|
P.d0t posted:I like some ideas in 5e, but yeah. Maybe not Advantage. I'm still not sold on everyone being 4e Avengers over, you know, a simple +1-3 circumstantial bonus. Ryuujin posted:So yeah that look back on the Fighter was nice, wouldn't mind seeing one for the Monk who at one point lost maneuvers . . . and gained NOTHING in return, while the Fighter at that point at least got something. Monk had a lot of changes, nearly as many as Fighter. Is there any relation or timing to RPGPundit & Co's feedback and these late cycle changes and playtests? Not that I'm trying to be all conspiracy theorist, but.. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 06:49 on May 11, 2015 |
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
If I were making a real compromise between 3.5 and 4e while staying closer to them than 13th age I would have probably given powers to the martial classes and let the full casters keep Vancian, it wouldn't be perfectly balanced but even my 3.x friends generally are okay with fighters getting more.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Gorelab posted:If I were making a real compromise between 3.5 and 4e while staying closer to them than 13th age I would have probably given powers to the martial classes and let the full casters keep Vancian, it wouldn't be perfectly balanced but even my 3.x friends generally are okay with fighters getting more. Ah, the old 3.x 'Tome of Battle and banned core casters (Cleric/Druid/Wizard)' method of running games
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Maybe not Advantage. I'm still not sold on everyone being 4e Avengers over, you know, a simple +1-3 circumstantial bonus. You realize that Advantage showed up all over the goddamn place in 4e, right? Like, Elven Accuracy right there in the goddamn PHB just for starters. And it's not splashed around so much in 5e to be anything resembling "everyone being 4e Avengers" But if you hate it that much, I still think adding dice to rolls instead of "+1-3 circumstantial bonus" is an improvement. Especially at homegames, I literally hand people one of my dice and tell them what it does and how to use it; it gets used and NOT forgotten as "yet another +1."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Ah, the old 3.x 'Tome of Battle and banned core casters (Cleric/Druid/Wizard)' method of running games That's not really a bad idea, though. People who insist on running 3.5 with "core books only" or whatever aren't really doing themselves any favors when it's pretty clear (at least to me) that books like the ToB were written to completely supersede the original Fighter. WotC really should have come out with something that established a new "balanced baseline" for 3.5, even if it was just a list of splats to use.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's not really a bad idea, though. People who insist on running 3.5 with "core books only" or whatever aren't really doing themselves any favors when it's pretty clear (at least to me) that books like the ToB were written to completely supersede the original Fighter. WotC really should have come out with something that established a new "balanced baseline" for 3.5, even if it was just a list of splats to use. It's telling that 4e was the only edition that had to rewrite Fighters in an attempt to make them worse.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did pre-3rd Edition D&D have wealth-by-level rules, even? Soooooooooort of. But yes but no. They're there in the sense that you could totally tease them out, due to the whole 1g=1xp thing, but they're not codified. There's no chart, is what I'm saying, but there are vague expectations. The only places where it really really matters are the Fighter (who needs a magic weapon to hurt pretty much any meaningful opponent over 8th level) and the Magic User (who has to earn their spells by adventuring), but all the 2e DMG says is "give them gear similar to characters of that level, but don't give them magic items (they have to earn those!)"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Not that I recall. That always seemed like a weird thing to me anyway, but I have had people tell me they like it. You found what you found and the group split it up as they wanted to/could. I don't think it's much of a surprise that wealth-by-level began to matter a lot more where it previously didn't when the people in charge of D&D decided to make magic items much more of an integral part of character progression to the point where what gear you have is essentially another layer of character generation ala Shadowrun. This is, by the way, why GMs who decide to make their game "more hardcore" by starting out at higher levels but only giving everyone a fraction of the money they should have are completely missing the point at best and being lovely GMs at worst.