Contributor
|
Set, based on my reading of the 4e preview material, I think you are dead-on in terms of how spellcasters outshine other classes. It is not strictly damage output per se, because a high-level fighter can dish out lots of damage, but the fact that eventually spells can perform other class roles (especially skill-based ones) better than the designated class.
This is frequently very true. Comprehend Languages and Tongues outshine any language monkey character. Spider Climb is better than climb skill, and Fly makes climb, jump, and balance all moot. Various divinations are usually better than knowledge skills. Invisibilty and Silence beat stealth skills. Detect Magic can find most traps, which is funny, because Find Traps is one of the few skill-replacing spells that is pretty much useless. I'm sure I could find more examples, without getting into the ones that transform the caster into a combat monster.
I've always thought it would be cooler if more of those spells gave skill bonuses rather than just automatically succeeding on something another PC has likely been built to do.
I guess I will put in my two coppers worth:
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
I will agree that this can be. However, I tend not to detail every NPC unless they are encounter relevant as an opponent or direct ally. For all other NPCS (including regular contacts), I simply list race and level and a paragraph on personality. I update this with important info as need (such as a particular spell the character knows or a magic item the character has).
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
This is a matter of gaming style. It does bog down some at high levels, but this has never been an issue for me (even when I had 6 players with cohorts, animal companions, and familiars active)
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
See above. I had more problems when my Planescape game went epic that when it was high level. Still, there are some bumps that could be smoothed out.
4. Low level games are swingy.
I find this to be a good thing. The swarms in the beginning of the AoW AP made my players start being careful (which has saved them a number of times). I do feel mages and sorcerers to have problems with lack of staying power at low-levels, but I am not sure if that really makes the game "swingy." I guess I like for the players to say "we need to hold up and plan our next move."
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
The CR does system breaks down at the higher levels.
As of late (and largly because I am curious if it can be done), I have been playing with altering the XP system to something closer to the XP system of 2e. The CR would still be used to determing a challenge, but the XP award would be more closely tied to the monster's capabilities.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
Huh? I hove not noticed that to always be the case. In my Planescape campaign, the barbarian, the figher/monk, and the ranger were the primary damage sources, with the battle sorcerer as artillery (using AoE attacks) to weaken groups. In many cases, the spellcaster would deal with the minons while the warriors targeted the enemy spellcasters or high SR targets. The situation switched sometimes when the primary target was high AC.
I will admit that my experiences here may just be because I prefer to use groups of opponents as opposed to one or two opponents.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
I tend to prefer a warrior wizard that focuses more on augmenting themself than hurling massive damage spells, but that is me. I think warrior spellcaster can be done with the right selection of spells and feats. The Kobold ninja/sorcerer in my AoW campaign is one of the most dangerous combatants because he focused on ranged touch spells that ignore SR. This allows him to sudden strike with them. He has picked up a few other useful spells to aid the party, but most of his spells are combative.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
Agreed. This is a big problem. I like the skill point system and that all characters are not equally skilled, but many times some of them are just not skilled at all. Personally, I plan on adopting something like the skill group system from Iron Heroes in future D&D games I run.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
A goblin is complicated? A minotaur is complicated? Ok, some are. But I am not convinced that the new system will make ALL monster easier to run.
10. You don't get enough feats.
This is good. I think there has been a proliferation that are of questionable use. I have also had all of my AoW players comment at one time or another that they do not know feat they should take because nothing really fit how their character was developing at the time.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
No. Of all the subsystems, this is one of the easiest.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
True. When a magic item is worth morefor the gp resell value than the item itself, there is a problem. While I prefer the lower power level of some of the 1e/2e items, honestly many of them were next to worthless as well. In 1e/2e, a lot of the magic items were kept by players largely because they could be easily sold and it was next to impossible for a character to make a magic item.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Agreed. I do have a problem with grappling, not because it is difficult, but because some creatures are too good at it (espically when used in conjuntion with anoither attack form).
All-in-all, most of these issues are not a problem for me or my players. Your milage my vary.
