|
I meant I'll literally be making millions of attacks while everyone else is figuring out what spell to use and whining about taking any damage or what a pain in the rear end it is to pull off their asinine spell combo.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Alright so the thing that does kind of blow my mind is that in a world where Pathfinder exists and seems to be really goddamn popular, why would they drop all the good stuff in 4e and then do this? (martial classes being interesting, DM prep being tolerable, etc) it just seems like a good way to literally compete against two entrenched positions, one of which is your own goddamn product (3.5) People are talking about stealing back Pathfinder fans or whatever, but I think that attributes way too much actual marketing thought to this. 5e is 5e because Mearls wanted to make a new 3.x. That's it. Spoilers Below posted:The other important take away from that article is that the author can't convince an actual 11 year old to play the game with him. This is something that's been sticking out to me. Every pro-5e thing I've seen, every person hyped, every picture of people playing it, the average age has been older then 30.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Honestly the more I read about it, the better I feel about 5e. I mean they fixed some problems with 3.5 (not the glaring huge ones, but I guess we're just accepting those) and in general it seems like there are some good ideas there if you're super into 3.5/pathfinder. I might try playing a game sometime to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Honestly the more I read about it, the better I feel about 5e. I mean they fixed some problems with 3.5 (not the glaring huge ones, but I guess we're just accepting those) and in general it seems like there are some good ideas there if you're super into 3.5/pathfinder. I might try playing a game sometime to check it out. Yeah it provides a couple of quality-of-life improvements without really addressing (and occasionally worsening) some systemic problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yeah it provides a couple of quality-of-life improvements without really addressing (and occasionally worsening) some systemic problems. Yeah. It also sounds like combat tends to go quicker than 3.5, and I'll definitely admit that 4E combat tended to slog a bit, so that might be a good thing. Someday I'll get some folks together and play it out and see. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Yeah. It also sounds like combat tends to go quicker than 3.5, and I'll definitely admit that 4E combat tended to slog a bit, so that might be a good thing. Someday I'll get some folks together and play it out and see. You could go to a FLGS and play Encounters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:You could go to a FLGS and play Encounters. That involves leaving my house, maaaaaaaan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:That involves leaving my house, maaaaaaaan. And hoping the FLGS isn't full of lovely people. But I twice hammered a really good gaming group out of FLGS people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
After watching this video, I wished fighters played like this versus, I dunno, everyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XGp5ix8HE#t LuiCypher fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
The main problem is that 3.x HAS a ton of support that 5e lacks. You want to be a sword wizard type? Certain types of swordsage, Magus, Duskblade, countless PrCs. You want to be a more dynamic fighter? Tome of Battle, Path of War. And so on, and so forth. The usual response is "well 5e is still young," but 5e went out of it's way to avoid all of this; I find it doubtful you'll see a Tome of Battle for 5e.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The main problem is that 3.x HAS a ton of support that 5e lacks. You want to be a sword wizard type? Certain types of swordsage, Magus, Duskblade, countless PrCs. You want to be a more dynamic fighter? Tome of Battle, Path of War. And so on, and so forth. Surely you can understand why people would prefer to play a game that currently works (for variable definitions of "works") out of a single readily available core book everybody knows the name of rather than having to cobble together poo poo from twelve different books piecemeal, which may be allowed or disallowed at any given table for various bizarre reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Surely you can understand why people would prefer to play a game that currently works (for variable definitions of "works") out of a single readily available core book everybody knows the name of rather than having to cobble together poo poo from twelve different books piecemeal, which may be allowed or disallowed at any given table for various bizarre reasons. If I want to play a fighter with cool options, much less one that isn't then immediately overshadowed in every way, 5e offers me nothing. Because that's the choice regarding 3e and 5e. Either I have to cobble poo poo together from twelve different books, or I can't make it at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
