Legends&Lore: Magic Items and Attunement [Archive] - Page 2

1337 b4k4

2014-05-27, 06:52 PM

they give the opportunity for the DM and players to do RP, the rules are a framework on which to build RP. they should not be chains on which you are forced to RP a certain way (see 3e paladin)

Luckily I've never suggested the fluff should be chains. Just that fluff is rules and should be heeded (or changed) accordingly.

GRUPS is very much a game, its a generic RPG ruleset, D&D is a fantasy ruleset for groups of 4-5ish

GURPS is a system, but it is very much not a game. You can't play GURPS. You can play an RPG using GURPS as the mechanical system, but you must supply your own setting and world (discounting your decision to use their example world), and when you do so, you will be creating more and new rules which hook into the mechanics of the GURPS system.

when a system gets past a certain complexity, no mater how much effort is spent on making it simple and intuitve there is a learning curve, D&D is such a system.

and alot of changes would have effects that would not be obvious. magic items being the big one. this is particularly true for things that have to be balanced but its not obvious how to do so. for example how many levels higher should the big bad be if the players have 10 magic items and not 3? if I want to the fight to be very hard. that is not something that will pop out at you when you glance at the system.

And a well designed system should provide guidance for the modification of its less obvious parts. Just as the system should expect (and allow) fluff changing, it must expect and allow mechanics changing as well, and therefore it must provide guidance for doing so.

first I said fluff not rules, please pay more attention when you are reading.

Fluff is rules.

because fluff changes from one campaign world to the next, and is easy to modify without other changes in the system. you can change fluff without knowing most of it. if I started reading the 4e system and decided that my warlock was going to get his power from the color purple it would work without me knowing anything else about the system.

rules don't work like that. if I decided that my warlock was going to use 3d6 dice to hit with instead of a d20 it would change alot of other things in the system. I would need to know the entire system fairly well to make such a change and have it work.

This is of course because changing the location from which ones powers are drawn is a minor change, where as changing how the entire class interacts with the system is a major change. If you had decided that Warlocks not only gain their powers from demons, but that by gaining their powers they become mere husks for demons to use and can't be killed, that would also be a fluff change, but it would require a substantial change to how your system works considering the system relies on characters being somewhat mortal.

Alternatively, if you decided that all magic powers are granted by the phases of the sun, and require blood sacrifice to be powered, that would also be just changes to fluff, but would require fairly extensive knowledge of the system to determine how your characters not having access to all of their powers at any given time would impact the game. And certainly how making them sacrifice HP for power as well. These are fluff changes but they have substantial impacts on the world and on the game itself.

The only way we can all get what we want is if the rules are not ambiguous at all.

Fortunately, the grease rules are not ambiguous.

Sometimes the players don't have a choice because the DM intended for them to fight it because they thought the system worked as advertised:

DM "You enter the large domed room and the reinforced iron door closes and locks behind you, ahead of you a large scaly face with horns and large rows of teeth the size of swords surges forward out of the shadows. You realize you are facing a very large angry red dragon."
Players "We're just not gonna fight it."
DM "It sucks in its breath and you see flames begin to lick out of its nostrils."
Players "Nope not gonna fight it."
DM "It breaths killing the party."

Doesn't work too well does it?

Frankly speaking this is bad DMing and something the book should admonish DMs to avoid. As a DM you should never "intend" for your players to fight anything, and forcing them into a combat they don't want like this is straight up railroading of the worst kind.

captpike

2014-05-27, 07:08 PM

Luckily I've never suggested the fluff should be chains. Just that fluff is rules and should be heeded (or changed) accordingly.

yes you did.

you want the fluff to be rules, so if the fluff says "warlocks gain their power through deals with demons" then you would have to do that or rebalance the entire class. that is a chain.

GURPS is a system, but it is very much not a game. You can't play GURPS. You can play an RPG using GURPS as the mechanical system, but you must supply your own setting and world (discounting your decision to use their example world), and when you do so, you will be creating more and new rules which hook into the mechanics of the GURPS system.

just like D&D is a generic fantasy system that you supply your own campaign setting and world for. the only difference is that D&D has some suggested default fluff that you can or can not use.

the mechanical system IS the game.

And a well designed system should provide guidance for the modification of its less obvious parts. Just as the system should expect (and allow) fluff changing, it must expect and allow mechanics changing as well, and therefore it must provide guidance for doing so.

for some things yes, like inherit bonuses. the problem is that some things require a deft hand a good system mastery to change.

were they going to put out the game they talked about there would be alot of swiches. but that is just mechaics, fluff should be left up to the DM and party. so they can come up with anything they want and then put it into the system. rather then being told "warlocks are A B or C, if your not A, B or C your not a warlock" they are told "warlocks are [mechanics], here is some suggesting fluff but you can easily change that to what you need it to be"

This is of course because changing the location from which ones powers are drawn is a minor change, where as changing how the entire class interacts with the system is a major change. If you had decided that Warlocks not only gain their powers from demons, but that by gaining their powers they become mere husks for demons to use and can't be killed, that would also be a fluff change, but it would require a substantial change to how your system works considering the system relies on characters being somewhat mortal.

Alternatively, if you decided that all magic powers are granted by the phases of the sun, and require blood sacrifice to be powered, that would also be just changes to fluff, but would require fairly extensive knowledge of the system to determine how your characters not having access to all of their powers at any given time would impact the game. And certainly how making them sacrifice HP for power as well. These are fluff changes but they have substantial impacts on the world and on the game itself.

you are talking about the kind of things that campain setting would change. in that situation then yes you could change both the crunch and fluff to make it work (darksun being a good example)

the system should give me a good setting neutral set of rules, rules that work in 90% of settings, and can adjusted to work with the other 10%. NOT rules that only work for one setting and need to be bent to work with the other 99%

Frankly speaking this is bad DMing and something the book should admonish DMs to avoid. As a DM you should never "intend" for your players to fight anything, and forcing them into a combat they don't want like this is straight up railroading of the worst kind.

the rules need to work for ok DMs who have just started just as much as for DMs who have been DMing for 20 years.

"fighting a dragon in a cave" is hardly something that would seam overboard to most new DMs

Fwiffo86

2014-05-27, 07:22 PM

Sometimes the players don't have a choice because the DM intended for them to fight it because they thought the system worked as advertised:

DM "You enter the large domed room and the reinforced iron door closes and locks behind you, ahead of you a large scaly face with horns and large rows of teeth the size of swords surges forward out of the shadows. You realize you are facing a very large angry red dragon."
Players "We're just not gonna fight it."
DM "It sucks in its breath and you see flames begin to lick out of its nostrils."
Players "Nope not gonna fight it."
DM "It breaths killing the party."

Doesn't work too well does it?

What I am not seeing here is what the players will attempt to do to flee the dragon. Instead of just standing there telling the DM OOC that they aren't going to fight it, I would posit that the players do what they can to survive. No one just stands around and dies. This scenario is fine until the first "We're just not gonna fight it" line, then it becomes flawed. I understand you were using it to demonstrate a point, but leaving out the second half of this scenario results in flawed facts and invalid arguments.

If a DM hands out 25 magic items to the party, they are just following the built in defaults and suggestions of the system. Its not really their fault. Its not really the choices of the DM or party. Its only a choice for extremely experienced players and DMs. The game should not assume extreme experience as a default. It should work for noobs just as much as for 20 year veterans.

Except, it is the DMs fault. Just because a table rolls X doesn't mean you have to hand out X. That is fundamentally a DM's choice. Allow, or disallow. The responsibility falls directly to the DM, table or no table. What a table (which is marked optional in the first place) tells you, is not a rule. It is a table used to make a choice.

How much improvisation did they do? Did you play the monsters to their full intelligence (no dumb dragons or anything)? The other thing to think about is that the numbers were on the players side to begin with. If the players were steam rolling encounters before you added the extra magic items, then its possible the math is so broken as to not matter if you add +3 items to the game. Which means anyone that likes even a modicum of balance will not like the game.

Monsters were played to the maximum intelligence I could. Which is why I chose the various intelligence levels that I did. The characters were not "steam rolling" any encounter. I apologize if you got that impression, I should have been more clear. When the players "win", their is at least 1 player standing when the last creature falls. In many scenarios, more than 75% of player resources were consumed.

Example of playing monster properly from Throne of bloodstone (1e), attacking the Lich in his castle.

Lich Preparation: Notice Lich has the wish spell.
Day 1: I wish to know the next day a group of adventurers will assault my castle.
Day 2: I wish to know the exact time a group of adventurers will assault my castle.
Day 3: I wish to know the exact location of my castle the adventures will breach my castle walls.

Adventures 10 minutes from breaching wall....

Lich actions: Gate - Demon, Gate - Demon, Gate - Demon, Gate - Demon
"Ok demons, gate yourselves in and your reinforcements"
DB-Fireball, DB-Fireball, DB-Fireball, DB-Fireball
Chain Lightning Contingency, Chain Lightning Contingency, Chain Lightning Contingency
etc, etc, etc.

10 seconds from breaching wall....

Lich actions: "Teleport"

Adventurers breach the wall.....

8 out of 9 characters killed. The remaining character flees.

I use this example to explain how my tactics work as a DM only. It also happens to be my favorite example of why players shouldn't be able to deal with people with wish. My players are used to me being unforgiving with my tactics. I don't play down the monster's intelligence. If my players tackle something they find they can't handle, then they deal with the consequences.

captpike

2014-05-27, 07:26 PM

Except, it is the DMs fault. Just because a table rolls X doesn't mean you have to hand out X. That is fundamentally a DM's choice. Allow, or disallow. The responsibility falls directly to the DM, table or no table. What a table (which is marked optional in the first place) tells you, is not a rule. It is a table used to make a choice.

its hardly a bad or abnormal assumption that the people who made the system knew what they were doing (even though in 5e's case its likely not true)

Fwiffo86

2014-05-27, 08:12 PM

If you don't like the system Catpike, why bother wasting time arguing about it? Obviously from your posts I can see you won't enjoy playing it. I'm not trying to start an argument, but it seems weird to me that you would spend so much time arguing about something you don't like in the first place. Are you trying to convince the rest of us that we shouldn't like it either? Is that your goal? I am genuinely curious.

captpike

2014-05-27, 08:21 PM

I hope that I am wrong and the system will be good.

also I would not mind convincing a few people that a game that supports other people's playstyles would be good.
alot of people here seam to have this idea that if their playstyle is not the only one then their playstyle is not supported I honestly don't get that.

I say the game should support no magic, low magic, and high magic. they say no, it should only support low magic, because its awesome.

I say the game should separate fluff and crunch so you change the fluff to anything you want and play the game however you want. they say that the fluff and crunch MUST be interwoven such that you cant separate them for reason that defy both logic and reason.

it does sort of explain the one true wayisum you see in alot of the stuff about 5e though. rather then making a "game for everyone" they are making a game for a small subset of people who think that any game that does not have everything they want, and only what they want, is a bad game.

1337 b4k4

2014-05-27, 10:09 PM

yes you did.

you want the fluff to be rules, so if the fluff says "warlocks gain their power through deals with demons" then you would have to do that or rebalance the entire class. that is a chain.[/quotes]

I don't want the fluff to be rules, they are rules, there's no wanting about it. You can pretend it isn't so but it is.

[quote]
just like D&D is a generic fantasy system that you supply your own campaign setting and world for. the only difference is that D&D has some suggested default fluff that you can or can not use.

Except that D&D isn't and never has been a generic fantasy system. It can be used as one, but there's a whole crap ton of assumptions built into the system already. I've covered this before, but again, just to name a few:

Humanoid centric worlds
Elves and Dwarves
Medieval-ish environment
Lack of gunpowder / explosives
Magic
Vancian Magic
The existence of gods
Good and Evil as tangible forces
Lost societies and tombs from which to obtain treasures
Ready availability of weaponry and armor

etc etc etc.

the mechanical system IS the game.

No it isn't. It's part of the game.

were they going to put out the game they talked about there would be alot of swiches. but that is just mechaics, fluff should be left up to the DM and party. so they can come up with anything they want and then put it into the system. rather then being told "warlocks are A B or C, if your not A, B or C your not a warlock" they are told "warlocks are [mechanics], here is some suggesting fluff but you can easily change that to what you need it to be"

Do you know what "warlocks are [mechanics]" means? "warlocks are A, B or C, if you're not A, B or C, you're not a warlock". After all, maybe I want a warlock that uses divine magics. Maybe I want one who's super awesome at hand to hand combat and merely uses magic to enhance that. Maybe I want a magic user like Harry Potter, with an infinite supply of magical energy. Just because you're using mechanics to chain down your character concept doesn't make it any less of a "chain".

the system should give me a good setting neutral set of rules, rules that work in 90% of settings, and can adjusted to work with the other 10%. NOT rules that only work for one setting and need to be bent to work with the other 99%

I'll bet dollars to donuts that 5e rules will work for 90% of settings and can be adjusted to work for the remaining 10%. You keep arguing that you want fluff to not be rules because otherwise the system would only work with 10% of the setting, but you haven't stopped to consider that perhaps you're the one in the minority here. That it's your setting where dragons aren't arrogant and deadly that is the 10% which will require rules adjustment.

the rules need to work for ok DMs who have just started just as much as for DMs who have been DMing for 20 years.

"fighting a dragon in a cave" is hardly something that would seam overboard to most new DMs

Indeed, which is why the rules should tell DMs to never railroad their players into a battle just because they want that battle to happen. Fighting a dragon in a cave is not what's overboard. It's locking your players into an escape proof room with a dragon that's overboard.

also I would not mind convincing a few people that a game that supports other people's playstyles would be good.
alot of people here seam to have this idea that if their playstyle is not the only one then their playstyle is not supported I honestly don't get that.

Nope.

I say the game should support no magic, low magic, and high magic. they say no, it should only support low magic, because its awesome.

Nope

I say the game should separate fluff and crunch so you change the fluff to anything you want and play the game however you want. they say that the fluff and crunch MUST be interwoven such that you cant separate them for reason that defy both logic and reason.

Nope

captpike

2014-05-27, 10:41 PM

I don't want the fluff to be rules, they are rules, there's no wanting about it. You can pretend it isn't so but it is.

I again refer you to the English language and common sense.
you are using the word, "rules" that word in this context is nonsensical. you might as well be saying "the fluff is up to the blue" for all the sense you seam to make when you stay stuff like that.

Except that D&D isn't and never has been a generic fantasy system. It can be used as one, but there's a whole crap ton of assumptions built into the system already. I've covered this before, but again, just to name a few:

these are a given (at least as default assumption) because its a generic fantasy system:

Medieval-ish environment
Lack of gunpowder / explosives
Magic
The existence of gods (easily removed if you dont want them in your setting)
Ready availability of weaponry and armor

these are optional, and come and go with settings, they only provided as options because of how common they are:

Humanoid centric worlds (this does not even belong on your list, its jsut a feature of some settings, and often of the default human fluff)
Elves and Dwarves
Lost societies and tombs from which to obtain treasures

these are not part of D&D, but only part of at least one but not all editions:

Vancian Magic (even 3e was not really Vancian, it was modified more then a little, and there were more then a few variants)
Good and Evil as tangible forces

Do you know what "warlocks are [mechanics]" means? "warlocks are A, B or C, if you're not A, B or C, you're not a warlock". After all, maybe I want a warlock that uses divine magics. Maybe I want one who's super awesome at hand to hand combat and merely uses magic to enhance that. Maybe I want a magic user like Harry Potter, with an infinite supply of magical energy. Just because you're using mechanics to chain down your character concept doesn't make it any less of a "chain".

you seam to be confused by the difference between the mechanics and fluff of a warlock.

if you want to change the fluff of a warlock and play as if he was cleric you can do that.

if you want to take the fluff of a warlock and put it to another class you can do that as well.

when I was talking about a chain I mean anything that would stop be doing either of the above, or require more then a simple houserules to do so.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that 5e rules will work for 90% of settings and can be adjusted to work for the remaining 10%. You keep arguing that you want fluff to not be rules because otherwise the system would only work with 10% of the setting, but you haven't stopped to consider that perhaps you're the one in the minority here. That it's your setting where dragons aren't arrogant and deadly that is the 10% which will require rules adjustment.

I have, I find it unlikely (in this forum maybe, but if you mean D&D players). however even if I was it would not matter.

if they did it the way I want then everyone can play in whatever setting they want, if they did it your way only a subset of settings would easily work.

Indeed, which is why the rules should tell DMs to never railroad their players into a battle just because they want that battle to happen. Fighting a dragon in a cave is not what's overboard. It's locking your players into an escape proof room with a dragon that's overboard.

so your point is that dragons should be unkillable in a cave and the system should tell DMs that? why even have stat blocks for them at that point.

the system should provide ways to make creatures hard or easy or anything between. then the DM can decide how hard it is. running away should not the only option in a fight unless the DM made the fight like that.

Nope.

Nope

Nope
you do know you sound like an idiot right? "your wrong, no I am not going to say why" is the least competent way possible to dispute something. the most likely reason to do that is because you have no good reason to say no. you have a certain position and you realized you have no good logic to have it, but you wont admit that.

Sartharina

2014-05-28, 12:27 AM

Rules in a TTRPG are nothing more than a way to impartially resolve disputes or uncertainty in the outcome of a declared action.

"Crunch" and "Fluff" are both rules. - the thing is that rules have varying degrees of intrinsic value - Most 'fluff' rules have low intrinsic value, and changing them won't hurt anything - but this is not always the case (Such as most 3e Monster Manual entries - the 'tactics' and 'combat' descriptions in the MM are rules for running them, and running them in a different/more optimized way (Such as using a Vrock to kite as a spellcaster instead of quickly get into melee and supplement slashing things to pieces with occasional spell use like the MM declares it fights as, or certain creatures with spellcasting ability that is prescribed in the fluff text to be used in a specific way, and given that spellcasting ability so they can use it that way. Oh yeah, and That Damned Crab.) break the game. This is where the dragon situation comes into play - The dragon's designed to be played a certain way, and it has tools at its disposal that let it function in that manner. However, those tools can be abused if you don't follow the guidelines on how to use it, and trying to restrain those rules in a more 'crunch'-oriented manner becomes more of a hassle than it's worth, and blocks off intended/legitimate uses as well. If you want a dragon that's designed around being able to move quickly almost anywhere but is vulnerable to being pulled into melee to not be vulnerable to being goaded into melee through taunts, you need to reconfigure the kiting ability to have a different kind of restriction on it (Such as can only dive into or out of the water once per round) - but putting that same restriction on a dragon that is also vulnerable to being goaded into melee through taunts makes the dragon pitifully easy to defeat.

Likewise, most "Crunch" rules tend to have high intrinsic value, but that's not always the case. Class features come to mind here - they aren't given abilities because of a need for the numeric or action economy boost, but because the abilities are the first/best way the developers decided to mechanically represent someone taking a specific action or having a unique trait about them. For example, the "X Focus" and skill-boosting feats are used to represent that your character is notably good at a specific weapon or skill or has a particular trait. The mathematical bonuses (+1 attack, +3 dedicated skill use, +2 to relevant skills bonus) are really just supposed to be a minor bonus, with the big bonus being that the character is /Dedicated to a particular weapon/Dedicated to a skill use - which is why they are so frequently used as prerequisites for prestige classes or other feats.

Even then, Prestige Classes in 3.5 (And Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies in 4e) [i]are not supposed to be handfuls of class features to grab while leveling - they are indication of your character being the beneficiary of an organization in the world, or other point of prestige.

There was a reason D&D 3e had guidelines for making new feats, class features, spells, and racial abilities. The stuff in splatbooks and Dragon Magazine articles are nothing more than demonstrations of stuff you're supposed to do yourself as a DM and player, and get the rest of your group to agree with.

Captpike, please expand your TTRPG experience into games and systems beyond D&D 4e. Savage Worlds and FATE do a good job of demonstrating how Fluff+Crunch are the same even in universal systems, while Shadowrun and World of Darkness or other White Wolf RPGs demonstrate how RPG systems can also be inextricably tied to a specific setting to unify fluff+crunch.

1337 b4k4

2014-05-28, 08:07 AM

I again refer you to the English language and common sense.
you are using the word, "rules" that word in this context is nonsensical. you might as well be saying "the fluff is up to the blue" for all the sense you seam to make when you stay stuff like that.

It's not nonsensical. A rule is defined as follows:

1
a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action
b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members
c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit
d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine
e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

Fluff such as "warlocks gain their powers from deals with demons" or "dragons are arrogant" are "a prescribed guide for conduct or action", and therefore a rule. But even beyond the dictionary definition, rules describe the boundaries of the world and the actions available to players. If I say warlocks gain their powers through summoning demons, than that is describing a boundary (namely that warlocks don't gain their powers through intense study of books). By it's very nature that is a rule. The fact that altering that rule doesn't change the game as fundamentally as say switching from d20 for all rolls to (4d6 + 11) = x > 24 ? x - 21 : x + 11 (http://anydice.com/program/11c7) doesn't change the fact that it's still a rule and altering it is a rules change.

Also, I'm not sure if English is your first language or not, but if you're going to criticize people who disagree with you for not knowing the language, you probably ought to make sure you're using the correct words yourself. The word you keep looking for (and failing to use) is "seems" or "seem" not "seam"

these are a given (at least as default assumption) because its a generic fantasy system:

Fantasy encompasses more than pseudo-medieval settings. That D&D has largely come to define pop-culture fantasy does not make pop-culture fantasy generic fantasy. Certainly nothing about fantasy requires magic or lack of gunpowder or explosives. For example, Princess Mononoke provides a fantasy setting that includes magic, but also includes gun powder and explosives. Robin Hood is fantasy without magic. Most of Lovecraft is fantasy with magic and guns but in an early century New England setting rather than a pseudo-medieval setting.

these are optional, and come and go with settings, they only provided as options because of how common they are:

Which is irrelevant because the point is that D&D bakes these assumptions into the system and therefore is not "generic fantasy"

you seam to be confused by the difference between the mechanics and fluff of a warlock.

No I'm not. I'm just realistic about what rules are. Rules are restrictions and boundaries. Whether they're expressed with dice or words, mechanical restrictions or descriptive restrictions, they are rules. When you change either you're making a rules change, and when you present either you are restricting the definition of something down.

if you want to change the fluff of a warlock and play as if he was cleric you can do that.

But my warlock can not get divine spells granted daily by a deity

if you want to take the fluff of a warlock and put it to another class you can do that as well.

But that other class can never gain innate magic

if they did it the way I want then everyone can play in whatever setting they want, if they did it your way only a subset of settings would easily work.

Except as has already been pointed out to you, everyone wouldn't get what they want. Players that want a game where the mechanics are connected to the fiction. Where the descriptions and text behind each individual mechanic have real and tangible impacts on the game will not get what they want unless they spend a whole lot of time and effort building the bridges that a hard separation between mechanical rules and fluff rules would require. In short, you get a whole bunch of people who are unhappy with your new system for the same reason they were also unhappy with how 4e worked.

so your point is that dragons should be unkillable in a cave and the system should tell DMs that? why even have stat blocks for them at that point.

Nope.

the system should provide ways to make creatures hard or easy or anything between. then the DM can decide how hard it is. running away should not the only option in a fight unless the DM made the fight like that.

