tzeentchlingDoctor of RocksOaklandRegistered Userregular
Can I just say that one of the perks of 4e, that 5e appears to be leaving behind, is the ease and simplicity of making monsters and their stat-blocks? Case in point, the "Paindeer Guard" that Tycho posted today. The important information is clearly laid out, easy to understand, and written in standardized language. I will be sad to see that go.
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
Can I just say that one of the perks of 4e, that 5e appears to be leaving behind, is the ease and simplicity of making monsters and their stat-blocks? Case in point, the "Paindeer Guard" that Tycho posted today. The important information is clearly laid out, easy to understand, and written in standardized language. I will be sad to see that go.
Good news! You can still have it. IKRPG basically stole every good idea from 4E (play tiers, party roles, balanced parties, standardized language, easy monster stat blocks, MATH!) and applied it to their dice mechanics/setting. Their monster stats blocks follow the layout almost exactly. Cheers!
...or you can just keep playing 4e. This is also possible.
Can I just say that one of the perks of 4e, that 5e appears to be leaving behind, is the ease and simplicity of making monsters and their stat-blocks? Case in point, the "Paindeer Guard" that Tycho posted today. The important information is clearly laid out, easy to understand, and written in standardized language. I will be sad to see that go.
Good news! You can still have it. IKRPG basically stole every good idea from 4E (play tiers, party roles, balanced parties, standardized language, easy monster stat blocks, MATH!) and applied it to their dice mechanics/setting. Their monster stats blocks follow the layout almost exactly. Cheers!
...or you can just keep playing 4e. This is also possible.
I was actually really worried that they wouldn't do that. Maybe their is some hope for this edition yet!
Making a statblock in Pathfinder is pretty cringeworthy, especially when it's for a spellcaster...
Oh I've played it before. I have the books. I just haven't done it in quite some time. But this thread has inspired me to at least tool around on the Character Builder for a couple of hours.
Is it weird that reading this thread is really inspiring me to play 4e?
This thread makes me want to play all the games. 4e isn't without its flaws, but it's such a fun game. I really enjoyed the tactical nature of the combat and power rules. I mention that specifically because it was what was so distinct from other rpgs in my experience. 4e's mechanics weren't super strong in the other aspects of the game, but with the people I've played and run it with, we didn't sweat the mechanics too heavily outside of combat. The odd skill check here and there and we were good with talking through the rest. I would have loved it if 5e was shaping up to be a refinement of the stuff 4e got right, and course-correction for the stuff that bogged the mechanics down, but alas.
Sometimes I have ideas for things.
+2
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
Oh I've played it before. I have the books. I just haven't done it in quite some time. But this thread has inspired me to at least tool around on the Character Builder for a couple of hours.
ooh, fair enough
wanted to aid and abet that course of action, in any case
My only real problem with 4E is that, like many rules-heavy games, there is a ton of accounting. If they fixed one thing in 5E it would be that I had less random +1s to track. I can't remember how many times I forgot a feat that gave a +1 for a particular damage type or whatever.
My only real problem with 4E is that, like many rules-heavy games, there is a ton of accounting. If they fixed one thing in 5E it would be that I had less random +1s to track. I can't remember how many times I forgot a feat that gave a +1 for a particular damage type or whatever.
Yes, that is exactly one of the things I felt got cumbersome with 4e. There were so many Clue references at the table after the differently typed +1 bonuses started piling on. "One plus one plus two plus one..."
It got silly. I do like the move away from "+x of blah" items. I think if they dropped or greatly reduced the piles of penny-ante bonuses that would help speed things up and make character tracking easier. Other adjustments would need to be made, no doubt. ACs, resistances, hit points. But really, I don't think that would be too tough to scale down.
The problem is every time I start brainstorming a way to cut back on that so people can have fun without an advanced accounting degree, I end up with either the same math only different or more/stranger accounting.
What's really funny is I made that same Clue joke in our third session when I was in Iraq back when it first came out. While I've kept up on things, I haven't gotten much of a chance to play since then. My son is nearly old enough to start playing games, maybe another year of attention span development. Hopefully he'll be down to play.
0
Options
tzeentchlingDoctor of RocksOaklandRegistered Userregular
Can I just say that one of the perks of 4e, that 5e appears to be leaving behind, is the ease and simplicity of making monsters and their stat-blocks? Case in point, the "Paindeer Guard" that Tycho posted today. The important information is clearly laid out, easy to understand, and written in standardized language. I will be sad to see that go.
Good news! You can still have it. IKRPG basically stole every good idea from 4E (play tiers, party roles, balanced parties, standardized language, easy monster stat blocks, MATH!) and applied it to their dice mechanics/setting. Their monster stats blocks follow the layout almost exactly. Cheers!
...or you can just keep playing 4e. This is also possible.
To be honest, I'm just going to keep playing 4e. I've invested too much into it and not had enough chances to play with the stuff I have. I'm in this thread because I enjoy reading the discussions on game balance, and for Denada and Aegis' snarky/funny comments.
Totally cool. I'll go back to it eventually. I still have a ton of material that hasn't seen play at my table too.
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
0
Options
AssuranIs swinging on the SpiralRegistered Userregular
Huh, I just went to Enworld on a whim and found out they had been knocked out earlier this month by a hacker combined with botnets.
They're back up now, but had a bunch of code (including gamer finding gamer and their campaign manager) rendered useless after they were forced to upgrade.
My only real problem with 4E is that, like many rules-heavy games, there is a ton of accounting. If they fixed one thing in 5E it would be that I had less random +1s to track. I can't remember how many times I forgot a feat that gave a +1 for a particular damage type or whatever.
It's the sort of stuff that does really well when automated though, furthering the incredulity that 4e never got a proper videogame!
Yeah, 4e would have translated better than previous systems because it was hella more consistent with the rules.
A well-defined +1 is fine and dandy. All those random situational +1s on a higher level character can start to get too much for a human, but still just fine for a computer.
Character Builder was a great tool for this game. I haven't had much problem with the situational modifiers myself, and I suspect if they hadn't had them there would be more complaining about lack of options. :rotate:
I think any successful system will bloat in unnecessary rules and additions like this, since the economic model is to keep pushing new books and clip-ons.
My only real problem with 4E is that, like many rules-heavy games, there is a ton of accounting. If they fixed one thing in 5E it would be that I had less random +1s to track. I can't remember how many times I forgot a feat that gave a +1 for a particular damage type or whatever.
It's the sort of stuff that does really well when automated though, furthering the incredulity that 4e never got a proper videogame!
4E never got a proper videogame because up until around the time Essentials game out they were still swearing up and down that they were going to put out Virtual Tabletop and didn't want to cannibalize their own sales. It's the only thing that makes sense.
I thought we never got proper 4e video game because Acclaim bought the video games rights a long time ago, has yet to return those rights, and just doesn't give a shit?
Mikey CTS on
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
+1
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
While i don't love the "blame it on Atari" as the default go-to, there really is no other explanation: they sat on the license.