So Fighter doesn't really live up to a lot of legendary heroes, but if we were to try and create a subclass specifically to emulate some of those things, perhaps not as powerful as slashing mountains but great leaping and various other heroic things how would you go about it? Maybe a subclass that gets a bunch of spells, both concentration and otherwise, as permanent "non-magial" effects. Like maybe permanently under the effect of Jump at 3rd or something, or maybe just double then triple, quadruple, etc jumping distance at various levels in addition to other effects. Maybe get Longstider, or Expeditious Retreat, or better yet Haste, as a permanent effect at some point to just be faster than others. Maybe something to deal double damage to objects. Perhaps something like Stoneskin, basically resistance to physical non magic damage. Perhaps something that doubles, eventually tripling, and more, carrying capacity. Would be nice if there was some way to lift or punch a river to redirect it, but not seeing a passive buff spell for that. Maybe a capstone of permanent Foresight? Which is certainly powerful but not blasting huge spells kind of thing and can still feel like just exceptional prowess and skill instead of just casting spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:If I want to play a fighter with cool options, much less one that isn't then immediately overshadowed in every way, 5e offers me nothing. 5e has some lovely options, but 3e is more broken in every respect that 5e's broken in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Except on the 3e end, you need to have a pretty high degree of system mastery or beg your friends to make your character. Wizards already have broken and silly options (on both ends of the spectrum) and are primed by the setup of the system to gain in the same ways that 3E wizards did. There are only so many feats and class feature packages. The wizard learns dozens of spells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So Fighter doesn't really live up to a lot of legendary heroes, but if we were to try and create a subclass specifically to emulate some of those things, perhaps not as powerful as slashing mountains but great leaping and various other heroic things how would you go about it? Honestly and unironically, mashing the Monk, Rogue, Fighter and Barbarian together is probably a good start. Even with the class features of all 4 you're not as good as a dragon (and you still lose instantly to Wall of Force) so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
The monk doesn't get any Ki stuff til level 2? So...level 1 is pretty boring for the guy that picks that class I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
You have to earn your
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
To move away from how much WOTC hates fighters, do you guys employ any verticality in your battles? One of my favorite ways to plan out D&D 4e was using lego (2x2 grid representing a normal player character), because it let me build out decently sized battle arenas without spending a shitton of money on terrain. It doesn't look nearly as nice, but I've increasingly found that in all tactical games, having a perfectly flat map is really disappointing to me and I love having a real terrain setup. It actually makes me wish someone would make a D&D focused lego set with 2x2 minifig things and a gridded board for mapping out on, but on the other hand I get why they don't, plastic injection being what it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So Fighter doesn't really live up to a lot of legendary heroes, but if we were to try and create a subclass specifically to emulate some of those things, perhaps not as powerful as slashing mountains but great leaping and various other heroic things how would you go about it? Level 1: Pick one option from the "I KILL YOUR" list. Gain the passive benefit listed for it. (passive benefits are a work in progress) Level 3: You gain 3 mythic hit points. At any time you can enter a walking trance and start fighting the option you picked from the "I KILL YOUR" list, possibly instead any actual opponents. You still exist in the physical world and can perceive it and be hurt. The DM will assign it a mythic AC and a number of mythic hit points, usually 1 to 5. When you fight in the mythic realm, attacking your mythic target once consumes your action. Gain all bonuses that you do to your attack roll, but you cannot gain advantage on the mythic attack, though it can still counter disadvantage. If you miss your mythic target, you lose one mythic hit point. If you run out of mythic hit points, you are knocked out of the trance and cannot re-enter it until you regain them. Regain all your mythic hit points at the end of a short or long rest. If you kill your mythic target, work with the DM to determine the effects. Levels 7, 10, 15, and 19: Pick another option from the "I KILL YOUR" list, or a bonus option listed after it. I KILL YOUR: magic gods element (all of fire, cold, lightning, etc. but only one at a time) nature hope BONUS OPTIONS: Scarification: Once per day, when you are at full hit points you can perform a 10-minute ritual ending in you ritually scarring yourself. Gain 1 mythic hit point. It, and the scar, last until it is lost. Reflexive Trance: As an action, you can make one attack in the mythic realm, and a second one in the normal realm. Desperation: When you are at one mythic hit point, all of your mythic attacks have advantage. This ignores the advantage limitation on mythic attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:I'm just gonna