|
Can I ask what makes you think it's doing poorly? Is it declining market share from that "ICv2" or whatever the acronym is?
The amount of PF versus 4e product that I see in local game stores (PF is about twice as much). The local game store which cut back a 4e game day due to a lack of 4e sales. The two separate home groups which I was involved with playing 4e over the past year and a half. One has converted to PFS. The other has disentegrated and the couple of people still active in gaming have moved on to PFS and/or PF. A monthly gameday which has managed to run one 4e table all year and has gone from one PF table to 3 PFS tables per month.
It's all anecdotal and my area may not be representative, but I was an RPGA regional director in the old days, travelled extensively for Living City and Living Greyhawk and gave LFR a two year trial. I know lots of gamers across the country and my experience is that about 80% have turned to PF and forsaken 4e. Maybe 10% stick to 4e exclsuively. The other 10% still play both (including me, although 4e is very sporadic). I know more people who are regularly playing 3.5 (D&D 3.5, not PF) than I know playing 4e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing this discussion seems to overlook is how many lapsed players 3E brought back to the table. I played 1st edition AD&D. By the time 2E came out, I had moved on. I was playing various other games, from White Wolf to Palladium to Warhammer to Shadowrun. When I heard 3E was coming out, I read the articles describing some of the changes and it made me excited to try D&D again. I know many of my friends felt the same.
So while there were plenty of D&D players around, 2E was kind of a diminished brand. 3E really revitalized it and brought a lot of us back, along with a lot of new gamers in.
4E didn't have the same success. The 3E player base was much, much larger than the 2E player base on 3E's launch. So even if the same percentage of players stuck with 3E over 4E as the did with 2E to 3E, that was a far larger absolute number.
One thing I always thought could have been done better with 4E were common powers. In 3E, even the wizard only takes a few pages to describe. He picks spells from the spells chapter later, but certain spells are just common among arcane casters or divine casters. The 4E players guide feels bloated because each class needs a dozen or so pages of "unique" powers. If there instead was a common pool of martial, divine, or arcane powers that each class of a power type could draw on, then you could have a lot of basic powers that are essential and a fewer number of truly unique powers to each class.
That would also make it easier to build the archer fighter or a controller sorcerer. Or whatever other things you need. It also means new classes don't need to take up as much space, as you just have to concentrate on the unique abilities, instead of reinventing the wheel from levels 1-30 again.
Personally I'm completely indifferent to 4E, and I'll likely be indifferent to 5E ... supporting multiple game systems is just too darn expensive.
I really wish I'd convinced the guys I game with to convert our living campaign to Pathfinder instead of 4E. One failed Diplomacy check, and years-long campaign goes belly up.
I can't even begin to guess what WoTC might do in 5E, but given the incredible success of their "collectible" market, I'm thinking there will be a push for them to do something similar with D&D, but from ground zero rather than later on (like with the cards they added to the PC minis packages).
Paizo should just keep doing what they're doing.
...
So basically what we saw in transition from 2E to 3E then. Because that's practically what happend. Feats, Skills, Prestige Classes, Saving throws condensed, the removal (or arevision if you wanna call it) of THAC0, Multiclass made available to everyone, radical racial changes, elimination of level caps, the complete change in how Turning/Rebuking Undead works, a level-by-level character progression instead of 1 class overall or starting off with dual-class.
All of these changes were pretty radical when the edition came out and many thought it was an entirely different game all together. Many people back then feel as you do now about 4E, that it's no longer real D&D. So while I understand that some "Sacred Cows" (hate the term BTW) were killed in the creation of 4E, it's D&D to many other people.
Actually the way it changed didn't eliminate previous concepts. They broadened the possibilities without removing the old ones (mostly), which can't be exactly said about 4E, which is probably a large source of complaints. One thing is to allow the dwarf to become a fighter/wizard, another is to forbid him to become that when he previously could. My fighter could have worn full plate and wielded two swords somwhat effectively. Now could I build something like that in 4E core? I doubt that the build was possible even with both martial powers. Either lighter armour or not much of two weapon fighing...
