|
mango sentinel posted:Yeah I don't like it as a mechanic but having your own personal army and competent minions was pretty strong. I feel like these days if Fighters got sidekicks it would just read "works the same as the Simulacrum spell." The main problem with the whole thing was that there weren't any mechanics for it at all, which leads to Darwinism posted:gently caress you Bob I'm not managing army level conflicts it being useless because it doesn't get used. I think that happened because yeah, even if you got around the "how would that even work" thing (maybe with a computer?), 100+ soldiers is often going to be an overwhelming force for anything that a party of PCs would be fighting. Maybe you didn't use those rules, but I sometimes did. Nobody wants to position and roll for 100+ dudes, so it usually got limited to "PC, leader, and some of the personal bodyguard". Caster supremacy mostly disappears when a fighter turns into two fighters and a handful of baby casters all of which can level up. It doesn't go "9th level, bam, fighters are the best now", but it immediately starts narrowing the gap. Also I dunno about anyone else, but to me when a setting has Lords (as in landed nobles) just being a Lord is a big deal as far as being able to automatically do stuff that would be difficult or impossible for anyone else. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Oct 31, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
IIRC the Rules Cyclopedia has fairly workable mass combat rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:This would never happen because Mearls insists there must be a "very simple" fighter for people who want to sit at the table but not play the game. It seems to me the entire fighter class has to suffer because the Champion archetype must exist for Mearls' vision. At least, that's the impression I got looking back through the playtest articles and then looking at what we got. That's some interesting context, the early intentions seem at odds with the outcome. Thanks for the work you put into the combat maneuvers, it's largely what I'm adapting at the moment to nut this out. Back to the 'very simple fighter', the notion of fighter as some noob class hasn't happened. The noobs we've had playing (across two campaigns) for the first time have chosen Barbarian, Beastmaster Ranger, two Druids, Warlock, one Fighter who's now taking levels in Artificier. The Barbarian very early on noted the limitations of the combat system and we've been kicking around homebrew ever since. A design consideration for me is wanting to extend the benefits of maneuvers to all martial classes, anyone in physical combat. The Fighter in general should be markedly better and the Battlemaster best of all. But monks or blade warlocks or mace swinging clerics or bladesingers should have a way to get some tiers as a Martial Adept. Splicer posted:Don't try to fix classes with feats, this is a classic D&D trap. Could you expand on what is meant by classic D&D trap? Do you mean they must sacrifice other feats to solve the Fighter problem?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:IIRC the Rules Cyclopedia has fairly workable mass combat rules. If you think about it, all of D&D is really just mass combat rules with other stuff added on. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:That's some interesting context, the early intentions seem at odds with the outcome. Thanks for the work you put into the combat maneuvers, it's largely what I'm adapting at the moment to nut this out. Fighter isn't designed to be a "noob class" - it's designed for players of all experience levels who want to sit at the table, mostly observe, and during their turn in initiative say "I hit it with my sword". There are a lot of people that play this way, and it's a valid way to play the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Fighter isn't designed to be a "noob class" - it's designed for players of all experience levels who want to sit at the table, mostly observe, and during their turn in initiative say "I hit it with my sword". There are a lot of people that play this way, and it's a valid way to play the game. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Fighter isn't designed to be a "noob class" - it's designed for players of all experience levels who want to sit at the table, mostly observe, and during their turn in initiative say "I hit it with my sword". There are a lot of people that play this way, and it's a valid way to play the game. what about people who want to be more actively involved in the game and have the same level of narrative control as other... but also play a person who primarily fights with a sword
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Could you expand on what is meant by classic D&D trap? Do you mean they must sacrifice other feats to solve the Fighter problem? For starters, when you fix X problem by adding a feat, you're making players choose between solving the problem and getting an expected upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Serf posted:what about people who want to be more actively involved in the game and have the same level of narrative control as other... but also play a person who primarily fights with a sword The fighter (particularly the champion fighter) is not designed for them. Thought that was pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The fighter (particularly the champion fighter) is not designed for them. Thought that was pretty clear. What is designed for them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Could you expand on what is meant by classic D&D trap? Do you mean they must sacrifice other feats to solve the Fighter problem? Better (and worse) people than you or I have made the same mistake, learn from their follies!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Serf posted:What is designed for them? Swordpact warlocks, paladins, war clerics, valor bards, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The fighter (particularly the champion fighter) is not designed for them. Thought that was pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Swordpact warlocks, paladins, war clerics, valor bards, etc. Those all look (at a glance) like classes that use magic though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Swordpact warlocks, paladins, war clerics, valor bards, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Serf posted:Those all look (at a glance) like classes that use magic though. Yes. "Magic can warp reality" is a pretty core part of most DnD settings
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Yes. "Magic can warp reality" is a pretty core part of most DnD settings Well yes, but what about people who don't want to use magic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Also, why is it that "magic can warp reality" and not "magic is reality"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
