|
Well, actually this was solved in 2nd ed-Simian_Prime posted:I feel the best “fighter gets to do stuff outside of combat” rules were the AD&D 2e rules where at a certain level the fighter just had a personal army of dudes that would follow them just on the sheer strength of their reputation. You got a henchman Captain around your level and a group of 1st level “special forces” to do adventuring with you, and then a small army of 0-level soldiers to conquer nations and build forts and stuff. Dammit. I feel like 4e has an easy houserule for this in that you just let characters pick whatever the heck skills they want, and everyone gets 4. But then the Fighter's usually got STR, DEX and CON, so I hope you like physical skills, dummy. Martial Practices helped allieviate this, but it still just feels like someone forgot to make the fighter do stuff outside of combat. Most damning is that Fighters never seem to get a bonus to perception, which seems like a real garbage choice for the militia and guard class.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
the author of this has a much brighter view of the DW Fighter than I do
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:the author of this has a much brighter view of the DW Fighter than I do Flaws aside, I'd rather play a DW fighter than a D&D5e any class at all. I was the wizard during the "D&D Next" public playtest thing and I was bored out of my loving skull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
D&D Next has discouraged the 2e, Pathfinder and myself (4e) from actually running it, which is... That's certainly something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:I have no problem with someone liking it, I just don't understand why It's very densely packed, is the thing. You can't walk three steps without tripping over a set of warring kingdoms or an abandoned elf city. It's basically "if you don't know what to do for a campaign, stick a pin in the map".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The closest thing they have is "they get to do that damage all day", which is meaningless in practice because the party's adventuring day always when the spellcasters run low on prepared spells. Not to mention Frog God games had a Humble Bundle deal, and Matt MacFarland is still plugging away at his kickstarter and is on the board of the Indie Game Developers Network with no acknowledgement of the accusations to either group.  Looks like things are going to blow over, as the more cynical posters always predicted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:It's very densely packed, is the thing. You can't walk three steps without tripping over a set of warring kingdoms or an abandoned elf city. It's basically "if you don't know what to do for a campaign, stick a pin in the map". That's actually one of the biggest reasons I don't like it, it's too goddamned crowded
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Mostly can’t get into the stock 5e Realms because most of it feels painfully generic, the same way I feel about most high fantasy settings these days. The Second Sundering outlined that it really wasn’t a setting anymore, just a bunch of interchangeable setpieces where people’s actions no longer mattered because the reset button could be pushed at any time. The most fun I had was a Godbound game I ran set in the Realms during the Time of Troubles, where every PC played a god of their choice and had the chance to bend the setting to their whims. The game ended with the liberation of Thay before RL got in the way and I had to wrap things up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
I like the realms cause it was the first big campaign world I read about that wasn't rifts, and compared to rifts it was pretty tame and made more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
So the game store I work at is having a passive-aggressive Used Board Games white elephant exchange for the holiday party and I want to ruin Set. I'm planning on scribbling in permanent marker various unhelpful, distracting, and otherwise aggrivating messages on a standard 81-card deck of Set. I'm soliciting card concepts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Covok posted:Caught in a bad romance!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:To be clear, I also understand the utility and non-combat-role argument, but to me that feels like something that's on the side of the spellcaster to be "fixed". A lot of the above doesn't translate to turn based, but the general thing is that your levers aren't just about doing more damage, they're about controlling, impacting, or adapting to the situation. In tabletop a limited use spike damage utility is good if you know adding a little extra oomph to this attack will knock a guy out this turn rather than next turn. Or a normal or even reduced damage attack that will stun or reposition the orc, or heal or reposition you (assuming a game where positioning is meaningful). You're right that adding a damage boosting rotation is how some people try to fix fighters, but that's because they don't get what's wrong with fighters in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Splicer posted:the general thing is that your levers aren't just about doing more damage, they're about controlling, impacting, or adapting to the situation. In tabletop a limited use spike damage utility is good if you know adding a little extra oomph to this attack will knock a guy out this turn rather than next turn. Or a normal or even reduced damage attack that will stun or reposition the orc, or heal or reposition you (assuming a game where positioning is meaningful). So what I'm getting here is, if we are adding "abilities" to Fighters, and granting that their basic attack is already sufficiently powerful as a baseline, what we should be looking at would be on the order of: * something to guarantee a hit with * something to deal even more damage * something to AOE with * something to inflict a debuff on an enemy * something to place a buff on a friendly * something to forcibly move an enemy (if it matters)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
that's all good for baseline combat but a large amount of a fighter's problem is lack of things to do outside of combat