Of course, the truest thing I have every learned about game design (from both designing my own RPGs and running others), is that no game survives contact with the players. No matter how much you playtest, eventually a player will find a loophole. I wish 4e a lot of luck, but I will stick with 3.5 let 4e get its sea legs first.
I've always thought it would be cooler if more of those spells gave skill bonuses rather than just automatically succeeding on something another PC has likely been built to do.
While I definitely agree with your sentiment, that style of spell is difficult to pull off. (Find Traps comes to mind.)
Too little of a bonus, and you suffer Find Traps suckage. Too much, and you might as well make the action automatic anyway.
(Yes, I've given the idea some thought before. ;-) )
On occasion I use the Savage Worlds system to play D&D and it is WILDLY different system than D&D. I've even run a couple of old modules with it and every time the game had the feel of a D&D game. So I would imagine that 4e, will pull it off better than my Savage World games.
I'm not so optimistic. But we'll see.
After looking through the list of 13, I have to say, I would agree that all of these could use TWEEKING but I wouldn't agree that these are so horribly broken that the game is unplayable.
After looking through the list of 13, I have to say, I would agree that all of these could use TWEEKING but I wouldn't agree that these are so horribly broken that the game is unplayable.
To be fair, I haven't seen anyone at WoTC actually say that 3.x is actually unplayable, which would be a stupid statement, since it is clearly a playable system. I feel that they are saying that they've found significant areas in 3.x that can be improved in terms of mechanics and playability.
A WotC designer actually said this? Was he struck by lightning afterwards?As odd as this may sound (coming from me) I'm more optimistic, not by this list necessarily (he does make some good points on that list), but by this he said like 2 posts up:
This might seem a little funny, but I actually disagree with you. I think that D&D *is* your baby, and we're basically its caretakers.This is my attitude towards it. Everything I had heard about 4E about the setting made me believe that they felt quite the opposite. I still may question them, but ... I am more optimistic.
Mearls was expressing his attitude, not necessarily the attitude of all the 4E designers. He might be the lone voice of reason. Or maybe he feels that the fluff changes are keeping true to spirit of D&D.
|
To be fair, I haven't seen anyone at WoTC actually say that 3.x is actually unplayable, which would be a stupid statement, since it is clearly a playable system. I feel that they are saying that they've found significant areas in 3.x that can be improved in terms of mechanics and playability.After looking through the list of 13, I have to say, I would agree that all of these could use TWEEKING but I wouldn't agree that these are so horribly broken that the game is unplayable.
I agree. with each edition change it was not because the previous edition was unplayable. Now, whether each edition was an actual improvement or not varies by opinion. ;)
Ok, before I list off the agreements and disagreements, what exactly does "Grognard" mean? I take it to mean someone old and set in their ways, but is that even close? I have no idea!Stefan
Thanks much. Apparently, I could classified as a grgonard too.
|
Contributor
|
I've always thought it would be cooler if more of those spells gave skill bonuses rather than just automatically succeeding on something another PC has likely been built to do.While I definitely agree with your sentiment, that style of spell is difficult to pull off. (Find Traps comes to mind.)
Too little of a bonus, and you suffer Find Traps suckage. Too much, and you might as well make the action automatic anyway.
(Yes, I've given the idea some thought before. ;-) )
I do not disagree with you! I've thought about this a lot, but I haven't implemented any change in my game. It's a tricky issue. The only thing I will say is that, whatever the bonus was, it would still at least be most useful to cast a skill bonus spell on a skill monkey. Of course then the spellcaster becomes a buff monkey, which is also lame.
I thought he was referring to 1st ed, when Elf was a class. Elves could fight and cast spells in those days, right?
To be fair, I haven't seen anyone at WoTC actually say that 3.x is actually unplayable, ... I feel that they are saying that they've found significant areas in 3.x that can be improved in terms of mechanics and playability.
There's a difference between "significiant area that can be improved upon" and "a new edition is needed." I don't feel that any of these areas (even when taken as a whole) add up to a true NEED.
|
Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer had no problems.Until the Fighter 10/Wizard 10 tries casting a spell that checks against SR on a CR 20 monster, like a Balor (SR 28), and then his offensive, opponent-targeting spells are useless.Unless he uses spells that ignore SR (Evard's black tentacles, the orb spells, etc.)... If the fighter 10/wizard 10 has prepared well, then his spells will be relevant; if a wizard 20 has prepared poorly (all electricity and fire spells, for instance), then his spells will be just as useless.