EDIT: About wizard theme coverage - well in the end it got covered, but it took Arcane Power and probably some stuff from two more Player Handbooks to do that.
You could always be a wizard/fighter in the original 4e PHB...
It would be a somewhat crappy combination, just like in 3e core, but not out of the question.
WotC did go a little overboard with nerfing MC when 4e was released, but there was a lot of complaining about level dipping in the old system that resulted in the change.
IMO now the system works much better, especially with the introduction of hybrid rules (though hybrids are in the style of 2e multiclassing rather than 3e).
Actually the way it changed didn't eliminate previous concepts. They broadened the possibilities without removing the old ones (mostly), which can't be exactly said about 4E, which is probably a large source of complaints. One thing is to allow the dwarf to become a fighter/wizard, another is to forbid him to become that when he previously could. My fighter could have worn full plate and wielded two swords somwhat effectively. Now could I build something like that in 4E core? I doubt that the build was possible even with both martial powers. Either lighter armour or not much of two weapon fighing...
EDIT: About wizard theme coverage - well in the end it got covered, but it took Arcane Power and probably some stuff from two more Player Handbooks to do that.
What I can't understand is the obsession with having everything held under the sun with "Core" (ie. PHB, MM, DMG) as if that's some super, be-all power, idea. Could I be a Warlock with 3E core? Could I wield two one-handed weapons somewhat effectively with core? Could I, as a wizard, wear platemail and still cast spells with no glace to spell-failure in core? No to all of those questions.
A dwarf CAN become a Fighter who casts spells in 4E (multiclass rules/paragon multiclassing). You CAN wear full-plate and wield two swords somewhat effectively in 4E, again multiclass/Paraon multiclassing or simply by playing a half-elf. Additional sources made this even easier for Fighters as the Tempest technique came out for Martial Power, giving you benefits of dual-wielding (so did the Barbarian BTW from Primal Power) but even then your not REQUIRED to use that technique to take the powers. Dual Strike (Martial Power) is actually pretty darn good IMO.
PH3 debut another sub-style of Mixing roles, allowing a player to blend two classes together called a Hybrid. This was to make sure everyone got the strange and unique combos with a more broad idea of character diversity. A hybrid Fighter|Ranger could easily wear full-plate and fight with two one-handed swords effecitvely.
SO yea, it's done and quite easily.
stuff
Not complaining here, just saying it caused a lot of bad blood that 4E trimmed a lot of options that were previously there and suddenly you couldn't do them as easily. 4E character concepts covered by classes in original core were narrower than in 3E core. Later trickle of options was also seen as money grab.
What I can't understand is the obsession with having everything held under the sun with "Core" (ie. PHB, MM, DMG) as if that's some super, be-all power, idea. Could I be a Warlock with 3E core?
Here lays one of the big issues. People felt like they were being sold an incomplete game. You took out iconic race and classes and replaced them. It was like saying here buy this shadowrun book..but you will need a second book to play a rigger.
Some things are iconic and expected to be in the core book. A warlock is not among them.
I wonder if 4E had kept the same races/classes in core than appearing in 3.5 if it would have been better received...
Anyway, I'll almost certainly buy 5E core, and will likely try it a few times. Running a campaign, however? Who knows.
I wonder if 4E had kept the same races/classes in core than appearing in 3.5 if it would have been better received...
Maybe some, but if ya recall they dropped the ball on about everything from the PR to the GSL on up. By the time the game hit shelves they had burned many bridges.
So basically what we saw in transition from 2E to 3E then. Because that's practically what happened. Feats, Skills, Prestige Classes, Saving throws condensed, the removal (or a revision if you wanna call it) of THAC0, Multiclass made available to everyone, radical racial changes, elimination of level caps, [snip] a level-by-level character progression instead of 1 class overall or starting off with dual-class.
Agree, agree, agree.
the complete change in how Turning/Rebuking Undead works,
Actually, the Turning Check worked mechanically in almost an identical manner to 1st edition - just the presentation was very different. I found it rather elegant. Certainly a "revision" worthy of THAC0 though.