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I don't think it's much of a surprise that wealth-by-level began to matter a lot more where it previously didn't when the people in charge of D&D decided to make magic items much more of an integral part of character progression to the point where what gear you have is essentially another layer of character generation ala Shadowrun. This is, by the way, why GMs who decide to make their game "more hardcore" by starting out at higher levels but only giving everyone a fraction of the money they should have are completely missing the point at best and being lovely GMs at worst. I had a friend who told me the Monk had an important role because 'the GM can't screw him on equipment like the Fighter.' I would hate to play with his GMs. At the same time, I understand the impulse to avoid lots of fancy magic gear, because it essentially takes over from your character if you're playing a martial. The guy wearing it is interchangeable, but the fancy wizard-infused equipment does everything for you and that's really boring character wise. The problem is, as you said, the entire game system is built on having that much gear at that level and so you've got to go along with it or you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I had a friend who told me the Monk had an important role because 'the GM can't screw him on equipment like the Fighter.' I would hate to play with his GMs. This is why a lot of GMs hated Monks with Vow of Poverty and viewed it as "broken" even though if you run the numbers I'm pretty sure it still works out to being weaker than most level-equivalent characters with standard magic gear. quote:At the same time, I understand the impulse to avoid lots of fancy magic gear, because it essentially takes over from your character if you're playing a martial. The guy wearing it is interchangeable, but the fancy wizard-infused equipment does everything for you and that's really boring character wise. The problem is, as you said, the entire game system is built on having that much gear at that level and so you've got to go along with it or you're hosed. Oh sure, it's not my go-to either. Some games I'm fine kitting a character out like some Tom Clancy-esque spec-ops ninja, but I'd honestly rather D&D supported characters with one or two magic items at most all the way through the level tree instead of deciding that everyone needs a +X weapon, armor, save enhancer, rings, armbands, boots, belts, helms, greaves, codpieces, girdles, and other miscellaneous crap to make the numbers balance. But of course it's no longer "real D&D" without a constant loot treadmill of +X items, so.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
The barbarian had a similar progression during the playtest. It was just god awful. Raging gave you +2 damage and goes up to +3 at level 9. In the same span of levels, spell casters are getting entire dice of damage without the crippling limitations of raging. The most useful ability my Barbarian ever got was a feat that anyone could take that gave you advantage on any roll at all 3 times a day, nothing else about the character was interesting or powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
I don't really have an issue with item treadmills per se, as wanting to get loot is a touchstone of the genre. Just look at WoW or Diablo 3 where more than half a player's effectiveness comes from their gear, even. The problem, I think, comes from when 'the player has full control of the game's drop rate' is either misunderstood, or misused, or both. If a player needs one last item to round out their "set", you don't hold it back from them at the conclusion of a big quest - you give it to them and gently caress the consequences because hey, you can always make the encounters harder. If the need or purpose of the item treadmill isn't properly telegraphed, it seems that the TRPG tendency is for GMs to be stingy with the loot rather than generous, and that's a problem. The other issue is when items are either the source of a character's activated abilities instead of passive stats, or they serve both roles. Comparing again to CRPGs, a "Fighter" always has their stuns and charges and break-armors even if they're wearing totally mundane gear, and then the bracers and helmets and the swords just up their stats so the charge hits harder. The feeling of "the guy inside is interchangeable" comes from when the character can only auto-attack without magic gear, instead of always being able to pull off stunts as a given and the gear just shores it up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I don't really have an issue with item treadmills per se, as wanting to get loot is a touchstone of the genre. Just look at WoW or Diablo 3 where more than half a player's effectiveness comes from their gear, even. I played a ton of Diablo 2 in its heyday, and after a while the whole collecting items thing got old. On the other hand, the levelling up and skill trees were the big draw; your class determined the abilities you could pick from and that was great. Once they started to gently caress with that with the item-grinding to basically get runewords to gain other classes' abilities, I was out. I think tabletop games can and should have interesting class progressions and abilities for all classes, but without a computer generating items randomly for you, it makes giving out items a chore or else completely rote. I honestly don't want that poo poo in games I play. Edit: VVV 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:39 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I don't really have an issue with item treadmills per se, as wanting to get loot is a touchstone of the genre. Just look at WoW or Diablo 3 