The Gaming Den

As ishy explained: That doesn't mean spell DCs are too high.

If you are telling me that the Wizard never ever casts spells with a saving throw because everyone always makes them and they have spells without saving throws that work all the time then you have just removes spells with saving throws from the game, and Wizards now don't have DCs.

I don't care what the spells where designed for in 2e, because 2e was a worse game, and I again, choosing to remove all the spells from 3e by making them suck to avoid having all the spells removed from 4e is not helping, it's just making 3e suck.

If Wizards cast spells without DCs that always work, and that's an acceptable turn of events, then by definition spell DCs could never possibly be too high, because it's okay for no one to ever avoid a spell.

If your problem is that you think Wizards should just never be allowed to cast Finger of Death, just remove Finger of Death for real, instead of de facto removing it and pretending that is different.

Meanwhile, I will continue to play the much better game where Wizards can effectively win fights by casting spells. And no, forcing them to bring fighters around is not a good thing, if you have 4 players who all want to be Wizards, that's fucking okay. It is not good game design in a cooperative storytelling game to tell people what their characters have to be.

tussock wrote:The thing is, high level attack spells were designed from the beginning on the principle they would normally fail to work on high level PCs and high end monsters.

Except for the attack spells that worked perfectly well on high level enemies, of course (like Maze, Forcecage, Otto's Irresistible Dance, Power Word Whatever, Symbol of Whatever, etc.). Not to mention indirectly offensive spells like Shapechange or Polymorph Any Object.

Not to mention there were spells that reduced spell resistance too in 2E.

Kaelik wrote:Meanwhile, I will continue to play the much better game where Wizards can effectively win fights by casting spells. And no, forcing them to bring fighters around is not a good thing, if you have 4 players who all want to be Wizards, that's fucking okay. It is not good game design in a cooperative storytelling game to tell people what their characters have to be.

So in your opinion is it bad to have the game be more annoying when there isn't a healer to solve injuries? A wizard with consumable healing items should be just as viable as a cleric? Is it bad to have the game be filled with more needless combat when there isn't a trap monkey or face to let you avoid it? A wizard with some buff spells should be just as viable in addressing trap or social situations as a rogue or a bard?

I personally see nothing wrong with allowing synergy between damage and spells and making fighters better at doing damage than wizards (at least single target). Nor do I see anything wrong with making fighters best at locking down movement and suppressing the offensive potential of opponents.

Make an all wizard party viable by all means, but don't make class irrelevant ...

Hmm. If only there were some way of duplicating a face's efforts which wizards could use. Some first level spell like charm person...
Or of duplicating trap monkeys, like Summon Monster I...

fectin wrote:Hmm. If only there were some way of duplicating a face's efforts which wizards could use. Some first level spell like charm person...
Or of duplicating trap monkeys, like Summon Monster I...

Well that's non sequitur ... what does that have to do with what I said?

Problem with roles like 'face' and 'trap monkey' is that only one person is playing in those minigames.

Fuchs wrote:Not to mention there were spells that reduced spell resistance too in 2E.

i dont really consider Tome of Magic to represent 2e, and that is where lower resistance is from.

it was present in a 2e supplement, but not in "2e" as a whole.

I misread your arguement, actually. It looked like you were saying that other classes were required in the status quo, not advocating a design philosophy.

My bad.

Avoiding Choice Traps
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... oice_traps

Which of the following statements best describes what you'd like to see?

failed poll. speaks all about feats and only gives chance to vote other with comment if you do NOT want feats.

where is the option on the poll for:

I do not want feats at all.

For academic purposes, I must pose the question, what don't you like about feats, Shadzar?

ishy wrote:Problem with roles like 'face' and 'trap monkey' is that only one person is playing in those minigames.

For traps I'd say it's the opposite. The problem with the old-school D&D thief isn't that only the thief can disarm traps. The problem is that everyone can disarm traps, but only the thief has to pay for the privilege. Nobody ever tried to tell the fighter he can't be good at combat because his role is chopping down trapped doors and taking point in trapped hallways, even though those things contribute as much as thief abilities do.

Wrathzog wrote:For academic purposes, I must pose the question, what don't you like about feats, Shadzar?

They didn't have feats in 2nd edition, silly!

Do you really expect shadzar of all people to provide a coherent, intelligible answer about why Feats are bad?

With that in mind, I really wish someone other than Shadzar would provide commentary for all these stupid articles coming out of WotC. Shadzar is not funny and not enlightening so what's the point.

To be honest I actually really like the point of that last blog.

It shows that Evil_rev at least realises that paying for roleplaying only and combat effectiveness creates horrible imbalanced chars.

A system that splits traits (for roleplaying) and feats (for combat) is far superior to the old system, where one gal has taken only roleplaying feats and the other taken feats that make her more effective in combat.

- Edit: could be a problem if it then offers too many choices for people though.

And the option that a feat gives multiple effects for different parts of the game sounds pretty terrible, since it would mean that you'd have to choose which part of the game is more important to you.
Example (yeah obviously not a real example): lets say you had to choose between
- a feat that lets you pick flowers out of combat and melee people with a sword in combat.
- a feat that lets you talk to animals out of combat and chuck animals at opponents in combat.