I was shocked to find I *liked* the changes at the time, and the same could happen again. It certainly didn't in the last instance.
Dragonsfoot would find it pretty hilarious that people here think it was 4e where D&D stopped being D&D. There's some folks there who think it's all been downhill since the radical changes of 2e.
Can I ask what makes you think it's doing poorly? Is it declining market share from that "ICv2" or whatever the acronym is?The amount of PF versus 4e product that I see in local game stores (PF is about twice as much). The local game store which cut back a 4e game day due to a lack of 4e sales. The two separate home groups which I was involved with playing 4e over the past year and a half. One has converted to PFS. The other has disentegrated and the couple of people still active in gaming have moved on to PFS and/or PF. A monthly gameday which has managed to run one 4e table all year and has gone from one PF table to 3 PFS tables per month.
It's all anecdotal and my area may not be representative, but I was an RPGA regional director in the old days, travelled extensively for Living City and Living Greyhawk and gave LFR a two year trial. I know lots of gamers across the country and my experience is that about 80% have turned to PF and forsaken 4e. Maybe 10% stick to 4e exclsuively. The other 10% still play both (including me, although 4e is very sporadic). I know more people who are regularly playing 3.5 (D&D 3.5, not PF) than I know playing 4e.
Cheers.
Dragonsfoot would find it pretty hilarious that people here think it was 4e where D&D stopped being D&D. There's some folks there who think it's all been downhill since the radical changes of 2e.
Don't you mean since the 1e book came out? or was it the rules encyclopedia?
@ ProfessorCirno: Agreed. I was there, albiet briefly and they allow NO talk of anything post 2E/AD&D. Down right rude at many points. I haven't been back.
As for stuff being Iconic...
I think it boils down to the individual gamer. Firstly, we need the 6 main stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) and some saving throws (I prefer 3 over 5 but that's semantics). I think the Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, and...possibly Half-Elf are Iconic enough for Core. Everything else can be included or not, I could care less. For classes; basically Fighter, Cleric, Thief/Rogue, Mage are the main ingredients for style and character creation. From there, it's all just flavor and fluff and combos of the original four. I like more options, sure and I think there are some that have become a main-stay in this genre like the Paladin, Barbarian, Druid, Ranger but they're not SOO iconic that their inclusion is exclusively required in the main Core rules.
As for magic, there are staple point spells that are required (magic missile, cure wounds, fireball, lightning bolt, bless) as well as specific abilities such as Turning Undead and Backstab/Sneak Attack.
All of these things have been in D&D since I've been playing 2e on Up and if they're in 5E in some form or fashion, i'll be giving it a good try.
What I'd like to see for 5E is more lateral progression. In terms of character advancement for what they can do like more robust variants of specific classes. MOre options to flesh out character ideas and less on level progression for better and stronger "Pluses" which are only geared because creatures and encounters are designed that way. Sorta like what E6 did a while go with keeping things steady but gradually coming into a strong and powerful adventurer. The only reason I see HP, BAB, Saves, Spells, and such go up is because monsters at those levels have set defenses and damage output to accomidate those bonuses. Take out the need for bonuses and you see monters and adventures without the need to have a +13 to attack, deal 2d6 + 10 plus 4d6 plus 5 fire plus 2 poison to inflict some damage. That's just rules bloat and not necessarily required.
Dragon root do have 2e forms, as well as Castles and crusaders and hackmaster forms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, I would like to see more lateral progression as well.
One of the things that really bothers me is having to ditch my favourite sword every few levels for one with a bigger "plus". I don't recall heroes in any other fantasy literature repeatedly ditching things of sentimental value because their "pluses" were too low.
I think it's exclusively a D&D/Pathfinder trope, and one I would rather do without.
The whole magic item Christmas tree thing, on the whole, is my biggest problem with any edition of D&D. It sucks that you NEED tons of gear to be a proper hero under the default assumptions
I think it's exclusively a D&D/Pathfinder trope, and one I would rather do without.The whole magic item Christmas tree thing, on the whole, is my biggest problem with any edition of D&D. It sucks that you NEED tons of gear to be a proper hero under the default assumptions
I agree this needs to go,however this was much less an issue pre 3e.