WotC was actually trying to get videogames created, but Atari wanted to just sit on the license, which is partially what led to Hasbro suing them (among other things, mind you, but while the D&D TTRPG is not a huge moneymaker, the brand name has weight). barring daggerdale in 2011, the last 3 releases were yearly expansions to neverwinter nights 2, from 2007 to 2009. the last game proper was mid-2007's D&D tactics for the PSP, a game i hadn't even heard of and had to look on wikipedia to find when the last game came out.
now, neverwinter (early 2013) is supposed to use a modified 4th ed engine so something is being done at least.
situational modifiers are an odd thing: they can't be of equal power to consistant modifiers. if you have 2 feats, one that gives a +1 feat bonus to all attack rolls and one that gives a +1 feat bonus to all attack rolls with powers using the [fire] tag, it's pretty obvious the former is better then the latter.
you need to make the latter better so you feel some sort of reward taking it over the constant +1. so we now have 2 feats:
+1 feat bonus to all attack rolls
+2 feat bonus to all attack rolls made with [fire] tag
now, how often does the situation occur though, that you're using a [fire] attack?
if you're, say, a sorceror or wizard, pretty fricking often. even a fighter with a flaming longsword could be considered for this. hell, someone throwing an alchemist's fire could also be in the running. in this case the latter feat, since you can always reproduce it's condition, is strictly better then the former, even though it gives it's bonus as "always".
in this case you have to start looking at 2 things:
-do we change how often you can meet the conditions
-change the condition on the feat.
the first would require you to scour the game for the easily reproduceable conditions (burning hands @will, flaming sword that turns all attacks into [fire], alchemist's fire anyone can use) and change/nerf them. this would mean making sure that the rules clearly state the flaming sword only adds [fire] to the damage, rather then add the [fire] descriptor to the attack (and a similar change to alchemist's fire, where it doesn't have the descriptor on it's attack, only to it's damage), and a slight nerfing to burning hand's damage or something.
the problem with this, is (in BH's example) you're punishing every wizard who doesn't want to specialize in fire just to make sure the one who does isn't overpowered. few wizards would consider taking BH as a serious power as it's damage or effects are lacking compared to other abilities, and maybe take it solely to weed out minions over "Holy crap I have a wrist-mounted flamethrower... SWEET!".
the latter would require you to consider the feat itself: can you keep it's base elements (trying to give a fire mage/user a mechanical reason to specialize in this awesome archetype that's also the most resisted element in the game), without making it strictly better (the firemage/user will be hitting far more often then anyone else)?
or do you just scrap the feat and start looking at other options for the firebug (like a feat that lets you bypass fire resistance).
game design is hard, especially if you're going to be balancing a constant bonus VS a conditional one. and while i hate to bring up the wizard/fighter thing, it's the same concept:
one is constant (fighter): it's pretty much always on. the second is occasional (wizard) when conditions are met, it rocks. otherwise, it's subpar. part of the thing in older editions is that the smart wizard player knew how to make his conditions (daily-recharge slots) last longer or occur more often. so while the fighter was being consistent under all circumstances, the wizard player was able to consistently bring the right conditions to bare and keep overshadowing the others.
game design is hard.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
[2] It wasn't the only thing it had to offer... but I absolutely agree with the rest of this assessment. The numerous counterintuitive subsystems were a flaw, but some of them had a passable foundation later spoiled by the introduction of other mechanics in splatbooks/etc. Even a flawed design is better than no design. It may not be better for some very good GMs who minor in good game design, but the ratio of those who actually exist to those who think they are is so small that it makes my penis look like I belong in porno.
I'll have a disagree. I'm a minimalist at heart and am of the belief that less is more. Too many rules get in the way of spontaneous play, particularly if the action that needs resolution is too trivial to really be worth the effort. Rules are there to enact some semblance of fair play, but after a point, it becomes counterproductive. Some things you can improvise or let slide.
[3] I'd say their mistake was in not divorcing the two entirely. How one approaches combat and how one approaches everything else can be different. Not every hard hitting opportunistic melee fighter wants to be a pickpocket, a sneak, and a locksmith. Not every fighter should be absolutely unable to deal with the rest of the world in any meaningful way. Not every wizard wants to resort to "I FIX IT WITH MAGIC" every time a problem arises. "Class" as a catch all for "everything your character does ever" is needlessly restrictive to both concept and roleplay.
Also not everyone will agree with the contention that "the central concern" is dungeons and monster slaying, or even that just dealing with the dungeons and dealing with combat should be so set in stone that if you want one combat style you must deal with exploration only one way, and vice-versa. Limiting players options like this when it's relatively easy to just say "pick a combat style" and "pick an (exploration/interaction)/everything else style" is so fucking easy to do is bad design and I can put it no other way. In 1978 we didn't realize how easy that was, or even that we could do it. Now we do.
"More options" is a completely bad faith argument and will do nothing but irritate me. It's like telling me GTA has "more freedom" because I'm in a sandbox. (I'm not arguing the point of whether GTA is a good or bad game, but it's an argument that never ceases to annoy me. I hear similar arguments made for why Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas.)
A lot of roleplaying and just playing getting along with people is accepting limitations and playing through them to their logical conclusion. If I assume that humans need sleep and elves don't, and I choose to enforce this in play, I'm basically limiting your options.
Sneaking isn't explicitly mentioned in older D&D, as it was purely a spontaneous expression of roleplay. This is why thieves used to be so controversial in grognard circles, because it implied you couldn't just tell the DM what actions you were taking in whatever context you needed to be "stealthy" (i.e. taking off your shoes, bribing the guard, putting out your torch, etcetera) unless you had a specific class feature. This debate seems to be resolved in that thieves/rogues basically have stealth superpowers. Anybody could sneak, thieves simply get a special clause to do it by fiat without prior explanation or with disregard to situation.
So it's easy to dismiss older D&D as having "no options" as that simply wasn't arguably the philosophy of how it was played. The common Grognard defense of the class system is that, once you get the hang of it, it's quick and simple to arbitrate. If your character dies, you don't have to worry about the precious guy you built and agonize over the hours you spent fine-tuning your engine-man-thing. Roll your guy, grab your ten-foot pole and go. Less character building, more exploration and problem solving.
If you want character-building sims powered by explicit mechanics, that's fine, there are systems for that. It just isn't going to be old-school D&D.
3e didn't know what it wanted to be. Did it want to be an explicit table of fantasy archetypes or a paper-doll-build-your-hero? The answer is that it is this patchwork Frankenstein that's both and neither. That's my criticism.
4e did something right in that it minimized the skill system and merged redundant ones together so that you don't have to consult complicated tables for your Home Economics skill check.
[4] More options is better (within bounds) as long as those options are:
+ of passably equal value (i.e. no trap options disguised as something useful or putting something as highly conditional as "sometimes get a +2 to hit if you are fighting a certain type of monster in a specific sort of terrain they aren't known to frequent, but only during certain astronomical alignments," on equal choice with "+ to all of the combat stuff all the time."
+ Organized into a format that readily accessible/understandable. Super balanced options are no good if no one knows what the fuck you're talking about or just can't find it in the book.
+ Not ludicrously exhaustive. 500 classes (or whatever) is unnecessary, especially when it can usually be broken down into a short series of smaller choices. (Choose one from these two, now choose one from these five. Now choose one from these five, now choose one from ten.) Same permutations, same range of difference. This could fall under organization, but I figured it deserved its own bullet point for clarity.
From a realistic standpoint, OD&D had three class options: Priest, Wizard, Suck-after-the-wizard-or-priest-has-enough-cash-to-literally-buy-a-replacement-for-you-being-at-the-table. Later they added Druid.
3e kept Druid and eventually added a few different variations on "Suck-etc." with the better ones being "Half priest/wizard/druid+half Suck-etc."
I can pick up any 4e class and be what most people would consider to be an equal contributor. (I think that most of those people aren't looking hard enough, but I'm not going to spoil their fun.
See above.
[5] In a social game balance is important... unless you think "I get to be better than you because the game designer likes the same cocnept as me, and you don't agree with us" is super social. Personally I think it's anti-social as all hell. In a game of social imagining (partially rephrased from your own wording) you're not only saying "I get to be better than you" but "I get to be better than you because you imagined your different concept could be anywhere near as good as mine, and your imagination is wrong."
Fuck "shenanigans," I call "socipathic gaming, you egotistical prick." Which is all well and good if your fellow players enjoy playing a subservient role to your almighty god-wizard, but in cases where they wish to contribute in a way that would be meaningful, it's pretty douche-y.
EDIT: I had to clean up some language, as I think I may have been a little harsh on the tacos.
My sort of tongue-in-cheek point is that balance is this artificial standard that plays too much into things like your hypothetical dick-swinging scenario.
Part of the fun of games like Gamma World is the "just let the dice land wherever they may and have fun with it" school of thought. (Not: Your black deathray gun is total bullshit.)
Your example is oddly rambly and long-winded. No offense, but I fail to see the dilemma you're trying to paint.
