If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   "Dungeons & Dragons Next"...begun, the Nerd Wars have   (arstechnica.com) divider line 202
    More: Interesting, Dungeons & Dragons, classic games, Wizards of the Coast, Gary Gygax, cohesiveness, Mike Mearls, PAX  
•       •       •

7227 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Sep 2012 at 2:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 03:07:12 PM
3.5 rule set was the best and I think Gary would agree
 
2012-09-17 03:14:11 PM

ltdanman44: 3.5 rule set was the best and I think Gary would agree


You think 3.5 is better than Pathfinder? How so? Not trolling or picking a fight, but I haven't really heard anyone make this argument (well, no one who has played both).
 
2012-09-17 03:35:02 PM
I want to party with this guy. Screw magic or backstabbing, just gimme a kick-ass sword and some sixteen-siders.
diehardgamefan.com

/So, you want to be a Fighter? Congrats, you're going to be the major force in the party for the next 10 levels while the wizard's spells slowly corrupt and dissolve him.
 
2012-09-17 03:39:21 PM
Meh, I played Runequest, but you've probably never heard of it.

/Had a duck named Neosynephrine.
 
2012-09-17 04:31:52 PM

sprawl15: I have no idea how they're even around in the first place. This is a world where a few magicians could replace thousands of stupid peasants with elemental/golem slaves and can wish any mundane object into existence. Why have mud farmers when you can put a mud golem in a summoning circle and have him shiat all the mud you need into a handy collection bin? Hell, even a standard magical item vendor deals in tons of gold per customer.


That mirrors the real world so closely that we'll be able to find out the answer in several more decades if we just wait and see. We've been putting hyperproductive machinery into our factory and farm labor pools for ages now, and at some point, there will be nothing for the peasants to do.

But they won't go away. How does a society cope when it is based around the idea of "work for money" when there is no longer enough work for everyone to do?

It's sort of funny to see the same conceptual gap and lack of solution show up in a totally fictional magical world. Although I suppose the "let the dragon eat them" solution is more viable there than here.
 
2012-09-17 04:44:44 PM

SuperChuck: Epicedion: Sort of. They've only gotten significantly more awesome the longer Star Wars has developed. Vader, the guy who murdered all the Jedi, was disabled in his ship by a tramp freighter pilot, and his biggest displays of power are choking a couple dudes and absorbing a pistol shot then stealing the pistol. And he's supposed to be "most powerful in the galaxy" strong. Luke manages to jump really high once and do some tricks (and the big "use the force, Luke" moment in the first film). Everything they do seems to be really patient and deliberate.

You forgot Luke walking into Jabba's Palace, killing the Rancor and defeating Jabba's entire sailbarge full of guards by himself.


Well, they planned that all pretty carefully, and had the element of surprise when what was supposed to be an execution ended up in a surprise battle. Awesome fighting, but not "take on a legion of stormtroopers, tossing them like ragdolls and deflecting thousands of blaster shots, then bringing a star destroyer down on them" strong.

WEG:SW was pretty good about ensuring that everyone in their game was a minor enough Jedi they would have escaped the Purge. I don't want to derail this awesome RPG thread into a Star Wars rant, but the Prequels made Jedi so impossibly skilled and powerful they shouldn't be balanced as a PC in a game with normal mortals.
 
2012-09-17 05:03:54 PM

raygundan: That mirrors the real world so closely that we'll be able to find out the answer in several more decades if we just wait and see. We've been putting hyperproductive machinery into our factory and farm labor pools for ages now, and at some point, there will be nothing for the peasants to do.


As far as I can tell, the entire purpose of peasants is to be set on fire to incite outrage from future heroes.
 
2012-09-17 05:08:56 PM

sprawl15: raygundan: That mirrors the real world so closely that we'll be able to find out the answer in several more decades if we just wait and see. We've been putting hyperproductive machinery into our factory and farm labor pools for ages now, and at some point, there will be nothing for the peasants to do.

As far as I can tell, the entire purpose of peasants is to be set on fire to incite outrage from future heroes.


Also to breed the next generation of PCs.

It's a very PC-centric world out there.
 
2012-09-17 05:17:53 PM

Clash City Farker: [www.thedudes.us image 607x800]

HK-5


God this takes me back, I loved this RPG.......Classic indeed!
 
2012-09-17 05:27:57 PM

Epicedion: When the party enters a dungeon, it just happens to be about the right challenge for them, even though it could, by the rules of the world, be ruled by anything from a single myopic kobold with heat rash to a Death Knight and his legion of 50-foot skeletal devourers.


Yeah, making this not seem forced has always been a challenge in designing campaigns in D&D. I think the first big step to minimizing this problem (as well as many other problems in editions 1-3), is to reign in the players' level advancement, so that they progress at a much slower pace. I love D&D, but have to admit the game has always become insanely unbalanced and borderline unplayable at high levels. I think the game probably works best with characters in the 4th-6th level range. After 9th, stuff starts to get pretty bad with spellcasters teleporting, plane-shifting, raising the dead, conversing with gods, etc.

Save the truly high level status for a few legendary NPCs.
 
2012-09-17 06:07:12 PM

Skyrmion: Yeah, making this not seem forced has always been a challenge in designing campaigns in D&D. I think the first big step to minimizing this problem (as well as many other problems in editions 1-3), is to reign in the players' level advancement, so that they progress at a much slower pace.