Luckily the system does just that. Or did you miss that legendary actions are for specific, individual, legendary creatures and not all of a particular creature type.

you do know you sound like an idiot right? "your wrong, no I am not going to say why" is the least competent way possible to dispute something. the most likely reason to do that is because you have no good reason to say no. you have a certain position and you realized you have no good logic to have it, but you wont admit that.

It's not that I'm not willing to tell you why you're wrong, it's that I've decided it's not worth correcting you when you continue to insist on putting words into my mouth. I've asked you repeatedly to stop doing it and you continue to do so without shame or reservation. Therefore it is no longer worth my time to correct you or deal with you attacking positions I don't hold. Hence, when you put words into my mouth, the only response you will get (if any) is "Nope"

Fwiffo86

2014-05-28, 08:57 AM

OK, fluff, crunch, rules, combats, etc. aside....

Lets get back to topic. The Attune rules. I am in favor of the 3 magic item limit. And here is my reasons. These reasons are not posted to be argued. I am simply stating my opinion. I would like to hear other opinions of the rules as well. I want to see what people are thinking about this particular rule/guideline only. I am not interested in math, or justifications, I just want your opinion of this one singular mechanic.

ATTUNEMENT
I like that the limit is 3 or even 5. This lends credence to my long standing belief that magic items should be rare, and special, and have meaning (or reasons they were created), and not another adventuring object you can buy off the self.

I am on the fence about the whole "your dreugar armor paralyzes you when facing a dreugar". I can see its purpose, but I think some examples given are a little too much like cursed items.

I like the fact that a cursed item can be used without attuning it and you don't run the risk of activating the curse.

I don't like that (at least in my packet) the majority of useful items that seem general to me, require attuning. I would save attuning for items of power (Holy Avenger, Staff of the Magi).

Finally, I like that with the attuning rules, my players will once again have to focus on working together to accomplish goals. Monster is resistant to non-magic weapons? ((Enchant Weapon)), and rely more heavily on their class abilities instead of just powering through encounters. A problem I noticed as far back as 2e.

What do other people like, or don't like about the attuning mechanic in particular. I am curious, and I won't tell you, you are wrong. It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Lokiare

2014-05-28, 02:18 PM

What I am not seeing here is what the players will attempt to do to flee the dragon. Instead of just standing there telling the DM OOC that they aren't going to fight it, I would posit that the players do what they can to survive. No one just stands around and dies. This scenario is fine until the first "We're just not gonna fight it" line, then it becomes flawed. I understand you were using it to demonstrate a point, but leaving out the second half of this scenario results in flawed facts and invalid arguments.

Except, it is the DMs fault. Just because a table rolls X doesn't mean you have to hand out X. That is fundamentally a DM's choice. Allow, or disallow. The responsibility falls directly to the DM, table or no table. What a table (which is marked optional in the first place) tells you, is not a rule. It is a table used to make a choice.

Monsters were played to the maximum intelligence I could. Which is why I chose the various intelligence levels that I did. The characters were not "steam rolling" any encounter. I apologize if you got that impression, I should have been more clear. When the players "win", their is at least 1 player standing when the last creature falls. In many scenarios, more than 75% of player resources were consumed.

Example of playing monster properly from Throne of bloodstone (1e), attacking the Lich in his castle.

Lich Preparation: Notice Lich has the wish spell.
Day 1: I wish to know the next day a group of adventurers will assault my castle.
Day 2: I wish to know the exact time a group of adventurers will assault my castle.
Day 3: I wish to know the exact location of my castle the adventures will breach my castle walls.

Adventures 10 minutes from breaching wall....

Lich actions: Gate - Demon, Gate - Demon, Gate - Demon, Gate - Demon
"Ok demons, gate yourselves in and your reinforcements"
DB-Fireball, DB-Fireball, DB-Fireball, DB-Fireball
Chain Lightning Contingency, Chain Lightning Contingency, Chain Lightning Contingency
etc, etc, etc.

10 seconds from breaching wall....

Lich actions: "Teleport"

Adventurers breach the wall.....

8 out of 9 characters killed. The remaining character flees.

I use this example to explain how my tactics work as a DM only. It also happens to be my favorite example of why players shouldn't be able to deal with people with wish. My players are used to me being unforgiving with my tactics. I don't play down the monster's intelligence. If my players tackle something they find they can't handle, then they deal with the consequences.

I just gotta say that is really brutal. Its what a lich would do though. I'm not exactly sure then why your encounters defied the math though. Did the players get very lucky rolls a lot? Did they crit a lot? That's about all that can be used to explain it alongside maybe handing out advantage like candy.

If you don't like the system Catpike, why bother wasting time arguing about it? Obviously from your posts I can see you won't enjoy playing it. I'm not trying to start an argument, but it seems weird to me that you would spend so much time arguing about something you don't like in the first place. Are you trying to convince the rest of us that we shouldn't like it either? Is that your goal? I am genuinely curious.

For the simple reason WotC keeps saying its a system for all play styles. Which anyone looking at the game should realize it isn't. It only tailors to a very narrow play style.

OK, fluff, crunch, rules, combats, etc. aside....

Lets get back to topic. The Attune rules. I am in favor of the 3 magic item limit. And here is my reasons. These reasons are not posted to be argued. I am simply stating my opinion. I would like to hear other opinions of the rules as well. I want to see what people are thinking about this particular rule/guideline only. I am not interested in math, or justifications, I just want your opinion of this one singular mechanic.

ATTUNEMENT
I like that the limit is 3 or even 5. This lends credence to my long standing belief that magic items should be rare, and special, and have meaning (or reasons they were created), and not another adventuring object you can buy off the self.

I am on the fence about the whole "your dreugar armor paralyzes you when facing a dreugar". I can see its purpose, but I think some examples given are a little too much like cursed items.

I like the fact that a cursed item can be used without attuning it and you don't run the risk of activating the curse.

I don't like that (at least in my packet) the majority of useful items that seem general to me, require attuning. I would save attuning for items of power (Holy Avenger, Staff of the Magi).

Finally, I like that with the attuning rules, my players will once again have to focus on working together to accomplish goals. Monster is resistant to non-magic weapons? ((Enchant Weapon)), and rely more heavily on their class abilities instead of just powering through encounters. A problem I noticed as far back as 2e.

What do other people like, or don't like about the attuning mechanic in particular. I am curious, and I won't tell you, you are wrong. It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I like high magic games where players can use one item for each body location such as head, neck, back, body, feet, hands, arms, left ring, right ring and even have enough items to swap out for preparation for specific areas or encounters. I think that we should all be able to get what we want without a lot of house rules, instead of how it is now. I think a better system would be to use ranges of points and just have a point cap so that the players can choose to have several weaker items or a few powerful ones.

Fwiffo86

2014-05-28, 02:45 PM

I just gotta say that is really brutal. Its what a lich would do though. I'm not exactly sure then why your encounters defied the math though. Did the players get very lucky rolls a lot? Did they crit a lot? That's about all that can be used to explain it alongside maybe handing out advantage like candy.

I think I pointed out earlier that my players had variations of Magic Items. 3, then 5, then 7, and finally as many as they wanted. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to affect things terribly much overall. Yes, the fighter hit more often (supporting your math), this was overcome by traps, AoE tactics, Illusions, and a variety of other methods once the monsters realized he slew one of them in one combat round. The same applies for the rest of the players. I admit there was evidence that a large number of magic items gave the players a boost, but it still was not balance tilting enough that tactics were made pointless. Some encounters were easy for the players, others were not.

I think on a singular basis, your math works. I'm not saying it doesn't when applied to a whole party, but I am not seeing it represented when I run these scenarios.

I like high magic games where players can use one item for each body location such as head, neck, back, body, feet, hands, arms, left ring, right ring and even have enough items to swap out for preparation for specific areas or encounters. I think that we should all be able to get what we want without a lot of house rules, instead of how it is now. I think a better system would be to use ranges of points and just have a point cap so that the players can choose to have several weaker items or a few powerful ones.

Very well then! Monty Hall up and enjoy! Or... don't in this system. I think it works just fine with this method, but what do I know? It's not even really out yet, and the subject may change a bit.

da_chicken

2014-05-28, 03:50 PM

OK, fluff, crunch, rules, combats, etc. aside....

Lets get back to topic.

Good idea. I salute your attempt to shift back to a discussion. This forum tends toward bickering too often.

ATTUNEMENT
I like that the limit is 3 or even 5. This lends credence to my long standing belief that magic items should be rare, and special, and have meaning (or reasons they were created), and not another adventuring object you can buy off the self.

I am on the fence about the whole "your dreugar armor paralyzes you when facing a dreugar". I can see its purpose, but I think some examples given are a little too much like cursed items.

I like the fact that a cursed item can be used without attuning it and you don't run the risk of activating the curse.

I don't like that (at least in my packet) the majority of useful items that seem general to me, require attuning. I would save attuning for items of power (Holy Avenger, Staff of the Magi).

Finally, I like that with the attuning rules, my players will once again have to focus on working together to accomplish goals. Monster is resistant to non-magic weapons? ((Enchant Weapon)), and rely more heavily on their class abilities instead of just powering through encounters. A problem I noticed as far back as 2e.

What do other people like, or don't like about the attuning mechanic in particular. I am curious, and I won't tell you, you are wrong. It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I also like attuning. I'm not that concerned with 3 being the limit, since it's easy enough to ignore if it becomes too restrictive. Setting the limit to be equal to your proficiency bonus seems like it might be interesting, too, but may not be feasible at low levels. Then again, in my packet magic items don't begin to appear in monster drop tables until level 4 (5%), and only in hoards at level 2 (again 5%).

I have no problem with a large proportion of items that require attunement, and generally I think more should be than are in the packet I have. Some items like a bag of holding make more sense as a non-attuned item -- although I suppose a handy haversack which only grants the quick draw and stow abilities when attuned is fine -- but even if they make it so that everything beyond uncommon is largely attunement only I don't have a problem with it. If every magic weapon, armor, and save bonus was limited to a plain +1 as long as it wasn't attuned I would be perfectly fine with it, but I think that's much further than most players would want to go. Rare and artifact level items, however, should almost universally be attunement items.

I'm hesitant about drawbacks. In particular, for them not to be curses the drawbacks must be revealed when the item is identified. A curse is the result of a hidden defect or intentional trap meant to avoid normal divinations. A drawback merely represents how the magic functions. If your Deuregar armor is going to freeze when you're facing a Deuregar, it shouldn't hide that fact from investigations. I love the idea that because items are created for a purpose that the purpose is infused into the item in some way, though. I mean, literally seeding the magic item generation tables with adventure hooks seems like a fantastic design idea.

Additionally, what is a drawback to some is a benefit to others. A drawback is a condition designed into the item or contingent on the method it draws power. I dislike the idea that they should be bad (or, worse, punitive) rather than merely what they were also designed to do. Sting might be a medium size +1 verminbane orcsbane dagger with a side effect of glowing when orcs are within range. It's not something Frodo or Bilbo can control. It's just how the designer made it. It could be good, it could be bad. Is that a drawback? Kind of, if you're trying to hide from said orcs or if you are an orc or half-orc. I would rather they be called "side effects" instead of "drawbacks," but that's purely semantics.

I am moderately concerned that it allows DMs to give players magic items that "aren't cursed" but are functionally useless. I play under some DMs that are awfully troll-y at times. "It's not a curse, it's a drawback," does sound suspiciously like, "it's not a bug, it's a feature." Giving me a ring of invisibility with the drawback that it plays Warner Brothers' cartoon tip-toe music whenever you move while wearing it is certainly awesome in it's own way, but not exactly a useful magic item. It reminds me suspiciously of all that shadow-wrought Drow equipment that vaporized in bright light or when removed from the Underdark. I mean, I suppose it's not much different than casting magic weapon on things, but it's still pretty frustrating when the DM gives you that as treasure. If 4e's goal was to get the DM to trust the player, 5e's goal seems to be to get the player to trust the DM.

The only magic items I'm genuinely concerned about in my packet are girdles of giant strength. I suppose a girdle of storm giant strength was just as terrifying in 1E/2E, but it's a total monster of an item. A +9 Str mod is a lot in this game.

Pex

2014-05-28, 06:29 PM

The only magic items I'm genuinely concerned about in my packet are girdles of giant strength. I suppose a girdle of storm giant strength was just as terrifying in 1E/2E, but it's a total monster of an item. A +9 Str mod is a lot in this game.

I can see it now.

DM: It's a Belt of Strength +4
Player: Great! I attune it and put it on.
DM: There's a drawback. Your character's gender changes.

It's baaaack!

captpike

2014-05-28, 07:45 PM

I can see it now.

DM: It's a Belt of Strength +4
Player: Great! I attune it and put it on.
DM: There's a drawback. Your character's gender changes.

It's baaaack!

as a DM I am so tempted to do that, just to see what would happen

I can so see one of my players thinking about it right now "my character loves his wife...but I also love that 8 str.."

Sartharina

2014-05-29, 03:23 PM

Fwiffo86

2014-05-29, 04:18 PM

That said - I don't like how those wishes were apparently worded, because scrying the future with that kind of DM bull**** precision should NOT be possible. Or am I allowed to make a wish for knowledge about what another player is going to do when.

Things about Wish I think are important and are MY opinions. These are not facts. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am not disagreeing with your view. I am making sure that you understand mine. That is all.

It is important to know that my description above is merely a representation of "by RP terms" lengthy worded in exacting detail to obtain exactly the information desired, as only a Lich has time to really plan out every word, inflection, breath, etc.

1 - No player EVER should have access to Wish/Miracle(3e), or any item, creature, spell, or turn of fate that grants access to it.

2 - The spell is completely broken. Defined as "The most powerful Mortal Magic" available to players, for the exact reason of perfect prediction, perfect scrying, perfect etc. According to the spell, yes you can Wish for exactly "knowledge about what another player is going to do when".

3 - The use of Wish in 1e required that the caster be aged 7 years. This was the mitigating factor to its use. That was removed, further breaking the spell.

4 - Any spell where the DM is encouraged to take it EXACTLY as said, instead of the meaning behind the request, is yet another reason to keep it out of player hands.

5 - If players cannot have access to Wish, monsters should not either. In the case of the Lich in the posts above: I was forced to run it in this fashion by gaming officials. It was not my choice.

Say what you want about Wish. You may disagree with my understanding and use of wish. You are welcome to. But these are the rules I run games by.

Players don't get a single wish, ever.

Knaight

2014-05-29, 10:01 PM

GOOD math is hard, just putting any old math together is easy. and its not a one person job, its not the kind of thing one person could do well.
There are a surprising amount of games which are made almost entirely by one person which nonetheless work mathematically

not in a good RPG. if they are too connected then you cant change the fluff without also changing the math. that means you cut down by alot the number of character concepts.

having default fluff for classes is good, it can start ideas flowing. but that is all it should be. the game should encourage you to change it.
Cutting down on the character concepts is totally fine in a non-generic system, and there are a lot of things that non-generic systems can do precisely because of them not being generic. For instance, Qin: The Warring States is a wuxia RPG set in ancient China. It has a lot to reinforce this, from using the Chinese elements as attributes to having the magic systems reflect the beliefs in magic from the time and magic as seen in the genre it emulates. A generic game would not be able to do this as well.

Of course, this does cut down on the number of character concepts. You can't play a space marine. You can't play an Arthurian knight. You can't play a werewolf tied into modern society. This isn't a big deal, as you don't play Qin to play these characters, and there are other games which do exactly that (3:16, Pendragon, and Werewolf come to mind).

that is mostly world design, something that is up to the DM not the system.

I dont know about you but when I play a game I do so to play my character, NOT so I can play a character someone else made (ie following the default fluff exactly). when I DM I do so so I can use a world I made, not so I can be handcuffed by the world they made for me.
Systems tie into world design all the time. Even fairly generic systems such as GURPS do this - GURPS is generic, but it favors more low powered, down to earth settings. Savage Worlds is also generic, but it has a clear connection to pulp.

With non generic stuff - which D&D is - that just gets more pronounced, particularly regarding which mechanics get included. D&D has a lot of mechanics for equipment, looting, etc. That says something about what D&D is for, and heavily implies that if you're trying to run a game which doesn't feature characters getting richer in which equipment isn't particularly important, you play something else. L5R has mechanics for tea ceremonies and seeking honor in mass combat, which are obviously tailored to the setting.

Generic games work, and I'm not against them. Fudge is pretty much my main game, and it's as generic as it gets. That doesn't mean that every game should be made generic, and that mechanics should somehow never support specific concepts.

captpike

2014-05-30, 12:06 AM

Cutting down on the character concepts is totally fine in a non-generic system, and there are a lot of things that non-generic systems can do precisely because of them not being generic. For instance, Qin: The Warring States is a wuxia RPG set in ancient China. It has a lot to reinforce this, from using the Chinese elements as attributes to having the magic systems reflect the beliefs in magic from the time and magic as seen in the genre it emulates. A generic game would not be able to do this as well.

Of course, this does cut down on the number of character concepts. You can't play a space marine. You can't play an Arthurian knight. You can't play a werewolf tied into modern society. This isn't a big deal, as you don't play Qin to play these characters, and there are other games which do exactly that (3:16, Pendragon, and Werewolf come to mind).

Systems tie into world design all the time. Even fairly generic systems such as GURPS do this - GURPS is generic, but it favors more low powered, down to earth settings. Savage Worlds is also generic, but it has a clear connection to pulp.

With non generic stuff - which D&D is - that just gets more pronounced, particularly regarding which mechanics get included. D&D has a lot of mechanics for equipment, looting, etc. That says something about what D&D is for, and heavily implies that if you're trying to run a game which doesn't feature characters getting richer in which equipment isn't particularly important, you play something else. L5R has mechanics for tea ceremonies and seeking honor in mass combat, which are obviously tailored to the setting.

Generic games work, and I'm not against them. Fudge is pretty much my main game, and it's as generic as it gets. That doesn't mean that every game should be made generic, and that mechanics should somehow never support specific concepts.
I agree for the most part what you said about non-generic systems.

but D&D is a generic fantasy system, in fact is the best example of such a system I can think of. the reason it works and the reason I play it is because its so easy to use in a variety of settings. it works equally well for dark sun(admitly with inherent bonuses required but that is an easy change), eberon, or a traditional medieval-with-magic setting.

even the things most common things in D&D setting are not in the rules. most settings are human centric but that is hardly a rule, and making humans all but extinct would be an easy change. as would never including the "staple" races, like dwarf, elf ect.

obryn

2014-05-30, 12:53 AM

but D&D is a generic fantasy system, in fact is the best example of such a system I can think of. the reason it works and the reason I play it is because its so easy to use in a variety of settings. it works equally well for dark sun(admitly with inherent bonuses required but that is an easy change), eberon, or a traditional medieval-with-magic setting.
The problem herein is that D&D only looks generic because so many other fantasy settings drew from D&D tropes. There are, indeed, a variety of D&D settings, but they all incorporate the necessary implied setting elements. What I'm saying is that there's less of a difference between Dark Sun and Eberron than between, say, Middle Earth and the world of the Malazan books.

I don't think you can satisfactorily run most modern fictional fantasy settings - those not developed specifically for D&D - using any edition of D&D's rules. Not without stripping it down to pure mechanics, at which point it's not really D&D, just a barebones d20 shell.

Fwiffo86

2014-05-30, 08:21 AM

Attunement?

Stubbazubba

2014-05-31, 12:14 PM

That would be nonsensical, good thing 4E skill challenges don't work that way. 4E skill challenges were a fork in the road. If you failed a skill challenge you were meant to take a harder path to your goals. You were not meant to retry the skill challenge over and over until you won it. In fact without the role play you didn't get to roll the dice at all, so it did in fact encourage role play because you didn't roll until you described what your character did and the DM would give you a +2 or -2 bonus depending on if you were particularly clever or particularly ignorant. "I try to use the snakes as ropes and climb up." DM: Face palm. So yes, your application is nonsensical. The one included in 4E is exactly what was needed to codify a series of skill checks into an encounter that gave a set amount of xp based on difficulty and level.

The real problem with 4e Skill Challenges goes even deeper than that. On top of only being useful for non-final destination points, they actively encourage players to use their favorite skill and eat the penalty the DM would apply because failing to succeed actively brought the party closer to failure (and having to go on some extraneous side-quest to get back where they wanted to be in the first place). So long as failures fail for the whole party, the optimal decision for everyone is to use your best skill; if it's relevant, then you're golden, and if it's not, but the DM still lets you use it (albeit at a penalty) because you're being "creative" with it, then you're still better off than if you used your untrained relevant skills, because every failure hurts everyone in a potentially big way. If the DM is more restrictive about what skills are allowed, then you're even worse off; you'd be better off not rolling and letting the guys with the relevant skills handle it.

And they revised and revised those rules because parties were failing and players were directed to try actions that would likely hurt everyone, which no one enjoyed. To stay within the actual framework you had to let extremely disparate, non-related activities somehow count, or just let people not participate.

Of course the actual answer was figured out long ago and promptly ignored by WotC; instead of tying failure to so many failed checks, tie it to a certain # of "rounds." You need 7 successes in 4-ish rounds would be fine, and wouldn't penalize people for using untrained skills. If you failed a check, you didn't bring anyone closer to failure, you just didn't move the party closer to victory, either. Now the optimal answer is not "don't play," because you may as well try. It's like guessing on the SAT: (unless you can narrow down the answers) you're better off leaving it unanswered. Maybe that works for the purpose of discouraging guessing, but in game design it discourages playing. The ACT, on the other hand (and now the SAT is supposed to change over to this, as well), has no penalty for wrong answers, so you answer every question. If it helps, great; if it doesn't, it doesn't hurt you. That's how you want the Skill Challenge to feel.

This goes back to the scientific quantification of fun that's been done in recent years.

Categorization != Quantification. No one has been quantifying fun.

if you STILL don't know what fluff is then please ask, and we will explain in very small words.

Except you haven't figured out that you two are literally arguing about the definition of fluff. You say it doesn't have the same authority as crunch, i.e. it's not a rule, and b4k4 says it does and is. The entire argument is just you two going "yeah-huh" "nuh-uh" back and forth about the definition of fluff/rule. There is no definitive answer, you're both taking your preferred answer as an immutable truth and then getting confused at the other person's apparent stupidity. At least you are, I think b4k4 knows what game he's playing with you and is just willing to keep trolling you.

Now, on the broader topic of games and their rules-

Game designers should be trying to engineer certain experiences at the table. Which experiences they try to produce are necessarily a function of the genre and theme of the game. A game without a genre or theme is just a system, and it needs to be married to a genre and themes in order for correct design decisions to be made. Even a supposedly genre-agnostic game (i.e. generic game) has to assume some kind of bland, neutral default in order to decide how much damage a gun or an arrow should do. The decisions about what kind of character options also point to a genre (do we write magic rules, rules for giant robots, a mystery engine?). Even which scores you measure across all characters indicate what's important in this game, and therefore what genre you're playing in.

The Cortex+ Hacker's Guide is made to let you take a core system, Cortex+, and finish it to prepare virtually any kind of game you want, so long as it falls within the three broad genres they've designed (Action, Drama, Heroic). The book identifies a bunch of slots you can trade in and out for the attributes important to the characters in your table's game, so while one table might be playing a game of interstellar explorers and measure things like Intuition, Charisma, and Logic, another table is playing a game of barbarian warriors slaying the servants of an evil sorcerer bent on eradicating their hedonistic way of life, and they'll measure Brawn, Stamina, Agility, and maybe Charm. Sure, you could measure all 7 of those in both games to make sure you've covered everything, but half of them are rarely going to be useful in one or the other game. The system is the same in both, but Star Trek and Conan have such different themes, that you necessarily must have differing rules to support them both, beyond just what you call the relevant abilities. Conan's melee combat system should be different than Star Trek's, because those two genres have different melee narratives/experiences (e.g. In Conan, melee should be one of if not the best way to kill an opponent, while in Star Trek it's what you fall back to when you can't get to your phaser).

