|
Nehru the Damaja posted:We're in the royal family's castle. It's too late to go back on it. We're there and what little secrecy we had is going to be blown because everyone's going to tell stories of these idiot small people who came in and told a wild pack of lies. I legit don't see a solution to this that doesn't sell out our no-filter habitually lying liability. What are your players like, out of curiosity?
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Just do the ole beg for forgiveness, and the DM who bought the book and wants to run the campaign will tell you that the giants will pardon you if you do them the favor of running whatever dungeon is next in the module. Embrace that your cleric has found out that his party is lying assholes. Maybe he is traveling with them now to better them, or keep them out of trouble. Congrats, you are the party dad now. Frown disapprovingly when you notice their sleight-of-hand, and even when you catch them in a lie, say "well if that's what you thought the best thing to do was... i believe you". E: I'm sorry that I can't help you in the fight, though! There's some cool 5e cleric guides I can point you too if you just want general advice about good spells vs. bad spells, though. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:The differences between Int and Wis and Str and Con are cool and make sense, though. Just "balance" the ability scores by making more gnarly awful stuff requires Saves that are tied to less popular scores. It's pretty inherent that every class has 1 save tied to a bunch of poo poo*, and another not so much. It kind of works in that way, I guess, if we're talking 5E?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:We're in the royal family's castle. It's too late to go back on it. We're there and what little secrecy we had is going to be blown because everyone's going to tell stories of these idiot small people who came in and told a wild pack of lies. I legit don't see a solution to this that doesn't sell out our no-filter habitually lying liability. Say it in character. Follow through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Splicer posted:When you get found out, say "gently caress you guys, I'm sick of your bullshit. I'm turning state's witness". That's pretty much my plan. Pollyanna posted:What are your players like, out of curiosity? I think there's three of us interested in having some more storytelling and character development and not making everything a brawl, one I don't really have a read on as a person but his character is very much a comical fuckup -- he's the one doing most of the talking us into a hole -- and two who are lower-engagement players who just show up for something to do. The latter two don't necessarily lean toward "let's gently caress everything up" but I think given the choice they pick that because big things happen. One of those two was the guy who said "gently caress it I'm bored" and nearly got us killed earlier. edit: I think the other two are kind of looking to jump ship and if they did, I would follow them. I don't mind sticking around this group but I would absolutely trade it for one where there's some more homogeneity about player expectations. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Xae posted:1. Fewer Spells per Caster I'd say move either Warlock or Sorcerer to Int, which would give each of the casting stats two main casters: Int: Wizard, Warlock Wis: Cleric, Druid Cha: Sorcerer, Bard (5e Bard practically has the earmarks of a full caster) Firstborn posted:Compare Champion to the other fighter subclasses. If your game is really narrative, and you really get to shape and control what you do in combat beyond "I use hit monster, then move, then use hit monster power", you could find it very not boring. The caveat of everything being so modular and lame rules having the simple out of "talk to your DM" makes everything kind of moot. Arguing RAW/RAI is fun and I like to read the minutiae, but some people post as if they playing Baldur's Gate or something, and their DM is some inflexible robot who never lets cool things happen (my apologies if this is your case). Also, the idea that the martial classes must be 100% mundane needs to die in a fire. Let the high-level fighter swim up waterfalls, suplex giants, and other Hercules-level poo poo. If we have quadratic wizards, let there be quadratic fighters too. But I guess there's a niche for a mechanically-simple fighter that does nothing but "I hit the guy". The people who play these kinds of characters are probably the same ones who spend the whole game on their phones not paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:That's pretty much my plan. Splicer posted:6 PCs is too many to be honest, especially if they're new. People get bored and start doing things like
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Honestly, the way to fix the caster/martial divide in a hypothetical future D&D is to just not have it. My preference is that Wizards aren't PCs. They're either quest-givers/patrons or high-level villains. If you want to be a guy who can shoot bolts of fire or occasionally turn invisible you get to be a Warlock, who gets a limited set of magic powers but is otherwise on the level of the rest of the classes. Wizards hang out in towers and try and cross breed animals into horrible monsters and poo poo. Same thing with Druid and Cleric, to be honest. The guy who dons armor and goes out to spread the word of god is the Paladin. The Ranger is the survivalist nature guy who can talk to squirrels and maybe has a bear bff. Druids hang out in groves and Clerics/Priests hang out in temples. Every class would get their own set of cool powers, and the iconic holy poo poo D&D magic would be limited to scrolls and potions, either found as treasure or given as boons by quest-givers (everyone would get to use scrolls). Trying to find a creative use for your one Web scroll is more interesting than that loving wizard that casts Web every loving encounter. I would also want to design the combat system from the ground up that ensures that as many combat styles as possible are viable and have their set of cool techniques and abilities. gently caress verisimilitude, btw. Also, also, definitely include a simpler, faster alternate combat system so that we aren't spending 45 minutes to an hour killing a random squad of goblins. Save the cool tactical fights for the Dragons and Beholders and Mummy lords and poo poo. Anyway, that's what I came up with in the shower this morning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
