|
Kind of the fun of RIFTs is how silly and stupid and unbalanced it all is. I don't think DND is really meant to be that kind of game though (even if it tends to be sometimes).
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
RIFTS is the purest ideal example of what happens when designers don't think balance exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
RIFTS is both stupid and unbalanced and an insufferable slog of non-standardized mechanics, rules that don't work, supplement bloat, incredibly tedious combat, and a bunch of other poo poo. It's basically a game with no actual redeeming features whatsoever, so to see someone comparing it to Next in a complimentary fashion is amazing. It's like trying to market your new car by evoking the mystique of the Yugo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:I was referring to monster HP bloat in later editions because I remember Fighters being really hardy in 2E even at level 1 mostly because things just couldn't hit you. Their strength seemed to be that they were necessary to even be able to end a fight because they could down an enemy in 1-2 hits no problem whereas anyone else couldn't really hit the broad side of a barn. I also vaguely remember something about caster spells having time delay so that you would start casting something but it wouldn't go off until 2-3 rounds into the fight. Though it's been a long time since I played 2E so I may be completely misremembering that. Also I remember if you were a Dwarf Fighter specifically you were basically this unhittable death machine that shrugged off magic and poisons because of their fantastic saves. Yeah, 2e low level fighters are hardy because of armour, not hit points. You can get almost as good with a starter thief if you have a high dexterity, but the fighter will quickly buy better armour and become way less hittable. 2e fighters 1-2 shot most low level enemies that appear in groups. It only gets better as they get more magical items. A fighter with +2 fullplate and a +3 shield is at AC -5, which is better than most dragons. Not that a high level fighter has a tiny hp pool compared to monsters - he's actually probably better than most monsters (see my previous post). The 2e fighter (and monsters) do have a lower hp pool compared to damage output than in later editions. There are a few multi-round 2e spells, but I can't think of one you'd want to use in combat. Are you thinking of initiative order and losing spells if you're hit before you cast? Dwarf save bonuses were amazing. With 14-17 Con, you're ~20% more likely than a non-dwarf fighter to resist spells, staff/rod/wand, and poison. This means that after level 17, you'll be failing your save vs spell on a 1-2 on d20. There's no way in 2e for an opponent to increase the save difficulty unless he's a specialist wizard. Monsters don't get class levels, and therefore can't be specialist wizards. There are ways to improve your saves though - sometimes to the point where it's impossible to fail a certain saving throw. e: "...a bit like RIFTS..." is a surefire way to make me immediately lose interest in a game. I have known exactly one person who claims to have enjoyed RIFTS, and he was on so many drugs when he said so that he really could have meant anything. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Don't forget, dexterity wasn't capped by armor in AD&D. High dex always equaled a bonus to AC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Yeah, but given the way ability modifiers are set up and the standard methods of generating ability scores, the chances of getting strength, con, and dex bonuses wasn't that great. As a fighter, you'd really want the hit/damage bonus above all else. I'd always go with dex over con for the second stat though, except maybe if I went dwarf - then Con to get the save bonus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:RIFTS is both stupid and unbalanced and an insufferable slog of non-standardized mechanics, rules that don't work, supplement bloat, incredibly tedious combat, and a bunch of other poo poo. It's basically a game with no actual redeeming features whatsoever, so to see someone comparing it to Next in a complimentary fashion is amazing. It's like trying to market your new car by evoking the mystique of the Yugo.  You sir or madam, hate fun and colors. Rifts is a blast to play, even if the mechanics are atrocious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
You may enjoy 5e if:
--You actually like RIFTS
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Rifts is pretty great is you haven't seen or played a rpg since the late 80's, or if you don't use the rules. At all. How much you must hate Next to compare it to that shambling zombie pile?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:
