play and the role you have in the party. The fact that you couldn't pick that level 13 entanging power, to me, is an acceptable price to pay for the assurance you get that your pushing chain is guaranteed to be "a good choice" overall. Not being able to pick that power also means that you don't have to worry whether or not you made the "right" choices at level 10, 9, 7, 5, etc all the way back, since you can just look at your own chain, and then the chain that grants that power, and feel comfortable about how your chain overall is a good choice for your character and group dynamic in a way that other chain isn't, without having to make that decision again and again each time you get a new option between some powers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Those are the only two 4E FR setting books, and they haven't been released as PDFs yet. Ah fair enough, I've never been that up to date on FR stuff 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
zachol posted:The point would be, you'd have three or five or whatever thematically distinct options starting at level 1 (this is the chain that pushes people around, this is the chain that focuses on defending allies, this is the chain that creates slowing/entangling zones), and you pick which of those options you want your general combat career to be about, and then that's it, you're done, no more choices that you have to make. If this is what it's all about then this is a problem that's easily solvable simply by featuring several "quick pick ability packages" that are worth half a drat. You could do this exact thing in 4E right now if you wanted to put the work into it. You don't need to put character development on rails solely to cater to folks with analysis paralysis, there are ways you can achieve that goal without sacrificing the flexibility other people want (or that those people with analysis paralysis themselves might find desirable after they get used to the game and how it plays).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
zachol posted:I obviously don't "want" lackluster powers, I think they're inevitable and that chains are a better way to soften their impact and the impact inevitably unbalanced individual powers will have. Why? Why do you think they are inevitable? Seriously, I'm currently designing a 4e retroclone. Look at all the classes please, and find me any lackluster powers. And if I agree with you I will beef them up or take them out. (This isn't the same as boring powers - some of the powers are deliberately boring because not everyone likes moving parts). quote:Balancing five different chains of powers once from a holistic point of view seems like an easier task than repeatedly balancing five powers fifteen or twenty (or whatever) times over and ensuring no combination is particularly overpowered or lackluster. Balancing five chains of powers means balancing all the moving parts against each other. It's both hideous and confining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Why? Why do you think they are inevitable? Actually is there a thread for your retroclone? Or a thread where people are making retroclones and yours can be talked about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:Ah fair enough, I've never been that up to date on FR stuff Yeah, they only released three FR books during 4E: the two on that list and the Player's Guide, which is of no use for 5E. They did release a decent amount of material through insider, but a lot of it was focused on the least changed regions like Cormyr. I think what ultimately turned off a lot of FR grogs wasn't necessarily "blowing up" FR with the Spell Plague, but not making an effort to develop and flesh-out the new regions. There was (is) a lot of potential for places like Tymanther. A lot of good stuff is in 4E FR, but WotC really fumbled its presentation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:If this is what it's all about then this is a problem that's easily solvable simply by featuring several "quick pick ability packages" that are worth half a drat. You could do this exact thing in 4E right now if you wanted to put the work into it. You don't need to put character development on rails solely to cater to folks with analysis paralysis, there are ways you can achieve that goal without sacrificing the flexibility other people want (or that those people with analysis paralysis themselves might find desirable after they get used to the game and how it plays). Quick packages would solve a number of problems, mainly to have an assurance from the designers that "these packages are all tested and acceptable, and can be used as benchmarks." I think that would be an alright compromise, and I understand the enjoyment others get out of making combinations and stuff. A lot of my unhappiness with the system comes more from the possibility of there being underwhelming combos, of powers that manage to both fill the same sort of design space while hampering each other, and having a sort of idiot-proof list that I know won't disappoint or drag down the rest of the party would be great. neonchameleon posted:Why? Why do you think they are inevitable? In my mind, if you have ten levels of powers, and five powers at each juncture, that's 5^10 different combinations you have to keep in mind, any one of which might be overpowered (somewhat unlikely) or inefficient (more likely, and more numerous). If you have five chains, that's five different combinations of powers you have to look at, which is much more manageable, and allows you to have powers that are more interesting on an individual basis without worrying that they'll