|
Sage Genesis posted:I dunno. Although I don't share the sentiment, a "simple Fighter" is a legitimate desire so you can't make dice management and maneuvers mandatory for all Fighters. I would absorb most of the Champion into the base class Fighter and then make the following adjustments: If 'simple fighter' is a desire, then you put in a set of simple manoeuvres at each tier so the simple fighter player can just pick the ones which say 'roll all your dice for damage' or whatever. You don't have to cripple the entire class for something which fundamentally, very few people actually *want*.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Simple Wizard You know the cantrip Fire Bolt. You can cast it once per round. You learn one extra cantrip from this list (Chill Touch, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp) at levels 5, 11, and 17, the same levels at which your cantrip damage increases. From level 3 onward, when you roll an 19 or 20 to hit, roll all your damage dice twice and add them together before adding any other damage modifiers. Starting at level 7, you can add half your proficiency bonus to any Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma check that doesn't already use your proficiency bonus. You also gain the ability to levitate along an extra number of feet equal to your intelligence modifier whenever you make a running jump At 10th level, you cast a cool magic spell that grants you a permanent bonus, choose from the following: <+1 to cantrip attacks> <+1 to AC when you aren't wearing any armour> <use your reaction to cast a magic shield which inflicts Disadvantage on one attack roll on an ally within 5 feet of you> <+2 to cantrip damage as long as you're not holding a weapon> From 15th level onward, when you roll an 18, 19, or 20 to hit, roll all your damage dice twice and add them together before adding any other damage modifiers. At 18th level, you can cast a magic boon of resilience on yourself. At the start of your turn, gain 5 + conmod hit points if you're at less than half your hit point total, but not if you've got 0 or fewer hit points. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:If 'simple fighter' is a desire, then you put in a set of simple manoeuvres at each tier so the simple fighter player can just pick the ones which say 'roll all your dice for damage' or whatever. You don't have to cripple the entire class for something which fundamentally, very few people actually *want*. I have no data on whether or not it's "very few" people or not. If I were designing for just myself then I'd probably do it your way, but I know that for some people the very act of sifting through maneuvers is itself anathema to what they want out of Fighters. So if I had to design something that other people might use then I'd probably handle it like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:I have no data on whether or not it's "very few" people or not. If I were designing for just myself then I'd probably do it your way, but I know that for some people the very act of sifting through maneuvers is itself anathema to what they want out of Fighters. So if I had to design something that other people might use then I'd probably handle it like that. If you have no data, then don't cripple the whole class to cater for something for which you have no data, should always have been the argument. And again, if there really are people who don't want to do that (I've never met them myself) then it's easy enough to design a set of manoeuvres that avoids it entirely, and just publish a suggested 'simple meathead' build. In my albeit anecdotal experience, I've yet to meet anyone who really wanted or enjoyed the simple one-button fighter archetype. People want to engage with the game in the same way their friends are, making a class that fundamentally disengages them with the majority of the game mechanics just isn't desired. The only people I've ever seen advocating the pure simple fighter are people who like playing wizards. And I say this as someone who's genuinely enjoyed playing a Slayer in 4e, but only when I've been able to take a few encounter power option to give me some tactical variety, and even then only because 4e had an engaging mechanical game that the Slayer played just like everyone else, just with slightly fewer moving parts to worry about. I wouldn't have enjoyed it anywhere near as much without the robust tactical movement game 4e had.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
A player who wants to have no options beyond "I attack" is probably anathema to the very concept of role playing games, so
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
What do people even get out of a combat heavy system like D&D if they just want to "I attack" through all the combat? Wouldn't something non-combat focused be much better for them?
