So you are not down with Bounded Accuracy I take it?
Wasn't really familiar with it. But after reading about it on the Wizards site, this part caught my attention:
"...we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained..."
Which kinda makes me think that increasing damage with level fits right in with Bounded Accuracy. Or am I confused?
Edit: After a skim, bounded accuracy seems promising, though I'll have to give it more thought...
For martials without AEDU, I'd prefer a host of maneuvers that can be done over and over that have effects but the damage remains mostly in the weapon + ability modifier area. So a Knight might know 3 or 4 maneuvers he can use all the time but damage comes from his Sword + Strength. Sort of like how Essentials did with the Slayer and Knight classes, of which I'm a big fan of.
|
For martials without AEDU, I'd prefer a host of maneuvers that can be done over and over that have effects but the damage remains mostly in the weapon + ability modifier area. So a Knight might know 3 or 4 maneuvers he can use all the time but damage comes from his Sword + Strength. Sort of like how Essentials did with the Slayer and Knight classes, of which I'm a big fan of.
I guess this comes from learning to play in the older editions. For me personally lots of micro-management in the combat rules does nothing to improve an RPG. For me combat is nothing more than a high stakes series of skill resolution tests. I simple 'roll d20 to hit' can be described in many ways at the table without needing pages of rules detailing effects. Now I understand fully that some see the purpose of combat to test your personal tactical skills out in a chess-like competition against the DM. Just not my cup of tea (as they say).
1e AD&D was a game of 'mother may I', just look at what rules were where. The fun (for me) of being a DM was you were like a judge. Players indicated what they would like to do and then you parsed that with what you understood of the rules (sometimes thanks to Gygaxese not easy) and away play went. I believe I am an excellent 1/2e DM but I think I suck at 3e/PF as they DM very differently from 1/2e. 4e I enjoyed DMing again but because of my dislike of miniature based combats I couldn't really get into 4e. 5e for me currently has lots of promise and is perhaps where I would have seen the natural progression from 2e going - the anger people had going 3e --> 4e was me when I saw 2e --> 3e. I could tell that a board game company had purchased TSR and that they wanted to sell me plastic toys (ala Transformers etc). 5e plays like 2e with more consistent mechanics.
So summing up I think that:
- 1e/2e/4e/5e has a DM
- 3e/PF has an extra player that happens to have more than one character (called a monster - but really a character mechanically)
S.
Without AEDU I think i would have a basic fighter like 2nd ed that just gets multiple attacks and great saves and maybe abilities like spring attack and cleave for free. Fighters can cleave 1/level each round.
An advanced fighter would probably resemble the 3.5 one but the bonus feats could unlock 4th ed type powers for those that want them.
One could probably hybrid 2nd ed and 3rd ed together or hybrid 3rd and 4th ed. Someone is going to get hit by the bus though. D&DNs ultimate fate I think may come own to marketing and how many new players the game attracts.
Well at GenCon Mike Mearls announced one last public playtest packet for mid September. Speculation (which seems reasonable) is an August 2014 launch for the game. The next (and apparently last) DDN packet should be a good one with a revamped skill system, various changes / fixes, and multi-classing said to be included.
Interesting. With one more packet to go how much do you think Next will resemble it? Was the play test ever anything but a concept test with the real play test being played close to the chest?
I'm sure it will be in the same ballpark, but it won't be close to identical with the last packet. For one thing, the last packet will give them more feedback and includes some fairly important items (i.e. multi-classing) and if something crashes and burns they'll make changes. Then too, different playtest packets have tested different things that may not be present in the next packet. Skills disappeared from the most recent for example, but were present in the earlier and (apparently) will be in the next. They seem to have used each playtest packet to work on specific issues (which certainly makes sense). They have their own internal playtests as well. I have to admit I'm more optimistic about DDN than I was at first. Of course, some people have had the opposite experience. I'll be using the 8-2-13 packet (and the next) to playtest within my campaign (as opposed to scenarios). We'll see how it goes.