Having actually played RIFTS before, having sat through the slog of combat with a bunch of Xxxtxtxtxtx whatever the gently caress they were, watching as attacks and dodges were exchanged in tepid, unending fashion while waiting for my Rogue Scholar to have a chance to do something effective, then sitting around even more while the GM had to pause to look up rules regularly because having consistent mechanics and good layout is for suckers or something, I'm going to suggest that the idea that RIFTS is totally a blast to play in spite of the mechanics being utter dogshit is a completely asinine one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Eh, RIFTS was fun in high school when there was some charm to pouring over endless pages of broken but creative source material. Not to mention when literal rocket tag was an appealing play style. I think we had more fun experimenting with ridiculously unbalanced class concepts than actually playing the game. The most fun I had with it was making a juicer, spending all of my accumulated wealth playing "mother may I" to get some of every statblock'd narcotic I could find, and then in some big fight I spent the first few turns hanging back and ingesting as many as the rules/GM would let me. As I recall we lost that fight (combat tuning being a completely impossible task...or maybe the GM just had the better sense to end it). Each of the other PCs went out in a blaze of glory, I was the sole surviver but had taken a missile directly to the face so I ran off and escaped into some woodland area. Then to finish the campaign we all had a laugh as the GM calculated the ghoulish list of in-game effects my character took as he crashed off all those  .It's like the munchkin card game or paranoia (though both have much better staying power): When not taken seriously it can be fun at least until the novelty wears off. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Eh, RIFTS was fun in high school when there was some charm to pouring over endless pages of broken but creative source material. Not to mention when literal rocket tag was an appealing play style. I think we had more fun experimenting with ridiculously unbalanced class concepts than actually playing the game. The most fun I had with it was making a juicer, spending all of my accumulated wealth playing "mother may I" to get some of every statblock'd narcotic I could find, and then in some big fight I spent the first few turns hanging back and ingesting as many as the rules/GM would let me. As I recall we lost that fight (combat tuning being a completely impossible task...or maybe the GM just had the better sense to end it). Each other other PCs went out in a blaze of glory, I was the sole surviver but had taken a missile directly to the face so I ran off and escaped into some woodland area. Then to finish the campaign we all had a laugh as the GM calculated the ghoulish list of in-game effects my character took as he crashed off all those My Vagabond recently ended our 6 month campaign by murdering two of the PC's (A Wolfen Cyborg space-cop & a Robot Pilot), a literal superhero and a friendly mad scientist; with a fusion block under the dinner table in a Kaizer Soze twist that had been going on the whole game. The remaining three of us took command of the moon base we were on following the deaths, and used the satellite defense array to hold Earth hostage with orbital bombardments. Taking the system seriously never factored into it. "Balance" sure as hell didn't. The setting is amazing, with hundreds upon hundreds of interesting things going on around the planet, all over. Hell, if it ran in GURPS or D20 I'm sure it'd be much better. But it isn't, so our group doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Did you notice that none of your PCs were "a totally mundane eleventh-century swordsman?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
moths posted:Did you notice that none of your PCs were "a totally mundane eleventh-century swordsman?" I was playing a Vagabond. They have literally no combat skills, powers or abilities at all. He was a good liar, could jury rig things occasionally, and pick pockets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I've heard stories of people who played Rifts with Kevin Seimbada, and the reason why the rules are so terrible is that he just ignored them and ran things freeform, with an occasional skill check or some other roll of the dice. So what we have is a game where people didn't actually use the rules. It works in spite of the rules, not because of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:RIFTS is both stupid and unbalanced and an insufferable slog of non-standardized mechanics, rules that don't work, supplement bloat, incredibly tedious combat, and a bunch of other poo poo. It's basically a game with no actual redeeming features whatsoever, so to see someone comparing it to Next in a complimentary fashion is amazing. It's like trying to market your new car by evoking the mystique of the Yugo. I agree- it would be one thing if RIFTS were just unbalanced, but the skills system alone is a huge drag and there's all sorts of insane cruft. In some ways this was 3.x's problem too (though not quite as bad)- imbalance is hard to correct when there's so much *cruft* hanging off of everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I agree- it would be one thing if RIFTS were just unbalanced, but the skills system alone is a huge drag and there's all sorts of insane cruft. Like you really had to houserule everything from the ground up. And I can acknowledge that 5e has this problem in a couple of places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Also I disagree that RIFTS' setting is amazing, because it isn't. I guess if it's the 80's and you're 13 years old it might be the coolest thing ever but it actually turns out that most of the setting is just as incoherent, overwrought, and unintersting as the mechanics that go with it. Regardless, the point is "the game is lovely but who cares, we had fun" is no less asinine the millionth time it gets repeated. WotC isn't selling a "Good GM and Six-Pack Friends" assortment bundle, they're selling a game. If my gaming pals are a bunch of rad dudes then there's still no incentive for us to buy and/or play aggressively mediocre or actively bad games because we'd be just as capable of having fun elftimes with a better game, or doing something else entirely for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Having run my second full session last night, and played in several more in the last few weeks, 5th ed seems well-balanced, well-designed, and fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