Another way is to simply structure the world in such a way that certain areas are less dangerous than others. The players start off in relatively civilized lands, and orc incursions are New and Scary and Pretty Easy, and eventually they travel to the Evil Woods, up to the Dickbreaking Mountain, and eventually deep into the Darkevil Undernightdarkblood Caves.

If they really want to go to Dickbreaking mountain at level 2, that's fine, but they're going to get their dicks broken.
 
2012-09-17 06:11:28 PM

raygundan: sprawl15: I have no idea how they're even around in the first place. This is a world where a few magicians could replace thousands of stupid peasants with elemental/golem slaves and can wish any mundane object into existence. Why have mud farmers when you can put a mud golem in a summoning circle and have him shiat all the mud you need into a handy collection bin? Hell, even a standard magical item vendor deals in tons of gold per customer.

That mirrors the real world so closely that we'll be able to find out the answer in several more decades if we just wait and see. We've been putting hyperproductive machinery into our factory and farm labor pools for ages now, and at some point, there will be nothing for the peasants to do.

But they won't go away. How does a society cope when it is based around the idea of "work for money" when there is no longer enough work for everyone to do?

It's sort of funny to see the same conceptual gap and lack of solution show up in a totally fictional magical world. Although I suppose the "let the dragon eat them" solution is more viable there than here.


My understanding is that in a typical fantasy setting, the demographics wouldn't support an industrial society based on magic. Sure, maybe one or two percent of the population can cast Magic Missile once per day, and there may be a few extraordinary locations where even commoners have at least enough magical skill to briefly animate a dust-broom, but summoning elementals or building golems requires far more powerful magic. And as you get to higher and higher levels of magic, the number of people with the ability to wield it drops exponentially, so it would be extremely rare to find a magician who could offer the sort of industrial magic you describe.
 
2012-09-17 06:27:04 PM

anfrind: My understanding is that in a typical fantasy setting, the demographics wouldn't support an industrial society based on magic. Sure, maybe one or two percent of the population can cast Magic Missile once per day, and there may be a few extraordinary locations where even commoners have at least enough magical skill to briefly animate a dust-broom, but summoning elementals or building golems requires far more powerful magic. And as you get to higher and higher levels of magic, the number of people with the ability to wield it drops exponentially, so it would be extremely rare to find a magician who could offer the sort of industrial magic you describe.


Problem is, the structure of a society is based on need. As magical powers increase, even though those people who can wield them are rare, their ability to meet not just their need but everyone's need becomes trivial. And even then, if you had only had one Super Wizard, he could pawn off a lot of the lower power tasks to a few apprentices. You could easily have entire cities maintained by a dozen, two dozen mid-high level magicians as long as they focused on civics instead of combat. And their peasant revolts would be MUCH more exciting.

In 3.5, I believe the spell wish is limited to giving you 150,000 gold pieces, which is a ton and a half of gold. Yet a farm laborer makes something like 1-2 silver a week.

Which alone is bizarre. Lets say a laborer makes 1 silver a week...that's worth 10 copper, which means for that week of work he can make at most 10 purchases.
 
2012-09-17 06:30:20 PM

sprawl15: In 3.5, I believe the spell wish is limited to giving you 150,000 gold pieces, which is a ton and a half of gold. Yet a farm laborer makes something like 1-2 silver a week.


Oh, I forgot to add a point to this. That means that a single wish is enough to employ over 28,000 farm laborers for a full year. That's more than enough agriculture for a single city, and with that amount of income you could fuel the rest of the city. By spending one wish a year. And, for the record, there are extraplanar creatures that can make one wish a year that you are able to enslave.
 
2012-09-17 06:35:45 PM

Hawnkee: Toriko: Relatively Obscure: since people are posting various RPG covers

Yep, like Alternity too. Best SciFi  RPG I've played and while we are at it... 
 
ArcadianRefugee: [earthdawn.nerps.net image 454x253]
 
I also enjoyed EarthDawn. I like the RP of having an art to proove you weren't tainted by the horrors, but I also loved the compromise of having open-ended crits. It makes using a lighter weapon like a dagger a bit more fun. 

 

What cracked me up the most about Earthdawn was this was pretty much what one attack roll turned into after a while:

[www.coyotethunder.com image 375x281] 

On the bright side, it let me use every damn die in my bag. Even the old gnarled up d12 my friend's basset hound chewed up.


Now now, ED never got THAT bad. Not like "Champions" bad anyway ("So I'm rolling ... 45-- no, 46d6..."). At least not until you were significantly higher Circle.

Later editions of ED did away with the d4 (yay!) and d20, making all rolls with d6's 8's, 10s, and 12's (although the old table could still be used without affecting anything else in the game, if you so desired).
 
2012-09-17 06:44:35 PM

sprawl15: anfrind: My understanding is that in a typical fantasy setting, the demographics wouldn't support an industrial society based on magic. Sure, maybe one or two percent of the population can cast Magic Missile once per day, and there may be a few extraordinary locations where even commoners have at least enough magical skill to briefly animate a dust-broom, but summoning elementals or building golems requires far more powerful magic. And as you get to higher and higher levels of magic, the number of people with the ability to wield it drops exponentially, so it would be extremely rare to find a magician who could offer the sort of industrial magic you describe.

