|
Nuns with Guns posted:There's a Tome of Battle-alike for Pathfinder from a third party publisher, too. No idea how that was received though. DSP's stuff has generally been well received from what I've seen.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:There's a Tome of Battle-alike for Pathfinder from a third party publisher, too. No idea how that was received though. In my experience it's generally much better received, probably because as third party material there's no "expectation of allowed use" that first party material usually gets, so it only gets trotted out by people who like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Leraika posted:DSP's stuff has generally been well received from what I've seen. senrath posted:In my experience it's generally much better received, probably because as third party material there's no "expectation of allowed use" that first party material usually gets, so it only gets trotted out by people who like it. That's good, but god it's hilarious that Path of War can be receive less negativity because the experimental variant rules are seen as more optional if they're not done by the first-party company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Yeah the reason why people Path of War is received well is that it's third-party content, which means it's more "instantly disallowable" than if it was Paizo releasing their own Tome of Battle as a splatbook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
I never understood why guns were touch attacks anyway. If you had to do something other than make them handled by normal AC (and this is where the conversation should have stopped) it makes the opposite sense that dodging but not armor would be an effective defense against bullets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
01011001 posted:I never understood why guns were touch attacks anyway. If you had to do something other than make them handled by normal AC (and this is where the conversation should have stopped) it makes the opposite sense that dodging but not armor would be an effective defense against bullets. Because there are a bunch of 'for verisimilitude' poo poo attached to them with load times, danger, and expense, so they had to find a way to make them mechanically desirable enough to put up with that, I assume.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure their reasoning began and ended at "bullets totally go through armor."
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
01011001 posted:I never understood why guns were touch attacks anyway. If you had to do something other than make them handled by normal AC (and this is where the conversation should have stopped) it makes the opposite sense that dodging but not armor would be an effective defense against bullets. The argument works both ways: * guns should only suffer from armor AC and not dodge AC, because you couldn't possibly avoid getting hit by a gun, but you can absorb its damage * guns should only suffer from dodge AC and not armor AC, because you couldn't possibly reinforce armor enough to make impenetrable by bullets, but you can move fast enough that the enemy can't draw a bead on you This is a problem that derives itself from the issue of D&D using the same AC metric for both "padding a hit so it doesn't do damage", and "avoiding a hit entirely by zipping around like Neo"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
That's true enough. Not like it's any easier to dodge an arrow/bolt from a high-draw bow/crossbow.senrath posted:I'm pretty sure their reasoning began and ended at "bullets totally go through armor." Yeah, probably. I mostly just remember monks being an odd example of a relatively hard counter to most gunslingers because they got deflect arrows for free and had good touch AC. Related firearm weirdness: The rules for scatter firearms (i.e. blunderbusses) made it harder to hit any individual target (roll against each target in a cone, -2 penalty to hit), and you misfired less the more enemies you shot at because you only misfired if every attack roll misfired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
I drew revolver chambers on my character sheet to count the bullets in my two guns for reloading. Like I said, I had fun, but it's certainly not because the class design was good in anyway. The character was named Clint Westwood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
The thing with the "complexity" argument is that, throughout D&D in general - not just 3.x and Pathfinder, though they're the worst about it - increased complexity for non-casters always comes down to massive nerfs or downsides for non-casters, but with something they can pay to avoid it. It's always poo poo like item durability or critical misses or the like. It's never a good thing, always a new thing you now have to avoid. "Also, you'll suck! Unless you spend your class points to not suck, sometimes!" EDIT: It's never "now you can use your craft skills to give yourself a small bonus in a fight from constantly patching up and upgrading your armor!" Instead it's inevitably "Now your armor and weapons slowly get shittier, unless you use craft skills to stop it!" The gunslinger starts with a gun being a piece of poo poo weapon, and gradually makes it workable - instead of being legendary with a gun, guns are loving worthless unless you're a gunslinger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Because there are a bunch of 'for verisimilitude' poo poo attached The funniest thing here is that if you wanted to be verisimilitudinous, guns shouldn't have most of those drawbacks but should still target touch AC. This would make armour obsolete, much like firearms did in real life for a long time!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:The funniest thing here is that if you wanted to be verisimilitudinous, guns shouldn't have most of those drawbacks but should still target touch AC. This would make armour obsolete, much like firearms did in real life for a long time! "That would make it as strong as magic. That´s OP!"....is something a PF/3.X grog will have said once...a long time ago...in a space where people play bad games...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
