|
No Luck Needed posted:I guess I am not sure what I am really trying to defend. Not ever PC is going to min/max. Not ever DM is going to encourage that style of play. There's a difference between minmaxing and character optimization. Your job as a DM is literally to encourage the second part to happen. Character Optimization is listening to what the player wants to do and figuring out how you can help them to do that thing most effectively, and making sure that everyone is on about the same level of power so that they can all feel like they are contributing basically equally (over a long period of time, there are obviously going to be fights where one player is rolling really hot or the fight just happens to play to one PC's strengths where they'll be the standout). To use an example from your very post "I want to be a leader (healer) while still hitting things and being on the front line" is literally a warlord, that's their entire job. Dwarfs even make decent warlords since they get a bump to strength, and can take care of themselves more easily thanks to their racial power. Or, you know, you can be a dwarf cleric who takes strength powers, because dwarves are basically the best cleric race in PHB1 (and in general). Your job as the GM is also to make sure that the players understand their characters, and to give them aids like power cards and stuff so that they can remember everything their characters can do. Your most important job as a GM though, is to make sure that the players are having fun, or at least an enjoyable experience, because some games fon't quite lend themselves to "fun" so much as "catharsis" or "bonding." It's not to make them earn their fun. It's to encourage their fun and do everything in your power to help them with that. If your players would rather (regularly) skip games to play magic or league, you are straight up failing as a DM, sorry. Also if you're giving players significant buffs (like adding strength to twin strike, jesus christ. There's literally an encounter power that just does that, and it's still one of the best) and they're having trouble beating a bunch of monsters 3 or 4 levels lower than them, there's a problem somewhere. Either you're running the monsters wrong or the players aren't using all of the resources at their disposal (encounter powers, item powers, at-wills, action points, dailies, whatever), because 4e is a system that actually works as far as math is concerned and it should not be falling apart like that.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Temp HP never stacks, so if that's supposed to be an upper limit on it that's not how it works. Though now that I think about it maybe that was errata. No, I'm pretty sure it's in the PHB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Go back in time and remember what was strong and what was really stupid back when the game first came out. Right off the bat Paladins, clerics, and warlocks (I'm just going to guess they were the 3 that showed up that day) are all V-type classes or whatever the term was. Two possible primaries, one secondary for all the riders. Your secondary as paladin is always wisdom; cleric, charisma; warlock, intelligence. It's PHB 1 though, so there are no Str Wis or Con Int races, and Dwarves can't pick Str Con bonuses. They're locked into Con Wis. Str Paladins are the worst defenders in the game, Str and Cha paladins have no riders on any of their powers because of no Wis. This guy's paladin was gifted Cha instead of Wis lay on hands per day so he's probably Str Cha. Warlocks are a clusterfuck. Tieflings are Cha Int and yet the infernal pact is all Con attacks, it makes no goddamn sense. Their damage is the lowest among the strikers. Str clerics are the worst leaders in the game, warlords exist and Wis clerics can heal better and do better damage and give better bonuses while hiding in the back because they're wis cha and made of paper. Str clerics are made of cardboard if they have a shield, this one doesn't. Players and DMs alike might not realize that DWT would have given greataxe proficiency and a damage bonus. Greataxes are the best axes in the game, the Maul is the best weapon in the game. They're both military, exotic weapons are crap. Expertise feats do not exist, Improved defenses does not exist, Superior <Nad>s do not exist. The best powers and feats in the game are ones that give you damage on a miss. Hammer Rhythm, Scimitar something or other. Brutes and Soldiers were the hardest monster types in the game because they required minmaxed characters to cut through their massive HP and/or defenses with powers that could control them with attack penalties or they would kill everyone eventually. It was a bad time, especially if all the classes the players picked were the hardest to make work and the least optimal as of PHB1. If it were fighter warlord ranger rogue they'd be sleepwalking through the fights unless they were against Soldier type monsters in which case they'd just be sleeping. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Jolyne Cujoh posted:There's a difference between minmaxing and character optimization. Your job as a DM is literally to encourage the second part to happen. Character Optimization is listening to what the player wants to do and figuring out how you can help them to do that thing most effectively, and making sure that everyone is on about the same level of power so that they can all feel like they are contributing basically equally (over a long period of time, there are obviously going to be fights where one player is rolling really hot or the fight just happens to play to one PC's strengths where they'll be the standout). not everyone wants to optimize, definition: make the best or most effective use of (a situation, opportunity, or resource) my PCs enjoy roleplaying more, definition: the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context. Cliffs Notes are optimized, picking up and reading a 5 lb. Norton Shakespeare is not I should note that before this 4e game we were playing an AD&D 2nd edition game set in the Bronze Age where the blast furnace was a few hundred years away, so no iron armor or weapons. So my players are use to thinking on their feet then powering thru because of stats or feat combinations. Jolyne Cujoh posted:If your players would rather (regularly) skip games to play magic or league, you are straight up failing as a DM, sorry. One of my players works at a factory and ever few weeks has a different set of days off. That doesn't always line up with the PC that has children. I probably have the easiest schedule only working 45-50 hours a week. We are not in high school anymore and can't meet up 3 times a week for 7 hour game sessions. We meet once a week for 3 hours. I do not think I have a problem with people skipping games, I think we all have the problem of not have as much free time as when we started these hobbies. No Luck Needed fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:not everyone wants to optimize, definition: make the best or most effective use of (a situation, opportunity, or resource) A wizard moving between the enemy and a low-HP fighter because the player thinks the character should protect his friend may be Strategically suboptimal, but it's a roleplaying decision. A wizard picking an 11 Int and 18 Con, then wearing full plate and jumping in between the fighter and an enemy in every fight? At that point you're someone slapping a soccer ball at midfield and saying today you're RPing the goalie. quote:One of my players works at a factory and ever few weeks has a different set of days off. That doesn't always line up with the PC that has children. I probably have the easiest schedule only working 45-50 hours a week. We are not in high school anymore and can't meet up 3 times a week for 7 hour game sessions. We meet once a week for 3 hours. I do not think I have a problem with people skipping games, I think we all have the problem of not have as much free time as when we started these hobbies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
I must confess that while I level my players as a group, the rule is whoever shows up has first dibs on magic items and cash is only split between attendees. The structure of 4E is such that the guys who had to miss a game will still get their gear (one game I use inherent bonuses, other game I make sure I hand out the correct levelled gear in the correct quantities for the weapon/neck/armor slot), but there is still a soft reward for being their every session because I randomly roll all other drops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Rohan Kishibe posted:No, I'm pretty sure it's in the PHB. THP not stacking was one of the very first errata to the game because THP stacking is broken as gently caress even with just PHB material. Cthulhu Dreams posted:I must confess that while I level my players as a group, the rule is whoever shows up has first dibs on magic items and cash is only split between attendees. The structure of 4E is such that the guys who had to miss a game will still get their gear (one game I use inherent bonuses, other game I make sure I hand out the correct levelled gear in the correct quantities for the weapon/neck/armor slot), but there is still a soft reward for being their every session because I randomly roll all other drops. This is OK. As long as the mechanical bases are covered, there;'s a lot less risk of peoples' interest spiralling because they coulnd't turn up for a couple of second and now their dude can't hit for poo poo because everyone else has a +2 weapon and is 4 levels higher than them or whatever. Use IBs, keep the PCs at the same level as each other, and build and play your monsters to challenge but not dominate. Everything else is secondary to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:This actively punishes players who seek out High Initiative builds...not the worst thing in the world but probably a net drag on your players What's wrong with doing this? I thought you just roll init once at beginning of combat and that's it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
The only games off the top of my head where you roll init once per round are 2e ad&d, where in my experience that rule was routinely ignored, and Shadowrun, where it creates a lot of overhead but initiative is 60% of your character's effectiveness and really where most of the game is played.