Ox might be long-winded, but considering the complexity of the subject, it's rather concise. I fail to see how anyone with a modicum of sense can fail to understand how "+1 all the time" and "+X under variable durations and conditions" are not only inequal, but determining how to make "X" equal 1 is a complex proposition. Unless you're being purposefully dense.
Also: "no offense," is bullshit, and you should probably drop the charade. I ain't buying it, and I doubt anyone else is. It would be akin to me saying, "no offense, but it's quite clear that you are a complete dumbass utterly bereft of the ability to form even the most basic of coherent thoughts concerning the subject which we are discussing, and despite what I'm sure you will claim is decades of play, you have failed to learn the concepts that even the most challenged of the learning disabled can understand with only a few moments of consideration."
Well, perhaps, not entirely akin, as mine does seem to be slightly more correct.
I'll have a disagree. I'm a minimalist at heart and am of the belief that less is more. Too many rules get in the way of spontaneous play, particularly if the action that needs resolution is too trivial to really be worth the effort. Rules are there to enact some semblance of fair play, but after a point, it becomes counterproductive. Some things you can improvise or let slide.[1]
"More options" is a completely bad faith argument and will do nothing but irritate me.[2] It's like telling me GTA has "more freedom" because I'm in a sandbox. (I'm not arguing the point of whether GTA is a good or bad game, but it's an argument that never ceases to annoy me. I hear similar arguments made for why Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas.)
A lot of roleplaying and just playing getting along with people is accepting limitations and playing through them to their logical conclusion. If I assume that humans need sleep and elves don't, and I choose to enforce this in play, I'm basically limiting your options.[3]
Sneaking isn't explicitly mentioned in older D&D, as it was purely a spontaneous expression of roleplay. This is why thieves used to be so controversial in grognard circles, because it implied you couldn't just tell the DM what actions you were taking in whatever context you needed to be "stealthy" (i.e. taking off your shoes, bribing the guard, putting out your torch, etcetera) unless you had a specific class feature. This debate seems to be resolved in that thieves/rogues basically have stealth superpowers. Anybody could sneak, thieves simply get a special clause to do it by fiat without prior explanation or with disregard to situation.[4]
So it's easy to dismiss older D&D as having "no options" as that simply wasn't arguably the philosophy of how it was played.[5] The common Grognard defense of the class system is that, once you get the hang of it, it's quick and simple to arbitrate. If your character dies, you don't have to worry about the precious guy you built and agonize over the hours you spent fine-tuning your engine-man-thing. Roll your guy, grab your ten-foot pole and go. Less character building, more exploration and problem solving.[6]
If you want character-building sims powered by explicit mechanics, that's fine, there are systems for that. It just isn't going to be old-school D&D.[7]
3e didn't know what it wanted to be. Did it want to be an explicit table of fantasy archetypes or a paper-doll-build-your-hero? The answer is that it is this patchwork Frankenstein that's both and neither. That's my criticism.[8]
4e did something right in that it minimized the skill system and merged redundant ones together so that you don't have to consult complicated tables for your Home Economics skill check.[9]
My sort of tongue-in-cheek point is that balance is this artificial standard that plays too much into things like your hypothetical dick-swinging scenario.[10]
Part of the fun of games like Gamma World is the "just let the dice land wherever they may and have fun with it" school of thought. (Not: Your black deathray gun is total bullshit.)[11]
[1] You started this out by essentially saying "failure to design is good design" which is self-contradiction at best, and pants-on-head retarded at worst. You can "prefer" rules light design all you want. Your personal preference means not a damned thing when discussing suitable design, and immediately assuming anything that doesn't default to DM fiat must therefore require encyclopediac tomes of rules to manage even the most minor of circumstances is a logical fallacy I don't feel like finding the proper name for.
[2] "I cannot invalidate your premise and so I shall claim offense. I wrongly believe that claiming offense means I win the argument. I present an example of why you are wrong without explaining how it makes you wrong or even what validity it has in this discussion."
If you're unwilling to discuss a point, then... don't discuss it. Door, ass, way out... all that good stuff.
[3] "I further introduce another example and posit a point without explaining its validity or relevance." Neither of these options are balanced. One obviously introduces a point of weakness while the other obviously exempts you from it. Viewed in a vacuum, (as you have presented them) they are obviously poorly designed options and one is easily discernable as the superior. This is not a "choice." This is a "Don't be an idiot."
Still, I fail to see how this is "limiting options" other than limiting "mary sue" behavior. Frankly, limiting such behavior is part of a designer's job. The technical term is "equitable use," which means "you don't get to be better than me just because you say so." If you want to pay Mary Sue, then your best options for that are either freeform RP, act out your own fanfiction, or play older versions of D&D as a wizard, cleric or druid.
[4] And you have just provided an excellent example of why "failing to design" is not good design. Design by DM fiat is bullshit, and a copout. If I want to play a game "designed by DM fiat" then I don't need to buy books. I'll hold court in my special little room and make up whatever rules I wish.
[5] By rules, it had few valid options. I pointed out exactly what those options were before. If you (as I and many other DMs at the time) chose to introduce options by ignoring, breaking, or creating rules, then that had zilch to do with the rules. That was us explicitly going outside of the design to create options that the rules did not provide.
[6] Okay, so there were lots of options, and so many choices in the system (you've previously argued) characters were meaningful (you've previously argued) but character creation was as simple as letting dice choose your stats, your SINGLE choice from a small number of classes (that were inherently inequal) which would choose all of your methods of interaction for you with no further input from you, and you could get back in the action with your next disposable character.
Are you even trying to maintain a semblance of consistency anymore?
[7]Good, because from a design perspective, OD&D is now awful. It's antiquated. It's BROKEN. It is more work on behalf of the DM to make it a functional vehicle for either combat simulation, interaction, or even equitable storytelling than even the abortion of Next is.
I don't actively seek out wheel-less sleds (great step forward from carrying everything by hand... back before we had developed agriculture) to go fetch my groceries in, nor would I pick up a game design today that wasn't even cutting edge in the late 70s. It was okay for the time from a design perspective, and the concept of single-player-single-character was kindof novel, but it wasn't without precedent.
Of course, if you're trying to invoke some bullshit like "spirit of the game" or "ephemeral qualities of play" then I again call bullshit. I (and others) have had plenty of fun replicating the good old days with newer designs. Hell, I can do it in 4th: Raise some levels on the bad guys, deny sale of loot, make the whole thing a dungeon crawl. If I want to make it really authentic, then I spend the whole game telling everyone but the casters that they aren't really worthwhile human beings because they were too stupid to play a real class.
[8] "I posit that it can only be 'a' or 'b' and I also think it was neither without explaining why those are the only two options, or how or why I think it is neither."
[9] Actually it worked because the number of options were both reasonable in scope, broad in application, and therefore relatively equitable in use and utility. If that sounds familiar, you may want to look at that bullet point list again.
[10] Yes, it does play into that. It prevents it. Balance places everyone at the table at the same equitable level of contribution as a default. If a player chooses to step aside and let someone else have the spotlight, they get it. If they compete, they do so on equal terms, but it does not allow or openly condone sociopathic gameplay in a social setting.
[11] Except that "your (anything) is total bullshit because it's not magic like I have!" is the mating call of OD&D.
Leper on
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
0
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
Your example is oddly rambly and long-winded. No offense, but I fail to see the dilemma you're trying to paint.
1) never say "no offense". if you're so afraid of offending someone, don't say anything. this is especially true in a discussion or debate as it makes whatever you're saying sound weak, that you don't have conviction in what you're saying. so you try to protect your statement by making an "out" for yourself.
don't do that. if you have something to say to me, say it.
2) if you fail to see the issue of balancing the player option of a consistent +x VS a situational +y, yet the situation is easily reproducible, that's not my problem... i can't make you see the problem.
but i can put it out there so others can debate it.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
-Weather Badge
+1
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
Newest L&L is out and it seems mearls has gotten over his cold. sigh.
first up, package 7 is out later today.
now for the article!
