|
Bedlamdan posted:3E has it that attacking from medium range or longer requires a turn-long aim action and makes you susceptible to getting rushed down.. Yeah, Exalted 3e has a number of solutions to that, such as combat range being abstracted and trees like melee / brawl getting the ability to close quickly. Which is why I specifically mentioned 2e (which could get even exponentially worse once artifacts came into the mix). Antilles posted:Fantasy Craft's got pretty decent archer support, what with a decent base Fightyman class, good feat support (FC's got some pretty meaty feats in general, compared to 3.P), and the pretty decent 'Deadeye' Expert class bringing some long-range sniping shenanigans. Fantasy Craft is a great example of how to have a variety of weapon styles that are all fairly valid choices combined with mechanically distinctive weapons, even if it's somewhat antiquated in this post-4e world. Granted, my last fighting character in Fantasy Craft was a mercenary that specialized in no particular weapon, so you can do that, too.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Moriatti posted:This putts 4e and 2e on top. This is Rules Cyclopedia erasure and I won't stand for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:This is Rules Cyclopedia erasure and I won't stand for it. I feel like 2e gets too much credit in general hereabouts just as a backlash against 3e, I'm not sure it has any merits that really elevate it beyond basic competence in a modern context, compared to Gygax's scrawled-on-the-walls-of-a-room-style of 1e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:This is Rules Cyclopedia erasure and I won't stand for it. Just lol if you don't realize BECMI > Rules Cyclopedia. [/basicelitism]
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Granted, my last fighting character in Fantasy Craft was a mercenary that specialized in no particular weapon, so you can do that, too. Given that there is at least one class with floating per-adventure weapon feats, that is absolutely a 'valid' build.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:This is Rules Cyclopedia erasure and I won't stand for it. The Weapon Mastery benefits for bows really isn't anything to write home about, though BECMI/RC is of course good on the whole. Alien Rope Burn posted:I feel like 2e gets too much credit in general hereabouts just as a backlash against 3e, I'm not sure it has any merits that really elevate it beyond basic competence in a modern context, compared to Gygax's scrawled-on-the-walls-of-a-room-style of 1e. I have to agree. AD&D 2e was more readable and understandable than AD&D 1e, but still a lot worse than the Basic set and 3e. We just tend to give 3e short shrift because we know what the playability of the text leads to eventually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I will never understand the thought process that lead to THAC0 as long as I live
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I will never understand the thought process that lead to THAC0 as long as I live https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/thac0-origins-and-context/
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I will never understand the thought process that lead to THAC0 as long as I live When 3E came out and it didn't have THAC0, I could not understand how hitting people was supposed to work. That's how broke-brained I was, the simpler version just didn't make sense to me until I actually ran through a test combat. (After I finally figured it out, I said "Well, that's obviously better. Why wasn't it like this from the beginning?") That said, I disagree that 3E was better than 2E. I don't feel super strongly about it, and there's a lot more cruft to sift through with 2E, but as a game at the table it's a more satisfying experience from a player's perspective in both the short and the long term. Short term because a new 2E character is going to have almost as much customization as with 3rd, and long term because as horrible as the balance is in 2E, it's still better than in 3E. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
3e just had a better basic resolution system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I think 3e and 2e both have different and serious flaws, and which you favor depends a lot on what those flaws mean to you. I'd probably be more inclined to mess around with 3e just because I know I could make something interesting with a "curated campaign" and not just throwing the kitchen sink full of crunch in, but there are better ways to use my time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I feel like 2e gets too much credit in general hereabouts just as a backlash against 3e, I'm not sure it has any merits that really elevate it beyond basic competence in a modern context, compared to Gygax's scrawled-on-the-walls-of-a-room-style of 1e. God yes, absolutely. The real second-best edition of D&D is Basic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Antilles posted:Fantasy Craft's got pretty decent archer support, what with a decent base Fightyman class, good feat support (FC's got some pretty meaty feats in general, compared to 3.P), and the pretty decent 'Deadeye' Expert class bringing some long-range sniping shenanigans. Bows are disgustingly good. Soldier, relevant archery feats, and a quiver of bird arrows means you're forcing an obscene number of subdual damage saves per turn at range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:Bows are disgustingly good. Soldier, relevant archery feats, and a quiver of Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