Problem is, the structure of a society is based on need. As magical powers increase, even though those people who can wield them are rare, their ability to meet not just their need but everyone's need becomes trivial. And even then, if you had only had one Super Wizard, he could pawn off a lot of the lower power tasks to a few apprentices. You could easily have entire cities maintained by a dozen, two dozen mid-high level magicians as long as they focused on civics instead of combat. And their peasant revolts would be MUCH more exciting.

In 3.5, I believe the spell wish is limited to giving you 150,000 gold pieces, which is a ton and a half of gold. Yet a farm laborer makes something like 1-2 silver a week.

Which alone is bizarre. Lets say a laborer makes 1 silver a week...that's worth 10 copper, which means for that week of work he can make at most 10 purchases.


sprawl15: Oh, I forgot to add a point to this. That means that a single wish is enough to employ over 28,000 farm laborers for a full year. That's more than enough agriculture for a single city, and with that amount of income you could fuel the rest of the city. By spending one wish a year. And, for the record, there are extraplanar creatures that can make one wish a year that you are able to enslave.


3.5 imposes one additional constraint to that level of magic: any time you create a permanent magical effect (e.g. a golem) or cast a Wish spell, you lose some amount of XP in the process. Which means that in order to continuously churn out those sorts of magical boons for the society, he'd need to constantly replenish his XP somehow. And at least in 3.5, the only way to gain that much XP is through adventuring--I could imagine awarding a player some XP for use of Craft or Profession skills associated with creating magical items, but not nearly enough to balance that equation.

In 2nd edition and earlier, the equation is even more unbalanced because enchanting magic items permanently drains a wizard's constitution, and wish spells cause five years of premature aging.

I think it's also implied that a society can possess an industrial level of magic (although the economics are never really explained), but if it does then it's prone to destroy itself in some sort of man-made catastrophe. Which is why the ruins of ancient civilizations like Netheril so often factor into adventures.
 
2012-09-17 06:47:57 PM

sprawl15: In 3.5, I believe the spell wish is limited to giving you 150,000 gold pieces, which is a ton and a half of gold. Yet a farm laborer makes something like 1-2 silver a week.

Which alone is bizarre. Lets say a laborer makes 1 silver a week...that's worth 10 copper, which means for that week of work he can make at most 10 purchases.


I think wish is limited to 25k. And it burns 5000 XP off of the caster. The real problem there would be in having enslaved creatures around to cast it for you, as you alluded to.

In the DMG, the recommended daily wage of a laborer is 1 sp, or 1/50th of a pound of silver. That's about 5 pence (each 1/240th of a pound), which is reasonable, but actually on the high side for (say) a 14th century laborer in England, whose daily wage was likely in the 1-5 pence range.

What's strange about the D&D prices is how expensive weapons and armor are compared to bulk materials and basic goods. Weapon prices might be inflated by a factor of 20 or so, while the basic goods are at least reasonably close to historic.
 
2012-09-17 07:03:52 PM

sprawl15: anfrind: My understanding is that in a typical fantasy setting, the demographics wouldn't support an industrial society based on magic. Sure, maybe one or two percent of the population can cast Magic Missile once per day, and there may be a few extraordinary locations where even commoners have at least enough magical skill to briefly animate a dust-broom, but summoning elementals or building golems requires far more powerful magic. And as you get to higher and higher levels of magic, the number of people with the ability to wield it drops exponentially, so it would be extremely rare to find a magician who could offer the sort of industrial magic you describe.

Problem is, the structure of a society is based on need. As magical powers increase, even though those people who can wield them are rare, their ability to meet not just their need but everyone's need becomes trivial. And even then, if you had only had one Super Wizard, he could pawn off a lot of the lower power tasks to a few apprentices. You could easily have entire cities maintained by a dozen, two dozen mid-high level magicians as long as they focused on civics instead of combat. And their peasant revolts would be MUCH more exciting.

In 3.5, I believe the spell wish is limited to giving you 150,000 gold pieces, which is a ton and a half of gold. Yet a farm laborer makes something like 1-2 silver a week.

Which alone is bizarre. Lets say a laborer makes 1 silver a week...that's worth 10 copper, which means for that week of work he can make at most 10 purchases.


The difficulty is that the medieval stasis that keeps most campaigns going explicitly don't have a mindset that leads to industrialization or even a realistic economy. Keep in mind that most of the wizard schemes to improve the world don't typically work. Giant swamps caused by everflowing bottles and such like that. TSR took on the subject multiple times in Dragon Magazine, pro and con. I'd have to dig into my longboxes of magazines to come up with the article where they point out that an ancient city with a magic tax should have ridiculously insane defenses due to accumulated scrolls and magic items.

The wishing for gold issue can be explained by pointing out that you would just flood the market with gold, wrecking a gold based economy if you have somebody regularly wishing for gold.

At any rate, it's a common handwave to assume that all wizards and clerics are unique craftsmen who don't do things like make potions by assembly line. Just like they rigged the rules so that PCs wouldn't spend all their time making magic objects and instead go adventuring. If you want to go further, the gods themselves meddle to make sure nobody does that. See the Forgotten Realms and the Church of Lantan.
 
2012-09-17 07:18:00 PM

anfrind: 3.5 imposes one additional constraint to that level of magic: any time you create a permanent magical effect (e.g. a golem) or cast a Wish spell, you lose some amount of XP in the process.


Skyrmion: And it burns 5000 XP off of the caster.