Instead of having players ditch their weapons/armor/items for a bigger 'plus', I would have the new RPG system ditch the entire conceit of 'pluses' for items. Perhaps there could be a few exceptions, but in general, I would not be sad to see the system of 'pluses' go completely despite its long D&D tradition.
On another note, to find some positive things about 4E that I would enjoy seeing in a future version of D&D, I should mention that although it was implicitly there before, I like that 4E made the power source of each class more explicit. I also much prefer its approach to epic levels to how they were done in 3E, though I guess that's not saying much, given just how bad 3E's implementation of epic levels was. I also like it that classes like the fighter and such have unique abilities of their own, rather than just feats, though I disagree with the implementation and the unitary resource management system. Still, in principle, it is a good thing.
Instead of having players ditch their weapons/armor/items for a bigger 'plus', I would have the new RPG system ditch the entire conceit of 'pluses' for items. Perhaps there could be a few exceptions, but in general, I would not be sad to see the system of 'pluses' go completely despite its long D&D tradition.
Agreed, except I'd rule out even the few exceptions. Pluses need to go.
What about just dropping the whole basic advancement for attacks all together? I mean really it's only to simulate that you can attack faster and more efficent that a peasant or lower level person (someone not as experienced as you in RP terms). I'm much more of a fan of the 1/2 level + Ability system than a standardized Basic Attack Bonus approach. Instead of it being BAB (hells, could throw out 1/2 level too if you want) go with more attacks at the same modified attack number. How this translates into "real-world" dynamics is that newbie Foot-Soldier Fred has the basics for swinging his sword, getting his shield into place, and has a good stance. He has a good swing, attacks at a normal pace and every once in a while can eek out a nice combo or attack sequence (like a 4E-style power). Then he sees Veteran Maximus taking on 3 to 4 of his buddies, making quick strikes and precise attacks while using intresting maneuvers. These attacks (plural mind you) are quicker and more accurate but use the same modifier, maybe one or two higher for added Strength or some other ability.
Just some things to ponder.
Also, I agree with losing the Enhancement bonuses to magical equipment that are mostly used to keep up with the math of high level play. Just put them into the regular advancement of the character and use magical items like they were magical. If it's a flaming sword, then it deals fire damage, maybe some additional fire damage on a critical hit and maybe it can shoot some fire X amount of times per day (or once a battle yadda-yadda).
I also think they should keep the Tier style system, basing feats and progression (if we're going vertically) as it helps people understand the kinds of games you can make and their impact on the greater world.
As long as we are throwing out ideas, you could replace BAB with a skill roll. Why couldn't you replace it with a skill? with some classes having it as a class skill.
Of coarse I do not recall how 4e done skills, I recall saga was 1/2 level+ ability +5 for trained. I am a fan of pathfinders rank+ 3 or +0 myself but saga had an interesting system.
BAB already IS a skill. Some classes just aren't allowed to put points in it every level. :)
which was kinda the point :) Honestly I would like to see armor as DR and "evasion" as a skill or more akin to saga's reaction. That I liked.
BAB already IS a skill. Some classes just aren't allowed to put points in it every level. :)which was kinda the point :) Honestly I would like to see armor as DR and "evasion" as a skill or more akin to saga's reaction. That I liked.
You should check out Talislanta 4th Edition. (Free download.) It is almost exactly like d20, except fighting is a skill. Ok, each category of weapon is its own skill. Armor is like DR. Ok, the game isn't level based. You spend XP to increase skills. 1XP * new rank level. Magic is also a skill. Well, a suite of skills.
Yea, I would like to see more lateral progression as well.
One of the things that really bothers me is having to ditch my favourite sword every few levels for one with a bigger "plus". I don't recall heroes in any other fantasy literature repeatedly ditching things of sentimental value because their "pluses" were too low.
I think it's exclusively a D&D/Pathfinder trope, and one I would rather do without.
