David Marks's page

One of the things about S&P was the fact that it was Min/Max .... that is, in order to become uber in one thing you had to sacrifice something else. You want to learn more spells per level? Fine; you must reduce your chances of learning those spells. You want to be a cleric who can specialize in an edged weapon? Fine; you must sacrifice X number of Spheres from your spell list. You want your dwarf to heal faster underground and be better with an axe? Fine; you must give up your detections and/or save bonuses. The was more give and take than in later iterations.

Can anyone say Magic of the Incarnum? Complete Champion? Magic Missile at will?

In second, you could focus on a flavor for your character, gain a modicum of added ability, but sacrifice a (mostly) balanced amount of other abilities. The power creep seemed to become more of an issue for the game overall (regardless of ed) about when M:TG became the uber-rage and suddenly it's 5/5 Craw Wurm became a mere pitance. The attitude that came with that, bled over into other games as well it seemed.

Or, your Fighter could forgo the use of scrolls, rods, staffs, and wands to gain a d12 HD and the ability to specialize in multiple weapons on a faster attack track. Your Wizard could be afraid of bathing, and always leave backwards footprints to gain a few extra spells a level, gain the ability to wield weapons (and heck, maybe armor, it's been a while).

Your Human could be a little ugly and get what 3E would term a natural armor bonus, that stacked with EVERYTHING. S&P was all about the power creep. If you didn't have someone back then who used it as such, you were lucky.

Second was terrible for balancing mechanical benefits against roleplaying disadvantages, something 3E thankfully ran away from at maximum possible speed.

Edit: Just last night I was talking with a friend about the old 2E Spell and Magic and he was telling me a story about one of the alternate magic systems he used to use from there. Something about being able to cast magic missiles at will with his channeler, all day long. 4E emulates 2E! :O!

Currently, my Thursday night group is working our way through AoW (we're about to hit 6th level) but this is our last 3.5 game. Wednesday nights have already switched over to 4E, so in about a years time I'll probably be 4E only.

Zynete wrote:

P.S. For offensive bonus points change the reason for refusal in the above situations with "because they are homosexual" or "because they are African-American." I mean, if they just so no and walk away, then it is OK, right?

Yeah, that is exactly what I was thinking.

I'm not agreeing with you 'cause your avatar is a poodle. And I hates me some poodles.

the "complete" books in 2ed were heavy on fluff (kits), light on crunch, actually. they really didn't intoduce much that whacked a game out of balance like 3x splatbooks (both 3pp and WotC stuff) did.

Kits were notorious for balancing mechanical benefits for fluff disadvantages. Not all of them were broken, but some were definitely more equal than others.

No, if you wanted broken 2E stuff, you probably wanted to look into Specialty Priests. Oh, and the S&P, S&M, and C&T expansions that came out in later years. 2E certainly had later books that showed quite a bit of power creep.

But what do guys without girlfriends do with their time man? What DO THEY DO? :O!

David Marks wrote:

Or do you mean, is it a good idea to have these abilities limited to 1/round?

I always thought it was possible to use an action point to sneak attack a second time in the same turn.

I also thought that flanking and OA allow sneak attacks, even if I already acted this turn or will act later and use sneak attack.

I do not see the reason why this is not allowed (or was not allowed from the beginning).

I don't have my books to offer you my reasoning here, but I took it as obvious that all three striker's extra damage abilities could only be applied 1/round.

As for sneaking with an OA, that is indeed possible, as long as you haven't yet gotten a sneak attack off since the start of your last round. Say, you ran up and flanked some critter, swung but missed! Crap! On the critter's turn, it moves away from the flank, drawing an OA from you ... which can be a sneak attack if you manage to hit. :)

I still do not see the reason why the "only once per turn" update was incorporated for those powers.

Using action points is a "cost" with which you "pay" your second sneak attack etc.
And clever positioning should be rewarded I thinks.
So why this update?

My reading of the original rules had already convinced me that this was how they all worked ... once per round, no more. I'd say the update is because that is how they always worked, and this was to clarify for those people who interpreted the text differently.

Or do you mean, is it a good idea to have these abilities limited to 1/round?

[Divergent Argument]Our party had a full Wizard, Cloistered Cleric, Druid, and Fighter. We all felt stupid for having taken one of those core classes when we could have taken something that could do anything! I have a hard time reconciling how my Cleric feels about someone who carries a key-ring-style system of holy symbols, and for some reason is granted spells from a divine source! Seriously, the class gets 7th level spells at almost no expense! How does that make the Sorcerer feel? Or the Rogue with the backstab? Or the...