I'm sure it will be in the same ballpark, but it won't be close to identical with the last packet. For one thing, the last packet will give them more feedback and includes some fairly important items (i.e. multi-classing) and if something crashes and burns they'll make changes. Then too, different playtest packets have tested different things that may not be present in the next packet. Skills disappeared from the most recent for example, but were present in the earlier and (apparently) will be in the next. They seem to have used each playtest packet to work on specific issues (which certainly makes sense). They have their own internal playtests as well. I have to admit I'm more optimistic about DDN than I was at first. Of course, some people have had the opposite experience. I'll be using the 8-2-13 packet (and the next) to playtest within my campaign (as opposed to scenarios). We'll see how it goes.
Interesting. With one more packet to go how much do you think Next will resemble it? Was the play test ever anything but a concept test with the real play test being played close to the chest?
The old simple fighters though did not even get static bonus effects except for weapon specialization (and it was optional). They also id not get stat buffs as with a simple fighter every fighter is going to more or less end up with 20 str/dex and probably con as well.
A simple fighter used to be half decent with 16 strength, a wizard with 16 wizard could not cast level 7, 8 and 9 spells IIRC.
I suspect D&DN fate is going to come down to marketing, presentation and newer players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish they would limit full hp + con bonus to the first 9-10 levels. This alone helps curb hp-bloat in damage and monster hps. Under 1/2e above 'name level' was epic. I seem to recall my 16th level Magic User under 1e having 34 hp. Sure I could do reality tearing magic, but all I had to do was look ar my hps and it gave my character a healthy dose of reality.
Having 200 hp and then making monsters/effects that can do 200 hp damage is no different than having 34 hp and having effects that can dish out 34 hp.
But I firmly believe that no PC class should more powerful than logically the setting could contain. That means for me heroes but NOT superheroes should be supported ny the rules.
S.
I wish they would limit full hp + con bonus to the first 9-10 levels. This alone helps curb hp-bloat in damage and monster hps. Under 1/2e above 'name level' was epic. I seem to recall my 16th level Magic User under 1e having 34 hp. Sure I could do reality tearing magic, but all I had to do was look ar my hps and it gave my character a healthy dose of reality.
The way I read it, the classes in the playtest get full HP + Con bonus at first level. After that it's roll your dice and add the Con bonus. Personally I always favored rolling at first level as well with a minimum of 1/2 to start.
|
I am personally hoping for a dial on HP. Some people like static increases and others like being beefy at lower levels. It would be nice if you could turn the dial to 1 for fantasy quagmire or set the dial to 11 for supers. Problem is I am not sure how this could be handled on the GM side with encounter building. While being an excellent way to give multiple styles their way, it will probably be too much trouble for the designers to deal with.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Roll for hp + con up to 10th then from 11th on classes only get a set amount with no con bonus. This means 20th characters will only have 10 to 30 more hp's than they had at 10th.
I didn't catch that. In short you would like a return to the old style pre 3E with hit dice stopping at a given point and a small hp bonus per level after that. I could deal with that, but any players who started with 3E would find it restrictive.
|
|
I didn't catch that. In short you would like a return to the old style pre 3E with hit dice stopping at a given point and a small hp bonus per level after that. I could deal with that, but any players who started with 3E would find it restrictive.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Roll for hp + con up to 10th then from 11th on classes only get a set amount with no con bonus. This means 20th characters will only have 10 to 30 more hp's than they had at 10th.
Yep. How is it restrictive? The only thing will be that hp's don't get out of control for players or by default monster. I think it stopped the game falling apart at higher levels. As I said, my 1e AD&D 16th level Magic User wasn't keen on wading into the middle of a fight even though I was casting 8th level magic. I still needed my friends unless I was wiping out much lower level foes.
Stems from me liking the idea of being a Hero and not a Super-Hero. 1e/2e maintained a level of mortality that was lost in 3e. I still have no issues with Wish aging the caster 5 years and every time you are brought back from the dead you have -1 CON (permanent).
S.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I wasn't clear. Roll for hp + con up to 10th then from 11th on classes only get a set amount with no con bonus. This means 20th characters will only have 10 to 30 more hp's than they had at 10th.I didn't catch that. In short you would like a return to the old style pre 3E with hit dice stopping at a given point and a small hp bonus per level after that. I could deal with that, but any players who started with 3E would find it restrictive.
Yep. How is it restrictive? The only thing will be that hp's don't get out of control for players or by default monster. I think it stopped the game falling apart at higher levels. As I said, my 1e AD&D 16th level Magic User wasn't keen on wading into the middle of a fight even though I was casting 8th level magic. I still needed my friends unless I was wiping out much lower level foes.
