Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Complete4th

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
General D&D Discussion / Re: What is the "lamest" Epic Destiny?
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:33:58 PM »
Lol, I suppose from the player/narrative PoV, the Dread Pirate Roberts kind of cheat-death ability is cool.

But from an individual character's PoV, being one of many look-alikes hasn't got nothin' on having an actual supernatural cheat-death ability. ;)

2
Yup, h4ters gonna hate. :rolleyes

3
General D&D Discussion / Re: What is the "lamest" Epic Destiny?
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:37:50 PM »
I remember some ED from Dark Sun. Its "When you die..." ability doesn't actually save the character; instead, some follower who just happens to have said character's traits/abilities/knowledge/etc. steps in to take the dead character's place. I thought that's pretty lame.

4
What do you want reviewed?

I'd suggest posting this in 4enclave; you'll probably get a bite or two. And/or any other forum not so heavily focussed on 3.x; RPGnet, WotC, etc..

5
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: June 04, 2014, 07:09:21 PM »
To be honest, I didn't pay attention to the 3e errata, mostly because I didn't even know it existed for many years. And I certainly don't follow PF errata. So my opinion of errata is pretty much based on 4e's errata. 4e had the occasional unnecessary errata, like when magic missile was changed from an attack roll for moderate damage to an auto-hit for piddle damage. But for the most part, 4e errata is useful: it does things like fix typos and keyword omissions, or it nerfs OP options. It seems like a lot, but the errata that affects any given player is rarely notable. I think fans have a tendency to look at the massive errata doc, imagine it applying to just the core 3 or whatever, and think Why no quality control too much errata! But in reality the ratio of errata to words printed is small, and easy to implement even without digital aid. (Which is why I brought up house rules.) So obviously, my opinion of errata is high.

But in a general sense, I can see the concern that errata does as much harm as good, what with most fans (and some devs) having a poor grasp of balance.

I guess we just have fundamentally different views on errata. You see it as more suspect than house rules, but the only difference I see is who writes down the rule change. My 3.x house rules doc was actually 30+ pages, because there's just so much about the system that doesn't work the way we wanted it to. Some of it was stuff that didn't really need to be written down, like 'no alignment or multiclassing restrictions,' but much of it was stuff like innate bonus rules and spell tweaks.

6
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: June 03, 2014, 11:08:16 AM »
My other problem with heavy errata is the reactive nature of it.  People don't go online and through fits about a feat or power being underpowered and weak (if it's something big, like a whole class, they will), but they *will* go into full-out rage about something that's ridiculously powerful, or even seems as such even when it's not (recall the negative reaction the 3E Warlock class got initially?).  So "errata" ends up being almost entirely nerfs, and since a lot of fans don't s**t and the ignorant ones are more numerous and capable of barking just as loud s anyone else...it will often tend to also nerf stuff that was just fine, making the product worse.
Stepping away from 4E, I think this is a really good point.  If memory serves, we've seen a bit of this with Pathfinder, too.  There seems to be a tendency towards "correction" in the form of nerfing.  This is just a gut feeling, i.e., not scientific, but it's my sense of things.  And, it makes character creation kind of a perverse process.
I don't think it's just you; I think that nerf fixes are much more common than buff fixes. And with an edition like 3.x that lacks clear benchmarks for power level, it can end up as StreamOfSky describes. With 4e though, it mostly just means that truly OP stuff gets nerfed and UP stuff sadly stays UP.

Also, extensive errata is just bad for an RPG.  The theory is that you'll be playing this character for a while.  That's kind of the point for a game like D&D that has really robust advancement rules.  The idea that various parts of your character, or anticipated parts of your build, will be turned "off" at any point is very bad.  And, that's not even taking into account how hard it is to implement at a table with physical books.
You would think so, but I haven't found this to be the case. I've implemented errata in the form of house rules during both my 3.x and 4e careers, both nerfs and buffs. And while sometimes a really build-focussed player will get mopey that I don't let him abuse some spell or combo that he's found, he always gets over it. And most players are mature enough to understand the benefit of errata -- official, or house ruled. (And official errata is even easier to implement.)