"When it comes to prestige class, we have some pretty simple design goals. We want them to represent interesting elements of the world, rather than just new mechanical options or a source of power. Prestige classes should be something that you earn membership in through your actions in the campaign world, rather than just a new set of feats or special abilities that come with prerequisites. They're another reward for a character to strive toward. Obviously, since a prestige class offers new mechanics, you can always look at it just like a list of new abilities, but that doesn't mean we have to start our design work with that approach."
prestige classes give new mechanics, but you have to earn them in-game... this makes a PRC sound like a "reward" akin to a +1 sword.
so... does this mean that a character who goes through the rigamarole of getting a PRC is better or worse then one who didn't? because a PC that jumps through hoops to get a +2 sword while everyone else has a +1 is probably going to be better
it also worries me that they aren't starting by looking at how a PRC will affect the mechanics.
"In my mind, a prestige class works best when it feels like something that is part of your character's story. Sturm Brightblade's aspiration to become a knight of Solamnia stands out in my mind as a good model. The knights were a key part of the world, and Sturm sought to prove himself worthy of joining their ranks. Even better, the events of the Dragonlance saga made it clear that perhaps the knights were not worthy of Sturm, rather than the other way around. I like the potential that has for storylines in the campaign, with characters pulled deeper into the setting and the action focusing on things beyond combat, loot, and leveling up."
that's fine and all, but what if my character doesn't want to be a knight of solamnia? if it's a reward (as earlier, akin to getting a +1 sword) that simply adds extra mechanics/power to a character... what about my mage? unlike the sword, which my mage can at least make a swing with, a PRC seems to be an in/out deal... either you're a knight or you're not. hell, the entire party can sell the sword for cash if no one wants it... a PRC no one wants to take is a sword no one can use or sell... it gets left by the wayside along with the kobold leather armor no one would buy.
this seems like a rather horrible way to dole out mechanical benefits, especially if the abilities in general fit your character but the fluff doesn't. if your character wants to be the best swordsman he can, but the only PRC that gives out swordsmanship abilities is the Swordlord of Swordington that requires you to pass a written, oral and practical exam, pay monthly tithes, attend weekly meetings, etc... for a lot of people i know, it's generally too much of a hassle.
this is basically forcing a character to get swordsmanship training to use the "gift" weapon (that is better then anything they have) even though the character doesn't care for swordsmanship. just change the whole swordsmanship training thing to "acceptance in the knights of Solamnia".
if, as a DM, you need to give out +1s to make your players engaged in your setting, i would say you may need to re-evaluate how you present your setting to your players first.
now, i like taking novels as inspiration for characters & mechanics, but we should not forget that the two mediums, books and TTRPGs, are still different mediums. specifically, that in a book there is only one author who controls all characters. the Sturm character was authored so he wanted to join this one order the same author created.
in a TTRPG, you have several authors running around. if i'm playing a fighter, but i don't care about the Solamnic knights does that leave me high and dry since i don't care about the fluff attached to the +1 sword PRC?
"I know that many players resented how prestige classes encouraged players to plan out every feat and skill rank from level 1."
so?
the players who were going to plan their feat and skills from level 1 used PRCs as an extra resource... those players were going to plan their character progression anyways and PRCs were just one more box they could tick off. all this does is make those players go "yeah, that PRC is neat, but what's a Solamnia and why do i have to join it?" and then promptly ignore it as a resource since their world doesn't have a Solamnia or they don't care for the story element. at worst, they do a very forced roleplay into that story element, not because they like it, but rather the bonus attached.
if this is a hackneyed attempt to force people to roleplay, you know the old saying:
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him pretend he's an elven princess." -Oxybe
"I'd be much happier if prestige classes instead spoke to how your character acted in the world and the goals you pursued. To join the Order of the Wyvern, you might need to survive a night among the dream wraiths of the Slumbering Barrows. The knights of the Black Axe accept only those who have slain a direct descendent of Queen Mazzar Elfslayer, the orc warlord whose invasion sparked the knights' creation. That adventure and the work your character puts into preparing for it, a process that might take several levels of adventuring and months or years of work, are part of your characters' plans and goals, not just another quest that the DM cooks up to fill out the next session. If we build prestige classes correctly, we can provide players and DMs with a ton of adventure ideas and campaign goals to work toward from level 1, rather than just a checklist of feats and skills to pick at each level. Essentially, prestige classes give DMs another reward to use in the campaign. They provide a character option earned in much the same way as a character would earn a magic item or a treasure chest of gems and gold."
**** no.
this is far more involved then getting a +1 sword, at least far more involved then i ever cared for. my character's plans are never "join this guild to get guild PRC bonuses by level 5" and i certainly don't want to go "gee, there's no guild PRC bonuses i like or fit my character" and then be mechanically weaker then the party or worse of all "i really like the mechanical effects of this PRC, but not the plot elements. time to act out of character until and as long as i can get the bonus".
it also puts far more pre-planning stress on me as a GM if i have to force a way for Tom to join the Knights of Solamnia, John to join the Red Wizards of Thay, Karen to join the Inquisitors of Pelor and Bob to join the Gray Masks, all by level whatever... especially since my world doesn't have ANY of those. Or force a friendly encounter with an elemental/angel/demon/devil/powerful supernatural entity into the game where it doesn't have any reason being, and as such is just out of place.
all Mearls is doing is changing the checklist from:
-BAB+5
-Power Attack, Cleave
to:
-Friendly contact with elemental
-Burned a building to see it burn
there is still a checklist, only this time as a player i have limited control over it. if the GM doesn't want me to meet up with a friendly efreet, then i guess i'm never going to get that Pyromancer PRC.
heck, you could easily say that they already solved the "checklist" problem in 4th ed: when you arrive at level 11, you just pick a paragon path that acted as an extension of what your character could already do. most of the requirements were akin to "must be martial/divine/arcane" with a few having more specific prereqs like "elf".
the checklist was virtually non-existant and the PPs were an extension of the classes. what the PP meant, story-wise was almost entirely the player's choice if he wanted to RP it out: it could be the character gains training with an order, it could be a sudden surge in power or even just a natural evolution of the character's talent. like many things, 4th ed left it up to the player to describe the narrative, rather then have it forced onto the player.
as a personal note, it also doesn't help because it ruins how i tend to run my campaigns and level up my players: one adventure (generally speaking) = one level, with a more involved goal that will require several adventures to complete. having to change my GMing style entirely to run the system doesn't make it seem inviting since i now have to do several sidequests simply so the characters can join a PRC, rather then let the PRC be an extension of the character.
or i can just ignore all the "force the story elements" stuff and at this point wonder "why am i paying for rules i'm going to ignore?".
"The interesting thing about this approach is that it casts prestige classes as a DM tool that helps bring a world to life by giving starting characters goals in the campaign. You can expect that we'll take a more modular approach to their design, building them from a comprehensive list of mechanical options and showing you how to break them down and rebuild them anew. If we do things right, we can give DMs a robust tool for building their own prestige classes to flesh out their campaigns."
no it's not interesting in and of itself.
"I want to join the Violent Griphons because it gives my wizard a better magic attack bonus" is a rather horrible in-character goal, as joining the Violent Griphons should have story-based awards, NOT mechanical ones. a mage joining the Order of Violent Griphons should have access to their libraries, some alumni they might contact for information, a possible patron for further adventures... and he should be doing this because it fits his character.
not a +X to magic attack rolls or bonus damage.
now, are the players expected to have PRCs or not? that's what i want to know.
if yes, i want the players to have full and easy access to them. if no, then have it affect the social pillar or whatever they call it. have it have in-game narrative ramifications rather then purely mechanical ones: if you're a member of the Gray Mask Thieves and the local authorities find out, your face will be plastered on every empty wall, but you'll have access to their safe houses, fences, contacts, etc...
don't have it so that getting access to the GMT give you a better sneak attack damage.
the last few lines just make me groan. as i mentioned before: this is one of those "if you're going to tie it down to fluff, then make the fluff a non-value by saying you can change it... what are you tying it to again?" situations.