Wrathzog wrote:For academic purposes, I must pose the question, what don't you like about feats, Shadzar?

what do they offer except a numerical bonus for something a player would come up with to do? and at that same time they limit the things a player can come up with, because it is already decided for them in this list.

it is push-button gaming, or button-mashing in reference to fighting arcade games. you dont really need to know how to play, just hit enough buttons fast enough and often you can win against most people that play it.

they masquerade as class functions, but granted at various levels, which creates a build-a-bearcharacter workshop; rather than play the character..

also having the feat names be a "keyword" it becomes more difficult to state something in narrative that doesnt exactly mean that keyword.

When you make a bull rush, you attempt to push an opponent straight back instead of damaging him. You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.

i dont always intend this mechanic when i state i want to bullrush, and NEVER intended this mechanic when playing prior to 3rd.

the improved feat also doesnt provide what i am looking for, jsut some bonuses ala wargames.

When you perform a bull rush you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender. You also gain a +4 bonus on the opposed Strength check you make to push back the defender.

bull rush was used, prior to this keywording, as a means to tackle someone and make them prone...not pushing them back a square.

this is just a quick example, but like the "skills" and NWPs they emulate form further editions, i jsut do not like them. arbitrary confines on the ability of the players to play a character.

my favorite example you may have sen before is the NWP "fire-building". if you dont have the points to get it, it is assumed, when using NWPs, that your character cannot perform this action. that assumption is wrong, but it should not be able to be made, by not having such a NWP/skill/feat in the first place.

feats are just a menu and force the game, like skills and NWPs into menu-selection rather than playing.

honestly has anyone here ever played 3rd without feats or without referencing them? how often does it occur to people to play without them? people have become dependent on the menu-selection and see which menu they have (char sheet) and negelct to think outside of the [feats/skills] box.

so it is the promotion of the idea of menu-selection gaming, rather than inspiration based gaming, as well as they NEVER work in any format.

some parts of feats are meant to be class abilities, but then why call them feats?

also a "feat" is an accomplishment, not an action/skill you choose to be able to do later.

as i have said many times, thief/rogue shouldnt exist, as ALL adventures are pretty much "thieves", so the skills should be in a list to let any of the 3 classes choose from, IF you need some way to make the broad range of classes out of the basic archetypes: non-magic using fighting person, arcane magic user, divine power user. (aka Fighter, Wizard, Cleric)

these are the things i was talking about in my previous class based threads recently to figure out what makes a class, and what can represent the existing classes, to be able to tailor ANY class idea from those 3 REAL classes.

i dont have a problem with class ability you get at a later level (though training seems to make more sense than just getting it upon a ~DING~), but the pick and choose as you level seems a bit strange. it might help people play more if they had LESS choices at level up and chose more clearly at the start.

example:

fighters only get these abilities if they start as a fighter at level 1
A,B,C

then go sort of with 3rd multiclassing, since it seems to be workable to where you can pick another set of class bits when you level...but you dont get those class-only things granted when the character was initially created.

maybe you get a few little things to make a bard-like character, or ranged attacker as a package. like they are mentioning themes.

but IF you are doing something like this, i would prefer the dreaded 2.5, its method of jsut picking those abilities form a list that ALL can get. not all of them would provide bonuses, they wouldnt be tech-trees, they would offer touches of another class ability that is enough to be able to split or multi- to that class after you have been trained at length in your first class.

you get some wizard abilities as a fighter from the wizard you have ben adventuring with, but not the full compliment of his years of training to BE a wizard. likewise the wizard can pick up some of the fighters abilities because he has been around fighters. the majority of abilities would be defined by your base-class. so they would be minor "dips" to flavor your character to become something unique form just a normal base-class character, not overpower them. but not allow full access to another class like ALL multi-classing has been since the beginning.

Paladin: starts as a fighter and is treated mostly as a fighter, but created by taking some of those things that clerics do in a lesser format, while stil getting the full fighter ability access at ALL times.

hope these things attempted to be put into 3rd edition vernacular have not muddled what i mean.

and NO damn prerequisites. once you can take some bits from a cleric, you can always take bits or a cleric. nothing like improved trip requiring trip.. just not even have improved trip as a choice. if it is meant to become more useful or powerful at a higher level, then "trip" just BECOMES more useful to someone that has it.

not saying "trip" is a good example, as like "pick-pockets" anyone should be able to do it form the start, but using it as an easy example for me to speak of prerequisites for abilities. any ability is available at any level BECAUSE you leveled. its "strength" will come from the characters level IF it has varying uses at varying levels.

any questions still, just ask.

Shadzar, do you believe that there shouldn't be spell lists because selecting a spell from a menu is button-mashing too?

Shadzar's post reminds me of a somewhat more intelligent observation I once heard.

It went something like: "Every time Paizo releases more feats, the Fighter gets a little bit worse, because before the feat existed, they could get the DM to MTP up some rules for doing the action it covers, but now they can't try it at all because they don't have the feat."