Stems from me liking the idea of being a Hero and not a Super-Hero. 1e/2e maintained a level of mortality that was lost in 3e. I still have no issues with Wish aging the caster 5 years and every time you are brought back from the dead you have -1 CON (permanent).
S.
Restrictive may have been the wrong term. Frightening is probably closer :) I don't disagree with you about it either. I started with the original game so low hit point totals don't shock me. PF has moved the Wizard to d6 hit die level, you get 20 at 20th level plus CON bonuses at every level. It's what they are used to. Some people insist maximum hit points per die is the way to go. They're not used to their Magic User / Wizard / Mage being as squishy as they used to be. I remember my first Magic User. And his 2 hit points. It did make things exciting :D
|
|
I remember my first Magic User. And his 2 hit points. It did make things exciting :D
And 1 spell (full stop) per day at 1st level! I played Magic Users more than any other class and never complained about the low number of spells under 1e/2e. Just the way it was - like gravity. I would have thought I would have been happy about having MANY more spells per day and casting in combat that 3e+ brought, but it actually killed the fun of playing a Wizard for me. They became Fighters in a dress...
Different game for a different century (literally) I guess?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember my first Magic User. And his 2 hit points. It did make things exciting :DAnd 1 spell (full stop) per day at 1st level! I played Magic Users more than any other class and never complained about the low number of spells under 1e/2e. Just the way it was - like gravity. I would have thought I would have been happy about having MANY more spells per day and casting in combat that 3e+ brought, but it actually killed the fun of playing a Wizard for me. They became Fighters in a dress...
Different game for a different century (literally) I guess?
2 Hit points? That Magic-User could have been second level!
Different millennium. :P
I remember my first Magic User. And his 2 hit points. It did make things exciting :D
And 1 spell (full stop) per day at 1st level! I played Magic Users more than any other class and never complained about the low number of spells under 1e/2e. Just the way it was - like gravity. I would have thought I would have been happy about having MANY more spells per day and casting in combat that 3e+ brought, but it actually killed the fun of playing a Wizard for me. They became Fighters in a dress...
Different game for a different century (literally) I guess?
2 Hit points? That Magic-User could have been second level!
Different millennium. :P
Both. I was fairly happy with his hp. He could survive being hit. If he was very lucky. He died at 2nd level. He took 4 hp then. And one arrow...
|
|
Adventuring isn't for everyone ;)
Another thing, in 1e/2e a 'normal' person had a maximum of 8 hp, so a lucky Magic User by level 3 was better, survival-wise, than the toughest NPC Blacksmith! Heroic was level 1 by level 2 or 3 characters were FAR superior to the common person. By name level, heroic doesn't even begin to cover it!!! In 3e the local 10th Baker could take out several Orcs and still be back in time so his bread didn't over cook.
Not only the Super-Hero scope of 3e for PC's but also NPCs that made 3e never sit with me well.
Hope they keep the idea that from level 1 PC's are unique and powerful compared to common people. But once you step out into the wilds, well, we all know what happens to Hobbits.
|
|
There's a big difference between wanting starting characters to be a little less fragile (and more useful) than an old school wizard and liking the idea of hp growth slowing in the mid levels when you're already tough.
It's much easier to balance against around.
What do you mean by balance against around?
|
|
I am digging the old school HP vibe in here. Only issue is that due to BA HP and damage are the ways to show player progression. That means gaining few HPs at the higher levels means a flatter growth. I am cool with that but I believe a sizable segment wants progression in spades. Since HP is one of few areas I am sure many players would balk at the slow increase. Can anyone think of a way to put a dial on this so everybody wins?
|
|
"balance around" is probably closest.
I despise the theory of balance that goes "Wizards are useless and die if they stub their toe at low levels and gods if they ever reach high levels, so that's balanced."
Having a decent number of hp at low levels cancels out some of the swinginess of the game, which is good, but scaling hp up throughout the game isn't really addressing the same problem. Late game rocket tag is more about saving throws than hp anyway.