The whole magic item Christmas tree thing, on the whole, is my biggest problem with any edition of D&D. It sucks that you NEED tons of gear to be a proper hero under the default assumptions
Aggreed about the tree effect, but not with ditching the sword.
See this (at the very end of the chapter) or
Adding New AbilitiesSometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
You should check out Talislanta 4th Edition. (Free download.) It is almost exactly like d20, except fighting is a skill. Ok, each category of weapon is its own skill. Armor is like DR. Ok, the game isn't level based. You spend XP to increase skills. 1XP * new rank level. Magic is also a skill. Well, a suite of skills.
Oh, before you jump to conclusions about how they stole ideas from d20, the essentials were all in the 1992's 3rd edition of Talislanta. Written by some guy named Jonathan Tweet. Published by Wizards of the Coast. Typesetting by Lisa Stevens (& Dave Howell.)
I just prefer 4th edition Talislanta as they streamlined the presentation and put a lot of stuff in one giant book. Too bad it is long out of print. I've got my copy though!
IMO the whole idea of BAB differences between classes is pretty terrible.
Having the different BAB progressions introduces severe imbalances in the system. A monster who is easy to hit for a fighter with full BAB can be very difficult to hit for a rogue. When you get to level 20 you have a 5 point difference in BAB between a fighter and rogue, which is a pretty huge spread.
|
|
I have an answer about "what will Paizo do if 5e comes out" that I am almost completely certain will be correct.
.
.
.
They will sell 5e just like they sell 4e books. So if Wizards decides to come out with new books that people will want, Paizo stands to make some more money.
I am very new to Pathfinder. I jumped on the 4e bandwagon as soon as it came out and played and dm'd it for a few years. There are many gripes I had with it. I found out about Pathfinder only because I ran into someone and talked with him about roleplaying and my gripes with 4e.
I really like Pathfinder, and how Paizo seems to be making a controlled advance of their core rulebooks. Instead of WOTC's attitude of "lets get as many books out as fast as possible".
I also remembered when Paizo lost it's rights to publish Dungeon and Dragon magazines and was very sad. I respected how graceful Paizo dealt with that harsh reality. It really seemed like WoTC has changed from the open and friendly company to the closed and protective company.
However it is still no where near as bad as TSR where they would regularly attack their fan base with legal action.
I won't blindly jump on the 5e bandwagon now. The system would have to be all kinds of awesome to get me to leave Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the whole idea of BAB differences between classes is pretty terrible.
Having the different BAB progressions introduces severe imbalances in the system. A monster who is easy to hit for a fighter with full BAB can be very difficult to hit for a rogue. When you get to level 20 you have a 5 point difference in BAB between a fighter and rogue, which is a pretty huge spread.
Well, I guess they just figured Fighters should be better at... fighting.
|
IMO the whole idea of BAB differences between classes is pretty terrible.
Having the different BAB progressions introduces severe imbalances in the system. A monster who is easy to hit for a fighter with full BAB can be very difficult to hit for a rogue. When you get to level 20 you have a 5 point difference in BAB between a fighter and rogue, which is a pretty huge spread.
Er, that's kinda the point. Fighters are supposed to be better at fighting stuff than rogueus are. That's why they're called rogues. It's also why rogues are better at being sneaky in general.
Maybe using your logic we should give a fighter the sorcerer spell progression, because by the time you get to 20th level there's a massive difference between the spellcasting ability of a wizard and a fighter. :P
IMO the whole idea of BAB differences between classes is pretty terrible.
Having the different BAB progressions introduces severe imbalances in the system. A monster who is easy to hit for a fighter with full BAB can be very difficult to hit for a rogue. When you get to level 20 you have a 5 point difference in BAB between a fighter and rogue, which is a pretty huge spread.
Er, that's kinda the point. Fighters are supposed to be better at fighting stuff than rogueus are. That's why they're called rogues. It's also why rogues are better at being sneaky in general.