Foxwarrior wrote: ...


It went something like: "Every time Paizo releases more feats, the Fighter gets a little bit worse, because before the feat existed, they could get the DM to MTP up some rules for doing the action it covers, but now they can't try it at all because they don't have the feat."

Side point:

That actually brings up an important issue in my mind; how much you want written out and how much you want the buyer to make up on their own. Thanks for bringing that up.

Shadzar wrote:any questions still, just ask.

Nah, you pretty much nailed that one, dude.

Wrathzog wrote:

Shadzar wrote:any questions still, just ask.

Nah, you pretty much nailed that one, dude.

ok. glad you understood.

then since nobody else will, how about you answer what feats provide to the game?

and have you ever tried or thought to play without them? (even if having to rework the ECL and LA...AND CR system when not using them)

Shadzar wrote:what feats provide to the game?

Primarily, they allow players to customize their characters. Giving them the options to add depth to their characters outside the confines of their class or race. They can be used to shore up weaknesses or to expand on abilities that you may already have.
That feats vary between TRASH and AWESOME is a completely separate issue.

As far as playing without them... Honestly, I don't think that the game would change that much. Obviously, you'd have to rework classes that rely on bonus feats like Fighter or Monk. and a big chunk of Prestige classes would need new requirements or simply disappear (not a big loss).
Monsters can probably get a blanket change that removes a few points from their Attack Rolls, Armor Class, and Saves depending on their CR.
Players would end up relying more on items. Multiclassing would become slightly less common.

Wrathzog wrote:

Shadzar wrote:what feats provide to the game?

Primarily, they allow players to customize their characters. Giving them the options to add depth to their characters outside the confines of their class or race. They can be used to shore up weaknesses or to expand on abilities that you may already have.
That feats vary between TRASH and AWESOME is a completely separate issue.

As far as playing without them... Honestly, I don't think that the game would change that much. Obviously, you'd have to rework classes that rely on bonus feats like Fighter or Monk. and a big chunk of Prestige classes would need new requirements or simply disappear (not a big loss).
Monsters can probably get a blanket change that removes a few points from their Attack Rolls, Armor Class, and Saves depending on their CR.
Players would end up relying more on items. Multiclassing would become slightly less common.

with the talks of TOne and Edition that the article link was scrubbed from here, and backgrounds and themes, i see a bit of problem with them because the way you mention feats purpose.

not counting for mechanics and choice bloat in the "trash to awesome" that exists to sell books, but the "shore up weaknesses".

i think if there is a weakness in a class to begin with then that was a problem to begin with. like my example a paladin would get full access to ALL fighter based abilities as his base-class, and some lesser than cleric base class, abilities...you couldnt allow for the paladin to eclipse either the fighter or cleric. they should be solid to begin with.

i would hope then by weakness you mean once a part of the adventuring party. but it still causes the old walking-first-aid-kit-cleric problem. somebody ha to take Ability X, because nobody wants it, or that is the party weakness.

guess that is where everyone speaks of...what is the term?...."trash feats" i guess. those thing that exist to bloat but are bad choices due to the ability to heavily optimize.

as for expanding, i already said, but extra feats are pretty silly. an ability should be like i think the monk from 3.x sustenance.

at level 1 it does this, i think not needing food
level 6 you no longer need to breathe air as well as no longer need to eat daily.

etc. the whole "scales with level" idea. you dont have to waste a choice on it, or even take the time to choose, but you automatically get these things without having to worry or stress over them.

so which type of "weakness" were you meaning? bad basic class design, or in-the-current-party their is a weakness due to lacking something?

What do feats add to the game? Rules and options. Granted, a lot of them are terrible, and I agree that a lot of things shouldn't be feats, but rather combat options like trip, grapple, and disarm.

In a perfect world, you'd have codified rules for what happens for throwing sand in someone's eyes, and it would be on par with what you could normally do with your round (possibly better or worse given the exact situation). Throwing sand in someone's eyes shouldn't be a feat, but I could see a feat where you get an improved benefit above and beyond what someone else could normally do. I'm fine with that.

Then, feats add both customization and rules consistency to the game.

Shadzar wrote:so which type of "weakness" were you meaning? bad basic class design, or in-the-current-party their is a weakness due to lacking something?

Mostly the second kind in that a weakness is the absence of certain class features, though there situations like having a low will save or 4d Hit Dice.

That classes have weaknesses is going to be intrinsic to a system with distinct classes. If Class A is better than Class B in Situation X then that is a weakness for Class B. And we're okay with that as long as Class B is better than Class A when in Situation Y and maybe both classes can handle Situation Z with roughly the same success rate.

As far as Intra-party balance goes, it really depends on whether or not you want a game that allows a group that consists of only Class A to be viable.
If you don't, then we don't need feats. Players select a class and they're more or less stuck with their schtick.
If you do, then we need feats or something similar to feats to allow players the freedom to expand beyond their class roles.

Alternatively, you have a class system that is a lie and all classes can perform in all situations with roughly the same ability.