I think the balance was a little more involved than that for 1e/2e, at high level a Fighter had excellent saves against magic, even without magical protection (such as a ring of protection). The chance of an instant kill wasn't that great - ok there was Power Kill. Magic Users under 1e/2e were rarely thought of as Gods, more magic wielding mortals. Even an Archmage required about 144 hours to recover all their spells once exhausted. Sure they could teleport out and then back in later, but consider the abilities of the other classes thinking about how deal with a power wizard was all that was required. Remembering under 1e if a fighter was in melee range then their attacks happened before rolling for initiative...
I contend that 1e & 2e to a lesser extent was more balanced than 3e ever was.
S.
I guess this comes from learning to play in the older editions. For me personally lots of micro-management in the combat rules does nothing to improve an RPG. For me combat is nothing more than a high stakes series of skill resolution tests. I simple 'roll d20 to hit' can be described in many ways at the table without needing pages of rules detailing effects. Now I understand fully that some see the purpose of combat to test your personal tactical skills out in a chess-like competition against the DM. Just not my cup of tea (as they say).For martials without AEDU, I'd prefer a host of maneuvers that can be done over and over that have effects but the damage remains mostly in the weapon + ability modifier area. So a Knight might know 3 or 4 maneuvers he can use all the time but damage comes from his Sword + Strength. Sort of like how Essentials did with the Slayer and Knight classes, of which I'm a big fan of.
I dunno, every edition had micro-management but it was always the spellcaster that had it and everyone else just did the same thing (albiet reflavored and described 1,000,000 different ways). One thing I hope for is different styles (the gladiator is coming along but too far behind the Warrior from the lastest packet to be a good choice) so that people who want complexity can have it and people who want simplicity can have that too. Same goes with spellcasters. I'd like a mage that was simple and easy (sub-clas Warlock) that just threw around a few magical bolts that augmented at certain levels and maybe some utility here and there. Not 30, 40, or 50 spells to pick from every level. If we're going to throw in complexity at the classs level then it needs to be inclusive.
1e AD&D was a game of 'mother may I', just look at what rules were where. The fun (for me) of being a DM was you were like a judge. Players indicated what they would like to do and then you parsed that with what you understood of the rules (sometimes thanks to Gygaxese not easy) and away play went. I believe I am an excellent 1/2e DM but I think I suck at 3e/PF as they DM very differently from 1/2e. 4e I enjoyed DMing again but because of my dislike of miniature based combats I couldn't really get into 4e. 5e for me currently has lots of promise and is perhaps where I would have seen the natural progression from 2e going - the anger people had going 3e --> 4e was me when I saw 2e --> 3e. I could tell that a board game company had purchased TSR and that they wanted to sell me plastic toys (ala Transformers etc). 5e plays like 2e with more consistent mechanics.So summing up I think that:
- 1e/2e/4e/5e has a DM
- 3e/PF has an extra player that happens to have more than one character (called a monster - but really a character mechanically)
S.
I guess so but I've found myself adjudicating lots of things in v3.5 that the rules either didn't cover well or weren't very good for our group so we changed them. I'm not a fan of "Mother may I" because I really want a sense of continunity and you just don't get that with continual on-the-spot rulings most of the time unless your write down every single decision you made based on the situation at hand. For example, Player A wants to bull rush an Ogre. The first time it happens you made it an action and it was a Strength vs. Strength contest. The second time it happens (say, 2 months later) you make it a move + action and require a Strength vs. a static DC (Ogre's Modifier + 10). The third time it comes up (3 sessions later) you say "Um, I dont remember how we did it so lets go with you must move in a straight line, use your standard action and make an attack with your weapon. If you hit the creature takes damage and is pushed back 5ft." Well now what are the players going to think the next time it happens?
I know this is a simple and probably silly example but I have seen it when playing 2E and it was something I loathed. I'd like to know what typical things I can do and rely on a consistant basis for which the rules apply to make those decisions. Clear and concise rules don't necessarily need to be convoluted and lengthy require a minutia of rolling die and math, but there DOES need to be some base line understanding of typical actions that remain fairly consistant.
I would like to see a return to 1 round = 1 minute. This alone removes much of the combat micro-management that, personally, I felt plagued 3e+.
I could get behind that change. It would simplify not only a lot of combat micromanagement, but a lot of other issues related to time and general actions within an encounter.
I would like to see a return to 1 round = 1 minute. This alone removes much of the combat micro-management that, personally, I felt plagued 3e+.
Out of genuine curiosity, how so?