This simply seems to be punishing players who don't care for the fluff in the books or who aren't willing to tie their entire character concept around a mechanical element, rather then use a mechanic to enhance their concept. i would much rather they give us a bunch of blank slate PRCs that a GM can attach some RP elements to with input from the players or create his own, rather then force the GM have to create or retool a bunch of PRCs so the characters will take them, ignoring the entire point of giving the PRC flavor to begin with.
can i have delirious with fever mearls back? please?
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
the players who were going to plan their feat and skills from level 1 used PRCs as an extra resource... those players were going to plan their character progression anyways and PRCs were just one more box they could tick off. all this does is make those players go "yeah, that PRC is neat, but what's a Solamnia and why do i have to join it?" and then promptly ignore it as a resource since their world doesn't have a Solamnia or they don't care for the story element. at worst, they do a very forced roleplay into that story element, not because they like it, but rather the bonus attached.
I'm going to disagree with this in part.
Some players who planned character creation from level 1--in essence, looking at/creating a "build" in order to accomplish a mechanical goal didn't do so "because they were going to anyway." Yes, many would have (and did, and still do) out of a love of character creation mechanics, joy in system mastery, a desire to "troubleshoot" (rape) the system, etc.
Others did so because they felt it necessary, because of the inequity in the whole of the system.
Whether it was the responsible caster selecting as many trap options as possible to keep them on par with the non-caster, or the non-casters seeking out ways in which they could consistently "abuse" the system to have a prayer of keeping up with the casters, (most of which closed off eventually anyway due to irregular scaling) those players were put in a position where they were forced to engage in large amount of "homework" just to play a game with their friends in a manner that was fair.
I'm on board with the rest, though.
EDIT:
I MOTHAFUKKIN TIZZOLD YOU SIZZO.
(bystanders please see our conversation about the previous L&L article--around page 1, I think.)
Leper on
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
0
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
i personally would group people looking to build to a mechanical goal as people who would be doing so anyways, not that they a PRC as a goal in and of itself, but rather that the PRC just happens to be another tool in their chest when it comes to making their character.
IE: these people would be looking in all the books to see how early they can make their concept work and keep it consistently effective anyways, and PRCs are just one tool to do so. they don't feel any pressure to do so as it's voluntary on their part.
i believe mearls was referring to the fact that some people might have viewed PRCs as a goal in and of itself and thus felt pressured to build towards it simply because it was there, rather then use a PRC to focus on an aspect of their character (be it the fluff side or the mechanical side) they wanted to develop. maybe? that would, IMO, seem to indicate that the game wasn't successful on promoting or enforcing the intent of PRCs and that the concept grew away from it's original intent (which, i believe, was the fluffy-mechanics-thingy) as players found them better as resources to make the characters they wanted to play. basically the devs wanted X, a subset of the the players wanted Y and the devs caved.
also: that it forced some people to do homework to stay at parity, i would also say that don't apply directly to this case as it's not that they would have done it anyways but are actually forced to rather then, as mearls' statement, feel pressured to do so.
and yes, i do remember our previous conversation. thus why i graciously accepted the "tizzold you sizzo".
as a side note: one part of where the argument mearls brought up falls a bit flat is in the feat chains like whirlwind attack (who's prereqs were: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4), that require you to plan several levels ahead anyways, many people would probably start looking at planning other things too. think of this as an addendum to what i said before.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
PrCs as in world organizations seems like the kind of thing that might be pretty cool in specific cases but it would be terrible idea to generalize from that. Basically that kind of thing should be in setting books and not in the rules.
Also PrCs kind of imply multi-classing. Have they laid out their ideas on that yet?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I've always liked the idea of using PrC's to codify special organizations and give them game mechanical teeth.
I've always hated the idea of PrC's being required upgrades.
I had a druid in LG that I played for years. In 3.0 he ended up taking Divine Oracle because after a certain point the Druid class offered me nothing that I wouldn't get from Divine Oracle in addition to all the fine Oracle-y stuff. That got "fixed" in 3.5 by making Druid fucking insane with class abilities later on but it's still a situation that can and does occur routinely.
If they really did this I'd much rather they write them up pretty bland, or even a selection driven kind of thing, so they can be adapted to the campaign requirements. It always annoyed me that every world has "Flavorful organization X" or you have to deny access to mechanics that are perfectly valid.
How can they implement PrCs if they haven't touched multi-classing yet? I don't see how you can implement multi-classing in that mess of Class/Background/Specialty.
Just call it a class up. It's not as if 4th edition didn't just rename the concept.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Am I completely off base here or does it seem like trying to make Next playable without a grid system for combat really hamper the game play for people who play for the tactical combat side of things.
Granted I haven't had a lot of time to spend reading the play test materials but I noticed the current spells lack a lot of the slow, push, immobilize, prone, slide key words. In fact I don't think they reference squares at all.
I'm trying to reign in the snark, but there was talk of a "tactical module" that could be bolted on for people who wanted a more positionally oriented game. I don't think it has been released with the other play test materials though, or if it has nobody has mentioned it.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
This might be the worst article so far and the most dismal move amongst a bleak forest of bad ideas. This goes far beyond "poor mathematical foundation" or "emphasis on dice-driven outcomes" or "long-winded flavor-focused rule descriptors" or even "reliance on pre-combat setup." This is an active assault against the entire game campaign structure. This is a design goal almost guaranteed to generate either inter-party conflict as players pursue incompatible goals or hand-woven inconsistencies as players and DM struggle to shoehorn unrelated narrative concepts into the flow of game events.
It doesn't even matter how bad the mechanics themselves are when your entire campaign structure is a catastrophe.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
0
Options
tzeentchlingDoctor of RocksOaklandRegistered Userregular
They could have presented this much better. Conceptually, PRCs don't seem like a bad idea, provided they are at the DM's discretion and have minimal impact on the game mechanics. What I would like to see is something like, hey DMs, here's something interesting you might consider putting in your games, and here's some examples of what it might look like.
Mechanically, I could see them as something like the Special Training from DMG2, where instead of a magic item you get trained by some master - the benefit isn't much more than what you might expect from an equivalent level magic item, but it provides a storyline and motivation, as well as complications and hooks. A similar idea might be membership in one of the Houses in Eberron. You get access to a minor feat, but the key is the storyline.
Saying "these are the PRCs that exist, and they are something your characters should aspire to" is the wrong way to go about it.
Posts
Good news! You can still have it. IKRPG basically stole every good idea from 4E (play tiers, party roles, balanced parties, standardized language, easy monster stat blocks, MATH!) and applied it to their dice mechanics/setting. Their monster stats blocks follow the layout almost exactly. Cheers!
...or you can just keep playing 4e. This is also possible.
I was actually really worried that they wouldn't do that. Maybe their is some hope for this edition yet!
Making a statblock in Pathfinder is pretty cringeworthy, especially when it's for a spellcaster...
Nope.
Keep on the Shadowfell, also available for free courtesy of Wizards of the Coast
Oh I've played it before. I have the books. I just haven't done it in quite some time. But this thread has inspired me to at least tool around on the Character Builder for a couple of hours.
This thread makes me want to play all the games. 4e isn't without its flaws, but it's such a fun game. I really enjoyed the tactical nature of the combat and power rules. I mention that specifically because it was what was so distinct from other rpgs in my experience. 4e's mechanics weren't super strong in the other aspects of the game, but with the people I've played and run it with, we didn't sweat the mechanics too heavily outside of combat. The odd skill check here and there and we were good with talking through the rest. I would have loved it if 5e was shaping up to be a refinement of the stuff 4e got right, and course-correction for the stuff that bogged the mechanics down, but alas.
wanted to aid and abet that course of action, in any case
Yes, that is exactly one of the things I felt got cumbersome with 4e. There were so many Clue references at the table after the differently typed +1 bonuses started piling on. "One plus one plus two plus one..."
It got silly. I do like the move away from "+x of blah" items. I think if they dropped or greatly reduced the piles of penny-ante bonuses that would help speed things up and make character tracking easier. Other adjustments would need to be made, no doubt. ACs, resistances, hit points. But really, I don't think that would be too tough to scale down.