Nevermind, just thinking about that class makes me frustrated. I wonder if it was jus included in the book to test "encounter" powers?

It's kinda funny. Preparing for my current AoW game (which plays tonight, woot!) I decided to try to play something strange and crazy, since it is almost surely my group's last foray into the realm of 3E. So I picked up Magic of Incarnum, something I had heard mixed reviews about, but seemed pretty cool.

I rolled up an Azurin Incarnate, even though many reviews on these boards suggested an Incarnate was actually a semi-weak class. And all I've heard for the past few weeks is mocking at how broken and overblown my class is. :P

I haven't read the Factotum recently, but from what I can remember, the Incarnate is somewhat similar, with a wide pool of powers crossing several "roles" (to use a 4E-ism) that it can draw from. Given some preparation, it can mimic nearly any class, much like the Factotum. Kinda like a Bard on steroids.

I guess I don't have a point, but hopefully my ramblings aren't too painful. ;)

I already thought all three strikers only got their extra damage 1/round, so that is no change for me. The change from prone makes sense, and I'm glad they clarified it. :)

Sorry to chime in so late, but I disagree with the positives of #3 and #4. I feel like they've actually put a straitjacket on a lot of design elements to a degree that if you're adventure doesn't fit into the mold they've created, you're not playing D&D.

For example, as I understand it, 4e intends for DMs to design around the "encounter" concept so that players can distinguish when they can and can't use powers. Previous editions did not have this. I feel like it's a bit like forcing me to create separate mobs for the players to take on one at a time to garauntee game flow.

I'm not sure where you got that impression veec. Characters can use powers at any time (assuming the power is available).

Cheers! :)

Turning checks get complicated fast, plus all you normally do is simply make the undead run away(unless you roll so high you outright destroy it).

The worst thing about Turning Checks is they DON'T affect whether or not you bamf the undead (as far as I'm aware!) They just affect how many/how strong the undead you turn can be, but even if you only get one beastie, if he is 1/2 your level, poof he vanishes. Bad mechanic! Make more sense!

Grappling is always a headache, and I feel sorry for my Thursday night DM who has to deal with a grapple oriented Monk/Wizard.

Some other things are borked too, but those too are some of my biggest pet peaves with the system.

Both sides have a point, but both sides need to find a middle ground. Really, this applies to any place in life with generation gaps.

Au contraire! We can wait. ;)

David Marks wrote:

Those dang kids! Always playing on my lawn! Listenin to their hippity-hoppity music with their baggy pants! Who do they think they are! The future?!?

Pah! :P

Hmmm. I am currently wearing baggy rocawear jeans and I am listening to MF Doom. Well, at least I am not out playing on your lawn.

Lol!

And again ... the bait is taken.

You're making it too easy ;-)

Us youngsters are suckers for irony. Also for the hippety-hoppity music, and loitering on lawns. It is our way. ;)

David Marks wrote:

Dropping a scythe into a chasm sounds pretty permanent to me. Maybe they just have big chasms where I'm from.

What? Is it the only scythe ever? Do people no longer carry back-ups?

It depends really. A high level character might be hard pressed to have a backup as good as his primary, whose loss could be an extremely significant chunk of their total wealth. Plus, depending on how the DM plays encumberance, carrying two scythes may be deemed too unwieldy.

Anyway, if the player had another scythe immediately available, having him drop it in the chasm wouldn't be challenging him to play without it, and he wouldn't be complaining, would he? ;)

I think part of the problem here is the fact that nobody gave Dread the benefit of the doubt that maybe he was trying to avoid expanding his post even more, and nobody bothered to read between the lines. They just looked at the surface and never even tried to think about the fact that maybe, possibly, there was more going on than what was written. People assumed. As a general rule, gamers are supposed to be able to thin things through before acting or reacting. That's what draws many of us to the game: an intelectual challenge. Too many people just want to categorize things into simple terms without careful consideration. Well, life and gaming are neither simple nor easily categorized.

The fact that I knew this going into this part of the thread is how I could bait people. Quit being predictible; try to be more challenging, and give people the benefit of the doubt.

It is ironic that you speak out against categorizing things into simple terms in the same thread where people were categorizing the younger generation as non-intellectual yes-men. ;)

Dropping a scythe into a chasm sounds pretty permanent to me. Maybe they just have big chasms where I'm from.

