Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the point of the interview is Grandmother Fish, his cool new book on evolution for kids, Jonathan also talks about D&D and why the new edition's biggest challenge is Pathfinder.
Very cool interview. Thank you. =)
Nice interview.
Now, I'm curious how all the people who think spellcasters are perfectly balanced in 3e will rationalize away Johnathon Tweet as not a "real" D&D player.
I dont think the majority of us see them as "perfectly" balanced, at least not full casters. Balance is also not all classing being able to have the same affect. It is more like everyone has a job that they can do, but as full casters get more power they have the ability to replace other classes. I think the game's power level could have stopped around level 15 and been fine, but there were a lot of legacy things that came from earlier editions and were needed to bring the fanbase over. Pathfinder had to do the same thing to a large extent to get the 3.x fanbase over.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice interview.
Now, I'm curious how all the people who think spellcasters are perfectly balanced in 3e will rationalize away Johnathon Tweet as not a "real" D&D player.
I guess one could simply accept that different people have different experiences with the game.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice interview.
Now, I'm curious how all the people who think spellcasters are perfectly balanced in 3e will rationalize away Johnathon Tweet as not a "real" D&D player.
Absolutely, positively not looking to get into an edition war debate but the variation and imbalance is why my groups still play this game. We don't accept the consequences of perfect balance; uniformity. That a wizard's abilities are completely different from a fighter's, and both are completely different from those of a druid or a cleric is precisely what makes this system worth playing (to us).
Balance comes at a cost. This is a team game, where it isn't important that the fighter is balanced against the wizard... what matters is the party is balanced against their opponents.
It is also important that the fighter gets to feel he has something relevant to do. At very high levels, there is a risk in this area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think the majority of us see them as "perfectly" balanced, at least not full casters. Balance is also not all classing being able to have the same affect. It is more like everyone has a job that they can do, but as full casters get more power they have the ability to replace other classes. I think the game's power level could have stopped around level 15 and been fine, but there were a lot of legacy things that came from earlier editions and were needed to bring the fanbase over. Pathfinder had to do the same thing to a large extent to get the 3.x fanbase over.Nice interview.
Now, I'm curious how all the people who think spellcasters are perfectly balanced in 3e will rationalize away Johnathon Tweet as not a "real" D&D player.
This is the sort of thing that starts fights.
There are serious issues with caster/non-caster balance. The Obvious way to fix that is to make the resource management for all classes more similar, and to give level appropriate powers to everybody. The powers that 4E characters have are actually VERY different from each other, honestly they are a lot more different than the sort of powers that pathfinder characters get. However, because the resource management system is the same they don't feel different to the player (this is also the issue that many people have with Bo9S). Its also VERY clear that balancing the game by equalizing resource management doesn't resonate with players.
There is a big difference between wanting "perfect" balance and wanting each class to be able to contribute meaningfully at all levels of play.
The other issue that will continue to be a concern for any publisher is what does it mean to put out a new edition.
WOTC tried putting out a new edition that didn't make big changes but incorporated a lot of little changes and it was generally felt to be a money grab.
When WOTC and White Wolf put out new editions of their games that were really new games they also found players unreceptive.
On the other hand, 3rd edition and OGL D&D was a big change in system that was massively well recieved. It is sort of the model for why a company would be willing to take a big step away from a solid existing product.
This leads to a wierd dynamic where it seems like the you have the same risks for making big and small changes to your system but if the big changes pay off they pay off a lot better than the small changes.
IthinkIBrokeit:
I disagree.
:P
The big problem with 4E was not that fighters got powers. The problem was that all magical powers regressed to the same basic system as the non magical powers.
This is why Bo9S is superior. It adds cool powers without bastardizing the casters.
4E was fun in its own way, so this in no way an attempt to start an edition war.
I think if Paizo ever makes a Pathfinder 2 they should strive for something that lets fighters and martial classes gain powers like in 4e, but with some more interesting mechanic than "X times per battle".