Maybe using your logic we should give a fighter the sorcerer spell progression, because by the time you get to 20th level there's a massive difference between the spellcasting ability of a wizard and a fighter. :P
The problem is, rogues still need to hit monsters to do their sneaky backstab damage. Reflecting "better at fighting" with an 80% chance to hit vs. a 55% chance is problematic. Worse, fighters get more chances than rogues to hit, making their odds of hurting the monster way higher than the rogue's. The rogue has to struggle hard to stay relevant at all in combat. Perhaps he should be less impressive than the fighter unless he's got the drop or better positioning on his opponent, but he shouldn't be hard pressed to fight at all.
|
Once I was a staunch supporter of WotC, but 4e killed a lot of that, so anything they do with 5e, I will be very cautious and leery of. At least for a good while after any such release I am likely to stick with Paizo while keeping a wary eye on how 5e pans out.
I know I am not alone in feeling this way at least in the local area I live in, most fellow gamers I have spoken to feel much the same way. So unless WotC unveils something truly spectacular, Paizo hasn't much to worry about for the foreseeable future IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, rogues still need to hit monsters to do their sneaky backstab damage. Reflecting "better at fighting" with an 80% chance to hit vs. a 55% chance is problematic. Worse, fighters get more chances than rogues to hit, making their odds of hurting the monster way higher than the rogue's. The rogue has to struggle hard to stay relevant at all in combat. Perhaps he should be less impressive than the fighter unless he's got the drop or better positioning on his opponent, but he shouldn't be hard pressed to fight at all.IMO the whole idea of BAB differences between classes is pretty terrible.
Having the different BAB progressions introduces severe imbalances in the system. A monster who is easy to hit for a fighter with full BAB can be very difficult to hit for a rogue. When you get to level 20 you have a 5 point difference in BAB between a fighter and rogue, which is a pretty huge spread.
Er, that's kinda the point. Fighters are supposed to be better at fighting stuff than rogueus are. That's why they're called rogues. It's also why rogues are better at being sneaky in general.
Maybe using your logic we should give a fighter the sorcerer spell progression, because by the time you get to 20th level there's a massive difference between the spellcasting ability of a wizard and a fighter. :P
Evey rogue I've had in my campaigns always offset the BAB discrepancy by utilising delay, tumble, spring attack, magic weapons and flanking. Possibly benefiting from a bulls strength effect or weapon finesse.
Fighters just hit things. Sneaky types ought to be nimble and sneaky!
Evey rogue I've had in my campaigns always offset the BAB discrepancy by utilising delay, tumble, spring attack, magic weapons and flanking. Possibly benefiting from a bulls strength effect or weapon finesse.
Fighters just hit things. Sneaky types ought to be nimble and sneaky!
Absolutely. The problem is, spring attack doesn't offer to-hit bonuses, flanking only ups their percentage of success by 10%, and magic weapons/enhancements are an assumed sunk cost for everyone in the game. Those numbers assumed reasonable base stat modifiers. A rogue's Dex isn't 10 points higher than a fighter's strength, so just using the other modifier doesn't really help.
The model just doesn't hold up quite the way it should.
Evey rogue I've had in my campaigns always offset the BAB discrepancy by utilising delay, tumble, spring attack, magic weapons and flanking. Possibly benefiting from a bulls strength effect or weapon finesse.
Fighters just hit things. Sneaky types ought to be nimble and sneaky!Absolutely. The problem is, spring attack doesn't offer to-hit bonuses, flanking only ups their percentage of success by 10%, and magic weapons/enhancements are an assumed sunk cost for everyone in the game. Those numbers assumed reasonable base stat modifiers. A rogue's Dex isn't 10 points higher than a fighter's strength, so just using the other modifier doesn't really help.
The model just doesn't hold up quite the way it should.
Agreed. When I play my Pathfinder Swashbuckler 3/Rogue 6/Swordsage 1 (total BAB 7) I'm pretty much required to be flanking, Weapon Focus, and the highest enchantments I can afford for my level (which is 10) to be any use for attacking. If I'm lucky I can drop a "no light" spell (Book of Vile Darkness) on them for some additional shadowy-cover. That's a mighty specific build to hit with an average attack and dual-wielding shortswords.