Andrast fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:If you have no data, then don't cripple the whole class to cater for something for which you have no data, should always have been the argument. And again, if there really are people who don't want to do that (I've never met them myself) then it's easy enough to design a set of manoeuvres that avoids it entirely, and just publish a suggested 'simple meathead' build. I think your data is not any better or more extensive that mine in this case. And yes, I have met people who genuinely just want simple Fighters - or at least for it to be one of the given options, they don't require that everybody else also play with simple Fighters of course. Some of them are people I've gamed with for years so I trust their opinions on this. I also don't agree with the idea that "don't roll maneuvers into the base class" is the same as crippling the entire class. Classes can function just fine without maneuvers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:House Rule that we could all pick one feat+Variant Human character. e: also those are some pretty bad stats for 4d6 drop 1. Standard array is 15 14 13 12 10 8 before racial modifiers. Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
if you want a simple fighter then just don't use the maneuvers and just say "i attack" boom done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Got an email from my GM with a suggestion for a new feat.quote:Improved Concentration 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Got an email from my GM with a suggestion for a new feat. Wait... your DM wants to introduce that feat into his own game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
gotta buff the poor casters
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Got an email from my GM with a suggestion for a new feat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Wait... your DM wants to introduce that feat into his own game? Yup. I think it's mostly intended for his wife who plays a Druid. Do they have a lot of concentration spells?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:Yup. I think it's mostly intended for his wife who plays a Druid. Do they have a lot of concentration spells? Long answer: Go here http://donjon.bin.sh/5e/spells/ Then select Druid, Concentration Yes, and Source PHB if you want to stick with just the core. Short answer: Yes, exactly 50 of them. Concentration spells were designed explicitly with only one goal: so that they could not be stacked. Stacking up to 5 of them (or 10 or 15 because god forbid a multiclass caster ever gets his hands on this abomination) is going to get insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:I think your data is not any better or more extensive that mine in this case. And yes, I have met people who genuinely just want simple Fighters - or at least for it to be one of the given options, they don't require that everybody else also play with simple Fighters of course. Some of them are people I've gamed with for years so I trust their opinions on this. I don't disagree. But my position is 'start by making a good game' whereas the alternative position of 'design shittily because anecdotal evidence indicates that people want lovely fighters' is dumb and bad. Just as much anecdotal evidence indicates the opposite, and it's *all* anecdotal evidence* so maybe it would be good someday if someone with a bunch of resources like, say, WotC in a giant 100kperson playtest, could maybe have loving found out. But they didn't. I'm not necessarily saying that's what your suggestion is, it's more that that's the ur-suggestion that Essentials worked from, and the every progressive iteration of the 5e playtest worked from, and it bugs the poo poo out of me. I like playing big hulking bruisers who hit things with other things, story-wise. I also like playing strong tactical games with all of the tools those games provide. So it bugs the poo poo out of me when 3/4 of the book is material for the 50% of classes that get access to it and the classes I enjoy playing, don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I don't disagree. But my position is 'start by making a good game' whereas the alternative position of 'design shittily because anecdotal evidence indicates that people want lovely fighters' is dumb and bad. Just as much anecdotal evidence indicates the opposite, and it's *all* anecdotal evidence* so maybe it would be good someday if someone with a bunch of resources like, say, WotC in a giant 100kperson playtest, could maybe have loving found out. But they didn't. It is sad that the best way to play a fighter in 5th is to make a wizard, beg your DM to let you start with a fighter-number of hitpoints, and then reflavour all your spells into fighty combat actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:if you want a simple fighter then just don't use the maneuvers and just say "i attack" boom done. So the counter-argument I've seen to this is "but if there are maneuvers and I'm never doing them, then I know I'm playing in an underpowered way!" And I'm like, buddy, you picked a Fighter. You already know you're playing in an underpowered way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:it's easy enough to design a set of manoeuvres that avoids it entirely, and just publish a suggested 'simple meathead' build. Yeah, I think it's important to remember that instead of making a player use the 4E Slayer, that they could instead use the standard Fighter and just pick powers that only ever deal damage or deal more damage. Andrast posted:What do people even get out of a combat heavy system like D&D if they just want to "I attack" through all the combat? Wouldn't something non-combat focused be much better for them? The idea is that if you don't define "I attack" as being anything in particular, then the player can "flavor" their