Author Topic: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.  (Read 21215 times)

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2015, 08:48:21 PM »
What if succeeding on the Concentration check due to being shanked in the kidneys just meant that you don't lose the spell slot, instead of allowing you to complete the spell?
Assuming I'm following this correctly, a successful check means that the action is still ruined but no spell slot is expended?

I think actions in combat are the most precious resource, both tactically and frankly fun-wise.  This seems to pull the needle too much towards "just avoid being hit at all, otherwise the game is unfun for you" (that's hyperbole, but you get my point).  I'd worry that will encourage players to avoid the situation rather than engage the new rule, dampening its effect in practice.

Man, it's tough to graft on too much to the extant system.  For instance, part of me really likes just there being a check based on both the damage taken and the spell level being cast.  That brings back the jab/haymaker dynamic and makes the quality of both combatants relevant.  But, damages scale in such a crazy way in D&D, that it'd be bound to fall apart.  Stuff like that.  Maybe even an opposed skill check or something else level-based, conditional on being struck (so the combatants' accuracy and AC really figure in) might be better?  I don't know. 

And, I also don't want to cut gishes off at the knees; as far as spellcasters go, they aren't the most powerful.

Offline Ice9

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Still frozen.
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #61 on: September 30, 2015, 04:44:54 PM »
The question is - how much do you want to put the spotlight on combat?  OD&D didn't as much, by default (although a number of people did play it that way).  If combat is just a minor thing in table-time, like picking the lock on a door, then "dominates 25% of combats, is mostly useless for the rest" is a legitimate balance point.

However, if combat is a big thing that takes 30 minutes or more of table-time and is supposed to be the main source of tactical fun, then "lose 75% of your actions, in exchange for the remaining 25% being really good" isn't suitable.  You can have spikes of power, but casters need to be doing something useful almost every round.  That can be "building up power for an awesome spell", but only if that spell actually gets to go off.

Also, I find it a little annoying that this thread has gone from "we should give the martial classes some bad-ass abilities" to "meh, just nerf casters". :rolleyes  I mean yes, 3.x casters reach heights of power that snap the entire Monster Manual in half, so they can go a lot lower.  But balancing to the (crappy) level that martial characters are at there is no better.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2015, 04:50:42 PM by Ice9 »

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #62 on: September 30, 2015, 05:50:40 PM »
The question is - how much do you want to put the spotlight on combat?  OD&D didn't as much, by default (although a number of people did play it that way).

Ummm . . . what?

Which OD&D are you talking about?
The one that wasn't a set of converted and kludged miniature wargame rules?
The one that didn't have to wait for revised editions to have more than a vague acknowledgment that towns even existed?
The one where people other than thieves had actual skills in the core rules?

By default, the game was about dungeons (plus those dragons of course), where you engaged in combat (plus some trap survival).
Strongholds, sometimes towns, existed only to provide a safe place to recover hit points between extended bouts of combat in said dungeons.
Towns and cities existed only to provide justification for trading lousy loot you got from combat in dungeons for whatever better loot the DM allowed you to have, plus to recruit henchmen to do more combat in dungeons.
"Role-playing" was bragging about how cool your character was in combat compared to everyone else's character.
Background and setting were ad hoc things kludged and improvised at the last minute, focused on getting players back to combat in dungeons.

The spotlight didn't have to be on combat as combat was the only thing allowed on stage with everything else kept under lock in the prop closest.

Quote
You can have spikes of power, but casters need to be doing something useful almost every round.  That can be "building up power for an awesome spell", but only if that spell actually gets to go off.

It can also be firing a crossbow. (Or throwing darts back in the old days.)
Or tossing flaming oil. (Alchemists' fire since the new millennium began.)
Or dumping the loot on the mule and opening the door for a quick getaway before the fighters get slaughtered. (Which is why I like servant horde, floating disc, and several pearls of power myself.)
Not to mention the more fundamental debate between glass cannon blasting and being divine rank -1 battlefield control.
Have to define "useful" before seeing if the spellcaster is "useful".

Quote
Also, I find it a little annoying that this thread has gone from "we should give the martial classes some bad-ass abilities" to "meh, just nerf casters". :rolleyes  I mean yes, 3.x casters reach heights of power that snap the entire Monster Manual in half, so they can go a lot lower.  But balancing to the (crappy) level that martial characters are at there is no better.

IF, Tier 3.5 is the intended power level;
THEN, by default you have to both buff the Tier 4-6s and nerf the tier 1-3s to achieve "balance";
AND, by definition that is neither as sucky as martials nor as broken as the casters.

Even without going that far and just keeping a distinct differential between martials and casters that is "balanced" by character level and demographic distribution requires both buffing of the weak and nerfing of the mighty without making either cross the line.

Offline Ice9

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Still frozen.
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #63 on: September 30, 2015, 06:25:46 PM »
By default, the game was about dungeons (plus those dragons of course), where you engaged in combat sneaking past the monsters to grab the treasure (plus some trap survival).
FTFY. ;)  Ok, not universally, obviously; I'm not even sure how common it was.  But some people did play in a style where the monsters were obstacles to avoid, not the featured attraction (and if you did have to fight one, you tried for anything except a fair fight), and there's rules (XP for gold) that support that. 

It can also be firing a crossbow. (Or throwing darts back in the old days.)
Or tossing flaming oil. (Alchemists' fire since the new millennium began.)
Or dumping the loot on the mule and opening the door for a quick getaway before the fighters get slaughtered. (Which is why I like servant horde, floating disc, and several pearls of power myself.)
Not to mention the more fundamental debate between glass cannon blasting and being divine rank -1 battlefield control.
Have to define "useful" before seeing if the spellcaster is "useful".
Depends on edition.  Maybe with the lower HP totals of earlier editions, a Wizard with a crossbow did something useful.  In 3.x, beyond low level, you would do just as much by sitting down and sipping a cup of tea.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #64 on: September 30, 2015, 06:37:07 PM »
FTFY. ;)  Ok, not universally, obviously; I'm not even sure how common it was.  But some people did play in a style where the monsters were obstacles to avoid, not the featured attraction (and if you did have to fight one, you tried for anything except a fair fight), and there's rules (XP for gold) that support that.

You are correct. (Though I had one guy once get nuts on me insisting that "unguarded" treasure was worth 0 xp by RAW, and that included treasure that was in one monsters room if that monster happened to go fight you in another room.)
As it goes, I consider "sneaking" the same as "fighting", even without skill checks for said sneaking, since as you note, nobody ever wanted a fair fight.

Quote
Depends on edition.  Maybe with the lower HP totals of earlier editions, a Wizard with a crossbow did something useful.  In 3.x, beyond low level, you would do just as much by sitting down and sipping a cup of tea.

They (wizard with crossbow) did (something useful). Though it still sucked, which is why the smart ones would use flaming oil, or war dogs, or what not.  :D
And that discrepancy in hp between systems is one of the things I mentioned as skewing the power dynamic.
It still leaves the question as to whether spellcasters can be useful when not casting spells in d20.