I am very curious about 4e and would be very interested in hearing some discussions on it, but it seems like the majority of threads here are just complaint sessions and loud statements that people will never switch. That just isn't what I am looking for (the humor I see in the EXACT comments made when the switch from AD&D 2e to 3e took place wears off real fast).
Can anyone point me to any threads here they feel are enlightening about 4e? Things people want to see (rather than just railing against any change)? And so on?
Sean Mahoney
I'd say this one, but you sound kinda...complainy...
Try ENWorld or rpgnet for discussion.
Try here for... debate. :D
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I am very curious about 4e and would be very interested in hearing some discussions on it, but it seems like the majority of threads here are just complaint sessions and loud statements that people will never switch. That just isn't what I am looking for (the humor I see in the EXACT comments made when the switch from AD&D 2e to 3e took place wears off real fast).
Can anyone point me to any threads here they feel are enlightening about 4e? Things people want to see (rather than just railing against any change)? And so on?
Sean Mahoney
Once Races and Classes was released, I became interested in 4E. I like the idea of dropping racial abiility penalties, it always bothered me that dwarves didn't make as good paladins, marshals, or clerics.
I also like the elf now being clearly defined as the woods guy. Seeing Bill's article that included a short stat block and a long fluff section was good to see. The races will have enough background to get players started without overwhelming them.
I also like the dragonborn and tiefling. Tying in a backstory about an ancient war between them was a good touch.
The primordials versus the gods also intrigues me and I'm looking forward to Worlds and Monsters to learn more. Actually having a backstory for all the monsters, including conflicting creation myths, is great.
I'd like to see more on the generic world background that Wizards has cooked up. Is it like Tome of Battle with just name dropping and no map? Or is it slightly more detailed.
What do you want to see?
Charlie
|
There have been several threads about things people would like to see in 4th edition, improvements that could be made or things that have been announced that people are looking forward to (such as the slow death of the alignment system, in my case. Die alignments die!).
Most of them sink into obscurity pretty fast. Apparently, attacking other people's viewpoints is more fun for some people.
Some sample threads that, if not for some curmudgeonly sorts chiming in to say stuff like, 'the fact that you're not happy gives me a chubby!', would be complaint free;
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/topThingsI veHeardAbout4EThatILike
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/iAmVeryExc itedAbout4thEdition
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/whatWouldY ouChangeIn4E
For info on 4E go to Enworld. It has a page of nicely compiled information on 4E (and updates just about as quickly as the info comes out). The info for 4E is so scattered and is released through so many different sources it is easier to go to Enworld and follow the links for info from there.
As for reasonable discussion on 4E; that's like unicorns, dragons, and intelligent political debate, they don't exist. Trying to talk about 4E (on any of the discussion boards) is like giving matches, lighters, and gasoline to a pyromaniac: you will have a whole lot of flames and little else.
What it comes down to is that you have those who like what they hear, those who don't like what they hear, and those who don't like WoTC. Although sometimes they might agree with each other, more often then not they are not really interested in listening or changing their minds.
That said, here is my take on what I have heard:
1. Dragonborn: why create a whole new race when you can use lizardfolk instead?
2. Tieflings: I don't like the fact that they were arbitrarily included just because their concept art looked cool and so consequently the warlock class was included.
3. Warlock class: I have never really been a fan of this class and the fact that it was only included because of the Tiefling makes me even more worried about it.
4. Lack of half-orcs and gnomes: Not including half-orcs doesn't bother so much since they were something of an awkward race to have around anyway but not including gnomes just stinks. They were always such a great race and got even better in 3rd edition.
5. Reduction of Vancian magic: Not happy. I honestly like Vancian magic and for me it defines D&D and distinguishes it from every other magic system.
6. Saving throw changes: While I like the mechanic I don't like the fact that it takes control of the characters destinies out of the players hands.
7. Races in general: I don't understand why there is a need to pigeon-hole the races into classes from the very beginning.
8. The idea of Roles in a party: I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the idea that characters have a role to fill in the party. This is probably the single biggest deterant for me to playing 4E since it is the principle behind which the entire system is designed.
9. Tome of Battles style game play: The idea of per encounter, per day abilities has potential but so far I don't like what I have heard.