I hear ya. However a FTR 10, WIZ 10 is neither a good fighter nor a good wizard and that is the real problem with multiclassing. You need prestige classes to really build effective high-level multi-classed characters.
|
|
To be fair, I haven't seen anyone at WoTC actually say that 3.x is actually unplayable, ... I feel that they are saying that they've found significant areas in 3.x that can be improved in terms of mechanics and playability.There's a difference between "significiant area that can be improved upon" and "a new edition is needed."
I hear this all the time - but X does not justify a new edition.
The trouble is that I have too many X type problems building up to the point that I don't want to play 3.5 anymore. It's death by a thousand paper cuts.
If 4E sucks I will drop D&D not because they made a change but because the change that was made was not enough to fix all the problems with 3.5
|
I hear ya. However a FTR 10, WIZ 10 is neither a good fighter nor a good wizard and that is the real problem with multiclassing.
Which is the way it should be. I recall a passage in the first dragonlance novel in which an elven fighter wizard (I forget his name at the moment) laments that he wishes he had Raistlin's dedication in studying magic.
A guy who studies one subject at the sacrifice of other subjects should know more about it than the guy that tries to know a little about everything.
EXCEPT... They could have fixed 75-90% of the current problems with the Rules Compendium and a revision to OGL.
So what you are proposing is that WoTC release a brand new core rule book (a 4th core book) and make major changes to the existing core system via some sort of errata (most likely delivered electronically). I can see that going over well....
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I hear ya. However a FTR 10, WIZ 10 is neither a good fighter nor a good wizard and that is the real problem with multiclassing. You need prestige classes to really build effective high-level multi-classed characters.
Hey, CWM. Good to see you.
Honestly, I don't see this as a problem. The Grey Mouser had some spell-casting ability as well as skill with a sword, but each cut into his expertise with the other. If he'd devoted himself to spell-casting, he'd have been a better spell-caster.
A Ftr 10 / Wiz 10 casts spells somewhat better than a simple Wiz 10. (She's got a better BAB and hits more often, she has a few more skill ranks and general feats, her saving throws are better), but those 10 levels as a warrior don't compare well against someone who's studies wizardry his entire career.
Now, I look at that 10 / 10 character and I see someone who followed two paths and never learned to integrate them well. The Warmage or the Spellsword Prestige Class, on the other hand, have.
Scenario:
Shanice, a young fighter, is talking to her mentor after a day of training.
She says, "I'm thinking about adding some versitility. I might take a few weeks off and apprentice at the Wizards' Tower."
He might reply, "If you're looking to make a career change, then go for it. But if you're looking to maintain your combat skills while still picking up some useful tricks, then I'd recommend the Warmages' College instead."
|
|
So what you are proposing is that WoTC release a brand new core rule book (a 4th core book) and make major changes to the existing core system via some sort of errata (most likely delivered electronically). I can see that going over well....EXCEPT... They could have fixed 75-90% of the current problems with the Rules Compendium and a revision to OGL.
I thought everyone cheered when 3.5 rolled out. ;D
However, they are forcing people to play without further product support or with 3rd party support that is often of inferior quality. Imagine that you were told that since a new Prius doesn't fit your needs that you'll have to continue to drive your current car. However, you will no longer be able to find parts for it unless you find them in a junkyard. Sure, that'll be fine for a while, but not forever.Hmmmmmmm. I wonder what that is like. ;)
Damn monkey... get off my back!
:)
(I like 3.5, skipped 3.0 as I was playing 2nd ADnD. Still miss some things about 2nd though...)
So what you are proposing is that WoTC release a brand new core rule book (a 4th core book) and make major changes to the existing core system via some sort of errata (most likely delivered electronically). I can see that going over well....
Or how about maybe a PHB III or an Unearthed Arcana II?
|
|
Still miss some things about 2nd though...)
