|
This guy apparently got his hands on the upcoming book at the DDXP and answered a few questions on it.
|
This guy apparently got his hands on the upcoming book at the DDXP and answered a few questions on it.
Looks like some interesting stuff.
On another note, what do DM's do about players wanting to change class/build every time a new players/powers book come out? Been a little bit of a bone of contention in our group shall we say.
Cheers,
S.
I make them wait until they gain a level.
I think it's a situational thing. If they just want to try out a new power or two, wait till they level and retrain. It's what that ability is made for.
If, however, the player is just not enjoying the character and/or class that they're playing, let them do a full rebuild.
The DM for the campaign I'm currently playing in is fairly liberal when it comes to newly released options. If new material comes out that would fit your character, he allows us to rebuild our PCs outside of the normal re-training rules, if you let him know beforehand.
For example, I've been playing an eladrin artificer since the playtest version was released in Dragon 365. When the CB first appeared, he allowed me to swap out one of my at-will powers for magic weapon, and then again, I was allowed to tinker with my character when the EPG was released. The biggest change had to be to my PP. We started the paragon tier before the EPG was released, so I picked another PP that fit my character concept. Unfortunately, it wasn't working out as well as I had hoped (it was hard to synch up my stats), so a few weeks after the EPG was released, my DM allowed me to switch PPs to something similar to my initial concept. I'm much happier with my character now.
I'm going to start DMing in a few weeks and I'm likely to keep this policy in place.
If you picked up the most recent RPGA rules, you may notice that they now let you retrain EVERYTHING except class and race.
I'm also very liberal with the retraining - I let my players change whatever powers the like between sessions, but only one feat or class build option at a time at level up. I've found that people find what they like after a little initial shuffling and then run with it pretty consistently so it's not a huge disruption.
This, of course, invalidates several of the new 'adaptation' or 'flexibility' feats in MP2, but whatever. You shouldn't need to spend a feat on that in the first place.
I'm really looking forward to the Martial Practices, though I'm not entirely sure why they're separate from all the other Rituals. I also particularly enjoy the feat that lets dragonborn get sneak attack damage on their breath weapon. It somehow reminds me of the sneak attack ballista scene from The Gamers.
This, of course, invalidates several of the new 'adaptation' or 'flexibility' feats in MP2, but whatever. You shouldn't need to spend a feat on that in the first place.
Well, those feats let you switch powers out during an extended rest for a specific power, so they're not completely obsolete. They're only as useless as a wizard's spellbook, in any case.
As for martial practices being separate from rituals, that's probably just so a fighter with training in Heal can't raise the dead without using a scroll for it.
Well, those feats let you switch powers out during an extended rest for a specific power, so they're not completely obsolete. They're only as useless as a wizard's spellbook, in any case.
I tend to run episodic sessions where most extended rests occur in-between sessions, so for my style it's meaningless. In the broader sense, though, you are correct.
As for martial practices being separate from rituals, that's probably just so a fighter with training in Heal can't raise the dead without using a scroll for it.
I have in fact played Martial characters and taken Ritual Casting as a bonus feat. Again, probably just my tastes.
I let the players change out feats/powers every level, and they can adjust their attributes as well. However, they must keep the same class and race, although I will allow them to use a hybrid build if one of the classes is their original one. I also offer them a choice to bring in a totally new character (class/race) to replace an old one, but it must be at a transition point in the campaign, which is uusally a town, cross roads, etc. They can also bring back an old character, as I keep all the party members equal level (even during down time).
As to rituals, my hybrid fighter/paladin with the mark of making is the enchanter/alchemist of the party. But the character is a warforged, that started off as a rage fighter build, with not history at all, and he has evolved from that point.
|
|
I guess because the constant releases (which I buy many off) we have had (for my liking) too many PC changes.
It's been like;
"Hi, I'm Luke Groundrunner. I'm here to rescue you."
"Er, What happened to Luke Skywalker"
"Ah, he had to go home. His dad needed him to mow the lawns I think?"
"Anyway, I'll grab San Holo and we'll escape from the evil Derth Nader"
"Wasn't it Han... Oh nevermind. Actually I lost interest when the Gnome woke up yesterday morning and discovered he had actually been a very short Elf all along."
Disrupts my feeling of being "in the campaign" and just hits home the "board game" feeling. As 9/10 times the reasons for the change is a neat new mechanic rather than some desire for a new an exciting role-playing opportunity. Of course one player spent a little bit of time writing some "background" as justify one of the PC 'upgrades'.
For me in a campaign it just makes a mockery of character development - both in terms of levels and character.