As doppel said, that is a more reasonable scenario, and a player complaining in that instance is just b%~!$ing. But it is a good step away from how you initially described it. Not saying you had to explain yourself of course, but if you're trying to make a point with an example, best to actually give the entirety of the example, or risk people misunderstanding what you mean. :)

Ixancoatl wrote:

on the contrary ... when I die, my will shall have me burned on a pile of my gaming stuff. A true pyre to be seen for many miles.

Maybe a viking boat funeral? All those old books should be highly flammable!

The accumulated oils of years of nerd-handling will make for a great bonfire indeed! :P

Better watch out man. It's only a matter of time before future Pathfinders start sending golems back in time to stop 4E BEFORE IT WAS EVEN BORN! :O!

(Yes, edition war still on unfortunately.)

(and yes, this was me being a d1ck ... or as my friend has called me, a bad shepherd.)

Don't worry, once you croak we get all your stuff. ;)

I find that the point of PnP RPGs is to have fun around a table with some friends. If the simulation of game reality is more important to the DM than the fun of the people at the table, count me out. I can get a computer that will simulate a game world without remorse or pity. After all, "that's what WoW is for".

The kid showed up to have fun wielding a scythe. The DM took it away for his own jollies and then complained that the kid complained.

Ah, CRPGs. The rat-bastardliest DMs of all. Party too low level for the encounter? Screw 'em. Lol. :)

doppelganger wrote:

Times are different indeed. In general, modern games tend not to have the DM randomly declare that something has happened for no reason other than to f~*% with a specific player to teach him a lesson.

And the way that times are different is the fact that you jump straight to the conclusion that the DM was being a d1ck rather than it was a legitimate reason. You also seem to assume that the DM (in modern terms) should do what the players want rather than challenge them. When you get a B in class, is it the teacher's fault too?

In doppel's defense, it did sound like a dick move. Had the scythe been taken within the context of the game (disarmed and stolen; sundered) it wouldn't be so bad. But from dread's description, it comes across as a completely arbitrary ruling on his part. I'd be pretty cheesed at having my character effectively neutralized in such a manner as well.

If I make a Wizard and the DM arbitrarily decides I can't cast spells for some reason (places the entire adventure in an anti-magic field, frex) his "challenge" to me is going to get old fast, probably before the end of the second session, possibly even the first.

I've always understood that simply negating a character's abilities is bad form, and poor DMing. Especially if done to one character, while the rest of the party's goodies are spared. And even party wide negation leads to frustrated players more often than a challenging adventure. The "you've all been captured and must escape without your stuff" plotline has its time and place, but needs be used sparingly and carefully, IMO.

The reason I would way the 4E Fighter's range of abilities vs the 3E Fighter's Full Attack is because, in 3E, a Full Attack (once you have one or more attacks) is so far above and beyond anything else a Fighter can do that it is almost always against him to not do so. If in 4E a set path of abilities ends up always being optimal likewise, I'll fault the system for that, but from looking the powers over most seem fairly balanced between each other.

Even if there is the one true optimal Fighter path, however, the ability to actively choose what you do each round without being unduly penalized is a great boon to the Fighter, IMO.

Cheers! :)

Those dang kids! Always playing on my lawn! Listenin to their hippity-hoppity music with their baggy pants! Who do they think they are! The future?!?

Pah! :P

I've only tried the rpga once. Is it mostly at conventions or are there other events? How does one normally get involved?

I've played a few times but only at conventions, which I don't attend enough to really make playing in it "full-time" a doable solution for me.

I'd be interested in these answers as well. :)

At the lower end, the guidelines do appear quite generous. Of course, when your new 25th level character walks in with one 26th level item, one 25th, and one 24th, things will look a lot different.

In 3E I often found the new guys often had a varying degree of advantage because of the starting gold being more than most characters really had, and the ability to get precisely what they want certainly didn't hurt. 4E still has this problem, but instead of being worst at higher levels, it seems more of an issue at the lower end of the scale.

I'd let you come in and get all the stuff, but that's just me. :)

You could always go both routes, turning some of the Mineral Warrior abilities into Dwarven Racial Feats with others becoming part of a Paragon Path for him. This would ease up your burden of trying to fit everything into just one category. :)

He could always be a Fighter with some Ranger multiclass. Dual-wielding with the two two weapon feats will give him some benefits of a shield plus some extra damage. Have him take a Ranger power or two that focuses on two weapon attacks. That might help. :)

David Marks wrote:

Is there a big UK gaming scene Moon? Just curious. :)

I have no clue... I don't live in the UK :-)

Lol, fair enough!