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:not everyone wants to optimize, definition: make the best or most effective use of (a situation, opportunity, or resource) Hahahaha, okay dude, cool. In a game like 4e optimization (plus a little bit of reskinning) is how you make the mechanics reinforce the roleplay. I play exclusively leaders who are built to never stop attacking, sometimes in really dumb ways, and would not have nearly as much fun if they weren't good at doing the things that fit their characters both in and out of a fight, but I guess that playing an emotionally scarred, devotedly religious werehorse gladiator whose bravado and straightforwardness are reflected in his stats, abilities (like the one where he tricks his opponent into hitting him and in doing so lets one of his friends exploit that opening) and equipment while still being effective means that I don't love roleplaying or enjoy the many sessions we have where no combat happens at all or suddenly everyone's fairies or in High School, and I definitely didn't love the poo poo out of and look forward to his continuing romantic misadventures because I thought they were actually compelling and fun and basically everyone was into having cheesy and sweet romance in the game. Cliff's Notes are optimal in that they communicate the story and themes of a work to you in the shortest amount of time, but they're not optimal for someone's enjoyment of the work, or knowledge of the material because, guess what, words don't mean just one thing! People like to be effective in the things their characters should be effective in, and it sucks when you're roleplaying a character and then suddenly oops you can't do the things you want your character to because you didn't build them right and now you have to rely on GM Fiat (these situations aren't completely unavoidable, of course, but they can be minimized by *gasp* optimization). And yeah, you mentioned that you were playing a 2e game before, which makes sense because 2e was a largely nonsensical game with far too many and too complicated rules that most people just threw out the window mostly or would run by the seat of their pants because it didn't really matter. 4e's not that game, though, and the mechanics don't really support just "powering through" poo poo with roleplay or whatever. If you wanna do that, we've got a thread where people can recommend you systems that are way better suited to it than 2e or 4e! I'm not gonna touch the fact that you immediately went from "people should be punished for missing sessions because they want to play League or Magic" to "missing sessions is unavoidable because of our busy lives" and don't seem to grok the fact that those ideas are entirely counter to each other and if the second is true then the people should absolutely not be punished for missing sessions by being less effective than everyone else, because that feels bad. Full stop. It sucks to be noticeably less effective than the other people in the party. Always has, always will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
oh D&D is fair now? All classes all balanced? People only have so much free time and playing games is part of that. Why is it so hard to have different levels in 4e? Why can't players be in different tiers? Do players each have to a roll like leader/striker/controller or could players just have fun playing and figure out what role works best for them? Have you ever played a session without combat? I know I have as a player and as a DM. No swinging swords, no tossing arcane energy around, no rolling to get past traps. Just good old roleplaying. No? The only way to play 4e is a combat slog? Sorry I shat up your 4e thread then. All I wanted to do today was 1) comment that someone had a good idea that I am going to steal 2) that level 5 elite monsters can be a challenge to level 8+ PCs 3) that my PCs earning their rewards is more important then keeping them all even and artificially balanced I do not think I can find any fantasy example of an adventuring party being all the same level. One of my favorite D&D books is Against the Giants, and a lowly village boy has to travel to the big city to recruit adventures. And the adventures he ends up with are mixed bag from seasoned veterans to green peas. Think Drizzt and Wulfgar are the same level? Think that Aragorn and Fordo are the same level? Sometimes having that differences in level is what can make an adventuring exciting. Sure the level 10 might to the heavy lifting on the boss, but a level 8 can still take out minions, help flank, heal, aid other, or so many more options than swing a sword. Ok so I understand that the low level guy doesn't have as high as an attack value, but if rolling to hit is all 4e is about, then I suppose you are right and this is not the game for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
A few things. Playing games with your friends is not the same as reading a book where the narrative is completely controlled by one person. So, it's about each player having the same chance to impact the game in an equal way. It's much easier of you just let them have the same numbers dude, why do they have to earn their fun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
What the gently caress even is this conversation. Are we being trolled? I legit cannot tell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
FWIW, a level 8 character is supposed to have something like: * 18 base primary ability score * +2 ability score from their racial bonus * +2 ability score bonus from leveling up * for a final primary ability score of 22, or a +6 ability modifier * a +4 half-level bonus * a +3 proficiency bonus weapon * a +1 expertise feat bonus * a +2 inherent bonus (or a +2 magical weapon) for a final basic attack roll of d20+16 A level 5 Brute is going to have an AC of 17 (same as Artillery, Soldiers will have 21, every other monster role will have 19), and so the level 8 should be able to hit them 100% of the time (except a nat 1, of course). EDIT: By the way, using only PHB 1 is literally going to cause the game to break at the upper levels because the armors don't scale correctly with just the PHB 1 equipment list. You need the PHB 2 armors at the minimum. 
gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:oh D&D is fair now? All classes all balanced? People only have so much free time and playing games is part of that. Why is it so hard to have different levels in 4e? Why can't players be in different tiers? Do players each have to a roll like leader/striker/controller or could players just have fun playing and figure out what role works best for them? quote:Have you ever played a session without combat? I know I have as a player and as a DM. No swinging swords, no tossing arcane energy around, no rolling to get past traps. Just good old roleplaying. No? The only way to play 4e is a combat slog? Sorry I shat up your 4e thread then. quote:All I wanted to do today was 1) comment that someone had a good idea that I am going to steal If you're interested in emulating narrative fiction, consider game systems built around doing that; I'd say Dungeon World (but it still has some DNDisms baked in), maybe try FATE or Savage Worlds? If you're interested in wild power disparities and people having to fight the system itself to accomplish tasks, try Hackmaster---it does that on purpose! You can play many things in many ways. Playing 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons and ignoring the system's mechanical assumptions is one of those ways, but not one you will probably be able to get a lot of advice about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:oh D&D is fair now? All classes all balanced? In 4e, for the most part, yes. No Luck Needed posted:Do players each have to a roll like leader/striker/controller or could players just have fun playing and figure out what role works best for them? Yup, you can have all strikers/controllers/defenders/whatever mix. No Luck Needed posted:Why is it so hard to have different levels in 4e? Because it becomes much harder to gauge what is a challenge for the party as a whole; when Bill is 15 and Jane is 10, there is a huge gulf in what they're capable of, in addition to the pure numbers at work. No Luck Needed posted:Have you ever played a session without combat? Yup. No Luck Needed posted:2) that level 5 elite monsters can be a challenge to level 8+ PCs 2 can only be true when you or your table have massively hosed something up. Mathematically it just shouldn't be the case, as has been demonstrated. 3 I guess is table preference, I've just never made my friends 'earn their fun' when playing a game. No Luck Needed posted:I do not think I can find any fantasy example of an adventuring party being all the same level. I don't tend to read/watch/partake of media in general and think "I wonder what D&D level Batman/Superman/Aragon/Jesus is." The whole point of the game is that each player is an equal part of the team, not Captain Protagonist and his team of minion sweepers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
you don't actually have to choose between roleplaying and decent combat you can have both
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:oh D&D is fair now? All classes all balanced? Yeah, mostly. There are 2 classes in 4e that plain don't work (seeker and vampire) and there was a significant push from some developers for Wizards to just straight up be The Best, which made them into, well, The Best Controllers. There isn't a single thing that another controller can do that a wizard can't do as well or better, except maybe focused, single-target control. Aside from that, though, yeah, the classes are mostly balanced. They all do their things in different ways and are basically effective at their things. Fighters pick one or two guys and say "Hey, I'mma gently caress you up if you try not to attack me," Paladins end up with so many mass marks and ways to make themselves tougher that basically every enemy ends up marked by them for 3 or 4 rounds, and they can handle those people if they decide to attack them. Their mark punishment is a bit weaker than other defenders, though, so they end up having their marks ignored more often than other defenders (unless for some reason you're doing PHB only, in which case Paladins are pretty bad because Divine Challenge is all they have). Wardens are a black hole from which enemies can't escape, but don't have too many ways to move that black hole around. Battleminds chase their marks the gently caress down and not only punish them for attacking but punish them harder for using their big attacks. Swordmages are assholes that say "hey, I'm fighting you" to a guy, teleport away to fight another guy and force the guy that they've got marked to come to them or get punished. That's just defenders, and they're all effective in different ways without super outshining each other. All the other roles (except controller, like I said) are similar. Classes have niches beyond their roles and are generally about on par with each other overall though they excel more in certain situations. So, yeah, 4e is pretty balanced, and the math works. quote:Why is it so hard to have different levels in 4e? Why can't players be in different tiers? Do players each have to a roll like leader/striker/controller or could players just have fun playing and figure out what role works best for them? Because the math works. Because there are large gaps of power between the tiers, as all of your ability scores go up, you get a paragon path or epic destiny which gives you a whole new level of cool powers and abilities that generally outshine everything in the previous tier, plus access to new kinds and levels of magic items and tons of other stuff. A party should also basically always have a Striker, leader and defender because the game was designed with that in mind. With big enough parties and classes that can do those things as secondaries it becomes less necessary, but you don't have that. So yeah, you need the players to have a role in combat if you want it to work, but you can definitely let them play around and figure out what works best for them. All of