I would like to see a return to 1 round = 1 minute. This alone removes much of the combat micro-management that, personally, I felt plagued 3e+.Out of genuine curiosity, how so?
I would say in part because it significantly reduces the need to simulate every single action. It's a lot easier to say that the attack roll represents your overall effort for that full minute, not just a single swing. It also puts casting spells back into a time scale that makes more sense while keeping the casting time in line with the time scales being used by everyone else. It's not a huge difference by itself, but it allows for a setup that flows more naturally than the current six seconds allows for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see a return to 1 round = 1 minute. This alone removes much of the combat micro-management that, personally, I felt plagued 3e+.
Out of genuine curiosity, how so?
I would say in part because it significantly reduces the need to simulate every single action. It's a lot easier to say that the attack roll represents your overall effort for that full minute, not just a single swing. It also puts casting spells back into a time scale that makes more sense while keeping the casting time in line with the time scales being used by everyone else. It's not a huge difference by itself, but it allows for a setup that flows more naturally than the current six seconds allows for.
One of the more annoying ideas in pre 3.x D&D was the idea that the combat round should be one minute. The explanation of "many tries, one hit" was always extremely unsatisfactory. It was just a book keeping rule to track time. Reducing the time in a melee round was widely house ruled. In any event you could micro manage the heck out of one minute rounds as easily as 6 second rounds (or the 15 second rounds of 2E Player's Option: Combat and Tactics) with the right rules. You could also simplify the actions in a six second combat round. The length of time in a combat round is irrelevant to that; only the rules matter.
One of the more annoying ideas in pre 3.x D&D was the idea that the combat round should be one minute. The explanation of "many tries, one hit" was always extremely unsatisfactory. It was just a book keeping rule to track time. Reducing the time in a melee round was widely house ruled. In any event you could micro manage the heck out of one minute rounds as easily as 6 second rounds (or the 15 second rounds of 2E Player's Option: Combat and Tactics) with the right rules. You could also simplify the actions in a six second combat round. The length of time in a combat round is irrelevant to that; only the rules matter.
I would like to see a return to 1 round = 1 minute. This alone removes much of the combat micro-management that, personally, I felt plagued 3e+.
Out of genuine curiosity, how so?
I would say in part because it significantly reduces the need to simulate every single action. It's a lot easier to say that the attack roll represents your overall effort for that full minute, not just a single swing. It also puts casting spells back into a time scale that makes more sense while keeping the casting time in line with the time scales being used by everyone else. It's not a huge difference by itself, but it allows for a setup that flows more naturally than the current six seconds allows for.
Pre 3.x combat had a lot of problems, but the length of the round was actually not one of them. The biggest problem with having a six second round to me is that it reduces magic casting time to a joke for the effect you're getting; the time makes sense for handling a weapon, and that's pretty much it. Going back to a full minute round while retaining the other fixes put in place by 3.x would allow those other options, like casting or a bard using inspire courage, to actually make sense without negatively impacting the martial combat aspect.
|
The biggest problem with having a six second round to me is that it reduces magic casting time to a joke for the effect you're getting; the time makes sense for handling a weapon, and that's pretty much it.
Yeah, being able to take your backpack off, root around in it for a potion (but not just any potion, but for THE specific one you need), take it out, open the bottle, drink it, and still be able to make your move action; all under 6 seconds is a bit much for the imagination... And that's not even mentioning the fact that you're trying to do all of this under the duress of combat.
Sure, you (rightly) provoke an attack of opportunity, but whether you drink the potion and then move, or move and then drink the potion, my point is that I have trouble with characters being able to do all of that in just 6 seconds.
If the round was longer (like 1 minute), being able to do all of that in one round becomes a little more believable.
YMMV...
I think the issue is that all actions need to be balanced against each other. Regardless of the time increment used for a "round", it's best for balance if swinging a sword, casting a spell, and drinking a potion all take the same amount of time.
Pre 3.x combat had a lot of problems, but the length of the round was actually not one of them.
Couldn't disagree more. One minute combat rounds mean that either everyone moves ridiculously slowly (60'in a minute), or tactical movement becomes impractical (a flip-mat is too small to be of use if you move 600' a round).
Buff spells were also not as broken in 2nd ed due to the combat round length and time required for things like search rolls. 10 minute a level buffs ran off very quickly if you spent a turn (10 minutes) searching each 10' by 10's section of the dungeon. And if you didn't search and got a power word liquefy up the date when you used the toilet oh well tough.