A call it magpie syndrome - players leaping after the next shiny object they see...
Other opinions aside, it annoys the bejesus out of me.
S.
I can understand your perspective, but after you played as long as my group has, it is amazing we still play. So we don't get caught up in the specific details, but we also rotate the DM duties, so any sense of a strong theme in regards to a campaign is lost in the translation. On the up side, we have enough experience to make adjustments as necessary. I guess that is one of the reasons we like 4E.
To do that in a system like GURPS would have a significant impact.
And in the end, it is a game, so take out of it what you can.
|
Most of the changes I see people make to their characters with new releases are feats or powers that fit the concept the player already had for their character. In other words, the character is even more consistent to its concept than it was before. I don't find these disruptive at all. Major changes to the concept, however, would be distracting.
I guess because the constant releases (which I buy many off) we have had (for my liking) too many PC changes.
It's been like;
"Hi, I'm Luke Groundrunner. I'm here to rescue you."
"Er, What happened to Luke Skywalker"
"Ah, he had to go home. His dad needed him to mow the lawns I think?"
"Anyway, I'll grab San Holo and we'll escape from the evil Derth Nader"
"Wasn't it Han... Oh nevermind. Actually I lost interest when the Gnome woke up yesterday morning and discovered he had actually been a very short Elf all along."
Disrupts my feeling of being "in the campaign" and just hits home the "board game" feeling. As 9/10 times the reasons for the change is a neat new mechanic rather than some desire for a new an exciting role-playing opportunity. Of course one player spent a little bit of time writing some "background" as justify one of the PC 'upgrades'.
For me in a campaign it just makes a mockery of character development - both in terms of levels and character.
A call it magpie syndrome - players leaping after the next shiny object they see...
Other opinions aside, it annoys the bejesus out of me.
S.
As a DM I frown and grumble a lot. As a player I, uh frown and b&!%+ and moan. Truth is my group is like this as well. Myself excepted and one or two other players are less likely to switch as well but on the other end of the spectrum we have players that break records if they stick with the same character for more then 8 sessions.
I find it annoying as a player and as a DM but I'm not really sure there is a reasonable solution. Forcing people to play a character other when the one they would rather be playing just seems straight up worse so, in the end, players are allowed to re-spec their characters because, after all, it is their character.
I allow fairly liberal swapping of feats and powers when a new book comes out. But I don't let them just swap characters, or even swap to builds that are drastically different from their prior characters.
I did try to allow it at first, and the people taking the most advantage of it were also the ones that tended to be the most unhappy. As in, they would completely change character class because "Paladin just isn't as cool as I thought it would be, I'll only be happy if I play the brand-new Barbarian," and then out comes Divine Power and "Look at all the cool stuff I'd be able to do if I were still a Paladin..." So after a couple of these incidents, I just closed the door on changing characters mid-campaign. The whining and complaining has gone down considerably. Indeed, although a couple of players still obsessively talk about what they'll play in the "next campaign" (which won't be until 8 to 10 months from now), they've finally stopped phrasing is as "when my character dies..."!
I do find, even with all the choices, it is rare that someone drastically changes their character to any extreme, so maybe I have lucked out so far. But I will also state I play with a close group of friends, so if I was in a open game situation, my thoughts may change.
But I agree changes shouldn't be abritrary, and some thought should be made as to why a change was made.
Most of the changes I see people make to their characters with new releases are feats or powers that fit the concept the player already had for their character. In other words, the character is even more consistent to its concept than it was before. I don't find these disruptive at all. Major changes to the concept, however, would be distracting.
This. Even in our campaigns, we've never changed PC abilities willy-nilly, its always been in an attempt to match our concept.
I typically reserve 're-builds' for those instances where a new build comes out that's more in line with the player's original vision of the character. For example, the ranger in our group really wanted to be a beastmaster, but those rules weren't available until Martial Power 1. So, when that book came out, he was allowed to rebuild his character.
Otherwise, I allow the retraining rules as described in the core rulebooks. I'm a bit more lenient with them in the first few sessions of the campaign, as people fiddle around and find out what "fits" their character.
This guy apparently got his hands on the upcoming book at the DDXP and answered a few questions on it.Looks like some interesting stuff.
On another note, what do DM's do about players wanting to change class/build every time a new players/powers book come out? Been a little bit of a bone of contention in our group shall we say.
Cheers,
S.
I say let them change at the end of a session, simulate the change with them practicing the new technique over a session and getting it at the end. Had similar issues in 3rd edition where a player would take a feat then as the campaign continued it'd never get used and then ask could I retrain this feat for another and the DM's(myself first off) would allow it. After all if the player took something for his character that he finds useless or just didn't have the flavour he hoped for then take something that will.