Ganryu;
I think we said the same thing. My post pointed out that the major complaint with both 4e and book of 9 swords was that the resource management schemes for magic and non magic effects were to similar.
That's a fundamental problem because it means that the obvious way to balance characters is not available.
A pathfinder 2e would need to look at solutions that are likely to have more hidden problems than putting everybody on the same resource management scheme. That could result in a fix that is insufficient or otherwise broken.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the variation and imbalance is why my groups still play this game. We don't accept the consequences of perfect balance; uniformity. That a wizard's abilities are completely different from a fighter's, and both are completely different from those of a druid or a cleric is precisely what makes this system worth playing (to us).
Balance comes at a cost. This is a team game, where it isn't important that the fighter is balanced against the wizard... what matters is the party is balanced against their opponents.
I couldn't possibly agree more. This is 110% how I feel.
It is also important that the fighter gets to feel he has something relevant to do. At very high levels, there is a risk in this area.
I am going to guess you have not played in many high level games have you?
Because in most of the high level games I have played in I really have not seen this risk you are talking about here....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ON another point he makes, he states that 3e is the longest edition to be around with 14 years.
Looking at the transition of 3e to 3.5, and 3.5 to PF, I think it's safe to say the changes between 3e and PF are more extreme than those from 1e to 2e.
IN that case, I'd say 1e and 2e were the basic same system at their core, and together they lasted 22 years...which beats out the 14 years if you count PF and 3e as the same game.
Just a minor thing to point out, if one is using that analogy rather than viewing them simply as different edition ideas (in which case it could be seen that PF is the 2e version of the 1e of 3e...is that confusing enough?).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also important that the fighter gets to feel he has something relevant to do. At very high levels, there is a risk in this area.I am going to guess you have not played in many high level games have you?
Because in most of the high level games I have played in I really have not seen this risk you are talking about here....
It's important to remember that one person's high level game isn't necessarily the same as another person's. I always go out of my way as a GM to provide the players of martial characters with things to do other than "hit it", "hit it harder", and "hit it in a really strange and unique manner" - but the game itself doesn't make that provision, and while some players don't even see that as an issue, there are also some that do.
|
It is also important that the fighter gets to feel he has something relevant to do. At very high levels, there is a risk in this area.I am going to guess you have not played in many high level games have you?
Because in most of the high level games I have played in I really have not seen this risk you are talking about here....
You would guess wrong, and I am not sure why you are putting your anecdote up against hers as if that will accomplish anything.
It is also important that the fighter gets to feel he has something relevant to do. At very high levels, there is a risk in this area.I am going to guess you have not played in many high level games have you?
Because in most of the high level games I have played in I really have not seen this risk you are talking about here....
I think both of you would need examples of "relevant" before dismissing it so you can see if you are even on the same page. Personally speaking unless I hold back even the best martials have trouble. I had a guy with an AC well above 50 and he did hundreds of points of damage, but I could shut him down much easier than a caster, and outside of damage there was not much else he could do.
|
ON another point he makes, he states that 3e is the longest edition to be around with 14 years.
Looking at the transition of 3e to 3.5, and 3.5 to PF, I think it's safe to say the changes between 3e and PF are more extreme than those from 1e to 2e.
IN that case, I'd say 1e and 2e were the basic same system at their core, and together they lasted 22 years...which beats out the 14 years if you count PF and 3e as the same game.
Yes, I don't consider 1E and 2E to be different games.
One is a reorganising of the former, to put it in a readable, user-friendly format.
Because the 1E rulebooks were terrible, in that respect.
There are big differences between 1E and 2E. They were fairly compatible, but there were major differences, enough that they were called different editions.
Time has softened those distinct edges in our minds, both by it's mere passage and with the release of newer editions that depart further from both.
A bard in 1E and 2E are quite different animals. Psionics are completely different. 1E had "To-Hit Tables", 2E had THAC0 (yes, THAC0 is not as old as you think it is). The Cleric/Druid spell list was completely redone.
