This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Razor 007

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 88
31
I wonder if anyone enjoyed the Pathfinder 2 "Playtest" game books, and just kept playing "that" version of the game?  I mean, it was a complete game system....

32
I firmly believe that most RPGs have too much crunch, and too many rules.

I don't want running a game, or playing a game to feel like working at a job.  I want it to be fun and relaxing.  It's a game.

So yes, I love house rules that simplify gameplay.

33
It’s not a matter of bypassing; it’s using the material as intended.

And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.

Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.

Quote
Basically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn’t needed because those situations were generally less complex


99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.

And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.

Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).

4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level 8). Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).

Quote
But you weren’t expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).
Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.

All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.

4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.

Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.

Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 3 pages.


I've noticed that you don't see people criticising 13th Age, even though it shares similarities with D&D 4E?  Most of the time comments about 13th Age are very positive; because 13th Age doesn't claim to be the current edition of D&D, with all others being out of print.  13th Age doesn't have to carry that baggage, because it's not labeled D&D.  It's it's own thing. 

If only WOTC had done that to start with.  They could have given 4E a totally different name, and left 3.5 in print; though possibly with a slower release schedule.  What if 4E didn't say D&D on the cover?

34
usually thief or fighter, maybe mage/thief or fighter/thief

in skill based games (RQ, etc.) it would mostly be the scout type (ranger or fighter/thief sort), or occasionally a mage

very rarely play a cleric...although I usually have a lot of fun with them when I do.


With a d8 hit die, a mace for their face, and healing magic; Cleric is a well rounded class.  That is, until the other people at the table expect your character to heal one of their characters every turn in combat.  Nope, sorry.  Maybe if they are about to drop? 

A Cleric can be half fighter, plus magic.  If I truly get to play out a balance of the two parts, then I like playing Cleric.  There is ample room to RP a Cleric, too.

35
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Re: Sneak Peak
« on: December 12, 2020, 09:56:54 PM »
The Invisible College?  That sounds pretty cool Pundit.  Interesting artwork there too.

36
I hate it when designers make all classes equal to the specialists in the name of "balance" or "equality."

The rot set in early by removing all distinction between the sexes. Now with Tasha's they've done their best to remove all distinction between races. I fully expect classes to be next.

Maybe D&D 6E will have a single "Adventurer" class?  They'll allow Pcs to change their sex after a long rest; and all Pcs will be spellcasters, with magic swords and colorful hair.

37
I don't believe the Artificer class presented in 5E, fits in very well with the more traditional classes?

I've watched a few reviews on Y tube; and the descriptions of the mechanics of the class and its bag of tricks, causes me to lose focus on the traditional D&D fantasy tropes that I enjoy in gaming.  Whereas the presence of an Alchemist wouldn't?   I believe I'd prefer Alchemist, over Artificer.

38
It would take ten years for pazio PF1 and PF2 to die out.   No?

To completely die out as gamelines? If Baizuo stopped support, sure.

But I think that at some point Baizuo will acknowledge reality; 'restructure' / downsize, and continue to exist, a Pathfinder rpg will be around for a while.


I hope they keep the PF 1E core books in print for a few more years.  As long as they are in print, knuckleheads can't truly label it a dead rule set.  Then there's always the secondary market for books.  PF 1E can be played for years to come, just as D&D 3.5 is still played today.

39
Short Arcs, and One Shots.

40
I am fond of all 4 core classes; but if nobody else wants to play a Cleric, I'll take one for the team.  However, I'll be running my character.  I don't want other players telling me, that I need to go heal so and so.  I know what my character could do, but I may feel the need to deal out some Mace to the face.  My character is not just a heal bot. 


41
There are people who have only recently felt the need to go buy a little extra, and then they were shocked when they couldn't find what they were looking for.  They ignored the signs.  They ignored the warnings.  They chalked it all up to people blowing things out of proportion.  Well, now they know better.

You don't want to act after the panic, you want to act before the panic.

42
I didn't approach D&D 5E until 2016, after it was 2 years into its run.  I watched tons of videos, by many different creators.  I also watched a plethora of videos about all editions of D&D, and much of the OSR.  5E seemed very approachable, via the Core 3 books.

In a short amount of time, I became frustrated by the lack of a MM2.  Then Volo's was released, and it was only Half a MM2.  So, I turned to buying a bunch of the awesome Bestiaries for Pathfinder 1st Edition.  This in turn, led to me buying many other books for PF 1E.  Might as well have enough to run it, as an option?  However, I stuck with 5E because it was easier to grasp and keep up with. 

Then Xanathar's was out, and it offered some cool options; such as an improved Ranger Class.  Probably one of my favorite 5E books.  I just consider it to be on the table, period.

Then I realized I didn't like the concept of feats, period.  It seems like super heroes, not heroic fantasy.  Then OD&D, via White Box FMAG was a breath of fresh air.  It reminded me of playing AD&D, but with one small simple rules book.

I return to D&D 5E now, and it's starting to look a little like 3.0 / 3.5 / PF, if you allow anything and everything.  I see so many things going on now.  So many possibilities.  A DM can't just be casual about running a game.  They have to approach it like a job.

I assume that you have the Kobold monster books? Some consider them the best monster books for 5E, and there are now three of them. Plus, the digest-size is very handy.


I have the first Tome of Beasts, for D&D 5E.  I agree, it is a very good Monster Manual.  That makes 4 total, that I have for D&D 5E; plus 5 total for Pathfinder 1E; plus 4 Total for D&D 4E; plus the original AD&D Monster Manual.  I have slowed down a bit, on acquiring Monster Manuals.

43
I didn't approach D&D 5E until 2016, after it was 2 years into its run.  I watched tons of videos, by many different creators.  I also watched a plethora of videos about all editions of D&D, and much of the OSR.  5E seemed very approachable, via the Core 3 books.

In a short amount of time, I became frustrated by the lack of a MM2.  Then Volo's was released, and it was only Half a MM2.  So, I turned to buying a bunch of the awesome Bestiaries for Pathfinder 1st Edition.  This in turn, led to me buying many other books for PF 1E.  Might as well have enough to run it, as an option?  However, I stuck with 5E because it was easier to grasp and keep up with. 

Then Xanathar's was out, and it offered some cool options; such as an improved Ranger Class.  Probably one of my favorite 5E books.  I just consider it to be on the table, period.

Then I realized I didn't like the concept of feats, period.  It seems like super heroes, not heroic fantasy.  Then OD&D, via White Box FMAG was a breath of fresh air.  It reminded me of playing AD&D, but with one small simple rules book.

I return to D&D 5E now, and it's starting to look a little like 3.0 / 3.5 / PF, if you allow anything and everything.  I see so many things going on now.  So many possibilities.  A DM can't just be casual about running a game.  They have to approach it like a job.

44
24?  Man, time flies.

45
If 5E releases a Dark Sun hardcover, I hope they do the setting justice.

But then again, slavery and cannibalism are parts of the setting.   I don't see WOTC having the stomach to go there, in this climate.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 88