Releasing a stripped down D&D with no default fluff would be unplayable, and what's more, it would require a ton of work on the DM's part to literally finish the game after deciding what the relevant genre and themes and world-building would be. We need a strong, thematic default fluff, even if DMs will choose to throw out or alter some details. We really aren't better off retracting everything specific until it can be plugged into any setting, any play-style, because we honestly couldn't make a playable game without choosing some sub-set of experiences to engineer. You can't make One Game to Rule Them All, and as much as WotC keeps saying that, they know it's not possible. They're not even really tying for that. They're going for a classic-feeling dungeon-crawl fantasy game that still supports the modern heroic angle if you're into that. That, frankly, is enough of an odd couple as it is. Asking to expand that to infinite is just asking for a d20 mechanic and some basic outlines about how combat might work, with no specifics whatsoever. Oh, but wait, some games focus on intrigue and politics and a "combat engine" with separate to-hit and damage rolls and discrete attacks like that would be out of place. OK, scrap that, too: Use a d20, and then tailor this "game" to the specifics of what happens at your table. Have fun, thanks for the $49.95!

tl;dr - Very early on in the design process, you need a genre and themes in order to make design decisions that support them correctly. Even generic games need a default genre and theme. The more your game as a whole supports and evokes the genre and theme you're designing for, the better game it will be.

captpike

2014-05-31, 01:11 PM

there should definitely be default fluff, if for no other reason then new players.

however it should just be that, fluff, it should not be tied to the rules. it should be easy to lift off and change to suit your needs. meaning no alignment restrictions, no fluff that balances crunch (or vice versa for that mater), or crunch that only makes sense if you assume the default fluff is true (like thieves cant), or anything like that

and of course this should be made clear in both the PHB and DMG, that the fluff is just that, it is changeable and what is listed is simply a suggestion nothing more.

Sartharina

2014-05-31, 01:56 PM

Fluff IS rules, though!

da_chicken

2014-05-31, 02:32 PM

That's the exact same argument that Stubbazubba just pointed out was too weak to be convincing because you're just arguing definitions, captpike. Repeating it again doesn't change that.

Not everybody is going to agree with the assertion that rules only exist only to balance game mechanics and therefore everything that doesn't balance game mechanics isn't a rule but is instead narrative context (i.e., fluff, although I find this term is generally intentionally dismissive). That is not wrong, it is merely a difference of opinion.

Second, even if you agree there is a difference between rules and narrative context, not everyone is going to agree with the assertion that narrative context is more mutable than rules, either. Mechanical balance is not the holy grail. Fun is the holy grail. Those who find more fun utilizing the narrative context are not going to be willing to sacrifice it just because the end results would still be mechanically balanced.

Stubbazubba

2014-05-31, 03:12 PM

however it should just be that, fluff, it should not be tied to the rules. it should be easy to lift off and change to suit your needs. meaning no alignment restrictions, no fluff that balances crunch (or vice versa for that mater), or crunch that only makes sense if you assume the default fluff is true (like thieves cant), or anything like that

My point (and I apologize I took so long making it, clearly it wasn't easy enough to digest) is that whatever your fluff is will change a lot of the nitty-gritty of the crunch, before the final product is finished. So neither the fluff nor the crunch will make sense without the specific other that it was designed for.

Does a Druid's ability to cast divine spells make sense if there is nothing magically connected to nature? No: the Druid spell list is specifically chosen to evoke a protector of the world who has been endowed by nature deities to use their power to protect them. The Druid spell list makes no sense if she's just a Wizard because there are no nature deities. She should just be able to learn anything off the Wizard list, but she can't. So let's just take that away; Druids can just start learning spells as a Wizard or Sorcerer at appropriate levels. Now you'll get "Druids" that have nothing to do with nature except an animal companion. Can you see a Druid casting Grease on a tree to make it impossible for enemies to climb up after the party? I suppose we can just say "It's not really grease, it's sap." But sap isn't slick and doesn't impede movement the same way grease would. So why would the effect be the same? OK, maybe we change the effect a little. Ah, you see that? "Refluffing" often requires "recrunching," too. That's my point; almost any crunch is inseparable from the fluff that it's trying to support.

So by making a crunch change to avoid tying us down to fluff, you've created a theme-less caster whose thematic role is completely lost in the name of portability. What character concepts are supported by a delayed Wizard with an Animal Companion? It's just an odd mash-up that could fulfill someone's character concept, but doesn't readily correspond with any archetype. This is what I mean when I say fluff influences crunch decisions, and it's a good thing. You don't fully comprehend what it is you're asking for; you want a directionless, sterile rule-set that evokes nothing and is not ready to play out of the box. Your dream would require a sourcebook just to be ready to play any playstyle. Because you cannot have one game that magically covers all playstyles, as you keep insisting is so easy to do. You can have a set of mechanics devoid of context which is unplayable without significant legwork from each group who tries to play it; or you can pick a genre, theme, and setting, and the legwork required to support and create the appropriate experiences would be done for you.

tl;dr - Fluff determines crunch, and crunch supports fluff, you can't change that relationship, because even if you try to remove the fluff, you'll have crunch that supports precisely nothing. There is no such thing as a truly "generic" game as you're thinking of it; whatever it is you consider generic is already a combination of fluff and crunch that can't be undone. At some point you just have to settle on a generally acceptable fluff/crunch combination, because there is no way to make a game that's flexible enough to cover everything.

Gadora

2014-05-31, 07:34 PM

Fwiffo86

2014-05-31, 08:12 PM

Just as a note before I start, I did not participate in the playtests and have not seen any of the mechanics. I am speaking only to the feel from descriptions. I will be staying out of the arguments that have dominated this thread, as what I could say has already been said, and said better than I could say it.

My one concern about this is in how these rules might interact with characters devoted to two-weapon fighting. I am having trouble expressing exactly what my concern is, but I think I would say that it is something along the lines of, pulling from a(n) (in)famous example (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drizzt_Do%27Urden#Possessions), that neither Twinkle nor Icingdeath are iconic to the character, but rather that it is Twinkle and Icingdeath that are iconic. Having both cost an attunement feels off somehow, but, with the items being unrelated in origin, I cannot see them, I don't know, "being purpose built to be wielded together and, by merit of their magic being bound to each other, costing a single attunement." It would be possible, I suppose, to have a feat that allows you to attune two weapons and count them as one, but that risks running into the feat tax that the fighting style has in 3.5.

I do generally like the sound of this, but it seems to me that it could easily be wonky, with regards to one of my favorite fighting styles.

Fundamentally, two weapons, is not different than sword and board. The mechanics of using two-weapons without the feat, makes it unlikely players will use it. Two magical objects, both with names.... two attunement slots required. Your slot limit is adjustable.

Many of the feats from 3rd party sources suffered from "I think this is cool". Resulting in ill conceived feats. They work their niche, and devastatingly so, but... its a niche, instead of a general leaning. Pigeonholing abilities and focus. Sometimes it worked. Most times, we ended up with BS PRC's that break the general rules.

captpike

2014-05-31, 09:58 PM

My point (and I apologize I took so long making it, clearly it wasn't easy enough to digest) is that whatever your fluff is will change a lot of the nitty-gritty of the crunch, before the final product is finished. So neither the fluff nor the crunch will make sense without the specific other that it was designed for.

Does a Druid's ability to cast divine spells make sense if there is nothing magically connected to nature? No: the Druid spell list is specifically chosen to evoke a protector of the world who has been endowed by nature deities to use their power to protect them. The Druid spell list makes no sense if she's just a Wizard because there are no nature deities. She should just be able to learn anything off the Wizard list, but she can't. So let's just take that away; Druids can just start learning spells as a Wizard or Sorcerer at appropriate levels. Now you'll get "Druids" that have nothing to do with nature except an animal companion. Can you see a Druid casting Grease on a tree to make it impossible for enemies to climb up after the party? I suppose we can just say "It's not really grease, it's sap." But sap isn't slick and doesn't impede movement the same way grease would. So why would the effect be the same? OK, maybe we change the effect a little. Ah, you see that? "Refluffing" often requires "recrunching," too. That's my point; almost any crunch is inseparable from the fluff that it's trying to support.

So by making a crunch change to avoid tying us down to fluff, you've created a theme-less caster whose thematic role is completely lost in the name of portability. What character concepts are supported by a delayed Wizard with an Animal Companion? It's just an odd mash-up that could fulfill someone's character concept, but doesn't readily correspond with any archetype. This is what I mean when I say fluff influences crunch decisions, and it's a good thing. You don't fully comprehend what it is you're asking for; you want a directionless, sterile rule-set that evokes nothing and is not ready to play out of the box. Your dream would require a sourcebook just to be ready to play any playstyle. Because you cannot have one game that magically covers all playstyles, as you keep insisting is so easy to do. You can have a set of mechanics devoid of context which is unplayable without significant legwork from each group who tries to play it; or you can pick a genre, theme, and setting, and the legwork required to support and create the appropriate experiences would be done for you.

tl;dr - Fluff determines crunch, and crunch supports fluff, you can't change that relationship, because even if you try to remove the fluff, you'll have crunch that supports precisely nothing. There is no such thing as a truly "generic" game as you're thinking of it; whatever it is you consider generic is already a combination of fluff and crunch that can't be undone. At some point you just have to settle on a generally acceptable fluff/crunch combination, because there is no way to make a game that's flexible enough to cover everything.

the biggest problem with this is that it undermines so many character concepts (in fact most of them). in fact the only ones that would work would be ones that exactly follow the default fluff. a warlock IS AND CAN ONLY BE what the default fluff says it is. that means you NEED a class for every character concept. rather then classes being broad and able to fill alot of narrative roles, they can only do one.

all druids now MUST worship the gods of nature. any campaign that lacks these now cant have druids. if I want to have a druid be a wizard that uses nature magic he cant do that because it would be cheating, and even if I did it anyway the class would not work because the class features assume I kept the default fluff.

it is not WoTC job to make my character, its there job to hand me what I need to do it. yes they should provide default fluff to help. same with campaign settings.

no you cant make a game that can cover everything, but the least you should do is not purposely cut out options for no good reason. "we could make this druids fun and balanced and open, able to be played as anything from a tree-hugging caster to a nature wizard to a character born with natural born shapeshifter but instead you MUST BE a tree hugging caster"

there should be some fluff concept behind the class, as well as some unique mechanics, but they should make it as broad as they can. if you want to enforce some fluff in your games you can, but dont push it on everyone else.

TLDR: the default fluff should not be a straitjacket, they should not tell character concepts "NO U" for no good reason.

1337 b4k4

2014-05-31, 10:21 PM

the biggest problem with this is that it undermines so many character concepts (in fact most of them). in fact the only ones that would work would be ones that exactly follow the default fluff. a warlock IS AND CAN ONLY BE what the default fluff says it is. that means you NEED a class for every character concept. rather then classes being broad and able to fill alot of narrative roles, they can only do one.

This is sort of the point behind class based systems rather than a point buy system. Classes are bundled collections of abilities and powers set around a particular theme. By definition, classes are supposed to be restrictive.

Angelalex242

2014-05-31, 10:25 PM

captpike

2014-05-31, 10:32 PM

This is sort of the point behind class based systems rather than a point buy system. Classes are bundled collections of abilities and powers set around a particular theme. By definition, classes are supposed to be restrictive.

so long as the theme is broad that can work, and it does not make any assumptions on the setting that do not have to be made.

themes are a good starting point, the problem is that alot of the time when you chain fluff to crunch you get more then that. when you make all paladin's lawful good you are not setting a theme you are telling all paladin's how to act. you also are telling alot of character concepts they are not allowed to exist (like chaotic good paladins of freedom).

Angelalex242

2014-05-31, 10:57 PM

The variants don't need to exist this early on. I'm sure they'll come out in a splatbook later, and they'll surely get more of your money because you desperately want rules for your concept.

It's how they keep your money flowing into their bank accounts, ya know. It's harsh, to be sure, but it's reasonably business savvy.

da_chicken

2014-06-01, 01:15 AM

Hmmm. How are magic items supposed to be treated in this universe?

Is a Holy Avenger supposed to be something every self respecting Paladin of level 9 or better has, or is it supposed to be something there's only 3 or 4 of in the entire campaign world, and most of 'em are owned by existing Paladins already?

Leaning much more toward the latter. Based on the magic item randomization tables, you can't even find a magic item in the same category as a holy avenger until level 11, and even then it's only in treasure hoards and it's a 2*5% chance slowly increasing to a 2*25% chance as levels progress. That's just to find any item of the same rarity (being one step removed from artifact status) in a hoard (being a fairly uncommon treasure type). Only 20% of items of that category are weapons.

Personally I wouldn't expect to encounter one until level 15+.

Angelalex242

2014-06-01, 01:37 AM

Well, the Paladin doesn't wait for the GM to randomly roll the darn thing. The Paladin actively hunts it down. Just like a fighter might actively hunt down a Vorpal Sword, if that's what he's in to.

For example, he might have the party cleric Divination where a Holy Avenger can be found. After all, the item is rated legendary. It's not THAT hard to find by spell.

Sartharina

2014-06-01, 10:18 AM

so long as the theme is broad that can work, and it does not make any assumptions on the setting that do not have to be made.

themes are a good starting point, the problem is that alot of the time when you chain fluff to crunch you get more then that. when you make all paladin's lawful good you are not setting a theme you are telling all paladin's how to act. you also are telling alot of character concepts they are not allowed to exist (like chaotic good paladins of freedom).
I have never seen a non-Lawful Good paladin actually feel like a paladin. The rigid and determined adherence to Good is what makes them work. Even then -that's not a problem in D&D Next, because Paladins don't have an alignment restriction, and function more like the Guardians from Guild Wars 2 (At least thematically. They don't play anywhere near the same).
The variants don't need to exist this early on. I'm sure they'll come out in a splatbook later, and they'll surely get more of your money because you desperately want rules for your concept.

It's how they keep your money flowing into their bank accounts, ya know. It's harsh, to be sure, but it's reasonably business savvy.
Also this. Furthermore, if you want to change how a class works because your idea doesn't fit the default class, follow the advice and guidelines spread and repeated throughout the 3.0 (Not 3.5) rulebooks and make the changes yourself.

Alternate Class Features, Racial Substitution Levels, Standard Classes (Not the 10 Base classes), and even Prestige Classes in 3.5 were nothing more than examples of homebrew.

By making a class's 'crunch' strongly interlaced with the fluff, you make a character that actually functions as the 'fluff', instead of an interchangeable blandness.

captpike

2014-06-01, 01:45 PM

I have never seen a non-Lawful Good paladin actually feel like a paladin. The rigid and determined adherence to Good is what makes them work. Even then -that's not a problem in D&D Next, because Paladins don't have an alignment restriction, and function more like the Guardians from Guild Wars 2 (At least thematically. They don't play anywhere near the same).
Also this. Furthermore, if you want to change how a class works because your idea doesn't fit the default class, follow the advice and guidelines spread and repeated throughout the 3.0 (Not 3.5) rulebooks and make the changes yourself.

Alternate Class Features, Racial Substitution Levels, Standard Classes (Not the 10 Base classes), and even Prestige Classes in 3.5 were nothing more than examples of homebrew.

By making a class's 'crunch' strongly interlaced with the fluff, you make a character that actually functions as the 'fluff', instead of an interchangeable blandness.

I don't consider it reasonable to have to wait years before I can play more then the dozen or so concepts listed in the books. I should not have to wait for WoTC to come up with an official "druid as nature wizard" varent in order to play such a character. I would never pay for an RPG that only let me play that few concepts. I WOULD pay for an RPG that let me make my character how I wanted.

the paladin example was just used because it is a good reason why such chains should never be used, and just because you have no seen a case where it worked does not mean it has not worked.

the idea for changing fluff is that my idea fits the class perfectly, just not the fluff. so I could play a druid, call him a nature wizard and be done. rather then having to spend the time making new class features, testing them, making new powers, and testing them.

the problem with changing the mechanics is that if the game is well made it would be hard to do right (3e for example would be easy, it would be hard to screw that game up more then it is). nor is there a reason that WoTC should pick sides. no real reason they should look at the druid and the dozens of character concepts that you can play with the class and say "this one is the only one we will support, any others will be ignored" when they can support all of them.

if changing crunch is so easy then it would be easier for you to just tweak it to fit your concept of a "druid" or whatever so that your fluff and crunch are chained together in a way you like. rather then forcing everyone else to do it.

and finally WHY do you want this? give me one character concept or idea that WILL NOT WORK if you separate fluff and crunch but will work if they come chained together.
and why would this reason be enough to make ever other character concept using the class almost unplayable, or require alot of work to make function?

Bezhukov

2014-06-01, 02:13 PM

I don't consider it reasonable to have to wait years before I can play more then the dozen or so concepts listed in the books. I should not have to wait for WoTC to come up with an official "druid as nature wizard" varent in order to play such a character. I would never pay for an RPG that only let me play that few concepts. I WOULD pay for an RPG that let me make my character how I wanted.

the paladin example was just used because it is a good reason why such chains should never be used, and just because you have no seen a case where it worked does not mean it has not worked.

the idea for changing fluff is that my idea fits the class perfectly, just not the fluff. so I could play a druid, call him a nature wizard and be done. rather then having to spend the time making new class features, testing them, making new powers, and testing them.

the problem with changing the mechanics is that if the game is well made it would be hard to do right (3e for example would be easy, it would be hard to screw that game up more then it is). nor is there a reason that WoTC should pick sides. no real reason they should look at the druid and the dozens of character concepts that you can play with the class and say "this one is the only one we will support, any others will be ignored" when they can support all of them.

if changing crunch is so easy then it would be easier for you to just tweak it to fit your concept of a "druid" or whatever so that your fluff and crunch are chained together in a way you like. rather then forcing everyone else to do it.

and finally WHY do you want this? give me one character concept or idea that WILL NOT WORK if you separate fluff and crunch but will work if they come chained together.
and why would this reason be enough to make ever other character concept using the class almost unplayable, or require alot of work to make function?

And what is stopping you from making the druid a nature wizard? Buy a spellbook, study it in the morning, call the magic arcane. Boom, nature wizard without changing a single mechanic. You can flavour things as you like. The default fluff/crunch bond exists as a guide to both the designers for focus while making the game and for players as a base to jump off from in creating characters.

captpike

2014-06-01, 02:36 PM

And what is stopping you from making the druid a nature wizard? Buy a spellbook, study it in the morning, call the magic arcane. Boom, nature wizard without changing a single mechanic. You can flavour things as you like. The default fluff/crunch bond exists as a guide to both the designers for focus while making the game and for players as a base to jump off from in creating characters.

that is how it should work yes (a separation of fluff and crunch, but with some suggested default fluff), but if you chain fluff and crunch too much it wont work that way without alot of houserules.

the best example of this is the pathfinder paladin, it not only made you be lawful good, but gave you detect evil, and smite evil.

I would need to houserule the lawful good requirement away to play most paladin idea's, and I would have to change any powers or abilities that attack evil targets. and it would not be as easy as changing it to "smite good" or something. what if my paladin was true neutral and only cared about killing undead? he would work with people of any alignment so long as they helped him kill undead. I would need to replace both detect evil and smite evil with things that would fit the character, but have the same impact mechanically (so as to not unbalance the character).

alot of DMs would just stick with the rules and not even consider letting me play a non-LG paladin. They would assume there is a good reason for that restriction or it would not be in place. it also would require a good knowledge of the system to be able to change the class enough to still work.

just like if the druid has a "can't use metal armor" requirement or something. or a "can't teach other's [x]" restriction it would require houserules to play some concepts that should not need houserules.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-01, 02:49 PM

what if my paladin was true neutral and only cared about killing undead?

Then he's not a paladin, so use another class.

I really don't understand your issue here. It's as if a player wants to play a wizard, but one that wears armor and uses a two-handed axe in battle, and it's okay if he really doesn't cast spell ever, but for some reason insists that it has to be a wizard, even though the fighter would be a much better fit for the concept.

captpike

2014-06-01, 03:02 PM

Then he's not a paladin, so use another class.

I really don't understand your issue here. It's as if a player wants to play a wizard, but one that wears armor and uses a two-handed axe in battle, and it's okay if he really doesn't cast spell ever, but for some reason insists that it has to be a wizard, even though the fighter would be a much better fit for the concept.

the idea is I want to use the mechanics of a paladin, but I don't want to use the default fluff. or maybe I am making a setting in which paladins don't have to be Lawful good.

the biggest problem with chaining the fluff and crunch like that is that you would need a million classes. rather then having one "paladin" class that could have its fluff changed to be anything the players wanted I would have to have an "undead hunter paladin" class that is all but identical to the paladin but its default fluff is different and it allows you to not be LG.

this also lets me play my undead hunter when the game first comes out not 5 years in when they have put it out in a splat. not to mention all the other paladin ideas that don't work if you have be lawful good.

in your example the player is changing the mechanics so much should just pick a different class. if they really wanted to be a "melee wizard" they could even pick another class and refluff it as a scrawny wizard who focused on bluffing themselves in melee combat. fluff is easy to change with no impact on anything else, you can't do that with mechanics (unless the game is really badly made of course) without messing it up.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-01, 03:24 PM

the idea is I want to use the mechanics of a paladin, but I don't want to use the default fluff.
Yes, and what you're missing is that the paladin is based upon a literary archetype (i.e. fluff), not based upon a set of mechanics that happen to be interesting.

Look, you can keep repeating all week that crunch must be always separate from fluff, but it should be obvious by now that that is your opinion and not any kind of fact; and furthermore that many people don't share that opinion. It is my observation, albeit anecdotally, that classes built for the sake of a mechanic are nowhere near as popular as classes based on a literary archetype. Simply put, most players want to play e.g. "a character just like Aragorn", and not e.g. "a character that can spend a minor action to hit a second target with a power".

Basically, what Stubba said,

That's my point; almost any crunch is inseparable from the fluff that it's trying to support.
and I should add that crunch that fails this test tends to be controversial.

da_chicken

2014-06-01, 03:55 PM

I think the issue here is fundamentally how people go about making characters. Do you see a character as a collection of abilities, or as a unified concept that lives and makes choices inside the game world?

On the one side, there are people who are enticed by the narrative context presented. They envision a character either in a story or movie or similar, or see a character emerge in their head from the setting material. They think about what that character would be or do, and then decide what class best exemplifies that character. If the narrative context is from a prestige class, they'll decide how the character would achieve that. This isn't to say there is no power gaming, merely that the character concept drives the class selection, and the class selection drives the range of mechanics available. Each selection is considered in the context of the whole character concept.

On the other side, there are people who are enticed by the mechanics. They see the game actions that can be taken and want to use them in the game, or, alternately, simply wish to acquire as many abilities as they can by any means the rules allow. From there they select classes which result in the best mechanical advantage. From there they either ignore the connection between class narrative concept and character concept outright as unnecessary or mutable, or decide what decisions a character would have to make to be able to make the in-game decisions necessary to achieve the mechanics already determined in the previous steps.