I'm curious about others' opinions though -- when someone in your group finds that an option is seriously OP or UP via game play, what is your ideal solution? Like if a player finds out how utterly lame a class or feat or whatever is during play, but really wants to keep playing it despite his frustration, what's your ideal solution? Or if someone in your group starts abusing a spell or combo or whatever, and refuses to stop because he doesn't see it as abuse, what's your ideal solution? Assume that both problems can be fixed with a relatively simple buff or nerf.

7
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: June 03, 2014, 10:22:29 AM »
That way it'd hurt BADLY in their pockets, and they wouldn't release s*** without playtesting the HELL out of it to make sure the rules all play alongside eachother as smoothly as possible.
...Or the company could just do however much (or little) play testing it wanted, release a game full of bugs, and then ignore them and/or claim "Er, yeah, that's the way the game is supposed to work!" As was often the case before 4e's errata ethic.

Depends on how important the balance/buglessness is to the core concept of the game. If I recall correctly, it was one of 4E's main selling points, so of course it gets a lot more flak than other editions when said balance isn't as good as advertised. I haven't been following the hype with 5th edition, but what I have seen of it didn't seem to emphasize a tightly balanced ruleset nearly as much as 4th did.
Good point. 4e certainly does get a lot of shit thrown its way due to imbalances that would be virtually unnoticeable in any other edition. Take the 'math hole' issue -- other editions have math that's ten times wonkier, but because they don't specify "PCs should be hitting monsters with about half of their attacks," a lot of gamers act like 4e is the only one with a math problem.

8
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: June 01, 2014, 12:47:31 AM »
4E's mountain of errata was just plain embarassing.
I wouldn't go that far.

Sure, in a perfect world there'd be no need for errata, and in the best possible real world, there'd be little need for errata after extensive play testing. But when mistakes are made, I think it really shows concern and respect for the game and the fan base when a game company fixes them. Those DMs who find errata annoying can simply ignore it.

That way it'd hurt BADLY in their pockets, and they wouldn't release s*** without playtesting the HELL out of it to make sure the rules all play alongside eachother as smoothly as possible.
...Or the company could just do however much (or little) play testing it wanted, release a game full of bugs, and then ignore them and/or claim "Er, yeah, that's the way the game is supposed to work!" As was often the case before 4e's errata ethic.

9
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: May 30, 2014, 09:13:13 AM »
Yeah the feat tax are a boneheaded solution to a simple problem, and were one of the reasons I originally decided that I could do better than the character builder. Whether I did or not is up for debate, but it was an enlightening exercise.  :D

10
If you want something like that in 3.5, use the Defense Bonus variant.
Yes, I was using something like this during my 3.x career, except it didn't largely obsolete armor.

@Complete4th
You're not making sense.  You're arguing 2 contradictory sides of the argument at the same time.
That may be because I wasn't originally debating anything; I was merely commenting on Flaming Cow's experience that 'hit points = dodge/luck points' advocates tend to be either 4e gamers or 3e gamers copying 4e gamers. Which seems odd to me, as hit points have been a combination of many things since the game's very beginning.

How does 4E both emphasize the abstract nature of hit points and then separate out into a separate mechanic (level based defense bonuses) the stuff that would make them abstract.?  As you noted, they are purely "meat points" in 4E, or at least a lot more so.
My bad, it might have been more accurate to write '4e treats hit points abstractly like every other edition, with a default assumption of hit points as luck/fatigue.' I myself prefer a 'hit points = protective energy points' interpretation, but the 4e text quite often takes a dramatic interpretation of hit points. The standard PC healing power is called Second Wind, warlords inspire hit points up, etc. Of course there are still things that heavily imply a meat point interpretation, like Con affecting hit points and clerics healing hit points up; but more than other editions, the 4e text paints a cinematic picture. There's even an article somewhere on the Wizards site that responds to the fan question of "How do I interpret hit point loss by default?" The article's response is "Until the damage is actually healed, assume that a warlord could restore the lost hit points" -- in other words, assume that the damaged character is tired, discouraged, bruised, or whatever.

Again, not my personal take on hit points, but there it is.

Ok, cool.  But, then how do you make sense of a Healing Surge or something like that?  That is, a fairly mundane "I have a bunch more meat points now" effect.  So, they have to be abstract, and represent something other than meat points.  In that case, they are pretty much the same as 3E.  I have no interest in perpetual edition wars, but that was the comparison you wanted to draw.
I agree that hit points haven't changed all that much since the 70s. They've been abstract, inconsistent, gamist, and controversial since the start, and they still are. I see a noteworthy difference between 4e hit points and hit points in other e's due to its level-based AC bonuses and healing surges, but ya, it ain't worth edition raging about.