It's kinda funny that in a setting with magazine-fed crossbows the peak technological innovator of the time is still using revolvers
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
edit: double the post, somehow
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
senrath posted:I'm pretty sure their reasoning began and ended at "bullets totally go through armor." what if it's a magic dragon
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:It's kinda funny that in a setting with magazine-fed crossbows the peak technological innovator of the time is still using revolvers China had those over a thousand years ago iirc, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 09:38
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:China had those over a thousand years ago iirc, to be fair. I mean yeah but I always felt that having to reload 'cases' entirely implied a magazine rather than Chinese style gravity feeding, but that's probably due to 3E not knowing that and Pathfinder continuing it
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
Say what you will about many other aspects of it, but Lamentations of The Flame Princess has pretty good firearms rules for the time period it's most meant to emulate(early to mid 17th Century Europe)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
We've really lost something with D&D devs no longer being wargaming grognards, because at least they had something resembling actual sources and data to work towards 'realism' from, rather than whatever the devs make up and decide is 'realistic'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 10:46
|
|
|
Mr.Misfit posted:"That would make it as strong as magic. That´s OP!"....is something a PF/3.X grog will have said once...a long time ago...in a space where people play bad games... No see the logic here is: a fighter can hit something with his sword and infinite amount of times so missing is fine. But a wizard only gets a limited amount of spells which is why everything a wizard does automatically succeeds and hits it's up to the target to defend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 11:11
|
|
|
Leraika posted:DSP's stuff has generally been well received from what I've seen. Darksydephil?!?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:The funniest thing here is that if you wanted to be verisimilitudinous, guns shouldn't have most of those drawbacks but should still target touch AC. This would make armour obsolete, much like firearms did in real life for a long time! It doesn’t quite make sense anyway because who the hell is loading a musket even once every 6 seconds much less 2-5 times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
Len posted:No see the logic here is: a fighter can hit something with his sword and infinite amount of times so missing is fine. But a wizard only gets a limited amount of spells which is why everything a wizard does automatically succeeds and hits it's up to the target to defend. [sarcasm] So if we go by that logic shouldn´t they instead of dealing damage just force a CON check with instant death which increases by level and fear effects if withstood? I mean, if you have to add damage, have it deal d8 per character level and the only difference is in cost and difficulty of the CON check for the opponent hit? It seems asinine to make the gun be a weapon of supposed terror, used against the beasts of alkenstar wastes, yet have it be worse than a crossbow or ...a javelin? Also, a gun also has limits in ammunition, explosion chance (misfire) and and and....(continue argument as needed ad nauseam) # [/sarcasm]
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:There's a Tome of Battle-alike for Pathfinder from a third party publisher, too. No idea how that was received though. I can't speak to how pf grogs found it, but our group did briefly dabble in it when there was an AP I wanted to run but was too lazy to convert to another system. The martial players did enjoy it, particularly the tank who did some wacky intimidate-based build that let her scare the poo poo out of people in and out of combat for different effects. We didn't play it long enough to get into the levels where the spellcaster/martial power divergence really starts to take off though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Statement: One of the things World of Warcraft statistics and other big MMO´s have come to show that only a very small percentage of players ever reach what is known of high-level content, in fact, less than...if I remember correctly 40 or 30% of players even reach mid-level content. Question: In light of this, could this be a general problem of games, even stretching into ttrpgs? I mean, what if no one in the general player base sees the problems of DnD and it´s ilk as bad because they´ll never get to where it´s problematic anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