What's really funny is I made that same Clue joke in our third session when I was in Iraq back when it first came out. While I've kept up on things, I haven't gotten much of a chance to play since then. My son is nearly old enough to start playing games, maybe another year of attention span development. Hopefully he'll be down to play.
To be honest, I'm just going to keep playing 4e. I've invested too much into it and not had enough chances to play with the stuff I have. I'm in this thread because I enjoy reading the discussions on game balance, and for Denada and Aegis' snarky/funny comments.
They're back up now, but had a bunch of code (including gamer finding gamer and their campaign manager) rendered useless after they were forced to upgrade.
It's the sort of stuff that does really well when automated though, furthering the incredulity that 4e never got a proper videogame!
A well-defined +1 is fine and dandy. All those random situational +1s on a higher level character can start to get too much for a human, but still just fine for a computer.
Character Builder was a great tool for this game. I haven't had much problem with the situational modifiers myself, and I suspect if they hadn't had them there would be more complaining about lack of options. :rotate:
I think any successful system will bloat in unnecessary rules and additions like this, since the economic model is to keep pushing new books and clip-ons.
4E never got a proper videogame because up until around the time Essentials game out they were still swearing up and down that they were going to put out Virtual Tabletop and didn't want to cannibalize their own sales. It's the only thing that makes sense.
WotC was actually trying to get videogames created, but Atari wanted to just sit on the license, which is partially what led to Hasbro suing them (among other things, mind you, but while the D&D TTRPG is not a huge moneymaker, the brand name has weight). barring daggerdale in 2011, the last 3 releases were yearly expansions to neverwinter nights 2, from 2007 to 2009. the last game proper was mid-2007's D&D tactics for the PSP, a game i hadn't even heard of and had to look on wikipedia to find when the last game came out.
now, neverwinter (early 2013) is supposed to use a modified 4th ed engine so something is being done at least.
situational modifiers are an odd thing: they can't be of equal power to consistant modifiers. if you have 2 feats, one that gives a +1 feat bonus to all attack rolls and one that gives a +1 feat bonus to all attack rolls with powers using the [fire] tag, it's pretty obvious the former is better then the latter.
you need to make the latter better so you feel some sort of reward taking it over the constant +1. so we now have 2 feats:
+1 feat bonus to all attack rolls
+2 feat bonus to all attack rolls made with [fire] tag
now, how often does the situation occur though, that you're using a [fire] attack?
if you're, say, a sorceror or wizard, pretty fricking often. even a fighter with a flaming longsword could be considered for this. hell, someone throwing an alchemist's fire could also be in the running. in this case the latter feat, since you can always reproduce it's condition, is strictly better then the former, even though it gives it's bonus as "always".
in this case you have to start looking at 2 things:
-do we change how often you can meet the conditions
-change the condition on the feat.
the first would require you to scour the game for the easily reproduceable conditions (burning hands @will, flaming sword that turns all attacks into [fire], alchemist's fire anyone can use) and change/nerf them. this would mean making sure that the rules clearly state the flaming sword only adds [fire] to the damage, rather then add the [fire] descriptor to the attack (and a similar change to alchemist's fire, where it doesn't have the descriptor on it's attack, only to it's damage), and a slight nerfing to burning hand's damage or something.
the problem with this, is (in BH's example) you're punishing every wizard who doesn't want to specialize in fire just to make sure the one who does isn't overpowered. few wizards would consider taking BH as a serious power as it's damage or effects are lacking compared to other abilities, and maybe take it solely to weed out minions over "Holy crap I have a wrist-mounted flamethrower... SWEET!".
the latter would require you to consider the feat itself: can you keep it's base elements (trying to give a fire mage/user a mechanical reason to specialize in this awesome archetype that's also the most resisted element in the game), without making it strictly better (the firemage/user will be hitting far more often then anyone else)?
or do you just scrap the feat and start looking at other options for the firebug (like a feat that lets you bypass fire resistance).
game design is hard, especially if you're going to be balancing a constant bonus VS a conditional one. and while i hate to bring up the wizard/fighter thing, it's the same concept:
one is constant (fighter): it's pretty much always on. the second is occasional (wizard) when conditions are met, it rocks. otherwise, it's subpar. part of the thing in older editions is that the smart wizard player knew how to make his conditions (daily-recharge slots) last longer or occur more often. so while the fighter was being consistent under all circumstances, the wizard player was able to consistently bring the right conditions to bare and keep overshadowing the others.
game design is hard.
I'll have a disagree. I'm a minimalist at heart and am of the belief that less is more. Too many rules get in the way of spontaneous play, particularly if the action that needs resolution is too trivial to really be worth the effort. Rules are there to enact some semblance of fair play, but after a point, it becomes counterproductive. Some things you can improvise or let slide.
"More options" is a completely bad faith argument and will do nothing but irritate me. It's like telling me GTA has "more freedom" because I'm in a sandbox. (I'm not arguing the point of whether GTA is a good or bad game, but it's an argument that never ceases to annoy me. I hear similar arguments made for why Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas.)
A lot of roleplaying and just playing getting along with people is accepting limitations and playing through them to their logical conclusion. If I assume that humans need sleep and elves don't, and I choose to enforce this in play, I'm basically limiting your options.
Sneaking isn't explicitly mentioned in older D&D, as it was purely a spontaneous expression of roleplay. This is why thieves used to be so controversial in grognard circles, because it implied you couldn't just tell the DM what actions you were taking in whatever context you needed to be "stealthy" (i.e. taking off your shoes, bribing the guard, putting out your torch, etcetera) unless you had a specific class feature. This debate seems to be resolved in that thieves/rogues basically have stealth superpowers. Anybody could sneak, thieves simply get a special clause to do it by fiat without prior explanation or with disregard to situation.
So it's easy to dismiss older D&D as having "no options" as that simply wasn't arguably the philosophy of how it was played. The common Grognard defense of the class system is that, once you get the hang of it, it's quick and simple to arbitrate. If your character dies, you don't have to worry about the precious guy you built and agonize over the hours you spent fine-tuning your engine-man-thing. Roll your guy, grab your ten-foot pole and go. Less character building, more exploration and problem solving.
If you want character-building sims powered by explicit mechanics, that's fine, there are systems for that. It just isn't going to be old-school D&D.
3e didn't know what it wanted to be. Did it want to be an explicit table of fantasy archetypes or a paper-doll-build-your-hero? The answer is that it is this patchwork Frankenstein that's both and neither. That's my criticism.
4e did something right in that it minimized the skill system and merged redundant ones together so that you don't have to consult complicated tables for your Home Economics skill check.
See above.
My sort of tongue-in-cheek point is that balance is this artificial standard that plays too much into things like your hypothetical dick-swinging scenario.
Part of the fun of games like Gamma World is the "just let the dice land wherever they may and have fun with it" school of thought. (Not: Your black deathray gun is total bullshit.)
Also: "no offense," is bullshit, and you should probably drop the charade. I ain't buying it, and I doubt anyone else is. It would be akin to me saying, "no offense, but it's quite clear that you are a complete dumbass utterly bereft of the ability to form even the most basic of coherent thoughts concerning the subject which we are discussing, and despite what I'm sure you will claim is decades of play, you have failed to learn the concepts that even the most challenged of the learning disabled can understand with only a few moments of consideration."
Well, perhaps, not entirely akin, as mine does seem to be slightly more correct.
[1] You started this out by essentially saying "failure to design is good design" which is self-contradiction at best, and pants-on-head retarded at worst. You can "prefer" rules light design all you want. Your personal preference means not a damned thing when discussing suitable design, and immediately assuming anything that doesn't default to DM fiat must therefore require encyclopediac tomes of rules to manage even the most minor of circumstances is a logical fallacy I don't feel like finding the proper name for.
[2] "I cannot invalidate your premise and so I shall claim offense. I wrongly believe that claiming offense means I win the argument. I present an example of why you are wrong without explaining how it makes you wrong or even what validity it has in this discussion."
If you're unwilling to discuss a point, then... don't discuss it. Door, ass, way out... all that good stuff.