conflict with or augment two other random powers in one of the various combinations you didn't have the time to think about. Your trifolds have a way more manageable number of powers to look at. I think it's a great design choice and overall a better way of doing it than either 4e or my stupid power chain stuff. I should've been clear that if you have the number of powers involved in 4e, then some will inevitably be lackluster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Actually is there a thread for your retroclone? Or a thread where people are making retroclones and yours can be talked about? It's currently part of the July contest - should I make a separate thread? There's no way I'm stopping here; I have two groups of playtesters starting to line up and there's a lot more I can do including my own (small) bestiary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:This piece really weirds me out - it's an awesome bit of art, but the posture/expression feels non-human in a way that I don't think it intends - the main character's absolutely rigid posture, combined with the not-real-world skin tones makes me think of some sort of animated statue / golem character. If that was intended, then 10/10, otherwise that dude really needs to pull the paladin out his rear end. Its like a model that was greenscreened/photoshopped into an exciting nature scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:It's currently part of the July contest - should I make a separate thread? There's no way I'm stopping here; I have two groups of playtesters starting to line up and there's a lot more I can do including my own (small) bestiary. A thread seems fine, especially if you've got that much going on. There might be a use for a general "post your 4e retroclone and discuss the concept in general" thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
zachol posted:A lot of my unhappiness with the system comes more from the possibility of there being underwhelming combos, of powers that manage to both fill the same sort of design space while hampering each other This isn't really a problem that's unique to 4E as far as RPGs, or even games in general, go. Also part of the problem is how you're grading "inefficiency." Is a power that does 3W damage and a minor status effect better or worse than one that does 2W plus a major status effect? Sure, killing enemies is the ultimate goal, but 4E put a number of brakes on damage racing to the point that just focusing on big damage numbers to the exclusion of all other factors is a good way to wind up in a spot or unable to help your teammates out of a jam. On the other hand, hey, having some big damage options on hand gives you the increased ability to put a damaged enemy down in one go instead of just bringing it closer to 0 barring a lucky crit. And that's not factoring any other context into things like "what kind of enemy are you fighting" or "who else is in your party and what are they built like?" There are a lot of powers in the various 4E charop guides that don't get the sky-blue or gold ranking but this doesn't mean that if you take them that your character is about to get tossed into the irrelevant bin, even the charoppers themselves admit that there's a difference between "this power actively sucks, avoid" and "this power is all right" even if they don't always agree on the rating each power should be accorded. Avoiding the former is a reasonable concern but if you're at the point that just the idea of inadvertently picking a sub-optimal power is infringing on your ability to enjoy a game (a game that features respeccing at every level, even) then I dunno what to tell you, that may be beyond the scope of game design to address.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
So what do you suppose the chances are that there is a "weapon adept" feat that allows a martial character to ignore damage resistance of a specific type? And do they actually think people pay attention to movement speed while searching for traps? And I've liked most of the art they've shown off so far but all the goblins I've seen look terrible. Not my D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
They had to counter Pathfinder goblins so 5e goblins will be buff as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:This isn't really a problem that's unique to 4E as far as RPGs, or even games in general, go. My experience in 3e and 4e was roughly the same in terms of character creation, in that I'd always first come up with a neat idea, pick a class that seemed close, and then gradually start picking different options, one thing feeding into another in terms of which feats and PrCs (in 3e) or powers (in 4e) I'd go for, and that this would go on for hours and hours, one feat or power or whatever leading to another, which would lead to another, which would obsolete one I'd chosen earlier, and then replacing that other one would ripple out to two more. In 4e, especially, a lot of it was along the lines of "I want a push/stun/whatever, should I have it be this encounter power or this one or this daily, or two or all three; I probably only need one, is there a different power at one of those levels that's significantly more attractive than at another, oh but at this level there's this other power that I'd wanted, so should I go for this one or that one," on and on and on. The problem is how there are so many powers that interact and overlap with each other, so that deciding a single power isn't just a matter of looking at, say, four powers and picking one, it's looking at dozens and dozens of powers, all of which only go in specific slots, and trying