attack to be anything they like. Specifically, they can make the attack fit into whatever particular circumstances the players find themselves in, and that they can essentially petition the DM for bonuses or advantages based on such "roleplaying". This sort of dovetails with the belief of some within the hobby that as you get "better" as TRPGs, the mechanics just "fades away" and you start thinking of situations as they are described to you, rather than having to think of your actions and reactions as defined by your character sheet. This works pretty well if you're playing TSR-era D&D and a single attack supposed to be a bunch of different movements and actions performed over the course of a minute, subsumed and abstracted into a single attack roll, but logically breaks down in 3rd Edition and later when you've defined a single roll as a 6-second slice of time and a parry or a disarm attempt or a trip attempt or a lunging strike are all strictly defined actions that you technically cannot grant to a player on the spur of the moment without stepping on the toes of whoever is supposed to have those particular mechanics as their special ability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Andrast posted:What do people even get out of a combat heavy system like D&D if they just want to "I attack" through all the combat? Wouldn't something non-combat focused be much better for them? I've played with people like this before, and generally it comes down to the following: They want to play dnd, because they enjoy hanging out with their friends, they enjoy talking with NPCs and interacting, but they don't want to bother reading 200 pages of spells and learning how they interact with different monsters. They don't want to figure out if glitterdust blinds, what blinding means, and what monsters are immune. They can *always* attack the monster, regardless of what it is. They would be better served by a lighter system, but they still want to play with their friends, and DnD happens to be what they're playing. (As a side note, encourage people like this to play spellcasters winds up with action paralysis, and a lot of "I attack because I don't know what any of my spells do")
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
TheCog posted:I've played with people like this before, and generally it comes down to the following: They want to play dnd, because they enjoy hanging out with their friends, they enjoy talking with NPCs and interacting, but they don't want to bother reading 200 pages of spells and learning how they interact with different monsters. They don't want to figure out if glitterdust blinds, what blinding means, and what monsters are immune. They can *always* attack the monster, regardless of what it is. They would be better served by a lighter system, but they still want to play with their friends, and DnD happens to be what they're playing. so they want them to make D&D for people who don't want to play D&D?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Savidudeosoo posted:That's always the jackpot, getting a group together that'll last through many different systems. Do you mind giving the rundown on the party's composition? We have a halfling bard that wishes she were much more interesting than she really is. Her name is Fanny, but she tells people it is Fantasma. She asked for one of every instrument in exchange for the prison break, but instead she is gonna get a magical harp that can sound like any instrument. Next up is a Way of the Drunken Fist monk that I homebrewed on request. Wants to open her own tavern. She was promised the deed to a run down building in a pretty big city for the prison break. She wants to make the tavern their base of operations. Third character is a warlock that made a deal with a devil to win the heart of a Lord's daughter as well as her hand in marriage. He was successful, but his new father in law was outraged at his status and gave him a scroll of favors he must do to be accepted into the family. The writing is so small it requires a magnifying glass and he's pretty sure new favors keep appearing but he can't be positive. The prison break is helping out a friend of the Lord's, one of the many tasks on the list. Last character is a Druid that roams as a circle ambassador to the plebeians of the world to show them that the woods themselves are not to be feared. He was promised info on the location of an ancient moon well in exchange for the prison break. His circle basically told him to say yes. The Druid and Bard are completely new to TRPGs, the Monk and Warlock are just new to 5e and only know D&D. I'm a first time DM but have been playing lots of games for a while. I'd love to see them get their hands on AW or mouse guard. Eventually we will have a big discussion about what system we can run that achieves what the party wants out of their games. D&D is a surprisingly good transition from video games to role playing for the newbies, though, and we all enjoy the conceptual dungeon diving and dragon slaying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
TheCog posted:I've played with people like this before, and generally it comes down to the following: They want to play dnd, because they enjoy hanging out with their friends, they enjoy talking with NPCs and interacting, but they don't want to bother reading 200 pages of spells and learning how they interact with different monsters. They don't want to figure out if glitterdust blinds, what blinding means, and what monsters are immune. They can *always* attack the monster, regardless of what it is. They would be better served by a lighter system, but they still want to play with their friends, and DnD happens to be what they're playing. Sounds like they want dungeon world. They have 3 pages to read and done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