That sounds really good. I don't usually buy these sort of books (instead I wait for DDi to be updated), but I like a lot of the stuff you're describing. That one-handed fighter build sounds awesome! The archer-rogue is also one that I've been waiting for.
Like Paul, ask me again when DDI is updated. The only books I buy are dungeon masters guides, or campaign settings like ebberon, or the future release of the rules compendium.
|
|
So... I kind of hate martial practices. Is it just me?
It seems like it takes aspects of the game that were just talked through, or handled with skill checks, and handwaves them away. Things like scouting, making a disguise, and so on.
And supposedly you can find a book telling you how to do these things and master it in a day.
I was always glad they took Craft out of the skills system and put it back into the realm of DM adjudication. Now with the right martial practice you can make a suit of chainmail in a day? I don't need perfect reality simulation, but come on...
And don't get me started on "martial class" as a prerequesite. Why can't a druid scout out the terrain? Why can't a barbarian run a marathon? Why can't a paladin forge a weapon? Why can't an assassin forge a document?
Am I the only one rubbed the wrong way by these things?
I was pretty excited about Martial Practices when I first saw them. They were a good idea for bringing stuff like crafting back into the game, and especially for putting it into the hands of non-spellcasters. One of the most memorable scenes from the Icewind Dale Trilogy was Bruenor crafting Aegis Fang. It always struck me as funny that until Martial Power 2, he could never have done it RAW.
Now I'm not so sure. I don't like that they're resricted to martial classes. I don't like the unrealistsic time requirements. And I don't like that they overlap with a lot of rituals.
I like skill powers, though!
I do not have MP2, so I was wondering since only Martial Characters can take the Martial Practices, could a player take a Martial Class Multi-Class Feat and be able to use the Martial Practices? That would seem fair.
I do not have MP2, so I was wondering since only Martial Characters can take the Martial Practices, could a player take a Martial Class Multi-Class Feat and be able to use the Martial Practices? That would seem fair.
If it is anything like the multi-class feats they would count as that class after taking the feat.
|
|
I do not have MP2, so I was wondering since only Martial Characters can take the Martial Practices, could a player take a Martial Class Multi-Class Feat and be able to use the Martial Practices? That would seem fair.
Yes, they could. They would spend one feat multiclassing, and spend another feat getting martial practices.
The issue is that, once you read some of the martial practices themselves, they are things that characters have probably been doing along, and there is the implication that those characters should not be able to do them now. Some of them are really intuitive things for your druid, paladin, or barbarian to do as it is.
Yes, they could. They would spend one feat multiclassing, and spend another feat getting martial practices.The issue is that, once you read some of the martial practices themselves, they are things that characters have probably been doing along, and there is the implication that those characters should not be able to do them now. Some of them are really intuitive things for your druid, paladin, or barbarian to do as it is.
Not as good as I hoped, but still not too bad since you get a power for taking the Multi-Class Feat.
As for taking freebies away from other classes I'd have to see specifics. do you have an example that you find annoying?
|
|
Yes, they could. They would spend one feat multiclassing, and spend another feat getting martial practices.The issue is that, once you read some of the martial practices themselves, they are things that characters have probably been doing along, and there is the implication that those characters should not be able to do them now. Some of them are really intuitive things for your druid, paladin, or barbarian to do as it is.
Not as good as I hoped, but still not too bad since you get a power for taking the Multi-Class Feat.
As for taking freebies away from other classes I'd have to see specifics. do you have an example that you find annoying?
If I get a chance tonight I will look in the book again. I don't have it in front of me.
Thank-you, Celestial Healer.
|
|
Some of the ones I find the most obnoxious:
Decipher Script - use a History or Streetwise check to read a document in a language you don't know. (I can't imagine many wizards or bards multiclassing into a martial class just for this. Does this mean that deciphering a language is beyond them?)
Hidden Pocket - conceal a small object on your person. (I checked, and the Thievery skill does not otherwise have a mechanic for this. Does this mean anyone without this martial practice is hopeless at it? Anyone should be able to try.)
Peerless Exploration - scout an area undetected. (In a lot of ways, this skips over an entire roleplaying/exploration opportunity with a single mechanic. And why does a druid need to multiclass to be able to do this?)
Precise Forgery (Again, apparently there is no mechanic for this, but it seems like the sort of thing anybody ought to be able to attempt. Some, like bards or assassins, should probably be able to be pretty good at it, too.)
Speech Without Words - use a diplomacy check to communicate via pantomime with a non-hostile NPC if you don't understand one another's language. (Shouldn't anyone be able to try this?)