Basically I think classes, for theoritical 5E, that are geared for Weapon attacks (ranged or melee) don't need varying bonuses for using those weapons since they all targeting AC. Like the 1/2 level + Ability mod + additional modifiers route, a class shouldn't be penalized for doing it's job like Fighters attacking a foe straight on or a Rogue gaining some extra damage for opportuinistic attacks.
Now this might come off as both Fighter and Rogue being the same but we're just factoring one aspect of combat and not comparison between classes. The differences between the classes comes in features, weapon and armor proficiencies, and unique skills/powers/feats etc. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem with minimal advancement for attacks in the first place, just sayin'.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Dragonsfoot would find it pretty hilarious that people here think it was 4e where D&D stopped being D&D. There's some folks there who think it's all been downhill since the radical changes of 2e.
Personally, I'm still bitter about how 2e nerfed the ranger. Stupid Drizzt clones.
Sorry gotta say it, Saga. Saga, Saga, Saga! If WotC had just used a cleaned up fantasy/D&D focused version of Saga from the start (and hadn't done a fluff cow hunt) they wouldn't have broken the community the way it did.I'll say it again. SAGA SAGA SAGA SAGA. I thought 4e was going to build off of that, and that was part of my enthusiasm for the new edition.
The fracturing of the community would have been minimal if they stuck with a saga variant.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I was one of those who, when I first heard the announcement of 4e, was a little worried(I had just bought a ton of 3e material). I was very iffy about the preview material.
Then SW Saga came along, with the tagline of being a "testing ground for 4e material", and my worries were put to rest. I loved Saga Edition, and just imagining a fantasy version of that ruleset made me giddy with ideas. I love the simplicity of just building whatever you want, using class level combos, talent trees, and feats. Literally ANYTHING I could imagine in the SW universe, I could roll up in just a few minutes. I GM'ed SW games just as an excuse to put all my character ideas in play as NPC's and villains just to see what happens.
The idea of using such a streamlined system for fantasy play sounded like a dream come true.
Then 4e came out, and it didn't resemble Saga AT ALL. Now, I'm not bashing. 4e is a solid game and does what it set out to do well. The players I know who actively play 4e, really, really enjoy it. But, it was definitely NOT what a lot of us were expecting.
Who knows? Maybe 5e could go down that route that Saga did, or at least something close.
Er, that's kinda the point. Fighters are supposed to be better at fighting stuff than rogueus are. That's why they're called rogues. It's also why rogues are better at being sneaky in general.
Maybe using your logic we should give a fighter the sorcerer spell progression, because by the time you get to 20th level there's a massive difference between the spellcasting ability of a wizard and a fighter. :P
I think you're missing my point. Though a fighter is inferior to a sorcerer by virtue of incapacitating spells>hitting things, the solution is to bring casters into line, rather than making everyone cast spells.
If the only difference between the fighting ability of the fighter and a rogue is their BAB, then there's a problem.
At low levels the system works because the BAB difference is 1 or 2 points, but a 5-point difference at level 20 is way too much.
A +1 or +2 to attack rolls is already very powerful.
If the difference in attack rolls or defenses between party members scales as they level, then you are introducing some serious problems to system balance.
While 4e has fixed the problem with 3e's attack bonus spread, the problem still persists in that non-AC defenses have a huge spread at high levels.
Game designers need to realize that SCALING differences in hit/defense between party members are BAD.
You should check out Talislanta 4th Edition. (Free download.) It is almost exactly like d20, except fighting is a skill. Ok, each category of weapon is its own skill. Armor is like DR. Ok, the game isn't level based. You spend XP to increase skills. 1XP * new rank level. Magic is also a skill. Well, a suite of skills.BAB already IS a skill. Some classes just aren't allowed to put points in it every level. :)which was kinda the point :) Honestly I would like to see armor as DR and "evasion" as a skill or more akin to saga's reaction. That I liked.
Thanks for the link, I have heard of it but never had the chance to give it a once over.