my players but one have swapped classes or characters or whatever entirely at least once since the beginning of Paragon as they're figuring out better what the party needs and what they like to do in this group. quote:Have you ever played a session without combat? I know I have as a player and as a DM. No swinging swords, no tossing arcane energy around, no rolling to get past traps. Just good old roleplaying. No? Jolyne Cujoh posted:the many sessions we have where no combat happens at all or suddenly everyone's fairies or in High School, and I definitely didn't love the poo poo out of and look forward to his continuing romantic misadventures because I thought they were actually compelling and fun and basically everyone was into having cheesy and sweet romance in the game. I've also ran plenty of sessions with no combat. Exploring a city, setting up a home base, crawling through a hellhole spa resort to deliver a package to the lava tub and destroy it, traveling through the planes to negotiate an alliance between estranged siblings. Tons of poo poo. quote:The only way to play 4e is a combat slog? The reason that 4e is good is that combat (which has always been the primary focus of Dungeons and Dragons, except maybe in Basic) is good, and overall not a slog when everyone knows what they're doing. So nah, the way to play 4e is to use its fun combat minigame in conjunction with good DMing and having fun with your friends pretending to be elves. quote:I do not think I can find any fantasy example of an adventuring party being all the same level. One of my favorite D&D books is Against the Giants, and a lowly village boy has to travel to the big city to recruit adventures. And the adventures he ends up with are mixed bag from seasoned veterans to green peas. Think Drizzt and Wulfgar are the same level? Think that Aragorn and Fordo are the same level? Sometimes having that differences in level is what can make an adventuring exciting. Sure the level 10 might to the heavy lifting on the boss, but a level 8 can still take out minions, help flank, heal, aid other, or so many more options than swing a sword. Ok so I understand that the low level guy doesn't have as high as an attack value, but if rolling to hit is all 4e is about, then I suppose you are right and this is not the game for me. Taking out minions, helping flank, healing and all those different things are what the different roles emphasize. The guy standing there, fighting head-on with the big bad guy is the defender, the guy taking care of everyone and darting around the battlefield to lend aid is the leader, the guy holding off the minions and keeping everyone from being overwhelmed is the controller and the guy who sneaks in and delivers that well-timed, decisive blow that brings everything home is the striker. All of these things work together better when the PCs are at the same level and have the same number of abilities and can do those things as effectively as possible. Also, D&D is not and never has been meant to emulate fantasy stories. It's inspired by them, but the sort of story it emphasizes is something entirely its own, with a bunch of characters who are all supposed to be the co-lead and have their time in the sun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:This is OK. As long as the mechanical bases are covered, there;'s a lot less risk of peoples' interest spiralling because they coulnd't turn up for a couple of second and now their dude can't hit for poo poo because everyone else has a +2 weapon and is 4 levels higher than them or whatever. Use IBs, keep the PCs at the same level as each other, and build and play your monsters to challenge but not dominate. Everything else is secondary to that. Yeah, it's a small reward for being there on the reg, it's not punitive because once you are out of the big 3 slots the mechanical effects in 4e are not very significant, highly situational or both. For example, having the gloves that let you convert a spells damage to necrotic once a day is very useful because it can let you hit a vulnerability and squeeze out 10-20 extra damage, but it might not even show up in any given adventuring day. How often are monsters vulnerable to necrotic damage? One of my players has had those gloves for 5 levels and only used them to bypass immunites to fire attacks, which I am totally fine with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Engaging this argument in good faith and no just joining the dogpile: Level disparity in 4e is a going to lead to a Bad Time unless somebody is a heal bot. Engaging with the combat system is what character classes are designed to do, with a possibly vestigial nod toward theme reflected in the class's fluff. Almost everything besides healing depends on rolling to hit; and after a certain point, a high level disparity guarantees you won't contribute to the combat by dint of the fact that you are incapable of hitting, or that conversely, the enemy absolutely cannot miss you. It's not a huge level gap either; anything more than 3 or 4 levels is going to lead to nonlinear jumps in difficulty. If having characters at the table who are there primarily for moral support or for their roleplaying interactions at the expense of agency is important to your players, then nobody is going to tell you otherwise, but in my experience it's pretty rare to have somebody volunteer playing Jimmy Olsen to the party's Superman. There are a couple of ways to view 'optimization' in light of DnD. Coming out of the early days of DnD and MMOs, it was kind of a dirty word in some circles, along with 'power gaming', 'min/maxing', 'rollplaying' and 'rules lawyering'. It was seen as something somebody does at the expense of the DM and/or the expense of other players; one player breaks the rules over their knee with zero or near-zero downside, running roughshod over problems that the DM had devised as group challenges or to keep the group on the narrative track. However, 