Put that in a memo for me and title it "Shiat I Already Know". That's why you enslave an extraplanar creature (like an efreeti, CR 8); they suffer the penalties, you reap the gold.

anfrind: I could imagine awarding a player some XP for use of Craft or Profession skills associated with creating magical items, but not nearly enough to balance that equation.


Crafting magical items costs XP (4% of the item's cost?), last I heard.

Skyrmion: I think wish is limited to 25k.


Er, yeah. I was thinking 15k and thought it was too low and added a zero. That's what i get for Farking at work. That's still almost 5,000 people's wages paid for a year, which is still more farmers than you'll have for farmland.

Skyrmion: In the DMG, the recommended daily wage of a laborer is 1 sp


Day laborers get quite a bit more than farm workers, since farm workers are intended to survive off what they produce.

Skyrmion: What's strange about the D&D prices is how expensive weapons and armor are compared to bulk materials and basic goods.


Eh, the strangest thing to me is the idea of intrinsic value. A magic sword is worth exactly 1000 gp. Supply/demand have nothing to do with your ability to get rid of your shiat. It's particularly bad in video games when a DM can't step in and decide that no, a barkeep is not getting a good deal by buying that magic sword for only 900 gp when there's nobody he could possibly sell it to and his family will starve.  I can't imagine what the hell Warmaiden's in Whiterun does with the billions of shiatty weapons I dump off at their door every 3-4 days, but they seem to be turning one hell of a profit.
 
2012-09-17 07:29:34 PM

Skyrmion: sprawl15: In 3.5, I believe the spell wish is limited to giving you 150,000 gold pieces, which is a ton and a half of gold. Yet a farm laborer makes something like 1-2 silver a week.

Which alone is bizarre. Lets say a laborer makes 1 silver a week...that's worth 10 copper, which means for that week of work he can make at most 10 purchases.

I think wish is limited to 25k. And it burns 5000 XP off of the caster. The real problem there would be in having enslaved creatures around to cast it for you, as you alluded to.


The rules don't explicitly say so, but I would imagine that if an outsider can cast Wish, it would suffer in some way comparable to how a wizard loses 5000 XP. If nothing else, it probably means that unless the rules explicitly say otherwise (e.g. the genie that grants three wishes), the enslaved creature would attempt to escape every time you force it to grant you a wish.

What's strange about the D&D prices is how expensive weapons and armor are compared to bulk materials and basic goods. Weapon prices might be inflated by a factor of 20 or so, while the basic goods are at least reasonably close to historic.

I had never thought about that. I do remember once trying to figure out how to translate the prices of modern machinery into gold pieces for an "Independence Day" sort of D&D adventure, but that never seemed to work well (more due to how imbalanced the game get at high levels than anything else).

Although I did once figure out that if you follow the rules in the Player's Handbook and Arms & Equipment Guide and you have the necessary resources, you could build a sort of aircraft carrier--an over-sized warship carrying as many ornithopters (animated hang-gliders with flapping wings) as you can afford, each with a pilot that could drop vials of alchemist's fire and/or use various wands (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc.) to lay waste to even the most fortified coastal city. However, at least in the Forgotten Realms, building and arming just one such aircraft carrier would probably bankrupt even a relatively wealthy nation or city-state.
 
2012-09-17 07:45:01 PM

sprawl15: anfrind: 3.5 imposes one additional constraint to that level of magic: any time you create a permanent magical effect (e.g. a golem) or cast a Wish spell, you lose some amount of XP in the process.

Skyrmion: And it burns 5000 XP off of the caster.

Put that in a memo for me and title it "Shiat I Already Know". That's why you enslave an extraplanar creature (like an efreeti, CR 8); they suffer the penalties, you reap the gold.


Even if a wizard is so powerful that a direct confrontation with an efreeti is no threat, I could imagine that if it ever breaks free, it could do some serious harm to innocent bystanders before being contained or killed. Which might explain why it never seems to happen on an industrial scale. Although I suppose it might be relatively safe if you kept it as far away as possible from a populated area.

Crafting magical items costs XP (4% of the item's cost?), last I heard.

And when you look at the level advancement of your typical commoner or expert who makes a living off of Craft or Profession skills (and admittedly there's very little to go on), it seems to be a very slow way to earn XP, and wouldn't even come close to replenishing the 4% of item cost XP burned creating an item. I think I once saw a published adventure that featured a 6th-level commoner, and I think she was middle-age by that point. Which I would assume means that it took at least 15 years for her to get to sixth level without adventuring.

Eh, the strangest thing to me is the idea of intrinsic value. A magic sword is worth exactly 1000 gp. Supply/demand have nothing to do with your ability to get rid of your shiat. It's particularly bad in video games when a DM can't step in and decide that no, a barkeep is not getting a good deal by buying that magic sword for only 900 gp when there's nobody he could possibly sell it to and his family will starve.  I can't imagine what the hell Warmaiden's in Whiterun does with the billions of shiatty weapons I dump off at their door every 3-4 days, but they seem to be turning one hell of a profit.

Sometimes you have to simplify the economics for the sake of gameplay. Most DM's aren't that interested in simulating economies where supply and demand might impact the prices of magic weapons, so the "intrinsic value" works as a reasonable approximation.

I do seem to recall something that said that in a low-magic world, the cost of magic weapons should be significantly higher, but I don't remember if that was in a published rulebook or a random copy of Dragon Magazine.
 
