+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: General Chatter (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Well, I've Got It (/showthread.php?tid=9274)
Pages:
1
2
- NotDavies - 06-25-2008
I maintain that basic healing potions -- potions of healing or potions of cure light wounds -- while they became less useful at certain points, never became as
useless as they are after 5th level in this edition. I don't recall, off hand, how many hit points would be regained after a rest in 2nd edition and
earlier, but in 3rd edition, after a full night's rest, you only got back 1hp for every level you'd achieved. After 9th level, then, you could get back
as many hit points as you would with the maximum effect of a potion of cure light wounds -- if you got a good night's sleep. But you most certainly
couldn't get that amount back by taking a breather.
In any event, I have to admit that 4e is growing on me, slowly. But it's never going to be the sheer love that I felt (and still feel) for 3e and
its derivatives (like d20 Modern and M&M). Maybe it's just as simple as the fact that I'm getting old.
But why do I have to feel that way at thirty-three?
Chris Davies.
(Doesn't feel, happily, as old as the cookbook routine is getting ...)
- Epsilon - 06-25-2008
I hate healing potions and thus the idea that they are useless in D&D 4E makes me happy.
---------------
Epsilon
- Sirrocco - 06-26-2008
re int vs dex on reflexes: I get the basic theory. I personally think it's more in line with Wisdom (as it is now the perception-oriented stat, letting
you notice the incoming danger) (and Int as a Will defense stat is at *least* as justifiable as the current version of Wis.). It's the bit where a
moderately athletic genius has exactly the same chance to avoid the blast as one who regularly trips over his own shoelaces. *That's* what kinda gets me.
Likewise with the AC. From personal experience, I can tell you that book smarts aren't nearly as helpful in a fistfight as this book makes them out to be.
...but that's not the point. 4th ed is about balance and playability, not realism. If I want realism, I get to put it in myself... and if you enjoy 3rd,
by all means play it. 4th is certainly not for everyone.
Oh, and natural healing in 2nd and earlier was worse. I think full bed rest with a competent herbalism-trained healer got you something like 3 or 4 HP per
day. Those were the days when you made sure that the healer wasn't carrying the healing potions - because if he was and he fell off a cliff, the party was
severely horked.
-----------------
*starts to put together another cookbook joke, gets yoinked off the stage by a long, hooked pole*
Okay, yep. It's official. The routine was getting old.
- NotDavies - 06-26-2008
I personally think it's more in line with Wisdom (as it is now the perception-oriented stat, letting you notice the
incoming danger) (and Int as a Will defense stat is at *least* as justifiable as the current version of Wis.).
So houserule it.
Chris Davies.
- Sirrocco - 06-27-2008
Indeed. It is, as I mentioned, one of the many things I'll be houseruling if I ever run a game.
- Necratoid - 06-29-2008
Quote: Indeed. It is, as I mentioned, one of the many things I'll be houseruling if I ever run a game.There in lies the problem... you need to house rules frequently right off the bat. The system is somewhat badly designed from the descriptions
your giving us. The system is apparently riddled with nonsense assignment of stats to skills and abilities. So, to me anyway, this means zombies, skeletons,
and your average ooze don't get an intelligence score. Also, your average animals starts off with a major negative just for the crime of existence....
considering that this is a problem with one of your basic root secondary stats I find this a ridiculous problem.
I don't care about the half dragons... because they had this thing in the 3e called templates.... one of which was a half dragon. I've played a
(mutant chaos rolled abilities) half dragon and as long as the DM doesn't nerf the enemies and treats you as 2 or three levels higher the system still
works just fine. ECL (Estimated Character Level) was a good thing... and if the modifier was too low you upped it by +1 level till it worked.