'optimization' has a hidden caveat; characters are optimized for something. You can be optimized for everything, sure, but that's not usually what people mean. If I make an 'optimal' warlock, and decide my gimmick is teleporting everywhere, I only care about being good at telepotring (my gimmick) but not necessarily about killing enemies or breaking the game. It's important the characters be good at their gimmick because it allows the narrative to connect more easily to the mechanics. If I'm playing Conan and I try to break a wooden gate in half, it's pretty demoralizing to fail Athletics check because I actually suck at Strength-based stuff. I have successfully run a game with three PCs without any major problems, and it was not a particularly combat-oriented group. I went out of my way to give them alternative forms of healing, one-use items, and NPC helpers, and they could dismantle most of my encounters with very little trouble. Sometimes dice are gonna roll against the players, but it shouldn't be a regular occurrence. Recognizing the action economy imbalance is absolutely key to balancing small groups, and giving off-turn or minor action options to players is critical to make up the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:What the gently caress even is this conversation. Are we being trolled? I legit cannot tell. Bitter Grognards Jolyne Cujoh Generic Octopus Chernobyl Peace Prize gradenko_2000 ProfessorCirno starkebn thespaceinvader slydingdoor Rohan Kishibe ImpactVector Dick Burglar ElegantFugue Madmarker Posters that didn't just run me down Mendrian Cthulhu Dreams OneThousandMonkeys My Lovely Horse Rohan Kishibe ImpactVector Sorry for sharing my opinions on a game that tells a person that they can change what they do not like starkebn posted:It's much easier of you just let them have the same numbers dude, why do they have to earn their fun? so easy is fun? We all get participation awards now? gently caress that. In D&D you have to earn levels, earn magic items, earn gold, and earn that prestige If I do not play Mario in a while, Nintendo doesn't email me telling they will give me some free mushrooms. That is Candy Crush logic. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Dude read my last post, where I offered you sincere advice. Actually, after reading to the end of your post: gently caress your earn-your-fun friend-punishing bullshit attitude. Disregard any good faith advice people have given you in this thread, because it is pearls before swine. Anyone who has fun at your table is doing so through no doing of your own, and deserves better than you could ever give them. Why even are you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:We all get participation awards now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:Bitter Grognards The big draw of 4E is a mathematically balanced combat framework and tight class balance. By not using those you're leaving a bunch of fun on the table. If you want to give a reward for regular attendance, there are ways to do it - I suggest giving out modest boons/cash/magic item rewards - that don't require making players underlevelled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
I don't let anyone into my D&D games unless they can run the live-fire obstacle course in my front yard and then beat me in a fistfight gotta make sure nobody's having any unearned fun
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
oh you want to play some Overwatch? that'll be five hundred Hail Marys you despicable fun-leech sure I'll go see Civil War with you, if you give yourself three dozen lashes with this cat o' nine tails so many goddamn parasites out to steal my precious fun...if I don't defend it, nobody will
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
lmao at taking a shot at participation awards in the same post you make a list of people who hurt your feelings. btw since I didn't mention it before, 1e/BECMI is a better game for the table you're running if you don't mind taking a recommendation from a bitter grognard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:so easy is fun? We all get participation awards now? gently caress that. In D&D you have to earn levels, earn magic items, earn gold, and earn that prestige Having each player able to effect the game with the same degree of difficulty does not relate to how hard you make the game. You're reading the things said in this thread through blood tinted sight mate, not many were running you down until you started foaming in the last few posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
So yes, we are being trolled. Really Pants posted:oh you want to play some Overwatch? that'll be five hundred Hail Marys you despicable fun-leech I mean playing Overwatch with Too Many McCrees on both sides and you may as well be having to earn your fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Our 4e DM would just give out extra gold or magic items to players who showed up regularly. It didn't gently caress over the players who couldn't make it, but incentivized coming out to play. Sorry, but we're going to have to tell you you're playing your game wrong and bad and you should feel bad. 4e's math can only be stretched so far (3-4 levels at most, and usually higher level than the party). You could be looking at a "balanced" encounter, but in your situation you can easily end up with a six level math difference between player and monster, which translates to miss most of the time, get bit all the time. There's no fun in that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
The punishment for missing a session is that you don't get to play Dungeons and Dragons with your friends that night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I mean playing Overwatch with Too Many McCrees on both sides and you may as well be having to earn your fun. did you seriously think I said "let's all do a fun thing" I was actually referring to the artificial legal construct "Let'sall:do-aFUN'THING" created by the state at the moment of my birth due to maritime law, no actual promise or liability to provide any fun things can be legally assumed of me Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