Conversion between 1E and 2E is very easily the simplest though, that I would agree. Easy enough you can just do it on the fly with most monsters without thinking that much really.
1E had "To-Hit Tables", 2E had THAC0 (yes, THAC0 is not as old as you think it is).
1e had THACO in many modules and I believe in the DMG under the big table of monster stat listings, though I'd have to check that.
See for yourself. Go here and click on the full preview. You will see THACO in the game terms on page 2 of this 1985 AD&D module.
1E had "To-Hit Tables", 2E had THAC0 (yes, THAC0 is not as old as you think it is).
1e had THACO in many modules and I believe in the DMG under the big table of monster stat listings, though I'd have to check that.
See for yourself. Go here and click on the full preview. You will see THACO in the game terms on page 2 of this 1985 AD&D module.
Sorry I wasn't clear.
Late publications of 1E had references to the term, but it wasn't a core concept until 2E. In addition for 1E, THAC0 was generally a monster concept, devised as a shortcut for the DM so they could use monster stat blocks more easily without having to reference the DMG every time. From the little I've seen it cropped up more often (and earlier) in UK versions of publications, as early as 1983.
There are also differences between 1E and 2E THAC0. THAC0 in 2E form first appeared in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, a 1E book, but fairly late in the time frame of 1E (1986, with AD&D 2E being published in 1989).
I think that's part of the issue for why 1E and 2E feel very close together as well. 1E changed a lot over time, there were small changes pretty much every year, either from Dragon or a hardcover book (which often were finalized versions of Dragon articles). 2E was partly a collection of those gradual changes, formalizing their relationships in the primary books of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were indeed entries in the 1st ed DMG for THAC0 in the table for monsters. That's hardly "late" in the life cycle, it was a full 10 years before 2nd ed.
1st ed was a giant quilt of patches and patches of tables for everything. 2nd ed streamlined a lot of it, ditching a ton of these scattered tables and niche rules, and then proceeded to make tons more of them in the new format. It seemed like a HUGE change back then, now... not so much.
Don't forget the addition of Non-Weapon Proficiencies (now Skills) in 2e - vast change from 1e.
The reorganization of the classes (Priests instead of Clerics/Druids, Wizards/specialists instead of magic-users/illusionists) was pretty big too.
I <3 1e, hate 2e.
The gradual evolution is a good point though: I'd say PF Aug-2009 was closer to 3.0 than 1e to 2e. PF Aug-2014 I think will be further away.
Don't forget the addition of Non-Weapon Proficiencies (now Skills) in 2e - vast change from 1e.
They were in 1e's Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and I presume the Wilderness Survival Guide.
In the 2e PH NWPs are an optional skill system, alongside the background professions lifted from the 1e DMG.
|
One is a reorganising of the former, to put it in a readable, user-friendly format.
Because the 1E rulebooks were terrible, in that respect.
Yet it was light years ahead of Original D&D in that regards. Seriously, look at those booklets sometime...you'll wonder how the hobby actually managed to take off. I'm pretty sure that Gygax and Arneson decided on where to put what rules by rolling dice.
|
|
The 1E DMG was a box of clippings from Dragon and The Strategic Review, that someone threw down the stairs, then shoved the pages back together at the bottom, in the order they fell. Even if that meant explaining a concept across two chapters, hundreds of pages apart.
And before anyone get too complacent, that those days are gone, try looking up the 'damaging objects' rules for PF, which require you to look in three different places, with no indication that either of those places is not the full story.
|
|
Late publications of 1E had references to the term, but it wasn't a core concept until 2E. In addition for 1E, THAC0 was generally a monster concept, devised as a shortcut for the DM so they could use monster stat blocks more easily without having to reference the DMG every time. From the little I've seen it cropped up more often (and earlier) in UK versions of publications, as early as 1983.