My problem comes in with the single worst RPG book I've ever read, The 'Advanced' Psionic handbook. It was 'Advanced' it the same way as
memory is 'advanced' by Alzheimer's. In the Psionic's Handbook all six ability scores mattered and your dump stat(s) could screw over your
character... it was a class where that every four levels stat boost is not actually a no brainer. Each ability score had its own specialization path. You got
logical exclusions and inclusions of your pickable limited manfestations... it was a class where the DM testest your ability to do basic math before allowing
you to play one.
The 'Advanced' Psionics handbook decided that was stupid and too thinky or something... so it eliminated those nasty, mean evil thinky bits. First,
intelligence is the caster stat they use reguardless of path. Then we double the power points across the board by level 3 and it get higher multiples later.
The we make teleport with error (5th level) a psycho portationist only skill (previously the based dex) and Teleport without error (7th) a generalist skill.
Then all teleportation damage menefestations (spells) are scalable.
By scalable I mean instead of disapating touch (1st level add +1d8 teleportation damage to a touch attack) to (level)d6 on a touch attack... or as I call it
Fist of the North Star. They did the same for the menfestation Baleful teleport (5th level 9d6 teleportation damage at range) to (level)d6 at range... both
are general skills. Which makes no sense, unless... the idea behind this to have a chacter with super sayjin power reserves and Fist of the North Star at
first level.
So my problem is that in order to 'balance' a class it was made insanely stupid for a DM to allow into a campaign. Also it nerfed the other base class
in the book Psionic warrior.... for instance the 3-4 prerequisite feats Deep impact (spend 5 power points to turn a melee attack into a touch attack, this
could be used for each melee attack in a round... which ate power points like candy.) into a infinitely repeatable stare blankly into space for a round... make
one melee attack as a touch attack... repeat this 1 attack every two rounds attack until the party kills the thing your drooling mindlessly at.
As for the can only be healed X times per day thing... I can't think of a DM I've played with that wouldn't happily spam the frequently accessed
random encounter table with undead that drained those times per day heals off. Or made spells and weapons that drain them... or made a healing field cloud
spell that forced people to use a heal charge every round to heal 1 hp while they were camping and then attacked. Seriously... if your characters are in your
opinion being munchkins use harder mobs on them and have them hit constant smaller battles to bleed off resources. That or my favorite... give them a Deck of
Many Things to deal with... but introduce it with a random guy walking up behind them and asking them to pick a number between on and a hundred. Who ever
answers draws that many cards.
I find there is a great deal of difference between different and botting my player characters... excluding FFX1 all Final Fantasy games (minus ffX and FFX2)
are different... but only FF12 lets you steer a cluster of botted PCs around. Some people loved FF12 others hated it. My problem come up when My tank spends
10 seconds out of 12 staring off into space and this is considered a good idea, that requires feats.
mrrf? - Sirrocco - 06-30-2008
Okay, Necra? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Speaking of 4th ed, you don't *need* to house rule things at all. Straight out of
the box, it functions as an excellent sit-down-and-play game. My only real issue is that they've optimized quite strongly in favor of balance as opposed
to realism. I'm personally pretty fond of realism and structural underpinnings in my games, so I'd feel the need to houserule a fair bit - but I'm
at this point planning on playing a game that most likely won't be houseruled at all, and I'm expecting to rather enjoy it.
Slimes/skeletons/etc don't have int scores in 4th ed because monsters in 4th ed are *vastly* simplified, and don't actually have basic stats. They
have attacks (generally between about one and three different attacks, generally one attack each round), hp, the 4 defenses (AC, reflex, will, fortitude) and
maybe one or two special rules. The fact that skeletons are mindless doesn't really come into it, except perhaps as an immunity to certain kinds of
psychic attack.
As for healing breaths - well, the healing cloud technique wouldn't actually work (except by DM fiat) because healing spells as written only give you the
*option* to use a healing breath - they don't compel you. I don't believe the random encounter table sees as much use these days, and a power to steal
healing breaths would be a very strong one indeed (and if the DM was being fair, the encounter would be considered appropriately). Beyond that, if the DM
decides that his goal in life is to make you unhappy, there's not much you can do about it other than find another game. I could see playing in a game
that occasionally switched things up by throwing in stuff like breath-stealers, but not one that made "torment the players" into a staple, as it
seems you are implying.