frame this and say this is the exact same logic we are mocking in the people defending 5e, here's a spoiler: D&D 4e is still a good game but bad at by default simulating the sort of heroes of myth and legend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I think that big freeform stuff like that is actually pretty incompatible with D&D (as opposed to just not being supported by it). D&D has always been super logistical or tactical, even in the editions with a lot of DM fiat. Both of those qualities are pretty at odds with over the top improv feats of logic-breaking. Basically every RPG is an uneasy mix of freeform and mechanics, with some systems bringing the two closer together, and others not. I don't really think that more narrative games can claim complete dominance of this process, because frankly many of them don't work very well, and there's also something said for variety, particularly in longer campaigns. The issue is how to bridge that divide. I'd say the key to that in a dnd-like game is actually character resources, because this would help ground even the more fanciful moments of narrative sharing, and contextualize them with the tactical battle system. IOW, in such a version of DnD, to take control of the narrative of a more freeform scene, you would not spend a drama point or a fate point- you could just straight up use some Magic or Glory, resources you might otherwise spend in combat to say, auto crit on an attack or heal your surge value in hp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:I'm not saying that 4e does a particularly good job in this role, i'm saying that it doesn't do a particularly poor job, compared to other systems. It was more the "Just ignore/change the rules" posts really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:It was more the "Just ignore/change the rules" posts really. But one of the things people aren't talking about so much wrt 5e is how much it was designed by what people hate, as opposed to what they like. What doesn't work for them (or enrages them to the point of filling an enworld forum with it), as opposed to what, supposedly, does. I think it's important to talk about things in a positive way, as well as a negative one. Through this exchange I think it's a lot more clear what you're after from a game in that style. I wish you luck in your quest for mythic play, just, whatever you do, don't play exalted like that dumb baby ferrinus. id's a game for babys ive got proof
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Edition partisans used to call that one "The Stormwind Fallacy". The basic idea is that "thing X isn't a problem because you can fix it easily by doing Y" is a logical fallacy because if X really and truly wasn't a problem then it wouldn't need to be fixed at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So Fighter doesn't really live up to a lot of legendary heroes, but if we were to try and create a subclass specifically to emulate some of those things, perhaps not as powerful as slashing mountains but great leaping and various other heroic things how would you go about it? This is kind of a broken record thing at this point, but a really good example of a well made Fighter is 4th Edition, you don't need to look anywhere deeper to see how a well made fighter should look then the previous edition of the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Edition partisans used to call that one "The Stormwind Fallacy". The basic idea is that "thing X isn't a problem because you can fix it easily by doing Y" is a logical fallacy because if X really and truly wasn't a problem then it wouldn't need to be fixed at all. That's the Oberoni Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy states that just because you're mechanically powerful doesn't mean you can't be roleplayed well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
goldjas posted:This is kind of a broken record thing at this point, but a really good example of a well made Fighter is 4th Edition, you don't need to look anywhere deeper to see how a well made fighter should look then the previous edition of the game. Yeah, I was super into martial characters and defenders in 4E. It's a great establishing of the class and I really enjoyed playing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Yeah, I was super into martial characters and defenders in 4E. It's a great establishing of the class and I really enjoyed playing it. It's probably worthwhile to point out that you can't just take the 4E fighter in isolation. The entire system with the grid and marking and shifting and so on was set up to allow everyone, fighters to wizards, to engage with enemies and terrain with the same mechanics and concepts. That's what made Tide of Iron actually a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:It's probably worthwhile to point out that you can't just take the 4E fighter in isolation. The entire system with the grid and marking and shifting and so on was set up to allow everyone, fighters to wizards, to engage with enemies and terrain with the same mechanics and concepts. That's what made Tide of Iron actually a thing. Oh, totally. I just mean it was neat to see the roles work together like that and have marking and all that work. It was engaging and interesting to play a martial character and while 4e has it's flaws, the first time a party comes together and pulls all that off, it