Mr.Misfit posted:Statement: One of the things World of Warcraft statistics and other big MMO´s have come to show that only a very small percentage of players ever reach what is known of high-level content, in fact, less than...if I remember correctly 40 or 30% of players even reach mid-level content. Yes and it's a big reason why I believe 3.5 and pathfinder were successful. I exclusively played low level parties from my youth until college, maybe peaking at 7th level once ever. It makes sense though. If you're playing rules as written its gonna take a lot of sessions to hit high level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
The caster problem in DnD classically starts at level 5, but there are a few edge cases where it can apply at level 1. You are right though, very few groups have ever played at level 20 and honestly the game is unrecognisable at that point if it is even playable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Heliotrope posted:Are you thinking of the Tome of Battle? That was released for 3e and boy did grogs get mad at it. to this day talking to friends with (bad) opinions about d&d they always regard tome of battle classes as brokenly OP, just like psionics (especially the psychic knife or whatever class), monks, and anything that dared to give things to do non-spellcasters. It's funny because nearly everything they identify as broken usually is broken, just not in the direction they think
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The thing with the "complexity" argument is that, throughout D&D in general - not just 3.x and Pathfinder, though they're the worst about it - increased complexity for non-casters always comes down to massive nerfs or downsides for non-casters, but with something they can pay to avoid it. It's always poo poo like item durability or critical misses or the like. It's never a good thing, always a new thing you now have to avoid. "Also, you'll suck! Unless you spend your class points to not suck, sometimes!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:Yes and it's a big reason why I believe 3.5 and pathfinder were successful. I exclusively played low level parties from my youth until college, maybe peaking at 7th level once ever. Yeah, most of the groups I've encountered who played a lot of high level or epic games, did so by starting at level 10 or above, or just straight up at epic levels. Anecdotal and all that, but it did seem fairly common among the various gaming clubs of my youth. Plus, while many of the rules problems start to emerge circa level 5, there can be a lot of variability there depending on the group and how closely they're paying attention to those sorts of things. If you've got spellcasters mostly just grabbing things that look cool or for their concept, you might not immediately get into scrying shenanigans or all the other ways to abuse the various transformation spells. Not that that makes the game not-broken or anything, but I can see how groups, even with fairly long campaigns, can potentially get to around level 10 and not cotton on to how much spellcasters can render martials irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Yeah, at best if I handed out ridiculously powerful magic items and custom feats like candy I could keep martials relevant until somewhere around 13-16, but it basically just wasn't possible after that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Just make everyone magic. "Guy who can't do magic when everyone else can" isn't a niche we really need to be protecting. Every class can be magic, just in different ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
The problem is more that D&D mostly assumes that anything beyond realistic human capabilities MUST be magic or some other supernatural power. You can have non-magical fighters, but they should be like Hercules and Beowulf, not some average knight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:The problem is more that D&D mostly assumes that anything beyond realistic human capabilities MUST be magic or some other supernatural power. You can have non-magical fighters, but they should be like Hercules and Beowulf, not some average knight. Flashbacks to preternatural/supernatural/magic discussions in 2e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
You definitely don't have to make everyone magical in order to make them roughly equal, but you definitely do have to ditch the idea that magic can do anything and martials are bound by what an out-of-shape TTRPG designer thinks he can reasonably accomplish given a morning of half-assed tries
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:Just make everyone magic. "Guy who can't do magic when everyone else can" isn't a niche we really need to be protecting. Ah, the Earthdawn solution. Four classes had spell lists--twelve had magical abilities that improved over time. The Sky Pirate had feather fall, which would eventually improve into controlled falling 45 degrees off of straight down, and eventually to flight. Also their sword attacks were several attacks at once, and destiny magic made only the most successful one real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
its not like science exists in d&d. wizard can toss fireballs and poo poo. who's to say someone couldn't be so good at fighting that they can kill 10 people with a single strike or slay a dragon with nothing but a spear?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Just don't have fighters and make a game about magical god-kings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Just don't have fighters and make a game about magical god-kings. I like that Exalted has, as a design goal, 'using actual combat skills is the key to battle-magic.' The model where magic isn't a special class of things that ignore the rules, but something that pervades everything and can be expressed by punching and swords as well as by formulae and incantations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:43
|
|