It's always funny when non-lethal damage is the most lethal damage because the designers don't understand the abstraction level of their combat system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:This putts 4e and 2e on top. 2E archers could get downright unreasonable with specialization/mastery and kits like the (elf-only) Archer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Re: Basic, that is all good. Old school D&D making fighters into knights and lords is way cooler than 3.x's blocks of meat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:so list of games with cool archers: Bedlamdan posted:3E has it that attacking from medium range or longer requires a turn-long aim action and makes you susceptible to getting rushed down.. I hate 3.5e, but it did have a Prestige Class called the Cragtop Archer that came with an ability that allowed them to make a single attack (as a full-round action) against any target up to the maximum range of their weapon with no range penalty. It also had abilities that increased the maximum range to 15x the weapon's range increment (as opposed to the normal 10x) and also stacked with the Far Shot feat. It's not AMAZING (note that the full-round shot does not negate cover), but it is pretty cool to have an archer with the ability to hit something miles away with no penalty on the roll (that actually gets a minor bonus on the damage roll if you're at a higher elevation). Yes, you're still taking a full-round action. Yes, anything with damage reduction is a hard counter to this (only a single attack). However, it's very hard to get rushed down at that distance. Nevertheless, I feel that it's still an unfortunate byproduct of the '3.5e as a physics engine' school of design, however. LuiCypher fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:I hate 3.5e, but it did have a Prestige Class called the Cragtop Archer that came with an ability that allowed them to make a single attack (as a full-round action) against any target up to the maximum range of their weapon with no range penalty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
hyphz posted:"If you have been prone since the end of your last turn" means that you either voluntarily dropped prone, or had a turn in which you could have stood up but chose not to. And why would you do either if you get any penalty at all? Kai Tave posted:Also note how this feat has nothing to do with shooting while prone whatsoever. The idea behind it is really that it gives you +2 AC if you're lying on a cliff somewhere having a sniper duel with another character (since it's normally -4 and +4, instead of -2 and +6). It's still a poo poo feat but it's infinitely better than the original version which reduced a penalty that didn't exist. Also in Pathfinder, archers are probably the "best" way to play a martial character. Because of range you don't have to worry about not full attacking all the time, they made a version of Power Attack for range (Deadly Aim), there's a ranged only feat that pretty much lets you ignore DR (all of your attacks in a round against one target only apply DR to the total, rather than each shot), you get more attacks than melee does so you get your static damages more times, and there are even ways to threaten and take AoOs with a ranged weapon as well as avoiding provoking them yourself. They're still poo poo compared to what spellcasters can do, but way better in most situations than a martial who uses melee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Monte Cook had the germ of a good idea in one of the 3rd-party supplements he wrote where taking a martial feat included with it a thrice-per-day "boosted" version of the ability. b.b..but my verisimilitude!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
starkebn posted:b.b..but my verisimilitude! Have you never psyched yourself up all day to do something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
So I've had a chance to go over Unity. And... I like it. Enough that I'd like my group to try it. It has a lot of good stuff in it, and it's crazy close to the kind of game I think I'd write. Now, I have no idea how any of this works at the table. So this is all armchair observations. 0. The art is great and the layout is pretty clear. The rules are generally simple, but there are times you'll be referencing a table, during play, like dying or stabilizing an ally. 1. Races are relatively lightweight, similar to 4e but even moreso. They give starting stats (there's 4) and a single racial power. Stats are only slightly adjusted from there. Since the resolution is 2d10 I think every + is probably more important than it is in 4e. Max is +3 for any stat at the start. 2. But nicely enough, attacks and hp are based on whatever a class's main stat is. Defenses are not, however. 3. Classes all have a resource to manage. This powers their 'encounter' abilities. It's rechargeable in combat, and with rests. There are also dailies - termed overdrive abilities. 4. Classes all get a set of features, then a choice between two benefits, and finally abilities. Some of these are passive, some use a resource, and some are basically a daily. Abilities start at a basic level and can be upgraded instead of taking new ones at level up. They're sorted into two tiers - basically low level vs. high level. 5. Players have a pool of resources they accumulate for good, flavorful descriptions. The DM has a pool they gain when the players rest, or gently caress up the world somehow. This pool powers mean monster abilities, and can force, say, the invasion of a demonic horde. 6. Players roll all the dice. 7. There's optional rules for using a grid if you want. 
dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Have you never psyched yourself up all day to do something? Yes, and it made my failure all the more embarrassing. That's why in my games when you used Whirlwind Attack you also have to roll to see if you pee yourself in front of Becky Gunderson from 3rd period physics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:That said, I disagree that 3E was better than 2E. I don't feel super strongly about it, and there's a lot more cruft to sift through with 2E, but as a game at the table it's a more satisfying experience from a player's perspective in both the short and the long term. Short term because a new 2E character is going to have almost as much customization as with 3rd, and long term because as horrible as the balance is in 2E, it's still better than in 3E. Certainly it would be interesting to have an AD&D retroclone that migrated to ascending AC and 3e's basic resolution system, but preserved most everything else, even including rolling back the hit die and AC-scaling changes that stealth-nerfed Fighters in 3e. Like, Castles & Crusades didn't really end up emulating AD&D at all in this regard because the Fighter lacked Weapon Specialization, extra attacks, good saving throws, and all the other stuff that made them combat monsters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Couldn't a point feat system work if it was made like in uhh a lot of videogames that let you customize the poo poo out of your characters AND have point costs to buy crap?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Certainly it would be interesting to have an AD&D retroclone that migrated to ascending AC and 3e's basic resolution system, but preserved most everything else, even including rolling back the hit die and AC-scaling changes that stealth-nerfed Fighters in 3e. I'm pretty sure Dark Dungeon did this (though admittedly it's more a retroclone of BECMI than AD&D).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Couldn't a point feat system work if it was made like in uhh a lot of videogames that let you customize the poo poo out of your characters AND have point costs to buy crap? Would a feat system work better if you could take back your choices readily and freely? Yes. I'm a firm believer in being very liberal with take-backs in character progression choices. Remaking your character should be as easy as it currently is in WoW or Diablo 3. Would a point-cost to feats help? Kinda-sorta? If you could have a basic frame of reference to how strong a "1-point feat" should be, and rejiggered everything to abide by that, then it would help, but the bigger problem with feats is that there's no frame of reference to what they should do to begin with. If they were all "combat bonuses", then sure. But they're also skill bonuses, and fluff/flavor/lore bonuses, and that dilutes the concept to the point where the point-values start to become within orders of magnitude in utility. I think the big takeaway from video games is that these sorts of customization choices should instead take their cues from DOTA 2 / Heroes of the Storm, where you only ever have to make a choice between two to four different-and-mutually-exclusive abilities. It prevents analysis paralysis, allows each individual effect to be much more powerful, and prevents degenerate stacking of similar effects. D&D 4e mostly got this right as far as only having two to three different Powers to choose from when you gained them at a given level, but it still had wide-open feat selections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Couldn't a point feat system work if it was made like in uhh a lot of videogames that let you customize the poo poo out of your characters AND have point costs to buy crap? I mean it's not like there aren't plenty of video games full of imbalanced options and trap choices too. It's never really been a matter of "you can't make a point-based feat system, you idiot, you fool" so much as the specific system pulled out of Sean K. Reynolds' rear end is really fuckin bad. Anything can work if you have actual decent designers behind it. e; but to go with what gradenko is, as usual, very astutely putting, good design is often helped along by making better underlying frameworks to build the rest of a system atop of than 3.X's specific iteration of discrete customization options all thrown into a blender and attempting to balance Skill Focus against Natural Spell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So I've had a chance to go over Unity. And... I like it. Enough that I'd like my group to try it. It has a lot of good stuff in it, and it's crazy close to the kind of game I think I'd write. Sounds great! Please keep sharing your thoughts as you read and play it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Yes, and it made my failure all the more embarrassing. That's why in my games when you used Whirlwind Attack you also have to roll to see if you pee yourself in front of Becky Gunderson from 3rd period physics. do i get to pee myself on the 1 or the 20