I can go on from here but I've just lost interest in 4E again.
|
|
Since I'm a huge M&M fan, some of the changes sound like 'about time' to me. Heck, one or two I've been using as house rules anyway, such as skill consolidation. (Folding Hide and Move Silently into a Stealth skill and Spot and Listen into a Notice skill, for instance.) Some of them are no-brainers. What check does one roll to *smell* something funky under the floorboards? To *feel* a tiny needle on the back of the noble's ring? Sure ain't 'Spot' or 'Listen,' that's for sure. Notice is a skill whose time has come! No more, 'Shh! Listen! Do you smell that?'
On the flip side, I don't like the idea of getting rid of Profession or Craft skills because they 'don't do anything in combat.' Yikes! I love Dungeon Delves, running through a few rooms to kill some mobs in a timed 'run,' but that's not *all* I want from D&D, 15 minute timed slaywalks with nameless disposable characters! If it was, I'd play Warhammer Quest (and I do, 'cause that's the niche that Warhammer Quest serves).
Another 'M&M'ism is the concept of saving throws being ditched in favor of giving the attacker a DC to overcome. The PCs lose the 'saving throw' as the monster just as to roll high enough to get past their Fort, Ref or Will DC, but the monsters also lose their saving throw, and the PCs get to roll to see if the monster is affected by their Hold Person or Fireball. It basically cuts it down to one roll, which is cool, although I will miss the 'roll your own save' mechanic. (I sure won't miss when I throw a spell successfully and the monster gets a lucky roll and skips away unaffected!)
Vancian magic I've disliked from back in 1st edition, when I had indeed read some Jack Vance, and not been horribly impressed that D&D didn't allow me to play the sorts of wizards I'd seen in hundreds of books *not* written by Jack Vance... I don't want to see Vancian mnemonic 'fire-and-forget' spellcasting gone completely, but I definitely want to see it as an *option* that I can completely avoid using without being penalized. I've played with the Vancian mechanic for 20 odd years now, and while I don't like it, I do respect the strategic and tactical nature of it (both planning spell preparation in the morning and rationing spells used throughout the day). It's got a 'war-game-y' feel to it, and I wouldn't want to see it abandoned completely, since *I* might not like it, but I know that plenty of others do. I don't get a kick out of other gamers losing stuff that they enjoy (such as the massive cleanup that is happening to the Realms setting, which reminds me all too well of how I felt when the Time of Troubles got rid of some things that *I* liked, only a hundred times worse), since we're all in this together.
8. The idea of Roles in a party: I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the idea that characters have a role to fill in the party. This is probably the single biggest deterant for me to playing 4E since it is the principle behind which the entire system is designed.
You know, that's something I never really stopped to consider. Thus far, I've 1) thought of it as something for new gamers and 2) ignored it. I'm big on building a non-traditional character. Infact I recently agreed to play a "standard" ranger in a recent game and my group looked at me like I had an alien attached to my face. Then they proceeded to run through every single 3.5 character I ever played (even if the game lasted a single session) and I realized I never played a "standard" character with them.
But now that classes feel ... flattened (more then before if that were even possible). Likes it's a video game.
"Roles" are key to "Role playing games". You get a group of friends together, create characters and adventure. From time to time, everyone gets a chance to shine - to be that vital cog in a team. I mean, first the thief checks the door and listens to the room beyond. Once he knows the ogre is asleep, the mage casts enlarge on the fighter, who then smashed a heavy, blunt object on said ogre; etc. (And yes that's a very general example). My big complaint of 3rd was that with near limitless multiclassing and 42,125 feats - nearly anyone can do anything. The "role" was diminished. It wasn't as much fun to play the ranger when 3/5 of the party can track better than you. Therefore, I'm happy to see the concept of "roles" returning with 2 points of counter - A: it feels like they're selling me a crappy video game like Brute Force, and B: I'm still not buying it.
Okay, first of all, I'm looking forward to 4th Edition because classes appear to be much more flexible on what you can do aside from just nabbing different skills and feats. Lets face it, there are some feats that you will take pretty much no matter what (Weapon Focus for fighters comes to mind) as well as certain skills (Concentration, Knowledge [arcana] and Spellcraft seem to be a mandatory package for any wizard out there, though I've gone with the Concentration bit before).