No Luck Needed posted:so easy is fun? We all get participation awards now? gently caress that. In D&D you have to earn levels, earn magic items, earn gold, and earn that prestige I wouldn't say those two things are directly comparable. When you play DnD, you have to play with the group. You don't get the option to go grind wolves alone in the forest until you catch up. Imagine if you were only allowed to play an MMO with up to three to five of your RL friends; and whatever level you were at, and they were at, you had to just get dragged along with their content regardless of how much fun it is for you. After a certain point you can no longer meaningfully interact with the content and you might as well not be playing. Further, in Mario, you're describing a skill curve; DnD doesn't have a skill curve. Usually the tactics are straightforward. You just have to exist and pray that you survive and that the DM is merciful enough to give you bonus XP to catch up to the group. If you had some option to catch up that didn't involve having a game that was less fun for you, the player who was left behind, than it would be different but you don't. In that environment, each missed game makes a player more likely to stop coming to your games forever, which isn't a great practice. If you want to reward players for attendance, at least consider non-XP based rewards. More gold for players who show up. Rare items. Not poo poo like +X to hit, but wondrous items and divine boons that give players more options rather than more competence. Then you get to provide an incentive without encouraging a steep slope into non-attendance for your low performers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
I do want to ask a non dnd philosophy question, tho. I'm playing an Ardent in my Dark Sun game and, while I crank out heals like nobody's business, I'm finding myself getting downed almost every fight. I've taken a halberd to get myself a little distance, and I think I'm probably one of the more tactically proficient players in the group at 4e, but I'm still getting wrecked and counting on a hybrid healer to get me up in the last quarter of most fights. We tend to play pretty mercilessly no matter who's DMing since we know the system can handle a balanced fight with no punches being pulled, but no other characters seem to be having this issue. Any generic advice?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
This Thread posted:Your fun is wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Giving people the feat taxes for free, and using inherent bonuses, and making sure they all level up at the same time, and giving them loot on top of the inherent bonuses does not mean that the game is going to be easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:I do want to ask a non dnd philosophy question, tho. I'm playing an Ardent in my Dark Sun game and, while I crank out heals like nobody's business, I'm finding myself getting downed almost every fight. I've taken a halberd to get myself a little distance, and I think I'm probably one of the more tactically proficient players in the group at 4e, but I'm still getting wrecked and counting on a hybrid healer to get me up in the last quarter of most fights. We tend to play pretty mercilessly no matter who's DMing since we know the system can handle a balanced fight with no punches being pulled, but no other characters seem to be having this issue. Any generic advice? What's your build, and the rest of the party?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:The punishment for missing a session is that you don't get to play Dungeons and Dragons with your friends that night. Like, this is what I never got. If your game is such bullshit that you have to bribe people into coming - if your game is such bullshit that attending it is a chore and work - then your game probably sucks. If players don't already feel at least a little bad for missing the game without the specter of some kinda punishment, you should talk to them because they aren't enjoying your game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:I do want to ask a non dnd philosophy question, tho. I'm playing an Ardent in my Dark Sun game and, while I crank out heals like nobody's business, I'm finding myself getting downed almost every fight. I've taken a halberd to get myself a little distance, and I think I'm probably one of the more tactically proficient players in the group at 4e, but I'm still getting wrecked and counting on a hybrid healer to get me up in the last quarter of most fights. We tend to play pretty mercilessly no matter who's DMing since we know the system can handle a balanced fight with no punches being pulled, but no other characters seem to be having this issue. Any generic advice? If the DM deliberately targeting you? I generally target the healer in fights (because it maximises the pressure if you burst down the healer). This leads to the leader in one of my games getting routinely wrecked. In the other game I struggle to take out the warlord because the player is a tactical savant who plays very safely and also the main striker is a glass cannon rogue so I often settle for punching him to death. Specific advice probably requires knowing your build and the party build but generally it's going to be 'acknowledge that you are going to be targeted, so position yourself where monsters are going to struggle to get into melee with you. This is going to involve working in tight tandem with the defender.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:The punishment for missing a session is that you don't get to play Dungeons and Dragons with your friends that night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:27
|
|