to weigh what each one offers, whether they're a more or less efficient means of getting a certain thing done, and to what degree in combat you're going to need to do that thing, whether you need multiple ways to get the same effect or inflict the same condition or whether just one is enough anyway. I just don't like spending all that time balancing things out that way. I want to be able to pick a thing and go and not get asked every couple levels whether I want to keep doing that thing or do a different thing or use this level now to do the thing I was doing before and replace the way I was doing that thing before with something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Speaking of which: http://failforward.co.uk/post/93348768153/how-dungeons-and-dragons-is-endorsing-the-darkest-parts quote:Why had Mearls consulted with Zak before replying to them? Why was it more important to re-assure Zak he was in the clear than respond to allegations of harassment? Mearls again replied, saying that he was not taking the accusations seriously because some of the people stating them where members of the Something Awful forums, which he claimed has a history of harassing Zak: So that's why WotC suddenly dropped support for SA's Old School Adventure contest after the winner was announced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:This isn't really a problem that's unique to 4E as far as RPGs, or even games in general, go. Another thing that most charoppers in 4e universally agree on is that, for many classes, if all you do is randomly pick gold and light blue powers, you still aren't going to be fully optimized. 4e is much like 3e in that it's all about synergy; the difference is that 3e was all about combining together everything to one type of "trick" (trip monkeys, maximum save DC, "Hood," etc) whereas 4e is about setting up combos, at least so long as you stay out of Essentials, which was Mearls desperately trying to crowbar 3e back in. If you look at a lot of their own sample characters, you'll see they occasionally eschew "light blue" choices because they don't fit their overall design. An ok and so-so power can combine to become something far greater then two good powers. My favorite example of this is the barbarian|swordmage, who makes for a decidedly powerful striker, but who more or less throws away all swordmage advice to do so. The whole is greater then the sum of its parts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
zachol posted:I just don't like spending all that time balancing things out that way. Without intending any offense, this seems like an issue with you rather than the game. 4E works perfectly well if you pick stuff you find cool without overthinking it to the point of anxiety, I don't know what else to tell you there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Eh, I dunno. I was trying to make "a sniper who sneaks around," and while trying to get the hide skill to actually be reliable I found myself waffling between eladrin and drow for, like, several hours, trying to figure out how to actually get persistent hide. I forget the exact details, but it had to do with a way to get hide after a teleport, and I think at one point I'd transitioned fully into warlock over rogue. The same sort of thing happens repeatedly, and it really has to do with having multiple levels at which you can have powers to accomplish similar goals, where there's a choice between which to take (or both), and which other powers you'll take instead, and how there are a multitude of obscure feats and items that make one approach or another more reasonable, sometimes opening up completely new goals you need to start searching for (figuring out you can use this to hide after a teleport, so now you just need to figure out all the ways to teleport, which brings you to some items and feats, then Eladrin, then whether you want further riders on the teleport, then whether you should add in some warlock, etc). It's maddening, and I would've much rather wanted to be able to just say "hey I'm a sniper who sneaks around" and that's it, that's the only mechanical decision I need to make and the game takes care of everything else for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
That's literally any Cunning Sneak rogue with a crossbow though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Well that's what I started with, yeah. Maybe that's a bad example, I was trying to get reliable hiding regardless of terrain/lighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:**Essentials sort of makes the same mistake that 13th Age does — the assumption that if classes are differentiated, non-casters must be low complexity because But, really, if any class is going to get boiled down to "here's your thing, add more dice for bigger boom" it would be the Evoker. Firebolt at-will. 3x/encounter either upgrade the damage or upgrade the burst. 3x/day SUPER upgrade the damage and burst. Call it the Pyromancer. Done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
zachol posted:Eh, I dunno. I was trying to make "a sniper who sneaks around," and while trying to get the hide skill to actually be reliable I found myself waffling between eladrin and drow for, like, several hours, trying to figure out how to actually get persistent hide. I forget the exact details, but it had to do with a way to get hide after a teleport, and I think at one point I'd transitioned fully into warlock over rogue. If RP and story mattered, then the decision to play a Drow or an Eladrin would be very exculsive and lead you one way or the other for that particular game. The same for warlock and rogue. The problem is when the first and only goal is "check these boxes to accomplish final CHAROP!" Different people, different games, etc etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Illvillainy posted:I mean, getting your storygame on is awesome but I would like some 4E-inspired games to be made. The game currently known as Sacred BBQ seems like the only one. Check out the July contest entrants for some 4e-inspired games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