2012-09-17 08:37:59 PM

anfrind: Eh, the strangest thing to me is the idea of intrinsic value. A magic sword is worth exactly 1000 gp. Supply/demand have nothing to do with your ability to get rid of your shiat. It's particularly bad in video games when a DM can't step in and decide that no, a barkeep is not getting a good deal by buying that magic sword for only 900 gp when there's nobody he could possibly sell it to and his family will starve. I can't imagine what the hell Warmaiden's in Whiterun does with the billions of shiatty weapons I dump off at their door every 3-4 days, but they seem to be turning one hell of a profit.

Sometimes you have to simplify the economics for the sake of gameplay. Most DM's aren't that interested in simulating economies where supply and demand might impact the prices of magic weapons, so the "intrinsic value" works as a reasonable approximation.

I do seem to recall something that said that in a low-magic world, the cost of magic weapons should be significantly higher, but I don't remember if that was in a published rulebook or a random copy of Dragon Magazine.


It seems like a lot of work for a DM to generate values based on supply and demand, especially since magical items are all intended to be unique items of craftsmanship. In theory, every +1 sword was forged somewhere by a master smith and then ensorcelled. They all should have some sort of history. Magic is not technology, it is intended to be somewhat mysterious, even if munchkins know all the rules. This is where gamers trained on videogames can fall apart.
 
2012-09-17 08:47:14 PM
Whee! Edge of the Empire RPG Beginner Game from FFG!

www.fantasyflightgames.com 

It's just the abdridged game, but for some reason I'm excited for this. Hope it runs smoother than WFRP3E.
 
2012-09-17 09:02:11 PM

Fano: It seems like a lot of work for a DM to generate values based on supply and demand, especially since magical items are all intended to be unique items of craftsmanship. In theory, every +1 sword was forged somewhere by a master smith and then ensorcelled. They all should have some sort of history. Magic is not technology, it is intended to be somewhat mysterious, even if munchkins know all the rules. This is where gamers trained on videogames can fall apart.


That's one of the places where I 3rd and 4th edition have wandered in a direction I dislike: the commodification of magic items. They carry the attitude that players can pretty much sell anything and buy any item they feel like off the "list". There's also the carrying of 5 dozen little cheep potions and scrolls. I feel like that approach takes the wonder and mystery out of magic items.
 
2012-09-17 10:53:44 PM
If I wanted to hang out with a bunch of nerds wearing black capes and fake ears, I wouldn't still play these:

www.dazeland.com

Nerds.
 
Skr
2012-09-18 04:04:01 AM
Always have been partial to AD&D 2e myself. Though I found an odd blast from the past when going throguh the bookshelf a few years back..

www.gamereactor.eu

JUICER
 
2012-09-18 06:59:09 AM

Skr: Always have been partial to AD&D 2e myself. Though I found an odd blast from the past when going throguh the bookshelf a few years back..

[www.gamereactor.eu image 300x390]

JUICER


Juicers always bothered me because they basically traded in the rest of their lives for a few good years, I.E. there's really not much consequence on the player in doing that unless both player and DM know the campaign will last much longer.
 
2012-09-18 10:38:46 AM

Skr: Always have been partial to AD&D 2e myself. Though I found an odd blast from the past when going throguh the bookshelf a few years back..

[www.gamereactor.eu image 300x390]

JUICER


Got a ton of those. A bunch of the Wild West and Psyscape supplements too. Most of the Heroes Unlimited set as well. Old Heroes, Revised Heroes, Powers 1 2 and 3, the GM's manual, and Villians guide.

A few years back, I went on a shopping spree and picked up a ton of old rule books from a bunch of different systems. Got a lot of Palladium, some old Shadowrun, GURPS, Paranoia, one I hadn't heard of called Children of the Sun, Marvel Superheroes RPG (the TSR version), in addition to all the AD&D, D&D 3.x and the one 4th ed manual I have.
 
2012-09-18 10:54:41 AM

Skyrmion: Fano: It seems like a lot of work for a DM to generate values based on supply and demand, especially since magical items are all intended to be unique items of craftsmanship. In theory, every +1 sword was forged somewhere by a master smith and then ensorcelled. They all should have some sort of history. Magic is not technology, it is intended to be somewhat mysterious, even if munchkins know all the rules. This is where gamers trained on videogames can fall apart.

That's one of the places where I 3rd and 4th edition have wandered in a direction I dislike: the commodification of magic items. They carry the attitude that players can pretty much sell anything and buy any item they feel like off the "list". There's also the carrying of 5 dozen little cheep potions and scrolls. I feel like that approach takes the wonder and mystery out of magic items.


I think that's the video game influences on table-top.

The problem with table-top RPG is that it's up to the GM to really make it work. Like another poster said there is really no solution for it, finding a good GM is like finding a good husband or wife.
 
2012-09-18 11:32:44 AM
So, with a little research done, except for the "Next" name this is actually shaping up to be a pretty decent thing.
 
2012-09-18 11:40:29 AM

Lonestar: And Mike Mearls starts talking like its his own baby. 5e or DND Next, in its present form, is a product of a visionnary man: Monte Cook. This guy is an awesome writer who produced a lot of stuff in Planescape for TSR, then worked on the 3e from Wizards and many supplements including the best loved Book of Vile Darkness.This was one of the best designers Wizards had, and when Hasbro took over, was one of the designers who was shown the door. Still he loved DnD and he designed D20 material for it, which were awesome.