[3] "I further introduce another example and posit a point without explaining its validity or relevance." Neither of these options are balanced. One obviously introduces a point of weakness while the other obviously exempts you from it. Viewed in a vacuum, (as you have presented them) they are obviously poorly designed options and one is easily discernable as the superior. This is not a "choice." This is a "Don't be an idiot."
Still, I fail to see how this is "limiting options" other than limiting "mary sue" behavior. Frankly, limiting such behavior is part of a designer's job. The technical term is "equitable use," which means "you don't get to be better than me just because you say so." If you want to pay Mary Sue, then your best options for that are either freeform RP, act out your own fanfiction, or play older versions of D&D as a wizard, cleric or druid.
[4] And you have just provided an excellent example of why "failing to design" is not good design. Design by DM fiat is bullshit, and a copout. If I want to play a game "designed by DM fiat" then I don't need to buy books. I'll hold court in my special little room and make up whatever rules I wish.
[5] By rules, it had few valid options. I pointed out exactly what those options were before. If you (as I and many other DMs at the time) chose to introduce options by ignoring, breaking, or creating rules, then that had zilch to do with the rules. That was us explicitly going outside of the design to create options that the rules did not provide.
[6] Okay, so there were lots of options, and so many choices in the system (you've previously argued) characters were meaningful (you've previously argued) but character creation was as simple as letting dice choose your stats, your SINGLE choice from a small number of classes (that were inherently inequal) which would choose all of your methods of interaction for you with no further input from you, and you could get back in the action with your next disposable character.
Are you even trying to maintain a semblance of consistency anymore?
[7] Good, because from a design perspective, OD&D is now awful. It's antiquated. It's BROKEN. It is more work on behalf of the DM to make it a functional vehicle for either combat simulation, interaction, or even equitable storytelling than even the abortion of Next is.
I don't actively seek out wheel-less sleds (great step forward from carrying everything by hand... back before we had developed agriculture) to go fetch my groceries in, nor would I pick up a game design today that wasn't even cutting edge in the late 70s. It was okay for the time from a design perspective, and the concept of single-player-single-character was kindof novel, but it wasn't without precedent.
Of course, if you're trying to invoke some bullshit like "spirit of the game" or "ephemeral qualities of play" then I again call bullshit. I (and others) have had plenty of fun replicating the good old days with newer designs. Hell, I can do it in 4th: Raise some levels on the bad guys, deny sale of loot, make the whole thing a dungeon crawl. If I want to make it really authentic, then I spend the whole game telling everyone but the casters that they aren't really worthwhile human beings because they were too stupid to play a real class.
[8] "I posit that it can only be 'a' or 'b' and I also think it was neither without explaining why those are the only two options, or how or why I think it is neither."
[9] Actually it worked because the number of options were both reasonable in scope, broad in application, and therefore relatively equitable in use and utility. If that sounds familiar, you may want to look at that bullet point list again.
[10] Yes, it does play into that. It prevents it. Balance places everyone at the table at the same equitable level of contribution as a default. If a player chooses to step aside and let someone else have the spotlight, they get it. If they compete, they do so on equal terms, but it does not allow or openly condone sociopathic gameplay in a social setting.
[11] Except that "your (anything) is total bullshit because it's not magic like I have!" is the mating call of OD&D.
1) never say "no offense". if you're so afraid of offending someone, don't say anything. this is especially true in a discussion or debate as it makes whatever you're saying sound weak, that you don't have conviction in what you're saying. so you try to protect your statement by making an "out" for yourself.
don't do that. if you have something to say to me, say it.
2) if you fail to see the issue of balancing the player option of a consistent +x VS a situational +y, yet the situation is easily reproducible, that's not my problem... i can't make you see the problem.
but i can put it out there so others can debate it.
first up, package 7 is out later today.
now for the article!
"When it comes to prestige class, we have some pretty simple design goals. We want them to represent interesting elements of the world, rather than just new mechanical options or a source of power. Prestige classes should be something that you earn membership in through your actions in the campaign world, rather than just a new set of feats or special abilities that come with prerequisites. They're another reward for a character to strive toward. Obviously, since a prestige class offers new mechanics, you can always look at it just like a list of new abilities, but that doesn't mean we have to start our design work with that approach."
prestige classes give new mechanics, but you have to earn them in-game... this makes a PRC sound like a "reward" akin to a +1 sword.
so... does this mean that a character who goes through the rigamarole of getting a PRC is better or worse then one who didn't? because a PC that jumps through hoops to get a +2 sword while everyone else has a +1 is probably going to be better
it also worries me that they aren't starting by looking at how a PRC will affect the mechanics.
"In my mind, a prestige class works best when it feels like something that is part of your character's story. Sturm Brightblade's aspiration to become a knight of Solamnia stands out in my mind as a good model. The knights were a key part of the world, and Sturm sought to prove himself worthy of joining their ranks. Even better, the events of the Dragonlance saga made it clear that perhaps the knights were not worthy of Sturm, rather than the other way around. I like the potential that has for storylines in the campaign, with characters pulled deeper into the setting and the action focusing on things beyond combat, loot, and leveling up."
that's fine and all, but what if my character doesn't want to be a knight of solamnia? if it's a reward (as earlier, akin to getting a +1 sword) that simply adds extra mechanics/power to a character... what about my mage? unlike the sword, which my mage can at least make a swing with, a PRC seems to be an in/out deal... either you're a knight or you're not. hell, the entire party can sell the sword for cash if no one wants it... a PRC no one wants to take is a sword no one can use or sell... it gets left by the wayside along with the kobold leather armor no one would buy.
this seems like a rather horrible way to dole out mechanical benefits, especially if the abilities in general fit your character but the fluff doesn't. if your character wants to be the best swordsman he can, but the only PRC that gives out swordsmanship abilities is the Swordlord of Swordington that requires you to pass a written, oral and practical exam, pay monthly tithes, attend weekly meetings, etc... for a lot of people i know, it's generally too much of a hassle.
this is basically forcing a character to get swordsmanship training to use the "gift" weapon (that is better then anything they have) even though the character doesn't care for swordsmanship. just change the whole swordsmanship training thing to "acceptance in the knights of Solamnia".
if, as a DM, you need to give out +1s to make your players engaged in your setting, i would say you may need to re-evaluate how you present your setting to your players first.
now, i like taking novels as inspiration for characters & mechanics, but we should not forget that the two mediums, books and TTRPGs, are still different mediums. specifically, that in a book there is only one author who controls all characters. the Sturm character was authored so he wanted to join this one order the same author created.
in a TTRPG, you have several authors running around. if i'm playing a fighter, but i don't care about the Solamnic knights does that leave me high and dry since i don't care about the fluff attached to the +1 sword PRC?
"I know that many players resented how prestige classes encouraged players to plan out every feat and skill rank from level 1."
so?
the players who were going to plan their feat and skills from level 1 used PRCs as an extra resource... those players were going to plan their character progression anyways and PRCs were just one more box they could tick off. all this does is make those players go "yeah, that PRC is neat, but what's a Solamnia and why do i have to join it?" and then promptly ignore it as a resource since their world doesn't have a Solamnia or they don't care for the story element. at worst, they do a very forced roleplay into that story element, not because they like it, but rather the bonus attached.
if this is a hackneyed attempt to force people to roleplay, you know the old saying:
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him pretend he's an elven princess." -Oxybe
"I'd be much happier if prestige classes instead spoke to how your character acted in the world and the goals you pursued. To join the Order of the Wyvern, you might need to survive a night among the dream wraiths of the Slumbering Barrows. The knights of the Black Axe accept only those who have slain a direct descendent of Queen Mazzar Elfslayer, the orc warlord whose invasion sparked the knights' creation. That adventure and the work your character puts into preparing for it, a process that might take several levels of adventuring and months or years of work, are part of your characters' plans and goals, not just another quest that the DM cooks up to fill out the next session. If we build prestige classes correctly, we can provide players and DMs with a ton of adventure ideas and campaign goals to work toward from level 1, rather than just a checklist of feats and skills to pick at each level. Essentially, prestige classes give DMs another reward to use in the campaign. They provide a character option earned in much the same way as a character would earn a magic item or a treasure chest of gems and gold."