At low levels the system works because the BAB difference is 1 or 2 points, but a 5-point difference at level 20 is way too much.A +1 or +2 to attack rolls is already very powerful.
If the difference in attack rolls or defenses between party members scales as they level, then you are introducing some serious problems to system balance.
This is one reason E6 (Pathfinder E8) games work really well for most classes. Spells don't get so powerful that they're instant-win buttons, Fighters and other melee-centric classes are fairly close to power and can contribute equally, and 80% of the monsters can be fought with this system. It really is the "sweet spot" for d20. And I think this shows that increasing modifiers are as important as lateral character advancement.
While 4e has fixed the problem with 3e's attack bonus spread, the problem still persists in that non-AC defenses have a huge spread at high levels.Game designers need to realize that SCALING differences in hit/defense between party members are BAD.
Yea, I agree with everything you've said. Hopefully theoritical 5E will put more emphasis on flsehing out characters without the need for rules-bloat or the need for stacking math to simulate some sort of higher danger.
In fact, I think Armor as DR would better represent this system as your attacks don't change but the damge could via powers and feats, the rate of your attacks incrase with leveling, and magic can easily overcome certain resistances too. Basically this style puts more emphasis on HP and resistance than target defenses to beat.
I'm looking forward to a PF 2e, but for specific reasons.
- Streamlining
- Increased clarity in rulebook presentation
I'm in a position where we work with a number of people who are new to the game. As it is now, just how nonintuitive the rulebook is really does stand out. Rules are spread across multiple areas. Things could be streamlined quite a bit. I would love to see (at minimum) a 33 percent reduction in the overall size of the book with an increased focus on the user end of things.
This would require quite a bit of rewriting. ...which is why I don't expect to see it before 2e.
5th edition I'm less interested in, though it's because of how they treated other publishers and their community.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who cares about 5e! Pathfinder was created because 4e was created. We were playing 3.5 and wizards of the coast stopped printing their 3.5 things and stopped producing their 3.5 line cold. They decided to make 4e which alienated all the people who didn't want to switch to a new game altogether. Ie. we either stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons and start playing 4e or do both. And either way that was expensive. So we sat on piles of books we bought and were obsolete and liked and we could buy lots of new that we were forced to or not. They Paizo came out with 3.5 modules and we were happy. Then they upgraded the works a bit to 3.75 and it worked. And we were happy. They are doing a great job. And wizards of the coast are sticking it to the people again. They trashed Star Wars game, and they thumbed it to the old school D&Ders and now they are upgrading soon after... I keep my 3.5, my 2nd Edition, my 1st Edition and my Pathfinder Edition. And wotc can 45$6 themselves...
Well, I guess they just figured Fighters should be better at... fighting.
Isn't that what Weapon and Armor Training are for?
The most basic element of fighting is hitting the other guy. That's what BAB and iterative attacks are about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, rogues still need to hit monsters to do their sneaky backstab damage. Reflecting "better at fighting" with an 80% chance to hit vs. a 55% chance is problematic. Worse, fighters get more chances than rogues to hit, making their odds of hurting the monster way higher than the rogue's. The rogue has to struggle hard to stay relevant at all in combat. Perhaps he should be less impressive than the fighter unless he's got the drop or better positioning on his opponent, but he shouldn't be hard pressed to fight at all.
Maybe the problem is considering Rogues as just another combat class. They have other skills which is why they can't match the Fighter in a contest that involves beating on other people with various sharp / blunt instruments. You might as well complain that Fighters don't get as many skill points as Rogues. You would be right on both counts. Rogues don't hit as well as Fighters and Fighters don't have the skills Rogues do.
Maybe the problem is considering Rogues as just another combat class. They have other skills which is why they can't match the Fighter in a contest that involves beating on other people with various sharp / blunt instruments. You might as well complain that Fighters don't get as many skill points as Rogues. You would be right on both counts. Rogues don't hit as well as Fighters and Fighters don't have the skills Rogues do.
This concept seems to be lost to people with the modern so called progress of class balance.
I use the word progress loosely.