By adding Talent trees, hopefully we can avoid the inflation of over 50 classes that many just seem to be slight variants of another class (like ranger and scout).
The fluff on races doesnt really apply to me, as I tend to run pre-published settings like Eberron or Pathfinder. I dont mind it at all since it IS just story that can be changed or ignored as a given DM sees fit. Even the appearance of the races doesnt really apply to me, since it is again just story stuff that I can change (for example, in my Eberron games some tieflings with look like a cross between humans and rakshasas).
The limited ability to heal oneself is appealing because now parties wont have to rely entirely on the cleric for aid, stopping as soon as the cleric runs out of fuel.
The added variety of combat-options is also good because now fighters will have more to do than attack things. I dont care what people say about describing your actions: there is only so many ways to describe someone swinging a sword before THAT gets boring.
Having at-will wizard powers isnt really anything new, but its good to have it core. Now wizards wont have to stand around pretending they have a chance at planting a bolt in a monster's head. They can actually, you know, cast spells.
Consolidation of skills is a good idea, though I'm somewhat disappointed about the loss of Craft and Profession skills. They are gone in Saga Edition, but who can say what, if anything, has happened to them in 4th Edition.
On the subject of skills, I like the bit about social encounters. Hopefully this means that characters other than "faces" have a shot at contributing to these. I do not believe that being able to character-act makes you an inherently better player, and allow characters to state an intent then roll to determine an outcome (how it honestly should be: why else would you bother having social ability scores and skills?).
Having weapons function in different ways is also great because now there are nice solid mechanical reasons to pick other weapons. I dont care if people think that picking certain weapons makes you a better "role-player", there are plenty of weapons that no one picks simply because they are so inferior.
These are not things I think are good because "Wizards said so", they are things that I've read, thought about, and figured that yeah, it DOES sound better, to me. Some elements have been integrated into the game recently that I do like (skill tricks, encounter traps, Reserve feats, and Book of Nine Swords to name a few).
So, if I liked those, then if they are made core, thats a good thing (to me, anyway).
I've suppressed all of the "vomit" posts.
Knock it off.
The self-healing thing bothers me. It takes away a great, seldom-seen aspect of a campaign: the dungeon the party can't finish in one shot. While I'm sure this is intentional, since we're back to a mini's wargame/computer game - it hurts those for whom healing is their character's forte. In addition, going back to the dungeon thought, it was always exciting when the party was at their last, and they knew they had to feel to lick their wounds and re-equip with different items/weapons, and try again before the enemy reinforced too much. I know Wizards says DnD is for killing and looting now, but still...
"Roles" are key to "Role playing games". You get a group of friends together, create characters and adventure. From time to time, everyone gets a chance to shine - to be that vital cog in a team. I mean, first the thief checks the door and listens to the room beyond. Once he knows the ogre is asleep, the mage casts enlarge on the fighter, who then smashed a heavy, blunt object on said ogre; etc. (And yes that's a very general example). My big complaint of 3rd was that with near limitless multiclassing and 42,125 feats - nearly anyone can do anything. The "role" was diminished. It wasn't as much fun to play the ranger when 3/5 of the party can track better than you. Therefore, I'm happy to see the concept of "roles" returning with 2 points of counter - A: it feels like they're selling me a crappy video game like Brute Force, and B: I'm still not buying it.
Actually, I always thought that the "Role" was the adoption of the persona - being in control of the character. I can point to other RPGs that don't have "Roles" (aka niches).
Now it seems, in 4e, "roles" mean specific party-niches Controller, Defender, Striker, etc.
What if I want to run a military campaign consisting of an all-fighter party? Or a wizard campaign ala Harry Potter? Where other systems would highlight this as a valid or interesting campaign option, I suspect 4e will only consider it viable if all of the 4e roles are covered. This was also true in 3.x, as well, but to a lesser extent than it will with 4e (based on current info available).
I agree that feat-bloat can be a problem if the DM doesn't control what can or can't go into the game. I always been fond of the multiclassing rules, however. Apparently our differing opinions are both in the minority, however, since it was "too easy" to have a "sub-optimal build" using the current multiclassing rules.