Going way off topic here but....
One of the things I miss the most was the sheer variety of products you would see in a TSR catalog back then. Wow they put out a variety of stuff back then. Looking at a 94' era catalogue you would see:
Mystara
Forgotten Realms
Ravenloft
Dark Sun
Planescape
Dragonlance
and that isn't even including the modules, accessories, etc.
Sure, such a wide production was part of TSR's problem but man it was cool to see all that stuff.
I know the OGL made it possible for other companies to help shoulder the burden of diversity but it just doesn't seem the same.
[/nostalgia]
Mystara
Forgotten Realms
Ravenloft
Dark Sun
Planescape
Dragonlanceand that isn't even including the modules, accessories, etc.
Sure, such a wide production was part of TSR's problem but man it was cool to see all that stuff.
Problem was that they all had subsystems that were imcompatible with each other...
Give them the same rule backbone and you could easily make campaign settings galore, because a new "crunch" book could be used by everyone.
Problem was that they all had subsystems that were imcompatible with each other...
Or completely different systems. Dragonlance Saga, I'm looking at you.
So what you are proposing is that WoTC release a brand new core rule book (a 4th core book) and make major changes to the existing core system via some sort of errata (most likely delivered electronically). I can see that going over well....Or how about maybe a PHB III or an Unearthed Arcana II?
You can add-on supplements all you want to expand your options, but if the problems originates with the core, underlying system you need to address the core, underlying system. I'm sorry, but you cannot patch the sweet spot problem because the sweet spot is a function of the system's underlying math. You can ignore or bypass the problem, which lots of people do by starting and stopping their campaigns at certain levels, via houserules, or gritting your teeth and playing it RAW. A supplement that fixes the underlying problems in the core system is not a supplement, its a new core rulebook and very likely somewhat of a new game.
Problem was that they all had subsystems that were imcompatible with each other...Or completely different systems. Dragonlance Saga, I'm looking at you.
Yep so a book on that system would only sell to a portion of a portion of the fan base...bad business.
A supplement that fixes the underlying problems in the core system is not a supplement
Plenty of other RPGs do it all the time. What makes D&D so special that it can't do that?
In fact, I think death is better in low-level play, because it emphasizes the deadliness of the world by sacrificing a character that the player has not yet grown too attached to.
I agree with most of what you've said here Eric, but this comment really burns. I think is also shows why you don't see the problems with low level play that WotC and I feel are there.
Death by random chance is not a feature of low level play. It is nto fun, it is the single biggest problem with low level play. It discourages role playing and character development, kills campaings before they really begin, and lead to some of the dullest game play I've ever expirenced.
The fear of death doesn't heighten the enjoyment of game play, it kills it. The threat of failure makes the game intresting. Failing to save the town from the raiders is what gets my heart racing. Death that i can't come back from ends the game for me. That is not fun.
When I know my first level wizard is probably gonna die before seeing 2nd level spells, I'm not going to bother giving him a personality. He's not going to have a detailed or intresting personality, he's unlikely even to have an accent. He's just a pile of numbers and I don't care if he dies. That's not a fun way to play D&D for me.
If I don't spend any time working out who and what my character is ahead of time, and thus don't care what happens to him should he die, then I don't want to be playing that character as ALL. It's the reason my friends and I can't stand low level play. We almost always skip the first few levels of game play.
Most of the games I've played start like this: My friends and I sit down and spend two to five hours creating a group of intresting and connected characters. They know each other, have connections and histories that bind them together, and then we play those characters for weeks or months, until they stop being fun.
Right from the start, I am already attached to my character. So attached in fact that if he dies because a random encounter monster gets a critcal hit on him and kills him in the very first game, I'm gonna be seriously annoyed.
We all like when the party is made of real characters who have names, histories, and personalities right from the begining. They get to be people, have goals and dreams, and get invovled in the world beyond just killing the bad guys. That is what I play table top games for.
Paizo's own products have made this kind of play much easier. The AP adventures are amazing for this. They are why I subrcibed to Dungeon and Dragon, and the reason I'm still subscribed to Pathfinder.