TSR UK were a frequent advocate of THACO, including it in their published adventures and 'Imagine' magazine, during that early 80s period.
It was useful for speeding up play, as it reduced the need to think what class they counted as, look up the tables, cross-ref...They also published Lew Pulsipher's consolidated attack table and saves table, for all classes and monster HD, both of which fit on A5 landscape, and freed up lots of screen space.
These tables pioneered the push for smoother incremental attack and save bonuses (eg +1/level attack bonus for martials, instead of a 2-step jump every 2 levels), which was made official in 2E.
And since 1984(?), we used their d10-based initiative system, which took account of weapon speed, Dex modifiers, spell casting time, to provide an individual combatant's placing in the round, which, once again became official 2E system.
There's a lot of things to give TSR UK credit for (yes, even the flumph).
Once TSR US pulled the plug, they even set up GameMaster Publications (More than a module! More than a magazine!) which were a sadly short-lived prototype for Paizo's Adventure Path format.
I think that's part of the issue for why 1E and 2E feel very close together as well. 1E changed a lot over time, there were small changes pretty much every year, either from Dragon or a hardcover book (which often were finalized versions of Dragon articles). 2E was partly a collection of those gradual changes, formalizing their relationships in the primary books of the game.
1st ed was a giant quilt of patches and patches of tables for everything. 2nd ed streamlined a lot of it, ditching a ton of these scattered tables and niche rules, and then proceeded to make tons more of them in the new format. It seemed like a HUGE change back then, now... not so much.
That's why I consider 1E and 2E to be the same game, because virtually all the printed changes matched houserules the player base had already been using for years, so it was more a case of the parent company finally catching up with the end users.
That's why I consider 1E and 2E to be the same game, because virtually all the printed changes matched houserules the player base had already been using for years, so it was more a case of the parent company finally catching up with the end users.
They are the same game. They're just different editions. 3.0 is still the same game. It really isn't that hard to convert stuff from OD&D to 3.0. It's more work than from OD&D -> AD&D, but it's still very possible and if you've practiced it, pretty fast.
I've run Against the Hill Giants for players in Pathfinder doing the conversion purely in my head (without opening the PF Bestiary).
The changes were incremental, but it still stands, if you compare the AD&D PHB and AD&D 2E PHB, there are a lot of differences. I'm sure some groups had both books open on the table, but they weren't used interchangeably. If you were playing a Bard, you didn't just grab one of the two randomly.
None of this is a "you're doing it wrong" statement. They were different editions. They were PUBLISHED as different editions. It doesn't matter if we as observers from 20+ years later can point and see the similarities, they were still different editions.
To clarify, I was only pointing out one minor thing I had with his statements. He considered Pathfinder and 3e as the same edition...and as such, they have lasted 14 years.
My thoughts were if PF and 3.0 were the same edition, 1e and 2e should also count as the same(hence 22 years). I think the changes have been larger between PF and 3.0 than they were between 1e and 2e. Hence if you are comparing apples to apples, then to lump 3.0 to 3.5 to PF together as the same edition or same game, you should lump 1e and 2e together as well.
That's all.
It's possible one could say OD&D is the same edition all the way up to PF and or 4e...if that's their opinion.
Obviously all that means is that I view 3.0 as not being the same as PF. 3e went for several years and then had a semi-new edition, but only partly, known as 3.5 edition. PF is in many ways a build off of 3.5, and in some ways a overhaul and streamline of some of what was in 3.5 (much like 2e was in many ways a collation/overhaul of 1e and streamlining...IMO of course). In that same light, no, I was NOT saying 1e and 2e were the same edition either. 3e and PF are the same and yet separate entities.
They are compatible (just like 1e and 2e were), but I don't view them as the same edition as Tweet considered them.
It's a minor difference of opinion. That's all.
And it really IS a minor difference. I think PF and 3e are highly compatible, but there are many instances that if I were running a PF adventure, I'd probably want to modify a thing or two for a party that were running 3.0 characters, and vice versa.