In my experience, the latter is usually fairly neutral towards of the former method, although they can be disparaging or deprecating towards choices made which don't suit their style or (in the worst cases) towards other characters and players themselves. The former is also usually tolerant of the latter, but there are some who just consider the other method metagaming and anathema, and get just as bad. There's no right or wrong here, just what's right or wrong for your table, and I think most players will do some measure of both when building a character. Those who get truly hostile about it and snipe at other players throughout the campaign just don't belong at the same table.

4e from a broad perspective encourages narrative context, I think, but because there are so many difficult to change choices to make with such a wide range of mechanical results, I found that in the end I spent all my time thinking about character mechanics instead of character motives and choices. The paradox of choice is heavily entrenched in all aspects of 4e, and, personally, I find the game really suffers for it.

When high op, 3e is certainly mechanical context on levels 4e can't even dream of, but low to medium op works with narrative concepts much better since you're not overloaded with the need to make constant mechanical choices like 4e.

Pathfinder, to me, feels even more mechanically focused than 3e or 4e, but I blame that on the fact that the game as most people see it (the PF SRD) is all mechanics and the narrative context is basically absent. Additionally, the ostensible motive to move to Pathfinder from 3e is a mechanical one.

With 1e/2e there's no real difference because, well, it's not like you really make any meaningful choices after 1st level.

captpike

2014-06-01, 04:10 PM

Yes, and what you're missing is that the paladin is based upon a literary archetype (i.e. fluff), not based upon a set of mechanics that happen to be interesting.

Look, you can keep repeating all week that crunch must be always separate from fluff, but it should be obvious by now that that is your opinion and not any kind of fact; and furthermore that many people don't share that opinion. It is my observation, albeit anecdotally, that classes built for the sake of a mechanic are nowhere near as popular as classes based on a literary archetype. Simply put, most players want to play e.g. "a character just like Aragorn", and not e.g. "a character that can spend a minor action to hit a second target with a power".

Basically, what Stubba said,

and I should add that crunch that fails this test tends to be controversial.

again why is it worth it? why is make your one version of the paladin worth cutting out dozens or hundreds of others?

YES HAVING DEFAULT FLUFF IS A GOOD IDEA, meaning having an architype to build on is good, but it SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY THE GAME.

you seam to want a game where every class has to act in a certain way. if they don't they are cheating, or should play another class.

give me one example of a situation where you cant play a character you want because the fluff and crunch were separate. where you can't just refluff something to work. a situation where if the fluff and crunch were chained it would work

yes its my opinion, it is my opinion because I want the game to work for as many people as possible, not just a few people who like all the default fluff in every class.
it also saves time and effort. you don't need to make 5 paladin class you just make one with a "what alignment are you" class feature that changes based on a choice of the PC. you don't need to make a scout class, and a rogue class you just make a rogue class and say "you can refluff this as anything that fits the mechanics, even a lawful good scout if you want"

Kurald Galain

2014-06-01, 04:17 PM

you seam to want a game where every class has to act in a certain way. if they don't they are cheating, or should play another class.

With straw men like this, I see no point in discussing this any further.

captpike

2014-06-01, 04:40 PM

With straw men like this, I see no point in discussing this any further.

then what do you mean? you said "Then he's not a paladin, so use another class." what else could that mean then "play it the way its written or go home"

1337 b4k4

2014-06-01, 04:43 PM

I WOULD pay for an RPG that let me make my character how I wanted.

Then you should seriously play GURPS or any of the other point buy character building RPGs rather than class based RPGs. This isn't a "you're having badwrongfun" statement, this is a "the things you want are better served by a different game" statement.

the idea for changing fluff is that my idea fits the class perfectly, just not the fluff. so I could play a druid, call him a nature wizard and be done. rather then having to spend the time making new class features, testing them, making new powers, and testing them.

So your idea fits the class perfectly, except for the all the stuff about the class that doesn't fit?

the problem with changing the mechanics is that if the game is well made it would be hard to do right

Actually, the exact opposite should be true. If your game is well made, changes to the mechanics should either be extremely easy, or so isolated that any one change is extremely unlikely to have effects on the rest of the system.

if changing crunch is so easy then it would be easier for you to just tweak it to fit your concept of a "druid" or whatever so that your fluff and crunch are chained together in a way you like. rather then forcing everyone else to do it.

Or they could design strongly typed classes and let the people who want to do something different do something different rather than force everyone else to come up with their own fluff and mechanics justifications just to satisfy your play style.

the biggest problem with chaining the fluff and crunch like that is that you would need a million classes. rather then having one "paladin" class that could have its fluff changed to be anything the players wanted I would have to have an "undead hunter paladin" class that is all but identical to the paladin but its default fluff is different and it allows you to not be LG.

this also lets me play my undead hunter when the game first comes out not 5 years in when they have put it out in a splat. not to mention all the other paladin ideas that don't work if you have be lawful good.

in your example the player is changing the mechanics so much should just pick a different class. if they really wanted to be a "melee wizard" they could even pick another class and refluff it as a scrawny wizard who focused on bluffing themselves in melee combat. fluff is easy to change with no impact on anything else, you can't do that with mechanics (unless the game is really badly made of course) without messing it up.

For the record, if you wanted an undead hunter, the class you want is a cleric. That was the archetype behind the cleric.

you seam to want a game where every class has to act in a certain way. if they don't they are cheating, or should play another class.

Again, you are putting words into peoples mouths and again, the word you're looking for is "seem"

It's also worth pointing out that you are very much arguing against D&D's entire history here. D&D started with 3 classes. Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric, or by their main mechanic effectively Combat, Arcane Spell Casting (offensive/defensive) and Divine Spell Casting (buff/support).

Using these 3 classes alone and their mechanics and the complete lack of fluff that surrounded them (other than you know, the entire vancian and divine spell casting system) any and every character concept could have been realized. Especially under OD&D rules where stats where much much less impactful than they are now, you could bundle any fluff to any one of those classes (or even combine them if you wanted) and you would have whatever character concept you wanted on the mechanical chassis you wanted. In other words, OD&D was exactly the game you wanted, broad generic classes.

And ever since then, every player, every DM and every book and rule set that has introduced new classes has done so to produce more strongly themed classes. Mechanical chassis that are strongly tied to their fluff because so many people prefer that. So many people don't want "Fightor the Dumb" and "Erol Flint the Quick" to be the same fighter chasis with different flowery words to describe them, they want them to be mechanically different. They want the fluff that they use to describe their characters to be backed up by the mechanics that their character uses. The entire history of D&D has been producing more and more classes that more and more closely tie the fluff of the class to the mechanics of the class. In fact, this phenomena is largely what is responsible for how much the fighter in 3e sucked. As new more specific classes came out, more and more of the thematic things that the fighter could be fluffed to became mechanically implemented in alternative classes. If in OD&D you wanted a nimble and dextrous combatant who can move like a thief in the night like a legolas (but you know, not an elf), you made a fighter, gave him high DEX and called it a day. People didn't like that so now you have a Thief. If you wanted a survivalist fighter, you made one and gave her a strong CON score and equipment for wilderness survival. People didn't like that so now you have a Rogue. if you wanted a raging brute of uncivilized flesh from the hinterlands, you made a fighter and slapped a whole lot of STR and CON onto it. People didn't like that and now we have the Barbarian. Your Paladin which you so badly want to be generic is in fact fighter that is strongly tied to fluff.

What you are asking for, D&D already did. And D&D still does if you take the core 4 classes. But the reason other classes exist is because most people didn't like having their fluff and their crunch so heavily separated.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-01, 04:54 PM

It's also worth pointing out that you are very much arguing against D&D's entire history here. D&D started with 3 classes. Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric, or by their main mechanic effectively Combat, Arcane Spell Casting (offensive/defensive) and Divine Spell Casting (buff/support).

Using these 3 classes alone and their mechanics and the complete lack of fluff that surrounded them (other than you know, the entire vancian and divine spell casting system) any and every character concept could have been realized. Especially under OD&D rules where stats where much much less impactful than they are now, you could bundle any fluff to any one of those classes (or even combine them if you wanted) and you would have whatever character concept you wanted on the mechanical chassis you wanted. In other words, OD&D was exactly the game you wanted, broad generic classes.

And ever since then, every player, every DM and every book and rule set that has introduced new classes has done so to produce more strongly themed classes. Mechanical chassis that are strongly tied to their fluff because so many people prefer that. So many people don't want "Fightor the Dumb" and "Erol Flint the Quick" to be the same fighter chasis with different flowery words to describe them, they want them to be mechanically different. They want the fluff that they use to describe their characters to be backed up by the mechanics that their character uses. The entire history of D&D has been producing more and more classes that more and more closely tie the fluff of the class to the mechanics of the class. In fact, this phenomena is largely what is responsible for how much the fighter in 3e sucked. As new more specific classes came out, more and more of the thematic things that the fighter could be fluffed to became mechanically implemented in alternative classes. If in OD&D you wanted a nimble and dextrous combatant who can move like a thief in the night like a legolas (but you know, not an elf), you made a fighter, gave him high DEX and called it a day. People didn't like that so now you have a Thief. If you wanted a survivalist fighter, you made one and gave her a strong CON score and equipment for wilderness survival. People didn't like that so now you have a Rogue. if you wanted a raging brute of uncivilized flesh from the hinterlands, you made a fighter and slapped a whole lot of STR and CON onto it. People didn't like that and now we have the Barbarian. Your Paladin which you so badly want to be generic is in fact fighter that is strongly tied to fluff.

What you are asking for, D&D already did. And D&D still does if you take the core 4 classes. But the reason other classes exist is because most people didn't like having their fluff and their crunch so heavily separated.

Well said.

da_chicken

2014-06-01, 06:25 PM

give me one example of a situation where you cant play a character you want because the fluff and crunch were separate. where you can't just refluff something to work. a situation where if the fluff and crunch were chained it would work

Give me one example where you can't play a character you want because the fluff and crunch were linked. Want to play a Paladin of Freedom? Play a Fighter/Cleric of Kord. Play a Holy Liberator. Play a Ranger. Why does your character concept require modifying the game to access class abilities or mechanics normally restricted to a specific narrative context? Why does the flavor created by the entire campaign world that the other players and the DM are following need to change just so you can get a mechanic you otherwise couldn't access? The answer "because it's not as mechanically powerful," is not convincing.

Let's say the DM is running a ASoIaF campaign and I bring a humanized Elf. Everybody at the table turns and looks at me and says, "Dude, why are you playing an Elf?" I have to explain every time someone asks this that I'm not playing an Elf, I'm just playing a Human with Elf abilities. Everybody shakes their head and the game continues. Every time I say "I have low-light vision" or "I resist charm" or "I don't sleep 8 hours, I meditate for 4" or "I get a free search for secret doors" someone looks at me and says, "Dude, why are you playing an Elf?" Do you see that my choice here to bring in campaign materials which are not consistent with the rest of the campaign world negatively impacts everybody else's ability to enjoy the campaign and maintain the suspension of disbelief of the campaign world?

Angelalex242

2014-06-01, 09:09 PM

The proper race or class you should be:

If nobody could see your character sheet, what race do you sound like? What class do you sound like?

If all else fails, use the stereotypes of your race often enough that people can figure out what race you are by the way you talk.

If that means the dwarf player needs to use a Scottish accent and do his best to sound like Gimli from the movie, he should do that.

If the elf player tries to sound like Legolas, or Arwen, or Galadriel, that's cool too.

And if the Halfling players sound like copyright free Frodo or Sam, that's a good thing.

captpike

2014-06-01, 09:49 PM

Give me one example where you can't play a character you want because the fluff and crunch were linked. Want to play a Paladin of Freedom? Play a Fighter/Cleric of Kord. Play a Holy Liberator. Play a Ranger. Why does your character concept require modifying the game to access class abilities or mechanics normally restricted to a specific narrative context? Why does the flavor created by the entire campaign world that the other players and the DM are following need to change just so you can get a mechanic you otherwise couldn't access? The answer "because it's not as mechanically powerful," is not convincing.

because I want to play a paladin, not a fighter/cleric. because the paladin provides me ways to defend my allies and heal myself and the fighter/cleric does not. because if you take levels in both fighter and cleric you will be all but useless.

because I think the paladin would be more fun, and it cant break anything because mechanically I am the same as a normal paladin is of course the real answer. and allowing for such to happen in the system hurts no one, and helps some people

Let's say the DM is running a ASoIaF campaign and I bring a humanized Elf. Everybody at the table turns and looks at me and says, "Dude, why are you playing an Elf?" I have to explain every time someone asks this that I'm not playing an Elf, I'm just playing a Human with Elf abilities. Everybody shakes their head and the game continues. Every time I say "I have low-light vision" or "I resist charm" or "I don't sleep 8 hours, I meditate for 4" or "I get a free search for secret doors" someone looks at me and says, "Dude, why are you playing an Elf?" Do you see that my choice here to bring in campaign materials which are not consistent with the rest of the campaign world negatively impacts everybody else's ability to enjoy the campaign and maintain the suspension of disbelief of the campaign world?
I in fact a couple characters do this in my campaign. I have a halfling who in game is a short human for example. no reason you cant do it, it is something that should be up to the DM not the system.

in my case there are limits, and I did change things, so you have to be an elf in game to trance for example.

even in your example I would allow it with a backstory to explain it. "I am a monk, and have spent years honing my body and mind. I no longer have to sleep I simply meditate for 4 hours each day. my eyes also are acute, far more then is normal" would work.

Then you should seriously play GURPS or any of the other point buy character building RPGs rather than class based RPGs. This isn't a "you're having badwrongfun" statement, this is a "the things you want are better served by a different game" statement.

or I could play 4e, it after was successful, class based and did not chain you to fluff for no good reason.

so again it has been done before, so it can be done again. and given there literately is not a good reason NOT to do it, it should be done.

So your idea fits the class perfectly, except for the all the stuff about the class that doesn't fit?

no I like the paladin, I think he has cool mechanics and options. I think I would like to play one. but then I look at the fluff chains, and look at the gods and realize that none of the gods that are LG are interesting.
I then look at the other non-LG gods and decide that I think one of the TN gods is cool and worship her. so I make a TN paladin of a TN god.

if the system cant handle such a simple change then it can hardly even be called a full RPG. it does not let you make characters it hands you pre-mades and says "use these or your cheating"

Actually, the exact opposite should be true. If your game is well made, changes to the mechanics should either be extremely easy, or so isolated that any one change is extremely unlikely to have effects on the rest of the system.

sure in a brain dead simple system. one where you can change how hp is gained and it would effect nothing else.

but D&D Is too complicated for that, you will not be able to radically change the game on day 1 and expect it to work (unless of course it was very very badly made).
I can understand why you think it would work if your thinking of 3e, but 3e was not well made enough to be a good reference point.

Or they could design strongly typed classes and let the people who want to do something different do something different rather than force everyone else to come up with their own fluff and mechanics justifications just to satisfy your play style.

no force involved, they provide mechanics and some suggested default fluff. if you want to follow the suggested default fluff (like you seem to want to) then they can.
however because it is only suggested, I can easily change it without touching the mechanics. and I also get what I want.
it also means I don't have to wait for official variants to come out to play things like my undead hunter paladin, or a LG rogue (former scout) or a warlock who made a deal with a neutral god.

For the record, if you wanted an undead hunter, the class you want is a cleric. That was the archetype behind the cleric.

sure that is an option, but there is no reason to ONLY have that option. I may hate the cleric mechanics after all.

Again, you are putting words into peoples mouths

then say why I am wrong, why my belief that you want everyone to play every class the same way is incorrect.

It's also worth pointing out that you are very much arguing against D&D's entire history here. D&D started with 3 classes. Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric, or by their main mechanic effectively Combat, Arcane Spell Casting (offensive/defensive) and Divine Spell Casting (buff/support).

Using these 3 classes alone and their mechanics and the complete lack of fluff that surrounded them (other than you know, the entire vancian and divine spell casting system) any and every character concept could have been realized. Especially under OD&D rules where stats where much much less impactful than they are now, you could bundle any fluff to any one of those classes (or even combine them if you wanted) and you would have whatever character concept you wanted on the mechanical chassis you wanted. In other words, OD&D was exactly the game you wanted, broad generic classes.

And ever since then, every player, every DM and every book and rule set that has introduced new classes has done so to produce more strongly themed classes. Mechanical chassis that are strongly tied to their fluff because so many people prefer that. So many people don't want "Fightor the Dumb" and "Erol Flint the Quick" to be the same fighter chasis with different flowery words to describe them, they want them to be mechanically different. They want the fluff that they use to describe their characters to be backed up by the mechanics that their character uses. The entire history of D&D has been producing more and more classes that more and more closely tie the fluff of the class to the mechanics of the class. In fact, this phenomena is largely what is responsible for how much the fighter in 3e sucked. As new more specific classes came out, more and more of the thematic things that the fighter could be fluffed to became mechanically implemented in alternative classes. If in OD&D you wanted a nimble and dextrous combatant who can move like a thief in the night like a legolas (but you know, not an elf), you made a fighter, gave him high DEX and called it a day. People didn't like that so now you have a Thief. If you wanted a survivalist fighter, you made one and gave her a strong CON score and equipment for wilderness survival. People didn't like that so now you have a Rogue. if you wanted a raging brute of uncivilized flesh from the hinterlands, you made a fighter and slapped a whole lot of STR and CON onto it. People didn't like that and now we have the Barbarian. Your Paladin which you so badly want to be generic is in fact fighter that is strongly tied to fluff.

hardly, 4e embraced what I am talking about.

and again, I am talking about being able to refluff a paladin to suit my needs, so I would not be forced to play a class I don't like just so I can play with fluff I do.

and just because D&D did something for a few editions does not make it right, or even a good idea. the entire reason for a new edition is to make it better then it was, to embrace new and interesting ideas. if all you want is what was in 2e or 3e then you have no reason to pay good money for 5e

What you are asking for, D&D already did. And D&D still does if you take the core 4 classes. But the reason other classes exist is because most people didn't like having their fluff and their crunch so heavily separated.
no it did not.

using only the core 4 make me a gish, who is as powerful as a caster, but who uses magic and melee attacks at the same time to great effect. someone who is not just a wizard who melee's or a fighter who casts spells.

then make me a character who uses nature magic to protect his allies.

how about a shadow dancer, high damage, teleports, uses subtle magic to hide.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-01, 11:54 PM

I in fact a couple characters do this in my campaign. I have a halfling who in game is a short human for example. no reason you cant do it, it is something that should be up to the DM not the system.

Out of curiosity, why is your player playing a halfling as a short human instead of just playing a short human? Race hasn't been a class since 0e.

or I could play 4e, it after was successful, class based and did not chain you to fluff for no good reason.

Unless you wanted to play a controller fighter. Or a striker wizard.

so again it has been done before, so it can be done again. and given there literately is not a good reason NOT to do it, it should be done.

No good reason other than it being one of the top 3 complaints about the system that drove off a large portion of your customer base.

no I like the paladin, I think he has cool mechanics and options. I think I would like to play one. but then I look at the fluff chains, and look at the gods and realize that none of the gods that are LG are interesting.
I then look at the other non-LG gods and decide that I think one of the TN gods is cool and worship her. so I make a TN paladin of a TN god.

if the system cant handle such a simple change then it can hardly even be called a full RPG. it does not let you make characters it hands you pre-mades and says "use these or your cheating"

Luckily for you, D&D has always been able to handle that change.

sure in a brain dead simple system. one where you can change how hp is gained and it would effect nothing else.

Or you know, GURPS. Or really any version of D&D before 3rd and 4th edition.

but D&D Is too complicated for that, you will not be able to radically change the game on day 1 and expect it to work (unless of course it was very very badly made).

No. D&D is not too complicated for that. 4e might have been too complicated, but that's because of how tight the math was.

sure that is an option, but there is no reason to ONLY have that option. I may hate the cleric mechanics after all.

There isn't only that option. And nothing about recognizing that fluff has the same weight in the rules as the mechanics prevents you from altering any part of it and having whatever you want.

then say why I am wrong, why my belief that you want everyone to play every class the same way is incorrect.

I have said how you're wrong. You keep putting words in people's mouths. You can't find a single quote in this thread of someone other than you saying "everyone should play every class the same way". You're wrong because you're attacking straw men and not the arguments your opponents are making.

hardly, 4e embraced what I am talking about.

And one of the major complaints against 4e was how all the classes felt the same.

and again, I am talking about being able to refluff a paladin to suit my needs, so I would not be forced to play a class I don't like just so I can play with fluff I do.

Who's forcing? Make whatever changes you want. You're the one who wants to force every class to be a generic and bland chassis of mechanics completely devoid of theme. All I'm wanting from you is to take your pencil and cross out "lawful" and replace it with "evil". Although you might also want to scratch out the name paladin given the origins of the word.

and just because D&D did something for a few editions does not make it right, or even a good idea. the entire reason for a new edition is to make it better then it was, to embrace new and interesting ideas. if all you want is what was in 2e or 3e then you have no reason to pay good money for 5e

And conversely just because 4e did something doesn't make it better than the editions that came before it.

using only the core 4 make me a gish, who is as powerful as a caster, but who uses magic and melee attacks at the same time to great effect. someone who is not just a wizard who melee's or a fighter who casts spells.

Take cleric chassis, swap divine spells for arcane. Done. Alternatively, use old style elf class.

then make me a character who uses nature magic to protect his allies.

Take magic user chassis, restrict learned spells to nature spells only. Possibly import divine nature spells as needed. Done.

how about a shadow dancer, high damage, teleports, uses subtle magic to hide.

Take magic user, memorize teleport, invisibility and blasting spells. Done.

captpike

2014-06-02, 12:57 AM

Out of curiosity, why is your player playing a halfling as a short human instead of just playing a short human? Race hasn't been a class since 0e.

because he liked the mechanics of a halfling more then a human. I allow that kind of thing to happen as long as the two races are close enough. something like elf to human I would not allow without a good reason.
my world only has a few races so I am flexible in that regard.

Unless you wanted to play a controller fighter. Or a striker wizard.

to address your point I said fluff chaining you not mechanics. a class only being able to do some roles is not a bad thing. to a degree its needed so you don't make a god class like in 3e.

you want to be a striker but be a wizard in universe? be a sorc and call yourself an evocation wizard.

the idea is that if you don't chain them together you can use the mechanics in any number of ways. you are not limited by the fluff. if I want to be a wizard in game I don't have use the mechanics of one, I can play a sorc or even an artificer or something.

No good reason other than it being one of the top 3 complaints about the system that drove off a large portion of your customer base.

and one of the most liked features of 4e, its not like 3e make so much more money then 4e that you should ignore any and all features of 4e just because they are in 4e. nor is it often a good idea to only listed to people who dont like an edition, they often have no real knowlage of how it works (like those who claim that 4e classes are samey when 3e are not).

there comes a point when you need to ignore some customers. when they start to want you to close the game off, to include "features" those only point is to tell others what they cant do and how they should not play.

Luckily for you, D&D has always been able to handle that change.

not easily, the rules in 3e don't allow such a paladin to exist. and even if you houserule him in you have to change features to work.

don't underestimate the number of DMs who play everything by the book because they think it needs to be that way.

Or you know, GURPS. Or really any version of D&D before 3rd and 4th edition.