**** no.
this is far more involved then getting a +1 sword, at least far more involved then i ever cared for. my character's plans are never "join this guild to get guild PRC bonuses by level 5" and i certainly don't want to go "gee, there's no guild PRC bonuses i like or fit my character" and then be mechanically weaker then the party or worse of all "i really like the mechanical effects of this PRC, but not the plot elements. time to act out of character until and as long as i can get the bonus".
it also puts far more pre-planning stress on me as a GM if i have to force a way for Tom to join the Knights of Solamnia, John to join the Red Wizards of Thay, Karen to join the Inquisitors of Pelor and Bob to join the Gray Masks, all by level whatever... especially since my world doesn't have ANY of those. Or force a friendly encounter with an elemental/angel/demon/devil/powerful supernatural entity into the game where it doesn't have any reason being, and as such is just out of place.
all Mearls is doing is changing the checklist from:
-BAB+5
-Power Attack, Cleave
to:
-Friendly contact with elemental
-Burned a building to see it burn
there is still a checklist, only this time as a player i have limited control over it. if the GM doesn't want me to meet up with a friendly efreet, then i guess i'm never going to get that Pyromancer PRC.
heck, you could easily say that they already solved the "checklist" problem in 4th ed: when you arrive at level 11, you just pick a paragon path that acted as an extension of what your character could already do. most of the requirements were akin to "must be martial/divine/arcane" with a few having more specific prereqs like "elf".
the checklist was virtually non-existant and the PPs were an extension of the classes. what the PP meant, story-wise was almost entirely the player's choice if he wanted to RP it out: it could be the character gains training with an order, it could be a sudden surge in power or even just a natural evolution of the character's talent. like many things, 4th ed left it up to the player to describe the narrative, rather then have it forced onto the player.
as a personal note, it also doesn't help because it ruins how i tend to run my campaigns and level up my players: one adventure (generally speaking) = one level, with a more involved goal that will require several adventures to complete. having to change my GMing style entirely to run the system doesn't make it seem inviting since i now have to do several sidequests simply so the characters can join a PRC, rather then let the PRC be an extension of the character.
or i can just ignore all the "force the story elements" stuff and at this point wonder "why am i paying for rules i'm going to ignore?".
"The interesting thing about this approach is that it casts prestige classes as a DM tool that helps bring a world to life by giving starting characters goals in the campaign. You can expect that we'll take a more modular approach to their design, building them from a comprehensive list of mechanical options and showing you how to break them down and rebuild them anew. If we do things right, we can give DMs a robust tool for building their own prestige classes to flesh out their campaigns."
no it's not interesting in and of itself.
"I want to join the Violent Griphons because it gives my wizard a better magic attack bonus" is a rather horrible in-character goal, as joining the Violent Griphons should have story-based awards, NOT mechanical ones. a mage joining the Order of Violent Griphons should have access to their libraries, some alumni they might contact for information, a possible patron for further adventures... and he should be doing this because it fits his character.
not a +X to magic attack rolls or bonus damage.
now, are the players expected to have PRCs or not? that's what i want to know.
if yes, i want the players to have full and easy access to them. if no, then have it affect the social pillar or whatever they call it. have it have in-game narrative ramifications rather then purely mechanical ones: if you're a member of the Gray Mask Thieves and the local authorities find out, your face will be plastered on every empty wall, but you'll have access to their safe houses, fences, contacts, etc...
don't have it so that getting access to the GMT give you a better sneak attack damage.
the last few lines just make me groan. as i mentioned before: this is one of those "if you're going to tie it down to fluff, then make the fluff a non-value by saying you can change it... what are you tying it to again?" situations.
This simply seems to be punishing players who don't care for the fluff in the books or who aren't willing to tie their entire character concept around a mechanical element, rather then use a mechanic to enhance their concept. i would much rather they give us a bunch of blank slate PRCs that a GM can attach some RP elements to with input from the players or create his own, rather then force the GM have to create or retool a bunch of PRCs so the characters will take them, ignoring the entire point of giving the PRC flavor to begin with.
can i have delirious with fever mearls back? please?
yes you do.
Some players who planned character creation from level 1--in essence, looking at/creating a "build" in order to accomplish a mechanical goal didn't do so "because they were going to anyway." Yes, many would have (and did, and still do) out of a love of character creation mechanics, joy in system mastery, a desire to "troubleshoot" (rape) the system, etc.
Others did so because they felt it necessary, because of the inequity in the whole of the system.
Whether it was the responsible caster selecting as many trap options as possible to keep them on par with the non-caster, or the non-casters seeking out ways in which they could consistently "abuse" the system to have a prayer of keeping up with the casters, (most of which closed off eventually anyway due to irregular scaling) those players were put in a position where they were forced to engage in large amount of "homework" just to play a game with their friends in a manner that was fair.
I'm on board with the rest, though.
EDIT:
I MOTHAFUKKIN TIZZOLD YOU SIZZO.
(bystanders please see our conversation about the previous L&L article--around page 1, I think.)
IE: these people would be looking in all the books to see how early they can make their concept work and keep it consistently effective anyways, and PRCs are just one tool to do so. they don't feel any pressure to do so as it's voluntary on their part.
i believe mearls was referring to the fact that some people might have viewed PRCs as a goal in and of itself and thus felt pressured to build towards it simply because it was there, rather then use a PRC to focus on an aspect of their character (be it the fluff side or the mechanical side) they wanted to develop. maybe? that would, IMO, seem to indicate that the game wasn't successful on promoting or enforcing the intent of PRCs and that the concept grew away from it's original intent (which, i believe, was the fluffy-mechanics-thingy) as players found them better as resources to make the characters they wanted to play. basically the devs wanted X, a subset of the the players wanted Y and the devs caved.
also: that it forced some people to do homework to stay at parity, i would also say that don't apply directly to this case as it's not that they would have done it anyways but are actually forced to rather then, as mearls' statement, feel pressured to do so.
and yes, i do remember our previous conversation. thus why i graciously accepted the "tizzold you sizzo".
as a side note: one part of where the argument mearls brought up falls a bit flat is in the feat chains like whirlwind attack (who's prereqs were: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4), that require you to plan several levels ahead anyways, many people would probably start looking at planning other things too. think of this as an addendum to what i said before.
Also PrCs kind of imply multi-classing. Have they laid out their ideas on that yet?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I've always hated the idea of PrC's being required upgrades.
I had a druid in LG that I played for years. In 3.0 he ended up taking Divine Oracle because after a certain point the Druid class offered me nothing that I wouldn't get from Divine Oracle in addition to all the fine Oracle-y stuff. That got "fixed" in 3.5 by making Druid fucking insane with class abilities later on but it's still a situation that can and does occur routinely.
If they really did this I'd much rather they write them up pretty bland, or even a selection driven kind of thing, so they can be adapted to the campaign requirements. It always annoyed me that every world has "Flavorful organization X" or you have to deny access to mechanics that are perfectly valid.
They just had to find an old school name for it so they could use the idea.
Granted I haven't had a lot of time to spend reading the play test materials but I noticed the current spells lack a lot of the slow, push, immobilize, prone, slide key words. In fact I don't think they reference squares at all.
3DS FC: 5086-1134-6451
Shiny Code: 3837
It doesn't even matter how bad the mechanics themselves are when your entire campaign structure is a catastrophe.
Mechanically, I could see them as something like the Special Training from DMG2, where instead of a magic item you get trained by some master - the benefit isn't much more than what you might expect from an equivalent level magic item, but it provides a storyline and motivation, as well as complications and hooks. A similar idea might be membership in one of the Houses in Eberron. You get access to a minor feat, but the key is the storyline.
Saying "these are the PRCs that exist, and they are something your characters should aspire to" is the wrong way to go about it.
Many players didn't like that Prestige Classes required them to plan out their characters from level 1.
The Solution:
Prestige Classes will now require players (and DMs) to plan out their characters and their entire campaigns from level 1.
Good job team.