TheCog posted:I've played with people like this before, and generally it comes down to the following: They want to play dnd, because they enjoy hanging out with their friends, they enjoy talking with NPCs and interacting, but they don't want to bother reading 200 pages of spells and learning how they interact with different monsters. They don't want to figure out if glitterdust blinds, what blinding means, and what monsters are immune. They can *always* attack the monster, regardless of what it is. They would be better served by a lighter system, but they still want to play with their friends, and DnD happens to be what they're playing. It's gone now, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Fallorn posted:Sounds like they want dungeon world. They have 3 pages to read and done. Sure, I agree, but its extremely unlikely that the people who write the Dnd core books are going to say "if you want to play something mechanically simpler, go to our competitor!". Not to mention that if the rest of the group is happy with DnD and the guy playing "I hit things" is happy, change seems like an unlikely proposition. I fully believe in revamping all the non-caster classes from the ground up, but the arguments in favor of having a class that is supposedly able to contribute to combat without much thought on the part of the person playing it exist for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
TheCog posted:Sure, I agree, but its extremely unlikely that the people who write the Dnd core books are going to say "if you want to play something mechanically simpler, go to our competitor!". Not to mention that if the rest of the group is happy with DnD and the guy playing "I hit things" is happy, change seems like an unlikely proposition. you cant make a one button fighter more complex but you can play a complex fighter with one button, and you cant use the "well if my class has levers and i'm not pulling them then i'm being sub optimal" bullshit because that's what you want you want something sub optimal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:One of the early playtest fighter builds was something like: Player says "I want to knock this guy down/shove this guy away/trip this guy/whatever" and rolls an extra die with their damage. If it rolls high enough, that thing happens. Otherwise it just does more damage. It was the "Yes but the FIghter can roleplay cool things!" argument but actually mechanically supported as a unique class feature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
FMguru posted:That was the best (and most telling) part of the playtest: the way the fighter got less interesting, less powerful, and fewer options as the updated playtest packs came out. I think the most disappointing thing was seeing what used to be fighter features given to other classes like Barb and Pally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
After trying to get my brother to play an RPG with me for years he finally wants to along with a few of our friends (spread out across the country). They are all brand new to pen and paper while I have played a few but never past the first few levels, and no experiencing running a game. What would be a good premade adventure for me to run as a player in the game for the group?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
a harpy posted:We have a halfling bard that wishes she were much more interesting than she really is. Her name is Fanny, but she tells people it is Fantasma. She asked for one of every instrument in exchange for the prison break, but instead she is gonna get a magical harp that can sound like any instrument. Next up is a Way of the Drunken Fist monk that I homebrewed on request. Wants to open her own tavern. She was promised the deed to a run down building in a pretty big city for the prison break. She wants to make the tavern their base of operations. Third character is a warlock that made a deal with a devil to win the heart of a Lord's daughter as well as her hand in marriage. He was successful, but his new father in law was outraged at his status and gave him a scroll of favors he must do to be accepted into the family. The writing is so small it requires a magnifying glass and he's pretty sure new favors keep appearing but he can't be positive. The prison break is helping out a friend of the Lord's, one of the many tasks on the list. Last character is a Druid that roams as a circle ambassador to the plebeians of the world to show them that the woods themselves are not to be feared. He was promised info on the location of an ancient moon well in exchange for the prison break. His circle basically told him to say yes. The Druid and Bard are completely new to TRPGs, the Monk and Warlock are just new to 5e and only know D&D. I'm a first time DM but have been playing lots of games for a while. Holy poo poo, great characters all around! Especially from the players new to TRPGs. And I've heard a lot of good things about Mouseguard, so good luck with that. Elfgames posted:you cant make a one button fighter more complex but you can play a complex fighter with one button, and you cant use the "well if my class has levers and i'm not pulling them then i'm being sub optimal" bullshit because that's what you want you want something sub optimal. Exactly. Game design shouldn't try to cater to the lowest common denominator. Savidudeosoo fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Is one variant of one class (out of 11 classes with ~3 variants each) enough variety in "simple" classes? Why is this specifically only for fighters? Is it too hard to imagine a dude who went to wizard school specifically to learn how to throw the best lightning possible at people, all day, every day? What about a shaman lady with the Great Spirit Ursa transforming her into a huge glowing bear when she fights? A cleric with a god who demands that disciples find things they don't like and hit them really really hard with a warhammer and grants them the power to do so as long as you promise to do it as often as possible? A Ranger who has a wolf friend who will bite the living poo poo out of whatever he's shooting at right now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