No. D&D is not too complicated for that. 4e might have been too complicated, but that's because of how tight the math was.

exactly, 4e was the first one with good math. if 5e has good math it will be just a sensitive to changes. there is no such thing as good loose math.

There isn't only that option. And nothing about recognizing that fluff has the same weight in the rules as the mechanics prevents you from altering any part of it and having whatever you want.

the difference is a good game the fluff changes often, and when it does nothing else changes.
the mechanics don't work like that. if they tie up the flavor of a class in the mechanics too much you might have to spend alot of time fixing the class to work for you (rather then the 5min you need to fix the fluff). you also might have to come up with entirely new class features because you get ones like "you can speak with plants" that don't work with your refluffed druid.

I have said how you're wrong. You keep putting words in people's mouths. You can't find a single quote in this thread of someone other than you saying "everyone should play every class the same way". You're wrong because you're attacking straw men and not the arguments your opponents are making.

I am sorry but what your saying is that the fluff and crunch must be tied together to work. if that is worth then you need to tell me why.

I have said why that is a bad idea, and serves only to tell most character concepts "NO U"

And one of the major complaints against 4e was how all the classes felt the same.

factually incorrect, nor would it mater if it was true.

Who's forcing? Make whatever changes you want. You're the one who wants to force every class to be a generic and bland chassis of mechanics completely devoid of theme. All I'm wanting from you is to take your pencil and cross out "lawful" and replace it with "evil". Although you might also want to scratch out the name paladin given the origins of the word.

for someone complaining about me putting words in your mouth you do it alot.

I never said bland, I never said without theme. you can have it be exciting and themefull (yes I know its not a word). without saying "a paladin must be lawful good" or "a druid must revere nature"

you can very much make a themefull class that's shtick is protecting people, and healing those who are hurt without forcing them to be LG.

the problem is when the fluff gives you rules. when you have to make up new features just because you changed alignment. or because your backstory is generic paladin backstory#65.

so I don't want to see any features like "detect evil" or "smite evil" unless there is an option to change them in a way that would work for any paladin, even ones that are TN, or ones that consider ideas like "kill all undead" more important then alignment or gods.

And conversely just because 4e did something doesn't make it better than the editions that came before it.

true but they should not ignore the parts that 4e got better like they have been doing. particularly that 4e was the first version to give everyone a chance to matter, and let you RP without the balance issues get in the way.

Take cleric chassis, swap divine spells for arcane. Done. Alternatively, use old style elf class.

I did not say a caster who is in melee when he casts spells I said a gish.

a gish is a character who uses spells through melee attacks, and works as differently from a wizard as a fighter does.

Take magic user chassis, restrict learned spells to nature spells only. Possibly import divine nature spells as needed. Done.

I want a real new class, not one that just takes other classes spells. a class with new mechanics and ways of doing things. I use [generic spell#87] like everyone else, but I gain it a slighly different way is not interesting nor worthy of a class

that was one of the issues with 3e, there was only like 2 classes. non-caster and caster. everyone drew from the same spell list and everyone acting the same because of it.

Take magic user, memorize teleport, invisibility and blasting spells. Done.
first that only works for some of the day, the rest of it your useless. and of course its hard to use teleport when its a standard action. you would not be teleporting around the battlefield, you would be teleporting TO it then not again till after its done.

I should have said melee, that was what I was thinking of, I am sorry for leaving that out.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-02, 07:39 AM

the idea is that if you don't chain them together you can use the mechanics in any number of ways. you are not limited by the fluff. if I want to be a wizard in game I don't have use the mechanics of one, I can play a sorc or even an artificer or something.

And if you want to be a paladin, you don't have to use the mechanics of one, you can play a cleric or something.

and one of the most liked features of 4e, its not like 3e make so much more money then 4e that you should ignore any and all features of 4e just because they are in 4e. nor is it often a good idea to only listed to people who dont like an edition, they often have no real knowlage of how it works (like those who claim that 4e classes are samey when 3e are not).

there comes a point when you need to ignore some customers. when they start to want you to close the game off, to include "features" those only point is to tell others what they cant do and how they should not play.

Or you could assume your customers know what they want (even if they don't know how to express it). BTW, I'm a big fan of your dismissal of anyone who felt that 4e classes were too similar as having "no real knowledge or how it works" and therefore ignorable.

don't underestimate the number of DMs who play everything by the book because they think it needs to be that way.

Which is something every game should discourage, and no designer should design their game around. Incidentally, even if mechanics were as separated from fluff as you want them to be, those same DMs would still refuse to let you deviate from the default fluff, so you're in the same boat.

exactly, 4e was the first one with good math. if 5e has good math it will be just a sensitive to changes. there is no such thing as good loose math.

Alternatively, TTRPGs that can't handle players and DMs altering the math or mechanics to suit their needs don't have good math for a TTRPG. Every game should be able to handle house ruling without breaking fundamentally. Don't get me wrong, 4e did indeed have good math. Just not good math for a TTRPG that is modifiable for individual tables.

I am sorry but what your saying is that the fluff and crunch must be tied together to work. if that is worth then you need to tell me why.

Nope. For the last time, these are the two things I've been saying:

A) The fluff and crunch are both rules with equal weight in the system. Changing either is a rules change and should be approached as such
B) That fluff and crunch are not as separable as you want them to be, and that separating them too much either results in an incomplete game (GURPS) or a game that feels disjointed to the players (4e)

factually incorrect, nor would it mater if it was true.

A) How is it factually incorrect? Even if you ignore the anecdotal evidence of the people who complain about it all the time around here (and online in general) the fact that WotC is backing away from it suggests that they feel the same way.
B) If it is true, how does it not matter? If you're not giving your customers the products they want, they aren't going to buy it. It doesn't matter how good your chocolate icecream is, if everyone in town only wants vanilla, or strawberry then you're going out of business if you don't supply those flavors.

I never said bland, I never said without theme. you can have it be exciting and themefull (yes I know its not a word). without saying "a paladin must be lawful good" or "a druid must revere nature"

you can very much make a themefull class that's shtick is protecting people, and healing those who are hurt without forcing them to be LG.

You're right. They called that class the "cleric". For some reason that isn't good enough for you.

so I don't want to see any features like "detect evil" or "smite evil" unless there is an option to change them in a way that would work for any paladin, even ones that are TN, or ones that consider ideas like "kill all undead" more important then alignment or gods.

Again, that's a cleric.

I did not say a caster who is in melee when he casts spells I said a gish.

a gish is a character who uses spells through melee attacks, and works as differently from a wizard as a fighter does.

Woah there buddy. How you cast your spells is entirely a fluff concern, just as much as how you get your magical powers. Don't go restricting my Gish to your particular way of playing it. If you want your Gish to cast their spells by swinging a sword, then just say that it does. No need to go about tying mechanics to the fluff.

I want a real new class, not one that just takes other classes spells. a class with new mechanics and ways of doing things. I use [generic spell#87] like everyone else, but I gain it a slighly different way is not interesting nor worthy of a class

that was one of the issues with 3e, there was only like 2 classes. non-caster and caster. everyone drew from the same spell list and everyone acting the same because of it.

So what you want is mechanics which back up the fluff?

first that only works for some of the day, the rest of it your useless. and of course its hard to use teleport when its a standard action. you would not be teleporting around the battlefield, you would be teleporting TO it then not again till after its done.

I should have said melee, that was what I was thinking of, I am sorry for leaving that out.

Refluff the standard movement action as teleportation. After all, let's not tie fluff to the mechanics. There's no reason movement needs to be walking or running. It's just a generic mechanic after all.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 09:28 AM

no I like the paladin, I think he has cool mechanics and options. I think I would like to play one. but then I look at the fluff chains, and look at the gods and realize that none of the gods that are LG are interesting.
I then look at the other non-LG gods and decide that I think one of the TN gods is cool and worship her. so I make a TN paladin of a TN god.

if the system cant handle such a simple change then it can hardly even be called a full RPG. it does not let you make characters it hands you pre-mades and says "use these or your cheating"

Why are you looking at only Lawful Good gods? What reason do you have to do that? There is no reason why your choice of god should be affixed to your alignment.

It stands to reason that Gods derive power from worshippers. That includes the worshippers who don't coincide exactly with the gods alignment tenants. More worshippers, more chances to influence more potential worshippers.

The Pally alignment is based on a rigid code that they adopt (hence lawful). Yes, breaking this code results in the loss of their pally powers (everyone knows this) and requires attonment.

I see no reason why evil gods wouldn't have their own paladins, neutral gods having theirs, and so on. This "Fluff" is not a rule. Never has been. Can't be by logic standards. The game does not break when this is changed. In fact... absolutely nothing about the game changes when you do this. All you have is a TN paladin. Done. It doesn't affect anything other than certain spells, and even in 5e, it seems they are gone. So it effects even less.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 10:17 AM

you want to be a striker but be a wizard in universe? be a sorc and call yourself an evocation wizard.

the idea is that if you don't chain them together you can use the mechanics in any number of ways. you are not limited by the fluff. if I want to be a wizard in game I don't have use the mechanics of one, I can play a sorc or even an artificer or something.

This is exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you. This is the action of "re-fluffing". This is what you do to play the class you want, and tie in the fluff. If you do this, how can you tell people its wrong to do so, or that it is not possible? You are suggesting it right here.

not easily, the rules in 3e don't allow such a paladin to exist. and even if you houserule him in you have to change features to work.

This statement is false. See PHB2(?)3e for alternative Paladin features involving paladins of various alignments.

exactly, 4e was the first one with good math. if 5e has good math it will be just a sensitive to changes. there is no such thing as good loose math.

This statement is false. There are plenty of Gaming systems that operate on exceptionally loose math that are good. See WoD, AMBER, Champions, there was even one that used marbles instead of dice. A good game is defined by content, and system. Not one or the other.

I am sorry but what your saying is that the fluff and crunch must be tied together to work. if that is worth then you need to tell me why.

The reason Fluff and Crunch are tied is that is how you differentiate the various classes and have them "feel" unique and separate from one another. Yes, it is easier to have generic classes that can be re-purposed to fit your concept. But doing so, removes the uniqueness of that class. If you are drawn to a class because of its mechanics, and don't like the fluff that puts those mechanics into context, then you have a unique problem that no-one here can be expected to fix.

factually incorrect, nor would it mater if it was true.

I was unable to link the referenced post for this quote. I am sorry. I did not play 4e. I did read though it. I noticed that all classes have the same set up. X daily powers. X encounter powers, etc. The function of each power is irrelevant. They are all the same build. Like an MMORPG, all things fall into only a couple of categories with the occasional thing breaking this scheme. Abilities that deal damage, abilities that Mez/control, and abilities that heal. This is what people reference when they say "All the classes feel the same".

I never said bland, I never said without theme. you can have it be exciting and themefull (yes I know its not a word). without saying "a paladin must be lawful good" or "a druid must revere nature"

you can very much make a themefull class that's shtick is protecting people, and healing those who are hurt without forcing them to be LG.

Again, this is your quote agreeing with what has been stated to you on numerous conditions. Why are you arguing something you agree with?

the problem is when the fluff gives you rules. when you have to make up new features just because you changed alignment. or because your backstory is generic paladin backstory#65.

This has never been true. You have always had the option to adjust, or change as needed. Even encouraged to do so. Please see DMG, sections on Running Campaigns any edition.

so I don't want to see any features like "detect evil" or "smite evil" unless there is an option to change them in a way that would work for any paladin, even ones that are TN, or ones that consider ideas like "kill all undead" more important then alignment or gods.

Detect evil becomes Detect Good (evil paladin).
Detect evil becomes Detect either Good or Evil (selected at character creation (as selecting Cause or Cure for neutral Clerics).

If the character chooses to Kill All Undead, and make that more important than their alignment, that is story and roleplaying. It should provide character direction, drama (cleric forswears his god to embrace powers that allow him to fight the undead in a different way), etc. This has nothing to do with system.

true but they should not ignore the parts that 4e got better like they have been doing. particularly that 4e was the first version to give everyone a chance to matter, and let you RP without the balance issues get in the way.

Everyone matters. This is not limited to 4e. If no one mattered, there would only be one single class. There would be nothing to differentiate one another as they would all be cookie cutter characters.

When you flatten the balance issues, you remove a classes ability to take the spotlight temporarily. I play a rogue because I want to shine in the sneaky department, and play a spy, dealing with disreputable individuals. Sure I could do that with a warrior, but sneaking around a castle in Full armor is hard to do.

I want a real new class, not one that just takes other classes spells. a class with new mechanics and ways of doing things. I use [generic spell#87] like everyone else, but I gain it a slighly different way is not interesting nor worthy of a class

This is the very reason there are multiple classes, each with unique mechanics and abilities. If this is what you want, why are you arguing for the ability to change everything?

captpike

2014-06-02, 10:37 AM

And if you want to be a paladin, you don't have to use the mechanics of one, you can play a cleric or something.

your right I can, however I should not be forced to play a class I don't like to play with fluff I do.

if I want to play a class who is about going into melee and protecting people using divine magic I should not be forced by that fluff to only play one class. any class that has mechanics that fit that fluff should be just as easy to make that work.

so paladin and cleric would both work. for that fluff

Or you could assume your customers know what they want (even if they don't know how to express it). BTW, I'm a big fan of your dismissal of anyone who felt that 4e classes were too similar as having "no real knowledge or how it works" and therefore ignorable.

if they don't know how to express it then they cant give a useful answer and should be ignored. if I ask you if you liked a movie and you said "blue" I would ignore you as you did not give me any useful data.

I am sorry but there is no logical basis to think that 4e classes are samey and not think the 3e ones were worse. its one of those things that only people who just glanced at the system think. or those who never really game it a chance think. in both cases they should be ignored.
just like if someone did not like 3e because "it was too easy" or "its not REALLY magic" or "its not enough like [favorite book series]" should be ignored

Which is something every game should discourage, and no designer should design their game around. Incidentally, even if mechanics were as separated from fluff as you want them to be, those same DMs would still refuse to let you deviate from the default fluff, so you're in the same boat.

there is a difference between a game that puts no fluff restrictions on mechanics: no class features that assume a certain backstory, no alignment restrictions ect. and that makes clear that fluff is changeable, and even encourages it.
and of course there is a big difference between "paladins are protectors, some protect any innocent person, some only those who serve their god, some protect ideals or ideas" and "all paladins are lawful good, they must protect any innocent person"

Alternatively, TTRPGs that can't handle players and DMs altering the math or mechanics to suit their needs don't have good math for a TTRPG. Every game should be able to handle house ruling without breaking fundamentally. Don't get me wrong, 4e did indeed have good math. Just not good math for a TTRPG that is modifiable for individual tables.

even 4e could handle that but its not like you could make sweeping changes out of the game you have to have some system mastery first. and requiring system mastery before you can play your character is not acceptable.

Nope. For the last time, these are the two things I've been saying:

A) The fluff and crunch are both rules with equal weight in the system. Changing either is a rules change and should be approached as such
B) That fluff and crunch are not as separable as you want them to be, and that separating them too much either results in an incomplete game (GURPS) or a game that feels disjointed to the players (4e)

A is wrong because you seem to not understand what "rules" mean, and no you wanted it to mean something does not make it the case.

please define "disjointed" in game mechanics, simply saying that something provokes a feeling is not helpful to anyone.

A) How is it factually incorrect? Even if you ignore the anecdotal evidence of the people who complain about it all the time around here (and online in general) the fact that WotC is backing away from it suggests that they feel the same way.
B) If it is true, how does it not matter? If you're not giving your customers the products they want, they aren't going to buy it. It doesn't matter how good your chocolate icecream is, if everyone in town only wants vanilla, or strawberry then you're going out of business if you don't supply those flavors.

because the classes were not nearly as identical as the 3e ones. in play they are very different (see above).
just because WotC is doing something does not mean its smart or a good idea. from where I am sitting it looks like they are letting the people who hated 4e for no logical reason make the decisions, rather then using logic and reason. nor do they seam to be trying to get to the real meat of the issues people had with 4e, they are just looking at the useless upper levels of "all the classes feel the same" and "its like an MMO"

because pleasing 10% by driving out 30% is not a good idea. because their options maybe formed out of ignorance so wont hold out in the long run.

You're right. They called that class the "cleric". For some reason that isn't good enough for you.

when I want to play a palidan and am told "no you are going to play a palidan" then no it is not good enough.

to you a palidan may mean a LG stick in the mud, does not mean it has to mean that everyone.

Again, that's a cleric.

and again that could work for me, but no reason I should be forced to play it that way.

what if I want to play a cleric of a god of description, one who would never grant healing powers or want his worshipers to do anything but destroy things. that would fit a warlock mechanics more then a clerics.

Woah there buddy. How you cast your spells is entirely a fluff concern, just as much as how you get your magical powers. Don't go restricting my Gish to your particular way of playing it. If you want your Gish to cast their spells by swinging a sword, then just say that it does. No need to go about tying mechanics to the fluff.

So what you want is mechanics which back up the fluff?

I am talking about rules not fluff. there is a big mechanical difference between a character who casts ranged spells in melee range and a character who casts spells using their weapon attacks. the spells used would be entirely different. that is not something you can use refluffing for you need a real difference in how they work on a round to round basis.

a gish is a mechanical concept not a fluff one. it needs to be backed by mechanics not just handwaving using generic wizard magic from melee

Refluff the standard movement action as teleportation. After all, let's not tie fluff to the mechanics. There's no reason movement needs to be walking or running. It's just a generic mechanic after all.
sigh

teleportation is NOT the same as moveing, all kinds of mechanical reasons there are differences.

I cant walk through glass walls, nor through people without provoking, nor up a cliff.

Why are you looking at only Lawful Good gods? What reason do you have to do that? There is no reason why your choice of god should be affixed to your alignment.

It stands to reason that Gods derive power from worshippers. That includes the worshippers who don't coincide exactly with the gods alignment tenants. More worshippers, more chances to influence more potential worshippers.

The Pally alignment is based on a rigid code that they adopt (hence lawful). Yes, breaking this code results in the loss of their pally powers (everyone knows this) and requires attonment.

I see no reason why evil gods wouldn't have their own paladins, neutral gods having theirs, and so on. This "Fluff" is not a rule. Never has been. Can't be by logic standards. The game does not break when this is changed. In fact... absolutely nothing about the game changes when you do this. All you have is a TN paladin. Done. It doesn't affect anything other than certain spells, and even in 5e, it seems they are gone. So it effects even less.

in several editions there WERE rules that said I had to be LG to be a paladin. and while you could also worship a lawful or good god it meant the system forced to believe things your god did not believe.

I agree there is no reason why most gods should not have their own paladins, but there is no reason all gods would have the same code, nor that the same actions would cause all of them to fall.

captpike

2014-06-02, 10:58 AM

This is exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you. This is the action of "re-fluffing". This is what you do to play the class you want, and tie in the fluff. If you do this, how can you tell people its wrong to do so, or that it is not possible? You are suggesting it right here.

idealy yes, but that only works if you sperate fluff and cruch enough. if you tied up half the class features of the wizard into "I know wizardly things cause I am a wizard" then it would be hard to refluff the wizard as anything else, nor the refluff anything else into a wizard.

the game needs to be made with refluffing in mind. no thieves cant class features, no fluff features given as class features ect.

This statement is false. See PHB2(?)3e for alternative Paladin features involving paladins of various alignments.

yes the PHB2, not the one in which the palidan first apeared, and it was not as simple as "you can be any alignment you want" if memory serves

This statement is false. There are plenty of Gaming systems that operate on exceptionally loose math that are good. See WoD, AMBER, Champions, there was even one that used marbles instead of dice. A good game is defined by content, and system. Not one or the other.

I did not say good good RPGs, I said good math.

The reason Fluff and Crunch are tied is that is how you differentiate the various classes and have them "feel" unique and separate from one another. Yes, it is easier to have generic classes that can be re-purposed to fit your concept. But doing so, removes the uniqueness of that class. If you are drawn to a class because of its mechanics, and don't like the fluff that puts those mechanics into context, then you have a unique problem that no-one here can be expected to fix.

classes should feel different in play, not just in the book with fluff. should they also have different and cool default fluff? sure

no reason to use that fluff as a hammer though to tell everyone does not like your version of the warlock they are not allow to use his mechanics.

I was unable to link the referenced post for this quote. I am sorry. I did not play 4e. I did read though it. I noticed that all classes have the same set up. X daily powers. X encounter powers, etc. The function of each power is irrelevant. They are all the same build. Like an MMORPG, all things fall into only a couple of categories with the occasional thing breaking this scheme. Abilities that deal damage, abilities that Mez/control, and abilities that heal. This is what people reference when they say "All the classes feel the same".

every pre-PHB3 class gains powers at the same time yes, that does not make them feel the same in combat. if you want I can detail why that is wrong, even if it looks that way at first glance.

its the oposite of 3e that looks different at first glance but turns out to only really have a few classes. non-casters are hardly even classes, all they gain is feats not features. mulitble classes even use the same spell list after all. it hardly matters how you got your fireball, only that that is what you use.

Detect evil becomes Detect Good (evil paladin).
Detect evil becomes Detect either Good or Evil (selected at character creation (as selecting Cause or Cure for neutral Clerics).

If the character chooses to Kill All Undead, and make that more important than their alignment, that is story and roleplaying. It should provide character direction, drama (cleric forswears his god to embrace powers that allow him to fight the undead in a different way), etc. This has nothing to do with system.

first it makes no sense for good divine classes to all have cure, and evil to all have harm. why would evil clerics not want to heal themselves and their allies? why would good clerics not want to harm their enemies? that is something should should be picked independent of your alignment.

the thing is that the system needs to make this clear, that you can be any alignment as any divine class, some editions that was not the case.

Everyone matters. This is not limited to 4e. If no one mattered, there would only be one single class. There would be nothing to differentiate one another as they would all be cookie cutter characters.

When you flatten the balance issues, you remove a classes ability to take the spotlight temporarily. I play a rogue because I want to shine in the sneaky department, and play a spy, dealing with disreputable individuals. Sure I could do that with a warrior, but sneaking around a castle in Full armor is hard to do.

everyone should mater yes. but in previous editions that was not the case. a Lv20 rouge could do nothing of importance if there was a wizard in the party.

the reason to have balance is so you can do that. so if I focus on stealth I know it will always be good. I wont realize that my stealth is worthless because the wizard is invisible. it makes sure that my rogue can always be awesome doing roguey things. and that I don't have to be careful when building a wizard to not obsolete other PCs

This is the very reason there are multiple classes, each with unique mechanics and abilities. If this is what you want, why are you arguing for the ability to change everything?

I am saying that just slapping spell list A onto class B is not a real class. that a real class needs new mechanics.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 11:11 AM

in several editions there WERE rules that said I had to be LG to be a paladin. and while you could also worship a lawful or good god it meant the system forced to believe things your god did not believe.

Several editions defined as 1e and 2e. Yes, you are correct. In basic - masters, you started as a fighter (as races were classes then) when you reached named level (9th) you had the option of becoming a Paladin if you were good, a Knight if you were neutral, or an Avenger (evil paladin) if you were evil.

I agree there is no reason why most gods should not have their own paladins, but there is no reason all gods would have the same code, nor that the same actions would cause all of them to fall.

You are making generalizations about the code here. "Must have a code" does not mean it is the same code for all paladins.

Good paladins - promote your god through example of heroics, being kind to the commoners, owning no more than your horse can carry, aid the weak, defend the helpless, etc.