Then came Wizard who asked him to come and work on the 5e. He started by saying that 4e was like Trash metal, Trash metal is good but a lot of people dont like Trash. What was obvious is that he was saying 4e was trash, and he at least convinced the new designers for the 5e. Which was good. Also he said, and his whole mindset going into this was that he wanted to regroup all editions into one, including the 3e and Pathfinder. He wanted to bring harmony in the edition wars, because lets face it: Wizards are not winning that war, Paizo's Pathfinder is.

However it seems that he had a difference of opinion with the leaders at Wizards, and quit the assignement. I think that tells you a lot. Another clue was an interview that he gave here. Pay close attention to his rant. Yes my friends, his vision may still be what the remaining designers are working with, but they arent including feats ( a staple of the 3e and Pathfinder ) inside the 5e. So its going to be an unified edition, except the one that still works well and the one that makes a lot of money.

We will never know what Monte said to the asshole who forced the 4e down on us ( wizards CEO ), probably it wasnt very SFW. Monte Cook is still one of the best designer out there, and his new project seems interesting. When he left the 5e, I was floored because I knew the best chance of an unified edition would die with him leaving. Now with big cannons like Sean K Reynolds leading Paizo, who will be left to m ...


You know reading that article I think I figured out why people love 3.5 so much.

If "Game Mastery" was incorporated as a key component in the game it explains why they don't want to switch. Hardcore players have figured out the best builds and don't want to start over again. It also explains why I felt punished for picking an "non-optimized" build.

For example, an old friend of mine was very angry that in 4e he couldn't do his magical lawnmower of death. A wizard that could dual-wield great-swords at like level 8. From an RP perspective I couldn't figure out why that would happen but he loved that character.
 
2012-09-18 11:44:23 AM
D&D needs to drop the last truly broken mechanic they have: hit points. Replace it with a damage save, and how bad you fail = how wounded you are. Simple, easy, direct, and no math for those who hate all the management that entails.

I must be the only one who liked 4e, but I saw it for what it is, not what I wanted it to be.
 
2012-09-18 11:57:20 AM

shortymac: You know reading that article I think I figured out why people love 3.5 so much.

If "Game Mastery" was incorporated as a key component in the game it explains why they don't want to switch. Hardcore players have figured out the best builds and don't want to start over again. It also explains why I felt punished for picking an "non-optimized" build.


People like 3.5 (and Pathfinder) because it allows a huge range of options, so you can tailor a character to do whatever it is you think is cool. In any system with the introduction of massive numbers of new abilities, classes, spells, etc, there's a significant danger (inevitability, really) of introducing unbalancing combinations or ludicrous effects.Since it's not a competitive game, and it's moderated, this isn't a huge concern for the rules. It's more of an issue of meshing play styles.

3.5 was excellent at introducing variety, and it really only gets nuts if you add in a lot of the supplements. Personally, I tend to only use core books in my games, in order to avoid power creep. If your groups was using 30 supplements, that should probably tell you something about your group, not all groups.

shortymac: A wizard that could dual-wield great-swords at like level 8.


I can't even imagine how you would do that, let alone why. I can't think of a single way that would ever be effective, anyway.
 
2012-09-18 12:12:25 PM

fudgefactor7: D&D needs to drop the last truly broken mechanic they have: hit points. Replace it with a damage save, and how bad you fail = how wounded you are. Simple, easy, direct, and no math for those who hate all the management that entails.

I must be the only one who liked 4e, but I saw it for what it is, not what I wanted it to be.


HIGH FIVE! My group and I loved it as well! :)

They launched with an "incomplete" product because they wanted you to buy the 10 buck subscription and more books, I think it alienated a lot of players. D&D keeps on making bad business decisions sadly.
 
2012-09-18 12:20:09 PM

fudgefactor7: D&D needs to drop the last truly broken mechanic they have: hit points. Replace it with a damage save, and how bad you fail = how wounded you are. Simple, easy, direct, and no math for those who hate all the management that entails.

I must be the only one who liked 4e, but I saw it for what it is, not what I wanted it to be.


Also, if you squat for like five seconds, you should get all your health back.
 
2012-09-18 12:22:25 PM

Epicedion: shortymac: You know reading that article I think I figured out why people love 3.5 so much.

If "Game Mastery" was incorporated as a key component in the game it explains why they don't want to switch. Hardcore players have figured out the best builds and don't want to start over again. It also explains why I felt punished for picking an "non-optimized" build.

People like 3.5 (and Pathfinder) because it allows a huge range of options, so you can tailor a character to do whatever it is you think is cool. In any system with the introduction of massive numbers of new abilities, classes, spells, etc, there's a significant danger (inevitability, really) of introducing unbalancing combinations or ludicrous effects.Since it's not a competitive game, and it's moderated, this isn't a huge concern for the rules. It's more of an issue of meshing play styles.

3.5 was excellent at introducing variety, and it really only gets nuts if you add in a lot of the supplements. Personally, I tend to only use core books in my games, in order to avoid power creep. If your groups was using 30 supplements, that should probably tell you something about your group, not all groups.

shortymac: A wizard that could dual-wield great-swords at like level 8.

I can't even imagine how you would do that, let alone why. I can't think of a single way that would ever be effective, anyway.


He said he did it with feats somehow???? His idea was use up all your spells and then mow down the stragglers. I don't know the exact way he did it.

The problem I had with 3.5 is that I usually pick wizards and other magic users. A level 1 wizard in 3.5 is well boring. :( "Used up all my spells. I'll hold the torch and try not to die."
 