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
is Unity actually out? like to buy with money?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:is Unity actually out? like to buy with money? No, it's on a 0.9 pre-release to KS backers as they solicit last-minute playtest feedback/proofreading for errors and try to sort out some issues with the layout, after which it'll be going to full-fledged release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:1. Races are relatively lightweight, similar to 4e but even moreso. They give starting stats (there's 4) and a single racial power. Stats are only slightly adjusted from there. Since the resolution is 2d10 I think every + is probably more important than it is in 4e. Max is +3 for any stat at the start. Is there mechanical fail forward support outside the individual powers, in or out of combat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I mean it's not like there aren't plenty of video games full of imbalanced options and trap choices too. It's never really been a matter of "you can't make a point-based feat system, you idiot, you fool" so much as the specific system pulled out of Sean K. Reynolds' rear end is really fuckin bad. Anything can work if you have actual decent designers behind it. That reminds me, again, of Fantasy Craft. The creators have spoken several times about how their design mantra was to create a mechanically sound, balanced and fun system. Now, you could argue how well they managed to land those points, but for me it's one of the best 3.P-ish type systems. To bring it back to the discussion at hand, their focus on balance meant that there are clear rules for how things are built. Species/character creation are strict point-buy where they're packages of benefits (and occasional drawbacks) where each item costs a certain number of points, and every 'package' has the same number of points. Classes are basically built the same way, where high/low numbers(saves/bab/etc) costs points and every class gets the same amount of points, while levels follow a set skeleton (levels A/B give a feat (or equivalent), C/D give a feat + related benefit, E/F/G give an increasingly powerful ability like uncanny dodge, H/I pick from a list of options, etc). Even with all that work they admitted that feats were, at best, 50% art 50% science. Even with how well-structured the game was, they still couldn't design feats following a formula alone, they had to eyeball it using older feats as a measuring stick. If your game is 100% focused on a single aspect, like combat, and if you reduce everything down to raw numbers and uncomplicated maths you might be able to just crunch the numbers and get something workable, but as soon as you start comparing apples vs oranges? How do you put a point value on "doesn't need sleep" and "cannot be poisoned" and expect them to be equally valuable in every circumstance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Is there a lifetime cap or some other method of avoiding 4e's put your asi's anywhere as long as it's in your to-hit stat issue? I submitted feedback about exactly this last night. You get 5 increases over 10 levels. The obvious best choice will always be your attack stat. I am hoping I missed something. quote:Is there mechanical fail forward support outside the individual powers, in or out of combat? Out of combat it resembles 4e and 13A. "Core Paths" are background-as-skills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I submitted feedback about exactly this last night. You get 5 increases over 10 levels. The obvious best choice will always be your attack stat. I am hoping I missed something. Do monster defences etc. seem formula-scaled or a winging it situation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Are the ability scores raw numbers or a 3.x+ style derived modifier? What formats are the statups in? Ability scores are just a modifier. Race gives you a base, you distribute one of two arrays on the base.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Hypnobeard posted:Ability scores are just a modifier. Race gives you a base, you distribute one of two arrays on the base. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Thanks to you both btw
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 15:40
|
|