Evil paladins - promote your god through examples of tyranny. Save the people by making their decisions for them. Kill those who do think for themselves, etc.

These are both codes. VERY different codes. But they are still codes. Generalizing an example does nothing but invalidate your argument.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-02, 11:21 AM

your right I can, however I should not be forced to play a class I don't like to play with fluff I do.

if I want to play a class who is about going into melee and protecting people using divine magic I should not be forced by that fluff to only play one class. any class that has mechanics that fit that fluff should be just as easy to make that work.

And yet you just said if I wanted to play a striker wizard I had to choose a different class.

so paladin and cleric would both work. for that fluff

Except as you point out, the paladin doesn't work because it has other mechanics that don't match your fluff.

if they don't know how to express it then they cant give a useful answer and should be ignored.

Fair enough. Fair warning, you are not able to express your argument in a clear and convincing manner. Following this post, you will be ignored, per your own preferences.

and of course there is a big difference between "paladins are protectors, some protect any innocent person, some only those who serve their god, some protect ideals or ideas" and "all paladins are lawful good, they must protect any innocent person"

You're right, and that difference was the difference between a cleric and a paladin. A paladin was grated additional mechanical boons for a more restrictive set of rules on paladin behavior, modeling the very source of the word paladin.

even 4e could handle that but its not like you could make sweeping changes out of the game you have to have some system mastery first. and requiring system mastery before you can play your character is not acceptable.

Luckily, for old editions of D&D, no system mastery was truly required to build or modify a class to suit a character concept.

A is wrong because you seem to not understand what "rules" mean, and no you wanted it to mean something does not make it the case.

please define "disjointed" in game mechanics, simply saying that something provokes a feeling is not helpful to anyone.

A) I already covered the definition of "rules" and why fluff meets the criteria. That you choose to ignore this doesn't make it any less so.
B)
dis·joint·ed
disˈjointid/
adjective
adjective: disjointed

lacking a coherent sequence or connection.

because the classes were not nearly as identical as the 3e ones. in play they are very different (see above).
just because WotC is doing something does not mean its smart or a good idea. from where I am sitting it looks like they are letting the people who hated 4e for no logical reason make the decisions, rather then using logic and reason. nor do they seam to be trying to get to the real meat of the issues people had with 4e, they are just looking at the useless upper levels of "all the classes feel the same" and "its like an MMO"

Here's a hint. Not everyone who disagrees with you and your assessments is "illogical" or "unreasonable" and it certainly doesn't mean they haven't played the game. For the record (and I really shouldn't have to do this), I played 4e for 2 years in 2 campgains and for an additional year in 1 off . I had never played 3.x (or for that matter any prior edition of D&D) before that point and got my start in RPGs playing in a GURPS based game, the ultimate in crunch and fluff separation. My play experience over a half a dozen classes in different roles is that the classes are far too similar. Nothing about a fighter "feels" like your a fighter and nothing about a wizard "feels" like you're slinging magic around. The differences between the "roles" is a bit more pronounced, but sadly 4e didn't make the roles the classes, they made the classes the classes and the classes (especially between classes occupying the same role) feel extremely similar. My experience is not colored by nostalgia, by system mastery of 3e or by a lack of reason or logic. It is my experience based on actual real play of 4e. Your experience is not everyone else's experience, and if we take the collective evidence of the number of people that left D&D for Pathfinder and the continued success of pathfinder and the current heading for D&D 5e, there's a very strong indication that your experience may not even have been in the majority.

Edit
-------------

And for the record, do not mistake my dislike of the way things play out in 4e as support or defense of how they played out in 3e. That you only seem able to frame this discussion in 3e vs 4e terms does not mean I am limiting the discussion to "how 4e did it" or "how 3e did it"

End Edit
--------------------------

because pleasing 10% by driving out 30% is not a good idea. because their options maybe formed out of ignorance so wont hold out in the long run.

Citation needed that only 10% of people don't feel the way you do. Also seriously why do you keep assuming that people with different experiences from you or different opinions are ignorant? That's extremely insulting, especially when you have no evidence to back it up.

when I want to play a palidan and am told "no you are going to play a palidan" then no it is not good enough.

to you a palidan may mean a LG stick in the mud, does not mean it has to mean that everyone.

And yet, you're perfectly OK with pigeonholing all wizards into the controller role.

I am talking about rules not fluff. there is a big mechanical difference between a character who casts ranged spells in melee range and a character who casts spells using their weapon attacks. the spells used would be entirely different. that is not something you can use refluffing for you need a real difference in how they work on a round to round basis.

So in other words, you want mechanics to back up your fluff.

a gish is a mechanical concept not a fluff one. it needs to be backed by mechanics not just handwaving using generic wizard magic from melee

How is it a mechanical concept? You have a spell casting mechanic. You have a melee combat mechanic. According to you that's all you need and everything else is fluff.

teleportation is NOT the same as moveing, all kinds of mechanical reasons there are differences.

I cant walk through glass walls, nor through people without provoking, nor up a cliff.

You mean to tell me that changes in fluff might change how a mechanic interacts with the game? That refluffing things may very well require altering some mechanics as well? I could swear I've heard that argument earlier in this thread ...

obryn

2014-06-02, 11:44 AM

Sartharina

2014-06-02, 12:20 PM

And what is stopping you from making the druid a nature wizard? Buy a spellbook, study it in the morning, call the magic arcane. Boom, nature wizard without changing a single mechanic. You can flavour things as you like. The default fluff/crunch bond exists as a guide to both the designers for focus while making the game and for players as a base to jump off from in creating characters.Actually, no. THat's the half-assed hackjob that leads to divorced fluff and crunch.

Better solution: Create a new class. Look at the Druid, and the Wizard classes. Pare out any abilities that don't fit the theme of a Nature Wizard, and replace them with ones that do. Look over the spell list - cut out arcane spells that don't fit with the idea, and look over the druid spell list to see which ones could be turned into an arcane version. They may or may not require higher or lower level, depending on emphasis and power. Don't be afraid to change mechanics to match new fluff - just keep them in check.

You end up with a more effective and balanced class this way as well, because abilities you want to focus on that are supposed to be just footnotes in the primary classes can be boosted to 'iconic' strength, while abilities that you don't want to use that the class is built around relying on don't hold back the power of the class.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from making your own, new classes using the core classes as a baseline, and new classes as examples.

captpike

2014-06-02, 12:23 PM

And yet you just said if I wanted to play a striker wizard I had to choose a different class.

And yet, you're perfectly OK with pigeonholing all wizards into the controller role.

for the record I think that every class should support two roles, with player choices deciding where you fall between those two extremes. were I remaking 4e it would be one of the first changes I would make.

however some limitations are need for mechanics, every class should not be able to do every role after all.

however in the case you mentioned the difference is that I am refluffing an existent class to work, you are trying to go beyond the mechanical bounds of a class. the idea of refluffing is to make a classes fluff fit what you need, not that every class should be able to do everything.

Except as you point out, the paladin doesn't work because it has other mechanics that don't match your fluff.

I did not say that I said it had mechanics that fit, I said it DID fit what I had in mind mechanically, but that I had to change the fluff.

You're right, and that difference was the difference between a cleric and a paladin. A paladin was grated additional mechanical boons for a more restrictive set of rules on paladin behavior, modeling the very source of the word paladin.

trading fluff for more crunch is never a good idea. it either tells too many character concepts to take a hike (like the paladin of freedom) or it just overpowers PCs for doing what everyone is doing (play their character, and having a backstory)

it might have modeled the origin of the work paladin but we are past that now, it means more then it did then. when I hear "paladin" I think "divine character who uses heavy armor and a weapon to defend people" the classes need to be more flexible then just sticking to what the classes meant originally, they need to work for everyone who buys the game not just a few.

Luckily, for old editions of D&D, no system mastery was truly required to build or modify a class to suit a character concept.

that was only because the math was so bad you could not make it worse.

A) I already covered the definition of "rules" and why fluff meets the criteria. That you choose to ignore this doesn't make it any less so.
B)
dis·joint·ed
disˈjointid/
adjective
adjective: disjointed

lacking a coherent sequence or connection.

why does it lack coherent sequence for you? I am not being sarcastic I am honestly wondering.

when I look at my 4e and make a character from a concept I see enough options to make anything I need to fit my backstory, most of the time I see several options that would work well, and a few that could be made to fit with some work.
when I look at pathfinder or 3e I don't, I often only see one and that one might take 6 levels to get to. and often things turn out worse then they look (although that is probably in part because I know 4e more then pathfinder). and I often have to spend every resource I have just to make my basic idea work, or to stay functional.

Here's a hint. Not everyone who disagrees with you and your assessments is "illogical" or "unreasonable" and it certainly doesn't mean they haven't played the game. For the record (and I really shouldn't have to do this), I played 4e for 2 years in 2 campgains and for an additional year in 1 off . I had never played 3.x (or for that matter any prior edition of D&D) before that point and got my start in RPGs playing in a GURPS based game, the ultimate in crunch and fluff separation. My play experience over a half a dozen classes in different roles is that the classes are far too similar. Nothing about a fighter "feels" like your a fighter and nothing about a wizard "feels" like you're slinging magic around. The differences between the "roles" is a bit more pronounced, but sadly 4e didn't make the roles the classes, they made the classes the classes and the classes (especially between classes occupying the same role) feel extremely similar. My experience is not colored by nostalgia, by system mastery of 3e or by a lack of reason or logic. It is my experience based on actual real play of 4e. Your experience is not everyone else's experience, and if we take the collective evidence of the number of people that left D&D for Pathfinder and the continued success of pathfinder and the current heading for D&D 5e, there's a very strong indication that your experience may not even have been in the majority.

true, but when I look at something and can find no logical reason for it (thinking that 4e classes are samey) then that means either
A) my logic is flawed (if so tell me why)
B) my facts or their application is flawed

I have yet to see a reason to doubt either of the above thinking that 4e classes are samey

before 4e shot itself in the foot by putting out essentials (breaking the normal 4e pattern) it was easily beating pathfinder.

Citation needed that only 10% of people don't feel the way you do. Also seriously why do you keep assuming that people with different experiences from you or different opinions are ignorant? That's extremely insulting, especially when you have no evidence to back it up.

those were examples, although honesty I would not be surpised if it was only 10%. after all I want a game where the classes can work for anyone, not just the default fluff.

no not everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant, but some are. those who formed their options out of it should not be listened to (nor should those who like 4e, but cant give a good reason why). it may be anecdotal but most of the time I have read people bashing 4e it seams to be out of ignorance, or they just used "feelings", in either case they are giving no useful data.

So in other words, you want mechanics to back up your fluff.

How is it a mechanical concept? You have a spell casting mechanic. You have a melee combat mechanic. According to you that's all you need and everything else is fluff.

no I want mechanics to back up mechanics, if a class is supposed to be a gish then it should have mechanics to back that up.

gish is not a fluff idea, its a mechanical one. its a character who wades through melee using abilities that are neither wholly mundane or magical but both. and who is just as powerful as a fighter or a wizard, even if he uses the power in different ways.

he is NOT someone who decides from one round to another to be a fighter or a caster.

You mean to tell me that changes in fluff might change how a mechanic interacts with the game? That refluffing things may very well require altering some mechanics as well? I could swear I've heard that argument earlier in this thread ...
no I am saying that changes in crunch might change the crunch.

there are limits to refluffing, and sometimes certain concepts require certain mechanics. a shadowdancer might require teleportation for example.

the difference is that I am decided my own backstory and fluff, not the system.

when I make a character I generally think of a basic backstory, come up with what mechanics I would need. then I look for a class that would fit. if every class already had fluff written in stone I could not do that. I would have to change my backstory to fit whatever class I picked.

for example I recently made a shadowdancer for 4e.
my original idea was a character from the shadowfel (creepy dark mirror of our world) who uses power over shadows (to teleport and provide defensive abilties, not so much to attack) and her natural skill with a dagger to overcome her small size, and lack of strength (very basic but you get the idea).

I came up with several options:
assassin: I would hardly need to make any changes to the fluff or mulitclass or anything. it even has a at-will teleport baseline
warlock: this would restrict me on power selection, because I wanted it to be a melee character and most warlock powers are ranged, but I could make it work. it also has an at-will teleport (although it would cost me my Lv10 power slot)
I would have to do some refluffing on this, but not much.
rogue multiclassed warlock: while this cost me more then a few feats to make work, it fulfills the concept best. I get rogue attacks, I can teleport. and its a Dex class so I can be good at the sneaky skills
it does require me refluffing alot of stuff though, the rogue utilities are now shadow powers (I do pick the ones that that would work with) my warlock teleport at-will is now "shadow step"

I could not do the above in a system where the fluff and crunch are too linked. I could not be a warlock unless I drew my power from the places that warlocks are suppose to, I could not do that much refluffing on a rogue. I would have to pick the first option, even though its the one I like least.

Actually, no. THat's the half-assed hackjob that leads to divorced fluff and crunch.

Better solution: Create a new class. Look at the Druid, and the Wizard classes. Pare out any abilities that don't fit the theme of a Nature Wizard, and replace them with ones that do. Look over the spell list - cut out arcane spells that don't fit with the idea, and look over the druid spell list to see which ones could be turned into an arcane version. They may or may not require higher or lower level, depending on emphasis and power. Don't be afraid to change mechanics to match new fluff - just keep them in check.

You end up with a more effective and balanced class this way as well, because abilities you want to focus on that are supposed to be just footnotes in the primary classes can be boosted to 'iconic' strength, while abilities that you don't want to use that the class is built around relying on don't hold back the power of the class.

sure that is ideal, but its not going to happen to all concepts. I rather play my awsome character idea for a druid as a nature wizard now, then wait two years for it to come out in the phb3

Sartharina

2014-06-02, 12:29 PM

gish is not a fluff idea, its a mechanical one. its a character who wades through melee using abilities that are neither wholly mundane or magical but both. and who is just as powerful as a fighter or a wizard, even if he uses the power in different ways.

he is NOT someone who decides from one round to another to be a fighter or a caster.You might want to look up Gish, because this is kinda sorta completely wrong. Anything that isn't a Githyanki Fighter/Wizard multiclass (AD&D version) is not a Gish. And even then, a Fighter/Wizard multiclass isn't "A fighter one round, wizard the next" - Spells with a duration that a gish casts do not go away if he decides to hit someone with his sword the next. And, if he goes for Fireball-slinging the next round, he doesn't suddenly lose his heavy armor or extra 0-6 HP per level. A gish has more options per round than a wizard or fighter, and options are power. He can also combo his actions from round to round.
sure that is ideal, but its not going to happen to all concepts. I rather play my awsome character idea for a druid as a nature wizard now, then wait two years for it to come out in the phb3You don't need to wait two years for a PHB 3. All you need is the Wizard Class, Druid Class, access to spell lists, and a few pieces of notebook paper (Or Notepad on any computer)

In a pinch, either of the classes listed can be completely replaced by a bit of Imagination.

captpike

2014-06-02, 12:38 PM

You might want to look up Gish, because this is kinda sorta completely wrong. Anything that isn't a Githyanki Fighter/Wizard multiclass (AD&D version) is not a Gish. And even then, a Fighter/Wizard multiclass isn't "A fighter one round, wizard the next" - Spells with a duration that a gish casts do not go away if he decides to hit someone with his sword the next. And, if he goes for Fireball-slinging the next round, he doesn't suddenly lose his heavy armor or extra 0-6 HP per level. A gish has more options per round than a wizard or fighter, and options are power. He can also combo his actions from round to round.

at one time yes, that is what a gish meant, but that is not what it means now.

when from one round to the other you can either A) cast spells or B) swing your weapon then yes you are choosing what you are round to round. a gish can do both at the same time, and his class features help that. he has other options then A) sucky low level spell or B) sucky weapon attack

yes options are power, but if both the options suck then it hardly matters.

da_chicken

2014-06-02, 12:49 PM

I have a theory that a conversation has degenerated - probably irreparably so - when the back-and-forth posts contain more than 3 or so quote blocks.

This thread is doing nothing to disabuse me of this notion. :smallsmile:

I have also observed the same phenomenon. It really annoys me when I find my posts do that. I try to write paragraph responses now as much as possible instead of line-item bickering. It is more difficult to ignore someone else's points that way and not look like a fool.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 03:00 PM

Stubbazubba

2014-06-02, 03:03 PM

for the record I think that every class should support two roles, with player choices deciding where you fall between those two extremes. were I remaking 4e it would be one of the first changes I would make.

however some limitations are need for mechanics, every class should not be able to do every role after all.

however in the case you mentioned the difference is that I am refluffing an existent class to work, you are trying to go beyond the mechanical bounds of a class. the idea of refluffing is to make a classes fluff fit what you need, not that every class should be able to do everything.

I think I'm done here. We're just being trolled at this point, right? You want the system to scale up and down flawlessly for every possible number of attunement slots and you want all classes to just be random combinations of mechanics with no unifying theme or sense to them so that you don't tread on any character concepts (by removing real support for any and all concepts), but "every class should not be able to do every role after all." Why not? You're making extreme demands everywhere else, why not here, too? There's nothing stopping WotC from making your infinitely modular and variable dream game, so why not let every class do everything with the flip of a switch, like different weapon sets in Guild Wars 2? Your finesse fighter sheaths his rapier and draws his greatsword, bam, he has a slew of new powers. That's a really cool idea that could totally work, and far more feasible than designing a fluff-less game or vastly changing the power level of the PCs and rejiggering the entire Monster Manual to account for some minority playstyle.

How do you just arbitrarily say "it's worth it to reduce the entire game to blocks of mechanics and all monsters to static statistics so that my crazy minority playstyle WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED OR IT'S TOTALLY NOT A GAME FOR EVERYONE, GUYS can be supported," but then turn around and say "after all, not every class should be able to do everything." Well what about my crazy minority playstyle where I don't want people to feel pressure to fill mechanical roles? I just want them to pick the fluff that makes the most sense and then be able to cover all the roles we need once we get into the dungeon. When the Cleric goes down I want the Barbarian to start some kind of war chant that gives the people near him temporary HP instead of just swinging his battleax again. That sounds like a very dynamic game to me (more than I would ask any new player to learn, but hey, we're going with unreasonable demands, so let's just keep at it), why won't you support it? If you do it my way everyone gets what they want, but if we do it your way WotC is sacrificing some miniscule fraction of the playerbase and lying to us about the game being for everyone.

Clearly WotC should just do what everyone wants, whatever anyone asks for, right? That's the only way it's a game for everyone, right?? If you say there's one thing about my all classes = all roles idea that won't work, I'll respond dismissively without addressing whatever your point is, saying Guild Wars 2 did it so it can be done and you're just ignorant if you don't prove to me about fourteen times why the flaw you point out is really valid, and continue to claim that you don't know what some basic definition that is totally agreed on, like 'fun,' is, and that you are maliciously repressing my crazy minority playstyle out of ignorance and/or an anti-intellectual worship of sacred cows.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 03:13 PM

I think I'm done here. We're just being trolled at this point, right? ...

Where is my LIKE button?!! This whole post, I like it.

da_chicken

2014-06-02, 03:49 PM

I have questions for Catpike, and catpike alone.

It's "captpike". Captain Pike. This guy (http://i.imgur.com/CaomR8R.jpg).

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 05:12 PM

It's "captpike". Captain Pike. This guy (http://i.imgur.com/CaomR8R.jpg).

Thank you for the correction. My apologies.
Capt Pike

Fralex

2014-06-02, 07:44 PM

(Has that boring argument about the number of attunement slots died down yet? Whatever, I'm just gonna post this anyway)

One interesting idea someone in another forum brought up about attunement is the concept of attuning to things like scrolls or even potions for a boost in their effectiveness. What uses could attunement have besides just regular permanent magic items? Suppose a wizard allocates a spell to one of her attunement slots? Could this be a cool mechanic to use in unexpected ways?

Fwiffo86

2014-06-02, 08:32 PM

obryn

2014-06-02, 08:40 PM

Since I'm in the Feng Shui 2 playtest, my mind is immediately going towards attuning to sites. Like, by Attuning to the Shrine of Pelor, you get magic-item-like abilities vs. undead.

Fralex

2014-06-02, 10:17 PM

Since I'm in the Feng Shui 2 playtest, my mind is immediately going towards attuning to sites. Like, by Attuning to the Shrine of Pelor, you get magic-item-like abilities vs. undead.

Hey, that's cool! Basically attuning to a magic item that you can't take with you. That could even be away to add character to an important boss battle; where like you attune to an ancient statue in the center of the battlefield, you gain a measure of battlefield control. The attunement itself could even be a part of the fight; two enemies having a battle of wills to get the relic attuned to their own mind before their opponent does. I bet Baba Yaga's Hut is controlled through attunement. The rules about attuning time would have to be made more variable for this to really work, but it's such a neat idea I think I might homebrew something like that if no official rules let you attune to something in-battle.

Knaight

2014-06-03, 11:26 AM

give me one example of a situation where you cant play a character you want because the fluff and crunch were separate. where you can't just refluff something to work. a situation where if the fluff and crunch were chained it would work

Take a wuxia protagonist. Any wuxia protagonist. Sure, I can build them with a number of generic systems - GURPS, HERO, Fudge. Yet that character will work better in Qin, because Qin is a game built around wuxia, with specific designs to accommodate that. The mechanics explicitly reward generalists, the skill list fits the genre, the attributes are seriously the Chinese elements, the magic systems are tied to the relevant cultural traditions, etc.

Technically something can be refluffed even with the likes of D&D, though things like the skill list make it a painful process, and the resulting character is a cheap imitation of what they are in Qin. Still, it only truly works with the "chained" fluff and crunch.

captpike

2014-06-03, 02:29 PM

I have questions for Catpike, and catpike alone.

1 - Please define your view of Paladin. Be as descriptive as possible. Include your fluff, character class abilities, and anything else you think is Paladin enough.

2 - Please define how you would change this to accommodate allowing anyone to refluff the Paladin to fit whatever concept they have in mind with no mechanical changes.

3 - Please use the 5e system. You can bend and twist as you need, but it must be expressed in 5e terms only.

I ask this, because I am trying to understand your opinion better. I feel this will give me insight into your opinion, and grant me better understanding of your position.
the paladin is a protector, he uses his divine powers to heal and help those he protects

he wear's heavy armor and uses a weapon (at least for the most part, I could see room for non-weapon attacks) to wade into melee in order to take attacks so the people he protects don't have to.

you could be one of any god that would have any interest in protecting anything, or in a domain or something if the setting allows it.

mechanically that would mean he could go from being a defender, to being a melee controller. he either protects his allies by punishing them if they attack his friends, or by making it harder to attack his friends.

the problem with making one using the 5e playtest is that there is no marking mechanic (something the paladin needs) and all the spells were separate from melee attacks. a paladin would need to have abilities like "I hit you with my sword and now you are slowed" and those type of abilities don't exist in the playtest to my knowledge

I think I'm done here. We're just being trolled at this point, right? You want the system to scale up and down flawlessly for every possible number of attunement slots and you want all classes to just be random combinations of mechanics with no unifying theme or sense to them so that you don't tread on any character concepts (by removing real support for any and all concepts), but "every class should not be able to do every role after all." Why not? You're making extreme demands everywhere else, why not here, too? There's nothing stopping WotC from making your infinitely modular and variable dream game, so why not let every class do everything with the flip of a switch, like different weapon sets in Guild Wars 2? Your finesse fighter sheaths his rapier and draws his greatsword, bam, he has a slew of new powers. That's a really cool idea that could totally work, and far more feasible than designing a fluff-less game or vastly changing the power level of the PCs and rejiggering the entire Monster Manual to account for some minority playstyle.