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:Not to mention Frog God games had a Humble Bundle deal, and Matt MacFarland is still plugging away at his kickstarter and is on the board of the Indie Game Developers Network with no acknowledgement of the accusations to either group. Its the bizarre upside down nature of the internet, but GR loving up so vocally and publicly was probably the most helpful thing in driving change. Without that visible target acting like a dipshit, the outrage momentum dies, and few groups are going to take action if they don't see a big outcry for it. MacFarland got that right off the bat and immediately went dark. Once GR stopped digging a hole for itself and put a pause on things, there wasn't another driver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So what I'm getting here is, if we are adding "abilities" to Fighters, and granting that their basic attack is already sufficiently powerful as a baseline, what we should be looking at would be on the order of: Elfgames posted:a large amount of a fighter's problem is lack of things to do outside of combat
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Simian_Prime posted:Mostly can’t get into the stock 5e Realms because most of it feels painfully generic, the same way I feel about most high fantasy settings these days. The Second Sundering outlined that it really wasn’t a setting anymore, just a bunch of interchangeable setpieces where people’s actions no longer mattered because the reset button could be pushed at any time. The 5e Realms are pretty bad, yeah. You’re right in saying they took out a lot of what’s unique about the setting. The Realms are nowhere near as crowded as people make them out to be, but the level of detail is for sure a lot of what appeals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
I could swear there was a generic FFG thread but I can't find it. There also isn't one for Genesys, so has anyone picked it up yet and what do you think? I have experience with Edge of the Empire and I love the dice system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In that sense, if you can't make a mistake, why even have all these other buttons at all? Or to get to my conclusion immediately: would a simple "I attack" model work if the Fighter did a boatload of damage while doing it, under the assumption that the Fighter is already succeeding in using all of their attacks and abilities correctly and maximally? Dealing boatloads of damage all the time ruins the utility of HP as a manageable resource. If the intent is not to use it as a manageable resource, then is there a reason to use HP as the health system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I like my 4E Slayer just fine Gradenko
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Fighters need to be good at non combat stuff without having to pull from their good at fighter pool. Someone who can cast firebolt has both a combat thing and access to the "fire" verb out of combat. Someone who casts with their social stat is also going to be good at socialing. Well, if you're going to hold onto ability scores at all, then clearly you need to redefine the ability scores so that all the skills aren't held by two-thirds of them and one third is basically useless. Take Strength, for example. Make it 'Might', and stick tactics, strategy, modern history, and intimidation under it. Take Constitution and make it 'Resolve', with resisting fear and persuasion and speaking plainly from the heart in it's portfolio. Then don't screw Martial types out of skills for no drat reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Some time back, I had a couple vacancies in the paragon-tier 4e game I run on Roll20. I was a little worried that it'd be hard to find people interested in a game that was well underway, but I actually got a lot of applications. And a lot of them were really good applications! But then there was also this:  The video link goes to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOh6CDUpfcY I, uh... I didn't respond to that one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
"Hey I, at a fundamental level don't understand 4e and also refuse to take anything seriously lest people think I'm not totally above it and cool, mind if I improv with you guys?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I was actually kind of relieved at how bad an application it was because I didn't want to put any serious thought into whether or not I was going to invite someone called "The Alt-Rick" into my game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
"I want to use something from dndwiki" is code for "I am a terrible roleplayer and a terrible person, please beat me with an old garden hose".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
"Thank you for your interest in joining. You are hereby being served with a restraining order."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Fighters need to be good at non combat stuff without having to pull from their good at fighter pool. Someone who can cast firebolt has both a combat thing and access to the "fire" verb out of combat. Someone who casts with their social stat is also going to be good at socialing. If all fighters have is a bunch of do damage and tank stuff then they can't meaningfully interact with the environment beyond punching it. It's not even a case of just handing them some talkgood abilities, you have to be careful not to sift lock them out if the basic interaction methods, like d20 does due to skill + stat being linearly cumulative and the uneven utility if ability scores. This is really, really rough, but the idea is basically this: -Abolish social skills/the very concept of a 'face' class -Kill Charisma as a statistic -Give classes modifiers to interact with others if the other party is familiar with their 'toolkit', so to speak -Apply modifiers tied to alignment (if it's there, might as well use it) -Give the party an overall reputation score based on how they conduct themselves The idea is to give every class some benefit for 'taking the lead' whenever appropriate, and gives the DM a tool for encouraging different members of the party to step up and take a role in social interactions. Inspiration: I actually liked that the old Baldur's Gate games had a reputation system where your party's overall reputation scored determined how people would interact with you socially. My idea