where more than half a player's effectiveness comes from their gear, even. It's me, I'm the grognard, but the appeal of Diablo-style loot grinding wore pretty thin back when I was actually playing Diablo. I simply can't muster up the enthusiasm for gear porn that my 16 year old self used to, and D&D is no exception to that rule. I don't care if the gear grants active or passive bonuses or if the GM gives it all out on a regular, painless basis, I just can't give that much of a poo poo about loot anymore. I mean, I also don't give a poo poo about tracking XP or money down to the copper piece either so it may be a case of D&D being Not For Me but I'm not opposed to adventuring in Ye Olde Fantasye Lande and I've had some pretty fun D&D gaming, I just think that a bunch of this poo poo is book-keepy for no reason other than legacy and expectations. Yes, magic items can be fun, but I don't think D&D has ever had fun magic items regardless of edition barring rare exceptions.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So yeah that look back on the Fighter was nice, wouldn't mind seeing one for the Monk who at one point lost maneuvers . . . and gained NOTHING in return, while the Fighter at that point at least got something. Monk had a lot of changes, nearly as many as Fighter. Around August 2013 things were looking to be in a pretty decent place, stuff's starting to make cohesive sense, there's fewer competing subsystems, and Monks as a whole are looking pretty cool. Really all they needed was some fine tuning and a way to get Ki points back mid day and a rebalancing of Ki so that bigger effects cost more points, giving them more consistent use of their abilities. Way of the Four Elements is particularly cool with its ability to go loving HAM on a target with Touch of Stony Doom (1 Ki, target gets vuln. Bludgeoning), Grasp of Stone (grappled, your attacks auto-hit), and then dumping the rest of your Ki into Flurry of Blows for auto-hit double damage. September there's a bunch of tweaking, rearranging, rebalancing, but nothing super huge. Then in release it's suddenly "lol, spend Ki to cast Wizard spells." Ryuujin posted:Also wouldn't mind someone going through with changes for Spellcasters, especially the Warlock and Sorcerer who showed up in an early playtest, back when there were only 5 levels, then disappeared until the super secret private playtest where they were hugely changed, never getting actual playtest with these changes, before final release.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's been pretty clear that for all their talk of "it's 3e meets 2e, but elements of 4e!" that there's little to no actual 2e or 4e involved. It's a re-do of 3e.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Well while I had asked for someone else to go through with the Warlock and Sorcerer stuff I am kind of feeling like taking a look myself. I believe I missed the first playtest packet or two. The earliest I have is the 05/24/12 packet. Which did not have character creation rules, but instead some pregens. This was back in the day when you would clearly pick a Race, a Class, a Background and a Theme. If you had character creation options. The Dwarf Fighter pregen had an ability called Weapon Focus that gave it +2 damage on weapon attacks. Background Soldier gave +3 to three different skills. And gave a feature called Endurance that let you to perform strenuous activity for twice as long. Themes were prepackaged feats. The Slayer theme gave you the Reaper feat. This let you deal your ability modifier in damage on a missed attack. Yeah this is where the damage on a miss for fighters started. Right there at the very start. The pregens went up to 3rd level, at 2nd the dwarf fighter got the old version of Action Surge, an extra action once per day. And at 3rd level it increased weapon damage by another point. And gained the Cleave feat from Slayer theme, once on your turn when you reduce an enemy to 0 hp you get an extra attack as part of that same action. The High Elf Wizard mentions that when making Magical Attacks you add your Int modifier to attack and damage, which did not end up happening in later versions or the final release. They actually prepared specific spells, not like the final release. Yes you could prepare the same spell multiple times. Also if they took damage they had to roll a Constitution check on their next turn, DC 10, if they fail they cannot cast any spells except a minor aka cantrip spell. Also no casting spells in armor, at least for Wizards. Minor spells or cantrips mostly don't seem to scale. Radiance Lance does 1d8+casting modifier radiant damage. Ray of Frost does no damage, just drops the targets speed to 0. Oh and hey Magic Missile is a cantrip. So at will. Actually does scale. Starts with one 1d4+1 missile, with a 2nd at 3rd, a 3rd at 6th and a 4th at 9th level. No idea if it would have scaled beyond that. Shield is a 1st level spell that provides half cover, and blocks magic missiles, and lasts for 10 minutes. Not seeing any mention of casting them in a higher level spell slot or anything, or any scaling at all actually. Then again the packet only goes to 3rd level and only gets 2nd level spells. ------------------ Next packet I seem to have is 08/13/12. This packet actually has character creation