How do you just arbitrarily say "it's worth it to reduce the entire game to blocks of mechanics and all monsters to static statistics so that my crazy minority playstyle WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED OR IT'S TOTALLY NOT A GAME FOR EVERYONE, GUYS can be supported," but then turn around and say "after all, not every class should be able to do everything." Well what about my crazy minority playstyle where I don't want people to feel pressure to fill mechanical roles? I just want them to pick the fluff that makes the most sense and then be able to cover all the roles we need once we get into the dungeon. When the Cleric goes down I want the Barbarian to start some kind of war chant that gives the people near him temporary HP instead of just swinging his battleax again. That sounds like a very dynamic game to me (more than I would ask any new player to learn, but hey, we're going with unreasonable demands, so let's just keep at it), why won't you support it? If you do it my way everyone gets what they want, but if we do it your way WotC is sacrificing some miniscule fraction of the playerbase and lying to us about the game being for everyone.

Clearly WotC should just do what everyone wants, whatever anyone asks for, right? That's the only way it's a game for everyone, right?? If you say there's one thing about my all classes = all roles idea that won't work, I'll respond dismissively without addressing whatever your point is, saying Guild Wars 2 did it so it can be done and you're just ignorant if you don't prove to me about fourteen times why the flaw you point out is really valid, and continue to claim that you don't know what some basic definition that is totally agreed on, like 'fun,' is, and that you are maliciously repressing my crazy minority playstyle out of ignorance and/or an anti-intellectual worship of sacred cows.

please read what I wrote

I never said without fluff, or without theme. I in fact said classes should have both. the fluff should just not only fit a few people it should be changeable enough so if you don't like the default fluff you can change it without change half the class.

I am not arguing they should try to please a few to sacrifice the many. I am arguing the opposite, I am saying that rather then making every class with chained fluff that you MUST use or you break the class you instead make the class's fluff able to change for everyone use.

if the warlock says "you gain your power through deals with demons". then ONLY people who like that idea can have characters they like out of the gate. everyone else would have to go though the trouble to changing the class's mechanics to work with them, and hoping they balanced the new features correctly.

your way only one small subset is happy, those who like every classes fluff the way it is (and like forcing that idea on everyone else), my way everyone is happy because everyone can have fluff the like, weather that is going by the default fluff or making up their own.

and while yes it would be cool to have every class able to do every role, its not possible. if you tried to have every class be able to be a leader, defender, striker, controller you would end up with classes that are twice as long as they should be (it would be eaiser to just make two classes who each do two roles). and they would be overpowered. everyone could do everything and that would cause issues.

being able to put yourself anywhere between 2 roles, and those roles helping each other, like defender/striker works much better. and that is still half of everything. and of course the new PHB or whatever should try to fill in the gaps. like a swordmage and artificer so you can be an arcane anything ect.

saying that the previous version of this game did something, and did it well is relevant. it means the only reason this version is NOT doing it is because they decided not to, not because they cant.

if you wanted a barbarian that was big into chanting and calling on the power of his ancestors and whatnot. I see a few options. one would be to reflavor another class who can give buffs and rename those abilities to something more fitting, while putting feats and whatnot into making yourself better at melee fighting.
multiclassing of course would be possible of course. for game purposes you are just a barbarian, but mechanically you are a barbarian/cleric.

Take a wuxia protagonist. Any wuxia protagonist. Sure, I can build them with a number of generic systems - GURPS, HERO, Fudge. Yet that character will work better in Qin, because Qin is a game built around wuxia, with specific designs to accommodate that. The mechanics explicitly reward generalists, the skill list fits the genre, the attributes are seriously the Chinese elements, the magic systems are tied to the relevant cultural traditions, etc.

Technically something can be refluffed even with the likes of D&D, though things like the skill list make it a painful process, and the resulting character is a cheap imitation of what they are in Qin. Still, it only truly works with the "chained" fluff and crunch.

I am talking about D&D, not non-generic fantasy games. when a game assumes you playing in its setting you can do all kinds of things that would not be acceptable in D&D.

Bezhukov

2014-06-03, 03:02 PM

the paladin is a protector, he uses his divine powers to heal and help those he protects

he wear's heavy armor and uses a weapon (at least for the most part, I could see room for non-weapon attacks) to wade into melee in order to take attacks so the people he protects don't have to.

you could be one of any god that would have any interest in protecting anything, or in a domain or something if the setting allows it.

mechanically that would mean he could go from being a defender, to being a melee controller. he either protects his allies by punishing them if they attack his friends, or by making it harder to attack his friends.

the problem with making one using the 5e playtest is that there is no marking mechanic (something the paladin needs) and all the spells were separate from melee attacks. a paladin would need to have abilities like "I hit you with my sword and now you are slowed" and those type of abilities don't exist in the playtest to my knowledge

What if I wanted a lightly armoured paladin that protected his allies by dealing massive wounds to their enemies. That would need no abilities to defend in the traditional sense and would in fact lean towards a striker. Your concept as to what a paladin should be does not fit mine or many others. Your concept limits choice as much as WotC's does. You argue that the class leans towards one concept and therefore excludes others. This is not entirely true. 5e is being designed as a modular game. Either choose or make a subclass for the paladin that provides the abilities you wish and work the fluff around that subclass.

Your last post also contradicts much of what you've said about fluff and mechanics and their relationship to character concepts. At this point I firmly believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Please stop complaining and mod the game to support your concept of the paladin or any other class for that matter.

captpike

2014-06-03, 03:30 PM

What if I wanted a lightly armoured paladin that protected his allies by dealing massive wounds to their enemies. That would need no abilities to defend in the traditional sense and would in fact lean towards a striker. Your concept as to what a paladin should be does not fit mine or many others. Your concept limits choice as much as WotC's does. You argue that the class leans towards one concept and therefore excludes others. This is not entirely true. 5e is being designed as a modular game. Either choose or make a subclass for the paladin that provides the abilities you wish and work the fluff around that subclass.

Your last post also contradicts much of what you've said about fluff and mechanics and their relationship to character concepts. At this point I firmly believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Please stop complaining and mod the game to support your concept of the paladin or any other class for that matter.

if I have to make my own class, then why would I buy the game?

if your trying to be a non-heavy armor using, non-defender paladin then it would be easier to just change classes and transplant the fluff to the new one. pick mechanics that you like, and that work with your fluff, then use you are good to go.

you CANT have a game that lets every class to everything (a paladin who can use any armor he wants, be ranged or melee, be any role he wants) it would never work. you don't have to nail down fluff, but you do have to nail down mechanics, at least to a degree, like I said I think 2 roles per class will work (with each PC picking where they want to go between them).

what you all seam to be missing is that class is a mechanical concept, while yes each one will be limited they should only be limited for mechanical reasons. never by fluff ones. its one thing to say "the paladin class is a controller/defender who wears heavy armor" and "paladin's are all Lawful good, and must be played this way"

saying "Your last post also contradicts much of what you've said about fluff and mechanics and their relationship to character concepts" is not helpful, please say where you think you see inconsistency and I can help you understand

Knaight

2014-06-03, 04:09 PM

I am talking about D&D, not non-generic fantasy games. when a game assumes you playing in its setting you can do all kinds of things that would not be acceptable in D&D.

We've gone over how "generic" D&D actually is before. Suffice to say that the specific inclusion of magic items, largely safe magic, elves, dwarves, monsters, and numerous abilities obviously made for dungeons cuts the whole "generic" claim off at the knees. D&D is clearly made for a specific kind of fantasy - one that heavily features both dungeons, and dragons.

Also, the whole "chained fluff" claim you made is system independent, so there's that. I'm not exactly sure why I should believe that the benefits somehow magically can't transfer to D&D - probably the same reason I'm supposed to believe that the things you keep claiming RPGs can't do are impossible even when I see them done - but I'm not convinced.

On an unrelated note:
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo316/Knaighte/Capitalize.jpg

captpike

2014-06-03, 06:30 PM

We've gone over how "generic" D&D actually is before. Suffice to say that the specific inclusion of magic items, largely safe magic, elves, dwarves, monsters, and numerous abilities obviously made for dungeons cuts the whole "generic" claim off at the knees. D&D is clearly made for a specific kind of fantasy - one that heavily features both dungeons, and dragons.

Also, the whole "chained fluff" claim you made is system independent, so there's that. I'm not exactly sure why I should believe that the benefits somehow magically can't transfer to D&D - probably the same reason I'm supposed to believe that the things you keep claiming RPGs can't do are impossible even when I see them done - but I'm not convinced.

let me correct something, when I say something can't be done in a game, I generally mean done well.

its easy to make classes do whatever you want if you standard is as bad as, say 3e, but when you want a good game you have to do things like use logic and test.

some things just can't be done well.

EDIT: and yes D&D Is a generic fantasy game, the things you mention are optional, you hardly have to have humans, elves, dragons or dungeons in order to play a game of D&D.
in fact the latest edition made this very clear a selling point of the game was that it could be whatever was needed.

chained fluff can work if your in a system where you assume the default setting will be used to the exclusion of every other setting.

however D&D is not that game, after all the previous three editions have multiple official settings released, and it encourages making your own. it HAS to support mulitble settings from book one in order to function.

Pex

2014-06-03, 08:03 PM

I never said without fluff, or without theme. I in fact said classes should have both. the fluff should just not only fit a few people it should be changeable enough so if you don't like the default fluff you can change it without change half the class.

I am not arguing they should try to please a few to sacrifice the many. I am arguing the opposite, I am saying that rather then making every class with chained fluff that you MUST use or you break the class you instead make the class's fluff able to change for everyone use.

if the warlock says "you gain your power through deals with demons". then ONLY people who like that idea can have characters they like out of the gate. everyone else would have to go though the trouble to changing the class's mechanics to work with them, and hoping they balanced the new features correctly.

I agree with you. A player should be able to say his warlock gets his powers from something other than demons, like fey for example, without having to change any game mechanics of what it is to be the warlock class. Oh wait, sorry, I'm one of those people who believe 4E classes are samey so you must ignore my support.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-03, 08:26 PM

Sartharina

2014-06-04, 12:09 AM

if I have to make my own class, then why would I buy the game?
It gives you the tools and environment to make your class in and interact with others. It provides a framework for allowing you to unleash an unbounded imagination in.

captpike

2014-06-04, 12:33 AM

It gives you the tools and environment to make your class in and interact with others. It provides a framework for allowing you to unleash an unbounded imagination in.

sure I could go for a game with some kind of point buy system for making classes, but that does not strike me as what is going to happen, it seams you need to be better at game design and math then they seam to be to pull that off.

if they could make such a system easy and fast enough to use that I could make a class (from Lv1-max) in an hour, the class was balanced, and was flexible enough that I could make anything I would be amazed.

of course if they can do that then they should ONLY do that, there would be no need to put out their own classes except as examples.

EvanWaters

2014-06-04, 01:34 AM

I see. Ok, so you think like MMORPG games. Got it. Now I understand.

Yes, giving characters clear and consistent abilities is like MMORPGs. Of course.

da_chicken

2014-06-04, 01:44 AM

sure I could go for a game with some kind of point buy system for making classes, but that does not strike me as what is going to happen, it seams you need to be better at game design and math then they seam to be to pull that off.

if they could make such a system easy and fast enough to use that I could make a class (from Lv1-max) in an hour, the class was balanced, and was flexible enough that I could make anything I would be amazed.

of course if they can do that then they should ONLY do that, there would be no need to put out their own classes except as examples.

RPGs that do this don't let you build classes. They let you build characters. After all, if you're making a balanced point buy system for character creation and progression, why would you let players make classes when they can just make a one-off class every time they make a character? Throw out the class distinction. It doesn't mean anything anymore because the class is no longer a static set of abilities. You *just build characters*. That's why RPGs that do this are called classless RPGs. It's not that you can't build a Fighter, it's that there's no stock Fighter because that idea has no meaning anymore. If you want to make optimized classes in these RPGs and call them classes you can, but it's just labeling a specific build.

This is why people keep suggesting GURPS, RuneQuest, or even Exalted or Rolemaster (which is kind of an oddball hybrid, IIRC... depending on the version of the rules....). They do what you're talking about roughly a hundred times better than D&D ever possibly could.

D&D doesn't want to do classless. It's never wanted to do classless. It's always been class-based. People play D&D to play a class-based, high adventure, fantasy RPG. People play D&D precisely because it has highly structured classes. No owner of the D&D property in their right mind is ever going to publish a class construction kit. First because it removes their ability to sell any subsequent books with new classes, and second because it completely changes the nature of the game.

obryn

2014-06-04, 08:25 AM

D&D doesn't want to do classless. It's never wanted to do classless. It's always been class-based. People play D&D to play a class-based, high adventure, fantasy RPG. People play D&D precisely because it has highly structured classes. No owner of the D&D property in their right mind is ever going to publish a class construction kit. First because it removes their ability to sell any subsequent books with new classes, and second because it completely changes the nature of the game.
There are a few points here I want to note...

(1) The AD&D 2e DMG has a class construction kit in its rules. Literally, several pages of what amounts to a point-buy system for creating a class.
(2) 3.x and its derivatives push multiclassing so much that it's nearly indistinguishable from a point-buy system.
(3) Even point-buy systems release supplements with more things to spend your points on.

In other words, I have to disagree on basically all counts. :smallbiggrin:

Fwiffo86

2014-06-04, 09:35 AM

Yes, giving characters clear and consistent abilities is like MMORPGs. Of course.

To prevent arguments, I elected to not post my total thoughts on the process. But for reference, he describes his paladin doing the TANK role in MMORPGs. D&D is not built to support that. 4e maybe, but I don't know, I didn't play it. That is the origin of my comment. Thank you for your attention to my post.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-04, 09:36 AM

There are a few points here I want to note...

(1) The AD&D 2e DMG has a class construction kit in its rules. Literally, several pages of what amounts to a point-buy system for creating a class.
(2) 3.x and its derivatives push multiclassing so much that it's nearly indistinguishable from a point-buy system.
(3) Even point-buy systems release supplements with more things to spend your points on.

In other words, I have to disagree on basically all counts. :smallbiggrin:

Speaking of 2e's class building system, from a new interview with Mearls, a bit more insight into customizing D&D with the DMG:

Mearls: ... The DMG also has a lot of utilities in it, like for dungeon creation, adventure creation, creating monsters, creating spells, even if you wanted to create a character class. It's not quite the point-buy system from 2nd Edition, but it does say things like "Well if you want to create a class for your campaign then here's a good way to approach it."

So it's really for getting under the hood of how the system works and building up your campaign.

Bolding: So really, besides maybe Unearthed Arcana, there's never really been a hacker's guide, as it were, for D&D.

Mearls: No, exactly. And that's what we were inspired by. People like to tinker with their campaigns, and especially if you've been DMing for a while and you kind of want to do something different. Really going into in-depth [changes]. And now, it's not going to be deconstructing everything, but it's giving you the tools you need to make your own changes. And there's always going to be art to it, like monster creation, we can't give you a formula that's perfect. What do you do with a monster that has one hit point, one AC, and can cast harm once per day? How do you balance that? There's no simple answer, but even just telling DMs that helps.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls

Dublock

2014-06-04, 09:40 AM

To prevent arguments, I elected to not post my total thoughts on the process. But for reference, he describes his paladin doing the TANK role in MMORPGs. D&D is not built to support that. 4e maybe, but I don't know, I didn't play it. That is the origin of my comment. Thank you for your attention to my post.

Just letting you know, in 4E the Paladin is like a tank in MMORPGs. Its called Defender role in fourth edition. The other roles are Striker (damager, DPSers), Leaders (Healers/buffers/debuffers), and controllers (Crowd control). A class has one primary role. Some powers/abilities can make them have a secondary role. In this case, Paladin can be a leader secondary, healing/buffing mostly.

Psyren

2014-06-04, 09:41 AM

its easy to make classes do whatever you want if you standard is as bad as, say 3e, but when you want a good game you have to do things like use logic and test.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and dismissive statements I've ever read, and on this forum that's saying something.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-04, 10:02 AM

This has to be one of the most arrogant and dismissive statements I've ever read, and on this forum that's saying something.

I agree with you.

It would be easy for say me to make a group of classes to satisfy myself... But to satisfy enough people to buy my game would be insanely hard.

Of course I find it funny that captpike says to use logic, made me laugh actually. If there is one thing gamers aren't it is logical. If they were logical or wanted logic then the main TTRPG would be simulation games not D&D/Pathfinder. HP and AC is pretty illogical even within the game for the most part.

Or is it logical that a group of people (3.5 casters) have all this power and yet somehow don't make it more efficient?

Is it logical that one class gets as many levels as another but has nowhere the same power? I mean this in a game mechanic and not in world... Since levels don't exist in the world.

(Note: What if we made levels a in game world idea? Like perhaps make them like military ranks or job levels? In the real world we already have jobs with different levels... Professional 1, professional 2, staff scientist 1, staff scientist 3... Hmmm)

Stubbazubba

2014-06-04, 10:27 AM

I agree with you.

It would be easy for say me to make a group of classes to satisfy myself... But to satisfy enough people to buy my game would be insanely hard.

Of course I find it funny that captpike says to use logic, made me laugh actually. If there is one thing gamers aren't it is logical. If they were logical or wanted logic then the main TTRPG would be simulation games not D&D/Pathfinder. HP and AC is pretty illogical even within the game for the most part.

Or is it logical that a group of people (3.5 casters) have all this power and yet somehow don't make it more efficient?

Is it logical that one class gets as many levels as another but has nowhere the same power? I mean this in a game mechanic and not in world... Since levels don't exist in the world.

(Note: What if we made levels a in game world idea? Like perhaps make them like military ranks or job levels? In the real world we already have jobs with different levels... Professional 1, professional 2, staff scientist 1, staff scientist 3... Hmmm)

While I agree with your sentiment, you're making pike's argument for him. He poo poos all over 3e because nothing could possibly be worse and likes 4e because it man handles all classes at all levels to, in fact, have a much narrower disparity in power. He is, in fact, arguing that 3e is not logical, but 4e is. Of course that's only sort of true if you overlook the oddity of martial Encounter powers (yep, I went there), but I digress.

Also, I believe in Legend the "Orders" of the various classes are supposed to be actual ranks in some form of hierarchy, even if a loose one. I could be remembering that incorrectly, though.

Psyren

2014-06-04, 10:29 AM

Of course that's only sort of true if you overlook the oddity of martial Encounter powers (yep, I went there), but I digress.

:roy:: "Why the hell would I want to be part of your world? It makes no damn sense!!" :smallbiggrin:

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-04, 11:37 AM

While I agree with your sentiment, you're making pike's argument for him. He poo poos all over 3e because nothing could possibly be worse and likes 4e because it man handles all classes at all levels to, in fact, have a much narrower disparity in power. He is, in fact, arguing that 3e is not logical, but 4e is. Of course that's only sort of true if you overlook the oddity of martial Encounter powers (yep, I went there), but I digress.

Also, I believe in Legend the "Orders" of the various classes are supposed to be actual ranks in some form of hierarchy, even if a loose one. I could be remembering that incorrectly, though.

The problem is the idea that 4e is more logical is that 4e is just a bunch of 3.5 alternate rules put into a game with different classes. Heck HP and AC aren't at all that different between the systems.

Sure class level power levels compared to each other. But that's it haha.

Oh no you didn't! *snaps* :smalltongue:

Actually encounter powers in 4e makes sense for martials in multiple ways. The problem is how they implemented it, my god do they mess that up. They should have just gave you a pool of points (# of encounter maneuvers known) and a pool of encounter powers known. Then you may use any encounter power in any order as long as you have Endurance left to perform them... However once you run out of endurance all you can do is basic attacks (at-will). Where this breaks down is Dailies... I just can't defend those for non-casters.

So a third level Fighter has 2 points of Endurance due to learning 2 encounter maneuvers. They Fighter may use EncP1 twice, EncP 2 twice, or EncP1 and EncP2 in the same battle. As you level up you can push yourself further and do a better mixture of abilities that take a lot of energy to perform.

Seriously Dailies on the fighter bug me. Why can I expend all my enc powers and be to tired to perform them again but yet can do a bigger badder maneuver that are 1/day? Siiigh.

Sartharina

2014-06-04, 11:46 AM

There are a few points here I want to note...

(1) The AD&D 2e DMG has a class construction kit in its rules. Literally, several pages of what amounts to a point-buy system for creating a class.
(2) 3.x and its derivatives push multiclassing so much that it's nearly indistinguishable from a point-buy system.
(3) Even point-buy systems release supplements with more things to spend your points on.

In other words, I have to disagree on basically all counts. :smallbiggrin:The problem with Point-buy systems is that they don't take synergy into account, which is how you end up with unbalanced messes like 3.5's Monk and Wizard, or the blandness that are 3.5's Samurai, Ninja, Scout, and Swashbuckler.

the paladin is a protector, he uses his divine powers to heal and help those he protects

he wear's heavy armor and uses a weapon (at least for the most part, I could see room for non-weapon attacks) to wade into melee in order to take attacks so the people he protects don't have to.

you could be one of any god that would have any interest in protecting anything, or in a domain or something if the setting allows it.

mechanically that would mean he could go from being a defender, to being a melee controller. he either protects his allies by punishing them if they attack his friends, or by making it harder to attack his friends.

the problem with making one using the 5e playtest is that there is no marking mechanic (something the paladin needs) and all the spells were separate from melee attacks. a paladin would need to have abilities like "I hit you with my sword and now you are slowed" and those type of abilities don't exist in the playtest to my knowledge You say that's a Paladin. It sounds more like Guild Wars 2's Guardian to me, which maps closest to D&D's Cleric class.

As for a lack of 'marking' - I'm kind of meh on the issue. On one hand, I loved 4e's Fighter because of how it handled Marking (Essentially, just a free Hinder Enemy against anyone not attacking you that you attack, Stand Still, and Combat Reflexes-esque abilities), but some of the other classes had less sensible marks.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-04, 12:15 PM

The problem with Point-buy systems is that they don't take synergy into account, which is how you end up with unbalanced messes like 3.5's Monk and Wizard, or the blandness that are 3.5's Samurai, Ninja, Scout, and Swashbuckler.

You say that's a Paladin. It sounds more like Guild Wars 2's Guardian to me, which maps closest to D&D's Cleric class.

As for a lack of 'marking' - I'm kind of meh on the issue. On one hand, I loved 4e's Fighter because of how it handled Marking (Essentially, just a free Hinder Enemy against anyone not attacking you that you attack, Stand Still, and Combat Reflexes-esque abilities), but some of the other classes had less sensible marks.

Point buy can work but yeah different classes tend to need more or less points. And if you as a company says the monk needs 32 and the wizard needs 15... Then you are straight up admitting that your classes are unbalanced.

I like just giving players arrays and let them do with it as they please. Essentially normal people in the world rolls for stats, however hero's or antihero's or anyone special get better scores.

What I would like to see is a heroic and epic array. Then allow classes to give bonuses to ability scores (+2/+2/+1), don"'t allow race or size to determine ability score penalty/bonuses in D&D unless a DM wants to allow them.