- CrimsonKMR - 06-30-2008
In last weeks session I was running, I was using Dire Rats and Wererats. Both of them have a bite attack which gives the target Filth Fever. The first thing it
does is it removes a healing surge. Boom. These are level 1 PCs
![[Image: wink.gif]](http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/wink.gif)
They haven't seen what ELSE it does!
Bwahahahahaha (at Foxboy in particular)
There is no coincidence, only necessity....
- Clow Reed
I Surrender. - NotDavies - 07-08-2008
Having finally taken a look at the 4e content of the new Dragon, I am forced to admit that they have managed to win me over. Not by mechanics, but by sheer
deftness of storyweaving. By taking what was best about Eberron and weaving it into a much more traditional world. By not turning the game into
"kids stuff".
For good or ill, I embrace 4e.
Go ahead, say it. "I'll alert the media."
Chris Davies.
- Necratoid - 07-09-2008
My general point is that the writers of DnD books are making them simpler and simpler to the point of FF12... you have to think less and less about what
your doing to the point the character plays itself. Which means the only reason to play is for the character interaction. Which is going to be done the same
regardless of what is going on with the dice (minus the basic effects of the roles themselves). So if your excuse for making it flat stats for everyone is
that it with be more social them a game with more complicated rolling... you failed. Players will be pretty much the same level of RPing regardless of the
system itself. So the point of the 4e system is so everyone moves faster in their game... but less stuff is going on in the first place.
Then I here about this abomination of a monster manual... which apparently means they can write each monster in 12 seconds and call it a day. They took away a
whole lot of character development (not backstory)... everyone has more hit points (3x for fighters and 5x for spellcastters, much like the 2+x multiplier on
power point for the math impaired... as you can't use that many power point realistically in the first place minus soloing a fortress or battles that lasts
an hour game time)... but they end up pretty much cookie cutter characters. This means when a character dies they can just cut and paste the old character
sheet verbatum and rename the grunt.
My problem is the set the thing up so you have to think less and less about what your doing and more and more about speed of play.... Its a sadly lacking world
when this happens. Sure, you can write however much gold you want on backstory... but when the it comes to the real meat of the game combat and conflict (you
don't actually have to kill anything to level)... they give you a tofu burger. If I want mindless hack and slash I can play Hack Master. Roll percentage,
check the results table.
Yes, 3e had issues... Rangers sucked (3.5 mostly fixed that and those favored enemy bonus items helped)... and magic item creation would make most first hand
stores unable to produce more product in 2 or 3 years. The item creators would delevel themselves making stuff. I figure that bartering for merchants grants
them exp for 'defeating' what ever level the customer is and you get more or less exp depending on how much you overcharged the over cost. That and
spot and hide are so malbalanced in hides favor that its ridiculous.
----
As for the healing cloud of doom? What kind of idiot makes a spell like that and doesn't at least make the people in the cloud make a will save to resist
each round? Sure its a higher level that one they can choice to use or not... but unless they also killed off negative/positive energy you should be able to
just use the inflict spells and a cloudkill or fireball style template to pull this off. I know you can't just crossclass with cleric and make a prestige
class... but there should be a feat or something that lets you switch out the elemental tag for a positive/negative energ tag. Again, if negative energy
bothers to exist negative energy should easily allow for offing healing surges.
Yes, as a player I do enjoy having characters I can actually customize a character to the point the DM has to stop and think about the effects of what a player
just did. I don't enjoy hearing that what won a person over was the backstory which I sure can just be slapped onto a 3e edition shell. Which is the
problem... we are arguing over the program shell and not the backstory icing.