The Age of Worms had such a beautiful and detail low level setting that my group spent two weeks just enjoying the city before even going to the dungeon. Your setting alone provided so much that my players took every oppertunity to involve themselves in the town, it's politics, and eventually its reconstruction. They bought the necromancer's tower and made it their home base, and got seriously mad when the black dragoness melted their roof. They cared about what happened to their mentor and friends. The druidess even returned to Diamond Lake and claimed it as her home after the campaign was over.
If the characters we started the Adventure Path with had died in the swamps of the third adventure, before we had the resources to get ressurected, then the campaign would have died with them. We could have continued the adventure path, sure, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun. Our new characters wouldn't be part of the story, wouldn't care what happened to Diamond Lake, and we would have given up by the time we reached high level play and things slowed down so much that it was no longer fun.
I don't know any player who unattached to the character he or she is playing. The moment my friends or I lose intrest in a character, they stop playing that character. Disintrest in a character is much more lethal then any save or die spell has ever been.
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented.
I think that this says it all for me. Sure - a bunch (not all) of the things on that list could be improved... but that doesn't address all the - tremendously stinky, AFAIC - meta-setting changes.
100% of 4e flavor sucks (for me), and is enough to keep me far away (not to even mention my players, who are considerably more negative than I am).
Unless he uses spells that ignore SR (Evard's black tentacles, the orb spells, etc.)... If the fighter 10/wizard 10 has prepared well, then his spells will be relevant; if a wizard 20 has prepared poorly (all electricity and fire spells, for instance), then his spells will be just as useless.
Unless I'm mistaken though, spells that ignore SR are in the general minority. Not to mention the question of just how useful 5th level and lower spells are in a fight against a balor.
..so he draws his sword and takes it on that way...
Unless he's the party's designated arcane spellcaster. He's also hitting as well as the party cleric before buffs, meaning he's not hitting as well as a melee character should, and is less able to serve as the party's tank due to much lower HP.
However all the disadvantages can be reduced without requiring an entirely new ruleset, the multiclassing feats in Complete Adventurer as well as the Practiced Spellcaster feat prove that. And removing the penalties entirely is, IMHO, a bad idea.
A supplement that fixes the underlying problems in the core system is not a supplementPlenty of other RPGs do it all the time. What makes D&D so special that it can't do that?
I'm not going to pussyfoot around here, its money. If current and much more importantly, future, expected revenues for 3.5e products were really good, WoTC would probably not be releasing a new version of the game at this time. While I don't think that WotC is currently in danger of going out of business or selling off its RPG division, I can live with what they are doing because I realize that WoTC needs to position themselves for the future, and if 4e mechanic and playability features work as advertised, its a win-win situation IMO.
That said, how many times has that strategy of releasing "patches" really work? And how many patches can an audience expect. 3e has already had one massive patch; if WoTC came out and said that they need to do another one, my first reaction would be why didn't they implement these fixes with the 3.5e patch.
I feel I know why WoTC is not releasing the newest game as a patch; it is because they are fundamentally changing the underlying math (and all that that systematically entails) in such a way as to make 4e a distinct d20 game from 3.x D&D.
I am hard pressed to come up with a legitimate example from the literature and cultural source material I draw upon when thinking about D&D.
This is the rub for me, honestly. 4E looks to be the first edition of the game where contemporary fantasy source material is more of an inspiration to its design and intended style of play than the pulp fantasy that inspired Gygax and Arneson.
Take this as good or bad as you wish, but it's a major shift and the one that pains me more than any other.
I think that is true, but then I am also enough of a literary snob to sniffle at your use of the word "classic," but again that's just a reminder of how I am getting old and cantankerous.
Welcome to the club.
More to the point, Krypter said:
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented.And that's the rub, really.
--Erik
I'd say the reason Mike's list of problems with 3rd edition ignore the setting changes is Because they are settings changes. He's talking about the mechanics of 4th edition, because they are the important changes being made. I think thats why they developed their 'points of light' adventuring model for the main books, so that fourth edition's mechanics arn't connected to any of the current settings, and can thus be used in any setting including the classic ones without having to be changed.