2012-09-18 12:28:26 PM

shortymac: The problem I had with 3.5 is that I usually pick wizards and other magic users. A level 1 wizard in 3.5 is well boring. :( "Used up all my spells. I'll hold the torch and try not to die."


Level 1 can be a bit of a chore for wizards (though it was far worse in 2nd Edition). Pathfinder fixes that somewhat by making cantrips (0-level spells) unlimited per day as well as providing some Specialist/Universalist abilities that let you continue to be useful even if you've burned all your prepared spells.

Next is apparently doing something similar (prepare X cantrips, cast indefinitely).
 
2012-09-18 12:31:29 PM

Epicedion: shortymac: The problem I had with 3.5 is that I usually pick wizards and other magic users. A level 1 wizard in 3.5 is well boring. :( "Used up all my spells. I'll hold the torch and try not to die."

Level 1 can be a bit of a chore for wizards (though it was far worse in 2nd Edition). Pathfinder fixes that somewhat by making cantrips (0-level spells) unlimited per day as well as providing some Specialist/Universalist abilities that let you continue to be useful even if you've burned all your prepared spells.

Next is apparently doing something similar (prepare X cantrips, cast indefinitely).


I hope they do that, I hate the vancian magic system. I also hope one of them is like fireball or magic missile or something like that.
 
2012-09-18 12:35:13 PM

shortymac: I hope they do that, I hate the vancian magic system. I also hope one of them is like fireball or magic missile or something like that.


Pathfinder is otherwise 3.5 (though they were nice enough to include some small damage cantrips).

Next seems to be modified Vancian (though magic missile is a cantrip) where you prepare X spells for the day, and can cast X spells, but they're not prepared on a one-for-one basis. So you don't prepare 3 Burning Hands and a Feather Fall, you prepare Burning Hands, Feather Fall, and two other things, and can cast 4 of them in any combination.
 
2012-09-18 12:37:10 PM

Epicedion: shortymac: I hope they do that, I hate the vancian magic system. I also hope one of them is like fireball or magic missile or something like that.

Pathfinder is otherwise 3.5 (though they were nice enough to include some small damage cantrips).

Next seems to be modified Vancian (though magic missile is a cantrip) where you prepare X spells for the day, and can cast X spells, but they're not prepared on a one-for-one basis. So you don't prepare 3 Burning Hands and a Feather Fall, you prepare Burning Hands, Feather Fall, and two other things, and can cast 4 of them in any combination.


So you prepare the spells and can cast them all day long?? Okay I can go with that.
 
2012-09-18 12:40:51 PM

shortymac: He said he did it with feats somehow???? His idea was use up all your spells and then mow down the stragglers. I don't know the exact way he did it.


I think there was a feat in one of the supplemental books (Complete Warrior, maybe?) that let a character wield a two-handed weapon with one hand (although I think it had prerequisites that would be difficult for a wizard to meet). Pair that with two-weapon fighting, and it's at least doable.

Although a wizard would need a lot of magical buffs to be any good in that configuration. It would probably make more sense for a multi-class fighter/wizard, although even then it's kind of silly.

The problem I had with 3.5 is that I usually pick wizards and other magic users. A level 1 wizard in 3.5 is well boring. :( "Used up all my spells. I'll hold the torch and try not to die."

That's a problem that goes all the way back to first edition. Which is why when I DM'ed, I would always roll my own spell system in which all spell-casters can cast X number of spells of each type per day (similar to bards and sorcerers, who in turn get more uses per day). Since in my experience encounters almost always end before the bad guys have a chance to use all of their spells, it didn't unbalance the game to let everyone cast more often in a single day.
 
2012-09-18 12:44:04 PM

shortymac: So you prepare the spells and can cast them all day long?? Okay I can go with that.


Well, like Pathfinder, 0-level spells can be cast all day every day. The new thing still puts limits per-day, but with more of a 3.5 Sorcerer's flexibility. Prepare X first level spells, get X castings per day of any of those first level spells.

It is however way more flexible than your 'can only ever cast 1 fireball a day' 4E wizard. I think they're also getting Ritual spells a la 4E (with the flexibility of being able to prepare or ritual cast them as they like) as well as some other intrinsic abilities (like a permanent Mage Armor they don't have to toss spell slots at). The idea apparently is that Wizards will have an array of tools, and then a stack of big powers to use. You can plink away with Magic Missile all day for inerrant dagger-quality damage, or you can shift to the big guns.
 
2012-09-18 12:45:40 PM

shortymac: Epicedion: shortymac: I hope they do that, I hate the vancian magic system. I also hope one of them is like fireball or magic missile or something like that.

Pathfinder is otherwise 3.5 (though they were nice enough to include some small damage cantrips).

Next seems to be modified Vancian (though magic missile is a cantrip) where you prepare X spells for the day, and can cast X spells, but they're not prepared on a one-for-one basis. So you don't prepare 3 Burning Hands and a Feather Fall, you prepare Burning Hands, Feather Fall, and two other things, and can cast 4 of them in any combination.

So you prepare the spells and can cast them all day long?? Okay I can go with that.


It sounds more like the Bard/Sorcerer magic system (albeit with preparation instead of innate casting ability). Depending on level, you can prepare X spells of level Y, and you can cast any combination of those spells up to Z times per day.
 