was magical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Oh, totally. I just mean it was neat to see the roles work together like that and have marking and all that work. It was engaging and interesting to play a martial character and while 4e has it's flaws, the first time a party comes together and pulls all that off, it was magical. And of course with that thought we go to 5E - which is, melee and magic characters aren't engaging enemies using the same mechanics. Some of them are using one set of mechanics (swing sword, in melee range) and others are using another set of mechanics (narrative control of combat), which means the party working together isn't going to mesh as well. Which means that theoretically, there's less difference between a party that's really cooperating and one that isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mRoXwWHxzUp3NngKSf2x-Uno5ps0vl-WsVZGv2vwZPc/edit?usp=sharing]So i've done the first draft of the first of 19 cities in Noskelhome[/url] and was wondering if I can get some feedback - are there any areas you feel I'm really missing? Anything you'd like to know more about? Does it interest you? (I do plan on adding factions to other cities, but this is one where the Red Queen is the only major player). I'm almost done with the first Elder Demon - I just need to finish the oath and pact and it'll be ready for your perusal. edit: Allowed commenting on the document - is it sad that I had no idea how until now? Trollhawke fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:So i've done the first draft of the first of 19 cities in Noskelhome and was wondering if I can get some feedback - are there any areas you feel I'm really missing? Anything you'd like to know more about? Does it interest you? (I do plan on adding factions to other cities, but this is one where the Red Queen is the only major player). Could you give us comment privileges? Or would you prefer it in the thread since it's 5E...ish?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:[url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mRoXwWHxzUp3NngKSf2x-Uno5ps0vl-WsVZGv2vwZPc/edit?usp=sharing] I like it a lot - heaps of interesting stuff, enough left free to build on, and the information is inspiring me to have my own ideas about what might happen in the place. The format and language reminds me of the city/area descriptions in Planescape's setting books (that's a huge compliment). E: The beliefs/hooks/rumors section is cool as hell. I kind of skipped to those first (after skimming through to see how long it was and what the format was like) and already had a picture of the place in my head just from that section. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
So, in 5e, is a "ranged weapon" a weapon that has range increments (i.e. it has the Thrown or Ammunition property), or is it only weapons listed under "Simple Ranged Weapons" or "Martial Ranged Weapons"? Answer: up to the DM
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So, in 5e, is a "ranged weapon" a weapon that has range increments (i.e. it has the Thrown or Ammunition property), or is it only weapons listed under "Simple Ranged Weapons" or "Martial Ranged Weapons"? I looked at this, and it seems clear at first: quote:A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance. quote:Range. A weapon that can be used to make a ranged attack has a range shown in parentheses after the ammunition or thrown property. I mean, how clear is that? A weapon that can make a ranged attack (which has a range listed in parenthesis) is a ranged weapon. But then there's the table with the dumb-as-poo poo divisions between ranged and melee weapons that don't match up with the above rules text. So who loving knows how a dagger, hand axe, light hammer or (somehow) javelin actually gets defined at any given moment? The whole thing is made worse by the way that nobody gets proficiency in "simple ranged weapons" or "martial ranged weapons" anyway - so it's a meaningless distinction but at least I guess it ~feels like~ (3.x) D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Changing the name of Melf's Acid Arrow to Schrödinger's Javelin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Are thrown weapons ranged weapons is an even dumber question because the Archery speciality for the fighter gives +2 damage with ranged weapons. Not ranged attacks, ranged WEAPONS. Meaning that if you hit a guy in melee with your handaxe, you get the archery damage bonus. According to a charop guy I trust this isn't remotely unbalanced, but it is super-dumb. It's (unusually) not even a natural language problem, just bad writng with 'ask your DM lol' as the cover-up/excuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Are thrown weapons ranged weapons is an even dumber question because the Archery speciality for the fighter gives +2 damage with ranged weapons. Not ranged attacks, ranged WEAPONS. Meaning that if you hit a guy in melee with your handaxe, you get the archery damage bonus. According to a charop guy I trust this isn't remotely unbalanced, but it is super-dumb. +2 to-hit not damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:+2 to-hit not damage. Unless by that he means "the math is hosed anyway" or "meanwhile Wizards cast Improved Bypass Encounter" and not "there is parity between fighter specialities".
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 10:02
|
|