I don't particularly like the setting changes being made to the Realms, and I really don't like the removal of the Great wheel.
But you know what? None of that is based heavily on the mechanics of the game. It's the fluffy setting stuff, and if I want to keep the out planes as the Great Wheel in my game, I can do so without changing any of 4th edition basic mechanics.
Want Succubi to remain demons? Fine, make them demons in your game. I will be. Paizo's succubi are far too intresting for me to just drop them. Want to have it both ways? Maybe some succubi have split from the Succubus Queen after everything that happens in the Savage Tide adventures, and become devils instead.
The thing about settings is that they change, and everybody changes the base setting for thier own particular group. In my Forgotten Realms games, several former PCs are current Lords of Waterdeep. Kings have different names. There are whole cities I've added to the map, sometimes specifically because of my players. Setting changes arn't a very big deal. Take them, or leave them.
Mechanics changes are a much bigger deal.
I'm not going to pussyfoot around here, its money.
I feel I know why WoTC is not releasing the newest game as a patch; it is because they are fundamentally changing the underlying math (and all that that systematically entails) in such a way as to make 4e a distinct d20 game from 3.x D&D.
And there we agree. The difference is, I don't see these as good things.
That said, how many times has that strategy of releasing "patches" really work? ... if WoTC came out and said that they need to do another one, my first reaction would be why didn't they implement these fixes with the 3.5e patch.
I wouldn't call them patches. I'd call them "Optional Alternate Rules, designed to speed up and simplify gameplay." I'd market it as,
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm enough of a grognard that I do not consider "warrior-wizards" to be a classic trope.Mona makes Gandalf angry!
;D
Also, Elric and the Grey Mouser. :)
Those guys are more fighter and rogue than wizard, in which case the current system models them just fine.
--Erik
I think that is true, but then I am also enough of a literary snob to sniffle at your use of the word "classic," but again that's just a reminder of how I am getting old and cantankerous.
*Imagining Mona yelling to a bunch of kids, "Get off my lawn."* Naaa. It'll never happen.
I wouldn't call them patches. I'd call them "Optional Alternate Rules, designed to speed up and simplify gameplay." I'd market it as,
But then you are presented with a problem of which set of rules are you going to support in your product line. If you have two sets of grappling rules, one in the core PHB that everyone (or almost everyone) owns and another set of grappling rules that only a relatively few own, which one should be used in published adventures? Are you going to reprint both sets of rules in front of each supplement, like the rules for swift and immediate actions? I can just hear the chorus of "WotC wastes space" (which I already hear about the delve format).
Really, outside of alternate classes, I can't remember the last time that WoTC referenced rules content from the first UA
|
|
I'm not going to pussyfoot around here, its money.
I feel I know why WoTC is not releasing the newest game as a patch; it is because they are fundamentally changing the underlying math (and all that that systematically entails) in such a way as to make 4e a distinct d20 game from 3.x D&D.
And there we agree. The difference is, I don't see these as good things.
That said, how many times has that strategy of releasing "patches" really work? ... if WoTC came out and said that they need to do another one, my first reaction would be why didn't they implement these fixes with the 3.5e patch.I wouldn't call them patches. I'd call them "Optional Alternate Rules, designed to speed up and simplify gameplay." I'd market it as,
I'd like to see something like this as well, but it won't happen because it won't sell well enough for WotC to trouble with it. It will only appeal to a small group of people that are dissatisfied with some of the more complex rules of D&D. Someone like Paizo might be able to sell enough to be worth it, but it won't generate enough for a company the size of WotC. New editions, however, sell a lot. At least, in the beginning they do. That's why we have 4th edition and DDI. In the end, it's all about the money. The game takes a back seat to the revenue.
But then you are presented with a problem of which set of rules are you going to support in your product line.
If the grapple number on an NPCs stats doesn't change, ... both. At the same time. Without having a second set of stats.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
If the characters we started the Adventure Path with had died in the swamps of the third adventure, before we had the resources to get ressurected, then the campaign would have died with them. We could have continued the adventure path, sure, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun. Our new characters wouldn't be part of the story, wouldn't care what happened to Diamond Lake, and we would have given up by the time we reached high level play and things slowed down so much that it was no longer fun.