if i stab a guy and he dies am i not warping reality
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:if i stab a guy and he dies am i not warping reality Let’s test this behind the bathrooms in the park. Esquilax do you want to be our test subject? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Oh, sorry, bit of a mistake here, nobody was talking about spellcasters who also hit with swords. Why not? Magic is the primary way to warp reality. Anything else that has that kind of utility is basically magic anyway. If you're uncomfortable with spellcasting just reflavor the classes to use "mundane magic" or "sword magic" or whatever Arivia posted:Let’s test this behind the bathrooms in the park. Esquilax do you want to be our test subject? This is a pretty messed up thing to post
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Let’s test this behind the bathrooms in the park. Esquilax do you want to be our test subject? i saw the tom hanks movie, i know where this leads and i want no part in it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Arivia posted:If you think about it, all of D&D is really just mass combat rules with other stuff added on. Too true! Therefore mass combat should be a workable thing that most D&D games should be able to include! Which would be important especially if you want to be a badass fighter who is a leader of men (and elfs, and women). Also almost all fantasy fiction includes huge-rear end battles at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
esquilax posted:This is a pretty messed up thing to post Your argument is pretty bad and messed up, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
like you can have a huge army i reckon, but it can just be narrative weight behind your actions. like if you don't want to get bogged down in a bunch of rules, just have people do what the PC says because they have an army and they'll kill you if you don't listen resolve army battles with a single roll if you have to
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:You are Gayl Zapt the Mad. You and your parents where captured during a failed raid on a human village and sold into slavery. While being shipped to your new owner, the boat was sunk by a storm, which you only survived due to the intervention of dolphins. They helped bring you to a small deserted island, where they helped you survive by bringing you fish. You remained on that island for years, coming to worship the local dolphins as well as the frequent storms that plagued the area. Eventually, your prayers brought you rescue in the form of an eleven boat forced to anchor nearby during the storm. Upon hearing your tale, they brought you to the temple of Deep Sashelas, whose priests trained you despite your hyperactive goblin nature, further unhinged by your time alone on the island. This is wonderful. Thank you
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
"Give every class magic" strikes me as a fine fix and is exactly what 4e did, regardless of whether or not you bother to hold your nose and politely call them "powers" instead of spells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:"Give every class magic" strikes me as a fine fix and is exactly what 4e did, regardless of whether or not you bother to hold your nose and politely call them "powers" instead of spells. oh yeah, in-combat having everything as clearly-defined and balanced powers was the bee's knees. it's the out-of-combat narrative contribution stuff that needs to be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:That's some interesting context, the early intentions seem at odds with the outcome. Thanks for the work you put into the combat maneuvers, it's largely what I'm adapting at the moment to nut this out. It's just my impression, to be fair. And the articles are nearly impossible to scrounge up nowadays. But I did participate in some bits of the DnD Next playtest, and I remember one particular article where it was said something to the effect of "Right now we want to concentrate on making a very simple fighter". This was back when martial damage dice were a thing for multiple classes and seemed relatively promising as a concept, and from there it just seemed like they continually got scaled down further and further. I was looking forward to seeing what they'd come up with for higher levels since most of the playtest packets only went up to level 5 or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Oh, sorry, bit of a mistake here, nobody was talking about spellcasters who also hit with swords. I'm still convinced that the best guy hitting with swords is a pure wizard/sorc who just ignores all his spells for combat and saves them for social or other problem solving. Who cares if he does less damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:"Give every class magic" strikes me as a fine fix and is exactly what 4e did, regardless of whether or not you bother to hold your nose and politely call them "powers" instead of spells. Which is one way to get a martial class that has narrative control, I agree. The issue comes because you get a big backlash from players who want simple martial classes to play and don't care about that - you can ignore them when doing homebrew but in an actual DnD system you need to design things for those players too. People still played fighters and rogues and barbarians in 3.5e after tome of battle came out, if that helps explain things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
esquilax posted:People still played fighters and rogues and barbarians in 3.5e after tome of battle came out, if that helps explain things. D&D causes brain damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
What about simple magic classes? I never see reason why the fighter has to be the easy mode character and nobody ever clamors the same for spellcasters. Warlocks kind of fill this role, but mainly by abridging the choice process rather than genuinely streamlining it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