Word on the Street - head out into town and use a Streetwise check in place of another knowledge check, like Arcana or Religion. (I don't see why this is a martial practice. If a character wants to do this, it seems like they should be able to, maybe with a penalty on the check because it's a bit less precise.)
Like Matthew, I think it could be a good idea, but the execution was poor.
I agree with you, those actions do not seem to be thought out very well. They sounds just like skill checks or challenges rather than something analogous to Raise Dead or Phantom Steed.
The question I have is how do you express a concern or comment on official material? Let the people be heard!
Some of the ones I find the most obnoxious:
Decipher Script - use a History or Streetwise check to read a document in a language you don't know. (I can't imagine many wizards or bards multiclassing into a martial class just for this. Does this mean that deciphering a language is beyond them?)
Hidden Pocket - conceal a small object on your person. (I checked, and the Thievery skill does not otherwise have a mechanic for this. Does this mean anyone without this martial practice is hopeless at it? Anyone should be able to try.)
Peerless Exploration - scout an area undetected. (In a lot of ways, this skips over an entire roleplaying/exploration opportunity with a single mechanic. And why does a druid need to multiclass to be able to do this?)
Precise Forgery (Again, apparently there is no mechanic for this, but it seems like the sort of thing anybody ought to be able to attempt. Some, like bards or assassins, should probably be able to be pretty good at it, too.)
Speech Without Words - use a diplomacy check to communicate via pantomime with a non-hostile NPC if you don't understand one another's language. (Shouldn't anyone be able to try this?)
Word on the Street - head out into town and use a Streetwise check in place of another knowledge check, like Arcana or Religion. (I don't see why this is a martial practice. If a character wants to do this, it seems like they should be able to, maybe with a penalty on the check because it's a bit less precise.)
Like Matthew, I think it could be a good idea, but the execution was poor.
Easy enough to chop this junk out of the system but I am annoyed that they are cluttering up a perfectly good book with this sort of inanity.
Its possible that one might want to force a PC to drop a feat on to be good something like this but in general I think this line of thinking is pretty much flawed. Either the skill being gained is so broad that its asinine to think that characters engaged in related activities don't know how to do this stuff or. alternatively, what is being gained has such a narrow focus that it makes no sense to spend a feat on it to pick it up.
The whole thing feels like the introduction of needless mechanics that, by their very nature, step on the DMs toes.
Worse yet many of these are just the sort of things that ought to be taken care of at the game table and we actually loose out by skipping this part of the game. The whole thing is just bad game design IMO.
This stuff probably sounded good in the concept discussion phase - Mathew above notes the concept and feels it has potential. I disagree with him (which is rare) as I doubt there is much potential here for anything. Instead I think this is something that sounds good but simply isn't once one gets down to the nitty gritty of actual execution on game night.
The designers should have realized this at some stage and made the tough choice to throw the material away...maybe use some of it for an article on the cool crap a 28th level rogue should be able to get up to with a thievery check in the 40's.
|
Some of the ones I find the most obnoxious:
Decipher Script - use a History or Streetwise check to read a document in a language you don't know. (I can't imagine many wizards or bards multiclassing into a martial class just for this. Does this mean that deciphering a language is beyond them?)
Hidden Pocket - conceal a small object on your person. (I checked, and the Thievery skill does not otherwise have a mechanic for this. Does this mean anyone without this martial practice is hopeless at it? Anyone should be able to try.)
Peerless Exploration - scout an area undetected. (In a lot of ways, this skips over an entire roleplaying/exploration opportunity with a single mechanic. And why does a druid need to multiclass to be able to do this?)
Precise Forgery (Again, apparently there is no mechanic for this, but it seems like the sort of thing anybody ought to be able to attempt. Some, like bards or assassins, should probably be able to be pretty good at it, too.)
Speech Without Words - use a diplomacy check to communicate via pantomime with a non-hostile NPC if you don't understand one another's language. (Shouldn't anyone be able to try this?)
Word on the Street - head out into town and use a Streetwise check in place of another knowledge check, like Arcana or Religion. (I don't see why this is a martial practice. If a character wants to do this, it seems like they should be able to, maybe with a penalty on the check because it's a bit less precise.)
Like Matthew, I think it could be a good idea, but the execution was poor.
No one was bothered when only thieves could do this prior to 3e. These are clearly intended to be rogue-type powers and seeing them otherwise is missing the point in my view. For example, if a wizard really wanted to read something in a foreign language he can get a scroll of Comprehend Languages. So a mechanic already exists for them. What bothered me (mildly) before was that a lot of roguey stuff was no longer available.