Oh, and stats increase as you level, so the dichotomy you want to draw with regards to Dex isn't as strong as you're arguing.
Erm, you mean the +1 per four levels 3.x ability boost that PCs can use to boost Dex? That's hardly convincing as a skill-based contribution to sword-dodging. Maybe it's just me, but I find it horribly disruptive to suspension of disbelief when a nude 20th level warrior-type is by default no more likely to dodge a sword attack than his younger 1st level self.

11
But still, where is skill-based dodgitude represented in 3e (and earlier e's) if not in hit points?
Dexterity bonus to AC, Dodge bonus to AC, and reflex saves. Plenty of skill-based dodgitude is available.
And yet there's no standard "I get better at dodging/parrying swords" stat or bonus, other than hit points. "I get better at dodging fireballs" has its own distinct representation (reflex saves), but aside from a few insignificant/finicky/costly dodge bonuses that you the player have to go out of your way to obtain, hit points are the only representation of "I get better at sword-dodging." Clunky and cognitively dissonant? Yes; but there it is.

Dex is a talent rather than a skill, so it's not relevant to skill-based dodgitude. It is, in fact, the very definition of talent-based dodgitude.

The explanation of hit points is plenty coherent, it only becomes incoherent once people put their own notions of what Hit Points are instead of what the rules represent.
Coherent as purely meat points or purely luck/dodginess/providence? Outside of 4e?  :???

12
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: May 29, 2014, 12:56:40 PM »
Fast forward to just this last week.  Mike Mearls has gone public with a semi-official implied Apology for how badly 4e Core needed fixing.  That's right from the TOP ... the big cheese.

Personally I'm medium surprised they even acknowledged it.  And I appreciate it very much.  I played and play both games.
If you're talking about what I think you are -- Mearls' explanation for 5e's lengthy core release schedule -- I think his implied 'apology' is somewhat dampened by being a slimy PR move. I'm sure that Mearls is concerned about quality control, in a selective kind of way. But if quality control were the primary concern, he could ensure that much more of it by releasing the core 3 in December.

Instead, 5e hopefuls are getting their next edition in bits and pieces and starter sets at a time because Oh Noes Free Errata is Such a Burden for You!  :rolleyes

Now-a-days, the various fixes for 4e are hidden behind multitudes of paywalls.  That isn't cool.  What do you consider "backpedaling"?  Fixing but Hiding pay-for-errata ??
Are you referring to feat taxes?

...'Cause most 4e fixes are in the form of free errata, no?

13
General D&D Discussion / Re: Boy, does 4e SUCK...!
« on: May 29, 2014, 12:30:19 PM »
Even WotC wants to disbelieve any progress they made with 4e and are desperately, fervently backpedaling.

So sad, so sad.

--Dither

Disregarding all of that seems too reactionary.
Indeed! I suspect history will prove that WotC's habit of overreacting to the problems and perceptions of previous editions -- whether we're talking 3e or 4e -- isn't so much a belief that the previous edition was terribad, but simply WotC's modus operandi: Tear everything down from last edition, and build it anew! Individual fans and even devs might think that the last edition sucked, but if so I think that's the result of WotC's unfortunate corporate environment.

14
From most people I've talked to that support the "hit points are dodge / fatigue points" idea, it was to justify some odd ways of re-gaining hit points, especially in 4e. I do not know if it was only a 4e issue, but it my experience it tends to be that way, and the people who apply it to 3rd are copying ideas from 4e debates.
Weird, I've never gotten this sense from gamer discussions. 4e emphasizes the abstract nature of hit points, but because AC in other editions lacks a skill-based component, hit points have to represent skill-based dodgitude...at least in part. Unless one prefers to imagine that warrior-types are just standing in place stabbing each other until one of them falls over.

On a personal note, I think that 'hit points = meat points' is easier to justify in 4e than in other editions for this very reason.