I killed something like six characters in the first three adventures of the Age of Worms Adventure Path. All of the players just rolled up new characters and kept playing.
The first character to die, a paladin named Abelard, ended up giving his name to the entire group, who called themselves "Abelard's Band" in recognition of their fallen foe.
Rather than destroy the campaign, at least some of those deaths made it richer, and it made the clever players pay more attention and not stick their hands in so many obvious traps.
I'd like to see something like this as well, but it won't happen because it won't sell well enough for WotC to trouble with it. It will only appeal to a small group of people that are dissatisfied with some of the more complex rules of D&D.
Go back and read everyone's take on Mearls 13. Few are completely satisfied with every single rule. Some would buy it as a replacement of the core rules. Many more would buy it to see a different take on this rule or that rule they are not really fond of.
In fact, I think death is better in low-level play, because it emphasizes the deadliness of the world by sacrificing a character that the player has not yet grown too attached to.
I agree with most of what you've said here Eric, but this comment really burns. I think is also shows why you don't see the problems with low level play that WotC and I feel are there.
Death by random chance is not a feature of low level play. It is nto fun, it is the single biggest problem with low level play. It discourages role playing and character development, kills campaings before they really begin, and lead to some of the dullest game play I've ever expirenced.
-SNIP-
I agree with you completely. This one item is probably the only thing I don't like about the current crop of Paizo editors, etc...their tendency to be a bit cavalier about PC death.
My players are very attached to their characters. They've put a lot of thought into designing back histories, personality, etc., not to mention the many hours they've put into playing those characters in-game, even at low levels. They also highly appreciate the fact that I tailor a good deal of my campaign around their individual quirks, etc.
I take them to the brink of death quite often, but I can guarantee you that if one of the characters met their death, with no chance of being raised (they aren't high enough level to cast it yet, nor rich enough to purchase it from a temple, short of a "quest-purchase" that I don't care to introduce) it would probably be the death of the campaign, or at least that player's enjoyment of the campaign.
|
|
A supplement that fixes the underlying problems in the core system is not a supplementPlenty of other RPGs do it all the time. What makes D&D so special that it can't do that?
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck then its a supplement. What? Why write a patch the size of a rule book? At that point you may as well follow through and fix everything - hence a new edition.
|
|
Honestly, I don't see this as a problem. The Grey Mouser had some spell-casting ability as well as skill with a sword, but each cut into his expertise with the other. If he'd devoted himself to spell-casting, he'd have been a better spell-caster.
The problem is that a FTR 10 Wiz 10 is still a 20th level character and should be able to contribute to the group the same as any other 20th lvl PC. He won't be able to because when it comes to multiclassing 10+10 does not always equal 20.
Why write a patch the size of a rule book?
The rules compendium managed to squeeze in all the rules from the past 5 years in a mere 160 pages. How much less would a set of alternate rules take up?
|
|
I can guarantee you that if one of the characters met their death, with no chance of being raised (they aren't high enough level to cast it yet, nor rich enough to purchase it from a temple, short of a "quest-purchase" that I don't care to introduce) it would probably be the death of the campaign, or at least that player's enjoyment of the campaign.
Eh.
Total party wipes discourage us, but I generally have a half-dozen characters waiting in the wings. (I am what MMOG fans know as an alt-hoor. I love playing different characters, and often get impatient if a game goes on too long and I don't get to play someone else.)
Only one of the players in our regular group gets discouraged if his character dies, and, ironically, he's the only one who doesn't actually write up any sort of backstory or have any sort of theme, usually putting off writing up his character until the rest of us are at the table, and not entirely finishing it until halfway through the second session. Then he gets kinda huffy if it dies, since he then has to procrastinate a bunch more making his new one that he won't care about enough to name...
|
|
Why write a patch the size of a rule book?The rules compendium managed to squeeze in all the rules from the past 5 years in a mere 160 pages. How much less would a set of alternate rules take up?
3E does not need alternative rules - it needs a new core. When a system has been patched to death it is time for a seed change.