Really, is the D&D Paladin and Cleric that different? 2e and 4e they are vastly different but any other edition (3.P and Next so far) they are pretty much the same class. I would love to see the Paladin become a subclass for the Cleric and Fighter.

Have two classes with the same subclass, you can then have two Paladins that have different abilities.

I loved the Fighter's mark, it does well when ported over to 3.P. But yah some of the others got silly.

(Note to self, make PF archetypes and add in 4e stuff)

obryn

2014-06-04, 12:19 PM

The problem with Point-buy systems is that they don't take synergy into account, which is how you end up with unbalanced messes like 3.5's Monk and Wizard, or the blandness that are 3.5's Samurai, Ninja, Scout, and Swashbuckler.
Synergy is the driving force behind charop in both point-buy systems and 3.x. (And often 4e, for that matter, which is why stuff like the Windrise Ports background, which lets you multiclass twice, got nerfed. And why so many theoretical builds are half-elves.)

Point buy systems aren't uniquely susceptible to synergy. :smallsmile:

da_chicken

2014-06-04, 12:24 PM

There are a few points here I want to note...

(1) The AD&D 2e DMG has a class construction kit in its rules. Literally, several pages of what amounts to a point-buy system for creating a class.

I only barely remember that... was it in the early printings of the 2e DMG? That is, blue headings not red? The 2E DMG was not a particularly useful book beyond the magic items, so I haven't gone back to look at it in a dog's age. Is it any good, or does it make it impossible to build a class that even competes with the PHB?

Anyhow, my guess would be that this was there precisely because classless RPGs were the all the rage at the time, and this was a way to let D&D be "classless" like the cool kids. In other words, this is like Windows 8 being Microsoft's reaction to iOS being on the iPhone and iPad.

(2) 3.x and its derivatives push multiclassing so much that it's nearly indistinguishable from a point-buy system.

I think that's a difference between design intent and result.

In the original 3.0 PHB, there are very harsh XP penalties for multiclassing to more than one class if you don't keep them even. The rules survive in 3.5, but the point is that they're in the first book published for the new game system. It's a pretty strong condemnation meant to limit what class combinations were possible, and discourages single level dips in multiple classes. I mean, have you ever had a character take even the minimum 20% XP penalty? Even for one level? In the past 15 years? I haven't. I haven't seen one at any table I've been to, either. That penalty is so harsh that it's not a choice. The game might as well say, "You cannot multiclass outside your favored class unless the class levels are all within 1 of each other."

However, they made a few mistakes:

1. They didn't make rules that punished you for dipping a level or two from a dozen classes. Why would the PHB do that with only a dozen classes of it's own? People raised this concern that you could be a Fighter 1/Monk 1/ Rogue 1/Cleric 1/Wizard 1. It got dismissed because that character is absolutely horrible. Most people noticed how good Fighter X/Barbarian Y/Ranger Z was, of course, and complained because that was explicitly banned in 1e/2e multiclassing and dual classing rules. Still, that was just one example of three classes, none of the other classes worked together that well, and it didn't make sense that a Barbarian couldn't pick up formal weapons training and such.

2. They didn't restrict multiclassing with prestige classes in any way. They couldn't use the XP restriction from the PHB because that was far too harsh, so they just let PrC ignore the multiclass penalty. However, they grossly underestimated how popular prestige classes would be, and suddenly what was thought to be a highly selective and strictly DM controlled option became a default option. Indeed, today I'd say it's a default expectation. Additionally, all prestige classes of the early game essentially required prerequisites that excluded all the other prestige classes (multiple feats or class features that couldn't be easily be gained simultaneously). So while it wasn't against the rules to take multiple prestige classes, it was functionally impossible to do so. So the designers assumed that players would select one prestige class, take all levels of it, and by then the campaign would be over.

3. Classes require frontloading at early levels in order to feel distinct from one another. Waiting until level 3 to get distinguishing class features -- which would be entirely appropriate in a game designed to be fully classless and modular from the ground up -- doesn't work in a class-based system. You want to have something at level 1 and 2 that makes clear the distinction between fighter, ranger, paladin, and barbarian. Unfortunately, this means that class buffet is highly profitable for the player character.

So why didn't WotC fix it in 3.5? Well, they tried less frontloading with Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin, and printed more PrC without full caster progression. But they never really fixed the class buffet problem. Why? Because classes and prestige classes sold books by the score, and you don't mess with your meal ticket. Now that there are literally hundreds of classes and prestige classes and the entry requirements to a prestige amount to "are you level 5?" and the number of compatible base classes is much higher than 3, I would consider it the foremost fundamental design flaw of 3e. Yes, it's a worse design flaw than linear fighters quadratic wizards, because that was an inherited design and they had full knowledge that it was an issue. This one they tried to eliminate or mitigate and failed completely. 3.5 is literally a class-based system that no longer contains character classes. It takes a lot to play 4e and then look at another system and think "wow, that's super gamist". Polymorph and Wild Shape do it, but the class buffet multiclassing pervasive in 3.5 does that, too.

Nevertheless, that humble XP penalty rule in the context of how the PHB and DMG are layed out reveals exactly what the designers wanted multiclassing to be like in 3e: a significant trade-off.

(3) Even point-buy systems release supplements with more things to spend your points on.

That's true, but if you publish a bunch of books with classes (or like D&D have a situation where that's what your market expect to see published), then publish a book with class-building rules, do you now publish books with more classes or publish more books with class-building components? You're now in a no-win situation where you have to pick which group to satisfy, or publish both for everything and now your page counts skyrocket. That might be fine for PDF-only distribution, but it's a bit awkward when you're talking dead tree. This is precisely the problem that causes lack of support for Psionics.

In other words, I have to disagree on basically all counts. :smallbiggrin:

Nothing wrong with that.

captpike

2014-06-04, 01:05 PM

RPGs that do this don't let you build classes. They let you build characters. After all, if you're making a balanced point buy system for character creation and progression, why would you let players make classes when they can just make a one-off class every time they make a character? Throw out the class distinction. It doesn't mean anything anymore because the class is no longer a static set of abilities. You *just build characters*. That's why RPGs that do this are called classless RPGs. It's not that you can't build a Fighter, it's that there's no stock Fighter because that idea has no meaning anymore. If you want to make optimized classes in these RPGs and call them classes you can, but it's just labeling a specific build.

This is why people keep suggesting GURPS, RuneQuest, or even Exalted or Rolemaster (which is kind of an oddball hybrid, IIRC... depending on the version of the rules....). They do what you're talking about roughly a hundred times better than D&D ever possibly could.

D&D doesn't want to do classless. It's never wanted to do classless. It's always been class-based. People play D&D to play a class-based, high adventure, fantasy RPG. People play D&D precisely because it has highly structured classes. No owner of the D&D property in their right mind is ever going to publish a class construction kit. First because it removes their ability to sell any subsequent books with new classes, and second because it completely changes the nature of the game.

the point I was trying to make was that saying "make your own class if you don't like the fluff they gave out to class X" only works if they make a good system for making classes. which, while cool, is very very unlikely to both be in 5e at all let alone work

--
and when I said that 4e is logical and 3e was not I mean as a game system. no version of D&D is in any way realistic or simulationist (although 3e tried to do this)

the 4e system is consistent and works, you don't have to bend over backwards for the system for the system to do what it says on the tin, nor do you have to say within certain level bounds.

You say that's a Paladin. It sounds more like Guild Wars 2's Guardian to me, which maps closest to D&D's Cleric class.

the thing is that if you want to play a lawful good stick in the mud 3e type paladin, you still can if they make it using the "paladin as a protector" model. the reverse is not true.

besides everything else the 3e type of paladin is way too specific to be a class, let alone a core one.

----
by the way what marks do you guys have problems with, all non-fighter defenders have the "its magic" excuse for their marks. what ones were odd?

Pex

2014-06-04, 01:24 PM

Point buy can work but yeah different classes tend to need more or less points. And if you as a company says the monk needs 32 and the wizard needs 15... Then you are straight up admitting that your classes are unbalanced.

Point Buy in this case means the game system as a whole, not ability scores. For example, GURPS is a Point Buy game where you are given a number of points and spend them on various abilities. Everything your character can do is determined by where you spend your points. D&D is not a Point Buy game because everything your character can do is predetermined by the Class you choose for it with some customization available at fixed amounts and moments when you can do it.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-04, 01:34 PM

Point Buy in this case means the game system as a whole, not ability scores. For example, GURPS is a Point Buy game where you are given a number of points and spend them on various abilities. Everything your character can do is determined by where you spend your points. D&D is not a Point Buy game because everything your character can do is predetermined by the Class you choose for it with some customization available at fixed amounts and moments when you can do it.

My comment still stands. You would need to give the 3.P Monk waaaay more points than the Wizard to be equal.

Thus you would be saying, as a company, that you are selling a broken game.

da_chicken

2014-06-04, 04:08 PM

the point I was trying to make was that saying "make your own class if you don't like the fluff they gave out to class X" only works if they make a good system for making classes. which, while cool, is very very unlikely to both be in 5e at all let alone work

Yes, and my point was that if, like you said, you "could go for a game with some kind of point buy system for making classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17574208#post17574208)" then you should not play D&D. It's not going to satisfy your requirements.

[I'm not sure why that line got clipped from my reply. I must've deleted it accidentally.]

by the way what marks do you guys have problems with, all non-fighter defenders have the "its magic" excuse for their marks. what ones were odd?

The Fighter has an effective taunt because he prevents creatures from leaving where he is. They can't leave and attack somethign else unless that something else approaches it. The extra damage from the attack is also usually not insignificant, since Fighters are secondary Strikers.

I found the Paladin's divine challenge to be ineffective. Enemies would just ignore the mark, take the ~10 damage, and do what they wanted. It added a lot of damage, but the Paladin spent a lot of time running around the battlefield chasing enemies trying to attack the rest of the party.

I found the Swordmage's mark interesting, but ultimately ineffective. Since your teleport goes after the attack is declared, you don't actually protect your party members. The one aegis that does protect your party members only prevents damage from one attack. It doesn't stop riders, debuffs, etc.

The single Warden we had was run by the player with the worst system mastery. We played nearly two years and this guy was still moving into combat to use a Melee Basic on his turn (not "counts as"; actual Melee Basic Attack) when he still had Encounters. This class seemed very starved for actions since the Minor was always consumed by the mark ability, and was limited by the fact that it couldn't prevent creatures from moving away, and if they did often couldn't really retaliate if the mark was disobeyed. However, I would absolutely believe this player was just completely misplaying the class.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-04, 04:22 PM

I only barely remember that... was it in the early printings of the 2e DMG? That is, blue headings not red? The 2E DMG was not a particularly useful book beyond the magic items, so I haven't gone back to look at it in a dog's age. Is it any good, or does it make it impossible to build a class that even competes with the PHB?

It's a small set of optional guidelines that give only the briefest ideas of how to make a class, and that are wildly unbalanced... not a very good example to bring up here.

Stubbazubba

2014-06-04, 04:25 PM

The real problem with Point Buy vs. Class System is that you can only have so many discrete resource management systems on the same character before it becomes completely unwieldy to 1) play, possibly, and 2) test.

What does this mean? If classes have distinct mechanics and multiclassing is easy creates an environment which hoists a tremendous burden on new players for little benefit, while at the same time rewarding the system mastery to find all the obscure, game-breaking synergies which would almost undoubtedly arise (unless the designers managed to find and exacto-nerf them, which would be a potential rules bloat problem where there are all these strange contingency rules that only apply to obscure uses). And let's talk about that second issue;

Let's say you, as a designer, have 11 base classes, each with their own unique mechanical flare, be it Vancian casting, Rage, Sneak Attack, Spell Points, an Animal Companion, Expertise Dice, etc. Each of those are a discrete resource which the player has to manage competently in order to use the class effectively. Now, testing 11 different classes in a variety of situations and making sure there's no obvious failure points or overpowered abilities would be a lot of work, but it's certainly doable. If, however, you can combine with just 1 other resource, you now have 55 possible combinations, or 5 times the complexity, 5 times the possibility of there being game-breaking synergies which may or may not be obvious. That's an extreme project, with just 2 resources combined. Three becomes 165 combinations, and that's too much for any game company to realistically test very well.

To avoid this in a point-buy system (or a class system with full multiclassing like 3e, which functions the same, as obryn pointed out), you have to limit the resource management systems in the game, preferably down to 1, which every class power interacts with (hopefully in a slightly different way, but that's not guaranteed). And you know what? That's what 4e did. It was a quirky system to choose, but there was 1 for everyone. They then dropped the ball on multiclassing anyway, but, the point is the system looks like it was designed to accommodate infinite modularity. Of a necessity, though, this means that every class feels more same-y. Variation has to come in the specific application of the one system, which is doable, and, from what I know of it, 4e more or less achieved. But no matter how much variation there is in application, the similarity of the entire system is going to make it feel bland and repetitive in comparison.

If you really want a variety of classes that really play differently, that really feel like you're using intellectual magic with one class and martial training with another, you have to silo off those resource management systems, i.e. classes. That's the entire benefit of having a class system vs. point-buy. 3.5 tried to have it both ways, and yeah, the results span the spectrum from "never multiclass a caster" to "all martials should dip class X," and it got more and more convoluted as new classes were continually introduced. 4e chose the opposite end of the weird choice, where classes didn't really mix (correct me if I'm wrong), but then also all used the same resource management system, so they could have.

Those are both unoptimized design choices. The benefit of a rigid class system comes when you have non-combinable classes, each with their own distinct resource management system. The benefit of point-buy comes when you have one resource management system and infinitely mixable applications of that resource.

Of course, people still want to combine concepts. The battle mage with sword and spell is an extremely popular archetype that has proven difficult to model. The way to do it in a class system is to either 1) just make feats that give a non-resource dependent slice of other-class power to your char, 2) create sub-class powers that use the primary class' resource system or 3) create a limited number of sub-classes that give you a dead simple secondary system for doing non-primary class stuff. The limited number is important so that you're not creating 55 combinations to comb through. New sub-classes are totally something you can sell in splatbooks, I see no reason to offer more than 2-3 per class in the core product. Ultimate Warrior books should contain sub-classes for all combinations (as well as full classes that frankly hybridize the new concepts better, anyway).

tl;dr - One of the biggest differences between class systems and point buy is how resource management systems work in both. Class System? You can have different resource systems so long as there is limited or no multiclassing. Point Buy? Use one resource system so that everyone can mix and match powers, allowing you to make your special snowflake ninja/elementalist/summoner/bard/space marine combination. Point buy = more customization, at the cost of everything feeling the same. Classes = stronger differentiation, at the cost of covering fewer (but better-realized) concepts.

Edit: Seriously, the Mark thing again? Tome Knight (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Knight,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)) still figured this out in 2006.

captpike

2014-06-04, 04:26 PM

I found the Paladin's divine challenge to be ineffective. Enemies would just ignore the mark, take the ~10 damage, and do what they wanted. It added a lot of damage, but the Paladin spent a lot of time running around the battlefield chasing enemies trying to attack the rest of the party.

ya paladin marking is odd, you really need to multimark in order for them to work as defenders (and god help you if your a PHB1 only paladin)

The single Warden we had was run by the player with the worst system mastery. We played nearly two years and this guy was still moving into combat to use a Melee Basic on his turn (not "counts as"; actual Melee Basic Attack) when he still had Encounters. This class seemed very starved for actions since the Minor was always consumed by the mark ability, and was limited by the fact that it couldn't prevent creatures from moving away, and if they did often couldn't really retaliate if the mark was disobeyed. However, I would absolutely believe this player was just completely misplaying the class.
there is a reason the warden mark is a free action ;)

but I can see your point, of any defender class you need to have good system mastery for a warden. they defend via encounter powers more then any other defender.

Sartharina

2014-06-04, 04:28 PM

the point I was trying to make was that saying "make your own class if you don't like the fluff they gave out to class X" only works if they make a good system for making classes. which, while cool, is very very unlikely to both be in 5e at all let alone work
The problem here is that you think Class Design is a more arcane and complex art than it actually is, especially with your fetishization of the math. Making a new class is simple, for 3e or D&D Next: Look at the class chassis, and choose one you want. This is easier in Next than 3.5, because there are fewer chassis available - essentially, just HD, spell progression, and when you want the next attack to come online. Or, just look at the existing classes, take one of those, and replace abilities that you don't think you'll use with ones that are more thematic to what you're trying to get.

That said - I'm definitely going to try to import the 4e fighter into D&D Next, or at least make something that plays similarly to it. And, if I ever run a 3.P game, I'm going to try to find a way to constrain the math again.

captpike

2014-06-04, 04:33 PM

The problem here is that you think Class Design is a more arcane and complex art than it actually is, especially with your fetishization of the math. Making a new class is simple, for 3e or D&D Next: Look at the class chassis, and choose one you want. This is easier in Next than 3.5, because there are fewer chassis available - essentially, just HD, spell progression, and when you want the next attack to come online. Or, just look at the existing classes, take one of those, and replace abilities that you don't think you'll use with ones that are more thematic to what you're trying to get.

That said - I'm definitely going to try to import the 4e fighter into D&D Next, or at least make something that plays similarly to it. And, if I ever run a 3.P game, I'm going to try to find a way to constrain the math again.

the only reason its easy to do in 3e is because the balance is so out of whack you cant mess it up. it would be hard make a class that is not somewhere between the fighter and wizard in power.
whereas in 4e the balance and math is good enough that it takes serious time and effort to get it right, yet have the class be different enough to be worth doing.

it also feels somewhat cheap to just take another classes powers and still call it a new class. that was one of my problems with 3e. if you want to call something a new class, it need its own powers and class features. it needs to be able to do something new and different, not get the same things at a slightly different pace.

Sartharina

2014-06-04, 04:54 PM

the only reason its easy to do in 3e is because the balance is so out of whack you cant mess it up. it would be hard make a class that is not somewhere between the fighter and wizard in power.
whereas in 4e the balance and math is good enough that it takes serious time and effort to get it right, yet have the class be different enough to be worth doing.

it also feels somewhat cheap to just take another classes powers and still call it a new class. that was one of my problems with 3e. if you want to call something a new class, it need its own powers and class features. it needs to be able to do something new and different, not get the same things at a slightly different pace.
Which is why you don't call it a new class entirely, but a subclass or variant class. Such as a fey-powered Warlock, or a Nature Wizard. Or a swordmage.

da_chicken

2014-06-04, 08:14 PM

ya paladin marking is odd, you really need to multimark in order for them to work as defenders (and god help you if your a PHB1 only paladin)

Yeah, when Divine Power was released he remade his character. I remember he got a lot better, but he didn't play the Paladin much longer. I think he loved making characters in 4e but couldn't find a class he really liked to play. He was one of the first to say that he felt like he spent all this time building the character and choosing powers only to find combat was repetitive when actually played.

Round 1 determine if using daily is necessary, or, if resting is safe which daily is best suited to use. If so use daily. After that, focus fire down the highest dps enemies by burning encounter powers as quickly as possible. Use at-wills for clean-up. All these abilities and powers, and it turns out there was just a best way to play and that usually never changed. Reading the books it all looks so dynamic. Looking at your character sheet it looks like you have a dozen options. Sitting at the table, staring at your dice, there's no more choices to make. The game just plays itself. It's a beautiful game system. The system masters know what to do without thinking, and the non-masters just ask what they should do next, paralyzed by the paradox of choice. When the non-masters started to get bored and wander off in combat, I think the system masters at the table realized then that, well, there only needed to be one person at the table to play the game. That's when we quit 4e. I think... I think we actually beat the game. That's what it felt like.

And, you know, I loved my second character, a Dwarven Battlerager (Fighter). He will forever be on my list of favorite characters. I distinctly remember being on the wrong side of the field when reinforcements arrived. I used Mighty Sprint to move 8 squares across the whole battle map -- flying up a steep staircase, climbing over and across a pair of damaged sarcophagi and over a 2 square jump across an open pit -- to move in to combat to cut off the enemy's attack and used a burst 1 attack power, marking three of the new enemies. Everybody at the table looked at me, a bit surprised, I think. In a gruff voice I said, "Dwarves are very dangerous over short distances." I got the most glimpses of 4e's fun with that character. Maybe we just had too many players (7 PCs). I'm really, really hopeful that 5e won't be such a disappointment. So far it's been a blast.

there is a reason the warden mark is a free action ;)

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. That sounds like a mistake he'd make. Although he also wouldn't take any powers that are minor actions, too.

Knaight

2014-06-06, 01:38 PM

let me correct something, when I say something can't be done in a game, I generally mean done well.

its easy to make classes do whatever you want if you standard is as bad as, say 3e, but when you want a good game you have to do things like use logic and test.

some things just can't be done well.

This changes nothing, as I'm considering the stuff done by actual good games. As for "classes", they're irrelevant to my broader point of you sabotaging your own case by declaring things impossible when games have done them well.

Lokiare

2014-06-06, 03:39 PM

Yeah, when Divine Power was released he remade his character. I remember he got a lot better, but he didn't play the Paladin much longer. I think he loved making characters in 4e but couldn't find a class he really liked to play. He was one of the first to say that he felt like he spent all this time building the character and choosing powers only to find combat was repetitive when actually played.

Round 1 determine if using daily is necessary, or, if resting is safe which daily is best suited to use. If so use daily. After that, focus fire down the highest dps enemies by burning encounter powers as quickly as possible. Use at-wills for clean-up. All these abilities and powers, and it turns out there was just a best way to play and that usually never changed. Reading the books it all looks so dynamic. Looking at your character sheet it looks like you have a dozen options. Sitting at the table, staring at your dice, there's no more choices to make. The game just plays itself. It's a beautiful game system. The system masters know what to do without thinking, and the non-masters just ask what they should do next, paralyzed by the paradox of choice. When the non-masters started to get bored and wander off in combat, I think the system masters at the table realized then that, well, there only needed to be one person at the table to play the game. That's when we quit 4e. I think... I think we actually beat the game. That's what it felt like.

And, you know, I loved my second character, a Dwarven Battlerager (Fighter). He will forever be on my list of favorite characters. I distinctly remember being on the wrong side of the field when reinforcements arrived. I used Mighty Sprint to move 8 squares across the whole battle map -- flying up a steep staircase, climbing over and across a pair of damaged sarcophagi and over a 2 square jump across an open pit -- to move in to combat to cut off the enemy's attack and used a burst 1 attack power, marking three of the new enemies. Everybody at the table looked at me, a bit surprised, I think. In a gruff voice I said, "Dwarves are very dangerous over short distances." I got the most glimpses of 4e's fun with that character. Maybe we just had too many players (7 PCs). I'm really, really hopeful that 5e won't be such a disappointment. So far it's been a blast.

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. That sounds like a mistake he'd make. Although he also wouldn't take any powers that are minor actions, too.

That's strange. None of my games ever go that way. At the end of combat my players always have a mismatch of encounters and dailies and utilities left. They always find things to help them decide which powers to use when. The only time when what you describe above occurs is when I have a party made almost entirely of strikers or characters that have damage only powers. At that point its just a matter of unloading the highest damage power down to the lowest with some consideration for when to use dailies or not.

Right now I have a character that deals extra damage to prone targets and causes prone often, a blaster sorcerer, a strikery fighter/ranger that can do 5 attacks in a round if they want, a cleric that buffs the party and attacks with either melee or ranged, and a stealth rogue that uses a great bow. They are always finding ways to get advantages in combat through the clever use of their powers.