|
gradenko_2000 posted:3rd/3.5E question: from what I gather, it was really hard for the Wizard to actually get enough spells in AD&D to really become the powerhouse that they're generally regarded as, so the Sorcerer was supposed to be a sort of deal-with-the-devil: you could have a lot of freedom with what spells you learned, because you learned them naturally and you could pick and choose from the book, and you could spent your slots on any given spell you knew, but in exchange, you'd never be able to learn as many spells as a Wizard The sorcerer wasn't added in to make spells easier, since 3.x tacked hard into making being the wizard as easy as possible. Instead, it was meant to be a wizard who traded versatility and planning for power and spontaneity. The wizard can know all the spells while the sorcerer gets like four each level, but the sorcerer can cast more spells then the wizard, and never has to worry about casting the wrong spell when they needed it later. What ended up undermining this immediately was that, par the course, wizards got both those benefits almost immediately, and the developers dramatically overestimated the power of spontaneous casting. A specialist wizard has one additional spell per spell level, meaning they're only one spell/day/level behind the sorcerer. A wizard could leave spell slots blank after resting, and add spells throughout the day as they adventured. These two alone pretty much took out a good chunk of the sorcerer's advantages, and then proceeded to poo poo all over it's weaknesses; sorcerers had to spend a full round in order to use metamagic, got no bonus feats, and gained new spell levels later then wizards. This gap became even wider as book after book after book introduced not only new spells - every new spell was another thing wizards could put into their spell book(s) no problem, but sorcerers were still stuck with having like 5 spells known each level. Things proceeded to get even worse as each new book also introduced new PrCs, and every spellcasting PrC had "can cast x level spells" as a requirement, meaning wizards could get into them before sorcerers. Basically the designers a) didn't know what they were doing, b) totally forgot sorcerers even existed not long after making them, and c) and were too busy fellating wizards.
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So some people a while back mentioned movement in 2e D&D being different from what came after, and being able to spend your movement out-of-turn in particular. Can anyone tell me how that worked? Could you just follow someone around and always be next to them no matter what? The non-shorty races have movement rate 12, the shorties have movement rate 6. In combat, you can move ten times your movement rate in feet (since remember, each combat round is a minute, not 6 seconds like it becomes in 3e). You can move half that distance and still attack in melee. Archers can move half their distance and still pew pew, but only at half fire rate. Charging lets you move 50% more and gives +2 to attack (which in 2e is a big deal, as bonus modifiers are much more rare) but they take penalties to initiative, AC, and a defender who propped up their polearm does double damage. If you're in melee and you wanna get out, you can either withdraw (move 1/3 your speed, but your enemy can move right alongside you unless you have an ally also fighting them), or flee outright. Fleeing lets you use your full movement rate, but the enemy gets a free attack on you, and again, the enemy can simply chase you unless you have an ally to block them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
gourdcaptain posted:Plus, there was also Skip Williams at WoTC, who hated the idea of sorcerers, sabotaged them to make them worse, and after his erroneous Sage Advice during 3.0e column saying Sorcerers couldn't use Quicken Spell for some really rules-lawyer-y and false reasons (lengthened time of casting, and him misunderstanding the difference between a full-round action and an action lasting a full round) was widely disparaged he then hardcoded his bad ruling into 3.5e if I remember correctly. The bizarre pettiness of some game designers continues to astound me. (Or when they put a class/splat in the hands of someone who utterly loathes the mechanical underpinnings of it.) To me is one of the major 3.x legacies, which of course was continued into Pathfinder. Making classes someone hated, who was then given full power to sabotage them as much as they so desired. You get a REAL good look at how "professional" this hobby is when the biggest name in the industry acts like this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/bestow-weapon-proficiency I'll always remember Ultimate Combat - it was the book that finally cut me away from being a Paizo fan.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Mind elaborating on that? I'm guessing one of the following reasons: A mix of 2 and 3, as well as some starkly negative experiences with the Paizo staff at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
AGE's biggest crime is being exceedingly boring. It's Yet Another Generic Fantasy System. It has close to nothing new and nothing really noteworthy. I don't think it's even possible to be mad about AGE - that would require a level of passion AGE just doesn't inspire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The spell list and system and stunts are pretty much the anti-D&D Yes, every generic fantasy RPG has that one thing to separate them from D&D. I do remember being very unimpressed by the stunts though; it was something about never actually being able to be good at them, or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
What's actually fun is to watch how non-wizards increasingly got more abilities in the actual Dragon Age crpgs then you look at AGE and welllllll I mean poo poo even in Dragon Age: Origins warriors got a few abilities. What about the wizard cross-powers that were probably DA:O's biggest mechanical "cool thing?" AGE just feels like someone had their generic heartbreaker sitting around and someone yelled out "HEY WE GOT A LICENSE!" and they just stapled it on. It's so hilariously unfitting for the license. Even more hilariously, the engine that would fit Dragon Age, especially the later games? 4e.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 10:26
|
|