options. So. Yeah races seem to be +1 to one stat. Except Human. Humans get +2 to one stat, and +1 to all others. Seriously. Instead of the human being fairly versatile, it is just straight up better than any other race at any stat. Dwarves increased the damage die size of axes and hammers they are proficient with by one size. One subtype also increases the die size of their hit die by one size, d12 becoming 2d6. The other gets +1 AC while in armor. Themes are now Specialities. Each gets a feat at 1st and 3rd level. Magic User specialty gives you two wizard cantrips, using Int, at 1st level and Find Familiar at 3rd level. There is a Necromancer specialty, it does require being able to cast at least one spell, gives you some kind of soul stealing ability, that can be expended to get advantage on attacking with a necromancer spell, and at 3rd level can animate a body for a skelton servant. At 3rd level. I am sure anything interesting lasted a long time and made it through the whole playtest. Surely. Survivor specialty gives you Toughness twice. ... Each time you gain a Hit Die. 1d8, rolled or take the "average" of 5 that is then added to your hit points. Oh. By the way. Slayer and the Reaper and Cleave feats seem to be gone. Already. Remember how I said all the races, except super OP Humans, got +1 to a stat? At this point classes also increased one stat by +1. Kind of reminiscent of 13th Age, only they are +1s not +2s and you can stack race and class. Okay classes start with Cleric. They get Channel Divinity 1/day, 2/day at 4th level. Channel Divinity starts at 1d8, and goes up to 2d8 at 5th level. You use it, choose a single target within 30ft. Roll 1d8+wis, or 2d8+wis at 5th, that target heals that amount if living, or is hurt that much if undead, or if you are evil those are reversed. Fighter is already getting Expertise Dice, though they regain all spent dice at the start of their turn. This gets better in later playtests like LFK says. Then it nosedives. Like LFK says. Hmm Rogues start with 2d6 Sneak Attack, and have 6d6 Sneak Attack by 5th level. Rogues can use either +3 or their stat modifier for their skills, whichever is better. Though at this point Rogues can only get Sneak Attack when they have advantage, though they get to pick a scheme, kind of like the Fighter and Fighting Style, kind of precursors to archetypes. The Thug archetype for example lets you Sneak Attack if you target an enemy with 2 or more of your allies adjacent to it, though Sneak Attack in general can only be used once per round. Nothing interesting on Wizard. But oh hey what is this? Part 2? Oh hey it is the Sorcerer. They get to pick a Sorcerous Origin, the Dragon origin is the only one they had. They also got Willpower. Start with 3, had 16 by 5th level. Didn't have spell slots. Let me repeat. Did not have spell slots. Instead you could cast a spell of 1st level for 1 WP, or a level 2 spells for 2 WP. You regain them all at the end of a long rest. Normally can't cast sorcery spells while wearing armor, but the origin could change that. Draconic Heritage increased your Hit Die to d8s. Gave you proficiency with all armor and shields, and let you cast spells while wearing them. Gave you a Sorcerous Power called Dragon Strength at 1st level, also each day after you spent 3 WP your hands became claw-like and until you complete a long rest you gain a +2 bonus to the damage rolls of melee attacks. At level 4 you can spend 2 WP to use another sorcerous power called Dragon Scales. And at that point each day after you had spent 10 WP you manifest dragon scales and until you complete a long rest you have resistance to the damage type associated with your type of dragon. Dragon Scales is a reaction power, when you use it it reduces the damage by 10, and if you have the Draconic Heritage class feature also gives you resistance to damage determined by your dragon type until the end of your next turn. Dragon Strength makes it so the next time you hit a hostile creature with a melee attack during the next minute it takes an extra 2d6 damage. And hey the Warlock. Also it uses Int? You pick a pact, only one option in this playtest, the Fey pact. The pact grants pact boons at given levels. You get two Pact Favors, you can spend these when using certain Pact Boons. You also use the favors for your lesser invocations, and when you take a short or long rest you regain your favors. Fey Pact: Verenestra. Level 1 a small wart appears on your face as she claims a piece of your beauty for herself, and when speaking to a creature that can understand you, you can spend of your favors. If its hp maximum is lower than your you gain advantage on all Cha checks made to influence it for the next hour. At level 3 your irises turn a bright gold, and as a reaction you can impose disadvantage on a melee attack made against you by a living creature. No mention of needing to use a Favor for this. At level five a spiderweb of thin white scars appears on your neck and arms as she robs more of your beauty. Also as an action you can spend one of your favors to teleport up to 30 feet to a location you can see. You start with 3 invocations, and no you don't have spell slots or spells or cantrips, you gain a 4th invocation at 2nd level and a 5th at 4th level. At first level you get the minor, aka