Is there a big UK gaming scene Moon? Just curious. :)

yoda8myhead wrote:

Um, those aren't magazines...</snark>

David Marks wrote:

I understand you're just being snarky...

Snark! Snark!

I never knew a snark was aquatic! :O!

Clark said that right after the GSL was released. But since then he hasn't released any details about it, discussed how the license has changed his strategy for products, he hasn't updated his website since January. Hell he hasn't even updated the tagline of his company to 4E Rules, 1E feel except in the forementioned Jan announcement. His own forums says he hasn't even posted since June 20th (two days after he made the announcement you are referencing). No one's seen him on ENWorld in about that same amount of time. I think this is the longest I've seen him not post.

:O! The aliens got him!

Once again, I really have to protest the idea that the fact that they found the 3rd Edition fighter boring was somehow a failing on their part. (I also object to the rather broad portrayal of modern youth as mindless sheep, but I don't believe that is a reasonable debate to get into on these boards.)

Yes, one could find ways to make their fighter interesting. You could invest in bizarre magic items, or multiclass into a bit of spellcaster, or find a prestige class that did strange things, or hunt down the handful of genuinely interesting feats (mainly, tactical feats.)

But for your average fighter, built just using the basic options in the PHB? Sure, you could try to bull rush the ogre into a pit, but it was usually a terrible idea - it had a large chance of failure, and even if you succeeded, it would probably be less damage than just sitting next to him and swinging your sword.

The reason why is that swinging a sword is what fighters were good at - and very little else! The fact that other choices were bad options wasn't due to a failing on the part of the players - it was because the system did very little to make a fighter interesting, especially at higher levels.

Matthew has the right of it here, in my mind. It's one reason I'm glad the concept of the Full Attack was gone. Once you were getting two or three attacks, the benefit of always making a Full Attack out weighed nearly any other action you could possibly do. So most Fighters did roll up into the front-line and proceed to whack until dead ... heck a fair number of Paladins and most Barbarians operated a similar way.

You could always style yourself different if you wanted to specialize in some way (like using feats) but it was pretty hard to beat a Full Attack action.

Cheers! :)

Edit: The above idea is one reason most consider the 4E Ranger's Twin Strike At-Will as one of the best in the game. More attacks are almost always the best bang for your buck.

I have been pretty happy with the online offerings as well. I would probably pay if the quality stays where it has been.

Indeed! I plan on subscribing whenever this free period ends. :)

Um, those aren't magazines. I get magazines at newsstands and coffee shops. They look like pdf's to me...</snark>

I understand you're just being snarky, but you're definition of magazine seems to differ from the accepted meaning of the word. Those are magazines, whether you'd like to admit so or not.

Cheers! :)

Okay, I may be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that at one point WotC mentioned selling .pdfs to core book purchasers at a nominal price, i.e., each book would have a code inside to get the massive discount.

So, if I'm not mistaken - what happened?

Too complicated. How can you prevent others from getting the code? What if the code had already been hacked and used? How do you prevent someone from distributing a code, or providing a replacement code if their's didn't work?

I really wanted to see that work out myself, but I think in the end the logistics of the idea ended up killing it. Shame, that. :(

swirler wrote:

plus side

free mags until its up
heh

Magazines? Where?

Dungeon

And I agree, getting these two for free is rocking me hard right now. Codex of Betrayal this month is sweet! :)

This? This right here? Yeah, this is made of win and chocolate. And I REALLY like chocolate.

Mmmm.

Alright, do we have any clue on when this thing will be functional? I at least want the Character Builder.

The lead design of the DDI posted roughly around when 4E was released and, essentially, said the whole project was FUBAR'd and had no expected release date, other than "it'll come eventually". Maybe someone still has a link to his post on Gleemax? He seemed pretty upfront and honest about the whole thing, as well as apologetic. I'd like the Character Builder too, so hopefully they get it up and running soon!

Cheers! :)

P1NBACK wrote:

And really, other than Frodo's magical cloak, what does Frodo and Samwise really do but run the whole time?

They don't kill much, if that's what you mean.