While combat has always been a huge part of D&D, it appears that in 4e, all fun/utility/game rewards must be measured solely in the context of combat ability. I guess I like a little more classic "role" in my RPGs.
Sorry - just realized I was complaining.
I didn't take it as a complaint or anything. "Role" really has two meanings in my post. Even in an all-fighter party, they're going to have roles - possibly more so. Unless they have the same ability scores, feats, skills, armor, weapons, race, etc and do the exact same thing - they all will have something they are good at, some "Role". I don't want a combat only game the way 4th appears to be, however I also don't want the wizard to out-melee the barbarian, out-track the ranger, heal himself, and then cast disinitigrate either as a one man party while everyone else watches. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at - the hard part about all these posts is that people take the written word differently at times.
Here are a few things I do like about 4E.
I like the fact that they are removing the reliance on magic items and cutting back on the number that characters will be carrying. Hopefully this will make magic items a little more unique and more exciting to receive.
I like their attempt to make traps and terrain a more integrated part of combat and encounters (whether combat or otherwise). If they can make them much easier to fit into an encounter but keep them flexible that will be a big bonus. Hooray for some focus on something in an encounter other than monsters.
The simplification or consolidation of skills. While I don't have any problems with the current skill system I like the idea of simplifying the skills by combining them into similar themes. Hopefully this will make the skills a little more flexible and shift the focus away from the skill roll to the role-playing.
Reduction of iterative attacks: while I don't have problems with iterative attacks I think that 3E took it a little too far. At high levels most of the extra attacks a fighter gets are either useless (since their bonuses are so low) or not even used (due to movement and what-not). Making fighters effective while not relying on all of the extra attacks would be a good thing.
|
Just to add my point of view to Aaron Whitley's List:
1. Dragonborn: One of my last PCs was a Khaasta. I think I could get used to this new race and I like what I read in "Races and Classes", so I've no problems with their inclusions.
2. Tieflings: I generally tend to allow my players to play ECL-races, so I've no problems with their inclusion either. But I generally found them kinda boring through 3E and I haven't seen anything so far which changes that in 4E.
3. Warlocks: I was never very fond of the 3E sorcerer and I actually prefer the Warlock, so no problems with me.
4. Lack of Half-Orcs and Gnomes: Half-Orcs are boring as hell. But I've promised to myself that I'll never will run a game without gnomes. I like them way too much. But I know that I'm in the minority, so I understand the decision.
5. Vancian Magic: When I saw what Vancian Magic did to the magic system of the "Wheel of Time"-RPG, I began to dislike it. I don't know too much about 4E magic but that they think about new magic systems for each and every magic-using class sounds very good to me.
6. Saving Throws: I agree that players should make active rolls (which a saving throw isn't) so I understand the reasoning behind the decision. I'll see if the new system works better.
7. Races: Funnily enough I experimented a year ago with possibilities to make race more relevant for the development of a class. I think that race and the adhering culture should make a big difference in the way characters from different races develop any class. Knights vs. Samurai, so to say. So this is a thing I'm very excited about.
8. Roles: We had roles in 1st edition, in 2nd ed. and in 3E. With each new class this concept became more and more difficult to understand for new players. At the end of 3.5, if I have a bunch of unexperienced players and I don't "guide" them through the character creation process (to guide here meaning to tell them what to play), I can guarantee that the resulting party will not be balanced. Which results in uneffective gameplay.
9. per encounter/day abilities: just depends on if it is well balanced; if it is, then fine.
What I really don't like about 4E is:
1. The new pantheon: Gods from different campaign settings? No way
2. The destruction of the old realms: I generally dislike world-shattering events and I think they could have changed the realms to make it easier to enter for new players without making much of the old material useless.
3. yearly PHBs
4. what I've seen from the DI so far (which I was exited about at first): the presentation of the online magazines has been disappointing so far (which goes for a large part of the content as well) and I can't afford to pay extra cost to add material I may need for my games. Which seems to make DI useless for me.
and most of all:
5. the marketing: I have no idea how they could make the announcement of 4E to such a disaster. I wasn't so much disappointed by their "lies" but horrified by the amateurish way they did it. If that was the best plan they had the I really hope that their marketing man has nothing to do with the design of 4E.