You aren't taking wizards out as a class and I won't play if you do
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
what if we draw a line through the word "warlock" on your character sheet with a sharpie and then wrote in "wizard" because it doesn't actually matter what the class is called.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Why not just dramatically refocus wizard to battlefield control and narrative effects so damage is more properly the domain of martials and Warlock
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
IMO saying "This is the class for narrative effect" as a design decision is certainly bold but also the opposite of solving the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Why not just dramatically refocus wizard to battlefield control and narrative effects so damage is more properly the domain of martials and Warlock Wizard = Buffs and Utility Sorcerer = Blaster Warlock = Illusions and Mindfuck If there was one bit of legacy that really needed to be poo poo canned it is the schools of magic they have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah, the whole point is that there isn't class whose shtick is "solves problems with spells." Take a chunk of that spell chapter space and use it to give each class some tricks that operate on that level. Like, actually take seriously the idea that the game operates on the co-equal pillars of combat, exploration, and talking at npcs and then make each class able to participate meaningfully in all 3. It would be a good start to devote, say, a third of your rules space to each pillar. Go ahead and call it Magic-User instead of Warlock, that feels like D&D to me. Mr. Tambo fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Why isn't the Sorcerer the muscle wizard? Their whole fluff is that their powers are inborn, not the result of study or bargains. Their magic should be more keyed of Con (or if we do away with Con, Str.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Mr. Tambo posted:Yeah, the whole point is that there isn't class whose shtick is "solves problems with spells." Take a chunk of that spell chapter space and use it to give each class some tricks that operate on that level. Or just, like. Magician. Bard, Sorceror, Magician. Your three Arcane Archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Or just, like. Magician. Bard, Sorceror, Magician. Your three Arcane Archetypes. Sure. Especially if Sorceror is now the "magic flows through my veins so now I'm hella swole and can breath fire occasionally" guy and not just another minor variation on "one of a subset of classes who gets to interact fully with spells, which are the building blocks of everything in the system that matters." I'd really like to collapse fighter and rogue into one class, the Adventurer, who is the one who manages to be badass despite not having any supernatural powers. Basically, the Conan (barbarian really doesn't need to be a class. It's a background). Mr. Tambo fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
I think whoever it was upthread who suggested splitting it is right - you're always going to struggle to do 'fantasy vietnam' and 'epic heroes' with the same system. First you need to define what you want the game to do before you can begin to worry about the rules. Whatever you picked, my first move would be to put everyone on the same level - if you've got mages who can warp reality, then you've got to have mythic other classes - theives so cunning they can steal concepts, warriors who can punch a path through a mountain, etc. If you insist on 'realistic' warriors, then your mages should be on a much lower power level - only having spells that deal damage, or mess with people's beliefs. Clerics who can whip a mob into a frenzy, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
The Dragon sorcerer seems to be halfway there in being a tanky caster, maybe they could go all in on the concept. Maybe the concepts of the battlemaster and monk could be combined to make a Martial Technique list to complement the spell list? The monk could fit in as a "martial caster" type who focuses on techniques(including the over-the-top supernatural stuff that would be at home in DBZ), while the fighter and rogue specialize in the less flashy/more sneaky techniques. Sort of how the Swordsage and Warblade functioned in the Book of Nine Swords supplement for 3E. So for fighter archetypes, you have the arcane Eldritch Knight, the ki/tech-based Battlemaster, and the Champion for the "hit guy with sword" guys. To avoid the 4e complaints that martial and arcane powers felt the same, maybe the techniques are more short rest-based, while spells need long rests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
dividing up the broad powers ascribed to wizards into distinct categories and limiting access to them... where have i heard this before the superior design of Shadow of the Demon Lord haunts this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
I'm gonna go totally off the rails and run like, basic dnd modules in sotdl once my 5e campaign is up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Fantasy Vietnam only the pcs are the A-Team is about where I'm at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
SotDL is rad but after running through a full 1-10 campaign it clearly has a caster/ martial divide. Anyone can take some spell casting but even the Priest fell pretty far behind our magician in capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Serf posted:dividing up the broad powers ascribed to wizards into distinct categories and limiting access to them... where have i heard this before Now imagine a version of the game where I don’t have to explain away all the terrible edgy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Now imagine a version of the game where I don’t have to explain away all the terrible edgy poo poo. i'll whip you up a normie hack no prob
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Now imagine a version of the game where I don’t have to explain away all the terrible edgy poo poo. It tries so hard for Grim Dark, but it hits Grim Derp more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Serf posted:i'll whip you up a normie hack no prob