If I liked icing over actually content I'd have bought the Pokemon CCG after giving up on Spellfire. Not that I bought either, but Pokemon literally
bought the Spellfire system and slapped Pokemon images over it. If I liked icing over actually game content, I buy every game for every movie I ever liked
based on that it was related to the movie rather than looking at how much 90% of them suck.
If the backstory writing is gold... awesum... I may decide to pick up the novels... I'm more concerned that them lackluster game engine is going to cost me
a hundred dollars to get into. I've bought random 3e books for the entertainment of reading the books. 3.5e books grated on me when they gave
'balance' changes that either made things DBZ like or abilities became utterly useless. When magic item creation made basic skill boost items too
expensive to ever actually buy or make for 1/3-1/2 the bonus I cringed.
In short, I can put up the nicest looking, highest quality wallpaper in the world up inside a waterlogged, moldy, half dissolved cardboard box... its still a a
waterlogged, moldy, half dissolved cardboard box and the wallpaper would have been better used inside a nice apartment.
- WengFook - 07-10-2008
Quote: Necratoid wrote:
My general point is that the writers of DnD books are making them simpler and simpler to the point of FF12... you have to think less and less about what
your doing to the point the character plays itself. Which means the only reason to play is for the character interaction. Which is going to be done the same
regardless of what is going on with the dice (minus the basic effects of the roles themselves). So if your excuse for making it flat stats for everyone is
that it with be more social them a game with more complicated rolling... you failed. Players will be pretty much the same level of RPing regardless of the
system itself. So the point of the 4e system is so everyone moves faster in their game... but less stuff is going on in the first place.
*gets on the soapbox, apologizes for the interruption*
I can understand what Necratoid is saying about making cookie-cutter characters that are carbon copies of their previous incarnations that play practically
play themselves without player input. But I would disagree that thats is what is happening in 4th ed.
First, regarding extreme balancing in the game, I think that what the dev's were aiming for, is a game that involves each player at the table, rather
than letting the one or two players who have calculated all the advantages and has the correct response in every situation, dominate everything leaving the
other players to just coast through the game. In other words, leveled the playing field so that everyone can do something.
Also a point that has been already mentioned but I feel is worth mentioning again is that since it has been balanced it is very newbie friendly. While
providing some wriggle room in min maxing your character the average joe who wants to try out this D&D thing can make a character with minimum errors that
can contribute to the game even without RP'ing. Sure yes, it can result in a sort of carbon copy of what a more veteran player at the same table is doing
but then it comes down to how they decide to roleplay their characters to make distinctions between them. And if a player's character is killed and the GM
is allowing him to slap on the old stats and skills onto the new character verbatim, then the GM needs a slap up the head for allowing the player to use a
meat-plug character.
As for doing less and less. I don't see it at all. Its the same things we've been doing all along except with a different format. What does 3.5 have
on the battle grid that 4.0 doesn't do? I think what 4.0 has actually done is cleaned up a lot of clunky rules that were obstacles to fun in 3.5 which
caused a lot of book checking and so forth. Getting rid of that speeds up the game, but doesn't actually mean the players are doing less. They're doing
the same, only more efficiently which is a plus.
Gutting the forgotten realms setting is not a bad thing. Seriously stop thinking of it as a bad thing, think of it as giving old and new GM's space
to make up their own stories or developments according to the new fluff. All in all this argument over gutting the setting is like a pair of old comfortable
shoes that have big holes in the soles. Sure yes its comfortable but its also time to get some new shoes. In any case its just a matter of setting. I you
don't like it. then make up your own or play in the old setting, but bear in mind that it is well known and all the paths have been trod before, leaving
the GM with the headache of trying to find something new to do in well established and fixed storyline.
_________________________________
Take Your Candle, Go Light Your World.