at will, invocation Eldritch Blast, and two more of your choice. There is only one more invocation in this playtest packet that is a minor invocation. The rest require Favor. Which was not something I liked, I wanted more at will options like 3.5 Warlocks. We only ever see Minor and Lesser Invocations. Well I said Warlocks don't get spells, but they do have a limited spell list, but only for rituals. At this time Eldritch Blast did 3d6 force damage against a target within 50ft on a magical attack hit, scaling to 4d6 at level 3. But not scaling at level 5, would be interesting to know if it would scale further in that version. Since that version straight up doesn't get spells like the current Warlock, and most of its invocations aren't at will either. Shadow Veil is the other Minor Invocation, until the start of your next turn you don't provoke opportunity attacks and can move through the space occupied by hostile creatures. Baleful Utterance is the only other invocation shown that actually does damage. Spells in this packet still don't seem to scale, or have an option for placing them in higher slots. Magic Missile is still a cantrip, but no longer seems to scale up to 4 missiles by 9th. Instead 100ft range 1d4+1 damage. Some of the other cantrips seem to no longer add a stat to damage, but get a specific bonus, ray of frost 1d6+3 Radiant Lance 1d8+4. There was another packet or two with these two classes still, very little changed for the other classes at that time I believe, and before any major changes happened these two classes were dropped. Spells changed after they were dropped, classes changed DRASTICALLY since then. So by the time classes went up to 10th level, let alone 20th level, they didn't work the same as when these two classes had been revealed. So no idea how they would have scaled. A lot of people seemed to have liked the Warlock, and even the Sorcerer was popular with some. But. Some people didn't like that the sorcerer was a gish, that they could cast in armor and got to do more melee damage as they cast spells. Totally ignoring the fact that only one origin had been revealed yet, and that was a very martial origin.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:So is D&D like Star Trek, the even numbered ones are better? Hilariously enough there's an actual belief held religiously amongst some D&D forums that the opposite is true. I mean like, ok, look. I talked up 2e a lot, but 2e had lots and lots of issues. It wasn't perfect by any means and I see 4e as a real clear upgrade to it. The main point was that 2e WAS the second edition of AD&D, and 3e was entirely it's own thing. As for who 5e is meant for...well, there you go. I think 5e is primarily billed at AD&D 1e fans who moved to 3e (and eventually Pathfinder) but always wanted to continue playing AD&D. Remember, standard fighters were terrible in core AD&D; the ranger and paladin are literally "the fighter, but better." It wasn't until Unearthed Arcana that they started to become worthwhile. This is the primary audience of ENWorld, and Mearls has some close ties to that place. There's a lot of grogs who hold fast to the belief that AD&D (or at least their version of it since gently caress if that game was "consistent") is the father of all D&D, and all editions must pay homage. 2e is hated not for mechanical changes but because it was the edition that "kicked out Gygax." 3e was canonized for talking INCREDIBLE amounts of poo poo about 2e (remember that next time someone whinges that 4e insulted 3e) and for "saving" D&D, and for sucking off AD&D as much as possible in it's PR. 4e again tried to improve and change things, so it also gets shat on. Now 5e is back, and not only is it lovingly tonguing AD&D's shriveled and dead sack and promising a return to the glory days, it's trying to merge together the only two "acceptable" editions.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Remember, standard fighters were terrible in core AD&D; the ranger and paladin are literally "the fighter, but better." It wasn't until Unearthed Arcana that they started to become worthwhile. This is the primary audience of ENWorld, and Mearls has some close ties to that place. Wait what was in UA that made the Fighter better? Weapon specialization and attacks-per-round rules?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Every successful hit on a worthy foe generates a ki point that can be spent on whatever, including ki enhanced hits? Punch a dude with a 1 ki flaming fist all day. Teleport over there using all your ki, punch a dude to get one back. Similar to the points per turn fighter, except more mystical and punchy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:2e is hated not for mechanical changes but because it was the edition that "kicked out Gygax." Kai Tave posted:It's me, I'm the grognard, but the appeal of Diablo-style loot grinding wore pretty thin back when I was actually playing Diablo. I simply can't muster up the enthusiasm for gear porn that my 16 year old self used to, and D&D is no exception to that rule.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ive never (until here) heard of that being part of the edition war thing. (Ive never heard anyone draw a line between 1e and 2e really for that matter. 2e was just 1e "plus stuff".)  ).
Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 15:54 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
To pile on about 2e, the critical hits made fighters even better. Spells could also critically hit, but high level fighters had a higher chance to do so, and more importantly, had 3x as many chances to do so per round. Just another example of how things were good for martials, along with moving whenever they wanted to bodyblock, interrupting spells with attacks, etc
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Same. Gear should be something used by the character, not making the character. I do like the idea of being limited to a handful of magic items because they weigh heavily on your soul or somesuch faff. But so many of them are just boring. Needing to buy a +X sword of haberdashery to even hit the powerful man isn't interesting. Questing to find the sacred oil of Hoolybooly to coat your weapons in so you can shatter his aura of Cheez-its? More entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did pre-3rd Edition D&D have wealth-by-level rules, even?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Wait what was in UA that made the Fighter better? Weapon specialization and attacks-per-round rules? Yes, weapon specialization was not part of the core AD&D 1E rules, although multiple attacks were. The WS rules were originally published in Gygax's column in the Dragon and then given official publication in UA. And the loudest and most enthusiastic voices for 5E I've seen have been from AD&D fans who hated 3E/4E. Makes sense that players of older editions would favor a new edition that replaces the DM on the pedestal that 3E/4E knocked him down from. Littlefinger posted:Because it's even older than the whole "edition war" thing. I heard it already in the time when "T$R" was the meme du jour, them being soulless corporate overlords sending C&Ds to hapless fans, and not the True Gamers™ of the halcyon days of Gygax (who too was pretty disdainful of fans homebrewing poo poo up, but whatevs Gygax made so many statements about homebrew that it's hard to pin down what exactly his feelings about it were. You can find quotes from him about not being bound by the rules and making the game your own as easily as you can find him saying, "If you're not playing AD&D exactly by the rules, you're not playing REAL AD&D." But yes, anyone who idealizes TSR as some sort of perfect conclave of Ascended Masters of True Gaming is talking poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
goatface posted:I do like the idea of being limited to a handful of magic items because they weigh heavily on your soul or somesuch faff. But so many of them are just boring. Needing to buy a +X sword of haberdashery to even hit the powerful man isn't interesting. Questing to find the sacred oil of Hoolybooly to coat your weapons in so you can shatter his aura of Cheez-its? More entertaining. I agree - magic items should do Weird poo poo, like a feather token tree or a rust gauntlet or something - rather than just mimicking a spell or giving a +whatever bonus. Having to treadmill +whatever just to keep your to-hit in the same place is boring. Getting more options is cool.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I love Feather Token: Tree so much. The number of problems you can solve by adding a 50-foot tree is just staggering.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:I love Feather Token: Tree so much. The number of problems you can solve by adding a 50-foot tree is just staggering. Feather Token: Tree tipped ballista bolts do wonders in airship combat.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Gygax made so many statements about homebrew that it's hard to pin down what exactly his feelings about it were. You can find quotes from him about not being bound by the rules and making the game your own as easily as you can find him saying, "If you're not playing AD&D exactly by the rules, you're not playing REAL AD&D." To be fair, those two opinions are not mutually exclusive. You can want people to homebrew their own stuff and change whatever rules they want to make the game more fun for them while still saying that if they do that, it's not really the game you wrote. And past a certain point, let's face it, it isn't really.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Gygax made so many statements about homebrew that it's hard to pin down what exactly his feelings about it were. You can find quotes from him about not being bound by the rules and making the game your own as easily as you can find him saying, "If you're not playing AD&D exactly by the rules, you're not playing REAL AD&D." I think it comes down to what AD&D is supposed to be. If I recall correctly, Gygax made AD&D with the intent of unifying the game because, at the time, it was custom for people to carry characters over to different campaigns run by different people. As a result of this custom, houserules caused some friction so AD&D was supposed to fix this issue. It was also supposed to fix the issue of some GMs being too liberal with XP and magic items and others being too stingy. I bet it was also supposed to fix other issues caused by this custom. Obviously, it didn't work and this is likely why that gamer custom died off. Chances are, outside of AD&D, he didn't mind houserules since those systems weren't supposed to be unified between tables. Of course, I wasn't around then so this is all second-hand, partially-remembered information so I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:To be fair, those two opinions are not mutually exclusive. You can want people to homebrew their own stuff and change whatever rules they want to make the game more fun for them while still saying that if they do that, it's not really the game you wrote. And past a certain point, let's face it, it isn't really. Yeah but come on, nobody's questioning whether the statements are factually contradictory so much as pointing out that the tone of both statements is in opposition...Gygax wasn't saying "beep boop IF homebrew THEN not!D&D" there.