So we're clear here, I readily accept the notion that Next is more balanced, better designed, and more fun to play than RIFTS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
So far (we dinged Level 4 last night), it's easily the best-balanced version of D&D I've played too. And certainly the least clunky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Care to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Care to elaborate? He had only played D&D once before, and it was the rare and out-of-print Extreme Edition that replaces all dice rolls with the insertion of live rats into your orifices
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Every class has something to do and feels unique. Casters aren't wasted after burning 2 spells in combat. There aren't any clear "must-do" combinations for races and classes, or races, classes, and backgrounds. The shift away from skill points and towards proficiencies discourages powerbuilds but still feels like you're playing an effective character. Combat goes very fast, because you're not adding a ton of bonuses or relying on a ton of conditional elements. The paths at 3rd level give you time to get into your character before committing yourself to a specific design that may or may not pan out for you. I'm happy to elaborate more on any of those points. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:He had only played D&D once before, and it was the rare and out-of-print Extreme Edition that replaces all dice rolls with the insertion of live rats into your orifices I have played since 1st edition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I have played since 1st edition. You have a really strange definition of balance. I would really like to hear why you think Next is the most balanced D&D. "Least clunky" I can maybe see, if you mean "least amount of diverse rules for things" and you're ignoring BECMI. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Every class has something to do and feels unique. What do fighters, monks, and rogues do that feels unique in the levels you've played?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:What do fighters, monks, and rogues do that feels unique in the levels you've played? So far, my rogue has acted as an infiltrator and flanker, to the party's paladin and fighter, who generally do more tanking and direct hitting. I'm the one moving around and using advantage for extra damage, and the usual roguish things like disarming traps (and breaking into someone's house to steal a map). I've only seen the monk in action once, last night, and wasn't playing him myself since I ran the game, but he did an excellent job of taking on multiple smaller enemies by dealing smaller damage with multiple hits on multiple targets, while the paladin could deal more damage to the single target (an ogre). quote:You have a really strange definition of balance. Balance should discourage you from "one best build for a class at the expense of everything else." See: Pathfinder, 3.5, 4th ed. It's fine for an MMO, but not a tabletop RPG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:So far, my rogue has acted as an infiltrator and flanker, to the party's paladin and fighter, who generally do more tanking and direct hitting. I'm the one moving around and using advantage for extra damage, and the usual roguish things like disarming traps (and breaking into someone's house to steal a map). I mean, y'all are playing the classes in different styles, but I was asking what is unique to the classes. Anyone can stealth, flank, disarm traps, move around, gain advantage, and attack regardless of class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Every class has something to do and feels unique. Casters aren't wasted after burning 2 spells in combat. There aren't any clear "must-do" combinations for races and classes, or races, classes, and backgrounds. The shift away from skill points and towards proficiencies discourages powerbuilds but still feels like you're playing an effective character. Combat goes very fast, because you're not adding a ton of bonuses or relying on a ton of conditional elements. The paths at 3rd level give you time to get into your character before committing yourself to a specific design that may or may not pan out for you. Where you playing with a map/grid/tokens/miniatures or just Theater of the Mind? I cut my teeth on 4th so I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the whole ToTM thing. Anyone have any advice on how to transition to something like that? My players are really not interested in a grid/tactical combat
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I mean, y'all are playing the classes in different styles, but I was asking what is unique to the classes. Anyone can stealth, flank, disarm traps, move around, gain advantage, and attack regardless of class. And in pretty much every RPG ever released, too Peas and Rice posted:Balance should discourage you from "one best build for a class at the expense of everything else." See: Pathfinder, 3.5, 4th ed. It's fine for an MMO, but not a tabletop RPG. None of the classes in any of those editions has a single "best" build. quote:You may enjoy 5e if:
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Balance should discourage you from "one best build for a class at the expense of everything else." See: Pathfinder, 3.5, 4th ed. It's fine for an MMO, but not a tabletop RPG. I don't think when most people discuss balance, they're talking about this kind of thing. They're talking about whether or not one class is able to completely obviate a different class in situations that involve the actual mechanics of the game, where you can accurately gauge the ability to contribute outside of asking "DM May I." For instance, in combat, one class might be able to summon enough skeletons to vastly outdamage another class. Balanced options inside of a class is also something that can be discussed, but it's not generally what people are talking about when they talk about balance in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:So far, my rogue has acted as an infiltrator and flanker, to the party's paladin and fighter, who generally do more tanking and direct hitting. I'm the one moving around and using advantage for extra damage, and the usual roguish things like disarming traps (and breaking into someone's house to steal a map). So if you redefine class balance from "every class is able to contribute equally" to "there isn't a single best build for any class", it's the most balanced. You have a totally unique definition of balance. But at least you still shoehorned the 4e = MMO thing in there somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Not all classes gain extra damage when they have advantage / the target is engaged with multiple enemies, and the rogue's ability to disengage or hide as a "free" cunning action has been awesome in combats with lots of little opponents. And sure, all classes can stealth, disarm traps, etc, but my rogue can certainly do it far better than anyone else in the party, so why wouldn't I do that?  I don't feel threatened because, should I drop to zero hit points, the fighter might have an outside chance maybe of disarming a trap.AlphaDog posted:So if you redefine class balance from "every class is able to contribute equally" to "there isn't a single best build for any class", it's the most balanced. Well, every class should also be able to contribute equally, and that's certainly been the case in what I've played so far. The improvements to wizards alone put 5th ed above any other D&D edition in that regard. How do most game designers define "balance" then? E2: \/\/\/ Who's there? Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:And sure, all classes can stealth, disarm traps, etc, but my rogue can certainly do it far better than anyone else in the party, so why wouldn't I do that? Knock knock. e: ... a wizard e2: Peas and Rice posted:
Like I said, every class should be able to contribute equally, which is patently untrue in Next for reasons that have been discussed at length. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Balance should discourage you from "one best build for a class at the expense of everything else." See: Pathfinder, 3.5, 4th ed. It's fine for an MMO, but not a tabletop RPG. Like, the only 4e classes I can think of that have a "one best build" are the ones that came late to the party and didn't get enough support. I'm happy that you feel that 5e has good options and variety, too. And I'm happy that you're having fun with it. I'm just a bit baffled by your comment about 4e. Doesn't jive with my experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:And sure, all classes can stealth, disarm traps, etc, but my rogue can certainly do it far better than anyone else in the party, so why wouldn't I do that? AlphaDog posted:Knock knock. Peas and Rice posted:E2: \/\/\/ Who's there? AlphaDog posted:... a wizard I just wanted you to know that you're my hero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Like I said, every class should be able to contribute equally, which is patently untrue in Next for reasons that have been discussed at length. I can't believe I'm asking this on the Internet, but: Are the people discussing that not all classes can contribute equally actually playing the drat game? Because that has not been my group's experience in the least. quote:I'm happy that you feel that 5e has good options and variety, too. And I'm happy that you're having fun with it. I'm just a bit baffled by your comment about 4e. Doesn't jive with my experience. Fair enough, I haven't played 4th ed nearly as much as other editions (and have never run it, which is always what I need to do to really get into the nuts and bolts of a system's mechanics). It certainly SEEMED that way when I played it (and based on anecdotal conversations with other GMs), but if that's not the case, especially at later levels, I'm willing to concede I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Not all classes gain extra damage when they have advantage / the target is engaged with multiple enemies, and the rogue's ability to disengage or hide as a "free" cunning action has been awesome in combats with lots of little opponents. Every class is trying to get Advantage, the fact that the rogue gets +Xd6 damage for doing so doesn't actually affect its playstyle. Rogue does have more mobility though via Cunning Action, yeah. Peas and Rice posted:And sure, all classes can stealth, disarm traps, etc, but my rogue can certainly do it far better than anyone else in the party, so why wouldn't I do that? The only thing unique to the rogue in this case is a +2 from Expertise at the levels you've been playing...if that's sufficient for you to declare that it sets the Rogue apart then I guess we'll disagree. Peas and Rice posted:Are the people discussing that not all classes can contribute equally actually playing the drat game? Yes. At a lot of levels of play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:40
|
|