Well that doesn't sound like DnD right there! :P

David Marks wrote:

I've seen others suggest that the books should have been split via Tier to make room for more powers/races/classes/etc. But truly, I think this would have been a pretty bad idea.

That would be called the Basic / Expert / Companion / Master / Immortals set. (grin)

Actually, seperating by tiers might eventually have proven itself useful. That way, a party playing any given tier would only need to bring one set of books to the table. The current set-up would involve, after three years, every player poentially needing material three books to play her character, and the poor DM needing to reference nine Core Books.

True, but how would future expansions be handled if it was split by tier? Three books for each new set of classes? The mind boggles.

Yeah... WotC's been including Lovecraftian elements (although not actual Lovecraftian stuff) in D&D stuff since they got the game back in the late 90s. And TSR was doing the same now and then. Lovecraft's actually one of the largest influences on D&D; his work is at least as influential on the game as Tolkein, in fact, if not more; aboleths, ghasts, the Underdark, evil books (like the Demonomicon in particular), ancient gods, and the like have been with the game from the start.

Bruce Cordell's actually been a big proponent of including mythos inspired elements in the game. He's the one who invented the Far Realm, in fact! And I myself have put a lot of Mythos elements into D&D, be they inspired by the mythos (such as the obyrith demons or the aboleth history in Lords of Madness or the Fiend Folio's kaorti) or actual elements (such as by publishing the adventure "And Madness Followed" in Dungeon).

That said, we DID beat Wizards to the punch by making Asmodeus one of our world's core deities, so that's pretty nifty. ;-)

Cool! I had heard Bruce came up with the Far Realm, but wasn't certain so didn't repeat it. Nice to have confirmation. :)

Has anyone tried to run games without one, or more, of the roles missing? If so, what was the result? I'm assuming it'll be like a 3.x party without a cleric or rogue, etc.

I've had a few games without a Controller. Minions became much more of a threat, as no one really had much capacity to handle their large numbers as they swarmed all over the party. It was still playable, but definitely harder.

Haven't really seen a lack of any other role (as I'm a player now, I generally fill any role that needs filling!)

Cheers! :)

I've seen others suggest that the books should have been split via Tier to make room for more powers/races/classes/etc. But truly, I think this would have been a pretty bad idea.

Just as a simple example, listen to the great gnashing of teeth the removal of the Druid to the PHB II has caused. I can't help but imagine removal of levels 11-30 would have been ten times worse. One can complain that the game does not have as many options as you would like it to have, but it is still certainly a complete game that you can play from beginning to "end" using the Core rules released so far. To segregate by Tier you'll be forcing people to pay for effectively 1/3rd of the rules, with levels 11-30 available only for additional fees.

Cheers! :)

I think Mythos-flavored stuff has been creeping into DnD at an increasing pace since around 2E (and before, I'm sure, but I wasn't around to see it then!)

The Gates of Firestorm Peak, for example, or the Aliestist casting method from Spells and Magic.

3E eventually introduced the Far Realms, and even an area beyond even that, with Binder's Vestiges. I'm glad to see 4E embrace the idea even more so. :)

I'm not sure if the Compendium will hold monsters at all, but I do believe it is intended to carry material from Dungeon and Dragon (likely more from Dragon than Dungeon, but we'll see)

If I ever went to Gleemax I'd try asking there. I'm not sure if any "official" personages read this board anymore (its always been light and this isn't an especially friendly place for them, unfortunately) and I don't think I've ever seen one of the DDI guys over here.

Cheers! :)

Dread, any generalization about people is going to have exceptions that defy the generalization. People are crazy like that. ;)

Despite your contradictory experiences, I still think Jeremy's idea is spot on. Perhaps not for you, but in general at least. :)

But I think I did see this ad. The one were they make fun of the grapple rules right?

Thing is there must be something beyond this ad thats at the root of the issue. I saw it and was not insulted, I suspect most of the 4E posters here saw it and were not insulted and I'm sure that a great many of the guys that hang out on WotCs optimization forums, people so good at the rules that they can make the rules sit up and beg for...

I thought it was funny, as a reinforcement of your hypothesis Jeremy. Honestly, everything you wrote sounds pretty spot on to me, so well said. :)

David Marks wrote:

Hopefully us 4E-ers will end up with support just as good as some of the leading 3E 3PPs ... in some cases we may have the same people in fact! :)

I hope for your sakes you do. Something WotC failed to realize until late in 3rd Edition is that adventures get you hooked.

There's the optimism I keep looking for! :)