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Covok posted:I think it comes down to what AD&D is supposed to be. If I recall correctly, Gygax made AD&D with the intent of unifying the game because, at the time, it was custom for people to carry characters over to different campaigns run by different people. As a result of this custom, houserules caused some friction so AD&D was supposed to fix this issue. It was also supposed to fix the issue of some GMs being too liberal with XP and magic items and others being too stingy. I bet it was also supposed to fix other issues caused by this custom. Obviously, it didn't work and this is likely why that gamer custom died off. Reading about how the game used to be built with this assumption is like finding one of those MTG cards that references ante to me. I first think "People actually had fun with that and weren't massive tools to each other immediately?" and then think "Oh no wait it wouldn't have died if that was the case."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Reading about how the game used to be built with this assumption is like finding one of those MTG cards that references ante to me. I first think "People actually had fun with that and weren't massive tools to each other immediately?" and then think "Oh no wait it wouldn't have died if that was the case." Given the salty response you received from diehard Elric: the RPG fans, you of all people should know how willing people are in this hobby to cling to outmoded concepts and make them part of their self-identity without even fully understanding why.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Reading about how the game used to be built with this assumption is like finding one of those MTG cards that references ante to me. I first think "People actually had fun with that and weren't massive tools to each other immediately?" and then think "Oh no wait it wouldn't have died if that was the case." The worst part about Ante was when they introduced cards that interacted with literal ownership of cards. Not "i control this for the rest of the game" ownership, but "this card is mine now, if you didn't want me to steal it you shouldn't have put it in your deck" cards.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The worst part about Ante was when they introduced cards that interacted with literal ownership of cards. Not "i control this for the rest of the game" ownership, but "this card is mine now, if you didn't want me to steal it you shouldn't have put it in your deck" cards. People develop a strong sense of ownership about collections. It wasn't a workable idea, imo.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
A whole bunch of the collectable games of the time were ante. The past is a different country etc etc
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Ante was one of Garfield's balancing ideas from the very first draft. He thought that people would play with ante so that no one player in a scene could monopolize all the good cards - if you stacked your deck with supercards, then they'd just lose them over time. He also had no problem with rare cards being more powerful because he never imagined people spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to collect and field full sets of cards for this silly little game he was putting together. Rare cards were supposed to have weird, unusual effects that would make people say "whoa, what is that" when one comes out (he also never figured people would put together card lists and exchange them on the internet (which, at the time of the game's design, consisted entirely of CS grad students using Sun workstations after hours).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:The worst part about Ante was when they introduced cards that interacted with literal ownership of cards. Not "i control this for the rest of the game" ownership, but "this card is mine now, if you didn't want me to steal it you shouldn't have put it in your deck" cards. I once played with a guy who used a deck that couldn't actually win a game -- it just forced other players to keep ante-ing and then allowed him to loot the good cards from the ante pile. That was some fun.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
FMguru posted:Ante was one of Garfield's balancing ideas from the very first draft. He thought that people would play with ante so that no one player in a scene could monopolize all the good cards - if you stacked your deck with supercards, then they'd just lose them over time. He also had no problem with rare cards being more powerful because he never imagined people spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to collect and field full sets of cards for this silly little game he was putting together. Rare cards were supposed to have weird, unusual effects that would make people say "whoa, what is that" when one comes out (he also never figured people would put together card lists and exchange them on the internet (which, at the time of the game's design, consisted entirely of CS grad students using Sun workstations after hours). Well, he DID consider the possibility that people WOULD buy tons and tons of cards. Then he decided if that happened, well, they would have lots of money, so they could deal with it later.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:13
|
|