Hit points became more difficult to explain as pure dodgitude / fatigue in 2000, when official damage values were attached to things like lava immersion. Before 3e, the DM was expected to adjudicate these kind of hazards as instant-death scenarios: you fall in the lava, you die. An assassin slips past the PC on watch and stabs you in your sleep, you die. (Your party should have been more careful!) But still, where is skill-based dodgitude represented in 3e (and earlier e's) if not in hit points?

That said, there are all kinds of things that frame hit points as meat points (healing spells, reflex save vs. fireball). So trying to come up with a coherent explanation of hit points is like trying to coherently explain religious mythology: there are just too many inconsistencies to make it all work out, so it's best not to think about it too hard and just go with it.

15
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: September 14, 2013, 03:05:42 PM »
What's the alternative change that players implement?

16
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: September 13, 2013, 06:30:38 PM »
On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!
Just about everyone and their brother tried that as a house rule in 3.0.  If there was a more common house rule in that era, it was no Favored Class.   :tongue  3.0 DR was so bad, that that fix was obvious to everyone.  So of course, 3.5 decided it was a pinin' for the golf bag.
And I thought I had found a diamond in the rough.  :tongue

Now I'm curious why it didn't stick with many groups?

17
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: September 10, 2013, 10:33:59 AM »
On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!

18
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: September 10, 2013, 10:21:32 AM »
The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.
Oh I agree. Unfortunately, there's never been an iteration of D&D without mandatory +X items, and 5e appears to be the Edition of Nothing New so that's unlikely to change anytime soon. (Well, +X items might end up being unnecessary in 5e, in which case they'll simply be CharOp staples and every smart player's best friend. In other words; item cheese rather than item taxes.)

In any case, so long as D&D does have +X items, the rule books should ideally give us insight into what's expected of PCs. Whether that's part of a WBL guideline, a parcels guideline, or some other kind of guide.

19
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: September 09, 2013, 11:19:46 PM »
4th standardized Magic Item requirements, you must have X numerical bonuses to join or you'll die a most horrible death you underpowered noob. But they did away with WBL and didn't really give you any rules for obtaining these highly required magical items beyond the whims of a DM making crap up. This lack of WBL lead to some groups giving to many items creating over-powered characters and other groups not giving enough for TPK wipes, and everyone experienced headaches when trying to start beyond level one.
Funny, everyone I know has had the exact opposite experience with 4e.

That said, I'm not impressed by the 5e comments I've seen to the effect of "It's about the story, not the math." Bull shit, it's about the story and the math.

The correct way of doing things is WBL, dedicated to shiny cool gadgets.
WBL works great, so long as the ones writing it go the extra step of actually telling DMs what value-equivalent gear the PCs are supposed to find/buy with it. Otherwise you end up with stingy DMs telling the younger generation that +1 swords are precious super rare treasures even for 20th level PCs. As universal game fact, because hey, "Nothing in the DMG or PHB contradicts my Tolkien fantasy!" And then there are the mid-level parties with sub-15 ACs, because their new DM made the mistake of actually rolling for random loot.

20
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: August 28, 2013, 02:58:32 PM »
Quote from: bhu
In my experience, and this is just based off where I live, parties don't do that.
IME, players don't compare characters before playing -- other than race and class -- simply because they want to get to the game!

I guess that depends on the party, the game and a lot of things, maybe even necessity after having too many games broken or characters suddenly suicide after a round of DM-nerfstick.

I'd take that since you mention that "they want to get to the game" you're using a "let's make the character sheets during the first session" approach instead of a "we start a game of X in 2-3 weeks, start reading up rules and making characters"?  With weeks to spare comparing character often comes naturally while players talk to each other or start giving "trial characters" to the DM for approval.
Sometimes we did chargen before session 1, sometimes not. In both cases I didn't push strategies like "Hey everyone, let's talk about everyone's chargen details" because I can count on one hand the number of players I've had who wouldn't mentally check out or start moaning about the "extra homework" I was asking them to do. Most simply weren't into the nitty gritty of system mastery.

Instead, my solution to the issues that cropped up was to boost or nerf the most broken options into a semblance of sanity, and giving my players chargen tips. Player is disappointed in his TWF fighter? Free retraining into warblade! Casters turning the game into Russian roulette with dispel magic tactics? Give everyone innate bonuses so nobody becomes a glass canon every time one goes off!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5