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Splicer posted:For reals pass me that if you do. It's my biggest hurdle to dragging people into it. the only big obstacle is all the tables. i didn't think people would like 'em but they do, so i've been chipping away at them for a while. i finished my gonzo hack of the game a while back and it took a ton of effort
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Mr. Tambo posted:SotDL is rad but after running through a full 1-10 campaign it clearly has a caster/ martial divide. Anyone can take some spell casting but even the Priest fell pretty far behind our magician in capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Burn it to the ground. It's a painful move that should have already happened by now, but the system needs to be designed from the ground up by no one that has ever touched D&D before because chasing purestrain D&D is an idiotic and unsustainable move. Focus on making a good, engaging game and try your best to ride the livestream trend to counteract the groggy hissy fits. Even now DnD is doing fine. The complaints in this thread are not that representative of whether people are buying and playing it and having fun in the real world. glitchwraith posted:Why isn't the Sorcerer the muscle wizard? Their whole fluff is that their powers are inborn, not the result of study or bargains. Their magic should be more keyed of Con (or if we do away with Con, Str.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Dameius posted:With the idea that it was an imported legacy system that your company paid lots of money for so by god drat we are going to use it and you need to just make this poo poo work... Merge down to 3 stats. Might, Cunning, and Will. 2 pages of rules explaining how to convert from/to the original 6 stats (M=S/Co, C=I/D, W=W/Ch). Call it "advanced" rules. 4 Classes total. Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Mystic. Other classes shifted to archetypes of those. Archetypes from 1st level. Basically the way 2nd ed is layed out, but applied to mechanics. Replace the spell list with a "spells and abilities" section. 3 spell/abilities per 2 levels for classes. Same for archetypes. Stagger the two so there's no dead levels. Multiclassing to be thrown in the bin and re-done from scratch. Start with something like this: Each archetype will list one other class as its multiclass counterpart. On level up, you gain your archetype stuff and can select spell/abilities from your multiclass as well as your main class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
I wonder how many classes can be formed by just doing major/minor of those three abilitiespre:
Primary
Might Cunning Will
Might Barbarian Ranger Cleric
Cunning Fighter Rogue Warlock
Will Paladin Bard Wizard
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I wonder how many classes can be formed by just doing major/minor of those three abilities  ("Tellsword" is easily the best one)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I wonder how many classes can be formed by just doing major/minor of those three abilities Right? It's a little simple maybe, but it plays on the idea that D&D is really only built on top of itself. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
LGD posted:
That game was one I was looking forward to until I saw that graph. One day video games are going to realize that having a handful of well designed, well balanced options beats throwing out a billion options all but 5 of which are poo poo. AlphaDog posted:Multiclassing to be thrown in the bin and re-done from scratch. Start with something like this: Each archetype will list one other class as its multiclass counterpart. On level up, you gain your archetype stuff and can select spell/abilities from your multiclass as well as your main class. Just merge 2e and 3e multi-classing. You declare it at level 1. You become a 1 Fighter / 0 Mage. You have to keep the levels with in 1 of each other. Except maybe letting people go 11/9 for the mini-capstones. Or just move the capstones to 10 because putting them all at 11 was an obvious gently caress you to multiclassing anyway. Xae fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Those words all sound cool, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
They were definitely running a little light there when Fighter/Summoner was a "Wild Blade."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I wonder how many classes can be formed by just doing major/minor of those three abilities It might work better if you do a focus/power source map. pre:
Martial Divine Arcane Primal
Might Fighter Paladin Sorcerer Barbarian
Cunning Rogue Warlock Bard Ranger
Will Monk Cleric Wizard Druid
This gives me an idea for a "divine source" or "iconoclast" Warlock that draws power from the gods without being beholden to them. Wyvernil fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Serf posted:dividing up the broad powers ascribed to wizards into distinct categories and limiting access to them... where have i heard this before I will investigate this thing you speak of
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Multiclassing serves a few different purposes * adding flexibility to the character design process (dip this class and that class to make my perfect wizard) * creating new options that don't exist as classes already (i want to be a fighter/wizard but that's not a class) * taking your character in a different direction later on during play (i'm done being a warrior after 6 levels, now i'm a wizard) I feel like each of these should be handled specifically #1 is kind of what archetypes and feats are already for, and is what makes balance so impossible - I'd kill it myself in a class-based game and reserve it for full-build-point games. #2 I feel like the better answer is 'write a class for fighter/wizard' instead - the problem is that doing this isn't super compatible with #1, because every new class you write is more combinatorial madness. But if you remove #1 then #2 becomes good - a lot of 4e's neat classes were answering this problem, and there's a lot of scope for designing a class to do exactly what you want. Why try and wedge druid/paladin awkwardly together when you could write a warden? #3 is kind of what 3e's multiclassing aimed at, but it never worked well because a non-planned multiclassing would pretty much always be awful at your new thing. Respec mechanics are a better option I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:06
|
|