- Sirrocco - 07-11-2008
..and I'd have to concur. (...not that anyone's shocked, by this point.) The fact is, from a tactical standpoint, the game is actually *more*
interesting than 3.x. In 3.x, you generally wound up with characters who were optimized to do a certain thing, or perhaps had a small number of tactical
options. It's true, you had a huge wealth of strategic options open to you, in terms of what feats you took and what prestige classes you chose, but once
you'd done that, pretty much everyone who wasn't a primary spellcaster would wind up with a relatively small number of Things They Can Do, and a few
situations in which the Things They Can Do would get better. The character sheets were sure interesting, but once you had a given character, you pretty much
knew what you were going to be doing in any given combat. (Yes, exceptions did exist, but it is *certainly* the case that there were a large number of builds
at any given level of optimization that fell prey to this.) The interesting thing about 4th ed (having dug into it a bit more) is that the levels and kinds of
character ability are quite similar, but the optimal tactics are very different. You can take a fighter and pretend to be a two-weapon ranger with him, and
he'll do okay, but if you're playing him optimally, he plays very differently. The three pacts of warlock have *very* similar abilities - you could
actually totally ignore the various pact advantages and still do decently well as a warlock - but when designed and played to work with their strengths, they
wind up very different indeed. The faelock is constantly teleporting and messing with his enemies' minds, the starlock is constantly bringing the debuffs
while he waits for the stars to be right for his most powerful attacks, and the infernalock is just standing and delivering - bringing the damage while he
ignores attempts to damage him. The hexhammer gish (an interesting warlock/fighter multiclass) is another option still, piling even more raw damage-taking
ability on the traditional infernalock while regularly knocking his foes down and dealing out significant amounts of damage even on a miss.
...and that's not even taking into account the questions of when to spend your encounter powers, whether to spend your dailies, and whether/how to spend
your action points and item dailies - and since a number of these go beyond the current encounter into "how much farther do we want to push on today, and
how bad is it likely to be?"....
perhaps the confusion is that the tactical skill curve in 4th starts reasonably far above zero, but doesn't cap quickly. Even a mediocre-to-poor player
can do okay in combat. If you can teach him a few basic tricks, and some basic rules of thumb on how to use his class with reasonable effectiveness, he can
contribute reasonably well, at any level up through 30. Someone who's really good at it can squeak out points of advantage in a dozen different places -
synergies between feats, paragon classes, equipment, and tactics that wind up with their character being noticeably more effective, but even so, they won't
be overpoweringly so - certainly not like the 3.x games. Tricks like choosing exactly which stats to take so you can get certain feats at certain levels can
eke out a few more points of damage here, and another point or two of ac there, but they're not game-defining in the same way. Tuning and optimizing are
possible, enjoyable, and useful, but no longer as overwhelmingly *vital* as they might have been at one point.
--------------------
Bah. "Try the cake. You should try the cake. No really, it's good cake. It is. I promise. You'll like it if you try it." I feel like
an evangelist.
It is good cake, though.
- ECSNorway - 07-14-2008
The thing I don't like about both 3.x and 4.x is that they reward specialization significantly more than they do generalization.
And they do this by making it impossible to create a viable generalist.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Really? - Sirrocco - 07-21-2008
In 3.x? A lot of the stronger character builds on the optimization boards were gishes (ie, melee/magic crossbreeds). Racking it down a level or three, the
Binder was an excellent generalist right out of the box, that you could play perfectly well for 20 levels. I'm sure there were others, but those are the
ones that spring to mind.
In 4.x - well, if you go by defender/controller/leader/striker, most of the kinds of characters you can build are at least a bit crossbreed, and all are viable
- and you can make little adjustments all over the place that will, for example, let your fighter either take control of the battlespace a bit more
(controller) or deal out more raw damage (striker). There are fully functional multiclasses, and, in fact, anyone who wants to even pick up a random skill
beyond what their class can give them is probably better off multiclassing for it. There are a number of multiclass combinations that are challenging to go
into deeply because of stat mismatch, but, again, many of the more broken builds involve multiclassing at least some.
...am I missing your meaning?