Here are a few things I do like about 4E.
I like the fact that they are removing the reliance on magic items and cutting back on the number that characters will be carrying. Hopefully this will make magic items a little more unique and more exciting to receive.
I like their attempt to make traps and terrain a more integrated part of combat and encounters (whether combat or otherwise). If they can make them much easier to fit into an encounter but keep them flexible that will be a big bonus. Hooray for some focus on something in an encounter other than monsters.
I also like that they are trying to reintroduce traps as more then a speed bump encounter. And I like that they plan to lower the amount of magic items in the game.
I'll try to post more when I think of it.
While thinking about the idea of roles in a party I came to a conclusion that the idea of roles in a party are fine. I just don't like the idea to be built into the system. I think it makes the system much less flexible and limits the way you play. I have had played in a great many campaigns where it didn't matter if you had a particular class or not. I just don't like the idea that there is going to be more pigeon-holing of races or classes by the system itself.
While thinking about the idea of roles in a party I came to a conclusion that the idea of roles in a party are fine. I just don't like the idea to be built into the system. I think it makes the system much less flexible and limits the way you play. I have had played in a great many campaigns where it didn't matter if you had a particular class or not. I just don't like the idea that there is going to be more pigeon-holing of races or classes by the system itself.
I agree with you - I don't want that built in ANY system. I do my best to encourage its development as the characters are created and the party begins their campaigning lives.
In addition, as a DM, whenever I hear a player say, "Well, I guess since no one's a cleric, I better be one.", I tell them, "If no one wants to play one, the party will make due without it - play what you want to play." And down the road, someone invariably and usually subconsciously becomes the one to help defend those who are down to their last gasp and seems to have a spare potion of extra healing somewhere. (And if not, it's just another challenge for the party to find ways to overcome.)
"Roles" are key to "Role playing games". You get a group of friends together, create characters and adventure. From time to time, everyone gets a chance to shine - to be that vital cog in a team. I mean, first the thief checks the door and listens to the room beyond. Once he knows the ogre is asleep, the mage casts enlarge on the fighter, who then smashed a heavy, blunt object on said ogre; etc. (And yes that's a very general example). My big complaint of 3rd was that with near limitless multiclassing and 42,125 feats - nearly anyone can do anything. The "role" was diminished. It wasn't as much fun to play the ranger when 3/5 of the party can track better than you. Therefore, I'm happy to see the concept of "roles" returning with 2 points of counter - A: it feels like they're selling me a crappy video game like Brute Force, and B: I'm still not buying it.Actually, I always thought that the "Role" was the adoption of the persona - being in control of the character. I can point to other RPGs that don't have "Roles" (aka niches).
Now it seems, in 4e, "roles" mean specific party-niches Controller, Defender, Striker, etc.
What if I want to run a military campaign consisting of an all-fighter party? Or a wizard campaign ala Harry Potter? Where other systems would highlight this as a valid or interesting campaign option, I suspect 4e will only consider it viable if all of the 4e roles are covered. This was also true in 3.x, as well, but to a lesser extent than it will with 4e (based on current info available).
I agree that feat-bloat can be a problem if the DM doesn't control what can or can't go into the game. I always been fond of the multiclassing rules, however. Apparently our differing opinions are both in the minority, however, since it was "too easy" to have a "sub-optimal build" using the current multiclassing rules.
While combat has always been a huge part of D&D, it appears that in 4e, all fun/utility/game rewards must be measured solely in the...
In 3rd Edition it is not possible to run an all fighter party. They will very quickly deplete whatever limited resources they have (namely, potions) and be forced to flee. They will also be forced to shell out money on consumables (ie, more potions) which are much more expensive than, say, wands (since only specific classes can use them unless you have a good Use Magic Device skill).
So, unless the party goes for sub-optimal builds and ramps up Use Magic Device, Charisma, and possibly even takes Skill Focus, its really not going to happen.In 4th Edition, it seems that single-class parties (if you want to go that route) will be much, MUCH easier to play. Players wont feel pressured to play a class that they dont want simply because they need that spot filled.