The Bee posted:What about simple magic classes? I never see reason why the fighter has to be the easy mode character and nobody ever clamors the same for spellcasters. Warlocks kind of fill this role, but mainly by abridging the choice process rather than genuinely streamlining it. Wizards are the simple class. You can't gently caress up, you just cast your spells and problems disappear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Fixing a broken class or option or even just some basic math by making a feat that's too good not to take. 4e was especially bad for it, with the earliest example being the starlock and the most egregious being when they realised they'd left a couple of accuracy ups out of the 1 to 30 equation and released some +1 to-hit-per-tier feats, followed by a multitude of +1 to-hit-per-tier-plus-a-benny feats. It forces players to choose between customisation and functionality (which is why the ASI or feat choice built into 5e was a bad idea to start with). Good, the feat that's too good not to take makes sense. I took that to an extreme and considered incorporating all other feats into a tiered system which well maybe but that's a different thing. I'll consider some more universal approach for introducing combat maneuvers for everyone. Magil Zeal posted:It's just my impression, to be fair. And the articles are nearly impossible to scrounge up nowadays. But I did participate in some bits of the DnD Next playtest, and I remember one particular article where it was said something to the effect of "Right now we want to concentrate on making a very simple fighter". This was back when martial damage dice were a thing for multiple classes and seemed relatively promising as a concept, and from there it just seemed like they continually got scaled down further and further. I was looking forward to seeing what they'd come up with for higher levels since most of the playtest packets only went up to level 5 or so. So the martial damage dice became superiority dice but then limited to Battlemasters? It'd be nice to know a proposed homebrew was a promising concept in playtests. Call them martial dice for a start, superiority is a pain to type repeatedly. esquilax posted:Which is one way to get a martial class that has narrative control, I agree. The issue comes because you get a big backlash from players who want simple martial classes to play and don't care about that - you can ignore them when doing homebrew but in an actual DnD system you need to design things for those players too. Understood, but any fighter can limit their playstyle to "I attack." If this scaling back of complexity is what actually happened in 5e development it's a blatant case of baby out with the bathwater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:
It is literally the stated reason for the design, based on player feedback during the playtests. I get that people ITT don't like that decision but there seems to be a major understanding gap regarding the way in which a ton of people actually play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
I don’t understand the idea of noob classes. A campaign can go for a hell of a long time and the game isn’t super fiddly once you get the hang of book-keeping. 5e is pretty simple on a purely mechanical level outside of interpreting natural language, getting the jargon, a few fiddly character creation bits and keeping track of spells, and those are more annoying than anything. Plus you’ve ideally got at least 4 people around to help figure poo poo out. By 3 level ups the player probably won’t need a noob class.esquilax posted:It is literally the stated reason for the design, based on player feedback during the playtests. Don’t get this thread started on player feedback, that’s a pretty sore point for the long-timers Wrestlepig fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I don’t understand the idea of noob classes. A campaign can go for a hell of a long time and the game isn’t super fiddly once you get the hang of book-keeping. 5e is pretty simple on a purely mechanical level outside of interpreting natural language, getting the jargon, a few fiddly character creation bits and keeping track of spells, and those are more annoying than anything. Plus you’ve ideally got at least 4 people around to help figure poo poo out. By 3 level ups the player probably won’t need a noob class. i have no problem with a theoretical "simple" class that you can help ease people into the game with, so long as you avoid the little-brother problem of foisting the dummy class onto someone and forcing them to have the least interesting mechanics. all classes should be "simple" classes that scale up to being "complex" classes (dependent on your choices) that can contribute equally to combat and the narrative. so far i don't think any game with a class-based structure has achieved this, but it usually ends up being the martial classes who get the short end of the stick perhaps rpgs are secretly showing us that the inherent inequalities that stem from a class-based structure are reflected in society? i suppose i should have realized i was a communist when i fell in love with 4e
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:"Give every class magic" strikes me as a fine fix and is exactly what 4e did, regardless of whether or not you bother to hold your nose and politely call them "powers" instead of spells. Yeah, that works fine. To do it well, you are going to want to decouple "gets magic" and "casts spells from the generic spell list". In 4th ed that was obvious in the final product, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. Or to look at it from a diferent angle, you might want (and end up with) a generic "effects" list that different classes approach in different ways, but thinking of those effects as "spells" while you're designing a D&D-like is going to bring a whole lot of weird baggage along with it. Serf posted:perhaps rpgs are secretly showing us that the inherent inequalities that stem from a class-based structure are reflected in society? i suppose i should have realized i was a communist when i fell in love with 4e Should have realised it the first time you noticed wizards hoarding up the good abilities instead of distributing them evenly among the party and thought "that's not ideal". Also you just wrote my next RPG plotline for me. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:I don’t understand the idea of noob classes. A campaign can go for a hell of a long time and the game isn’t super fiddly once you get the hang of book-keeping. 5e is pretty simple on a purely mechanical level outside of interpreting natural language, getting the jargon, a few fiddly character creation bits and keeping track of spells, and those are more annoying than anything. Plus you’ve ideally got at least 4 people around to help figure poo poo out. By 3 level ups the player probably won’t need a noob class. My initial point was that a "noob class" is distinct from a simple class, and that "noob class" is not a helpful label. It's not simple so that people can learn, it's simple because sometimes experienced people who are aware of all the rules actually want a simple class. I would never steer a new player towards a simpler class versus a class that they actually get excited about playing, with the exception of providing premades for a one shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 00:09
|
|