A large part of CoDzilla being broken was the way the buff spells worked.
Pre 3.x combat had a lot of problems, but the length of the round was actually not one of them.
Couldn't disagree more. One minute combat rounds mean that either everyone moves ridiculously slowly (60'in a minute), or tactical movement becomes impractical (a flip-mat is too small to be of use if you move 600' a round).
The movement rate was one of my biggest gripes about it. The lethargic rate of attacks was a problem for me as well (as I indicated above). I'd go for a short melee round (6 seconds), dropping / reducing iterative attacks (more like 2E) and longer (in rounds) casting time (which would help the martial - caster imbalance imo). And yes, the actions you can do in a short round need to be worked on. I agree the pull off the backpack, find your stuff and use something in one 6 second round is not workable. More like 3 rounds. If you're quick. Personally I like the idea of things (i.e. reading a scroll) taking multiple rounds. It gives the opportunity for those heroic actions; interrupting the evil mages spell, grappling for the magic doohickey etc.
|
|
The explanation of "many tries, one hit" was always extremely unsatisfactory.
But that wasn't how it is described in the 1e DMG. The 'to hit' roll just represented the outcome of the all the nicks and cuts and fatiguing you did to your opponent over the round. Over the 1 minute round the melee is swirling and non-static. No one is standing still toe to toe taking turns at bashing each other.
@bugleyman: I would say 60' while parrying, dodging, ducking, and generally not trying to get you head taken off by a dragon isn't too bad I would think. What is this flip-mat you speak of? A mat that flips - what use is that? ;)
The point being that with a 1 minute round, as previously stated, who cares about Vital Cobra Fist Mega-Strike as a distinct 'Feat' - this would just be something your character would be doing during the round which ultimately ends in (hopefully) some damage. But I accept that players keen on 3e+ like to state Mega-Strike and have mechanics to back it up. Me I'm happy with "I hit it with my sword".
S.
Movement rates in pre 3.x was definitely an issue, but one that needed to be dealt with by fixing the movement rates, not the length of the round. Taking cues about movement rates from 3.x and applying them to the longer round is more effective than shortening the round, which throws everything else off while fixing the movement problem.
|
|
Movement rates in pre 3.x was definitely an issue, but one that needed to be dealt with by fixing the movement rates, not the length of the round. Taking cues about movement rates from 3.x and applying them to the longer round is more effective than shortening the round, which throws everything else off while fixing the movement problem.
I am not saying that 1e/2e was the perfect system, but I agree with the above that sometimes 3e designers threw the baby out with the bath water - as they say.
Movement rates in pre 3.x was definitely an issue, but one that needed to be dealt with by fixing the movement rates, not the length of the round. Taking cues about movement rates from 3.x and applying them to the longer round is more effective than shortening the round, which throws everything else off while fixing the movement problem.I am not saying that 1e/2e was the perfect system, but I agree with the above that sometimes 3e designers threw the baby out with the bath water - as they say.
To be fair, I only reached that conclusion after years of playing 3.x/PF and than going back to trying the older system. Not all things are blatantly obvious from the start, and the changing of the round speed was certainly one of them. It seemed to be the best fix at the time I'm sure, and only time and really extensive play showed it's deficiencies. That was one concern I had when I saw how they were developing 4E, and to an extent, I have them again with Next. It's really easy when making a lot of changes to change the things you intend to keep the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The explanation of "many tries, one hit" was always extremely unsatisfactory.
But that wasn't how it is described in the 1e DMG. The 'to hit' roll just represented the outcome of the all the nicks and cuts and fatiguing you did to your opponent over the round. Over the 1 minute round the melee is swirling and non-static. No one is standing still toe to toe taking turns at bashing each other.
Yes. The explanation that drove any number of people off to play Runequest. EGG was really stretching for an explanation on that. And for "non-static" combat nobody shifted position. At all. But, it was a game, not a simulation and it helped track time. We were historical miniature nerds and SCA types. It was not a satisfactory explanation. Runequest of course had it's own issues. Like incredibly long (in real time, not game) combats and numerous dice rolls before you knew the outcome of those "short" melee rounds.