goodness posted:After trying to get my brother to play an RPG with me for years he finally wants to along with a few of our friends (spread out across the country). They are all brand new to pen and paper while I have played a few but never past the first few levels, and no experiencing running a game. What would be a good premade adventure for me to run as a player in the game for the group? Dungeon World. Or, basically any game other than D&D. D&D really isn't that forgiving to brand new players. I know that is a pretty looked-down-on answer in this thread, but it's accurate. For completely new people, play a better game that;s more forgiving at early levels and less conflicted between what it wants to be and what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Simple fighters as a design goal has never made sense to me because when you get your friends together to play Twilight Imperium you don't let Steve play Checkers with the little plastic spaceships just so he can hang out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Boing posted:A player who wants to have no options beyond "I attack" is probably anathema to the very concept of role playing games, so You'd think that, but back when 4e was new, I ran Encounters games at the FLGS. One of the players was your classic Old Grog who knew 3.x inside and out and would tell you ALL ABOUT IT. When it actually came time to play, all he ever did on his turn was 'I attack.' Not 'I use such and such at-will' even, just 'I attack.' He was the wizard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
No, see that still checks out. Guy who's entire purpose is to, when called upon to act, decrees 'I attack' is anathema to role-playing games, a shared entertainment media in which a group of persons craft either a story intentionally or unintentionally and forge some form of companionship. I read a lot of Dan Simmons, but that doesn't make me interested in classics. Also grogs misunderstanding either 4e or the Wizard role is high comedy and a treasure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Simple fighters as a design goal has never made sense to me because when you get your friends together to play Twilight Imperium you don't let Steve play Checkers with the little plastic spaceships just so he can hang out. Some people want a class with few(er) moving parts, so they don't have to engage in a lot of min-maxy dissection of chargen to come out the other side with a certain baseline effectiveness relative to the rest of the party. Personally I don't mind (and sometimes prefer) having a character that boils down to a basic attack machine since it keeps turns quick and the game moving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Tendales posted:You'd think that, but back when 4e was new, I ran Encounters games at the FLGS. One of the players was your classic Old Grog who knew 3.x inside and out and would tell you ALL ABOUT IT. When it actually came time to play, all he ever did on his turn was 'I attack.' Not 'I use such and such at-will' even, just 'I attack.' I had a similar experience with 4th ed not long after it came out. The guy wasn't a grognard, but had played plenty of 2nd ed, favoring wizards and clerics, and was a good, fun, attentive player. I want it to be perfectly clear that his knowledge of 4th edition before this session was limited to "my friend Alphadog told me there was a new edition of D&D and asked if I wanted to play". He played a ranger and never once used an AEDU ability. Afterwards, he didn't want to play again because it was "boring" and there "wasn't anything interesting to do". I can't see that making his "I attacks" bigger would have changed anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Dungeon World. Or, basically any game other than D&D. D&D really isn't that forgiving to brand new players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I had a similar experience with 4th ed not long after it came out. The guy wasn't a grognard, but had played plenty of 2nd ed, favoring wizards and clerics, and was a good, fun, attentive player. I want it to be perfectly clear that his knowledge of 4th edition before this session was limited to "my friend Alphadog told me there was a new edition of D&D and asked if I wanted to play". That there are people out there who stubbornly refuse to use powers in D&D 4e is one of those things that makes me realize I understand even less than I thought I did about how people work. I mean, it's a Ranger. Spam Twin Strike. I've also run into these people in real life and it was just as baffling, but that was years ago and I can't remember the specifics. The only recent-ish issue I've had is in my Strike campaign I've had two players who before mostly played 40K RPGs and a touch of Shadowrun in one case who had the hardest time understanding how power blocks worked, but they at least understood they should USE them when pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Monk E posted:I've seen a other games recommended in this thread but I've never gotten how its supposed to be helpful I mean yea its certainly a good idea to consider non D&D games If the group is already considering changing gears but its not like you can just tell them to drop what their doing out of the blue. It's a question specifically related to a group that's brand new to P&P RPGs. D&D is a terrible game for groups of people brand new to P&P RPGs. I'd've kept my nose out in basically any other situation, but 'play a different game' is genuinely the best piece of advice in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:54
|
|