Also, the self-healing thing seems to be a class feature of the Tough Hero (d20 Modern) and/or the second wind ability from Saga Edition.
Since parties will no longer be heavily reliant on a "pure-healing" class, parties with fewer than four players should likewise be able to get along without as much difficulty as they do now.
The self-healing thing bothers me. It takes away a great, seldom-seen aspect of a campaign: the dungeon the party can't finish in one shot. While I'm sure this is intentional, since we're back to a mini's wargame/computer game - it hurts those for whom healing is their character's forte. In addition, going back to the dungeon thought, it was always exciting when the party was at their last, and they knew they had to feel to lick their wounds and re-equip with different items/weapons, and try again before the enemy reinforced too much. I know Wizards says DnD is for killing and looting now, but still...
I dont agree with this, as whether players can finish dungeons in one shot is really relevant on the party and dungeon in question. Many dungeons I have seen dont have any kind of cleanup/reinforcement capabilities, especially at lower levels.
At higher levels, it becomes increasingly easier to complete dungeons on the first go. My party was able to get through Hall of Harsh Reflections without stopping to rest at all. In Three Faces of Evil, they pretty much rested after every section.Also, I dont know what parties you run, by my parties have never "re-equipped with new items/gear". They pretty much just have the cleric dump all of his healing magic, rest to get it back, then head back in.
Sometimes dungeons have a time constraint, and if the party has to stop and nap, well, that could mean its time for DM fiat or the end to that particular adventure.
Finally, I dont know what version of D&D YOU play, but a large part of D&D has ALWAYS been to kill and loot stuff. How you do it is entirely up to you, however.
|
|
In 3rd Edition it is not possible to run an all fighter party. They will very quickly deplete whatever limited resources they have (namely, potions) and be forced to flee. They will also be forced to shell out money on consumables (ie, more potions) which are much more expensive than, say, wands (since only specific classes can use them unless you have a good Use Magic Device skill).
So, unless the party goes for sub-optimal builds and ramps up Use Magic Device, Charisma, and possibly even takes Skill Focus, its really not going to happen.
I call shenanigans. We've done it before, and without the 'standard fix' of having someone take a level of Ranger or Paladin (to allow wand use without sacrifing BAB) or Bard (for the all-Rogue / Thieves Sanctuary variant). It requires tactics and planning to have a totally magic-free party, but an all Fighter / Rogue party is workable. Healing sure is handy, but it's also a crutch, particularly with the new 3.0 rules for accelerated natural healing (level hp / day) and the Heal proficiency.
It's a different playstyle, sure, but it's definitely doable, and is indeed the standard assumption in many other games, such as most super-hero, pulp adventure or light sci-fi settings, all of which have little or no access to faster-than-bed-rest healing methods.
|
Please note the above is an attempt at humor, not a threat or implicit endorsement of violence. Don't tase me Frost.Tase him! Tase him!
Wait! Let me get my camera set up first! I wanna post it to YouTube...
Hey wait, do I get money, or royalties, or something for my image being on that YouTube place? If so, then...Tase me! Tase me!
I don't think the all-fighter (or whatever) party will be any less viable than it is in 3e. In both cases, I think there has to be a lot of thought on both the parties part on how they will handle situations and being cognizant of the deficite and on the DMs part in what type of challenges he presents to the party.
But I think it is fair to say that this is not the 'standard' mode of play in any edition of D&D.
I am actually fairly excited about the fact that they are actually thinking about the rules that need to be filled in a 'balanced' group. It means that we will likely end up seeing groups far more often that aren't just Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard, since there will be multiple classes that can fit the roles.
Additionally I think significant parts of the roles just weren't thought about in the rules creations. Defender as they call it for instance is exactly what people often think a fighter is, but he doesn't really have any abilities in 3e that help him keep things off his friends. The Knight was a good step in that direction, but many, many players just didn't think about it.
Rules in the game won't ever actually reduce the Role-playing opportunities present, IMO. They simply make all of the other situations fair and adjucatable so I as the DM can focus on the story more.