2012-09-18 01:06:57 PM
Did anyone ever have success with the Sha'ir from Al-Qadim? It always seemed like sending the gen to grab a spell took way too long.
 
2012-09-18 02:18:33 PM
Here's what needs to be released for D&D Next: A DM's Guide, a Player's Handbook, a Monster Manual, and one game setting book. That's it. Everything else should be released by third-party companies. Don't lock players in. If Hasbro/WOTC gets this right (which they won't) they could be releasing the best edition ever, one that will draw back lost players and expand the core group ... but inevitably they will screw it up.
 
2012-09-18 03:24:13 PM

fudgefactor7: Here's what needs to be released for D&D Next: A DM's Guide, a Player's Handbook, a Monster Manual, and one game setting book. That's it. Everything else should be released by third-party companies. Don't lock players in. If Hasbro/WOTC gets this right (which they won't) they could be releasing the best edition ever, one that will draw back lost players and expand the core group ... but inevitably they will screw it up.


I think it would be awesome for them to have an apple or amazon style "self-publish your adventure/content" store where they can take a small cut of the profits.
 
2012-09-18 03:50:01 PM

fudgefactor7: Here's what needs to be released for D&D Next: A DM's Guide, a Player's Handbook, a Monster Manual, and one game setting book. That's it. Everything else should be released by third-party companies. Don't lock players in. If Hasbro/WOTC gets this right (which they won't) they could be releasing the best edition ever, one that will draw back lost players and expand the core group ... but inevitably they will screw it up.


Another issue. I went to a talk with Ed Greenwood here in Toronto (he lives here so he always attends Fan Expo).

He said WOTC is owned by Hasboro. Hasboro wants a big box that Mom and Dad buy at Wal-Mart and place it under the Christmas tree. D&D isn't a game like that. I think what he was trying to get at is Hasboro doesn't really know what to do with D&D as a franchise. Hell, from stories it sounds like TSR didn't know what to do with it either.

It does sound like they want to bring old-school players back into the fold with PDFs of all the old content. Hell I might just buy a pdf of the first edition just to read it.
 
2012-09-18 05:27:11 PM

shortymac: The problem with table-top RPG is that it's up to the GM to really make it work. Like another poster said there is really no solution for it, finding a good GM is like finding a good husband or wife.


with games like dnd, yes, gms tend to have to tell the story, and players react/ participate. or, it is free form, but then the poor gm needs to have set pieces or really know all the rules, backwards and forwards, in order to keep play rolling. it doesn't demand much from the players if they don't want to engage deeply, which is a huge problem.

this is why I like Burning Wheel. you have to grapple with the horns as a player, and the role of the gm is to get the story out of emergent play, from the player characters. games that are more "narrativist" are different in the approach towards game theory, though not necessarily better for every kind of player.

sadly, Burning Wheel is fantasy and "notdnd", so it occupies a very small niche of a niche hobby.  at least Mouse Guard is fantastic.
 
2012-09-18 06:55:16 PM

anfrind: shortymac: Epicedion: shortymac: I hope they do that, I hate the vancian magic system. I also hope one of them is like fireball or magic missile or something like that.

Pathfinder is otherwise 3.5 (though they were nice enough to include some small damage cantrips).

Next seems to be modified Vancian (though magic missile is a cantrip) where you prepare X spells for the day, and can cast X spells, but they're not prepared on a one-for-one basis. So you don't prepare 3 Burning Hands and a Feather Fall, you prepare Burning Hands, Feather Fall, and two other things, and can cast 4 of them in any combination.

So you prepare the spells and can cast them all day long?? Okay I can go with that.

It sounds more like the Bard/Sorcerer magic system (albeit with preparation instead of innate casting ability). Depending on level, you can prepare X spells of level Y, and you can cast any combination of those spells up to Z times per day.


That's the one thing I thought Earthdawn did really well. The Spell Matrix. You cast your spell into it, and you can use it over and over. You have two matrices at level one, and gain more as you go. You can always cast a new spell into the matrix, but that takes time and energy.
 
2012-09-19 02:23:24 AM
Still have all my first edition material and everything inbetween...been going for 30+ years.

Playing a 4e campaign now.
You're right about the length of time to level up...and battles are just huge time killers.

We've reduced it a bit by only rolling "to hit" for each...but dmg for is the same for all hit...just is easier/quicker.
And We'll go through a few good battles to prove our worth...ask the DM to level up...time to move on.

Although I do like it for the lower levels ability to stay alive for spell casters.
and the character generation app and compendium are useful...a bit of dollars per month is actually cheaper
than trying to chase and buy all the books and mags...and a place to store it.

And we've gotten past the "make it your own" situation and being stuck by a house rule.
We allow power changes during rests...as if you were a wizard in previous editions.
This allows players to adjust for the environ, mix it up and work with what works...
And it doesn't unbalance the game...still same daily, encounter, utility limits...so you're still thinking how to conserve "sweat"

Oh yeah, Feats can be fully revamped for each level.
This also allow players to start focusing on the flavor of the char...not the powers.
Again, what works...not being stuck.

We're focused on having fun for that little time we have,
after getting multiple adults with full lives together.

Experimentation with balance is the key.
We've got some good characters with very complex backgrounds...powers re-inforce the background and vice versa.
The bad chars get written out...a different trial gets written in...see what works.

As we've gone on...we've incorporated more role-playing...even the battles and decisions within are based on chars personalities.

Rules are meant to be broken...with agreement between DM and all players...for what works.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report