zachol posted:Well that's what I started with, yeah. That's still not that hard, all you need with cunning sneak is concealment. Like this is a bad examplr because it literally disproves your own point. "Is literally always impossible to see" is far more complex then just "sniper."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Well yeah, I was trying to figure out a reliable way to always have concealment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I might get hammered again, but, this is something I never saw before 3e. Of course back before 3E "the decision to play a Drow" for whatever reason was seen as the purview of filthy munchkin swine powergamers looking to be like Drizzt, meanwhile AD&D2E had tons of dumb "Complete" books full of kits and fiddly stuff that you had to sift through to find the diamonds amidst the dogshit and you can't tell me with a straight face that all that stuff was "roleplaying not rollplaying," and that's not counting stuff like the "create your own class" rules that could be tuned to give yourself a super-cleric with as much melee kick as a fighter or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
zachol posted:Well yeah, I was trying to figure out a reliable way to always have concealment. imo it's pretty good design that that's not actually easy to achieve
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
zachol posted:Well yeah, I was trying to figure out a reliable way to always have concealment. Hybrid Rogue with either Assassin or Warlock, take Hybrid Talent for Rogue's Cunning Sneak, multiclass either Assassin or Warlock (whichever you didn't hybrid), take the feat Cursed Shadow. Now you have Shadow Walk (concealment for moving 3 squares) and Cunning Sneak, easy peasy. That's the basic "permahide/permastealth" build. Gets running at level 4 (or level 2 if you're human). There's better ways to do it in paragon but this is how that's done in early levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:The Adventurer's League Player Guide for Tyranny of Dragons is out and available here Well there's a few interesting bits. And it has a lot of bookkeeping and crap that any Living game has. -The 'alternate' human is legal for play, meaning you can start with a feat. A pretty big deal when feats like War Caster and Heavy Armor Master are technically available from level 1. -No stat rolling, point buy or standard array only. -Evil is cool, but only Lawful Evil. Should have banned the worst alignment, Chaotic Neutral. -Multiclassing and feats are ok, as long as they are in the PHB. -Free retraining of any and everything up until level 5. Starting then, you are stuck with your choices permanently. -Use of minis and the grid is optional, up to the DM. -If you die, you or the party can pay up the 1250gp required to revive you. Otherwise you stay dead. From level 1-4, your faction (NPCs) can revive you for free, but you lose all XP and stuff from that session. -"Lifestyle" is tied to background. Criminals start off as poors, but charlatans are 'comfortable'. Gotta do crime right. But begging must pay off since urchins have lifted themselves out of poverty. It also gives a list of the PHB backgrounds: pre:Background - Starting Lifestyle Acolyte Modest Charlatan Comfortable Criminal Poor Entertainer Modest Folk Hero Modest Guild Artisan Comfortable Hermit Poor Noble Wealthy Outlander Poor Sage Modest Sailor Modest Soldier Modest Urchin Modest
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
ritorix posted:-The 'alternate' human is legal for play, meaning you can start with a feat. A pretty big deal when feats like War Caster and Heavy Armor Master are technically available from level 1. Krag Hack full plate wizard damage reduction to all the things disadvantage to all the things is a go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Remember how 4e rules explicitly encouraged players to reflavor their powers and add superficial details unique to their characters and campaigns? Remember how anything 4e did must be buried forever and never mentioned again? http://blog.gallegosart.com/2014/07/magic-missile.html quote:Visualizing Magic Missile ended up being a very interesting exercise. I mean, if you've played D&D, how have you imagined this spell? The magic "darts" can be split up to target different creatures, and though the darts never get more powerful, eventually you can cast a slew of them at once. My early thumbnails and concepts included missiles that fired off in arcs and loops. I don't know if I ever really visualized them this way before, but having to sit and think about it, that was my impression. I also saw them as very bright and maybe warm colored, trailing to maybe a cooler color, but essentially hot white. (Yeah, it's probably overthinking it. Still, that's oddly specific.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Oddly specific, and I can't think of them pictured that way with dart tips anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Well, OD&D did describe them as 'magic arrow' and 'glowing arrow'. This edition clearly has something for everybody. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:41
|
|