is that when the party is interacting with people, make a flat check for the party modified by whoever decides to speak for the group first, roleplaying-wise. The modifier is determined by the person's class/alignment. For example: If the Fighter speaks to the Captain of the Guard: -Because they're both martial folks, being a Fighter grants him a bonus/malus, depending on what would be most beneficial to their goal (player decides, and they could want to make the Captain poo poo his pants and step aside for them or awe the Captain into helping them). -In the same scenario, the wizard wouldn't get a bonus/malus because the target's relatively unfamiliar with their ways. -Alignment determines bonus/malus depending on how far away you are from the target's alignment (i.e., Lawful Evil Fighter interacts with Neutral Good Captain - modifier is applied for the good/evil divide, nothing happens for the law/neutral divide) The base check is 10, modified by the party's approach/objectives. So if they want to get a negative reaction, they use their modifiers to increase the difficulty of the check so they roll 'under' it. If they want a positive reaction, they use their modifiers to decrease the difficulty of the check so it's more likely they'll roll over. Reputation is a hidden stat that the DM keeps track of that they use to modify the ultimate DC of the check based on the party's actions (so if they're typical murderhobo robbers and have a reputation as such, trying to get someone to do favors for them becomes difficult even if they send the paladin to parlay. On the other hand, intimidating them with raw muscle is more effective). You could even work reputation like a 'clock' from The Sprawl, too - have a Reputation Clock for each town/group they come across and as they perform actions it fills up, and once it's filled up all the way their reputation within that town/group becomes a very solid thing that's extremely difficult to change, and bleeds over to similar groups in the same area (so if they develop a reputation as cutthroat murderers, even towns/people they haven't met are somewhat aware of this reputation and start with their clocks partially filled by negative opinions). This mirrors the 'level of play', because few people will have ever heard of a bunch of small-time adventurers but as they grow in power, more people/groups will know of them based on reputation alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Well, if you're going to hold onto ability scores at all, then clearly you need to redefine the ability scores so that all the skills aren't held by two-thirds of them and one third is basically useless. Take Strength, for example. Make it 'Might', and stick tactics, strategy, modern history, and intimidation under it. Take Constitution and make it 'Resolve', with resisting fear and persuasion and speaking plainly from the heart in it's portfolio. Then don't screw Martial types out of skills for no drat reason. Another issue is that having high Intelligence or Charisma in d20 does nothing innately to help a Fighter be better at Fightering, while a few points in Dexterity or Constitution are pretty useful for the Wizard to keep Wizarding. So a Wizard can choose to be a Dexterous Wizard (Better Initiative, AC, and Dex save) or a Tough Wizard (Better HP and Con save), but a Smart Fighter (or any other non-int class) will just end up being bad at two things. Making sure all ability scores have roughly equivalent passive splash benefits would allow classes stuck with a low-utility primary a lot more choice in choosing what to secondary without nerfing themselves mechanically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:58
|
|
gnome7 posted:Down that path lies the Essentials Slayer class, which was "the Fighter with only basic attacks but comparable/higher damage and similar defenses." Which, while effective, was boring as heck and a strict downgrade to the 4E Fighter by virtue of being so much more boring. Was there a single Essentials subclass that wasn't just a worse and more boring version of the original?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Was there a single Essentials subclass that wasn't just a worse and more boring version of the original? The Mage was better because lol Mearls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Sentinels make good hybrid material.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
I was so excited to play a Blackguard and it was a miserable experience.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was so excited to play a Blackguard and it was a miserable experience. Mearls was the lead writer. Blackguard wasn't that bad, but at best it's kind of a sloppy confusing mess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Heroes of Shadow was a terrible book containing several (perhaps the only?) classes generally considered unusable by 4e fans. Heroes of Shadow is mostly a book for regular paladins and warlocks to poach powers from. Even the layout of Heroes of Shadow is bad; classes are laid out in a jumbled fashion where half of their heroic/paragon-tier stuff is only explained after their epic destinies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Bladesingers probably fall in that category for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:"I want to use something from dndwiki" is code for "I am a terrible roleplayer and a terrible person, please beat me with an old garden hose". I'd like to nominate the half-mimic as an exception. Well, maybe not for actual use; I just wanted an excuse to post it again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:I'd like to nominate the half-mimic as an exception. What the gently caress What the fuuuuuuck? posted:Three sample Half-Mimic adventurers are described below.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Whoever wrote that entry did so with fetishistic intent.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
There's a very good chance that most of the half-mimic entry was written by jokers from the original SA grognards.txt thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
quote:Play a Half-Mimic if you want... Though I do now want to make the next group of players I run a game for incredibly uncomfortable by having a mimic try and seduce them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:39
|
|