Sean mahoney
As you can see, many people can run an all-something game and be fine. And of course whether you have to rest in or leave a dungeon depends on the party and dungeon - it's not rocket science. As far as re-equipping - you've never put something in front of your players they couldn't handle the first time? I'm not just talking about healing. I don't know what kind of dnd YOU play. And if you were reading the posts, you would see that Wizards themselves made the killing and looting statement. DnD is not ALL about killing and looting - you could play any number of board based mini wargames and do that. It's a ROLE playing game - which in many cases - violence isn't always the best option. And of course, combat is a major part of DnD. But, whatever, I've been able to play with many, many different players over 2 dozen years and we've all had a good time. It doesn't have to be the same game for everyone.
In 3rd Edition it is not possible to run an all fighter party. They will very quickly deplete whatever limited resources they have (namely, potions) and be forced to flee. They will also be forced to shell out money on consumables (ie, more potions) which are much more expensive than, say, wands (since only specific classes can use them unless you have a good Use Magic Device skill).
So, unless the party goes for sub-optimal builds and ramps up Use Magic Device, Charisma, and possibly even takes Skill Focus, its really not going to happen.I call shenanigans. We've done it before, and without the 'standard fix' of having someone take a level of Ranger or Paladin (to allow wand use without sacrifing BAB) or Bard (for the all-Rogue / Thieves Sanctuary variant). It requires tactics and planning to have a totally magic-free party, but an all Fighter / Rogue party is workable. Healing sure is handy, but it's also a crutch, particularly with the new 3.0 rules for accelerated natural healing (level hp / day) and the Heal proficiency.
It's a different playstyle, sure, but it's definitely doable, and is indeed the standard assumption in many other games, such as most super-hero, pulp adventure or light sci-fi settings, all of which have little or no access to faster-than-bed-rest healing methods.
So, with multiclassing, lots of consumables, and lots of downtime, you were able to get it work? Doesnt sound like that defies my claims that an "all-fighter" party isnt feasible.
Run a group of four single-classed fighters through various prepublished adventures/campaigns and let me know how it turns out.
|
|
I don't think the all-fighter (or whatever) party will be any less viable than it is in 3e.
With Fighters that can heal themselves, it should be much easier.
I just don't think it was as hard as people are making it sound. I've played Paranoia, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, Mage, Villains & Vigilantes, Aberrant, various genres of GURPS, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. all without any sort of 'healer' class or superhuman healing / regeneration ability. Do the mission, and take a few days off afterwards to heal up, assuming people got hurt.
But I think it is fair to say that this is not the 'standard' mode of play in any edition of D&D.
True, and I've sat at plenty of convention tables with strangers who *insisted* that we had to have a certain party makeup or the event was a non-starter. A plague on their house, I say. Play what you want to play, and if nobody wants to be a healer, then play to accomodate that.
Additionally I think significant parts of the roles just weren't thought about in the rules creations. Defender as they call it for instance is exactly what people often think a fighter is, but he doesn't really have any abilities in 3e that help him keep things off his friends. The Knight was a good step in that direction, but many, many players just didn't think about it.
And, IMO, these roles probably *shouldn't* have been planned out. In an online game, one needs a 'tank' to hold the aggro, some healer/defender 'support' to keep the tank alive, and some DPS/damage dealers to burn the mob down. D&D has never been about that sort of game-play, and I'm not real comfortable with that sort of 'we need a Defender or two to heal and a Tanker to hold aggro and a Controller to manage the mobs and some Blasters to DPS!' mentality creeping into my tabletop gaming.
So *this* is where I'd worry about video-game mentality creeping into the game.
And, IMO, these roles probably *shouldn't* have been planned out. In an online game, one needs a 'tank' to hold the aggro, some healer/defender 'support' to keep the tank alive, and some DPS/damage dealers to burn the mob down. D&D has never been about that sort of game-play, and I'm not real comfortable with that sort of 'we need a Defender or two to heal and a Tanker to hold aggro and a Controller to manage the mobs and some Blasters to DPS!' mentality creeping into my tabletop gaming.So *this* is where I'd worry about video-game mentality creeping into the game.
I agree one hundred percent. It would worry me too, if I wasn't already convinced this is the direction they are headed, correction - have headed.