@bugleyman: I would say 60' while parrying, dodging, ducking, and generally not trying to get you head taken off by a dragon isn't too bad I would think. What is this flip-mat you speak of? A mat that flips - what use is that? ;)
The distance moved was fixed. You could fight or not. A minute to move 60-120' while you are rushing to help your friends. So, 60' and fight the dragon. Or just amble 60' and smell the roses.
The point being that with a 1 minute round, as previously stated, who cares about Vital Cobra Fist Mega-Strike as a distinct 'Feat' - this would just be something your character would be doing during the round which ultimately ends in (hopefully) some damage. But I accept that players keen on 3e+ like to state Mega-Strike and have mechanics to back it up. Me I'm happy with "I hit it with my sword".S.
I'm not a huge fan of a lot of feats either. Especially the type you're alluding to. I use facing etc., feats are modified as a result. As I mentioned above, I'm fine with simpler combat (fewer attacks, less feats, etc.) with complexity coming with tactics and terrain. But that's my background as a miniature gamer and history buff.
I think skills are under utilized in 3.x and feats are over emphasized.
Buff spells were also not as broken in 2nd ed due to the combat round length and time required for things like search rolls. 10 minute a level buffs ran off very quickly if you spent a turn (10 minutes) searching each 10' by 10's section of the dungeon. And if you didn't search and got a power word liquefy up the date when you used the toilet oh well tough.
A large part of CoDzilla being broken was the way the buff spells worked.
Then why change rounds when you could simply adjust the duration of spells?
|
|
The explanation that drove any number of people off to play Runequest. EGG was really stretching for an explanation on that.
The distance moved was fixed. You could fight or not. A minute to move 60-120' while you are rushing to help your friends. So, 60' and fight the dragon. Or just amble 60' and smell the roses.
I'm not a huge fan of a lot of feats either. Especially the type you're alluding to. I use facing etc., feats are modified as a result. As I...
In the terms that hp's are explained in the DMG the description of what a round entails and 'damage' represents is consistent. RuneQuest (still playing to this day) hp's are a very different thing - losing a limb happens in many combats.
Of course outside 60' = 60 yards (or 180') - except for spell distances.
Agree about the feats, drop feats and keep skills - aka 2e. Feats that are not too game wrecking should just be folded into Class abilities.
S.
|
|
Then why change rounds when you could simply adjust the duration of spells?Buff spells were also not as broken in 2nd ed due to the combat round length and time required for things like search rolls. 10 minute a level buffs ran off very quickly if you spent a turn (10 minutes) searching each 10' by 10's section of the dungeon. And if you didn't search and got a power word liquefy up the date when you used the toilet oh well tough.
A large part of CoDzilla being broken was the way the buff spells worked.
They did 3e --> 3.5e when they saw how broken the buff durations were relative to a combat, actually relative to a day!
I hope 5E builds in expected behaviors in the rules and does not leave it too open ended for sub-systems to be added. That is one thing that 4e did that made it easy to DM. Once you understood the rules and action economy, the rest was simple. I am not stating 4E didn't have problems in those areas, but overall it was much easier to pick up and run a game.
I also hope subclasses can be adjusted for complexity, instead of one subclass being simple and the other complex. I want to make the choice or running a simple gladiator or complex one. If I like the subclass, I don't want to be locked into one play style.
And finally, I want variety for martial characters in reference to maneuvers or abilities. Once I played 4E, there is no going back to the simple fighter.
Were the different experience level progressions supposed to be in the interest of balance?
I thought they were just how the early designers thought the different classes 'should' progress, not an attempt to make the weaker classes level faster than the stronger. (If it was a balance attempt they seem to have had a peculiar view of which classes were 'weak').
|
|
Were the different experience level progressions supposed to be in the interest of balance?
I thought they were just how the early designers thought the different classes 'should' progress, not an attempt to make the weaker classes level faster than the stronger. (If it was a balance attempt they seem to have had a peculiar view of which classes were 'weak').
How so? I think it did a good job at allowing a degree (not complete) of balancing - seems semantics. The other factor was that classes did quite specific things meaning that Thieves being a joke wasn't really the case in 1e/2e (I really liked the 2e way of thief ability pointing up) for example. Parties were much more paper, scissors, rock - of course many complain that it forced a certain combination of classes. This wasn't a mistake this WAS the games design.
S.