I will admit that I haven't looked much at these in detail but in general they seem reasonable. If you multiclass just to take these then, yes, you are probably wasting feats. However, if you have a genuine character concept that involves multiclassing into rogue then these add additional options. I don't see, for example, why a druid should be able to scout as well as a rogue - he's a controller who turns into animals, and isn't the uber-class of 3e. Unless, of course, he has multiclassed into rogue. Classes are much narrower concepts now and that is part of the balance approach of 4e more generally.
No one was bothered when only thieves could do this prior to 3e. These are clearly intended to be rogue-type powers and seeing them otherwise is missing the point in my view. For example, if a wizard really wanted to read something in a foreign language he can get a scroll of Comprehend Languages. So a mechanic already exists for them. What bothered me (mildly) before was that a lot of roguey stuff was no longer available.
I will admit that I haven't looked much at these in detail but in general they seem reasonable. If you multiclass just to take these then, yes, you are probably wasting feats. However, if you have a genuine character concept that involves multiclassing into rogue then these add additional options. I don't see, for example, why a druid should be able to scout as well as a rogue - he's a controller who turns into animals, and isn't the uber-class of 3e. Unless, of course, he has multiclassed into rogue. Classes are much narrower concepts now and that is part of the balance approach of 4e more generally.
However, rituals are available to anyone trained in arcana or religion. You don't have to be a divine character to be able to perform Raise Dead and anyone can learn Comprehend Languages.
Thematically, requiring a skill seems a lot less restrictive to me than requiring a class power source.
Why is a Fighter more capable of the 'Peerless Exploration' than an assassin, avenger, or any other stealthy class? If classes are much narrower concepts now, why do Fighters and Warlords have this access to these abilities? Why can't a bard pantomime? Why can't a cleric forge a weapon? Why can't an assassin hide a small object on his person? Why can a fighter do these things?
|
|
No one was bothered when only thieves could do this prior to 3e. These are clearly intended to be rogue-type powers and seeing them otherwise is missing the point in my view. For example, if a wizard really wanted to read something in a foreign language he can get a scroll of Comprehend Languages. So a mechanic already exists for them. What bothered me (mildly) before was that a lot of roguey stuff was no longer available.
I will admit that I haven't looked much at these in detail but in general they seem reasonable. If you multiclass just to take these then, yes, you are probably wasting feats. However, if you have a genuine character concept that involves multiclassing into rogue then these add additional options. I don't see, for example, why a druid should be able to scout as well as a rogue - he's a controller who turns into animals, and isn't the uber-class of 3e. Unless, of course, he has multiclassed into rogue. Classes are much narrower concepts now and that is part of the balance approach of 4e more generally.However, rituals are available to anyone trained in arcana or religion. You don't have to be a divine character to be able to perform Raise Dead and anyone can learn Comprehend Languages.
Thematically, requiring a skill seems a lot less restrictive to me than requiring a class power source.
Why is a Fighter more capable of the 'Peerless Exploration' than an assassin, avenger, or any other stealthy class? If classes are much narrower concepts now, why do Fighters and Warlords have this access to these abilities? Why can't a bard pantomime? Why can't a cleric forge a weapon? Why can't an assassin hide a small object on his person? Why can a fighter do these things?
Probably for the same reason that he's now crap with a bow and arrow, whereas before in 3e he could be a better archer than the ranger. I'm being slightly facetious, and I don't have the book with me and I only scanned it cursorily at the time, but it struck me that the practices were designed to allow all those little powers and so on that existed in previous editions but which were streamlined away in 4e to get a look in. And they are probably intended (though this does not seem to be clearly set out) to run with particular classes - rogues and rangers get the stealthy stuff, rogues get the social and magic stuff. As someone pointed out above (and it also occurred to be as well when I read it) it also handled stuff like dwarven smithing so it doesn't actually require you to be a ritualist.
And I still don't really see the problem with multiclassing to have to take them. To flip it round, doesn't it seem odd that a fighter with an INT of 8 can raise the dead by taking a feat and buying a scroll? Are the martial practices the problem, or is it some other aspects which we have simply accepted (like any character can cast a ritual if they have the inclination, irrespective of background, education and so on) through familiarity?
If they are worth spending feats on - that's another matter. I haven't looked recently enough to be able to comment on that.
Most rituals are tied to a skill (arcane, nature, religion), or additional feats like eberron mark of making. So it seems logical, that martial practices would involve a feat, and related skills, etc.
At least they would have standardized the mechanic.
The entire system could use a little more detail and fleshing out, as it appears to be an afterthought, in regards to the core mechanics.